All Sections ------------------------------- News & Events Pay & Benefits Departments & Divisions Members Only

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Court and Administrative Cases

Appeals Court Ruling After Rehearing on USPS Return to Work Requirements for FMLA Absence (Rodney Harrell v. USPS; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 03-4204, 05/04/06) [pdf]

A Federal Appeals Court ruling overturning its previous decision that USPS return-to-work requirements following an approved FMLA absence were invalid because they were stricter than the requirements of the Act. A USPS petition for rehearing was supported by the Bush Administration with the Secretary of Labor filing a brief in support of the USPS petition. On review, the Court stated it was “not able to conclude that Congress clearly addressed the question at issue through statutory language.” “Because the Department of Labor’s regulations reasonably interpret [the statute] to allow a [collective bargaining agreement] to impose stricter return-to-work restrictions than those otherwise incorporated into the FMLA, we defer to that interpretation,” the Court wrote.

Interim Opinion in Union's Suit to Enforce Address Management System (AMS) Specialist Award (APWU v USPS, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Actions 04-01404 and 05-01771) [pdf]

An interim District Court ruling in the union's suit to enforce the Snow Award in the Address Management System (AMS) Specialist case. The judge ruled that the arbitrator's award is final and binding, but a decision on enforcement still awaits further motions and/or trial.

Federal Appeals Court Ruling on USPS Return to Work Requirements for FMLA Absence (Rodney Harrell v. USPS; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 03-4204, 07/19/05) [pdf]

A federal appeals court ruling that the Postal Service’s return-to-work requirements for absences of more than 21 days are in conflict with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

USPS Return-to-Duty Policy Subject to Rehabilitation Act (Miller v. Potter, EEOC No. 230-2003-04087X) [pdf]

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision finding that the Postal Service violated the Rehabilitation Act by requiring an employee with an FMLA-certified medical condition to provide additional medical certification before being allowed to return to work.

Approved FMLA Leave Inappropriate Subject for a Disciplinary Discussion (Case No. 8:02-cv-1018-T-26EAJ; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida; 4/14/2003) [pdf]

A court order enforcing an arbitration award which stated that approved FMLA leave was not an appropriate subject for a discussion under Article 16.2 (AIRS #37266, USPS #H98C-1HC 00139847, 3/4/2002). The court decision also approved the arbitrator’s conclusion that the union has a right under the National Agreement to challenge whether subjects the Postal Service raises during official discussions are proper.

Supreme Court Decision on Seniority and the Americans with Disabilities Act (U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Robert Barnett, U.S. Supreme Court, 122 S.Ct. 1516; 4/29/2002) [pdf]

A U.S. Supreme Court decision on seniority rules and an employer's obligation to accommodate a disabled employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court ruled that when a requested accommodation for a disabled employee would place the employee in a position that violates the rules of a seniority system, the accommodation would ordinarily not be reasonable and thus would not be required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court specified that in ADA cases an employer will ordinarily prevail as a matter of law if a seniority system is in place, unless the disabled employee shows that there are special circumstances surrounding the particular case that demonstrate that the accommodation is nonetheless reasonable.

[ Back to Top ]