Retired Postal Worker Fights To Get Job Back After 20 Years
Filed under: Injured On Duty, legal cases, postal, postal news, usps
Charles Johnson worked for the United States Postal Service from 1960 until he accepted an early retirement offer on November 20, 1992, at age 52. The following is from the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit and the MSPB.
In March 2010, Mr. Johnson asked to be restored to employment with the Postal Service. The Postal Service denied his request on the ground that Mr. Johnson had voluntarily retired and had not been separated from his position as a result of a compensable injury. Mr. Johnson appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. After considering evidence from Mr. Johnson on the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction over the appeal, the administrative judge who was assigned to the case held that his appeal was barred by claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Read more
Postal Manager’s Demotion for Dropping His Pants Upheld
Filed under: legal cases, postal, postal managers, postal news
The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit ruled against former EAS-24 Postal Manager for unacceptable conduct.
Natty joined the Postal Service in 1990. By June 2010, he served as an EAS-24 Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO), supervising a total workforce of 130 employees, including six subordinate supervisors. On June 19, 2010, the agency demoted Natty to a PS-04 Part-Time Flex Mail Handler based on a finding of unacceptable conduct. Natty appealed his demotion and the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) found that Natty’s comments about race and sex, and the intentional dropping of his pants, supported the unacceptable conduct charge. Natty v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. SF-0752-10-0847-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 29, 2010). The AJ also found the agency’s action timely and Natty’s demotion to a non-managerial position within the agency’s discretion. Id. The AJ’s decision became the final decision of the Board after the Board denied Natty’s petition for review. Natty v. U. S. Postal Serv., No. SF-0752-10-0847-I-1 (M.S.P.B. May 6, 2011). Natty timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). Read more
Pennsylvania Mail Contractor Charged With Making False Claims Mileage Against USPS
Filed under: legal cases, postal, postal news, press releases, usdoj, usps
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of Pittsburgh, Pa., has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges of making false claims against the United States Postal Service, United States Attorney David J. Hickton announced today.
The seven-count indictment named David Cooper, 62, as the sole defendant.
According to the indictment, from on or about Sept. 3, 2009, to on or about Sept. 25, 2009, Cooper, who had a mail hauling contract with the United States Postal Service, made seven false claims against the Postal Service by submitting claims for mileage that neither he nor his employees drove.
The law provides for a maximum total sentence of 35 years in prison, a fine of $1,750,000, or both. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.
Assistant United States Attorney Lee J. Karl is prosecuting this case on behalf of the United States.
The United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General conducted the investigation leading to the indictment in this case.
An indictment or information is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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
Appeals Court Upholds Firing Of Letter Carrier Who Refused To Work Saturdays For Religious Reasons
Decision from the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, March 31, 2011
The accommodation requested by Harrell that he be given every Saturday as a scheduled day off would have violated the CBA, and the USPS was therefore not required under Title VII to grant Harrell’s request. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS, and we affirm.
Hosea Harrell is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and a former employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS). After being fired from his position with the post office in Warrensburg, Missouri, Harrell brought suit against the Postmaster General, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., (Title VII) for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate as well as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., (RFRA). The district court2 granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS, and we affirm.
At all times relevant to this appeal, the Warrensburg Post Office was responsible for seven “bid routes” that required approximately eight hours to complete and one “auxiliary route” that took between five to eight hours to complete. To cover these routes Monday through Saturday, the Warrensburg Post Office employed seven full-time letter carriers, a full-time letter carrier technician, and three part-time flexible letter carriers.3 A minimum of seven letter carriers was required each day to complete the routes. Each full-time letter carrier was assigned to one of the bid routes with the technician and part-time letter carriers filling in on the various bid routes and the auxiliary route as needed.
According to a seniority system used by the Warrensburg Post Office, the six most junior full-time letter carriers and the technician had rotating schedules, working five days a week with every Sunday off and another rotating day off. As a result, each letter carrier with a rotating schedule was scheduled to be off work approximately every sixth Saturday. The only full-time letter carrier without a rotating schedule was the most senior letter carrier, who worked Monday through Friday with weekends off.
Many other scheduling details at the Warrensburg Post Office were expressly controlled by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the National Association of Letter Carriers—the union for city letter carriers working for the USPS—and the USPS. For example, the CBA controlled the process by which annual leave was granted. During “choice” vacation months,4 annual leave was awarded under a bidding system whereas annual leave outside the “choice” vacation months was awarded on a first-come basis. The CBA also permitted an employee to request “leave without pay” but did not specify the process by which the USPS granted such requests. Rather, according to the USPS Employee and Labor Relations Manual, leave without pay was granted at the discretion of the USPS, considering the needs of the employee, the needs of the USPS, and the cost to the USPS.
In November 2006, Harrell submitted a written request to James Carothers, Supervisor of Customer Services for the Warrensburg Post Office, requesting a religious accommodation to have every Saturday off because working at any time between sundown Friday to sundown Saturday conflicted with his religious beliefs as a Seventh-day Adventist. In January 2007, Harrell, Carothers, and a union representative met to discuss Harrell’s request. During this meeting, Harrell rejected the proposition that he be given leave for part of the day on Saturdays to attend church services and insisted that the only acceptable accommodation was that he receive every Saturday off. In February 2007, Carothers and Rick Hudson, Postmaster for the Warrensburg Post Office, asked each full-time letter carrier whether they would be willing to give up any of their non-scheduled Saturdays to accommodate another letter carrier. Each declined.
Shortly thereafter, Harrell submitted another written request for religious accommodation directly to Hudson. This request led to another meeting with Hudson, Carothers, and Harrell to discuss how the USPS could accommodate Harrell’s request. At this meeting, Hudson and Carothers told Harrell he could attempt to swap scheduled days off with other letter carriers. Additionally, Harrell was asked whether he was willing to make a lateral transfer to another office or to a different position within the USPS. Shortly after this meeting, Harrell informed Hudson and Carothers that he would not accept the options they suggested. Harrell also reiterated his position that the only satisfactory accommodation was that he be given every Saturday off and that he preferred to not use annual leave or leave without pay to achieve this accommodation.
On March 21, 2008, Harrell filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint with the USPS claiming he was discriminated against because of his religion when he received the three disciplinary suspensions. On July 24, 2008, the USPS issued a final decision denying Harrell’s claims and concluding that “the evidence does not support a finding that the complainant was subject to discrimination as alleged.” Harrell subsequently filed this action, claiming the USPS violated Title VII by discriminating against him because of his religion and by failing to accommodate his religious beliefs. Harrell also claimed the USPS violated RFRA by infringing on his ability to practice his religion without showing a compelling reason for doing so.
The district court granted the USPS’s motion for summary judgment. First, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS on Harrell’s Title VII religious discrimination claim because, even assuming Harrell had proved a prima facie case for religious discrimination, the USPS had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for disciplining and ultimately firing Harrell when he failed to work his scheduled Saturday shifts. Second, the court also granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS on Harrell’s failure to accommodate claim because the court concluded the USPS would suffer an undue hardship if it was required to accommodate Harrell’s request. Third, the district court concluded Harrell could not bring an action under RFRA because Title VII is the exclusive remedy for a federal employee’s claim of employment discrimination. Harrell appeals the district court’s ruling only with respect to his Title VII failure to accommodate claim and his RFRA claim.
Harrell Vs U.S. Postal Service
Minnesota Postal carrier indicted for stealing cash and gift cards from mail
The following is a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota:
A federal indictment, unsealed earlier today in St. Paul, charges a postal carrier with stealing approximately $4,000 in cash and gift cards from the mail she delivered.
The indictment, which was filed on March 16, 2011, charges Michelle Lynn Bressette, age 43, of Jordan, with one count of theft of mail by postal employee. The indictment was unsealed following Bressette’s initial appearance in federal court. The indictment alleges that from December of 2009 through October 21, 2010, Bressette, an employee of the Prior Lake Post Office, stole money and gift cards from the mail.
If convicted, Bressette faces a potential maximum penalty of five years in prison. All sentences will be determined by a federal district court judge. This case is the result of an
investigation by the United States Postal Service-Office of Inspector General. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Deidre Y. Aanstad.
An indictment is a determination by a grand jury that there is probable cause to believe that offenses have been committed by a defendant. A defendant, of course, is presumed innocent until he or she pleads guilty or is proven guilty at trial.
USPS Tests Are Secret Under FOIA
An applicant rejected for hire as an Electronic Technician, PS-11 was denied the right to visually review his test documents. The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania wrote:
Plaintiff attempts to concoct a “scenario” to circumvent said exemptions. Plaintiff states that he “does dispute that the cited law [by the USPS] totally preclude[s] the Plaintiff’s right to seek a review of the test given and answers made to it by the Plaintiff.” To that end, Plaintiff suggests that he be permitted to review the documents in camera, with an appropriate court officer, “with no capability of the Plaintiff to copy or otherwise reproduce the very information he requested.” This, Plaintiff believes, would provide him with “his day in court” while still preserving the USPS’s testing protocols without the fear of compromise. Plaintiff cites no law for this “scenario” and I find no support in the law for it either. Permitting a review of the documents visually is, in essence, the same result as producing the document in hard copy. Consequently, I find that dismissal is warranted.
Here is some background from the case:
Thomas J. Donegan registered with the USPS to undergo an examination to determine his eligibility for hire as an “Electronic Technician, PS-11.”. The test was administered on June 11, 2008. Donegan did not pass the test and sought to see the test results as part of a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, (“FOIA”) request. Donegan’s FOIA request was denied. As a result, Donegan filed the “Complaint for Injunctive Relief” against USPS for violation of the FOIA for wrongful withholding of agency records seeking the immediate release of the test, results and the correct answers. (ECF No. 1).
USPS filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint arguing that the records were properly withheld pursuant to Exemptions 2, 3 and 5 of the FOIA. (ECF Nos. 5 and 6).
court footnote: Exemption 2 authorizes an agency to refuse a FOIA request when the materials sought relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(2). Exemption 3 authorizes an agency to refuse a FOIA request when the materials sought are expressly exempted from disclosure by another statute. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3). Exemption 5 authorizes an agency to refuse a FOIA request when the materials sought are inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5).
The USPS asserted that the documents were properly withheld pursuant to Exemptions 2, 3 and 5.2 (ECF No. 6). In response, Donegan stated:
The Defendant has provided to this Honorable Court a Brief with supporting law that in essence tells this court that the information requested does not have to be provided to the Plaintiff because it is specifically exempted as a personnel record, is exempted specifically by statute and is specifically exempted as privilege information.
In candor to this tribunal, Plaintiff does not through counsel dispute that the law cited by the Defendant is appropriately provided to the court….
In essence, therefore, Plaintiff does not dispute that the documents were properly withheld pursuant to the Exemptions. I agree. See, Kaganove v. E.P.A., 856 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1988)(rating plan of EPA was held exempt under FOIA because it would allow future applicants to embellish job qualifications); Patton v. FBI, 626 F.Supp. 445 (M.D. Pa. 1985)(holding testing material falls within §552(b)(2) FOIA exemption); Robinett v. U.S.P.S., No. Civ. A. 02-1094, 2002 WL 1728582 (E.D. La. July 24, 2002)(information concerning criteria that postal service used to evaluate job applications was exempt from disclosure under the Postal Reorganization Act and therefore falls within Exemption 3); Lewis v. E.P.A., Civ. A. No. 06-2660, 2006 WL 3227787, *4 (E.D. Pa. 2006)(holding documents designed to assist in employee election process fall within Exemption 5 of FOIA). As a result, I find that the USPS properly withheld the documents pursuant to Exemption 2, 3 and 5.
THOMAS J. DONEGAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
United States District Court, Western District, Pennsylvania.
Opinion filed: March 17, 2011
Postal Supervisor Loses Lawsuit on Hostile Work Environment
Filed under: legal cases, owcp, postal, postal news, postal supervisors, usps
Postal Supervisor Claimed A Hostile Work Environment aggravated his medical condition and USPS failed to investigate.
The following facts are based upon the allegations in John Pell’s amended complaint filed in the United States District Court and information from the EEOC case.
Pell is a former employee of the USPS who worked at the Framingham, Massachusetts Post Office. In 2003, while employed as a supervisor at the USPS, Pell was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and a psychiatric condition called Transient Global Amnesia (“TGA”). After these initial diagnoses, he remained out of work until his doctors released him to return to work. Pell’s doctors allowed him to return to work in 2005 on the condition that the USPS provide “strict enforcement” of USPS regulations and policies in Pell’s work environment, specifically those regulations and policies that prohibited workplace threats, harassment, bullying, intimidation and that contain a “zero tolerance” policy for unacceptable levels of workplace stress. Pell claims that he sought such “strict enforcement” as a “reasonable accommodation” [under the Rehabilitation Act] of his condition to enable him to perform the essential duties of his job. From the time he returned to work at some point in 2005 until September 5, 2006, Pell alleges the USPS strictly enforced USPS regulations and policies in his work environment and as a result he was able to perform all of the essential functions of his job.
However, on September 5, 2006, Framingham Postmaster William Harris approached Pell at the beginning of his shift, accused Pell of sexual harassment, and told him he had three choices: (1) accept a demotion; (2) transfer out of the Framingham Post Office; or (3) “I’ll throw you out.” Pell alleges that Harris’ conduct towards him violated USPS regulations and policies against bullying, harassment, threats, and intimidation. As a result of Harris’ conduct towards him, Pell suffered a TGA episode, left the workplace and has not returned to work since that day. He has since retired from the USPS.
Pell was unhappy with the USPS’s handling of his complaint about the September 5, 2006 incident. Pell alleges that, in connection with a worker’s compensation claim he filed when he was out of work, Harris completed two forms related to the September 5, 2006 incident that were inconsistent and incomplete. Pell also claims that Harris failed to investigate the September 5, 2006 incident fully because he did not interview Pell or other witnesses. Pell further alleges that he requested that Harris be investigated for violating USPS policies and regulations in connection with the September 5, 2006 incident, but that USPS District Manager John Powers chose not to do so. In early 2008, Pell reported Harris’ violations of USPS policies and regulations to USPS Northeast Area Vice President Haney , but Haney refused to investigate Harris’ conduct and refused to refer the alleged violations to the Office of the Inspector General .
Pell sought EEO counseling on March 31, 2008 — nearly a year and a half after the alleged September 5, 2006 incident of discrimination. In contacting the EEO, Pell indicated that the date of the alleged discriminatory incident was March 4, 2008 — the date Pell became aware that Haney would not refer the alleged violations of USPS policies and regulations to OIG.
After receiving the EEO notice of right to file a formal complaint on June 23, 2008, Pell filed a complaint with the EEO on July 8, 2008. On July 28, 2008, the EEO dismissed Pell’s complaint for two reasons: (1) failure to state a claim because the Department of Labor is the proper forum to address the basis of Pell’s then pending worker’s compensation claim; and (2) untimely EEO counselor contact because Pell failed to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the September 5, 2006 incident.
Pell then timely appealed the dismissal of his EEO complaint to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations. The OFO upheld the Postal Service’s dismissal:
The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on another proceeding. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993).
In this matter, we find that the instant complaint is a collateral attack on a proceeding before the Department of Labor, and the proper forum for complainant to raise any challenges regarding the agency’s
improper investigation of his injury is during that proceeding itself. The Commission agrees with the agency that complainant fails to state claim. See Hannon v. Treasury, Request No. 05A01149 (May 8, 2003).
After a review of the record, including statements and arguments not addressed herein, based on the reasons above, we find that the agency properly dismissed the complaint.
Reading the allegations in the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Pell, his claim is likewise barred by the Rehabilitation Act’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Pell alleges that Harris’ conduct on September 5, 2006 amounted to discrimination based on Pell’s psychiatric disability and caused Pell to suffer a recurrence of his TGA, forcing him to leave the workplace that very day. Like the plaintiff in Roman-Martinez who was required to contact the EEO counselor within 30 days of the alleged discriminatory actions, Pell was required to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the September 5, 2006 incident.2 It is uncontested that Pell failed to contact an EEO counselor within this required 45 day period and, therefore, his claim is barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Pell does not argue that Haney’s March 4, 2008 denial of any further investigation of the September 5, 2006 incident constituted a new discriminatory action and thus became the triggering event for commencing EEO procedures nor would such argument be plausible on the basis of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. The Supreme Court has held, “the time for filing a charge of employment discrimination with the [EEOC] begins when the discriminatory act occurs . . . . A new violation does not occur, and a charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.” Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618, 628 (2007) (superceded on other grounds by Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5). “[T]he proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts become the most painful.”
Even read in the light most favorable to Pell, March 4, 2008 was the date on which he learned that the USPS would not further investigate or refer his claim that the September 5, 2006 incident was discriminatory. That is, the September 5, 2006 allegedly discriminatory act triggered Pell’s obligation to contact the EEO
Having ruled that this matter must be dismissed because of Pell’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court need not reach Defendants’ further argument that dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is also warranted because he has failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination based on a disability.
John Pell vs JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, March 1, 2011
Court: NALC Must Go To Arbitration To Enforce Grievance Settlements With USPS
The problem of USPS ignoring their settlement agreements is a big one. Courts, like the one below, are mandating that unions take their disputes to arbitration before asking for enforcement in court, even when the dispute has already been settled multiple times! Unions have to take their disputes all the way to arbitration or the courts won’t enforce them. The NLRB has taken the same position. More and more of the grievances I see being filed are asking for enforcement of a previous grievance settlement, such as payment of back pay. It is getting ridiculous as resolutions drag out to a year or more. Extreme cases are taking three years! Employees are growing impatient and angry and union leaders are feeling the heat.
In the case below, NALC Branch #155 (Illinois) filed a lawsuit claiming USPS had continously..
…..failed and refused to provide information requested by Branch 155 in a timely manner so that it may adequately represent its members as required by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (“NLRA”).
As a result of Defendant’s continuous and on-going usurpations of the National Agreement, Branch 155 has been forced to file multiple grievances in accordance with
the National Agreement’s grievance procedure as well as repeated unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, Region 14 (“NLRB”) against the Defendant. These unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB have been filed as far back as 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2010 for violating the collective bargaining
agreement by failing to timely provide requested information.
As a result of Defendant’s continued refusal to abide by the terms and conditions of the National Agreement, not only as against this Plaintiff herein but as against multiple other local unions affiliated with the National Letter Carriers Association across the United States, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., issued Memorandum M 03-18 recognizing the Defendant’s continued refusal to provide information and stated that in the wake of the number of reoccurring cases against the Defendant for failure to provide requested information, “all information requests should receive prompt and responsive replies…”
As a result of the Defendant’s continued refusal to abide by the terms and conditions of Articles 17.3 and 31 of the National Agreement, the memorandums of Vice President of
Labor Relations, John E. Potter and Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President (1998) , Patrick R. Donahoe (2002), as well as the covenants agreed to in Memorandum M 03-
18, Plaintiff’s members continues to suffer irreparable harm.
But the court was not persuaded by NALC’s arguments. The court ruled:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment after the complaint and answer have been filed by the parties. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c); Buchanan-Moore v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009). After reviewing the pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy a condition precedent to filing this action -specifically, it failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures established in the applicable collective bargaining agreement.1 Plaintiff did not pursue its grievances through to arbitration as required under the agreement, and the Court does not read an implied claim for into the statute governing judicial enforcement, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Plaintiff asks the Court to read the terms of the agreement and consider whether they are reasonable in light of directives issued by Defendant’s officials and manuals promulgated by the parties. But this Court cannot rewrite the parties’ agreement, and under the agreement, Plaintiff is required to arbitrate Defendant’s failure to comply with the settlement agreements.
While the Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over an action seeking judicial enforcement of a contract between the Postal Service and a labor organization, see 39 U.S.C. § 1208, once this Court determines that an issue is arbitrable and, as here, that arbitration procedures were not exhausted, it can go no farther in reviewing the dispute. See generally Niro v. Fearn Int’l Inc., 827 F.2d 173, 175-76 (7th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 30) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing its claims through the grievance process.
National Association Of Letter Carriers vs United States Postal Service, decided February 8, 2011
USPS Memos On Compliance With Arbitration Awards
New York Postal Worker Indicted On Workers Comp Fraud
SYRACUSE, New York — A former U.S. Postal Service employee from Prospect was indicted Wednesday on federal worker’s compensation charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Syracuse said.
Kimberly Morris, 36, allegedly falsely claimed that a work-related injury prevented her from performing any duties with the Postal Service between April 4 and June 3, 2010, when she knew she was capable of working. As a result, she allegedly received more than $17,362 in undeserved worker’s compensation benefits for a sprained ankle, a news release stated.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, federal agents videotaped Morris shopping, climbing stairs and driving while she was claiming to be unable to work. The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General, the release stated.
Former postal worker indicted for worker’s comp fraud | The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York