Sueing the US Postal Service For Employment

[KnightEagle]

And all the atty appointment questions aside....

Wouldn't the OP's wife have to have been issued a right to sue letter?

Even in a "United States District court a federal case wich has defferent rules" people don't get court-appointed lawyers. Some of the rules may be "defferent" but not that particular rule.

This is "true legal advise not want a be's" (whatever that is).

So if what you're posting is correct, why are you asking us about it?

Wanted to see what procedures were involed and what we need to do and expect got word to today from her attorney that was handling her EEO case and he simply stated go down to the court house with the as was put earler the right sue letter fill out the form requesting an lawyer to be appointed have one by end of next week at little or no cost to us based on our income. and for those want bee lawers go study your books some more please.

 

[cbg]

Requesting is not getting.

 

[eerelations]

What's a bee lawer?

 

[Perky]

What's a bee lawer?

I think a bee lawyer is one who represents his 'honey' in court.

 

[justalayman]

I think a bee lawyer is one who represents his 'honey' in court.

If that is the case, I would worry about getting stung

 

[pattytx]

Every time I see this subject line, I cringe. SuEing?

 

[Perky]

If that is the case, I would worry about getting stung

Don't worry, judges don't tolerate their beehavior.

And Patty, I'm makeing a assumption here, sense you weren't makeing it clear, that you beleive that 'sueing' is spelled wrong. Should they be changeing there spelling to 'suing'? Please advice.

 

[pattytx]

And Patty, I'm makeing a assumption here, sense you weren't makeing it clear, that you beleive that 'sueing' is spelled wrong. Should they be changeing there spelling to 'suing'? Please advice.

You would be assumeing correctly.

 

[fairisfair]

I work for the USPS on a contract basis, and not even I can begin to figure out what in the he ll you are trying to say.

Are you saying that she was ONCE a casual carrier (which would be the equivalent of a temp) and that was discovered during her interview for OTHER employment?

or was she being interviewed as a casual carrier?

What qualifications did she have that made her a viable candidate? What qualifications did the other candidates have? do you know?

Was she given a test for this position? most positions at the USPS require that a candidate successfully pass a written exam. Did she pass that test? Did the other candidates? what was her score? did any one score higher? Was any one who scored lower eligible for a veteran, disability or other score credit?

Prove that what you SAY happened did happen. Not just you say, she said, I say they say... Prove it.

you my friend have a loooooooong road ahead of you.

And I am betting on the snowball in my backyard.

AZ checking in here....

thermometer on my back patio is showing 108 right now....

 

[pattytx]

30 miles north of Pittsburgh. We didn't get over 71 today.

 

[las365]

You are correct. 100 here in Austin today.

mlane! I'm in Austin, too!

Happy Fourth of July, y'all.

 

[Indiana Filer]

And just to add to the testing requirement, they don't have to hire the top score for a position. I believe they initially look at the top three scorers for each position. They can hire any of the three, or disqualify all three.

If the wife has as bad grammar as, and spells as bad as, the OP, there is no wonder she was not hired. One needs to be able to read and communicate at a minimum level to be able to sort or deliver mail.

 

[KnightEagle]

spell so what

As you can see I dont give a rats tail about spelling in here for it is up to your speed of advise. As it was mention she did take the test by hirng everyone off the register. They called in the last 53 on the rolls that year 41 showed up 39 were hired 2 was not. In the pile of paper work from her EEO case have statements showing and proof of their lies. One of the two was a casual carrier and that person was not hired for they throw mail away yet was not fired at the time because they need carriers so badly at the time. Yes she had taken the test and passed it not high but passing and spelling not part of the test visual recondition such as <4538 vision same as 4538 vison> or < 1.2.3.4... what comes next> Shuch was on the test it has changed some what but now they ask you the same question three or four ways to get the same answer. Its more to see if your head screwed on right. If I was most of you I give up trying to be lawyers go be weather people be gender corret there. You all seem better at it, than law. Oh just looked out the window going to be dry and extremly warm high 100 no rain in the area. Thats for those that have no clue.

 

[eerelations]

wow what an idiot

 

[Zigner]

As you can see I dont give a rats tail about spelling in here for it is up to your speed of advise. As it was mention she did take the test by hirng everyone off the register. They called in the last 53 on the rolls that year 41 showed up 39 were hired 2 was not. In the pile of paper work from her EEO case have statements showing and proof of their lies. One of the two was a casual carrier and that person was not hired for they throw mail away yet was not fired at the time because they need carriers so badly at the time. Yes she had taken the test and passed it not high but passing and spelling not part of the test visual recondition such as <4538 vision same as 4538 vison> or < 1.2.3.4... what comes next> Shuch was on the test it has changed some what but now they ask you the same question three or four ways to get the same answer. Its more to see if your head screwed on right. If I was most of you I give up trying to be lawyers go be weather people be gender corret there. You all seem better at it, than law. Oh just looked out the window going to be dry and extremly warm high 100 no rain in the area. Thats for those that have no clue.

The ramblings of a person slowly sinking deeper and deeper in to psychosis...