Talbot v. Potter Class-Action Page!
Another Class-Action EEO Complaint initiated, Frederick C. Talbot v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Case No. 370-2003-02546X; Agency Case No. 4F-956-0089-02.
USPS LOSES LAPTOP WITH CLASS INFORMATION: On January 9, 2008, the USPS issued a letter advising the class agent of the Cyncar v. Potter Class Action that one of it's contractors, Advanced Solutions Group (ASG), lost a laptop through theft on November 19, 2007. That laptop contained information on the Cyncar v. Potter class action, as well as possibly other class actions throughout the Postal Service. To view that letter, and identity theft precautionary recommendations provided by the USPS, click on this missing laptop link.
An update on the Talbot v. Potter CFS Class Action (7/28/07)
On July 5, 2007 the Office of Federal Operations (OFO), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission denied Mr. Talbot's appeal. Mr. Talbot submitted a Request for Reconsideration on July 13, 2007 to the OFO, EEOC. Mr. Talbot had this to say about the OFO decision:
I agree a good attorney could have made a huge difference in this case. Unfortunately, I could not find one willing to take a class action on a contingency basis. The decision from the OFO is dated July 5, 2007. It is very poorly written. It is basically a verbatim rendition of the AJ's erroneous decision. On the first page of the OFO decision it states that I have an ankle injury and this is my basis for claiming disability. That is totally wrong. Also, on page one it states that regarding the class action aspect the OFO states "We do not address this issue, since complainant does not raise it on appeal." That is totally wrong. I wrote a forty-seven page appeal and attached twenty-two documents to it. I included eight potential class action witness statements. Seven pages of the appeal argues in favor of class certification. I also sent in three addendums to the appeal because I discovered new information. It appears that the OFO completely disregarded my appeal. I believe I was not given the opportunity to prove my case. Had the proceedings been fair I believe that my individual and class actions would have prevailed.
A decision on the Request for Reconsideration should be rendered within one year. It may be longer, or it may be shorter, dependent on how the OFO weighs Mr. Talbot's arguments.
An update on the Talbot v. Potter CFS Class Action (9/16/06)
On June 17, 2005 an Administrative Judge (AJ) of the San Francisco EEOC District Office issued a Summary Judgment
in favor of the United States Postal Service in Mr. Talbot's Class-Action Complaint. Mr. Talbot, in turn, has appealed the AJ's decision and that appeal has
arrived at the EEOC, Office of Federal Operations in Washington, D.C. on August 22, 2005. Mr. Talbot has indicated that the appeal may take a minimum of one year, possibly longer. Until such time as the EEOC,
OFO rules on the appeal, the
class-action complaint should be considered a viable and active complaint. Mr. Talbot has indicated that he will advise, as necessary, on any change in
the complaints' status. Note: Contact with Mr. Talbot on the above stated update date indicated
that a decision has not been received from the OFO. This Class-Action EEO Complaint is currently in the
pre-certification stage. Frederick C. Talbot is the class agent for this class action. The Class
complaint refers to personnel assigned to CFS units on Tour I to operate voice recognition
systems. Mr. Talbot states,
"I have filed a class action EEO complaint against the US Postal Service. The complaint was filed on behalf of all injured workers that were forced to operate voice recognition computers on nights in CFS. The EEOC district office in San Francisco is reviewing the complaint and will soon decide to accept it for investigation or dismiss it. Management is claiming that they created jobs for injured workers when they added voice recognition. They claim that this made us more productive and that there was no other work available. They claim that our medical restrictions are so severe that they had no other choice but to place us on nights operating voice recognition computers. They have stated that we all willingly accepted the job offers and that they did not discriminate in any way. This is not true. We were all told that we could accept work on the night shift or be terminated. If nothing is done to dispute this management may succeed in having this complaint dismissed. The workers with the most severe medical limitations were placed on the night shift operating voice recognition computers. I believe this is discrimination and refusal to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers. There was other work available on days but we were told that because of our limitations we could only work nights. We had some people with 25 years of seniority forced on nights. Some retired early others quit. I filed an individual complaint and later asked for class certification. The USPS ended its policy of forcing disabled persons onto nights after about 1 year. All employees that are forced to work beyond their normal hours are given out of schedule pay (overtime). We were not. The Office of Investigator General is reviewing numerous complaints in this postal district. My EEO complaints are being reviewed by Judge Virginia Mellema at San Francisco's EEO district. I hope that she certifies my class action soon. I am looking for a law firm with class action experience to represent us. I can be contacted at fctalbot@yahoo.com."
Updated on:
July 14, 2008 02:58:21 PM
Copyright © 2005-2007 - Postal Flame
All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: - Postal Flame