EEOC Update: Notice to Walker vs USPS Class Members
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). Read more
Deadline to Submit USPS Questionnaires For Walker EEO Class-Action Case is Dec. 15
Time is running out for postal employees involved in the Walker Class-Action lawsuit to return questionnaires they recently received from the Postal Service. The class-action complaint alleges the USPS discriminated against the employees on the basis of disability; the questionnaire [PDF] is about damages the employees may have suffered. Read more
Edmond Walker vs USPS EEO Class Survey
This survey was sent via Priority Mail with Delivery Confirmation to about 26,000 potentially eligible postal employees nationwide. It’s due back December 15th.
A little background on the case:
Edmond Walker, a Temporary Rural Carrier Relief, filed a class complaint alleging that discriminatory acts had been continuing for a class of disabled permanent rehabilitation employees in the Postal Service. The EEOC Administrative Judge certified the class. note: The Walker case is sort of a spinoff of the Glover/Albrecht EEO class action.
Edmond C. Walker, the class agent in the Walker class action, filed a complaint on August 19, 2002. Walker alleged that, since April 2000, the Postal Service discriminated against individuals with disabilities by:
1. Placing disabled individuals in permanent rehabilitation positions without engaging in the interactive process as required by law;
2. Restricting disabled individuals who are placed in permanent rehabilitation [sic] to limited work hours without any medical justification and without consulting the individual with a disability;
3. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to work the number of hours determined appropriate by the individual and his/her physician and which are available; and
4. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to use assistive devices in the workplace to accommodate their disabilities, including but not limited to, electric scooters, notwithstanding that said assistive devices pose no threat to safety or inconvenient [sic] in the workplace.
This claim has been analyzed to include denial of overtime.
Edmond Walker EEO Class Survey (PDF)
EEO Complaint Alleges Postal Police Officers Denied USPS Paid Benefit Offered To Postal Inspectors
Filed under: eeo, postal, postal inspectors, postal news, postal police, usps
Did USPS properly addressed a Postal Police Officer’s class claim allegation that she was discriminated against because the USPS does not offer self-referral counseling to its Postal Police Officers?
In a complaint dated June 22, 2008, a Postal Police Officer (PPO) in USPS’s Los Angeles Post Office in Pasadena, California maintained that she was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race, national origin, sex (female), religion, color, disability, age, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity [under Title VII] when, on April 15, 2008, she was made aware that Postal Inspectors are provided with self-referral counseling, which she alleges, has a disparate impact on Postal Police Officers nationwide. The PPO explained that she experienced job related P.T.S.D., when she returned to duty after a near fatal job-related car accident, and had to utilize public health care facilities through her HMO. However the program offered to Postal Inspectors is paid for by USPS. The PPO is seeking a class complaint concerning this issue. Read more
Appeals Court Upholds Firing of Acting Postal Supervisor (204B) For Timecard Fraud
Acting Postal Supervisor was terminated for falsifying timecard but not his female boss (Postmaster)
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 . 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 Wilcher was issued a Notice of Removal. After a grievance filed by the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) , a three-day arbitration hearing and two formal complaints filed with the EEOC, his removal was upheld. The District and Appeals Courts upheld Wilcher’s removal finding no discrimination. Read more
USPS Settles Class Action Discrimination Lawsuit Filed For Disabled Veterans
According to Hill vs Potter : Clarence Hill filed a class complaint alleging that the Postal Service discriminated against him and all disabled veteran applicants by making improper pre-employment medical inquiries. On February 18, 2011, Judge Davi named Corey Baskerville, Zedrick Jenkins,and Frank Vander Haar as additional Class Agents. Clarence Hill has not agreed to the settlement as yet. His objections to the settlement agreement will be the subject of a separate post. Read more
New Regulations On ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Broadens Definition Of Disability
On March 25, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new regulations governing the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The regulations greatly broaden the definition of “disability” under the ADAAA, making clear that to “substantially” limit a major life activity, an impairment need not be “significantly” or “severely” limiting, as was previously established by Supreme Court precedent. Among other things, the list of impairments has been expanded to best define what it means to be disabled. Conditions covered include autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. Employers now have fewer than 60 days until the new regulations become effective on May 24, 2011. . Read more
Class Action EEO Pending For USPS Improperly Requiring “Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations”
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
Postal Workers Class Action EEOC Cases Against USPS
Filed under: eeo, legal cases, postal, postal employees, usps
The following are summaries of some class action EEOC cases pending and/or settled against USPS.
John Cyncar vs USPS
In the first class action case, complainant John Cyncar on April 30, 2001 filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that he was discriminated against in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., (Rehabilitation Act). Cyncar then moved to have portions of his complaint certified as a class action. He alleged, on behalf of the class, that the Postal Service’s Western Area Region violated the Rehabilitation Act when it treated qualified individuals with disabilities between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2002 differently and less favorably than non-disabled individuals with respect to benefits provided by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and that the Postal Service’s treatment of disabled employees with respect to the FMLA resulted in failure to accommodate their disabilities and the discriminatory issuance of disability related absences. An EEOC Administrative Judge certified the class and letters were sent out to 49,000 potential class members . The USPS denied that it violated the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA, or that it did anything wrong. Regardless, the parties agreed to settle this Case on Dec 22, 2010. The parties decided to settled this case due to in part that Phases of the litigation would possibly take up to 5 or 6 more years (the case was already 8 years old). Cyncar v. United States Postal Service.
The settlement provided that USPS will pay, in full settlement of all claims in this Case:
The total sum of three-million-eight-hundred-fifty-thousand-dollars ($3,850,000)
This sum is comprised of: (1) a Class Fund of two-million-seven-hundred-thousand-dollars ($2,700,000); (2) two-hundred-thousand-dollars ($200,000) as a Reserve, as described in Section 7.3 of the Global Settlement Agreement; and (3) payment of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel in the amount of nine-hundred-fifty-thousand-dollars ($950,000).
From the Class Fund of $2,700,000.00, the following amounts are allocated as follows:
a) $20,000.00 to Class Agent Cyncar for his efforts throughout the course of the litigation;
b) $3,500.00 per person for each of the eight members of the Cyncar Settlement Committee; and
c) The payment of $9,783.54 as reimbursement for costs contributed by Class members
A provision that unclaimed funds would be divided equally between the USPS and the Wounded Warriors Fund.
All amounts remaining in the Reserve after payment of all Administrative Costs would be divided among eligible class members on apro rata basis.
Next case
Diana Pevoteaux v. United States Postal Service
The proposed class complaint alleges that the agency discriminated against class members when medical information was posted in the eRMS and made available to all personnel with access to the system in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, it is alleged that the Postal Service is violating the Rehabilitation Act restrictions on the storage of confidential medical information by entering medical conditions and histories, including symptoms, diagnoses, or conditions, in the case comments section of FMLA Data Reports maintained in eRMS (Enterprise Resource Management System). It also alleged that the Postal Service is violating the Rehabilitation Act by disclosing this stored medical conditions and histories through eRMS to managers and supervisors who do not need the information to provide accommodations or to ensure medical restrictions are followed. This case is still pending.
Sandra McConnell vs USPS
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 AJ certification decision recited evidence that the goal of NRP was to assign work to employees who had an approved compensable injury as determined by the Department of Labor.
Class members argued one or more of the following complaints:
1. NRP is a systemic attempt to abolish reasonable accommodations agency wide.
2. The agency’s alleged facially non-discriminatory policy is being applied in a discriminatory manner.
3. The process constitutes denial(s) of reasonable accommodation.
4. The process constitutes discrimination based on disability (physical/mental).
5. The process constitutes unlawful harassment and hostile work environment based on disability (physical/mental).
6. The agency unlawfully modified or terminated each person’s approved disability accommodations without cause.
7. The agency made its reassignment decisions improperly by, inter alia, failing to engage in the interactive process.
8. The agency applied the program discriminatorily both with regard to each individual and how the process was applied.
9. The agency’s actions are retaliatory for the individual’s protected conduct, in reporting injuries, filing worker’s compensation, and/or prior EEO activity.
10. The agency’s conduct violated its procedures and OWCP’s regulations and blatant failure to follow the agency’s own regulations is presumed to be motivated by retaliation and/or discrimination. This case is still pending.
Edmund Walker vs USPS
Edmond C. Walker, the class agent in the Walker class action, filed a complaint on August 19, 2002. Walker alleged that, since April 2000, the Postal Service discriminated against individuals with disabilities by:
1. Placing disabled individuals in permanent rehabilitation positions without engaging in the interactive process as required by law;
2. Restricting disabled individuals who are placed in permanent rehabilitation [sic] to limited work hours without any medical justification and without consulting the individual with a disability;
3. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to work the number of hours determined appropriate by the individual and his/her physician and which are available; and
4. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to use assistive devices in the workplace to accommodate their disabilities, including but not limited to, electric scooters, notwithstanding that said assistive devices pose no threat to safety or inconvenient [sic] in the workplace.
This claim has been analyzed to include denial of overtime.
On December 12, 2003, an EEOC Administrative Judge issued a decision concerning the Walker class complaint. The Administrative Judge ordered the Postal Service to “identify all those pending complaints that raise the same issue as the Walker class complaint during the time frame encompassed by the Walker class complaint, January 1, 2000, to the present.” Unsure of status of this case.
There are several more EEOC class actions cases filed by Postal Workers which I will post at a later time.
Postal Manager Can Pursue Discrimination Lawsuit Under Equal Pay Act
Female Postal Manager also claims she earned a pay-scale level that does not offer annual leave carry-over, paid life insurance, fully paid health insurance or survivor benefits.
A Native American woman can amend her discrimination complaint against the United States Postal Service over claims that the company paid a higher salary to a man with similar job duties, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled. Beverly Martin started working for USPS in 1981, and over the years worked her way up the ranks to become program manger. From 2004 until 2008 Martin headed the office’s National Performance Assessment program in the Field Operations Requirements and Planning division. In March of 2008 USPS promoted a co-worker named Thomas Henry to division manager, a position for which Martin had also applied. She filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission because she believes that Henry was hired based on his gender. Martin says that although she practically shared the same job responsibilities as Henry, he was paid more by USPS.”Plaintiff alleges that, because of Mr. Henry’s gender, he received greater compensation for performing job duties substantially similar to those that Plaintiff performed,” the ruling, filed Jan. 26 states.
Here’s some other legal information on the case:
On January 26, 2011 Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected USPS’’ motion to dismiss postal manager Beverly Martin’s pay discrimination claim. Judge Williams’ decision rejected USPS’s argument that the recent Supreme Court “Iqbal and Twombly” decisions effectively required Ms. Martin to prove her Equal Pay Act case outright in order to survive a motion to dismiss. In particular, Judge Williams held that Ms. Martin properly alleged that the actual job duties she and the male comparator performed in their respective positions, and not their formal job titles, controlled whether or not they could be compared for pay discrimination analysis. Judge Williams also ruled that the fact that the male comparator did the job after Ms. Martin was no bar to Ms. Martin’s Equal Pay Act claims.
Here ares excerpts from her complaint filed February 11, 2011:
Plaintiff Beverly A. Martin has worked for the U.S. Postal Service since January 1981, in a variety of positions of increasing responsibility and compensation levels.
Beginning November, 2004, until March 28, 2008, Ms. Martin held the position of Program Manager for the National Performance Assessment (“NPA”) program in the Field Operations Requirements and Planning (“FORP”) division at USPS. Ms. Martin’s position was ranked as an “EAS 25,” and beginning 2004 she was paid a salary of $80,902 as set out in USPS schedules for managers at that level. Her annual pay for the NPA program manager position was $89,194 in 2004-2005; $98,336 in 2006; and $103,207 in 2007.
From November 2004 until July 2005, Ms. Martin also held the temporary position of Acting Manager, FORP, on a “detail,” but at the same, lower compensation level of an EAS-25. Ms. Martin’s duties as Acting Manager, FORP encompassed oversight responsibility for six to 14 different programs in FORP, only one of which was the NPA program. Ms. Martin’s responsibilities as Acting Manager also included oversight of the NPA Program Manager, and supervision of several other staff working on thirteen (13) other programs.
Ms. Naoma Bourdon, also female, served as Manager, FORP from July, 2005 until February 29, 2008. Ms. Bourdon was Ms. Martin’s first line supervisor during that time, except
during Ms. Martin’s eight month tenure as Acting Manager. Ms. Bourdon’s duties as Manager, FORP encompassed oversight responsibility for six to 14 different programs in FORP, only one of which was the NPA program. Ms. Bourdon retired from the position effective February 29, 2008. On information and belief, Ms. Bourdon was paid at the PCES-1 level throughout her tenure as Manager, FORP.
The USPS named Mr. Thomas Henry, a white Male, as Acting Manager, FORP, effective March 1, 2008. Ms. Martin does not have knowledge of Mr. Henry’s annual pay during his four month tenure as Acting Manager, FORP.
The USPS named Mr. Henry Manager, FORP, on July 5, 2008. Ms. Martin also applied for the position, but was not selected. Ms. Martin filed a formal EEO complaint of discrimination against the USPS based on her non-selection on or about October 6, 2008.
Ms. Martin continued to serve as NPA Program Manager during Mr. Henry’s first month as acting Manager, FORP. Her last day as NPA Program Manager was March 28, 2008. Her last rate of pay as NPA Program Manager in 2008 at the EAS-25 scale was $105,088.00. Her previous annual pay for the NPA Program Manager was $89,194 in 2004-2005; $98,336 in 2006; and $103,207 in 2007.
Identical Duties
Ms. Martin’s duties as the NPA program manager from 2004-2008 were detailed in her annual statement of “goals” included in her annual performance evaluations. Ms. Martin had complete management and oversight of the NPA program including officer briefings; planning, development, and implementation; oversight of NPA staff and contractors; and hiring and performance reviews of NPA staff.
Mr. Henry’s 2008 new goals, both as Acting and as Executive Manager, FORP, were nearly identical to, or encompassed fewer responsibilities than, the goals and duties set out for Ms. Martin as Program Manager for the NPA program between 2005 and 2008. In particular, Mr. Henry’s new goals as Manager, FORP show that his main and only responsibility as Manager, FORP was management and oversight of the NPA program. Ms. Martin’s main responsibility as Program Manager for the NPA program from 2004 to 2008 was also the management and oversight of the NPA program.
Pay Disparity
Beginning July 25, 2008, and continuing to the present, although Mr. Henry’s duties as Manager, FORP, were far fewer than Ms. Bourdon’s had encompassed, and essentially identical to Ms. Martin’s duties as NPA program manager, USPS compensated Mr. Henry at the higher-ranked and better paid PCES-1 level. As of July 25, 2008, Mr. Henry’s PCES-1 salary was $115, 596.80.
Mr. Henry held the position of Manager, FORP, from July 25, 2008 through July, 2010, when he was selected for another USPS managerial position. As of July 25, 2008, Mr. Henry’s PCES-1 salary was $115,596.80, or more than $10,000 per year higher than Ms. Martin’s last annual pay as NPA program manager. In addition, as a PCES-1, Mr. Henry was eligible for benefits including 128 additional hours annual leave carry-over; fully paid life insurance; fully paid health insurance; and survivor benefits, all of which are estimated to increase the value of his compensation package to $129,327.18.
As further detailed in 17 through 20, below, Ms. Martin’s received a discriminatory, lower salary as an EAS-25 Program manager for doing PCES-1 work beginning 2004, when she was paid an annual salary of $89,194. The pay discrimination continued through 2006 ($98,336); 2007 ($103,027), and 2008 ($105,088). In addition, Ms. Martin’s EAS-25 level compensation package from 2004 through 2008 did not include the additional PCES-1 benefits enumerated in paragraph 15; including the annual leave carry-over; paid life insurance; fully paid health insurance; or survivor benefits. Ms. Martin therefore seeks back pay in an amount more than $10,000.
The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $31,716 in 2005. Ms. Martin’s 2005 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $89,194.
The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $34,093 in 2006. Ms. Martin’s 2006 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $98,336.
The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $37,203 in 2007. Ms. Martin’s 2007 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $103,207.
The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $48,670 in 2008. Ms. Martin’s 2008 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $105,088.
Ms. Martin also seeks the additional value of the 5% Thrift savings match which she would have received had she been compensated at the PCES-1 level. Ms. Martin is covered by the FERS retirement system and contributed the maximum allowed each year from 2004 through 2008. USPS contributed the 5% match to Ms. Martin’s Thrift savings plan in each of those years.