On July 15, 2022, USPS submitted a spreadsheet to the EEOC Administrative Judge, and also to us as Phase I Class Counsel. 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. Please continue to check this website for updates.

In advance of the May 12, 2022 status conference, the EEOC Administrative Judge circulated a new spreadsheet with additional information requested. In particular, the revised spreadsheet now provides an opportunity for Phase 1 Class Counsel, our offices, to review and comment on the Agency’s designation of claims for each claimant.  

At the May 12, 2022 status conference, the EEOC Administrative Judge was once again joined by EEOC Administrative Judge McCauley and the data attorney from the EEOC.  The Judge set deadlines by which the parties must submit their portions of the spreadsheet.   The Agency must complete their portion by June 15, 2022 and Phase 1 Class Counsel shall complete their portion by July 15, 2022.  The comprehensive spreadsheet must be filed by July 18, 2022.  

We understand that there is some confusion as to the date when the spreadsheet submissions are due.  We understand any references by the EEOC Administrative Judge to the year 2020 was made in error and instead refers to 2022.   

Phase 1 Class Counsel asked about whether special masters will be utilized going forward, and requested additional information about the process that will be utilized in order to evaluate the claims.  The EEOC Administrative Judge responded that she was not able to comment on those issues at this time, but emphasized that she (and others within the EEOC) are working on this matter each week and are committed to moving things forward as quickly as possible. 

Please continue to monitor our website for more updates in the coming weeks. If you have any updated contact information and have not yet provided it to our office, please call us at 585-272-0540 or email us at [email protected]. 

Today we heard from EEOC Administrative Judge regarding the ongoing effort to compile claims information in an excel format. In particular, Judge Roberts-Draper indicated that she reviewed all the information submitted and ultimately ordered the parties to each submit certain information about claimants in an excel spreadsheet. In particular, Phase 1 Class Counsel is responsible for providing updated contact information, including address, telephone number and email address, as well as whether an indication of any deceased claimants. The Agency is responsible for providing the remainder of the information, which includes but is not limited to: date of hire; separation date; separation reason; and which claims are alleged by claimant and which claims the Agency disputes. All information is ordered to be produced to Judge Roberts-Draper on or before Wednesday, June 8, 2022.

Additionally, Judge Roberts-Draper also scheduled a status conference with the Agency and Phase 1 Class Counsel for May 12, 2022 at 11:00 am. An update will be provided following the May 12, 2022 status conference.

Following the EEOC Administrative Judge’s request, the parties each provided additional information to assist in the process to evaluate claimant relief. Since providing the requested information, we have not yet heard back from the EEOC Administrative Judge, but based on the last conference, we expect to hear from her in the coming weeks.

We have received many inquiries as to whether the EEOC Administrative Judge intends to utilize the assistance of special masters.During the March 4, 2022 conference with the EEOC Administrative Judge, she indicated that the special master issue is still under “advisement.” We understand this to mean that her in-depth questioning regarding the Postal Service’s access to certain information will assist her in determining the best and most efficient path forward, including as to whether special masters should be utilized. As mentioned in our March 4, 2022 update, the EEOC Administrative Judge was joined at the last conference by an EEOC data person, as well as another Administrative Judge. We are hopeful that these additional resources will assist the Administrative Judge in the evaluation of the more than 28,000 claims that were filed.

Please continue to check our website for updates in the coming weeks.

Today we had a very productive two hour video call with EEOC Administrative Judge Roberts-Draper regarding a process to move this case forward. The EEOC Administrative Judge explained that the purpose of the call was to explore the types of claim information that the Agency and our offices could provide to the EEOC in order to move the process forward. In particular, the EEOC Administrative Judge wants to have the relevant information in a spreadsheet format that would allow the Judge to easily access the information, with a goal of moving forward with the process of claim determination.

Significantly, the EEOC Administrative Judge made clear that only Thomas & Solomon LLP and Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris PLLC, along with the Agency, will be working directly with the Judge both during the call itself and as we move forward with this process. By doing so, the EEOC Administrative Judge is hopeful that unnecessary delays are avoided. As Phase 1 Class Counsel, responsible for the leading the charge that led to the EEOC’s finding that the Agency created and implemented a program that discriminated against thousands of US Postal employees, our offices are honored to lead the fight during Phase II to ensure that there is a fair and efficient process designed to evaluate claimants and the relief they may be entitled to.

During the video call, the Administrative Judge asked the Agency a series of questions as to their ability to quickly access a variety of information needed in order to evaluate claimants and to produce it in an excel format for the EEOC. While the Agency once again attempted to further delay the matter by claiming that some of the data such as disability status was not something they had access to in the requested format, our offices were quick to point out systems in which such information could be accessed by the Postal Service. As a result of our identification of various processes and systems that could easily be utilized to gather the information needed by the EEOC, the Agency was ordered to provide an update to the EEOC Administrative Judge within a week as to their ability to access and produce such information. Our offices also agreed to provide some additional information that should assist the process which was obtained from the Postal Service during the course of the litigation and should provide the EEOC Judge with much of the requested information.

Please note: the Judge emphasized that the EEOC wants to have the most current contact information for each claimant. If you are represented by our offices and have changed your contact information, including telephone number, mailing address, or email address, please make sure to promptly update such information with our offices. You may email our office at [email protected] or call us at 585-272-0540.

During the call, we voiced the frustration of our clients as to the continuous delay tactics used by the Agency that has made this process nearly fifteen years long and not yet complete. We emphasized that our clients have one simple goal: a just resolution for their claims of discrimination under the NRP. We also noted that even their responses to the EEOC Administrative Judge’s questioning was further demonstration of their pattern of behavior: delay, deny, delay, deny. We promised the Judge we would do everything we can to help the EEOC issue claim determinations as soon as possible.

It is worth noting that on the video call was EEOC Administrative Judge McCauley and a data person from the EEOC. While neither spoke during the video call, EEOC Administrative Judge Roberts-Draper did take several breaks in order to confer with her team and review her notes.

At the end of today’s status conference, the Judge noted that there will be subsequent conferences to continue to ensure that the EEOC has all of the information needed to evaluate claimant relief. The Judge said she will schedule the next conference after she evaluates the information provided in connection with today’s call.

As the attorneys who initially filed the charge that began this action back in 2007, we understand this has been a long and frustrating road, but please know that we will continue to fight for each of our claimants. Because of each of you and your willingness to speak out about the injustices you and others like you faced, the Agency has been found to have discriminated against injured employees and now they must face the consequences for their actions and provide relief to those people who are found to have been injured! We eagerly await the next conference with the Court and will provide an update when one has been scheduled.

The EEOC Administrative Judge has scheduled a video Status Conference for the attorneys and representatives on March 4, 2022. The Judge has indicated that during the Status Conference we may be provided information about the EEOC’s plan to move the claims process forward. It is also expected that the Judge and the parties will discuss the large volume of information related to the claims process, and the possibility of organizing relevant information in an electronic spreadsheet format. We will post an update on this website shortly after the Status Conference.

As a reminder, the EEOC has not issued any decisions on any of the claims. The Postal Service continues to vigorously oppose all forward movement on the Judge’s Order regarding Special Masters. And the Postal Service has not paid any attorney’s fees to our firms for the claims process – not one dollar.

At the upcoming Status Conference we hope to learn more about the EEOC’s plan to move this process forward. We will continue to oppose the Postal Service’s ceaseless efforts to delay payments to Class Member claimants.

Please check this website for an update after the Status Conference on March 4, 2022. Thank you for your continued patience through this process, and for your strong perseverance in the face of the Postal Service’s stalling tactics.

Recently many claimants have been asking about the timeline as to when claims will be evaluated. Unfortunately, while it has been more than a year since the Judge initially ordered that up to five Special Masters be used in this process, no claims have yet been evaluated and we do not believe that any large volume of claims will be evaluated by fall of 2021. Indeed, while our attorneys submitted their list of five Special Master candidates, the Postal Service has attempted to delay things by filing objections and multiple appeals to prevent this process from moving forward. While each of these attempts to delay the action have been rejected, the Administrative Judge has not yet selected a Special Master. Until the Special Master (or Special Masters) have been appointed, the initial batch of claimants to be reviewed cannot be selected and thus no claims can be evaluated. We are hopeful though that in the near future we will hear from the Administrative Judge so that the process can move forward. We understand that this has been a long and frustrating journey, but as your attorneys, we will continue to take every action possible to help the Judge move this process forward! Please continue to check our website for updates in the coming months and as always, feel free to give us a call as to where things stand.

Pursuant to the Administrative Judge’s Order approving the use of Special Masters, Thomas & Solomon LLP and Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris PLLC have already submitted a list of five potential Special Masters who have great experience in handling large number of claims similar to the claims in this case. At this time, the Administrative Judge has not yet made her selection of Special Masters. With the recent dismissals of the USPS “final action” and appeals of the Administrative Judge’s orders, we are hopeful that the Special Masters will be selected soon and the claims review process will commence in the very near future.

EEOC DISMISSES ANOTHER USPS APPEAL

The EEOC Office of Federal Operations (EEOC-OFO) dismissed another USPS “final action” and appeal of the Administrative Judge’s orders regarding the use of Special Masters to assist with review of the claims. This decision by EEOC-OFO means that the case remains fully before the EEOC Administrative Judge, and that she can use her discretion to find an appropriate method to have the claims reviewed and decided. The USPS attorneys sought to use its repeated appeals as a way to stall the case further and challenge the Administrative Judge’s authority. With this fast, favorable decision by EEOC-OFO, the course is now set to have the claims review process commence in the very near future.

Please continue to monitor this website for updates on the case. Thank you for your continued patience!

Administrative Judge’s Order Rejecting Postal Service’s Encouraging of Claimants to Request Final Agency Decision

In response to the Administrative Judge’s February Order setting out a process to review claims by the use of Special Masters, the Postal Service filed a motion seeking to both delay the case and encourage as many class members as possible to withdraw from the case.

In particular, the Postal Service wanted to encourage claimants to request Final Agency Decisions (or FAD) in order to drop out of this case and start over.

On March 22, 2021, the Judge issued an Order squarely rejecting the Postal Service’s motion. The Judge’s Order explains that “the very question of FADs is premature, baffling and utterly irrelevant at this point.” The Judge emphasized that the Postal Service was required to wait for the Judge to issue a decision on claimant relief before issuing a FAD. The Judge’s Order says, “no claimant is entitled to a FAD until the AJ issues a decision on the disputed claims. Since no decision has been issued on any of the disputed claims, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO A FAD. NO ONE SHOULD BE REQUESTING A FAD and THE AGENCY SHOULD NOT BE ISSUING FADs.”

The Judge went on to explain that although claimants themselves can seek a FAD and thus leave this case, the Judge also said it is:

unclear why any claimant would opt out of the class and seek a FAD. The purpose of this class action is to remedy a harm that has adversely affected over 28,000 individuals nationwide in the Postal Service. The value and strength of the lawsuit is that there are so many people who the Commission has found to have been harmed by the NRP. How is withdrawing from the class and requesting a FAD beneficial to the individual claimant (who risks getting nothing from the Agency) or to the class (whose numbers will quickly lessen)?

These are strong words from the Judge, indicating her resolve to push forward with the claims process as fast as possible.

On a related issue, a few claimants have asked if they can both request a FAD and still get the advantages of this case. The Judge answered this question explicitly, and the answer is “No.” The Judge noted that there are two ways this case will be resolved: (1) either through the special master process; OR (2) if a claimant opts out and seeks a FAD. However, the Judge emphasized the perils of seeking a FAD: “If a claimant seeks a FAD and gets nothing, the process of appeal and hearings and evidence starts all over again for that individual complaint and if there has been a settlement in the McConnell Class Action, said Complaint runs the risk of being foreclosed for any review of their claims or compensation from any prospective settlement.”

Although as discussed above the Judge did not think it was a good idea to opt-out of this case, she noted that people have the legal right to do so. The Judge set forth what the opt out claimant would need to expressly state in writing:

that claimant is aware that they are seeking a Final Agency Decision (FAD) on whether they are entitled to damages and to how much they are entitled, that the FAD may or may not be in their favor, and if so, claimant has the right to seek an appeal from OFO, said appeal may or may not be reviewed given that there is a McConnell Class Action Remedial Phase litigation. If claimant’s appeal is heard by OFO, the Agency’s decision can be upheld or the case can be remanded to an AJ in that claimant’s geographical area to determine damages.

As your attorneys, we agree with the Judge’s negative view of the opt-out process. We strongly recommend that you do not opt out of this process. As the Judge noted in her decision, “the value and strength of the lawsuit is that there are so many people who the Commission has found to have been harmed by the NRP.”