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

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            15807-15822 of 15822  15791-15806 >>
15822
Pat O’Rourke
12-15-2019
06:47 PM ET (US)
FUSPI the past dollar amount of $71 billion of debt is a moot issue. That sum will never be paid because once you do you foul up the Rube Goldberg economic theory of government finance. It’s like Sen. Dirksen once said,”A billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you’re talking about some real money!”.
    I can see the USPS being bought out to save money. Currently DHL Package Delivery, doing business in the USA, is a division of the German Post Office which itself was privatized in 1995.
   Postal workers needn’t worry as they are protected by their unions. Just look at the great job they did in representing us!
15821
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
12-15-2019
10:37 AM ET (US)
Questions to wonder about is the "The USPS Fairness Act" going to be retroactive so the billions of dollars the PO has failed to invest/prefund in the last decade or more forgiven? Is passing the Act facilitate a more viable USPS for privatization? The new PMG likely will support privatization as the current Trump administration appears to be pushing for. My understanding is the PAEA of 2006 was passed because the PO was found to be using the retiree fund as a piggy bank to pay other unrelated expenses/bonuses to management/executives (work trips ect…). This obvious fraud resulted in the 2006 PAEA (inception in 1996 of the OIG to police the PO since the Inspection Service failed) passage. Not having the PO prefunding looks great on paper but since the PO has not made any prefunding for over a decade the ability/unwillingness to pay NRP claim in mass is likely not going to change. Just my view which may or may not be correct. Having your local Congressman and both Senators in your state include something in legislation that forces the PO to payout NRP claims with passage of the new Act would likely help resolve the NRP.
Edited 12-15-2019 11:06 AM
15820
Pat O’Rourke
12-15-2019
12:33 AM ET (US)
The USPS Fairness Act is due for a vote in The House at the end of the month. As with an identical bill from The Senate they both seek to repeal the funding mandate of the PAEA of 2006. This will free up billions if passed into law and provide a source of revenue to address our claims.
15819
Pat O’Rourke
12-12-2019
02:00 PM ET (US)
Will correct accordingly so that others may be informed, thank you. Too much late night Turner Movie Classics has made for a late wake up.
15818
Postal Employee Advocate
12-12-2019
07:33 AM ET (US)
Pat,

On PEN’s NRP discussion forum you noted that “the AJ submitted a 20 page brief to explain her position on 12/9/2019.” Actually, it was Ms. Burton, the Postal Service’s lead council, that submitted the brief, as instructed by AJ Roberts. Once the other parties file their response brief, THEN, by the next Status Conference, we’re expecting Judge Roberts to issue her decision.
15817
Pat O’Rourke
12-11-2019
02:38 PM ET (US)
Thank you PEA for taking the time to post that information.
15816
Postal Employee Advocate
12-11-2019
12:29 PM ET (US)
Allow me to give a more detailed synopsis of the subject briefs that are being discussed on both forums.

On 13 November 2019, attorney Paul Buchbinder, who has a least one client whose claim was partially-accepted, drafted a Motion to Strike or Disregard Agency’s Attempted Dispute of Previously Accepted Claims, and for Order to Show Cause. Myself, and attorney Jeremy Wright, who also have clients whose claims were partially-accepted, signed on to the motion.

Keep in mind that less than 1% of all claims had been “partially-accepted” when the Postal Service issued Final Agency Decisions in 2018. If your claim had been one of the partially-accepted, you would have known about it last year. Even though OFO Ordered that all claims that had not first been adjudicated by an administrative judge, must be Vacated, the Postal Service did not Vacate the partially-accepted FADs, claiming they were “seeking guidance” from the AJ about how to handle them. After a waste of almost a year, the AJ Ordered the Postal Service to Vacate the partially-accepted FADs, and issue a dispute of claim for relief, as they had for the other 99% of claims. When they issued the new dispute statements, the Postal Service denied the parts or elements of the claim for relief that they had previously accepted.

That is the focus of the Motion to Strike. The argument is that the Postal Service cannot now dispute a claim that they have previously accepted. During the August 6th Status Conference, the AJ specifically instructed the Postal Service NOT to dispute any claims they had already accepted. They did it anyway.

There was also an argument that Ms. Burton is not the appropriate decision-maker to dispute a claim. According to MD-110, Chapter 1, there must be a firewall between the EEO function of the agency, and its defensive function. In other words, the dispute of claims should have come from NEEOISO instead of the law department.

The brief concluded that sanctions were needed because of the Agency’s actions, including a request for Default Judgment.

In response, the Postal Service argues that they appropriately sought guidance from the AJ about how to handle the partially-accepted claims.

They argued that the brief cannot represent ALL 675 claimants with partially-accepted claims, only those actually represented by the three representatives who signed the Motion.

The Agency’s brief relied extensively on the transcripts of the August Status Conference, and provided a copy as an exhibit. They argued that the Postal Service did not dispute claims accepted by NEEOISO, though they clearly had.

The Agency’s brief concluded that since they followed the instructions of the administrative judge, there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions.

So now, parties with previously partially-accepted claims, or their representatives, have until Friday, 10 January 2020, to reply to the Agency’s Response Brief. However, these replies are not limited to only those parties with partially-accepted claims. Anyone who feels that they have an interest in the outcome of the AJ’s decision can file an Amicus brief. Amicus Curiae literally means, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, may petition the AJ for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party. [See Black’s Law Dictionary]

The AJ’s decision on the Motion to Strike will likely have little, to no influence, on all other claims that have been disputed by the Postal Service.
15815
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
12-11-2019
11:54 AM ET (US)
Only a few names of the claimants are in the brief and would have to be redacted before being released
 publicly. Reading the brief without the motion that lead to it, would give no context. The attorneys/representatives have until January 10 to respond and the AJ's decision will be given at the next status conference.
15814
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
12-11-2019
11:32 AM ET (US)
@P.O. Mechanic, I suggest e-mailing a request to your attorney/representative with a date (say 1 week) for them to provide you with a copy stating in your e-mail that you will be demanding a copy after that date from the AJ with copy to the PO if you do not receive it. Enough requests to T&S likely will result in them posting the POs brief on their website.
15813
P.O. MechanicPerson was signed in when posted
12-11-2019
02:47 AM ET (US)
Who do we contact to get a copy of this brief and documents? Thanks
15812
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
12-10-2019
05:19 PM ET (US)
It would be wise for each and every member to retain a copy of the POs 20 page brief with 100+ pages of exhibits for their records if not to review with their representative/attorney either to respond or at a later date if proceeding to Federal Court. Moto = "It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".
15811
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
12-10-2019
04:58 PM ET (US)
Pro Se claimants were included in the motion.
15810
Pat O’Rourke
12-10-2019
04:14 PM ET (US)
Thank you Rivkah. After I posted I thought that. Much appreciated!
15809
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
12-10-2019
03:52 PM ET (US)
I would be REALLY surprised if the PO actually started posting their brief(s) submissions on the internet. My understanding is the only EEOC desire is the PO post the AJs order(s) on their site. Members that are Pro Se that fit into category related to the current brief and response situation are at a disadvantage in they likely will not obtain a copy of the POs Dec 9th brief unless they endeavor to obtain a copy from someone that received it. Pro Se members can't be expected to respond to a brief they are not in receipt of.
15808
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
12-10-2019
03:23 PM ET (US)
It is not redacted, so has names of a few claimants. They may put it on the USPS class action website with redactions. I won't have any time this week to attempt it. As 1 of the claimants with a partially accepted claimant and PEA's client, I was given access. It is a response to a motion filed by PEA, T&S and 1 other Attorney.
Edited 12-10-2019 03:26 PM
15807
Pat O’Rourke
12-10-2019
02:58 PM ET (US)
Rivkah is posting a link to AJ Burton’s brief possible? I would LOVE to read it!
^     All messages            15807-15822 of 15822  15791-15806 >>