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

TOPIC:

National Reassessment - NRP

Welcome to Postal Employee Network Discussions!
Please Visit Our Homepage
^     All messages            12784-12803 of 12803  12764-12783 >>
12803
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
07:14 PM ET (US)
/m8074 and /m12704 both have info on what damages you can claim. If you go back through the posts you will find more.
12802
Stelerfan3Person was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
06:05 PM ET (US)
I am not sure what my damages would even be other than back pay. Does having my house foreclosed on count? The money I spent fighting the post office and cashed out my retirement to do so? I didn’t have any additional expenses that I know of. I mean my credit is now shot but I don’t have a clue what else I would file for. Thank you Rivkah for your advice as well. Just trying to figure out what I am supposed to be requesting when the time comes
12801
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
05:15 PM ET (US)
Stelerfan. There is nothing to fill out at this point for your damages. What Former PI has recommended is to gather your documentation in an organized manner so you are prepared when the time comes.
12800
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
04:19 PM ET (US)
@Stelerfan3, my personal moto has always never hold off to tomorrow what you can do today. Having all your damages proof organized in a easy to understand manner ASAP is the best anyone can do at this point. If you have something in your life that is taking priority and time away from organizing your proof of damages receipts/statements now then hold off until later.
12799
Stelerfan3Person was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
03:55 PM ET (US)
Former PI I have not been asked to fill out a damages binder. From what I was told T and S is only dealing with that for the first group. I was told since I was in the second group I would have to fill out additional paperwork after the first group is ruled on. Do you think I should call T&S and ask to fill this out now?
12798
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
03:15 PM ET (US)
Everyone is aware that the PO supervisor/manager often times does not know what the ELM rules are when they make decisions regarding employees. When the time comes for the PO to address rehire the member should be knowledgeable of ELM 546 at http://about.usps.com/manuals/elm/html/elmc5_034.htm which states "546.65 Management’s Refusal to Reemploy, The appointing official may not be able to accommodate the former employee for medical reasons or other considerations. If the former employee will not be reemployed, the appointing officer must: a) Notify the district manager or postmaster with written justification stating specific reasons for refusal to reemploy. If the district manager or postmaster agrees with the appointing officer’s refusal to reemploy, then he or she must seek final concurrence from the manager of Health and Resource Management at Headquarters through the area human resources analyst for injury compensation. b) With the final concurrence, notify the employee in writing of the refusal to employ, including a paragraph informing the individual of the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and send a copy to OWCP."

I suggest members copy and paste the above into their summary page under the front pay tab/section so the PO knows and the OFO is aware of the rules of rehire.
12797
Lympe1Person was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
02:21 PM ET (US)
Rikvah your dilemma though different has some similarities to mine. I know no one knows anything for certain but I wish someone had insight on whether those of us that were subjected to an nrp meeting and returned to full duty briefly and worsened or accepted another job outside our restrictions out of fear of no job/no income then were walked out nwa within our restrictions available any longer after the 2011 date have any recourse. Will we be told since we were terminated after 08/2011 too bad,so sad? File a new lawsuit...good luck finding anyone bahaha? I tried to briefly question the secretary at T&S but she glided over my question and said she is hearing from countless employees who were walked out in the same fashion after the nrp supposedly ended. She just responded to sign and submit their form so I never really got an answer. I'm with Steelerfan...at this point a steady livable income once again after years of none would be a God send.
12796
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
02:20 PM ET (US)
Former PI We will hopefully have more answers within the next few months. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
12795
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
02:09 PM ET (US)
@Rivkah, when the OFO orders the PO to rehire members then the PO either must rehire the member OR pay front pay. If the PO refuses to rehire or pay front pay then the member should file an "petition for enforcement" with the OFO demanding that the OFO order the PO to rehire. If the PO provides the member with a letter stating they will not rehire because of a specific reason then the OFO will decide (if appealed) that reason given by the PO is grounds for the member receiving front pay because of the POs refusal/inability to rehire as ordered by the OFO. To make sure this base is covered the member should provide and explanation/calculation of front pay to a retirement date in their respective "damages binders". The binders are considered part of the EEOC file on the damages phase once the binder is submitted to the PO for payment of damages. On any appeal/enforcement petition to the OFO the PO sends all evidence (binders) into the OFO. The OFO attorney reviews your binder along with why the PO won't rehire and orders the PO to "make whole" the member beyond what typically the PO initially has already paid.
12794
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
01:38 PM ET (US)
Former PI I think it will be difficult to get them to include anything after the reinstatement since it was outside the nrp time period. I believe it was all linked and was retaliation. I don't know if the ofo will agree.
12793
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
12:53 PM ET (US)
@Rivkah, then your NRP back pay period on your form 8038 should start on the first day the PO initially started reducing your hours at the start of the 1 1/2 years with the end date of back pay listed as "day before reinstatement". Nothing on the 8038 form says the end date has to be an actual number(s) even though the start date should be an actual numbered date. The date to end your back pay request is determined at the point in time the PO either offers reinstatement or says they can't or won't reinstate then front pay is the likely remedy to be requested from the PO then ordered by the EEOC OFO. Front pay will likely be a separate check that follows an appeal/order to the OFO after the PO refuses to rehire or pay front pay to a date the member articulates they would have retired once rehired.
12792
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
12:30 PM ET (US)
Former PI Back pay for the initial 1 1/2 years of reduced hours was not given, when I went back to working a full day. It was 1 1/2 years later that job was completely removed and new eeos were filed. The nwa began after the nrp period.
12791
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
12:17 PM ET (US)
@Rivkah, if the PO has already "given back hours for the 1 1/2 years" then the back pay period should start with the first "long periods of nwa" until the PO at the least offers reinstatement. The pain/suffering statement should start on or about the time the harassment started when hours were reduced for the 1 1/2 years in hopes that harassment/abuse increases the pain/suffering damages. The 2 prior EEOs with amendments will likely be moot for the purposes of back pay and offer of reinstatement or front pay BUT they will likely result in additional damages award/settlement to resolve independently of the McConnell case IF you decide to proceed with the 2 separate EEOs.
12790
Rick OwensPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
11:44 AM ET (US)
I have deleted messages, that I have time to review.

PLEASE - DO NOT post names (or posting names) in your messages. It only inflames people. If you disagree then please do so politely.

If I have missed some posts then I apologize - - but really, I just do not have time to review all of these posts daily. Additionally, if I have deleted one of your post then I apologize for that as well...I am just trying VERY HARD to keep this forum on track, free of ads. and clean.
12789
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
11:43 AM ET (US)
Former PI. What is your opinion of a situation where an employee had reduced hours due to nrp for almost a year and a half, was given back hours when nrp ended for 1 1/2 years, then was removed from their rehab position and bounced from office to office with long periods of nwa for another 4 years and then was again nwa and forced to retire. 2 subsequent eeo's plus 2 amendments were filed.
12788
Me24SurePerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
11:28 AM ET (US)
FUSPSI your statement of don't get hit by a car confirms the PO is the Mafia and has ordered hits on past employees.
12787
Me24SurePerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
10:57 AM ET (US)
The purpose of ADA and other discrimination laws, is to prevent the action of discrimination. The purpose of going to court and having a judge rule is to determine liability. Once it was proven that discrimination happened and all appeals were denied, than the order of the court should be final. To allow the Post Office to decide weather they are entitled to pay a class member, will have an effect on the legal system and justice. If this is allowed than the only purpose of EEO and lawyers and judges is to make money off the victims
12786
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
10:54 AM ET (US)
@Stelerfan3, because a large portion of the class members are currently on OPM the PO has a big problem. The PO has say and already reimburses DoL OWCP for what has been paid out and what is being paid out to persons on OWCP so there is less of a cost to the PO on getting OWCP members back to work in accommodated jobs. The members on OPM are a HUGE cost to even offer reinstatement. This is because the PO knows they are required to send OPM a check in a members name that represents ALL the past OPM retirement payments a members has received then send the members what is left over from the 100% salary + full interest the member should have received as if they never left the PO then all the A/L + TSP is huge. The POs only hope is an accident kills a member so the member can't be reinstated and can't say they have always been "willing and able" to return to work. Those persons that do or have died next of kin will have to tell the PO that the dead member would have worked until the day they died because they witnessed the dead member saying he/she was always "willing and able" to return. Just make sure your "damages binder" has everything you think the PO should pay in a nice organized manner. My suggested format is at /m8074
12785
Stelerfan3Person was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
10:30 AM ET (US)
FUSPSI I really hope you are right. You clearly are much better informed than I am in regards to this and if the post office has to do what should be done that is great news for thousands of us. I wonder if the PO will try to offer disability settlements to many of those affected. It would save them some money and still have the same desired effect for them instead of having to pay all the added benefits. I am guessing after 10 years many of them are either close to retirement age or unable to do the job anymore. I am in my mid 40s so I don’t qualify but I would have to think many would
12784
Former USPS InspectorPerson was signed in when posted
08-20-2018
10:15 AM ET (US)
The difference between Jefferson vs. SSA and McConnell vs. USPS is that in Jefferson the SSA employees complaint was regarding bonuses and promotions. The Jefferson case was easy to settle since the class action was not involving job termination. The EEOC is likely to order the PO to offer reinstate to any member not currently employed by the PO. As long as those members tell the PO that they have always been "willing and able" to have returned back to work for the PO since they resigned, retired or were terminated then they are entitled to receive back pay+. The stress now is just to hang out as best everyone can and not get hit by a car going to the store because this is the last hope the PO has to avoid having to offer reinstatements. The OPM will be expecting the PO to repay every members paid out retirement benefits. The OPM and DoL OWCP were not variables in the Jefferson vs SSA. They are here and that is an aspect that prevents a settlement.
^     All messages            12784-12803 of 12803  12764-12783 >>