Exactly Kimmiek! Well said. Did anyone notice that the dispute letter said “all communications should be sent to the address below” and then never gave an address. The only address is on the envelope.

There’s been a lot of speculation regarding the NRP dispute letters, so let me add my own.

The Postal Service has to issue dispute letters, and provide copies to the Administrative Judge, in order to get her to issue an Order waiving the 90-Day time limit that the Postal Service has to issue the Final Agency Decisions. If she issues the Order, then the P.O. has 15-days to submit a brief to the Administrative Judge providing “clear and convincing evidence” that the class-member is not entitled to the requested relief. Simultaneously, a copy of the P.O.’s brief is supposed to go to the class-member, who will then have 15-days to respond to the agency’s brief. At that point, the AJ will have to determine whether the P.O. met their burden, or if significant dispute exists, she could Order that a hearing be held for the purpose of addressing damages.

Keep in mind that we’re talking about thousands of claims and thousands of disputes. That’s why all of these dispute letters are identical in their language. In the time allowed (90-days) it’s not possible to make an assessment of every claim for relief AND come up with the clear and convincing evidence in order to persuade the judge. I don’t see why the judge in this class-action would want to take on each claim individually.

I posit that this judge will likely deny the agency’s request to waive the 90-day time limit. If she allows it to expire, it would force the Postal Service to issue thousands of FAD’s at the same time. Most all will have to be generic in nature, just like the dispute letters are. OFO is aware of this class action and the thousands of claims that have been submitted. They also know that the FAD’s are due by mid-July, so I’m sure they have prepared a bank of attorneys to specifically address the class claims and FAD’s on appeal. It would be easier to keep all of these claims together and compartmentalized for monitoring and compliance purposes.

My view is that this is a tactic by the P.O. to delay paying as many claims as possible, at least until the new fiscal year starting in September. Disputing claims was necessary under the MD-110 in order to waive the 90-day requirement to issue the FAD’s. I don’t think it’s going to work because I don’t think the Administrative Judge is going to issue the Order.

Finally, if the dispute letters were “official”, they would be attached to a Certificate of Service indicating the name and address of all parties that was sent a copy; the date of mailing; and, the name of the individual responsible for mailing. None of this information accompanied these dispute letters. On that basis alone (again, in my opinion), these dispute letters are not valid, and should not be considered as properly served, by the Administrative Judge.