Cox will be seeking the right to file suit regarding this last EEO complaint and at such time will amend her lawsuit. USPS Worker Arrested - Retaliation Goes Too Far. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge may suspend a hearing to allow the parties to settle a case and will accept a settlement to resolve the case at any time before a final decision is reached. However, the judge may still award as much or less as the end result. The Commission has jurisdiction over complaints alleging discrimination occurring in the course of a dual-status technician's civilian employment in a General Services position. Complainant's request for default judgment granted where Agency did not issue its final decision until 210 days after Administrative Judge's order remanding the complaint to Agency for a final decision and Agency provided no explanation for its significant delay. Postal workers in the US and worldwide cannot allow their struggles to be trapped within the realm of the labor unions and capitalist parties any longer. Please know that we are fighting for you, just as we have done for over 10 years. 1-800-669-6820 (TTY) USPS has taken steps, and described . As of September 30, 2009, USPS employed 5,372 (0.76%) Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (IWTD). 0120162491 (July 25, 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120162491.pdf. The MVS Craft continues to grow. Alline B. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. PDF EEOC Awards of Emotional Distress Damages Over $100,000 Zonia C. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Wes S. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. We thank you all for your continued patience with this process. The reissued Postal Service's Policy on Workplace Harassment is available on the Postal Service PolicyNet website: n Go to blue.usps.gov. Padilla v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. Racial slurs, in and of themselves, may be sufficiently severe to constitute a hostile work environment even if the derogatory comments were not aimed at the complainant. However, some of the funds were held back to ensure that all affected clerks would receive back pay. 2, 2019), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120172604.pdf. The Commission had previously found discrimination in EEOC Appeal No. 0120170218 (Dec. 21, 2017), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170218.txt. EEOC finds that a USPS employee claims of discrimination and retaliation were not sufficiently investigated by the agency. Jenna P. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. For Deaf/Hard of Hearing callers: In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. Neither did the unions make any effort to unite USPS workers with their class brothers and sisters across the border during the 2018 strike of 50,000 Canadian postal workers, who were also fighting against a brutal profit-driven work regimen where real wages had fallen and understaffing led to speedup and heavy workloads that caused an accident rate among postal workers to be five times that of the average rate for federally regulated industries. Baltimore to pay $6M in latest police misconduct settlement Thomas Purviance had been employed by the U.S. in St. Louis for over three decades at the time that he was called names and mistreated by one of his USPS managers. Copyright 2023 The Angel Law Firm, PLLC. Velva B. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. Mae P. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. The Agency provided insufficient evidence to support its dismissal of a complaint, on the basis that Complainant was not an Agency employee, where the record that the Agency submitted contained only the EEO Counselor's Report, the Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint, and the formal complaint; the Agency did not provide any contracts or affidavits from management officials regarding the day-to-day responsibilities and management of Complainant's position. Heidi B. v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. Claim regarding the denial of official time remanded to Agency for investigation; although Agency did not need to investigate whether the denial was discriminatory, it should have determined whether the denial was justified. Jess P. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. The manager informed the 9-1-1 dispatchers that Mr. Purviance was a disgruntled worker and that they suspected him of filing a . 19, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2021_04_30/2021001898.pdf. No. Costs USPS agreed to pay $840,044 for 4,584 pre-complaint settlements, of which 433 were monetary settlements averaging $1,940. Brenton W. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Where there is an actionable third-party retaliation, both the employee who engaged in the protected activity and the third party who is subjected to the materially adverse action may state a claim. In 2021, we reported that non-career employees' turnover and injury rates were higher than career rates, both before and after we controlled for numerous factors such as employee tenure. 0120151360 (July 28, 2017), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120151360.txt. Lara G. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. Stating that a complainant was not selected for a supervisory position because she received a lower score than the selectees does not meet an agencys burden of production, unless the agency explains the specific reasoning for the scores; the assertion that a complainant ranked lower than the selectees is meaningless without evidence of the specific scores, the manner in which the scores were derived, and the pertinence of the scores to the position at issue. Agency discriminatorily denied Complainant's religious-accommodation request for an exemption from the requirement that employees carry a cannister of pepper spray where it was undisputed that Complainant, a chaplain, had a bona fide religious belief that prevented him from carrying the spray; Agency did not show that exempting one employee, out of approximately 300 employees, from the requirement would have been an undue hardship; and there was no evidence that Agency explored a lateral transfer to a different facility or any other alternative accommodation. Where Agency failed to provide evidence of its compliance with Commission's orders, and its refusal to report on its compliance appeared to be part of an ongoing pattern of similar failures, Agency was ordered to provide an analysis of its Fiscal Year 2018-2019 reporting on compliance with EEOC orders and a detailed action plan setting forth how the problems identified in its analysis will be corrected. EEOC Scores, Despite a Tumultuous 2020: Key Takeaways for Employers Agency did not meet its burden to show that the disparity between Complainant's pay and that of two male general surgeons was based on a factor other than sex where Agency provided only vague statements to justify the pay differential and there was a lack of information reflecting how the salaries of Complainant and the comparators were set. ) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. 012082505, Agency Case No. Sang G. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. Sharon M. v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. The bases of alleged discrimination most often raised were: (1) Reprisal; (2) Disability (Physical); and (3) Age. Salvatore K. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. When determining an award of non-pecuniary compensatory damages, the Commission may consider the present-day value of comparable awards. Complainant stated a viable claim of harassment based on race and national origin where Complainant alleged that subordinate disparaged Chinese immigrants, mocked Complainant's language and communication skills, insinuated that Complainant was un-American, and interfered with work performance. The Commission found that the Agency complied with the terms of a settlement agreement, including the provision of accepting a letter of resignation from Complainant. However, I will say this the Postal Service is run by some very hateful uncaring people who have no business being in Management. According to the USPS' own written policy, "managers and supervisors are responsible for preventing harassment and inappropriate behavior could lead to illegal harassment and must respond. Find your nearest EEOC office 22, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2021_06_08/2020001154.pdf. Patricia W. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. A 75 percent reduction of attorney's fees was unwarranted where Complainant's unsuccessful claims were not distinctly different from his successful claims. 0120122795 (Feb. 23, 2016), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120122795.txt. Deandre C. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. Agency's final decisions on disputed claims for individual relief were premature because an Administrative Judge retains jurisdiction and is responsible for resolving disputed claims for individual relief. Within the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), the Division of Federal Employees' Compensation (DFEC) is responsible for processing claims filed by Postal Service employees. Texas mail carrier wins $250,000 in discrimination lawsuit This booklet also provides an explanation of the REDRESS program REDRESS, an alternative dispute resolution process, may offer you an opportunity to request mediation in addition to traditional EEO I Won My EEOC Claim. Can I Negotiate the Amount Awarded? The Administrative Judge properly awarded Complainant $3,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages where Complainant offered corroborative testimony from his family, friends, and colleagues; the AJ found that Complainant's testimony was not credible in some respects but was credible with respect to how the discrimination affected his family and work life; and the amount awarded was consistent with amounts awarded under similar circumstances. In order to have met the federal 2% participation rate goal, 14,158 IWTD were needed. The Agency subjected Complainant to adverse treatment based on protected EEO activity when the office director informed Complainant's detail supervisor that Complainant was engaged in settlement discussions for an EEO complaint. During the coming weeks, we will not only be analyzing the spreadsheet for the Agency's compliance with the Judge's Order, but we will also be supplementing the spreadsheet with the information the EEOC has asked us to compile. The EEOC ordered the Postal Service to notify each class member, within 10 calendar days, of the EEOC decision. Agency, which conceded that it jointly employed Complainant with his staffing firm, should not have dismissed complaint for failure to state a claim; Agency's contention that it did not know of the alleged harassing behavior of staffing firm employees went to the merits of the complaint, which must be investigated. 1995)("comparability of awards must be adjusted for the changing value of money over at Summary judgment in favor of Agency appropriate where there were no genuine issues of material fact or credibility that merited a hearing; record showed that Agency issued Complainant a Letter of Counseling because of allegations that he had used improper language of a vulgar or sexual nature and that Agency discharged him during his probationary period due to his repeated discourteous behavior; Complainant provided no evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact that any of his protected bases played a role in the Agency's actions. Sheila D. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Petition No. The Agency erred in issuing a final action purporting to dismiss Complainant's complaint where the 15-day regulatory time frame to file a formal complaint had long since elapsed and no formal complaint had been filed. Mr. Angel has represented federal employees, including USPS employees for nearly 15 years. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider appeals from Peace Corps volunteers and applicants, who have a separate EEO complaint process outside Commission jurisdiction; although Complainant filed her complaint against the State Department, it concerned a Peace Corps volunteer position over which the Commission did not have jurisdiction.