QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
 
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11657-11672 of 11672  11641-11656 >>
11672
NYC Wiseguy
08-30-2015
11:53 AM ET (US)
Postal Employee Advocate....please list a contact number of e-mail address for me. A CCA needs our help. Thank you
11671
embossitworld
08-28-2015
08:49 AM ET (US)
I’ve been searching for some decent stuff on the subject and haven't had any luck up until this point, You just got a new biggest fan!..
 Political News
11670
Deleted by author 08-13-2015 08:38 PM
11669
TW
08-13-2015
07:42 PM ET (US)
A Lie (Material Misrepresentation) EEOC Note:
Making a material misrepresentation during the course of an EEOC investigation could be considered a punishable crime under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. The requirement that the misrepresentation be “material” is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed.” U. S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (A lie can still be “material” even if it fails to persuade the decision maker to reach a different conclusion in the case.)
11668
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-13-2015
01:09 AM ET (US)
This was sent to me by a member of a list that I belong to:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE DO NOT HOG THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE. PASS
IT ON TO ALL CONCERNED GROUPS NATIONWIDE. a 2015 SUPREME
COURT decision (5 to 4 ruling).
 
The recent "MICHIGAN v. EPA" decision is 10 times more
 significant and important for EVERYONE who has ever sued
any federal agency (EEOC included). The case is MICHIGAN v.
EPA. It was a REALLY BIG SCORCHER!!! It addressed the
issue of "REASONED DECISION MAKING" with respect to
agency regulations. IF an agency (EEOC, etc.) issues ANY
regulation that fails to meet the "REASONED DECISION MAKING"
standard, set by the courts, the rule or regulation can be ruled
null and void on that basis alone!!!. It is such an important decision
that I downloaded the entire case decision from the PACER system,
saved it on a flash drive, which I use for such downloads, and then
read every single word on every single page. Again, it was a ruling
by the SUPREME COURT handed down a month or two ago.
 
The foregoing decision means that ALL recent regulations issued by
the EEOC and other agencies can be ruled NULL AND VOID about
90 percent of the time, but ONLY if you get a federal court judge to
issue an injunction for you. UNDERSTAND THIS PEOPLE:
ALL EEOC REGS FOR THE PAST YEAR CAN BE RULED
NULL AND VOID BY A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE, BECAUSE
NONE OF THEM EXHIBIT ANY "REASONED DECISION
MAKING"!!! Again, you have to seek an INJUNCTION from the
nearest federal district court. You specify which regulations you
are challenging and state, briefly, why you think they fail to meet
the REASONED DECISION MAKING standard.
 
In the MICHIGAN v. EPA case, the state of Michigan challenged
some EPA regulations on the basis of UNREASONED, UNJUSTIFIED,
and EXCESSIVE cost. Excessive cost of implementing a regulation
is one way to challenge an agency regulation, but not the only way.
 
LET THOSE WHO HAVE EYES READ AND HEED!! hat court
decision is a DAMNED POWERFUL WEAPON against ALL federal
agencies when they issue rules or regulations that are "UNREASONED
DECISIONS". Remember that excessive cost is only ONE of the
things which may be judged as "UNREASONED DECISION
MAKING!!"
11667
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-13-2015
12:24 AM ET (US)
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html
In determining whether there has been an unnecessary delay in responding to a request for reasonable accommodation, relevant factors would include: (1) the reason(s) for the delay, (2) the length of the delay, (3) how much the individual with a disability and the employer each contributed to the delay, (4) what the employer was doing during the delay, and (5) whether the required accommodation was simple or complex to provide.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Enforcement Guidances and Related Documents
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement_guidance.cfm
Edited 08-13-2015 12:38 AM
11666
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-11-2015
11:02 PM ET (US)
Breaking: Appellate Court Hammers Labor Dept for Abusive Litigation and Bad FaithRead more at http://observer.com/2015/07/breaking-appel...aith/#ixzz3iZ9wBziW Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at: http://tr.im/fWNXu
http://observer.com/2015/07/breaking-appel...tion-and-bad-faith/
11665
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-11-2015
09:11 PM ET (US)
Does the Post Office(supervisor) have an obligation to inform the employee that they have (or possibly) have an injury that is covered under the OWCP if/when the supervisor has a reasonable belief that an employee has been injured on the job?

Example: An employee falls during the performance of his/her duties but does not know that he/she can (or should) file an OWCP claim. If the supervisor is aware of his/her fall and his/her possible injury, is the supervisor obligated to inform the employee of his/her rights under the OWCP?
11664
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-08-2015
04:26 PM ET (US)
SANCTIONS & SPOLIATION
The concept of spoliation applies generally to the destruction of evidence and, like perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the FRCP provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or to complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort. In California, the independent tort of spoliation was eliminated in favor of applying the remedy within the pending litigation as a discovery sanction. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998), 18 Cal.4th 1, 12. In federal courts, the spoliation concept was recognized as early 1817 in The FORTUNA---Krause et.al.Claimants, infra, is based on the inherent power of courts to control abuses in litigation, and often arises from a request for a jury instruction re adverse inference. Lewy v. Remington Arms (8th Cir 1988), 836 F.2d 1104 , 1111.
11663
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-06-2015
04:47 PM ET (US)
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/workcomp.html

Workers' compensation laws generally require employers to compensate employees who are injured or become ill in the course of employment for the resulting loss of earning capacity and for medical care. See 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, 1-1.10 (1994).
11662
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-06-2015
04:25 PM ET (US)
Workers Compensation:

I have been told that if an employee is injured on the job and does not realize she or he can file a worker compensation claim that the Post Office has an obligation to tell the employee. I this true, if so where can I find additional information? Thanks
11661
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-05-2015
10:01 PM ET (US)
Perjury is always a false statement but a false statement is not always perjury. The definition of a false statement is common. Perjury is when that false statement if provided to a court as testimony intended to be offered for the truth.

Perjury requires proof that a defendant, while under oath, knowingly made a false statement as to material facts.United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). The "knowingly " requirement is a high burden: the government must prove the defendant had a subjective awareness of the falsity of his statement at the time he provided it. United States v. Dowdy, 479 F.2d 213, 230 (4th Cir. 1973)
11660
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-05-2015
10:42 AM ET (US)
Not sure if this applies to the Post Office folks so be sure to investigate before referencing:
  
An agency official shall not give an unauthorized advantage in order to improve or injure the employment prospects of any person. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(6)

This PPP, which can be complex, prohibits agency officials from providing a wrongful advantage to an applicant in order to help or hurt another person’s chance of obtaining the job. Note that pre-selection requires evidence that the hiring process was manipulated with the intent of improving or injuring a particular person's chances of selection.

An agency official shall not retaliate because an employee:
1.filed a complaint, grievance or appeal;
2.testified for or helped someone else with one of these activities;
3.cooperated with or disclosed information to the Special Counsel or an Inspector General; or,
4.refused to obey an order that would require the employee to violate a law.

5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9)
This PPP prohibits agency officials from taking, failing to take, or threatening to take a personnel action because an employee engaged in any of the four protected activitied mentioned above. To prove a claim of retaliation under this section, one must show:
1.The employee engaged in a protected activity;
2.The agency official with knowledge of the employee’s protected activity took, failed to take, or threatened to take a personnel action against the employee; and
3.There is a causal connection between the protected activity and the personnel action.

Example: A supervisor gives undesirable duties to a subordinate employee who the supervisor knows testified in another employee’s union grievance.
_______________

An agency official shall not take or fail to take a personnel action if doing so would violate a law, rule or regulation implementing or directly concerning the merit system principles. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(12)

Sometime referred to as the “catch-all” prohibition, this PPP prohibits agency officials from taking, or failing to take, a personnel action that violates any other civil service law, rule, or regulation that was designed to uphold the merit system principles.

There are numerous laws, rules, and regulations governing various aspects of federal employment, including details, reassignments, performance evaluations, promotions, transfers, etc. Title 5 of the United States Code and Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations contain most of the laws and regulations. The number and types of laws and rules which might apply to a personnel action are diverse, and this PPP could apply to personnel actions that are taken outside legally required time frames, but it also includes actions taken against employees in violation of their Constitutional rights, or right to contact members of Congress.

Example: In his personal capacity, an employee writes a letter to the editor regarding an issue of public interest​. Management takes an action against that employee, arguing that the employee should not be airing his grievances to the media.
11659
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-04-2015
06:11 PM ET (US)
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/ajhandbook.cfm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Handbook for Administrative Judges July 1, 2002
11658
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-04-2015
06:06 PM ET (US)
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER
GENERAL, U. S. POSTAL SERVICE,
GERALD DUMAGUIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER
GENERAL, U. S. POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT - EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE,
NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY AND
RETALIATION
ca sbn 112551 - mdryovage.com
www.mdryovage.com/.../Docket%201%20complaint%20filed%203_17_...
eliminating the backlog of current EEO cases alleging discrimination, harassment ... alleging unlawful and discriminatory employment practices by federal
Edited 08-04-2015 06:07 PM
11657
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-04-2015
06:02 PM ET (US)
If your manager lied under oath file perjury charges against him or her

Legal Corner: EEO Complainant Convicted of Perjury
Published: December 18, 2002

http://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/legal-corne...nvicted-of-perjury/
^     All messages            11657-11672 of 11672  11641-11656 >>