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

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            15163-15178 of 15178  15147-15162 >>
15178
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2019
01:44 PM ET (US)
I was also forced into mediation on another EEO. J.R. is my representative. The po was supposed to have someone available with the authority to settle. It was a phone conference. The person with settlement authority was a no show. We presented our request to the mediator, which the po never responded to.
15177
Retired2soonPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2019
01:32 PM ET (US)
Thank you, PEA. Now, I understand why it’s hard to get representation against the P.O. They’re obviously known for their games!
15176
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2019
01:12 PM ET (US)
Retired2soon m/15174
I don’t intend to caucus with the judge, or with Agency Counsel Burton to discuss settlement. Recently I had an EEO client who was forced to participate in a mediation a few weeks ago. At that time, the Postal Service attorney argued that, since my client had three separate EEO complaints, he (the Postal attorney) wanted to reschedule the mediation to discuss settlement on all three complaints in order to achieve a “global settlement”. One would think that by doing so, the Postal Service was expressing an interest in settling. Yesterday, we had the mandatory mediation on all three complaints. What do you think the Postal Service offered as settlement? ZERO, nada, nothing but some pencil-whipping by agreeing to remove discipline on my client’s record. Every time I try to seriously discuss settlement with the Postal Service, they’re intent on insulting me and my clients. Whenever the Postal Service says that they are interested in settlement discussions, what they mean is – roll over and give up.

Elektra m/15175
There have been some reports that the NRP Activity files contain a spreadsheet meticulously recording all the efforts made by the Postal Service to deny you work within your restrictions, to deny your workers’ comp claims, or reduce those benefits, etc. I have not personally viewed a copy of a similar spreadsheet for any of my clients. If/when I ever acquire a similar spreadsheet, and it does objectively memorialize those efforts, then that constitutes “direct evidence” of a hostile working environment based upon your protected group as an individual with a disability. Many may recall that the Postal Service’s Dispute Statements claim that the class member failed to make a specific, detailed showing that they were subjected to a hostile working environment because of their disability. The data on the spreadsheet could prove that. Even if you have already submitted your response to the Agency’s Dispute Statement, any material that you glean from your NRP Activity file becomes new evidence that was not readily available to you at the time you filed your response. In this circumstance you can file an amendment to your response to include the new evidence.
On the other hand, there may not be anything substantial in the NRP Activity file that would make a difference in your response to the Agency’s Dispute Statement. The point is, OFO Ordered the Postal Service to provide a copy of that file at the same time they submitted their dispute statements, and you have a right to have it. The Postal Service did not provide it, and the AJ did not sanction them for not doing so. That, standing alone, is an issue appealable to OFO.
15175
ElektraPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2019
09:45 AM ET (US)
Good morning PEA. If any of our NRP files are made available or found, what would that mean for our case as a whole or individually? I’m confused Thank you.
15174
Retired2soonPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2019
09:32 AM ET (US)
@PEA, I know you are not interested in any form of settling for your clients, but I am curious to know if you intend to meet with the AJ on discussion to stay in the loop? Thank you for your response.
15173
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2019
09:01 AM ET (US)
Several posters have noted that they’ve received a Notice from the Postal Service Vacating their prior “partially accepted” FADs. Of course, this should have occurred last year when they notified everyone else that their FAD’s were Vacated per OFO’s November 2018 Order. Vacating the FADs is a preliminary step before the P.O. has to issue a Dispute Statement to the class member’s Individual Claim for Relief. The AJ gave the P.O. sixty-days from the 6th of August to issue those dispute statements. Once received, each claimant will have another sixty-days to provide a written response. [See AJ’s Post-Conference Order, dated 06 August 2019.]

I anticipate that the Postal Service will wait the full sixty days because it’s to their advantage to do so. However, a claimant is not required to wait the full sixty-days to respond. You can respond as soon as you receive the Dispute Statement. It’s also anticipated that these new Dispute Statements will mirror the previous ones, i.e., the P.O. will claim that the class member failed to make a “specific, detailed showing” that they met the elements necessary to confer entitlement to compensation. Asserting that the class member did not meet their burden of proof, is not within the jurisdiction of the Postal Service. It’s the AJ’s job to determine if the class member met their burden of proof. The P.O.’s burden of proof is to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the class member is not entitled to the relief they are claiming. To date, the Postal Service has not met that burden with regard to any of the claims. In fact, they haven’t even tried to meet their burden of proof.

When I received my copies of the Notice of Vacated FAD, it did not include any other documents, however, some of my clients have reported to me that the Notice included a Contact Information Sheet. There shouldn’t be any problem with completing that form and sending it in. [Keep a copy for your own records, and send one to your representative – if you have one.]
15172
diannedawnPerson was signed in when posted
08-19-2019
11:03 AM ET (US)
/m15170 LoL I did not “attack” any TRUE Christians. As for what I DID say...if the shoe fits, wear it. None of us is free from sin and God’s forgiveness is gift. But we should at least make an EFFORT.
15171
jjmvPerson was signed in when posted
08-19-2019
10:46 AM ET (US)
I was also blocked from the other NRP forum I’m assuming by Rick Owens I’m also assuming because he didn’t like something’s that I posted or maybe it didn’t agree with his opinion or maybe I posted something that was not in agreement with Jazzie01 who knows why he blocks people like says it’s his forum and he pays for it, the forum was very helpful when J.R and everyone else were on topic and helping all of us in regards to NRP, EEO etc etc etc Rick Owens has ruined it for all of us .....
15170
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-19-2019
10:43 AM ET (US)
Diannedawn You're attack against Christian's is uncalled for. I am a believer and so are others posting here.
15169
diannedawnPerson was signed in when posted
08-19-2019
10:23 AM ET (US)
I am thankful for PEA and others here that provide us with ACCURATE and timely information.
I am so sick of Rick Owens and his nauseating and BS filled posts. He banned ME over there because I disagreed with him and had the audacity to question him. He likes to pretend he bans people for “advertising” but he is really just controlling what the readers over there are allowed to read.
So funny that he talks about others “trolling” or being “childish” but he is obviously reading every post over here and then running back to HIS forum to post his long winded rants about it!
I am so glad I found this forum. I feel sorry for those who only know of that one.
I damn near spit out my drink when I read his post saying he does “faith healing”. OMG! I am so sick of the FAKE Christian posers that are prevalent these days. Be an a$$hole all week...go to church on Sunday and sit in the front pew...it’s all good, right?
Pathetic.
15168
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-19-2019
08:51 AM ET (US)
Rick Has it occurred to you that your readers could be getting valuable information concerning the NRP and other EEO matters free of charge by lifting the ban on J.R. He has plenty of clients and is not trolling as you claim. His only motive is to assist others.
15167
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-19-2019
08:17 AM ET (US)
Once again, Jazzie posting incorrect information and refusing to accept that he/she is wrong. Pat and Rick have both told her that severance pay only applies to RIF's (reduction in force), yet wanting to mail Rick the ELM which he already posted a link to. I researched this years ago, while still employed and had access to all the manuals, handbooks and postal bulletins. Severance pay ONLY APPLIES TO A RIF. People should not take any of this person's posts as fact. You should assume upfront that they are incorrect.
15166
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-18-2019
10:28 PM ET (US)
You're welcome.
15165
Not surePerson was signed in when posted
08-18-2019
10:07 PM ET (US)
Thanks Rivkah!
15164
Mariel
08-18-2019
10:04 PM ET (US)
I feel this is among the such a lot important information for me.
And i am satisfied studying your article. However wanna observation on some normal issues, The site style is ideal, the articles is really great : D. Excellent process, cheers

Visit my blog post
15163
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-18-2019
09:51 PM ET (US)
Not sure. Here is the link. I received an email with instructions to sign up because I have a current case. https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/charge_status.cfm
^     All messages            15163-15178 of 15178  15147-15162 >>