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

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11231-11246 of 11246  11215-11230 >>
11246
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-23-2014
05:18 PM ET (US)
Requests for Reconsideration
Either the complainant or the agency may request reconsideration of a decision issued by OFO within 30 days of its receipt. See 29 CFR 1614.405(b). In order for the Commission to grant reconsideration, a party must show the following, in accordance with 29 CFR 1614.404(b):
(1) The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or
(2) The decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the agency.
If the complainant requests reconsideration, he or she may file a civil action within 90 days of the Commission’s decision on the request, or after the request has been pending with the Commission for more than 180 days. After a decision by OFO, a complainant or agency may request that the Commission reopen and reconsider an appeal.
11245
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-23-2014
03:37 PM ET (US)
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.
Source: Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
11244
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-23-2014
02:49 PM ET (US)
Please post this if you agree, feel free to revise as needed. The link is below:

Cut and paste:

EEOC's Federal Sector Hearing Program remains inaccessible to
people with disabilities. EEOC's draft MD-110 fails to include
instructions for providing "effective" reasonable accommodations to
disabled complainants during ALL phases of the complaint processing.

Public comments on revisions to MD-110 should be provided through Regulation.gov
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EEOC-2014-0001
no later than April 25, 2014 for appropriate consideration.

Revised EEO Management Directive 110
Regulations.gov
11243
topcat1Person was signed in when posted
04-23-2014
11:59 AM ET (US)
yahoo ,walker case changed to pittman case ,go to pittman class action on google an go into pittman settlement, and guess what ,my timing was right againto check it ,may 5, 2014 we will be getting something in the mail, and congats to all involved,and everyone here that helps all of us to keep going for days like this,thank you all for all your help and support for days like this ,from the bottom of my heart ,thank you all once more and rejoice
Edited 04-23-2014 02:26 PM
11242
topcat1Person was signed in when posted
04-23-2014
11:48 AM ET (US)
everyone ,for your info ,update all concerned with walker case
11241
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-20-2014
02:49 PM ET (US)
An employer should respond expeditiously to a request for reasonable accommodation. If the employer and the individual with a disability need to engage in an interactive process, this too should proceed as quickly as possible . Similarly, the employer should act promptly to provide the reasonable accommodation. Unnecessary delays can result in a violation of the ADA.

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.

See Dalton v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc., 141 F.3d 667, 677, 7 AD Cas. (BNA) 1872, 1880 (7th Cir. 1998).
11240
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-20-2014
02:46 PM ET (US)
We have to find the humor in this stuff....Get this:

The Court wrote that in May 2000, the agency granted me 31 days of leave after submitting a letter from my doctor, but said that the Agency did not know when I would return and decided that it would be unreasonable for them to search for a replacement position until they knew for sure when I would be returning to work.....LOLOLOLOL

A Duhhhh note: If the Agency did not understand that I would be released back to duty on May 31st after reading the doctors certificate, the Agency should have engaged in the interactive processes but did not.
11239
RESPEKET
04-20-2014
02:17 AM ET (US)
Jocelyn- an EEO charge will be necessary when the USPS fails to properly accommodate you -- I am going to start sending info that might be helpful and case law and past practice falls into cases--
< replied-to message removed by QT >
11238
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2014
09:49 PM ET (US)
EEO Counselor Contact Timely. Complainant contacted the EEO office on August 3, 2010, regarding claims of discrimination on the basis of disability. The Agency dismissed the formal complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. The Agency determined that the August 3, 2010 contact was beyond the 45 day limitation period, because the last alleged discriminatory incident, the “reassignment/ failure to accommodate his disability,” occurred in April 2008. The Commission determined the claim must be characterized as a recurring violation. The EEOC Compliance Manual provides that because an employer has an ongoing obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation, the failure to provide such accommodation constitutes a violation each time the employee needs it. Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to accommodate his disability on a continuous basis. The Commission held that the denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes a recurring violation that repeats each time the accommodation is needed. Therefore, the Commission found that the Complainant’s EEO counselor contact was timely. Jones v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110673 (April 18, 2011).
11237
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2014
09:48 PM ET (US)
A complainant must initiate an EEO complaint within 45 days of learning of the denial of a request for reasonable accommodation. The Commission distinguished that situation from one in which an agency fails to address a request for accommodation, stating that the latter incident constitutes a recurring violation that repeats each day that the accommodation is not provided. Henery v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01A22792 and 01A22794 (April 2, 2003).
11236
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2014
09:39 PM ET (US)
Denial of Effective Accommodation: Access to Restrooms. Complainant, a permanent wheelchair user, alleged that he was discriminated against based on disability when he was not afforded effective and reasonable access to the agency’s restrooms. An AJ initially found that this claim constituted a recurring violation of failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The AJ explained that the claim was comprised of the nonfeasance by the agency, through complainant’s supervisor, to counsel the employees under his control that they should refrain from using the wheelchair accessible stalls if they were not disabled. The AJ further found that providing reasonable accommodation in this case would not have imposed undue hardship on the agency. The Commission found no basis for disturbing the AJ’s finding that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act. The agency was ordered to pay complainant $6,500.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, and $34.933.38 in attorney’s fees and costs. T. Jameel Muhammad v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070057 (February 12, 2008).
11235
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2014
09:39 PM ET (US)
The Commission has specifically held that the denial of a reasonable accommodation constitutes a recurring violation that repeats each time the accommodation is needed. See Harmon v. Office of Personnel Management, EEOC Request No. 05980365 (November 4, 1999). Therefore, viewed as a recurring violation, we find that complainant’s EEO Counselor contact is timely, and that the agency improperly dismissed the complaint on the alternative grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact.
11234
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04-19-2014
12:04 PM ET (US)
OK top, you are now one of us...;-)
11233
topcat1Person was signed in when posted
04-19-2014
11:18 AM ET (US)
got my star ,thanks sling shot ,who is next to get their star ,i'm waiting
11232
topcat1
04-19-2014
10:43 AM ET (US)
slingshot ,kimmiek,bossman and all concerned in the light duty forum, chrone ,and my bit defender total security have spotted and notified me that post 28204 carol dutton is also a pishing webpage that collects passwords, and your info .i posted on28205 and notified everyone als to be careful ,and sling shot thanks for regestering infoto get my star ,i will do it after holiday ,and everyone should also register so we can tell who the good guys are ,thanks again
11231
topcat1
04-19-2014
10:24 AM ET (US)
kimmiek i heard about this on ,it done the worst yet,and the nsa new aboui tt and damage all of systems .go report ,if i find the one on the nsa again i wil add info also,good work
Edited 04-19-2014 10:25 AM
^     All messages            11231-11246 of 11246  11215-11230 >>