It seems to be more of a story about going 'anal'. I can buy the former postal employees arguement about providing better customer service. This case seems to set a precedent for anyone to make a claim against someone they have an issue with because there is no requirement for proof. Because the accusers story seemed more credible, does it mean that she was telling the truth? It was basically his word against hers. He should have used his insanity defense. Unless he is insane, there's definitely more to the story than was revealed. They must have had some type of relationship prior to this incident. I just can't imagine that someone would commit such a random action knowing the possible consequences.
Re: Delivering mail and kissing the customer
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:58 PM
HR I agree. I see it every day as CS file EEO ans MSBS and Union complaints every day for sheer nonsense
Too many episodes of desperate housewives!
CSO FDA Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:49 AM
This guy obviously watched too many episodes of desperate housewives. Now, he knows the difference between TV and real life.
Creditability of one vs. another
worker Fed Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:17 AM
First, I believe preponderence of evidence rules.
Second, I would like to know why the woman's testimony was more creditable than the postal worker's testimony.
Third, we as government workers, must be very careful when performing our jobs if we deal with the public. One never knows when a customer decides to go postal and report the worker to a manager or higher. Your job is on the line. You may be innocent or guilty, but if the deciders do not believe you or do not want to believe you, you are in trouble.
I am not saying the postal worker is guilty or innocent. I do not know. All I am saying is be careful. I was accused. Management did not believe me. The accusers made accusations, some of which were proven to be false. Management still did not believe me. I did not do what I was accused of. It did not matter. I was suspended, but not fired.
Be careful.
Re: Creditability of one vs. another
Attorney Fed Agency Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:26 AM
worker, the reasons why the woman's testimony was found to be more credible by the AJ are described in the article and detailed in the linked Federal Circuit decision. Maybe you should actually read the whole article before asking questions.
Re: Creditability of one vs. another
HR Specialist Small Agency Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:24 AM
She was found more credible because she had more detail in her statement and told it to a couple of different people. Or maybe she's just a better liar and knows how to stick to her story. This is why I have a problem with the lower burden of proof standards in the employee appeal process than the judicial process. If this guy really did what she said he did, he should have been charged with assault, gone to trial, had a verdict placed against him, and then been fired if he was found guilty.
Re: Creditability of one vs. another
worker Fed Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:30 AM
To Attorney
I read the article. I was not convinced that she met the preponderance of evidence rules. That is why I made the comment.
Also his statements were not given much space.
I cannot download the actual case, so I went by the article. Sorry, it is the best I have.
Mail delivery and Kissing
Fed Employee Federal Govt Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:19 AM
Sounds a lot like the biblical story of "Joseph and Pharoah's Wife. She accused Joseph of trying to rape her but, he didn't and, he was sent to jail anyway.
Seems to me that, in a cases like this, they use the "CSI Test." If in fact he did assault her and this is what she is alledging then, they should scan the clothing she had on for "D&A" to see if any of his D&A is on her clothing. They should swarb her mouth and his mouth to see if there is any D&A there as well.
When someone is charged with "Assaulting" another individual, just because the woman's story sounds credible doesn't mean it is, (Pharoah's Wife's story sound credible too and Pharoah believed it but, it wasn't) and an innocent man went to Jail this is a serious charge and the word of one person over another person should not be taken until the individual's story is tested for truth. MSPB should be using more reliable methods than just the Story "Sounds Credible" to determine if the Mail Carrier is guilty.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
Unhigh on the Food Chain VA Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:41 AM
Perhaps his past has come back to haunt him.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
clerk DOI Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:51 AM
It's DNA, not D&A.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
Civilian Navy Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:09 AM
I assume you mean DNA. This was not a criminal trial; it was an administrative proceeding, so DNA testing would not be done. While the article doesn't elaborate, since the police were called, there may have been an arrest, we don't know. There may be a lot more to the story than either party is letting on.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
Attorney Fed Agency Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:37 AM
Fed Employee, your comments make no sense. This is not a criminal offense. No one is going to "jail." No "swarbing" (whatever that is) is needed to determine if the woman is lying - the burden of proof here is simply a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And HR Specialist and Fed Employee, there is nothing unusual about how the credibility determination was made in this case. If you would take the time to read the linked decision, you would see that this determination was based upon several factors, including the AJ's observation of the witnesses' demeanor during testimony and the consistency of the testimony with other statements made by the witness. These are long-standing and acceptable methods of judging credibility in MSPB cases. Read the Hillen line of MSPB cases if you don't understand this.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
IT Manager DOE Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:27 PM
Fed Employee: the biblical analogy is "Joseph and Potiphar's wife", not "Pharaoh's wife".
There is one aspect of this case that I find troubling regarding the series of events that occurred after the alledged assault. Why did Ms. Llmberger wait several hours after the incident to tell someone, and then an entire day to report it to authorities? Also, why did she not tell her husband immediately?
According to the case transcript, Ms. Llmberger did not even report the incident until several hours later, and then simply told her neighbor, Ms. Christensen. She then waited until the next day to attempt to contact her husband, and failing to reach him, she instead told an employee of a coffee shop owned by her husband's family, through whom her brother-in-law ostensibly learned of the alledged incident - her husband still did not know. Ms. Llmberger did not even call the police until asked to by the post office customer service manager. Something's wrong with this picture.
Deliver the mail and kissing
Patient Business Assistant VA Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:57 AM
You all are right. There's no telling if that man & woman had an undercover relationship in which that behavior was allowed before, & now she doesn't want it anymore. Nor do we know if she/he was took a flirtation too far. I would have liked to see some DNA testing. That would have told the real tale. Too many times people are accused of things that aren't true. Often VA patients tell lies on employee's to get things (meds, faster appt., etc) or revenge because they didn't like "the tone" of the perosn they talked to. Sometimes it isn't a matter of tone, but content of what was relayed (refusal to do something), that's the real culprit. If one feels like they're owed a service (like mail being hand carried and put in the house) & that doesn't happen, people can get real nasty. Then again (playing devils advocate here) sometimes people can take a kind gesture or slight flirtation as a invitation, & take it too far. The on scene cop should've swabbed something or someone.
Re: Deliver the mail and kissing
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:04 PM
No question about it having been treated in the VA and see what goes on there every vet should be given a swab to get the DNA from the workers. Especially those who abuse the patients. They all should get camcorders so they can take pictures of no one checking on them as required
Delivering the Mail and Kissing
Patient Business Assistant VA Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:12 AM
Second thought here. Why did the woman tell her neighbor first, instead of the police? And if he truly assaulted her, why wasn't he arrested? That's a felony. The cops let him go. Normally if you assault someone you go to jail instantly. Especially in this case considering the type of assault. It's almost the equivalent to attempted rape especially since he supposedly gave her a condom and said he'd be back later, that's considered a threat of rape (sorry for the rant, my cousin's a cop). Shouldn't those facts have been considered by MSPB and the postal service when investigating the validity of her story?
Removal
Human Resources Specialist IRS Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:20 AM
The employee admitted that he deviated from his route and the woman's story was credible. I am presuming that the Post Officv investigated the incident and found the employee's credibility lacking, so I am unclear why the woman's comments and credibility are suspect to the respondents to the article. Taxpayers have alleged harrassment by IRS employees in violation of Section 1203(b) of the Reform and Restructuting Act; the allegations are investigated, and in most instances management determined that the employee acted appropriately. I am assuming that the post office also conducts investigations of allegations before proposing action and then acts based on the prepondeance of evidenve. Cabrera should have concentrated on delivering the mail and not the male.
Concern over the Judges Ruling
Contact Rep SSA Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:49 AM
Although I think it is entirely possible the story actually played out as reported, I am conerned the judge sided with the female in this case with out any coroborating testimony from a witness. She could have just as easily approached the mail carrier and after being rejected by him, cooked up the whole story to get even with him. Simply telling the same story multiple time to different people doesn't make it true.
Re: Concern over the Judges Ruling
op supe faa Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:38 PM
It's easy to tell the same story time after time. Tell the truth the first time, don't deviate from the truth, and the truth will 'set you free.' I found this to be true when I was hit with an EEO complaint and was interviewed/interrogated several times over a period of three years. I told the truth from the gitgo. Because of that, I never had to try to remember what I had told them on previous occasions. They finally 'let me go' after realizing they couldn't trip me (or the truth) up.
Re: Concern over the Judges Ruling
Civilian Navy Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:42 AM
Contact Rep, so you're saying if there's no witness it didn't happen? You really don't believe that, do you? Hope you never experience a crime when no one is around to witness it.
Re: Concern over the Judges Ruling
el tech noaa Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:32 AM
that's just the point Mr.Navy, there was never a crime;
think about it just a minute, if this really did happen
wouldn't the victim call the cops immediately.
you bet they would; buy the way hopefully you never
get falsely accused, it's no fun at all I know first hand
and it cost me several thousand dollars to prove it.
Delivering Mail and Kissing
Management Analyst Dept. of Education Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:08 PM
According the the postal worker he deviated from his route because she was outside and he considered this to be good customer service. My postman does this sometimes when if I am outside or if there is a package for me he will drive his truck into my driveway and deliver my package and then go on the the mail delivery. I just wonder what made the woman's story so crediable and not the postal worker. Not only that, if it were me, I would have called the police first and then talked to someone else.
Re: Delivering Mail and Kissing
Human Resources Specialist IRS Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:46 PM
Being related to and having known several women who were sexually assaulted, I know that the first reaction for many female victims is to confide in friends or family before contacting the authorities. I agree with the attorney's comments; I see no evidence that the postal worker's appeal was adjudicated differently from other appeals and don't quite understand the responses that attempt to make the victim responsible for what was done to her or assume that there was an ongoing relationship between her and the appellant. If the victim of sexual assault is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, no wonder many women choose to not report the incidents to the authorities.
Re: Delivering Mail and Kissing
Manager OPA Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 AM
You don't know women well if you think they would call the police first...they always call a female friend first!
questionable
letter carrier usps Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:02 PM
I'm sorry, but there has to be more to the situation than is revealed here. The woman's lack of action, nothing, immediately following the incident raises a red flag in my eyes. Who she spoke to and when seems like a bit of a set-up to me. If you repeat a lie enough times, people believe it as truth. It all seems a little fishy to me.
signed,
a female carrier
Truth and allegations
Civil Servant US Government Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:20 PM
This is one of those "guilty until proven innocent" situations. All one has to do is accuse someone of sexual wrongdoing, and that person is at the very least viewed askance, often forever. On the other hand, if the carrier did what he is accused of, justice has been served, harsh though it may seem. Sexual terrorism makes me ill. Let's just hope facts have prevailed over emotion in deciding this case.
Sexual Assualt
PO Carrier USPS Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:23 PM
Was this guy charged for sexual assault in criminal court? If not why not? This guy should be locked up. He is obviously a danger to society!
Deviation
Carrier Usps Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:23 PM
The charge of deviating from route was just added to bolster the case against him. If carriers were disciplined for back tracking or correcting a mistake, there would be no carriers left.
People will say anything
RCA USPS Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:46 PM
This honestly reminds me of something that happened on a local route to another carrier. The RCA had never run this route before and was late getting to the street. Upon getting about an hour into the route the Post Office received a call.
The call was from a customer on the route the RCA was delivering. The caller, a woman, claimed she saw the RCA smoking marijuana while he was delivering to her apartment.
The carrier came back into the post office and was escorted back to his vehicle by two supervisors who then did a complete inspection of the mail that was brought back, his person, and the vehicle.
The real kicker is they asked the woman to come in and make a formal complaint in writing, but she wouldn't even give her name and their search of the RCA turned up nothing.
This particular RCA does not smoke any sort of product, nor does he drink alcohol. So imagine his confusion when he was greeted by the supervisors that afternoon.
In short: Some people will say anything.
Incredible
Senior Power Plant Operator Army Corps of Engineers Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:04 PM
Who is lying here? How do you determine which one? Did the postal carrier have a history of being less then truthful?
If a member of the public makes an accusation does that make it factual? There has to be more to this story. Either the carrier made a pass at her before or something occurred. I can't believe with no witness and no evidence the allegation would stand. Some people can be very convincing liars.
Why did she not immediately call the police
Legal Assistant Department of Justice Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:43 PM
Why did she not immediately call the police?
Criminal versus Administrative actions
Employee Relations Specialist Big agency Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:49 PM
I am interested in many of the comments posted today, because in my job I am instructed to postpone any administrative action until pending civil (court) cases are complete. Everybody knows that processing an alleged criminal from arrest to conviction takes months, even years. And I've always wondered why a federal agency should keep an employee on "indefinite suspension" until the courts are done with the civil action.
Re: Criminal versus Administrative actions
HR Navy Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:26 PM
Why would you put someone on indefinite suspension just because they were arrested? Unless it was for murder or some other serious crime, let the employee continue to work until the trial has concluded. In the meantime, let the security clearance process work. Ind suspension may be appropriate if the employee receives a suspension of access from the agency.
Mr. Cabrera's Mistake
IT Manager DOE Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:30 PM
In reading the case transcript, I noticed that Mr. Cabrera made the unfortunate mistake of representing himself. He was up against four attornies hired to represent the postal service. Bad idea.
I still believe that Ms. Ilmberger's actions following the incident do not adequately support her allegations. Frankly, if she had actually felt threatened, I doubt she would have waited an entire day to take action. A few other oddities:
1. Ms. Ilmberger didn't even attempt to notify her husband until the day after the incident, and then apparently failed.
2. The only physical evidence, the condom, was conveniently returned to the assailant.
3. The call to law enforcement was made to apparently prevent Ms. Ilmberger's brother-in-law from assaulting Mr. Cabrera the day after the alleged attack. Interestingly, no arrests were made.
4. Ms. Christensen's testimony is heresay and cannot be used to corroborate Ms. Ilmberger's allegations.
The MB and ALJ did a poor job.
Credibility
POOM, retired USPS Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:13 PM
I did not read the linked case, but been there, done that, I offer the following:
It is almost unheard of to remove a vet and make it stick... Labor reps and judges usually want to settle if at all possible, before trying the case. This went all the way, so had to be a strong agency case.
Would be very interested in their demeanor during the trials. Maybe he tried the macho defense..not smart! If his managers, the labor reps, and 3 hearing judges all came to the same conclusion..well.
Many women are not aware of sexual har laws, or what constitutes sexual har, but just like the customer who trips in the lobby and is fine, then sues us, they become aware of their rights...
Not sure, but wouldn't she have to press charges to get the police involved? Maybe did not want the publicity. USPS took admin action, and removed him, for her to show up to testify that many times is very telling.
I would say, justice was served. Thank goodness they didn't just transfer him to your route!
Re: Credibility
worker Fed Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:42 AM
You are drawing conclusions based on too many hypotheticals. Remember, preponderance of EVIDENCE rules, not hypotheticals. You cannot draw conclusions based on management officials dterminations. They draw conclusions that are not always based on the facts, but on their opinions of the accused. These may not be relevant to the case.
I was unable to download the court case to read it. The article is very sketchy and has to be otherwise there would be no room to print it. It raises many questions for me.
Having been the victim of false accusations, I can sympathize with the mail carrier. I have no answers other than do your job and be very cautious when dealing with the public.
Kissing and Removal
Retired government employee Treasury Dept. Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:25 PM
To me this is a he said, she said. Is it possible that this lady and man had some hanky panky interaction prior to this incident. It's hard to believe that a federal employee would be so stupid to put his job in jeopardy because of unauthoried hanky panky with his customer. If he did kiss this lady, I hope he learned his lesson and will behave himself in his next job.
It doesn't matter
HR Navy Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:36 PM
Even if there had been previous relationship, or whatever, it doesn't matter. He deviated from his route and that alone would destroy credibility of further denial of the victim's claim. The loss of trust and confidence in the employee's ability to satisfactorily carry out his duties by the agency did him in.
credibility
letter carrier usps Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:26 PM
Just my opinion but I also believe justice was served. This is more than just "he said, she said". The carriers credibility was totally destroyed when he returned to the lady's house on the following day.
This came after his supv removed that particular street from his route and had another carrier deliver it. His claim that he was only on the street because he became disoriented was absolute hogwash. Thats like claiming you got lost in your own backyard. At that point he lost all credibility not to mention disobeyed a direct order from his supv not to go on her street.
This guy deserved to be removed. As for why there was no criminal case against him. The answer is they may not have been enough to meet the burden of proof in a criminal case, but as was pointed out by others, the burden of proof is much less in a civik case.
credible statements
Mr DSCP Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:11 PM
If no one saw this incident, then what the accuser said should have been thrown out. The mail carrier vindicated.
Delivering mail and kissing the customer
IRS
Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:30 AM
Another story about "going postal"?
Re: Delivering mail and kissing the customer
DOD
Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:50 AM
Re: Delivering mail and kissing the customer
DOL
Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:58 PM
Too many episodes of desperate housewives!
FDA
Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:49 AM
This guy obviously watched too many episodes of desperate housewives. Now, he knows the difference between TV and real life.
Creditability of one vs. another
Fed
Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:17 AM
First, I believe preponderence of evidence rules.
Second, I would like to know why the woman's testimony was more creditable than the postal worker's testimony.
Third, we as government workers, must be very careful when performing our jobs if we deal with the public. One never knows when a customer decides to go postal and report the worker to a manager or higher. Your job is on the line. You may be innocent or guilty, but if the deciders do not believe you or do not want to believe you, you are in trouble.
I am not saying the postal worker is guilty or innocent. I do not know. All I am saying is be careful. I was accused. Management did not believe me. The accusers made accusations, some of which were proven to be false. Management still did not believe me. I did not do what I was accused of. It did not matter. I was suspended, but not fired.
Be careful.
Re: Creditability of one vs. another
Fed Agency
Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:26 AM
Re: Creditability of one vs. another
Small Agency
Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:24 AM
Re: Creditability of one vs. another
Fed
Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:30 AM
I read the article. I was not convinced that she met the preponderance of evidence rules. That is why I made the comment.
Also his statements were not given much space.
I cannot download the actual case, so I went by the article. Sorry, it is the best I have.
Mail delivery and Kissing
Federal Govt
Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:19 AM
Sounds a lot like the biblical story of "Joseph and Pharoah's Wife. She accused Joseph of trying to rape her but, he didn't and, he was sent to jail anyway.
Seems to me that, in a cases like this, they use the "CSI Test." If in fact he did assault her and this is what she is alledging then, they should scan the clothing she had on for "D&A" to see if any of his D&A is on her clothing. They should swarb her mouth and his mouth to see if there is any D&A there as well.
When someone is charged with "Assaulting" another individual, just because the woman's story sounds credible doesn't mean it is, (Pharoah's Wife's story sound credible too and Pharoah believed it but, it wasn't) and an innocent man went to Jail this is a serious charge and the word of one person over another person should not be taken until the individual's story is tested for truth. MSPB should be using more reliable methods than just the Story "Sounds Credible" to determine if the Mail Carrier is guilty.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
VA
Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:41 AM
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
DOI
Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:51 AM
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
Navy
Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:09 AM
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
Fed Agency
Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:37 AM
And HR Specialist and Fed Employee, there is nothing unusual about how the credibility determination was made in this case. If you would take the time to read the linked decision, you would see that this determination was based upon several factors, including the AJ's observation of the witnesses' demeanor during testimony and the consistency of the testimony with other statements made by the witness. These are long-standing and acceptable methods of judging credibility in MSPB cases. Read the Hillen line of MSPB cases if you don't understand this.
Re: Mail delivery and Kissing
DOE
Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:27 PM
There is one aspect of this case that I find troubling regarding the series of events that occurred after the alledged assault. Why did Ms. Llmberger wait several hours after the incident to tell someone, and then an entire day to report it to authorities? Also, why did she not tell her husband immediately?
According to the case transcript, Ms. Llmberger did not even report the incident until several hours later, and then simply told her neighbor, Ms. Christensen. She then waited until the next day to attempt to contact her husband, and failing to reach him, she instead told an employee of a coffee shop owned by her husband's family, through whom her brother-in-law ostensibly learned of the alledged incident - her husband still did not know. Ms. Llmberger did not even call the police until asked to by the post office customer service manager. Something's wrong with this picture.
Deliver the mail and kissing
VA
Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:57 AM
You all are right. There's no telling if that man & woman had an undercover relationship in which that behavior was allowed before, & now she doesn't want it anymore. Nor do we know if she/he was took a flirtation too far. I would have liked to see some DNA testing. That would have told the real tale. Too many times people are accused of things that aren't true. Often VA patients tell lies on employee's to get things (meds, faster appt., etc) or revenge because they didn't like "the tone" of the perosn they talked to. Sometimes it isn't a matter of tone, but content of what was relayed (refusal to do something), that's the real culprit. If one feels like they're owed a service (like mail being hand carried and put in the house) & that doesn't happen, people can get real nasty. Then again (playing devils advocate here) sometimes people can take a kind gesture or slight flirtation as a invitation, & take it too far. The on scene cop should've swabbed something or someone.
Re: Deliver the mail and kissing
DOL
Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:04 PM
Delivering the Mail and Kissing
VA
Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:12 AM
Second thought here. Why did the woman tell her neighbor first, instead of the police? And if he truly assaulted her, why wasn't he arrested? That's a felony. The cops let him go. Normally if you assault someone you go to jail instantly. Especially in this case considering the type of assault. It's almost the equivalent to attempted rape especially since he supposedly gave her a condom and said he'd be back later, that's considered a threat of rape (sorry for the rant, my cousin's a cop). Shouldn't those facts have been considered by MSPB and the postal service when investigating the validity of her story?
Removal
IRS
Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:20 AM
The employee admitted that he deviated from his route and the woman's story was credible. I am presuming that the Post Officv investigated the incident and found the employee's credibility lacking, so I am unclear why the woman's comments and credibility are suspect to the respondents to the article. Taxpayers have alleged harrassment by IRS employees in violation of Section 1203(b) of the Reform and Restructuting Act; the allegations are investigated, and in most instances management determined that the employee acted appropriately. I am assuming that the post office also conducts investigations of allegations before proposing action and then acts based on the prepondeance of evidenve. Cabrera should have concentrated on delivering the mail and not the male.
Concern over the Judges Ruling
SSA
Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:49 AM
Although I think it is entirely possible the story actually played out as reported, I am conerned the judge sided with the female in this case with out any coroborating testimony from a witness. She could have just as easily approached the mail carrier and after being rejected by him, cooked up the whole story to get even with him. Simply telling the same story multiple time to different people doesn't make it true.
Re: Concern over the Judges Ruling
faa
Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:38 PM
Re: Concern over the Judges Ruling
Navy
Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:42 AM
Re: Concern over the Judges Ruling
noaa
Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:32 AM
think about it just a minute, if this really did happen
wouldn't the victim call the cops immediately.
you bet they would; buy the way hopefully you never
get falsely accused, it's no fun at all I know first hand
and it cost me several thousand dollars to prove it.
Delivering Mail and Kissing
Dept. of Education
Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:08 PM
According the the postal worker he deviated from his route because she was outside and he considered this to be good customer service. My postman does this sometimes when if I am outside or if there is a package for me he will drive his truck into my driveway and deliver my package and then go on the the mail delivery. I just wonder what made the woman's story so crediable and not the postal worker. Not only that, if it were me, I would have called the police first and then talked to someone else.
Re: Delivering Mail and Kissing
IRS
Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:46 PM
Re: Delivering Mail and Kissing
OPA
Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 AM
questionable
usps
Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:02 PM
I'm sorry, but there has to be more to the situation than is revealed here. The woman's lack of action, nothing, immediately following the incident raises a red flag in my eyes. Who she spoke to and when seems like a bit of a set-up to me. If you repeat a lie enough times, people believe it as truth. It all seems a little fishy to me.
signed,
a female carrier
Truth and allegations
US Government
Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:20 PM
This is one of those "guilty until proven innocent" situations. All one has to do is accuse someone of sexual wrongdoing, and that person is at the very least viewed askance, often forever. On the other hand, if the carrier did what he is accused of, justice has been served, harsh though it may seem. Sexual terrorism makes me ill. Let's just hope facts have prevailed over emotion in deciding this case.
Sexual Assualt
USPS
Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:23 PM
Was this guy charged for sexual assault in criminal court? If not why not? This guy should be locked up. He is obviously a danger to society!
Deviation
Usps
Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:23 PM
The charge of deviating from route was just added to bolster the case against him. If carriers were disciplined for back tracking or correcting a mistake, there would be no carriers left.
People will say anything
USPS
Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:46 PM
This honestly reminds me of something that happened on a local route to another carrier. The RCA had never run this route before and was late getting to the street. Upon getting about an hour into the route the Post Office received a call.
The call was from a customer on the route the RCA was delivering. The caller, a woman, claimed she saw the RCA smoking marijuana while he was delivering to her apartment.
The carrier came back into the post office and was escorted back to his vehicle by two supervisors who then did a complete inspection of the mail that was brought back, his person, and the vehicle.
The real kicker is they asked the woman to come in and make a formal complaint in writing, but she wouldn't even give her name and their search of the RCA turned up nothing.
This particular RCA does not smoke any sort of product, nor does he drink alcohol. So imagine his confusion when he was greeted by the supervisors that afternoon.
In short: Some people will say anything.
Incredible
Army Corps of Engineers
Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:04 PM
Who is lying here? How do you determine which one? Did the postal carrier have a history of being less then truthful?
If a member of the public makes an accusation does that make it factual? There has to be more to this story. Either the carrier made a pass at her before or something occurred. I can't believe with no witness and no evidence the allegation would stand. Some people can be very convincing liars.
Why did she not immediately call the police
Department of Justice
Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:43 PM
Why did she not immediately call the police?
Criminal versus Administrative actions
Big agency
Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:49 PM
I am interested in many of the comments posted today, because in my job I am instructed to postpone any administrative action until pending civil (court) cases are complete. Everybody knows that processing an alleged criminal from arrest to conviction takes months, even years. And I've always wondered why a federal agency should keep an employee on "indefinite suspension" until the courts are done with the civil action.
Re: Criminal versus Administrative actions
Navy
Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:26 PM
Mr. Cabrera's Mistake
DOE
Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:30 PM
In reading the case transcript, I noticed that Mr. Cabrera made the unfortunate mistake of representing himself. He was up against four attornies hired to represent the postal service. Bad idea.
I still believe that Ms. Ilmberger's actions following the incident do not adequately support her allegations. Frankly, if she had actually felt threatened, I doubt she would have waited an entire day to take action. A few other oddities:
1. Ms. Ilmberger didn't even attempt to notify her husband until the day after the incident, and then apparently failed.
2. The only physical evidence, the condom, was conveniently returned to the assailant.
3. The call to law enforcement was made to apparently prevent Ms. Ilmberger's brother-in-law from assaulting Mr. Cabrera the day after the alleged attack. Interestingly, no arrests were made.
4. Ms. Christensen's testimony is heresay and cannot be used to corroborate Ms. Ilmberger's allegations.
The MB and ALJ did a poor job.
Credibility
USPS
Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:13 PM
I did not read the linked case, but been there, done that, I offer the following:
It is almost unheard of to remove a vet and make it stick... Labor reps and judges usually want to settle if at all possible, before trying the case. This went all the way, so had to be a strong agency case.
Would be very interested in their demeanor during the trials. Maybe he tried the macho defense..not smart! If his managers, the labor reps, and 3 hearing judges all came to the same conclusion..well.
Many women are not aware of sexual har laws, or what constitutes sexual har, but just like the customer who trips in the lobby and is fine, then sues us, they become aware of their rights...
Not sure, but wouldn't she have to press charges to get the police involved? Maybe did not want the publicity. USPS took admin action, and removed him, for her to show up to testify that many times is very telling.
I would say, justice was served. Thank goodness they didn't just transfer him to your route!
Re: Credibility
Fed
Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:42 AM
I was unable to download the court case to read it. The article is very sketchy and has to be otherwise there would be no room to print it. It raises many questions for me.
Having been the victim of false accusations, I can sympathize with the mail carrier. I have no answers other than do your job and be very cautious when dealing with the public.
Kissing and Removal
Treasury Dept.
Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:25 PM
To me this is a he said, she said. Is it possible that this lady and man had some hanky panky interaction prior to this incident. It's hard to believe that a federal employee would be so stupid to put his job in jeopardy because of unauthoried hanky panky with his customer. If he did kiss this lady, I hope he learned his lesson and will behave himself in his next job.
It doesn't matter
Navy
Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:36 PM
Even if there had been previous relationship, or whatever, it doesn't matter. He deviated from his route and that alone would destroy credibility of further denial of the victim's claim. The loss of trust and confidence in the employee's ability to satisfactorily carry out his duties by the agency did him in.
credibility
usps
Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:26 PM
Just my opinion but I also believe justice was served. This is more than just "he said, she said". The carriers credibility was totally destroyed when he returned to the lady's house on the following day.
This came after his supv removed that particular street from his route and had another carrier deliver it. His claim that he was only on the street because he became disoriented was absolute hogwash. Thats like claiming you got lost in your own backyard. At that point he lost all credibility not to mention disobeyed a direct order from his supv not to go on her street.
This guy deserved to be removed. As for why there was no criminal case against him. The answer is they may not have been enough to meet the burden of proof in a criminal case, but as was pointed out by others, the burden of proof is much less in a civik case.
credible statements
DSCP
Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:11 PM
If no one saw this incident, then what the accuser said should have been thrown out. The mail carrier vindicated.