Former Postmaster Wins Hostile Workplace Lawsuit -But No Money
A jury found the Postal Service liable for creating a retaliatory hostile work environment, but awarded no compensatory damages.The Court also considered the issue of whether any equitable relief, such as back pay, should be awarded. The Court determined that former Nazareth, PA Postmaster did not prove any loss in wages or benefits resulting from the Postal Service’s unlawful actions to support or quantify an award of back pay. The Court did grant equitable relief in the form of enhanced training for certain Postal Managers and a requirement that USPS post notices of the verdict.
Some background
Hare essentially makes three claims under Title VII. First, she argued the Post Office violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against her for filing a claim with the EEOC. She claimed this retaliation is evidenced by her not being selected for the POOM job or the CMP, receiving a lower performance rating, and being harassed by several Postal Managerss. Second, she argued the Post Office discriminated against her based on her sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Specifically, she claimed she was sexually harassed by a Postal Inspector. She also claimed that her complaint against the Postal Inspector was inadequately investigated because she is a woman, and she was subjected to a hostile work environment created by her supervisors. Finally, she claimed the Post Office violated Title VII by constructively discharging her.
In a Federal District Court Hare’s claims of retaliation and hostile work environment against the Postal Service were heard by a jury. Prior to trial, the Third Circuit had upheld a ruling in favor of the Postal Service on Hare’s constructive discharge claim, as well as Hare’s claim that her receiving a lower performance rating was retaliatory. Hare dropped the sexual harassment claim.
After trial, the jury determined that the Postal Service had created or allowed a hostile work environment, but awarded zero compensatory damages. Hare sought back pay, and injunctive relief in the form of restraints on speech by the Postal Service. The Court ruled that Hare is not entitled to any relief..Opinion from the Federal Circuit
The District Court ordered enhanced training for several Postal Managers:
The focus of the training shall include what circumstances, conduct, and communications constitute retaliation, a hostile work environment, and retaliatory harassment; appropriate and inappropriate behavior by managers; and how to maintain a non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory workplace environment. If the training references this case, the facts supporting the jury verdict on liability shall be used to illustrate these principles.
The training shall be provided to the following individuals: Central Pennsylvania Performance Cluster District Manager; all current Post Office Operations Managers for the Central Pennsylvania Performance Cluster; and those individuals in the management chain of the district which included the Nazareth Post Office at the time of the contested conduct. The total number of participants shall not exceed twenty-five (25) people.
The Defendant shall post the jury verdict sheet for Hare v. Potter in the following facilities: Nazareth Post Office, Nazareth, Pennsylvania; Central Pennsylvania Performance Cluster District Offices, 1425 Crooked Hill Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and the Philadelphia Metropolitan Performance Cluster District Office, 2970 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.
The postings at the Nazareth Post Office shall be on the bulletin board nearest the Poster 71, Equal Opportunity is the Law. The posting at the Central Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Performance Cluster District Offices shall be on the bulletin board nearest the District Manager’s Office on the bulletin board nearest the Poster 71….
The jury verdict shall be posted within thirty-five (35) days of the Final Order and Judgment, and shall remain posted for a period of sixty (60) days. Upon appeal, either party may seek a stay of this order.
Accompanying the postings shall be the following: As a result of this verdict, supplemental training will be given in 2008 to Postal Service managers pursuant to a court order entered on December 19, 2007.
USPS Wants To Automate Road Tests
From FedBizOpp via PostalReporter reader:
The United States Postal Service (USPS) administers and maintains a number of pre-hire and post-training examinations for purposes of evaluating applicants and employees’ job-related qualifications and training. Included among those examinations are three that require examiners to observe examinees performing specific job-related activities and record observed behaviors: the Initial Road Test (Examination 804), the End-of-Training Road Test (Examination 806), and the Automotive Bench Test (Examination 941). The USPS is interested in automating the recording of examination behaviors, in order to further expedite data capture and scoring.
Scope and Objectives of Request for Information
The USPS wishes to obtain information about innovative, portable automated solutions for recording and transmitting assessment data. The USPS does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this solicitation or to pay for the information solicited. This solicitation is issued for the purposes of obtaining general information about products, services and suppliers.
The U.S. Postal Service currently has three work-sample examinations that are administered in a one-on-one environment, where the examiner observes the examinee and records observed, exam-related behaviors. Currently, the behaviors are recorded on a scannable form, then the form is scanned and a score is generated. We are interested in seeking solutions to automate this process.
Two of the examinations are driving exams, where the examiner is riding in the passenger side of a moving vehicle while recording observed behaviors. The third examination is an automotive maintenance exam, where the examiner is observing the examinee in a workroom environment.
Because of the mobile nature of the examination administrations, it is important that the automated solution also be mobile, such as a laptop, electronic notepad, digital pen or handheld display device. Further, the driving exam form includes over 100 behaviors and the behaviors are not performed sequentially. Therefore, the form or interface needs to allow for examiners to easily view and read test items, quickly navigate among and locate the appropriate items, and record them while sitting in a moving vehicle.
An examinee’s score is calculated by combining the values of the behaviors observed (or not observed), following a pre-determined scoring algorithm. Examinees pass or fail as a result of their exam score, based on a pre-set passing score.
We are seeking an automated solution to use for administering these examinations. We are interested in learning about automated solutions that offer one or more of the following benefits:
1. A portable device that can be held, carried, viewed and accessed in a moving vehicle and in a work room.
2. A user-friendly interface for examiners to view behavioral statements and mark when observed or not observed.
3. Automated exam scoring.
4. Data transfer to a central database.
source: FedBizOpp
Breast Cancer Research Semipostal Stamp Extended to 2011
USPS issued the following press release:
A four-year extension of the Breast Cancer Research (BCRS) semipostal stamp has been approved beyond Dec. 31, 2007.
Legislation passed recently by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush granted the extension.
Since the stamp first went on sale in 1998, the Postal Service has sold more than 802 million stamps, raising $59.5 million for breast cancer research.
Semipostal stamps are First-Class Mail postage stamps that are issued and sold by the Postal Service at a price above the First-Class Mail single-piece first-ounce rate to raise funds for designated causes.
Photo: Sunflower Alabama Post Office
Post Office: Sunflower, Alabama 36581. The Post Office is open Monday-Friday, 3 hours per day.
According to notes under the photo on Flickr:
The USPS tried to close down this office in the 1990′s but the community rallied behind it and thwarted closure. It sits about 1 mile east of US 43 on Sunflower Road in the front yard of a house.
Postmasters: Lieberman Endorsement of McCain Could Have Repercussions
According to National Association of Postmasters of the United States (NAPUS) :
On Monday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the 2000 Democratic VP nominee, endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for President. The Lieberman endorsement is an attempt to bolster McCain’s sagging support among GOP stalwarts and to energize independent New Hampshire voters. A NH loss would be fatal to McCain’s presidential hopes. (NH independents may vote in the presidential primary.) Sens. Lieberman and McCain have similar views on foreign policy and national security. In addition, Sen. McCain’s former press secretary is the communications director for Lieberman. It should also be noted that, earlier this year, Sen. Lieberman endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for reelection.
The McCain/Collins endorsements may have ripple effects for the postal and federal community, since Sen. Lieberman chairs the Committee with jurisdiction over federal and postal matters. Presently, Lieberman is the Democratic majority-maker in the Senate. Although he is identified as an “Independent”, he caucuses with Democrats. Without Lieberman, the Democrats can count on only 50 senators, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The breakdown would be 50-50, if Lieberman caucused with the GOP – VP Cheney would be the tie-breaker. Consequently, Democrats feared that Lieberman would jump ship if they denied him his chair. Moreover, the Lieberman-chaired Committee has been hailed as a model of bipartisanship and productivity in a highly divisive Congress. Nonetheless, the upcoming 2008 elections could change the Senate dynamic, yielding to a stronger Democratic majority that may try to deny Lieberman his chairmanship, as a payback for the McCain endorsement.
It appears that Democrats could pick up 3-5 Senate seats. Therefore, there may be a diminished necessity to accommodate Sen. Lieberman with a chair. If the Democrats strip Lieberman of his chair, the Democrats would need to look down the Committee list to see who Sen. Lieberman’s Democratic successor could be. The most senior committee Democrat is Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI); however, it is doubtful that he would relinquish the chair of the Armed Service Committee. Next on the list is Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI); he presently chairs the Veterans Affairs Committee. After Akaka is Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE); although he chairs a subcommittee, he does not chair a Full Senate Committee. Of course, we will have to wait a year to see what happens.
source: eNAPUS Newsletter http://www.napus.org/govrelations/E4-23.pdf
Postal Service Updates Its Transformation Plan
“The Strategic Transformation Plan 2006-2010, the Postal Service roadmap for the future, has been updated to reflect changes from last year’s passage of the Postal Act of 2006. The law makes a number of changes to postal oversight and regulation, but does not alter the Postal Service’s mission – providing trusted, affordable and universal service.”
Postal Service Updates its Transformation Plan to Reflect New Law and New Technologies
http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/2006-2010.htm
PostalReporter.com: A few highlights from the Transformation Plan:
The Postal Service will focus on four critical human resources strategies — engaging employees, developing and managing talent, establishing and maintaining market-based compensation, and managing complement to assure flexibility. Read more
EEOC: Postal Worker Has Claim For One-Time Incident of Discriminatory Harassment
A Postal Employee alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of national origin (Russian American) when his supervisor used abusive and forceful language regarding the employee’s inability to read English. The EEOC found that while single incidents often are not enough to state a claim of discriminatory harassment, in this case the incident was of sufficient severity to warrant further processing because the supervisor used forceful and abusive language in a manner designed to humiliate the employee and said it in the presence of a number of his coworkers. Therefore, the EEOC reversed the Postal Service’s decision to dismiss the complaint. Read more
Appeals Court: Evidence of Disability for Disability Retirement
From PostalReporter.com reader:
A very important precedent has been issued regarding evidence of disability for disability retirement. Both OPM and MSPB were sharply rebuked for requiring objective evidence of disability. Objective evidence is difficult to get in many psychiatric cases.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that medical evidence could not be rejected solely because it lacked so-called “objective” measures such as laboratory tests.
Background
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had to consider all competent medical evidence of a disability retirement applicant, and the applicant could prevail based on medical evidence that consisted of a medical professional’s conclusive diagnosis, even if based primarily on his/her analysis of the applicant’s own subjective descriptions of symptoms and other indicia of disability. Thus, the submitted medical evidence could not be rejected solely because it lacked so-called “objective” measures such as laboratory tests.
Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Personnel Management, (C.A.Fed.)
Postal Worker Fails to Convince Appeals Court to Overturn APWU-USPS Settlement
Postal Worker Eddie J. Walter argued before an arbitrator, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that he should not be bound by an APWU – USPS settlement agreement because he personally did not sign it. They all disagreed.
Here is the decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
Initially, Walter sought review of a 1999 adverse promotion decision by the USPS by filing a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the USPS and the American Postal Workers Union (“Union”). This dispute was settled by the Union on his behalf in a written settlement agreement dated May 16, 2000. The settlement agreement “resolve[d] any and all matters pertaining to [Walter’s] promotion,” and further provided that Walter “shall not litigate or relitigate in any forum, judicial, or administrative, any claims arising from the actions involved in this appeal.” The settlement agreement also specified that “neither party shall seek to set aside this settlement agreement.” Although Walter did not personally sign the settlement agreement, it was signed on his behalf by his Union representative, as authorized under the CBA. Notwithstanding the settlement, the Union subsequently invoked arbitration on Walter’s behalf, challenging the validity and enforceability of the settlement agreement on various grounds. At arbitration, the Union argued, inter alia, that without Walter’s signature, the settlement agreement was invalid. The arbitrator concluded that the settlement agreement “[did] not require [Walter’s] signature to make the settlement binding” because it was signed by authorized representatives of both the USPS and the Union. Walter then appealed to the Board from the 1999 adverse promotion decision.
Walter asserted before the Board that he should not be bound by the settlement agreement because he personally did not sign it. The Board considered the record and determined that Walter and the Union had litigated the lack-of-signature issue during the arbitration proceeding. Relying on the factors articulated in Kroeger v. USPS, 865 F.2d 235, 239 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the Board accorded collateral estoppel effect to the arbitrator’s determination and refused to reconsider the issue. The Board then determined that the settlement agreement did not reserve any right of appeal to the Board and dismissed Walter’s appeal. See Mays v. USPS, 995 F.2d 1056, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The burden is on the employee to expressly reserve the additional procedure if he chooses to settle a grievance.”). The Board did not reach the issue of the timeliness of the appeal from the 1999 action. Walter timely appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
This court’s scope of review of Board decisions is defined and limited by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “The agency’s action in this case must be affirmed unless it is found to be: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” Hayes v. Dep’t of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “The petitioner bears the burden of establishing error in the Board’s decision.” Harris v. DVA, 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Walter reasserts on appeal that he should not be bound by the settlement agreement. He argues that the arbitrator failed to address the underlying merits of his claim and that he should not be foreclosed from a decision on the merits. This argument is without merit. The arbitrator’s determination that he was bound by the terms of the agreement signed on his behalf by his authorized Union representative precludes him from re-litigating the validity of this agreement. Moreoever, the agreement itself precludes him from re-litigating the merits of the underlying dispute.
Because Walter is bound by the settlement agreement, the Board properly dismissed his claims for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm its decision.
NALC’S Young: Good Cop/Bad Cop – Right Here In The USPS
MESSAGE from National Association Of Letter Carriers’ President WILLIAM H. YOUNG
You can’t pick up a newspaper these days or turn on the news without finding another report of law enforcement abuse. Unauthorized surveillance, illegal searches, suspension of civil liberties, beatings—all the way from wiretaps to water-boarding. Call that the Bad Cop side.
Of course, in today’s world, our personal security is on the line and we need effective law enforcement. Whether it’s the neighborhood cop or a super-spook, we need that “Thin Blue Line” to protect us from the worst that human nature can deliver. That’s the Good Cop side.
What has this got to do with the Postal Service, and letter carriers, and the NALC? Plenty. We have our own Good Cop/Bad Cop syndrome—and increasingly the Bad Cop is in the driver’s seat. And NALC is not going to sit still for it.
Now, we are not stupid. With 800,000 USPS employees, there are bound to be some bad apples. Even among our own 225,000 city letter carriers there will be some who do not deserve to wear the uniform.
Because of those rare bad apples, all postal employees have been subjected to surveillance throughout the history of the Postal Service—peepholes and catwalks, cameras hidden in bathrooms and supervisors hiding behind trees. You name it, we’ve seen it. Sometimes professional; all too often, Keystone Kops-like; occasionally outrageous and completely unacceptable.
In that last category we have entered a new era, the era of the “Office of Inspector General,” which has taken over from the Postal Inspectors—and from the Postal Service itself—key elements of employee monitoring, investigations and law enforcement.
How is the OIG doing?
In the past year, in just three cities—Houston, Texas, and Battle Creek and Grand Rapids, Michigan—OIG agents brought charges that resulted in more than 100 removals. In virtually every case, the improperly suspended carriers were returned to work with full back pay, including lost overtime.The total cost to the rate-payers was well over $1 million, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars for replacement labor during the wrongful suspensions and the high cost of litigating the removals through the grievance-arbitration process.
In Houston, a 35-year carrier, less than a year from retirement, was placed on emergency suspension, and then removed, in a case that the arbitrator ultimately stated was “so lacking in substance that it bordered on an unconscionable act.” The arbitrator not only reinstated the employee with full back pay, but also awarded an extra half-day’s pay for each day he was off the clock for a four-month period, noting “there is not a remedy that can give back to the grievant what he lost.” (He “lost his home, alienated his family due to the mental strain he endured, had
his phone cut off….”)
In addition to bungling “investigations” of letter carriers, the OIG also has appointed itself a “health oversight agency” and is going after personal, legally protected health information without the consent or authorization of carriers. The OIG secretly contacts doctors for the information and tells them to keep their letter carrier patients in the dark about the loss of privacy. Outrageous!
I have directed NALC’s attorneys to pursue this matter relentlessly through litigation. But trashing letter carriers, trampling on their rights, snooping into their medical records, and generally acting like an out-of-control Bad Cop isn’t enough for the Inspector General. He thinks he’s a management guru, too, testifying before Congress in favor of contracting out, an “incentive-based letter carrier performance system” (read: “if we like you, we pay you”), and “a slow, de facto privatization of the Postal Service.”
Who knows what’s next: The color of our uniforms? The design—or price—of stamps? But remember, Inspectors General come and they go. The NALC stays because its job is to make sure that the Bad Cops do not get away with their excesses—that they stay within their proper jurisdiction, and when they step out of bounds, that the USPS pays for it. Every nickel. Every dime. Every million dollars.
source: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS Postal Record – December 2007
Related links:
NALC Young: It’s time to stop the ‘run amok’ Postal OIG