EEOC Update: Notice to Walker vs USPS Class Members

January 11, 2012 by
Filed under: eeo, postal, postal news, usps 

This is being sent to you to correct mistakes made by the Postal Service in the last mailing to class members. It was the Agency’s responsibility to provide correct information and to include an Initial Inquiry Regarding Damages, which it failed to do. The failure was in no way due to error by the Commission or the attorneys for the class. Please do not contact the judge or the lawyers for the class about this Notice. You may contact the Agency at the following number for the designated Walker contact person responsible for compliance with the order to send out the Initial Inquiry: Joseph Hopkins or Karla Malone at 855-449-0911 (toll free).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT OFFICE

EEOC No. 541-2008-00188X
Agency No. CC-800-0359-03
December 20, 2011

Edmond Walker et al.,
Complainants,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency

BACKGROUND

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] has certified a class complaint of “all permanent rehabilitation employees whose duty hours have been restricted, from March 24, 2000, to the present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” The Judge has approved sending you this Initial Inquiry Regarding Damages to begin to determine any potential damages. The Initial Inquiry Regarding Damages is part of an Agency investigation ordered by the EEOC.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

You must be truthful and try to be accurate. Please answer on the spaces provided. If you need more space to answer a question, please attach a separate sheet of paper with your answer, numbering the new page with the number of the question you are answering. PLEASE TYPE IF POSSIBLE OR PRINT CLEARLY. If you are estimating or unsure of some part of your answer, please say so and explain why you are unsure. Sign each sheet at the bottom and on the last page, after the last answer, write the following information just above your signature: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my recollection.”

Send your responses postmarked on or before January 22, 2012, to the following address:

National EEO Investigative Services Office [NEEOISO]
P.O. Box 25558
Tampa, FL 33622-5558

Notice to Walker Class Members

 

Comments

8 Comments on EEOC Update: Notice to Walker vs USPS Class Members

  1. joe watusi on Thu, 12th Jan 2012 3:44 am
  2. The input from customers is a combination of anger at the long lines, and under worked /overpaid Supervisors, telling customers there is no help ( when the help is standing where the Customers can see them,) you see it is mismanagement at all levels, the above scenario includes taking 3,4 or all clerks on duty in a station from the windows to throw box mail,and leaving one clerk on the windows, with lines out the door, why?, because Firms and individual box holders have paid for the Boxes or to hold and pick up mail, a contract in effect, and you the Customer have no contract, there is no contract that says Customers will wait how long in line,and the employee on the window may not get a lunch or rest break by way of threats and intimidation, while the other clerks are sent home or somewhere else, as if they do not exist, smoke screen and mirrors.
    USPS management as for instance in Buffalo NY (District), are fanatical to show less and less hours on the windows at stations / Post Offices, so they can get the Incentives and Bonuses, promotions and whatever ?, at the cost of Customer Service, it is a self destructive course.
    The offer of early outs and Incentives to those who are close to retirement would make sense, the USPS does not have to wait for Congress, but they have made life so miserable for craft employees, they hope they might drop out, a volatile situation.

  3. joe mama on Thu, 12th Jan 2012 5:10 am
  4. TRUE TRUE TRUE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Elsie on Thu, 12th Jan 2012 7:02 am
  6. I retired from the Postal Service Aug/09: THE best move I could have done!. Management itself is driving the Postal Service deep in the ground! One thing I found out during my 20 plus years working with the Postal Service, (they would like for us to believe this but): Management has the right to mismanage! (Article 3 of the Contract!)

  7. Pat O'Rourke on Thu, 12th Jan 2012 9:21 am
  8. What the above blogs have to do with the pending E.E.O. case is beyond me! However I have found problems with the new inquiry form. First, the case numbers are different,as is the agency number. It looks like they are trying to make us part of another case. Second, if you have questions about the case you have the right to speak to the attorney who represents your interests. Third, the questions asked are exactly the same as the first inquiry. As I sent the first form back to NEEOISO in November I will not be sending this one,as they already have this information. My guess is that they are trying to put us in a different case and all they really need is your signature on the bottom of the form to say you identify with THAT particular class.

  9. lsw on Thu, 12th Jan 2012 3:11 pm
  10. They lost most of the respondents with the part that says, “You must be truthful and try to be accurate,”

  11. CSmith on Mon, 16th Jan 2012 7:11 am
  12. @Pat….YOU’RE RIGHT!The EEOC case number differs from the original document sent in December. However, on the most current document sent, an additional questions was asked in regards to ‘loss of over-time restricted’. Take a look at both of your document received. I think you should still send it in because of the information relative to overtime, if you were one that worked overtime this is a significant question. If it is two different cases(which I doubt), just be part of both. You don’t want to miss out on any retribution that will occur from either or both! Have a great week!

  13. CSmith on Mon, 16th Jan 2012 7:14 am
  14. @Pat….*Compensation……not retribution! I apologize!

  15. Pat O'Rourke on Mon, 16th Jan 2012 9:18 pm
  16. CSmith,thank you for that good advice. I looked and there is a question about overtime that was not on the first mailing. If you were on the OTD list this would definitely pertain to a rehab employee,as they would look at a similarly situated employee to determine money that would have been earned had it not been for an adverse action by the agency (i.e. being sent home after having your job was eliminated by N.R.P. ) Thanks!