Americans With Disability Act (ADA) 1990
Bidding while injured
Changes in Rehab Act 2008
COP, Sunday and Military pay
EEOC Broader Def of Disability
Employee Righs and Responsibilities CA 1
Examples of Light Duty Assignments
Light Duty Overtime
Limited Duty Assignments
MSPB and Disability
OWCP National Reassement Process
Physically Handicapped MOU - OT
Rehab act of 1973
Rehab Law Suit
Western Area Power Point on Injury Comp 2006
Workers Comp and Third Parties
Workers Compensation in Iowa
20 Code of Federal Regulations
20 CFR Bookmark
Accident Reporting Time
A Complete Guide to the NRP
APWU Web Page Info
CA 11 Guide
CA 17 FFD
Colorado Web Page Info
Conversion to Full time Status
Disability Particially Overcome
Dispute Memo APWU 2010
Duties by Physicians
Exams off Duty
Form 2488 Voluntary
Guide for Appealing an OWCP Decision Denying Modification of Previous LWEC
Guide for MSPB Appeals
Guide for Requesting Modification of a Previous LWEC
Hawkeye USPS NRP Team
Instructions for Acceptable Medical
Iowa Work Force Unemployement Insurance
Job Related First Aid Injuries
Limited Duty Carrier Assignments
Limited Duty Accomodations Rurals 2001
Limited Duty Assignment
Limited Duty MOU Rurals
Limited Duty Step 4 1991
Limited vs Light Assignment
Listing of Decisions
Lost Wage Earning Capacity (LWEC)
Mandated to Complete Forms
MSPB Appeal Rights
MSPB case December 2009
MSPB Finds Flaws in NRP
NALC Arb 2010
NALC Step 4 on NRP 2009
Notice Letter MSPB Rights USPS
NRP Info - 2488
NRP Info July 2009
NRP Power Point
National Reassesment Process 2006 Q & A
National Reassesment Process 2008
National Reassesment Grievance Info 2009
NRP Rehab Jobs
NRP Phase 2 Search Overview
NRP Phase 2 Job Offer
NRP Phase 2 No Work Available
NRP Phase 2 Stand Up Talk
NRP Phase 2 District Manager Letter
NRP Power Point 2010 (APWU)
NRP Table of Contents
Overtime - Light Limited Duty
Pub CA 810 Handbook for Employee Agency Personel
Q & A FECA
OWCP 8 State Conference Update 2010
OWCP District Office Contacts
OWCP LWEC Determination
OWCP National Reassement Process
OWCP NRP March 2010
OWCP Overview PP
Rehabilatation Act of 1973
Required CA Forms
Restoration to Duty MSPB
Sample Doctor Letter OWCP occupational
Sample Doctor Letter OWCP Traumatic
Sample Letter Limited Duty Assignement
SF 8 (Standard Form 8 unemployment)
Stand up Talk
Sue Carney on McGill Article
Title 5 US Code Change 81
US DOL OWCP
Use of Medical Reports DOL
USPS Withdraw of a Limited Duty Assignment
Voluntary Completion of Forms
Voluntary Completion of Forms
Wage Earning Capacity Decision 2010
NRP Class Action: Representing Workers Affected by the USPS National Reassessment Process
McConnell v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Case No. 520-2008-00053X
Fill Out the NRP Class Action Questionnaire
The U.S. Postal Service is rolling out the National Reassessment Process (NRP) in USPS districts across nation. The NRP reviews all injured-on-duty employees serving in limited duty and/or rehabilitation positions.
In 2006, Sandra McConnell was reviewed under the NRP in the USPS Western New York District. Ms. McConnell had been working in a rehabilitation modified carrier position for over eight years. However, after the NRP review, Ms. McConnell was stripped of her modified position and ordered to go home with "no work available."
Ms. McConnell filed a class action discrimination complaint under the Rehabilitation Act on behalf of all USPS workers affected by the NRP. The disability discrimination class action was certified by the EEOC Administrative Judge in 2008. After the USPS appealed that decision, the EEOC again granted certification of the class action in 2010. To view the class certification
notice click here.
See copy of EEOC Administrative Judge’s decision granting class certification.
See copy of EEOC OFO decision granting class certification.
You are already a member of the McConnell class if: You are or were a permanent rehabilitation or limited duty employee of the Postal Service who was subjected to the NRP since May 5, 2006.
If you meet the criteria to be a member of the class, you are not required to do anything at this time in order to remain a part of the class.
If you are affected by the NRP, you should do the following:
- Fill out the NRP Class Action Questionnaire by clicking here
- With respect to the claims covered in the class definition, you do not need to do anything now to preserve your right to make a claim later. If you have any claims that may not be covered by the class definition, these claims must be processed by you with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the action complained of.
The class action was remanded to the EEOC Administrative Judge. The parties are engaging in discovery. After the discovery process is completed, the Administrative Judge will set a date for trial.
Check for updates on the case status here.
Fill Out the NRP Class Action Questionnaire
Current Status of the Case
What You Should Do
Injury Compensation Program: All USPS employees are covered by the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA). The program is administered by the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWCP) - United States Department of Labor. FECA entitles employees that have suffered a job-related disability to:
- Continuation of regular pay for the period of the disability, up to a maximum of 45 calendar days, for a traumatic job-related injury.
- Compensation for wages lost as a result of job-related injury or illness.
- Medical care for disability due to (1) personal injuries sustained while in the performance of duty (2) Diseases proximately caused, aggravated, or accelerated by postal employment.
- Vocational rehabilitation.
For more information about injury compensation please consult the Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) at USPS.com. Click here!
The following links also have information about injury compensation:
OWCP Claims Processing 101
(This article first appeared in the January/February 2008 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)
Suffering an injury at work can often be painful; getting a claim approved shouldn’t be. Understanding the basic claims process of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is an employee’s best defense.
In order to obtain benefits when an injury occurs at work, notice must be submitted to OWCP. The three most common notices submitted by postal workers to initiate claims are: Traumatic Injury, Occupational Disease, and Recurrence of Disability.
The Right Form
If the condition is caused by a single event or a series of events in a single workday or shift, Form CA-1 should be filed. When a notice of such a Traumatic Injury is reported within seven days, the supervisor should provide the employee with Form CA-16 (“Authorization for Examination and/or Treatment”) within four hours of the request, even if the employer doubts the injury is work-related. The CA-16 guarantees payment for most non-invasive treatments, regardless of whether the claim is approved.
If the condition is caused by a series of events over a period of two or more workdays or shifts, the employee should file Form CA-2, which provides notice of an Occupational Disease. The length of time that a condition takes to manifest itself — not the diagnosis — determines which claim to file.
The most misunderstood claim is a Recurrence of Disability, which is defined as a worsening of an accepted medical condition without an intervening event. If an accepted medical condition is worsened by the work environment, it is not a recurrence, but is considered a new injury, in which case a new claim should be filed. Also, a recurrence can be claimed when the employer withdraws medically suitable work. Form CA-2a should be filed when a recurrence occurs.
The Five Requirements
Giving notice does not automatically entitle employees to Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) benefits. Five requirements must be satisfied to achieve claim approval.
For a claim to be considered timely, an employee has three years from the date of injury, or from the date that he or she became reasonably aware that a condition was causally related to work, to file.
As postal employees, we meet the second requirement, being a civilian employee.
In order to meet the third requirement, fact of injury, both the occurrence of an event (an accident or employment factor) and a resulting medical condition must be established. An event alone, such as a slip and fall or exposure, without a resulting medical condition does not meet the requirement. In cases of latent disability, employees have three years from the onset of the condition to file.
If the first three criteria have been accepted, the claims examiner must then determine whether the employee was in performance of duty when the injury occurred. Employees who are injured on USPS premises during working hours and are engaging in activity which is reasonably associated with employment are covered. This includes on premises use of restrooms, time spent on breaks or lunch or for personal acts for the employees’ comfort.
Coverage is also extended to employees who are on premises for a reasonable time before or after work hours, on official union time, in travel status, injured in parking facilities owned, controlled, or managed by the USPS, or off premises when the nature of the work requires it.
The final requirement, causal relationship, is often the most problematic documentation to obtain. Many doctors simply state that a condition is work-related rather than explaining the causal relationship between the injury and the workplace. Doctors must provide medical reasoning explaining how they came to their conclusions (e.g., how lifting a box caused a herniated disc, or how repetitive grasping caused carpal tunnel syndrome). The medical narrative must connect the dots.
Failure to satisfy all of these requirements often generates frustrating OWCP developmental letters and can result in denied claims or delays that create financial hardship for the employees and their families.
All of this can be avoided with a little understanding.
If you are injured while at work you need to check out this information.
More information on Injured on Duty
APWU Human Relations Info on Injured on Duty
Federal Injury Compensation
The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides wage loss compensation and medical benefits to postal and federal employees who become injured or ill as a result of their duties.
For an overview of laws, regulations, and policies that affect injured postal and federal employees, click here.
Brief Synopsis of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008
The following information was obtained from a variety of websites and represents my reading of the Act. It does not represent the current position of the APWU.
In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Upon enactment of the ADA , the United States Supreme Court became constitutionally obligated to interpret and enforce the law in a manner consistent with Congress’s directives. But as a result of several prominent Supreme Court decisions in ADA cases, legislators in Congress have become displeased by the manner in which the law has been interpreted. In response, Congress has passed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), effectively expanding the scope of the original law.
In expressing its dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decisions in ADA cases, Congress found that the Court has “narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA , thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect.” Moreover, Congress found that the definitions of two seminal legal terms used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were inconsistent with Congressional intent because they expressed too high a standard for individuals seeking protection under the law. Thus, Congress drafted the ADAAA with the goal of correcting the judicial contraction of the ADA ’s scope, as well as the EEOC’s expansion of several of the ADA ’s minimum applicability thresholds.
In June 2008, the House of Representatives passed a version of the ADAAA (H.R. 3195) by a vote of 402 to 17; the Senate unanimously approved its own, slightly different version of the ADAAA (S. 3406) on September 11. Six days later, the House approved the Senate’s version, and, on September 25th, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law, which will take effect on January 1, 2009 Although the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in several different areas, the ADAAA will likely have its greatest impact in the employment context, requiring employers with 15 or more employees covered by the ADA to adjust their policies and procedures to comply with the ADAAA. Some of the new law’s significant provisions are described below.
Scope of “Disability” Broadened
Determining an individual’s entitlement to protection under the ADA hinges on whether or not that individual suffers from a “disability,” as the term is defined by the ADA . Although other terms and phrases found within the definition of disability have been changed by the ADAAA, the definition of “disability” itself was not. However, what the ADAAA does do is state that “the definition of disability…shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under [the ADA ], to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of [the ADA ].” This provision was included in the ADAAA to reinstate the broad scope of protection afforded by the ADA that, in the view of the Congress, the Supreme Court has improperly narrowed.
List of “Major Life Activities” Expanded
To qualify as a disability under the ADA , a physical or mental impairment must substantially limit “one or more major life activities” of an individual. In one Supreme Court decision legislatively overruled by the Congress’s enactment of the ADAAA, the Court had held that the word “major” in this context “need[s] to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.” In the ADAAA, however, Congress has explicitly rejected this standard as contrary to the broad scope of protection that is available under the ADA .
Moreover, the ADAAA provides an expanded list of “major life activities,” which includes, but is not limited to:
- caring for oneself;
- performing manual tasks;
- everyday activities such as breathing, seeing, hearing, speaking, eating, sleeping, and walking;
- standing, lifting, and bending;
- learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, and communicating; and
The ADAAA also introduces a non-exclusive list of major bodily functions, the operation of which constitute major life activities. The list includes, but is not limited to:
- functions of the immune system;
- normal cell growth; and
- functions involving the digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive systems.
Loosening of “Substantially Limits” Requirement
While under the ADA a physical or mental impairment must “substantially limit” one or more major life activities, the ADAAA includes several provisions that loosen this requirement. First, the ADAAA rejects the Supreme Court’s requirement that the word “substantially” be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for individuals seeking to qualify as disabled. Furthermore, the ADAAA rejects the Supreme Court’s rule that the word “substantially” be read to mean “prevents or severely restricts.” In this regard, the ADAAA significantly reduces the degree of impairment required for protection under the ADA .
Second, the ADAAA provides that an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities to be considered a disability. Third, the ADAAA provides that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when it is active.
Finally, the ADAAA provides that the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as medication, prosthetics, hearing aids, mobility devices, and oxygen therapy equipment. This provision in the new law expressly overrules a case in which the Supreme Court held that determining whether impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. However, there is an important exception to this rule—one that states that the ameliorative effects of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The purpose of this exception is to prevent the many individuals who wear either ordinary glasses or contact lenses from making claims of disability on those grounds.
Relaxation of “Regarded As” Requirement
The ADA prohibits discrimination against an individual who is “being regarded as” having a disability. Traditionally, an individual claiming that he or she was “regarded as” having a disability had to prove that an employer regarded him or her as being substantially limited in a major life activity. The ADAAA has lifted this burden of proof by providing that an individual may be unlawfully regarded as having a disability “whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” However, the ADAAA provides that transitory and minor impairments which have an actual or expected duration of less than six months are not considered disabilities under the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability. Additionally, the ADAAA provides that an employer is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation or make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures for an individual who meets the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability.
Shift of Focus in ADA Cases
Through the ADAAA, Congress has conveyed its intent that the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and that the question of whether an individual’s impairment qualifies as a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis. Such a shift is significant because the Postal Service has had success in arguing that an employee is not disabled under the ADA and is therefore ineligible for its protection. By reducing the amount of attention that is to be focused on an employee’s status as disabled, it is likely that more ADA cases will end up going to trial rather than being resolved summarily without a trial.
There is no denying that the ADAAA has expanded the number of individuals who may be entitled to protection under the ADA . At the very least, the ADAAA has made it easier for employees to state a claim under the ADA . At this time, the ultimate impact of the ADAAA is difficult to determine. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that the EEOC has yet to promulgate any regulations interpreting the ADAAA’s provisions.
Nevertheless, on January 1, 2009, the Postal Service, which is covered by the ADA , will be required to comply with the new law.
Further information will be provided after the EEOC promulgates the new ADAAA regulations.