Seattle Police Pose as Mail Carriers And Can Lie to Suspects Legally
This Seattle Times police blog article presents two controversial issues:
Seattle police say they sometimes pose as mail carriers. How do mail carriers feel about being put at risk this way? Does the Postal Service know about this police practice and approve its use?
In some undercover operations, officers pose as utility workers, mail carriers or package delivery people. Police also lie in some interrogation scenarios and can do so legally.
The US Supreme Court has said law enforcement officers can lie during interrogations of suspects (Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 [1969]) and when working undercover. Postal employees should remember this when being interrogated and take what they are told with a grain of salt. Always ask for a steward. If offered an attorney, take it.
Don Cheney
Auburn WA
Supreme Court Rules More Than 500 NLRB Cases Will Have To Be Reopened
Court: 2-Person Labor Board Can’t Make Decisions – ABC News:
More than 500 decisions by the leading federal agency that referees disputes between labor and management will have to be reopened after the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the five-member board had operated illegally when its membership dwindled to two.
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling in which the court’s leading liberal — retiring Justice John Paul Stevens — sided with the court’s four most conservative members, said the law does not allow the National Labor Relations Board to operate while it is short-staffed because of political arguments.
Supreme Court Rules For Postal Worker in Retaliation Case
Myrna Gomez-Perez was a window distribution clerk for the USPS. In November 2002, she requested a transfer from a position at the Moca, Puerto Rico Post Office to a position at the Dorado, Puerto Rico Post Office–but Gomez-Perez’s supervisor denied that request. She filed an equal employment opportunity complaint with the USPS, alleging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of age. Gomez-Perez alleged that after she filed that complaint, she was subjected to various forms of retaliation.
From The Associateed Press
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a major anti-age bias law protects federal employees who faced retaliation after complaining about discrimination. The court ruled 6-3 that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The case involves Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker in Puerto Rico who alleged she was being discriminated against because of her age. Gomez-Perez, who was then 45, said that after she filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, she suffered a “series of reprisals” from her supervisors.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a major anti-age bias law protects federal employees who faced retaliation after complaining about discrimination.
The court ruled 6-3 that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The law does specifically bar reprisals against private sector employees who complain about discrimination. But it is silent as to federal workers. Justice Samuel Alito said the law indeed does apply to both categories of employees.
The case involves Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker in Puerto Rico who alleged she was being discriminated against because of her age. Gomez-Perez, who was then 45, said that after she filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, she suffered a “series of reprisals” from her supervisors.
Gomez-Perez sued under the ADEA, claiming retaliation in violation of the law.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a lower court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.
The Bush administration, which is backing workers in other age bias cases at the high court, said the ADEA does not afford federal workers protection from retaliation. It said Congress could have extended protections to federal workers, but didn’t.
Supreme Court to Hear Postal Worker’s Retaliation Case
Myrna Gómez-Pérez, a window distribution clerk from Puerto Rico, filed a lawsuit in District Court claiming that the U.S. Postal Service retaliated against her because she filed an equal employment opportunity complaint with her employer alleging discrimination on the basis of age.
The District Court ruled in favor of USPS holding that “the United States had not waived its immunity from suit for retaliation claims.”
The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not provide a cause of action for retaliation by federal employees.
Applying ADEA Section 15 (29 USC Section 633a), the First Circuit reasoned that the statutory prohibition against “discrimination” does not include a prohibition against retaliation.
The attorneys for the USPS argued (in its petition against certifying this case to the Supreme Court)
The CSRA excludes many USPS employees from its protections. But those employees are protected against retaliation by USPS regulations and collective bargaining agreements. The Postal Service ELM prohibits “any action, event, or course of conduct that * * * subjects any person to reprisal for prior involvement in EEO ac tivity.” ELM § 665.23, at 688. That prohibition applies to employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement as well as those who do not. See, e.g., Agreement Between the USPS and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union art. 19 (2000) (Mail Handlers Agreement) <http://www.npmhu.org/Resource/Agreement/ USPSNPMHU2000NationalAgreement.pdf>; Harrell v. USPS, 445 F.3d 913, 922-923 (7th Cir), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 845 (2006). Employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement also are protected from discipline that is not “for just cause,” and retaliation for filing an ADEA claim would not constitute just cause. See Mail Handlers Agreement art. 16; USPS & American Postal Workers Union, National Collective Bargaining Agreement art. XVI (July 20, 1971) <http://www.apwu.org/dept/ind-rel/sc/oldcbas/ APWU%20Contract%201971-1973.pdf>.
In granting certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to address whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.A. 633a, prohibits retaliation against employees who complain of age discrimination.
Background
Myrna Gomez-Perez was a window distribution clerk for the USPS. In November 2002, she requested a transfer from a position at the Moca, Puerto Rico Post Office to a position at the Dorado, Puerto Rico Post Office–but Gomez-Perez’s supervisor denied that request. She filed an equal employment opportunity complaint with the USPS, alleging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of age. Gomez-Perez alleged that after she filed that complaint, she was subjected to various forms of retaliation.
Related link: Postal Employees Know Your Rights -
From Don Cheney: the clerk asked for a transfer to another post office 69 miles away (about a 1 hour 15 minute drive according to my Microsoft Streets & Trips) to be closer to her mother. The mother was ill and needed help. Apparently this clerk had never heard of FMLA leave! To her surprise the former post office wouldn’t take her back one month later. In fact her FTR duty assignment was reverted and filled with a PTF. This happens everywhere and is not unusual.
What IS surprising to me is that her attorney failed to cite the agency’s own regulations in her appeal and instead relied solely on the ADEA statute itself. Big mistake! ELM 665.23, 666.12b, 666.17 and 672.1d all prohibit reprisal in the USPS for protected activities. ELM 672.1d specifically includes the ADEA! The lesson here is that employees should become more informed and take the time to read their union magazine, the ELM or even the posters on their bulletin boards.
Note: Gomez-Perez’s attorney, Sidley Austin also represented former Postal Official Azeezaly Jaffer.