Postal Employees: “Were You Mandated to Submit to a “Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation” Before USPS Allowed You Back To Work?”
The EEOC has pending before it a Petition for Class Certification over the Postal Service’s:
(1) refusal to properly train their medical unit and management personnel regarding obligations under the Rehabilitation Act; as instructed to do so in EEOC Appeal No. 0720080044, (See, Grayson v. USPS, dated 1/6/2009..see brief below)
2) By mandating that certain employees submit to “Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations” (before allowing these employee’s to return to work).
“Complainant’s contentions are that these Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations are not shown to be job-related and consistent with the business necessity of the Agency, thus such evaluations are improper. Complainant submits this complaint as a “Class Action Complaint”, which is ongoing.”
I am looking for other employees who were mandated to submit to a “Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations” If any postal employee would like to be included into this class action complaint, please contact me G. Mojarro by 2/28/11 via e-mail ; foochiememo [at] aol.com
The class agent specifically identifies the Postal Service’s actions as adversely affecting complainants in six, maybe seven, categories:
1. Fails to reasonably accommodate employees
2. Targets disabled employees
3. Creates a hostile work environment
4. Wrongfully discloses medical information
5. Is used as retaliation for EEO investigation
6. Has an adverse impact on disabled employees, and
7. Repeatedly provides copies of Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations to the Agency’s Office of Inspector General.
Overview Of Willard Grayson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080044 (January 6, 2009) (added by PostalReporter.com)
Improper Medical Inquiry and Denial of Work
Complainant worked for the agency as a Custodial Laborer. He noticed a strong odor while mopping the floor, and subsequently reported to his supervisor that he felt sick to his stomach and had a headache. Complainant completed a workers’ compensation form, and the agency sent him for a medical evaluation. The examining physician determined that complainant was able to return to full duty; however, he noted that complainant believed he was being retaliated against and possibly poisoned. Several days later, complainant was given a letter by his supervisor advising him to provide medical documentation from his doctor clearing him to return to work. The letter did not specify any medical condition or injury. After complainant submitted a letter from a Licensed Physician Assistant releasing him to return to work, he stated that he was told he needed documentation from a psychiatrist stating that he was not a danger to himself or others before he would be allowed to return to work. Complainant ultimately saw a psychologist, who concluded that he did not appear to be a danger to himself or others. The agency’s Medical Unit Director then called the psychologist, and asked complainant to sign a release form so that the report from the initial examining physician could be sent to him. Complainant refused to sign the release, and was given a Notice to Submit Medical Documentation as well as a Notice of Deferred Seven-Day Suspension for failure to follow instructions and being absent without leave. Complainant was ultimately referred for a psychiatric fitness for duty examination.
On appeal, the Commission found that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act by making a disability-related inquiry and not allowing complainant to return to work. While the Commission noted that it was proper for the agency to initially send complainant for a medical evaluation after he filed a workers’ compensation form, the Commission found that the agency had no basis to keep him out of work once the examining physician concluded he was able to return to duty. The Commission noted that there was no evidence that complainant had any problems performing his work or interacting with his co-workers. Further, the agency’s response to the physician’s comments about complainant’s mental state was extreme and the demands made on him overly burdensome given the circumstances of the situation. The record contained no evidence that complainant engaged in any action that would have led the agency to reasonably believe that he posed a direct threat or could not perform the essential functions of his position. Finally, the agency’s Threat Assessment Team itself found that complainant was not a threat. The Commission further found that complainant decided to retire solely because the agency kept him out of work, issued progressive discipline, and considered terminating him. The agency was ordered to offer complainant reinstatement to his prior position, with back pay and appropriate benefits. source: EEOC
note: Information may not be re-printed without permission from G. Mojarro or PostalReporter.com