Sox Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 One other thing-people here seem to worry that I will face repercussions. Doubtful.First,that in itself is an EEO,because retaliation on an EEO is the same. Second,why would they?The PO doesn't discipline management when they screw up.They pay for management's mistakes,and rarely go after the f@qkups that commit them. The irony in all this is that many of these incompetent supervisors and managers got their positions through <drumroll> filing an EEO when they were told they weren't qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 There are light duty positions available.I was given a signed statement by a career employee today.She is 4 months pregnant with her third child,and is on light duty.She started as a casual at the post office and was hired with the PO knowing she was pregnant.She was given a light duty assignment back then.The EEO guy has the statement.She later became a career employee when her test score was reached during a hiring period. Just to be clear, you are saying there are currently light duty positions available? I don't mean that in the past there were light duty positions available, but right now. If there are light duty positions available, based upon past history, then your woman is getting screwed. That being said, if she only has a few months to go on her contract, fighting the USPS over this, probably isn't worth it, as you will effectively give up any chance she would have of getting hired full time in the future, and you could be jeopardizing your job. I know that isn't right, but it is the way that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Just to be clear, you are saying there are currently light duty positions available? I don't mean that in the past there were light duty positions available, but right now. If there are light duty positions available, based upon past history, then your woman is getting screwed. That being said, if she only has a few months to go on her contract, fighting the USPS over this, probably isn't worth it, as you will effectively give up any chance she would have of getting hired full time in the future, and you could be jeopardizing your job. I know that isn't right, but it is the way that it is. There are plenty of light duty positions available,and they aren't always by definition,"light duty".There are many areas that are understaffed.The 030 unit for example,cases letters that are unreadable by the OCR's,etc.These are the letters that are so garbled,they have to be done the old fashioned way-stuck in a case slot.It's not actually a "light duty" area.It's just an area that doesn't require heavy lifting,and she would have done her typical fine job there as well. She could have easily been placed there.They have casuals there already,and if her old unit needed a body,they could have simply swapped. Again,this was not a decision of the USPS,it was the decision of a single manager that never bothered to consult HR. We will win this.They can only argue what's on her termination paper,which is she was unable to meet her job obligations.They were even smart enough to clip the doctor's note with it,lol.She will get back pay,and probably some sort of penalty,how much,I don't know,but it won't be huge.As far as her getting a career position,this won't affect it one bit.They have to hire based upon her civil service test score and where she placed.If they skip her it's an .....EEO! LOL. I'm tired,just got home from working overtime.Night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I can imagine a few reasons why sox's complaint may not succeed. her not being an "employee" ain't one of 'em, grits. she's definitely an employee under any definition of the word I've ever seen. What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Again,this was not a decision of the USPS,it was the decision of a single manager that never bothered to consult HR. You have cited other examples of pregnant employees getting light duty asignments. Who made those decisions? Is this the fiirst time that this particular manager dealt with a situation in which an employee had a lifting restriction? Again, it has been a while since I did any work in this area of the law, but the fact that others who were pregnant were not terminated seems to hurt your case, not help it, as it suggests that your fiance was singled out for this treatment for a reason other than her pregnancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Who uses the post office nowadays anyways...besides old people afraid of computers? Just let FedEx/UPS take over already and get the Gubment out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 You have cited other examples of pregnant employees getting light duty asignments. Who made those decisions? Is this the fiirst time that this particular manager dealt with a situation in which an employee had a lifting restriction? Again, it has been a while since I did any work in this area of the law, but the fact that others who were pregnant were not terminated seems to hurt your case, not help it, as it suggests that your fiance was singled out for this treatment for a reason other than her pregnancy. Perhaps.But it doesn't matter.According to the EEO guy they can only argue what's on the termination paper,that she couldn't fulfill her job obligations.He will point out the note,which is why they terminated her,point out it states "due to the complications of pregnancy",point out they have and are still making accommodations for pregnant employees. We shall see.Today I take her in,we sit down,he helps her with it and files it.It could be settled swiftly,or it could drag on for the better part of a year. The other assignments were given by other supervisors,managers,etc.I have no idea if this is the first time this particular manager has dealt with this situation;it may well be.She's only been a manager for a little over a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Perhaps.But it doesn't matter.According to the EEO guy they can only argue what's on the termination paper,that she couldn't fulfill her job obligations.He will point out the note,which is why they terminated her,point out it states "due to the complications of pregnancy",point out they have and are still making accommodations for pregnant employees. We shall see.Today I take her in,we sit down,he helps her with it and files it.It could be settled swiftly,or it could drag on for the better part of a year. The other assignments were given by other supervisors,managers,etc.I have no idea if this is the first time this particular manager has dealt with this situation;it may well be.She's only been a manager for a little over a year. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) We will win this.They can only argue what's on her termination paper,which is she was unable to meet her job obligations.They were even smart enough to clip the doctor's note with it,lol.She will get back pay,and probably some sort of penalty,how much,I don't know,but it won't be huge. How much is the attorney going to get? Edited July 17, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 TE stands for transitional employee.They are above casuals,do get some benefits and earn more money.I've never heard of any facility not using casuals,but many stations use them as carriers to deliver the mail.But that's in my little corner here in Ohio. No, I am telling you that the entire fleet of casuals in the USPS nationwide is going bye bye. TE's are the only class going to be used other than career employees...or at least that is what my dad and three other PM's are telling me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Blitz, a casual for the USPS is an actual employee....just a different class of employee....but an employee nonetheless. FWIW Sox, just found out that as of the end of summer or right arounds there, the USPS are not going to be using any more casual employees....they are going to something called a TE and I have no idea what that is or what it means!!!!! BTW, every USPS employee....I deal with a ton of them since I am an expert on their benefits.... thinks this is a lose/lose situation for you. First off, she will never get hired....NEVER....at leas not where you are at. Second....you will be watched like a hawk and they assure me there is all sorts of ways to be written up legitly without raising eyebrows about retaliation. None of them would even consider it for a casual....however, if it were a career employee.....they would raise all sorts of stink. Again, I understand it is a dilemma....but pros and cons are pros and cons...and need to be weighed without emotion. Again... I agree 100% Sox: YOU are not the one filing the EEO, SHE is. That will remove the "protection" that you mentioned for you re: retaliation. There are too many ways they can legally F with you. At the very least, I would let her represent herself and do your best to keep a low profile in her claim. The more active you appear to be, the more "on the radar" you become. I would coach this one from the sidelines! Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Sox: YOU are not the one filing the EEO, SHE is. That will remove the "protection" that you mentioned for you re: retaliation. There are too many ways they can legally F with you. It is illegal to retalliate against anyone who opposes the employer's engaging in a practice prohibited by the act. If they retalliate against Sox for his complaining that they are infringing on anyone's civil rights or FMLA rights, he has his own claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 It is illegal to retalliate against anyone who opposes the employer's engaging in a practice prohibited by the act. If they retalliate against Sox for his complaining that they are infringing on anyone's civil rights or FMLA rights, he has his own claim. LOL...I am sure you would take this case since it would be a slam dunk...right? Everyone has a claim for something....being able to prove it is entirely another matter all together...correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Everyone has a claim for something....being able to prove it is entirely another matter all together...correct? Duh. I'm just telling you folks what the law says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Duh. I'm just telling you folks what the law says. oh and what are you, a lawyer? oh, you are, nevermind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Duh. I'm just telling you folks what the law says. OK...I think we all...well to be fair...most of us understand this...but you pose your statements in such a way as if...since it is against the law...he will win...which a review might suggest otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 OK...I think we all...well to be fair...most of us understand this...but you pose your statements in such a way as if...since it is against the law...he will win...which a review might suggest otherwise. Dude what the hell are you talking about? Your posts in this thread have been like throwing feces at a screen door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Dude what the hell are you talking about? Your posts in this thread have been like throwing feces at a screen door. These are all his posts - you're just noticing now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Dude what the hell are you talking about? Your posts in this thread have been like throwing feces at a screen door. What do you care....you can not read it if you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Your posts in this thread have been like throwing feces at a screen door. Incidentally, that's how prospectors in the Old West used to pan for peanuts when they couldn't find any Buffalo to eat. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Incidentally, that's how prospectors in the Old West used to pan for peanuts when they couldn't find any Buffalo to eat. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. Except in those days, they probably just used some sort of wire mesh attached to a sturdy frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 We're going in at 5:00.She's asleep right now and I'll wake her up in about five minutes.She's only in her 8th week,but she always seems exhausted which I've been told is normal for the first trimester.She read the entire thread when we got home a while ago,and got a kick out being called "Soxette". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 TE stands for transitional employee.They are above casuals,do get some benefits and earn more money.I've never heard of any facility not using casuals,but many stations use them as carriers to deliver the mail.But that's in my little corner here in Ohio. No way are casuals still being used in the City Carrier craft, per the last national agreement. They have been replaced by TEs. Now rural carriers have their own union so it may be different there. I have not seen a casual carrier in my station in at least 2 years. The NALC, although I may have disagreed with then on certain subjects, do a fine job of protecting our rights. Are you in a union, Sox? If so, no way a union will stand by and let you be harassed because you stood up for your wife. Harassment grievances are filed multiple times daily in the Postal Service. Why? Because some half weetoddit stuporvisors will never learn that harassment does not improve productivity. In fact, in most cases, the opposite occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 She's only in her 8th week,but she always seems exhausted which I've been told is normal for the first trimester. Totally normal. My wife was completely sleepy for the first 3 months or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I was away for a few days. How is this still on the 1st page? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.