Steven E. Brown, a Professional Law Corporation

This is a general guide for injured U.S. Postal Service employees who have received letters indicating that their employment has been eliminated entirely or reduced in hours due to “no available work” or “no productive work.” There are many options available that differ depending on whether the employee has a work-related injury. These options should be considered even if the employee is part of the McConnell disability discrimination class action against the Postal Service (described below). Here is a brief description of each option.

• EEO Complaint

If you have been subject to the NRP since May 5, 2006 and were or are a permanent rehab or limited duty employee of the Postal Service, then you are likely already considered part of the McConnell class action law suit filed against the Postal Service because of the NRP. The Office of Federal Operations (OFO) defined the class as “all permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the agency who have been subjected to the NRP from May 5, 2006, to the present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”

For details of the McConnell class action, visit the website established by the attorneys representing the class, Thomas & Solomon LLP, at the following website http://www.nrpclassaction.com/.

We recommend that employees subject to the NRP still file an individual EEO complaint upon receipt of your NRP letter as many employees have issues that fall outside of the class action complaint, or they might not be members of the class. There is some question about whether the OFO’s definition of the class as including employees from “May 5, 2006, to the present..” means that employees subject to the NRP after the date of the OFO order (July 14, 2010) are automatically included in the class. Logically, they should be, but it is not clear. Worst case, the Administrative Judge handling your individual complaint will determine that you fall under the class action.

• Retirement

Retirement does not preclude participating in the McConnell class nor does it preclude any of the other options that will be discussed below.

Immediate “Regular” Retirement

An employee with the requisite age and years of service may simply opt to begin receiving his or her retirement. Please visit the Office of Personnel Management website for further details about the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) (http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp) and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) (http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/csrs/eligibility.asp) age and years eligibility information.  Check with your HR department if you are unclear as to how many years of service you need based on your age.

Disability Retirement

If you do not meet the age and years requirements for immediate retirement under FERS or CSRS, you may still be eligible to begin receiving your retirement pension if your injury prevents you from rendering useful and efficient service in your position of record. Temporary or light duty positions that are composed of duties of various different positions within the Postal Service are typically not considered an employee’s position of record. Even if an employee has been working in a light duty position for years (even decades), his or her position of record is usually the position he or she was working when the injury that necessitated the light/modified duty occurred.  For example, if a letter carrier suffers a knee injury and can no longer deliver mail because of a medical condition, that letter carrier is likely to be eligible to retire on disability regardless of whether he or she has been working light or modified duty.  Further details about the type of evidence required to receive disability retirement, please review this article http://www.federal-law.com/medical-evidence-for-disability-retirement

• FECA claims

 Existing FECA claim

A detailed discussion of the rights of a worker who has an accepted FECA claim is contained http://www.federal-law.com/national-reassessment-process-at-the-postal-service. Briefly, an employee with an accepted FECA claim who is working light or modified duty because of the employee’s accepted industrial condition will be entitled to wage loss compensation if OWCP has not yet made a Loss of Wage Earning Capacity (LWEC) determination for that employee.

An LWEC determination establishes the amount of wages that an employee has lost based because of the employee’s work related injury. OWCP typically establishes LWEC by comparing the amount of money that an employee made pre-injury with what the employee is currently earning in the employee’s present position. Often, the Postal Service will continue paying an employee working light or modified duty at the same rate the employee was receiving on the date of injury, in which case the LWEC will be zero. The Employee Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) has determined that in such a case, the termination of the light or modified duty position does not constitute a recurrence and therefore does not entitle the employee to begin receiving wage los compensation if the employee has an LWEC in place. (see K.R., ECAB Docket No 09-415 Feb 4, 2010) http://www.dol.gov/ecab/decisions/2010/Feb/09-0415.htm

However, there are several reasons why an LWEC determination can be overturned. One is if the employee’s medical condition has worsened. This can be shown through objective medical evidence showing a material worsening of the medical condition and corresponding decrease in the employees’ functioning, and/or if the LWEC was made on the basis of “makeshift” or “odd-lot” positions. For more details regarding what constitutes a makeshift or odd-lot position, please see the ECAB’s decision in A.J., ECAB Docket No. 10-619 June 29, 2010 (http://www.dol.gov/ecab/decisions/2010/Jun/10-0619P.htm). LWECs based on such positions are invalid. Please note that an employee can argue that the employee’s LWEC was made in error or that the employee’s medical condition has gotten worse even if the LWEC was established many years ago.  

New FECA claim

Some injured workers subject to the NRP have never filed FECA claims. The reasoning we have heard is that they were given light duty and did not want to jeopardize employment by filing a FECA claim. The general rule is that a claim must be filed within 3 years of the injury or within 3 years of the date of last exposure to the injurious condition or within 3 years of when the employee knew or should have known that the employee had a work related injury. This last issue often arises in cases of asbestosis where the condition is sometimes not discovered for decades after the last exposure.

An exception to the general rule is a situation in which the employee has disclosed the injury to his or her supervisor and has indicated that he or she feels that the injury is work related. If the injury and belief that the injury is work-related was disclosed to the employer within the 3 year period, a claim may be filed with OWCP even if the 3 year period has now passed. For example, we had an employee, a federal law enforcement officer, who had a heart attack in the late 1980s. His supervisor came and visited him at the hospital and our client told him he felt it was related to a high speed chase he was involved in earlier in the day. He recovered from the injury and went back to work. He did not file a claim at that time. Nearly 20 years later, he was still having issues with his heart and contacted our office. He obtained a statement from his supervisor at the time indicating that he was aware of the condition and that our client had stated he felt it was work related. We filed a new claim and it was accepted. So, it is not necessarily too late to file a new claim even if the 3 years have passed.

• MSPB Restoration claim

 A detailed discussion of the merits of filing a restoration claim are discussed in detail in this article NRP – MSPB litigation regarding restoration rights for USPS workers (http://www.federal-law.com/nrp-%E2%80%93-mspb-litigation-regarding-restoration-rights-for-usps-workers). Summarized briefly, an MSPB appeal of a Postal Service action sending home an industrially injured worker under NRP may serve as the basis of a successful case on the following grounds:

1. The agency must show that it did a search for a vacant, funded position that the appellant could perform, not just at his duty station, but within his general commuting area as well. Otherwise, the regulation’s requirements have not been met and the case should be set for hearing (see Irma Urena, Docket No. SF-0353-09-0650-I-1, December 14, 2009).

2. If the employee can show that there were vacant, funded positions that were available that he could do at the time he was removed, an MSPB Judge may find a violation of restoration rights.

However, cases that have been successful on the first ground do not necessarily lead to the employee being returned to a position within the USPS. The USPS just has to do a wider search after the case has been remanded. There is no guarantee that a wider search will find a position for the injured worker. So, although an employee may win at MSPB, it may ultimately turn out to be a hollow victory.

Summary

As you can see, there are many options available to injured workers targeted by the NRP. None of the options listed above is mutually exclusive. That is, one can file a FECA claim, disability retirement claim, EEOC claim and restoration claim at the same time. Please contact our office if you have questions about or require assistance with any of the above options. We will be happy to arrange for a consultation where we can review your specific situation and discuss which options are the best for you.