EEOC Annual Report On USPS Workforce Fiscal Year 2009
From EEOC: This report covers the period from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009 and contains selected measures of agencies’ progress toward model EEO programs.
Targeted Disabilities
As of September 30, 2009, USPS employed 5,372 (0.76%) Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (IWTD). In order to have met the federal 2% participation rate goal, 14,158 IWTD were needed. This represents a decrease of 482 employees from FY 2008 and a decrease of 794 employees since FY 2005. The participation rate for FY 2008 was 0.77% and for FY 2005 was 0.88%. Over the 5-year period USPS had a net decrease of 0.12% in employees with targeted disabilities.
EEO Complaint Processing
I. Counseling
USPS timely processed 99.5% of the 17,054 pre-complaint counselings (without remands) completed in FY 2009.
II. Bases of Complaints Filed
The bases of alleged discrimination most often raised were: (1) Reprisal; (2) Disability (Physical); and (3) Age. Of the 5,659 complaints filed at USPS, 1,283 contained allegations of race (Black/African American) discrimination, 570 contained allegations of race (White) discrimination, 128 contained allegations of race (Asian) discrimination, 17 contained allegations of race (American Indian/Alaska Native) discrimination, 757 contained allegations of color discrimination and 2,533 contained allegations of disability discrimination.
III. Complaint Processing Times
Of the 3,014 completed investigations, 99.2% were timely. USPS’ average time for completing an investigation was 113 days. Of the agencies completing 25 or more investigations, the Tennessee Valley Authority had the lowest average of 100 days.
USPS’ average processing time for all complaint closures increased from 238 days in FY 2008 to 243 days in FY 2009. The government-wide average was 344 days.
IV. Costs
USPS agreed to pay $840,044 for 4,584 pre-complaint settlements, of which 433 were monetary settlements averaging $1,940. USPS expended a total of $4,541,324 for 3,014 complaint investigations, for an average expenditure of $1,507.
USPS agreed to pay a total of $5,631,795 plus other benefits for 598 complaint closures through settlement agreements, final agency decisions, and final agency orders fully implementing AJ decisions. For complaint closures with monetary benefits, the average award was $9,418.
See Report on USPS Workforce Composition
FYI: National Reassessment Process EEO Class Action Lawsuit Website
A class action complaint for injured on duty postal employees was certified by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) on May 30,2008.
In the case of (Read article from February 17, 2009) Sandra McConnell, et al. v. United States Postal Service an AJ decision certified the following class:
All permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the U.S. Postal Service who have been subjected to the National Reassessment Process (NRP) from May 5, 2006 to present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The EEO class action charges:
- The NRP fails to provide class members with reasonable accommodations
- The NRP wrongfully discloses the medical information of class members
- The NRP creates a hostile workplace environment for class members
- The NRP has an adverse impact on class members.
The attorneys for Sandra McConnell ..et.al created a website to answer all questions postal employees may have regarding this case. At this website you can find the following:
Background
NRP Class Action: Representing Workers Affected by the USPS National Reassessment Process
McConnell v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Case No. 520-2008-00053X
Fill Out the NRP Class Action Questionnaire
The U.S. Postal Service is rolling out the National Reassessment Process (NRP) in USPS districts across nation. The NRP reviews all injured-on-duty employees serving in limited duty and/or rehabilitation positions.
In 2006, Sandra McConnell was reviewed under the NRP in the USPS Western New York District. Ms. McConnell had been working in a rehabilitation modified carrier position for over eight years. However, after the NRP review, Ms. McConnell was stripped of her modified position and ordered to go home with “no work available.”
Ms. McConnell filed a class action discrimination complaint under the Rehabilitation Act on behalf of all USPS workers affected by the NRP. The disability discrimination class action was certified by the EEOC Administrative Judge in 2008. After the USPS appealed that decision, the EEOC again granted certification of the class action in 2010. To view the class certification
notice click here.
What You Should Do
If you are affected by the NRP, you should do the following:
Fill out the NRP Class Action Questionnaire by clicking here
With respect to the claims covered in the class definition, you do not need to do anything now to preserve your right to make a claim later. If you have any claims that may not be covered by the class definition, these claims must be processed by you with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the action complained of.
Current Status of the Case
The class action was remanded to the EEOC Administrative Judge. The parties are engaging in discovery. After the discovery process is completed, the Administrative Judge will set a date for trial.
Check for updates on the case status here.
Fill Out the NRP Class Action Questionnaire
National Reassessment Process website
EEOC 2009 Annual Report On USPS Workforce
From United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):
“This report covers the period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The September 30 snapshot includes only employees in pay status thus, some permanent employees, like seasonal employees or those on active military tours of duty are not included….. while the United States Postal Service constituted 27.6% of the work force, it accounted for 47.1% of all EEO counselings, 36.6% of all complaints filed, 36.9% of all completed investigations and 40.8% of all complaints closed in FY 2008.”
Among the cabinet/large (15,000 or more employees) agencies, in FY 2008, the USPS reported the highest percentage (2.2%) of its work force that completed counseling, while the government-wide average was 1.2%
In FY 2008, the U.S. Postal Service again had the highest ADR participation rate in the pre-complaint process (74.1%) among the cabinet/large agencies, while the government-wide average was 49.5%.
The US Postal Service timely completed 99.5% of its 4,113 investigations in FY 2008.
In FY 2008, the U. S. Postal Service reported the second highest percentage (95.9%) of timely issued merit decisions without an Administrative Judge of agencies with 15,000 or more employees.
Targeted Disabilities
As of September 30, 2008, USPS employed 5,479 (0.83%) Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (IWTD). In order to have met the federal 2% participation rate goal, 15,259 IWTD were needed. This represented a decrease of 266 employees over FY 2007 and a decrease of 858 employees since FY 2004. The participation rate for FY 2007 was 0.84% and for FY 2004 was 0.9%. Over the 5-year period USPS had a net decrease of 0.07% in employees with targeted disabilities.
Costs
USPS agreed to pay $703,467 for 5,504 pre-complaint settlements, of which 456 were monetary settlements averaging $1,542. USPS expended a total of $6,175,445 for 4,113 complaint investigations, for an average expenditure of $1,501.
USPS agreed to pay a total of $5,777,740 plus other benefits for 669 complaint closures through settlement agreements, final agency decisions, and final agency orders fully implementing AJ decisions. For the 443 complaint closures with monetary benefits, the average award was $13,042.
click here for full report and charts
USPS Still Seeking Home-Based Independent Contractors For EEO Investigations
An EEO investigator is paid on a “per case” basis, generally $1100. Note that these positions are open to postal retirees. Preferred applicants have three years experience in EEO law or EEO complaint processing with a background in Human Resources, Labor Relations, or Law.
Don
From Federal Business Opportunities website
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is soliciting individuals with the right skill sets and availability to invest numerous hours a week to conduct EEO investigations in accordance with EEOC regulations and USPS quality and timeliness standards. Selected individuals will be home-based independent contractors, located throughout the United States, who will enter into Ordering Agreements with the USPS to provide investigative services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement. Individual Task Orders assigning the investigation of particular complaints of discrimination may be issued under the Ordering Agreement in a “fee for service” arrangement. There is no guarantee of work or the number of cases assigned. An investigator is paid on a “per case” basis, generally $1100, on successful completion of the case
Was Postal Manager Justified in Having Police Escort Supervisor Out of Facility?
EEOC says NO!
A Postal supervisor of distribution operations in Atlanta, Georgia alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of reprisal . The Manager of District Operations (MDO) ordered the Supervisor to be physically removed from facility by police escort for failing to follow instructions. The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) found discrimination and ordered remedial action against the Postal Service. The Postal Service argued that the decision should be reversed on public policy grounds because the decision discouraged managers from exercising their authority to remove employees who repeatedly fail to follow orders, thereby endangering workplace safety. To support their arguments, the Postal Service presented news stories and reports of a 2006 postal shooting in Oregon and a 1985 postal shooting in Atlanta, Georgia. However, EEOC found that the Supervisor posed no threat to workplace safety, and therefore, did not reverse the AJ’s decision on public policy grounds. The Supervisor was awarded $4,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages and attorney fees.
A little background on the case:
Complainant worked as a supervisor of distribution operations, EAS-17, at the agency’s Processing and Distributing Center in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2005, she was placed on detail to monitor the facility’s performance in following procedures and moving the mail. The person who placed complainant on detail left in the fall of 2005 to work at a different facility; however, complainant continued to generate reports on subjects including the facility’s performance, under the general direction of the facility’s senior manager of distribution operations (MDO).
On December 29, 2005, the facility’s senior manager of distribution operations decided to remove complainant from her detail and return her to the position of supervisor. In a meeting on December 30, 2005, the MDO informed complainant of her reassignment and instructed complainant to report to the relevant tour supervisor on her next scheduled work day, January 2, 2006. Complainant asserted to the MDO that she was being treated differently from males who were serving on detail and reporting on the facility’s performance.
After the meeting, complainant notified the manager of human resources about the MDO’s attempt to remove her from her detail. The manager of human resources subsequently emailed complainant, informing her that she would remain on detail unless she heard otherwise from him. He separately emailed the MDO to inform him that complainant had been told to remain on detail. On December 31, 2005, the MDO emailed the manager of human resources to explain his understanding of complainant’s detail status.
On January 2, 2006, complainant appeared on the night shift as scheduled; however, she did not report to the tour supervisor designated by the MDO in the December 30, 2005 meeting. Instead, complainant continued to perform her detail duties. Once the designated tour supervisor notified the MDO that complainant had not reported to her, the MDO paged complainant to meet him at the MDO’s office. When complainant arrived, the MDO told complainant she was to go to her new assignment and work with her new supervisor. He told complainant to go into the MDO’s conference room where the MDO, complainant, and her new supervisor could talk. Complainant told the MDO that she was going to first get a witness and left the MDO’s office.
The MDO then called the postal police. Approximately ten minutes after complainant left to find a witness, she returned to the MDO’s office, where the police escorted complainant out of the building in front of other agency employees. On January 3, 2006, the MDO prepared an emergency placement and off duty status report, charging complainant with failing to follow instructions.
On April 21, 2006, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when:
1. the agency terminated complainant’s detail;
2. the agency physically removed complainant from the agency’s facility with a police escort;
3. the agency placed complainant on emergency placement status on January 3, 2006
According to the police report of the incident, the MDO called the police and requested that they come to the MDO’s office because he had an employee who needed to be escorted out of the building. When the police asked the MDO whether this employee had already been taken off the clock, the MDO advised that the employee had not been taken off the clock but she would be by the time the police arrived. The police report details that, after the police arrived at the MDO’s office, the MDO identified complainant as the employee whom he wanted escorted out of the building. The MDO then asked complainant to leave and return to work tomorrow. Complainant insisted that she had not done anything wrong. The police asked complainant to come with them, and complainant left with the police without incident. The Commission finds that the AJ’s finding of reprisal discrimination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The agency also maintains that the AJ’s decision should be reversed on public policy grounds because the decision discourages managers from exercising their authority to remove employees who repeatedly fail to follow orders, thereby endangering workplace safety. In its brief on appeal, the agency specifically asserts:
An employee who repeatedly fails to comply with the direct orders of his supervisor should be removed from the workplace for the safety of all concerned. Such insubordinate conduct is a clear indicator of imminent trouble. If this Decision prevents one manager from removing such an employee from the workplace, the result could literally be tragic.
Attached to the agency’s brief are news stories and reports of a 2006 postal shooting in Oregon and a 1985 postal shooting in Atlanta, Georgia.
The Commission recognizes that agency employees are required to obey the instructions of their supervisors, and we acknowledge the importance of permitting agency managers and supervisors to remove problematic employees who pose a threat of actual physical harm to the workplace. However, the Commission finds that this case does not involve a situation where an employee posed a threat to workplace safety. Under questioning by the AJ, the MDO admitted that complainant did not pose any threat of physical harm. Neither was this a simple case of an employee’s intransigence in the face of a direct order. Here, complainant was subject to apparently conflicting orders regarding her detail by different managers. She could not obey one order without disobeying the other. For all these reasons, the Commission finds that the public policy consideration of workplace safety articulated by the agency does not warrant reversal of the AJ’s decision.
Don’t sweat EEOC complaint after discipline if you can prove process was fair
“Recent case: Kent Neely, who is black, worked for the U.S. Postal Service handling mail. Neely, however, struggled with attendance; he was late or absent 83 times one year. When he was warned he could be terminated if his attendance didn’t improve, he filed a discrimination complaint, alleging his female supervisors were harassing him because he turned down their romantic overtures.
Shortly after, the post office fired Neely, and he sued.
But the court said he couldn’t prove that he had been terminated in retaliation for complaining or that anyone else with a poor attendance record had been treated more favorably. (Neely v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 08-1473, 3rd Cir., 2009)”
EEOC: USPS Improperly Dismissed Letter Carrier’s Claim of Retaliatory Harassment by Postmaster
A City Letter Carrier at the Woonsocket, Rhode Island Post Office alleged that he was subjected to retaliatory harassment for his prior protected EEO activity. The Carrier alleged that his pay was deliberately short and pay records manipulated. The Postal Service dismissed the EEO complaint for failure to state a claim. The EEOC found that the Carrier clearly alleged that immediately after he told the postmaster he was going to file an EEO complaint about the pay issues, the postmaster engaged in campaign of ongoing harassment, threatened discipline, revoked a grievance settlement to remove a letter of warning from his record, and made numerous intimidating and insulting comments. The EEOC concluded that the letter carrier set forth “an actionable claim of retaliatory harassment and remanded the case.” Beauregard v. Potter (2/14/2009)
Excerpts from the case:
Background
At the time of the events at issue, complainant was employed by the agency as a City Carrier at the Woonsocket, Rhode Island Post Office. In a formal EEO complaint dated September 2, 2008, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) and (2), for failure to state a claim and/or untimely EEO counselor contact. The instant appeal followed.
In its dismissal decision, the agency characterized the complaint as asserting unlawful retaliation “when on or about May 10, 2008, [complainant] believed [his] pay was deliberately short and pay records were manipulated.” The agency reasoned that this failed to state a claim because complainant ultimately received the correct pay and benefits in 2007 through the grievance process, and because there was no indication that complainant had engaged in prior protected activity. In the alternative, the agency dismissed for untimely EEO counselor contact, asserting that complainant’s initial contact with the counselor was on July 1, 2008, beyond the regulatory 45-day period from May 10, 2008.
Upon review, the Commission concludes that the agency incorrectly characterized the complaint in this matter, therefore applying its dismissal analysis incorrectly. A fair reading of the complaint, in conjunction with the EEO Dispute Resolution Specialist’s (EEO counselor’s) report reveals that in fact complainant was alleging after he told the Postmaster on July 1, 2008, that he intended to file an EEO complaint concerning the paycheck tampering issue, he was subjected to ongoing retaliatory harassment. The EEO counselor’s report details the alleged harassment to include: on July 1, 2008, the Postmaster questioned complainant about the use of unauthorized overtime; on July 2, 2008, the Postmaster discussed complainant’s street time, performed street supervision, and conducted a road observation; on July 3, 2009, the Postmaster notified complainant that a Letter of Warning dated April 29, 2008, would remain in his personnel file for two years despite an earlier grievance settlement that it would be removed after three months; on July 8, 2008, he was given a pre-disciplinary interview regarding the use of directional signals on July 2, 2008; and the Postmaster made a number of negative comments to him, including, “Are you afraid of me?”, “You’re not man enough to come any closer and get the chock block from me”, “I think you are nothing but a piece of s*** and think you are a liar”, and “It’s just a matter of time before you won’t be getting a paycheck.” Shortly thereafter complainant was out of work for on sick leave (FMLA) from July 10 – August 15, 2008.
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the complainant to relief. The trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing incidents and remarks, and considering them together in the light most favorable to the complainant, determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim. In applying this standard, we find that complainant has set forth an actionable claim of retaliatory harassment. The EEO counselor’s report reveals that he clearly alleged that immediately after he told the Postmaster he was going to file an EEO complaint about the pay issues, the Postmaster engaged in campaign of ongoing harassment, threatened discipline, revoked a grievance settlement to remove a letter of warning from his record, and made numerous intimidating and insulting comments. Together this is sufficient to state a claim of retaliatory harassment/hostile work environment that was timely raised.
To the extent complainant was also attempting to raise his pay claims in this complaint, we agree with the agency that these were untimely raised as the most recent occurrence, on May 10, 2008, was more than 45 days before complainant’s initial EEO counselor contact. This untimeliness would not be a basis for dismissal if the paycheck issues were part of the alleged pattern of harassment as the Supreme Court has held that a complainant alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period. However, in this case we do not find that the pay issues are linked to the harassment, as the protected activity (telling the Postmaster he was going to file an EEO complaint about the pay issues) occurred after May 10 and involved a different management official. To this extent, we affirm the agency’s dismissal of the pay issues (occurring May 10, 2008 and earlier) as untimely raised.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the agency’s dismissal of the complaint and REMAND it to the agency for further processing in accordance with the following Order.
Related link: Postmaster Setting Unrealistic Expectations May Serve As Grounds To File EEO Complaint
Postmaster Setting Unrealistic Expectations May Serve As Grounds To File EEO Complaint
Connie Williams, a city carrier at the Hennessey Oklahoma Post Office alleged that she was subjected to discrimination based on her sex, age, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was harassed by her postmaster. The Postal Service dismissed the complaint claiming that Williams was not harmed. On appeal Williams argued she was harmed, and contended that the harassment continued. The EEOC found that the claimed actions of the postmaster, including setting unrealistic expectations for the amount of time for the employee to prepare and complete delivery of her route, were sufficient to state a claim of discrimination and reversed the Postal Service’s decision. Williams v. Potter- February 5, 2009
Note: As this EEO case points out: .. a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may be predicated on either of two types of sexual harassment — (1) harassment that involves the conditioning of employment benefits on sexual favors, and (2) harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment.
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment. The Court explained that an “objectively hostile or abusive work environment [is created when] a reasonable person would find [it] hostile or abusive” and the complainant subjectively perceives it as such. Harris,. Thus, not all claims of harassment are actionable. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition or privilege of employment, a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment.
The following are excerpts from Williams EEO complaint:
In her June 24, 2008 complaint, complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination based on her sex (female), age and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was harassed from March 2, 2008, to the present by her postmaster.
Much of the claimed harassment was the postmaster setting unrealistic expectations for the amount of time complainant had to prepare and complete delivery of her route, and repeated close monitoring and observation of her at the post office and on her route, Complainant claimed these unrealistic expectations forced her to walk at an uncomfortable pace, and skip lunch and breaks. When she did not meet the postmaster’s expectations or engaged in allegedly time wasting activity, the postmaster allegedly kept up his intensive monitoring, pressured complainant with comments, threatened her with corrective and disciplinary actions, and on May 14, 2008, gave her a negative route evaluation.
To a lesser extent, complainant alleged that the postmaster harassed her about work practices relating to safety and a form. She raised an incident of the postmaster getting angry with her for not timely submitting and completing a form estimating route time, and warning her for not setting the emergency brake on her truck.
In her complaint, complainant also alleged that the postmaster discriminatorily inquired about her schedule with her second employer. The postmaster was trying to determine if complainant was working a second job while on sick leave. She also claimed that her request to come in early on April 16, 2008 so she would not have to use annual leave was denied by the postmaster, resulting in having to use leave. Complainant claimed that on April 21, 2008, the postmaster only granted a request for sick leave after she told him her doctor would speak to him personally if necessary.
Complainant also alleged in her complaint that the postmaster told offensive jokes. She also claimed therein that on several occasions he got very physically close to her while monitoring her, bringing her work, and retrieving things. She wrote that he once brushed up against her hand and another time up against her while he was reaching. Complainant contended this was unnecessary, and was sexual harassment.
The final agency decision dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It reasoned complainant was not harmed. On appeal, complainant argues she was harmed, and contends the harassment is continuing. She alleges that the monitoring and comments about her productivity continue. She indicates that on or about October 15, 2008, the postmaster gave her a formal discussion for failure to signal and leaving a truck security door open, and also told her she was did not properly lift nor properly wear her seat belt. She alleges that the postmaster requires her to bring in medical documentation to account for each time she is off work due to stress. She also submits a letter of warning by the postmaster dated November 3, 2008, for failure to immediately report an injury to her back and deviating from her route.
The claimed actions of the postmaster setting unrealistic expectations for the amount of time for complainant to prepare and complete delivery of her route, coupled with repeated frequent intensive monitoring and observation of her and pressuring her with comments, threats of corrective and disciplinary actions; and a negative route evaluation state a claim. If these actions occurred as claimed and are discriminatory, this could alter the conditions of complainant’s employment. Complainant contends the above forces her to walk at an uncomfortable hurried pace, and to skip lunch and breaks. The remaining claimed actions are part of the harassment claim, i.e., the postmaster using his supervisory relationship to create a hostile work environment for complainant. This includes the incidents regarding denial of change of schedule, leave matters, comments about complainant’s safety practices and the form, the October 2008 formal discussion, the November 3, 2008 letter of warning, and the alleged sexual harassment and jokes.
USPS Seeking Home-Based Independent Contractors For EEO Investigations
From Federal Business Opportunities website
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is soliciting individuals with the right skill sets and availability to invest numerous hours a week to conduct EEO investigations in accordance with EEOC regulations and USPS quality and timeliness standards. Selected individuals will be home-based independent contractors, located throughout the United States, who will enter into Ordering Agreements with the USPS to provide investigative services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement. Individual Task Orders assigning the investigation of particular complaints of discrimination may be issued under the Ordering Agreement in a “fee for service” arrangement. There is no guarantee of work or the number of cases assigned. An investigator is paid on a “per case” basis, generally $1100, on successful completion of the case. The attached document lists computer system/software, education and experience requirements for USPS contract EEO investigators. It also provides instructions to interested individuals on how and where to submit resumes and narratives that will be used to select the contract investigators.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=72d0cc1190319e8e0380fdda58dae757&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=
USPS: Changes to the Rehabilitation Act
From USPS via PostalReporter.com reader
Effective January 1, 2009, the definition of an individual with a “disability” as defined under both the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will be significantly expanded. This is due to the passage of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that sets new standards for determining disability status. Managers, supervisors and the Reasonable Accommodation Committees (RACs) need to be aware of the extent of the changes in the ADAAA so they can assess requests for reasonable accommodation in accordance with these new standards.
Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will issue regulations implementing these new provisions, the regulations will not be published by January 1.Nonetheless, employers must still comply with the law. Consequently, we are providing you with the attached synopsis of the changes in the law so that you are fully informed about the new standards and for use as a guide in making reasonable accommodation decisions.
USPS:Changes to the Rehabilitation Act – click here for the PDF file