Charles Wilcher, a 204B (acting)supervisor from the letter carrier craft, claimed he was “working” on July 5, 2006 when he spent the day with his Postmaster [Margie Flores-Jones]. She was also accused of getting paid for July 5, 2006 even though it was alleged that she did not actually work that day. She was initially demoted to the position of Supervisor of Customer Service, but was subsequently returned to her position as Vineland Postmaster. Eight months after the incident he was issued a Notice of Removal. After a grievance filed by his union, a three-day arbitration hearing and two formal complaints filed with the EEOC, his removal was upheld. His complaint of unlawful discrimination based on his race and gender was dismissed.
CHARLES WILCHER, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 08-2723
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
June 18, 2010
BACKGROUND
In September 2000, plaintiff, Charles Wilcher, became a “craft” employee of the United States Postal Service. He first served as a letter carrier, but in July 2006, he became a 204B acting supervisor of the Vineland Delivery and Distribution Center. As a 204B supervisor, plaintiff retained his craft status, but he performed duties of a first-level supervisor.
On March 16, 2007, plaintiff was issued a Notice of Removal, which terminated his employment with the USPS. The Notice of Removal charged plaintiff with improper conduct for being paid for eight hours on July 5, 2006 even though he had not reported for duty that day. Through two formal complaints filed with the EEOC, a grievance filed by his union, and a three-day arbitration hearing, plaintiff challenged the basis for removal by maintaining that he did work on July 5, 2006. Plaintiff explained that he did not perform his supervisor duties that day on the floor, but rather spent the entire day filing with the Vineland Postmaster in her office, behind closed doors or otherwise in an area where other USPS employees could not see him.
An Office of Inspector General investigation ensued into plaintiff’s explanation, and the arbitrator and plaintiff’s supervisors all determined it to be without merit, thus leading to plaintiff’s discharge. Plaintiff, however, insists that he worked on that date, and claims that the USPS terminated his employment because is a black male. As a result, plaintiff filed this action against the USPS for unlawful discrimination based on his race and gender.
The postal service is known to participate in favoritism within it’s offices. Stupervisors are very impartial towaRD THEIR WORKERS..they think they are gods and can do anything they want after 20+ years I decided enough was enough. I hope congress and the eeoc will look closer to their POs and their stupervisors many are incapable of being in these positions. Stop Screwing your WAY to top and stop smoking your way into not seeing or caring what is going on in nyour office.
“Plaintiff, however, insists that he worked on that date, and claims that the USPS terminated his employment because is a black male. As a result, plaintiff filed this action against the USPS for unlawful discrimination based on his race and gender.”
He’s black so it has to be because of race. No other race has ever been fired from the post office.
This woman has a history, if you look at her past and the OIG needs to open their eyes and look at the entire story including other issues that she has had. This woman has a history of how she got to where she is by well, I’ll let you fill in the blanks this is not just hear say it is a known fact. I’m sure if you talk with the 204b who was fired there is more to the story what really went on……nows the time dude to spill your guts!!
thats bullshit
Marge flores jones deserves everything she gets she is a bad apple! hope they fire her ! she is no good to the bone ! poor vineland
Fortunately PMG Potter has now awarded me a newly created position, VP of Filing.
I will immediately begin my own intimate investigation by interviewing this Vineland Postmaster in my office, behind closed doors or otherwise in an area where other USPS employees can not see the Postmaster in my office.
This is an example of a 204-B not knowing about Postal regulations.
For example get on the clock, and let some one other than your supervisor see
you. Behind closed doors-sounds fuspicious.
now why would he spend 8 hours working behind closed doors with his female supervisor? I can’t figure that one out and I’m the Postmaster General. did anybody hear anything??
Filing? First time I’ve heard it called that. Although the word I’m thinking of does start with an F.
This is typical behaviour of the USPS. The word ethics is not in their vocabulary. I wouldn’t trust any of them. One lies and the other swears to it.
“With regard to the Postmaster, even though she was charged with committing the same violation as plaintiff, she was in a more senior position than plaintiff and was subject to different discipline standards.”
Where in the ELM Code of Conduct (or elsewhere) does it say Postmasters are subject to less stringent discipline standards?
I don’t usually sympathize with 204bs, but this could be an exception.