Slingshot  05-21-2013
11:02 PM ET (US)
|
(4/18/04) Improper Disclosure of Medical Condition Unlawful-EEOC found that USPS violated the Rehabilitation Act's prohibition against the improper disclosure of confidential medical information, when it mailed a letter to approximately thirty-two Associate Office Postmasters, disclosing the Custodial Laborer's s medical diagnosis and his symptoms. The agency had sent the letter in an attempt to find complainant a job that could be performed during a particular shift as a reasonable accommodation. Noting that the Rehabilitation Act permits managers to be informed of necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations, EEOC found the disclosure to be a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. EEOC stated that the disclosure was not necessary to alert managers to restrictions on complainant's work or duties and his need for accommodation. EEOC reiterated to the agency that the Rehabilitation Act does not limit the prohibitions against improper disclosure of confidential medical information, and improper medical inquiries, to individuals with disabilities. EEOC remanded the matter on the issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/01992086.txt
The regulations provide that information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of any employee shall be treated as a confidential medical record. Id. The Commission regards documentation of the individual's diagnosis or symptoms as confidential medical information. ADA Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations (October 10, 1995) at 22 n. 26. However, supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations. 29 C. F. R. § 1630.14(c).
We find that the contents of RMO's letter violated the Rehabilitation Act by disclosing complainant's medical diagnosis and symptoms. See Hampton v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00132 (April 13, 2000). This disclosure was not necessary to alert managers to restrictions on complainant's work or duties and his need for accommodations. Accordingly, based on the agency's disclosure of information about complainant's medical condition, we find that the agency has violated the Rehabilitation Act. See 29 C. F. R. § 1630.13(a). Such a disclosure constitutes a per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act Valle v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960585 (September 5, 1997), Brunnell v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 07A10009, (July 5, 2001). We vacate the FAD, find that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act, and remand the issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs as provided by the order below.
|
Slingshot 05-20-2013
09:08 PM ET (US)
|
/m10793
Hey Horse, no I'm not an attorney.
;-)
|
Slingshot 05-20-2013
09:07 PM ET (US)
|
The word "brief" has two meanings in law: "A written statement setting out the legal contentions of a party in litigation, especially on appeal; a document prepared by counsel as the basis for arguing a case, consisting of legal and factual arguments and the authorities in support of them." (Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, p.186) An analytical summary of a court opinion This guide focuses on the first kind of brief: written legal arguments submitted to a court. This guide lists reliable sources for briefs by court level. It also recommends a few handbooks on how to write briefs.
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/rese...riefs_arguments.cfm
|
|
golfgod
05-19-2013
03:58 AM ET (US)
|
b2bjutme: i did the informals with supervisors and at this time our union was doing the formals with management and getting the gats numbers. Well I found out that there were NO gats numbers but the union vice president kept telling me he was going to send them down to DRT from Dec thru the beginning of May when I finally filed the complaint. It wasn't just 1 or 2 grievances. I have 5 myself and management is requesting at least 8 more grievances to be either removed or settled. Before I went on vacation I had my clerk hand over to the president of the union 11 more grievances but he did not sign and I have know idea what ocurred. I might have to hand the list of grievances to NLRB again to find out the results on those plus the union has been in our office at least 2 times in a week to do grievances. We have never had that before because we are 60 miles away from the office.
|
|
b2bjustme
05-18-2013
06:06 AM ET (US)
|
golfgod management is supposed to issue each grievance a GATS number, which should be included on Line 14 of the PS8190 grievance form. They request the GATS number online, which is then entered into the districts database. If they don't have a GATS number, it is because they are attempting to make it appear as though NO grievance was filed and everything is just 'hunky dory' in your office. If you have your local branch grievance number you can request 'in writing'(duplicate copy)the GATS number corresponding to the union number. You keep the original copy of this request and give them the carbon copy so nothing can be altered and they know you have the original.
|
|
horsenut
05-15-2013
09:33 AM ET (US)
|
slingshot, are you a lawyer? I may need one if they don't settle with me during Redress. Kimmiek, I am not a CCA, and I had very little training. I learned what I could from other employees that I would ask to show me how to do certain tasks. It looks like I may have them worried.
|
Slingshot 05-14-2013
10:22 PM ET (US)
|
Keep swinging. Golf..Make um sweat...
|
|
golfgod
05-14-2013
08:32 PM ET (US)
|
I have started a hornets nest in my office. I have requested that postmaster and supervisor to be removed. So I receive a certified letter today about wanting all copies of grievance from as far back to 2011. They want to show how many times I have ask for there removal. I do know if they have gone to DRT , DRT would of sent them a decision. So I am letting the union office handle this. If the union wants to show how many time that is fine with me. This one grievance I have them in a bind and they are trying to wigle out of it. Should I show them the grievances? I say NO
|
KIMMIEK 05-14-2013
09:59 AM ET (US)
|
horsenut.. so you were a new employee on probation? Are you a CCA? Probation is just that.. they evaluate you and if you are not working properly they will release you.. Did they have people training you and how long were you trained for?
|
|
horsenut
05-13-2013
10:02 AM ET (US)
|
I am not a veteran. I started making notes after working the first couple of weeks about how I was not allowed to be trained for tasks that others were allowed the oportunity to learn, even though I was the first one hired (in the same position). My evals were not all good feedback because they were not giving me much training (they knew they weren't keeping me). I was never late and worked so many hours the first 3 or 4 weeks it was a nightmare.
|
Slingshot 05-12-2013
07:52 PM ET (US)
|
Horsenut, are you a veteran?
|
|
Boss-man
05-12-2013
07:03 PM ET (US)
|
Horsenut, how do you know that you were let go
Because of a perceived disability? Do you have evidence? Evidence such as documents or witnesses willing to testify in your behalf? How was your 30, 60, 90 day evaluation? How was your attendace?
|
|
horsenut
05-12-2013
06:42 PM ET (US)
|
Do you know of any cases of discrimination within the 90-day probation period? I was fired because of a perceived disability that did not affect my work.
|
Slingshot 05-10-2013
07:07 PM ET (US)
|
EEOC Finds That Silencing Employees During Investigations is a Violation of Title VII Rights
August 22, 2012
A recent letter from the EEOC field office in Buffalo, New York has stated that an employer’s policy prohibiting workers from discussing an ongoing, internal investigation of harassment was a violation of that employee’s Title VII rights. While it is still okay for employers to ask witnesses not to discuss the specific facts of any interviews that take place during an investigation, it is not acceptable for the employers to prohibit any form of discussion on the matter.
Loraine Schaefer, a mediator and workplace investigation with a great deal of experience in corporate litigation, stated that this ruling should prompt employers to take several steps in revamping their own policies. The most important being protecting the integrity of any company investigation into harassment or discrimination and documenting all investigative measures taken.
As pointed out in the article, there is a downside to allowing open conversation about an investigation in the workplace. Namely, discussion and gossip between co-workers could affect the objectivity of the investigation and lead employees to modify or recant their statements.
While this rule is not yet EEOC law, it coincides with a similar decision by the National Labor Relations Board, and seems to be going in the direction of becoming a legal standard.
|
Slingshot 05-10-2013
07:02 PM ET (US)
|
Selected Supreme Court Decisions
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/supreme_court.html
|
Slingshot 05-10-2013
06:56 PM ET (US)
|
In Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., the Supreme Court rules that an employee who submits a discrimination claim to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement is not precluded from suing his or her employer under Title VII. The court reasons that the right to be free of unlawful employment discrimination is a statutory right and cannot be bargained away by the union and employer.
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
226359
(Unique:
27476
) / Subscribers:
81 | What's this?