PostalReporter.com Blog

Postal carrier observed working at another business on several occasions. 

 U.S Attorney District of New Hampshire Press Release

October 25, 2007

Arthur Martel, 55, of Hudson, NH, pleaded guilty to a four count Information before Judge Paul Barbadoro in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire. The Information charges Martel with two counts of Mail Fraud and two counts of making a False Statement to an agency of the United States.

The Information alleges that in 1996, defendant Martel, a former postal carrier in New Hampshire, submitted a U.S. Department of Labor form which caused him thereafter to be compensated for total disability at the rate of 75% of his full-time pay at the U.S. Postal Service.

By receiving disability pay from the Department of Labor, Martel was required to periodically submit a U.S. Department of Labor form [1] disclosing any work outside of his federal employment. The Information alleges that when submitting the aforementioned forms, Martel did not disclose his employment in the catering business. He falsified the filings to receive benefits.

Martel faces a maximum sentence of twenty years, a maximum fine of $1,000,000 and a term of supervised release of up to five years. Sentencing is scheduled for January 29, 2007[2] before Judge Barbadoro.

This case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Irish. 

PostalReporter.com notes:

[1] OWCP form CA 1032 states in part that “The kinds of services which you must report includes such activities as carpentry, mechanical work, painting, contracting, child care, odd jobs, etc. Report activities such as keeping books and records, or managing and/or overseeing a business of any kind, including a family business. Even if your activities were part-time or intermittent, you must report them.”

[2] Actually Martel’s sentencing is secheduled for January 29, 2008.

Nikki Horew is a retail associate who can be forgiven for the occasional difficulty of blocking out thoughts of her other line of work: full-contact football player. The Pittsburgh Metro Area Local member is on the offensive line for the Pittsburgh Passion, which plays in the National Women’s Football Association and is the reigning champ of the professional league. The NWFA regular season runs from April to mid-June, and the Passion capped a 12-0 season with a 32-0 win over the Columbus Comets on July 21.

source: The American Postal Worker Magazine

A Vietnam War-era veteran and Postal Supervisor suffered from service-connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and depression. He was a supervisor at the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) for 16 years until he was assaulted by his supervisor in 1998.

Thereafter, he tumbled into a long period of Major Depression and PTSD symptoms. In August and September 2001, his treating psychologist notified USPS that he was cleared to return to work under certain restrictions.

When asked to comment specifically, his psychologist responded that Mr. Ziegler’s current impairment had no significant impact on his major life activities. USPS determined that Mr. Ziegler was not “disabled” under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq., and needed no accommodation. The Veteran’s Administration (“VA”), however, had found Mr. Ziegler to be a “disabled” veteran.

Can one be disabled within the meaning of one statute and not another? The simple answer is “yes” and Mr. Ziegler’s psychologist declared him not disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. Summary judgment, in part, must be granted to USPS. The claim of discrimination based on disability will be dismissed as well as Mr. Ziegler’s claim that USPS failed to accommodate his disability. The entirely separate claim of retaliation based on prior protected activity, however, will not be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Ziegler alleges that he was assaulted by his supervisor in 1998 and that the incident was poorly handled by the USPS.  He suffered from depression and hypertension resulting from work stress. He took a short period of leave in 1998 to obtain medical treatment and eventually took a long unpaid medical leave starting in February 2000. .
In March of that year, his physician notified the USPS that Mr. Ziegler’s’s “long history and recurrent symptomology” of depression going back to 1995 was consistent with chronic Major Depression, which he described as “chronic, recurrent.”  A July 2000 letter from his psychiatrist notified USPS that his Major Depression was “severe enough to interfere with his social, occupational, and familial functioning” and that he would “benefit from medical disability.”

Despite these letters to the USPS Health Unit, Mr. Ziegler’s supervisors terminated him in October 2000 for being Absent Without Leave (“AWOL”).  As he appealed
his termination, his doctor notified USPS that Mr. Ziegler also suffered from PTSD, that his symptoms were “quite severe,” and that everyday incidents “tend[ed] to trigger post traumatic

On March 15, 2002, the USPS Reasonable Accommodation Committee sent Mr. Ziegler a memorandum that incorrectly stated that the Committee had recently met with Mr. Ziegler; in fact, no meeting had taken place. The memo stated that the Committee had determined that no reasonable accommodation was required because “available medical records failed to establish that [Mr. Ziegler was] disabled in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act.”  The Committee’s decision was based solely on the therapist’s September 27, 2001, cover letter, as the members of the Committee received no other documentation concerning hids status.

The fundamental question is whether Mr. Ziegler was discriminated against, or retaliated against, when his request for a reasonable accommodation was denied on March 22, 2002. The USPS responds that he was not a disabled person at that point and, therefore, was not entitled to any accommodation. USPS Zieglers not address whether he was perceived as having a disability or whether he was retaliated against based on prior EEO activity.

“The Court is not persuaded by the USPS’s causation argument, given the record before it. Mr. Ziegler took unpaid leave because of a mental disability in 2000 and his supervisors, in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner, discharged him as AWOL. When he applied, through his therapist, for a reasonable accommodation in August-September 2001, only the last letter from his therapist was forwarded to the Reasonable Accommodation Committee. Even the last letter identified a potential disability, despite the last statement in the letter. USPS argues that Mr. Ziegler’s prior protected activity was his appeal of his discharge. Not so. His prior protected activity was the repeated request, in August - September 2001, for a return to work with certain accommodations. That activity was certainly timely to support an inference of causation.”

“It is clear that the Reasonable Accommodation Committee did not receive full information concerning Mr. Ziegler’s mental health. As a simple for instance, there is no indication that the Committee received or reviewed the Medical Restrictions Assessment Form, much less his therapist’s repeated letters in August and September 2001. The September 11 letter (its date might explain the tardy response) was the fourth time that the therapist tried to obtain a return-to-work plan for Mr. Ziegler, who still experienced PTSD symptoms on occasion, in order to keep him away from the location and person involved in the 1998 attack. The USPS Zieglers not shine in its response to Mr. Ziegler’s situation, from its onset to the present. On this record, most especially since the USPS did not analyze Mr. Ziegler’s Complaint allegations of retaliation based on current law, the Court cannot say that Mr. Ziegler’s did not suffer retaliation when his request for an accommodation

“The motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted as to the claims for disability discrimination and disability harassment based on the failure to approve accommodations for Mr. Ziegler in March 2002. The motion will be denied as to the claim for retaliation based on the same action.

Ziegler vs USPS (PDF)

Lanny Jarvis, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, began working for the Postal Service in 1988 after a medical examination determined that he was fit for duty despite several war injuries. Ten years later, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD). In 2002, he transferred to the Spanish Fork postal facility in Utah and started experiencing PTSD-related incidents with coworkers.

Here is what led up to his firing:

A Vietnam veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder posed a threat to others and was properly terminated by the U.S. Postal Service, but USPS failed to explain why he was denied pay, leave, and disability retirement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled Aug. 30, remanding the case on those issues

On two occasions, Lanny Bart Jarvis struck and kicked a co-worker when she startled him, and he later struck another co-worker who shoved him in passing. He was able to restrain himself from striking his manager when she startled him.Jarvis told the supervisor he had PTSD and asked that co-workers be told to announce themselves before approaching him.

When Jarvis was terminated after an investigation, he sued under the Rehabilitation Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, which ruled for USPS. That court found that the risk of violence could not be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation because the accommodation Jarvis sought—that co-workers announce themselves—would not eliminate the possibility that he might be startled accidentally. His request was not reasonable, the district court said, because it attempted to shift to co-workers the burden of preventing him from engaging in violence.

Qualification at Issue
“The postal service does not dispute on appeal that Mr. Jarvis is an individual with a disability,” the Tenth Circuit said. “The issue before us is whether he is ‘otherwise qualified,’ ” it said.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which provides guidance in Rehabilitation Act cases, defines “qualified individual with a disability” as one who “with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position,” the court said. “In other words, one who cannot perform the essential functions of the job, even with a reasonable accommodation, is not an ‘otherwise qualified’ individual,” the court said.

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation defines “direct threat” as a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation,” the court said. The rule states that the factors at issue include the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm, it said.

“In our view, the record compels the conclusion that the postal service’s determination that Mr. Jarvis was a direct threat was an objectively reasonable decision,” the court found.

In addition to Jarvis’s three assaults on co-workers, evidence included a letter from Jarvis’s health-care provider stating that his PTSD was unlikely to dissipate and that he was a threat in the workplace. USPS also relied on Jarvis’s own statements that his PTSD was getting worse, that he could no longer stop at the first blow, and that, if he hit someone in the right place, the blow could be fatal, the court said.

“Based on this evidence, three of the four factors in the EEOC regulations—duration, imminence, and likelihood—were clearly met,” the court said. Jarvis’s “symptoms would last indefinitely, he could erupt at any moment if startled, and it was highly likely that someone would startle him, even if inadvertently.”

“The postal service was not required to ignore the risk of inadvertent startling,” the court said, affirming the district court’s dismissal of Jarvis’s discrimination claim.

However, with regard to Jarvis’s retaliation claims, the appeals court said USPS “has not explained why Mr. Jarvis was denied the opportunity to retire rather than be terminated or why he was denied pay and access to accrued vacation and sick leave while he was on administrative leave.” As a result, the court said, it was necessary to reverse the dismissal of those claims and send them back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Jarvis vs USPS (PDF)

Below is an MSPB finding the military pay provisions of USERRA inapplicable to the USPS and therefore, upholding the USPS denial paid military time off for non-scheduled days for USPS as the USPS policy and regulations did not provide for it.

Merit System Protection Board decision:

Welshans vs U. S. Postal Service (PDF)

In his initial appeal, the [Victor Welshans] appellant stated that he has been a Postal employee since 1981, and was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve from August 1983 through August 2004. He indicated that he is seeking compensation for improperly charged military leave during this period,but he did not specify the dates he was charged military leave, the amount of leave charged, or his leave status on those dates. Id. The administrative judge (AJ) ordered the appellant to provide the missing information. IAF, Tab 4. The appellant responded that he had attended annual training on the following days:

August 20 to September 2, 1984; July 7 to July 20, 1985; August 31 to September 13, 1986; November 6 to November 22, 1987; March 27 to April 9, 1988; April 8 to April 21, 1989; January 20 to February 3, 1990; June 16 to June 28, 1990; July 8, 1993; and August 14 to August 29, 1999.  He indicated that he did not know the exact dates when he was incorrectly charged military leave for non-workdays, as he had rotating days off, but that he was charged military leave for 2 Sundays during each of the annual training periods.

The agency moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the military  leave provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 6323, as interpreted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice, 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003), do not apply to Postal employees.* IAF, Tab 5. The AJ ordered * Under 5 U.S.C. § 6323, federal employees are to be given up to 15 days of paid leave a year to attend training sessions required of them as members of military reserves or the National Guard. Until this section was amended in 2000, the Office of Personnel Management interpreted it as providing 15 calendar days of leave each year, rather than 15 work days, and federal agencies therefore followed the practice of charging employees military leave for absences on non-workdays (e.g., weekends and holidays) when those days fell within a period of absence for military training. See Butterbaugh,336 F.3d at 1333-34. The Federal Circuit held that, even before the 2000 amendment, agencies were not entitled to charge employees military leave for days when they would not otherwise have been required to work.

ANALYSIS
¶4 Under USERRA, the Board has jurisdiction over an appellant’s claim that he was denied “any benefit of employment” on the basis of his membership in the uniformed services. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 4311(a), 4324(b). Military leave afforded under 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a) is a benefit of employment. Pucilowski v. Department of Justice, 498 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Where an agency has improperly denied an employee military leave benefits, the Board has the authority to order the agency to correct its records to reflect a proper accounting of the individual’s military leave, and to order compensation for any resulting lost wages or benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 4324(c); Pucilowski, 498 F.3d at 1344.
Because the appellant is a Postal employee, he is not entitled to military leave under 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a). See Miller v. U.S. Postal Service, 105 M.S.P.R. 89, ¶ 8 (2007). The statute provides, in relevant part, as follows:

[A]n employee as defined by section 2105 of this title or an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, is entitled to leave . . . for active duty . . . or engaging in field or coast defense training . . . as a Reserve of the armed forces or member of the National Guard.

The definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 2105(e) expressly excludes employees of the U.S. Postal Service, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law,” 4and Congress has not extended coverage of 5 U.S.C. § 6323 to Postal employees.Miller, 105 M.S.P.R. 89, ¶ 8.
 The record nonetheless reflects that, during the relevant time period, the agency had a policy in effect for the administration of paid military leave. Prior to fiscal year 2002, the ELM included the following provisions:
517.41 General Allowance
Eligible full-time and part-time employees receive credit for paid military leave as follows:
a. Full-time employee other than D.C. National Guard—15 calendar days (120 hours) each fiscal year.
. . . .
517.53 Leave Charge for Nonworkdays
Nonworkdays falling within a period of absence for active duty are charged against the paid military leave allowed full-time employees during the fiscal year, but nonworkdays falling at the beginning and end of an active duty period are not charged . . . . Nonworkdays are charged during continuous active duty periods, even when mixed or other leave is taken or when paid military leave is taken
intermittently.

Petition for Review File (PFRF), Tab 3, Ex A. Effective September 8, 2001, the agency modified § 517.41 to allow employees to carry over unused military leave from one fiscal year to the next, and deleted § 517.53 altogether.

The Board will enforce employee rights derived from agency rules, regulations, procedures, and negotiated collective bargaining agreements. See Campbell v. U.S. Postal Service, 75 M.S.P.R. 273, 279 (1997); Dwyer v. U.S. Postal Service, 32 M.S.P.R. 181, 185 (1987). The fact that the appellant in this case is not covered by 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a), but instead is covered by an agency rule, does not affect our authority to consider this case under USERRA. Miller, 105 M.S.P.R. 89, ¶ 11; see also Pratt v. Department of Transportation, 103 M.S.P.R. 111, ¶ 10 (2006); Plezia v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 102 M.S.P.R. 125, ¶ 10 (2006). The issue before us then is whether the agency improperly administered military leave under its own rules.

Taking the appellant’s allegations as true, we find nothing to suggest that the agency failed to comply with its own rules concerning military leave. Unlike 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(1), the former ELM § 517.53 unambiguously required that non-workdays falling within a period of absence for active duty be charged against the paid military leave allowed full-time employees. Following the deletion of ELM § 517.53, the agency ceased charging military leave for any nonworkdays.

On the specific dates at issue in this appeal, however, the provision was still in effect. Thus, the agency was required under its own rules to charge military leave for non-workdays falling within absences for active duty.

Because the appellant’s factual allegations, taken as true, do not support a conclusion that he is entitled to corrective action, we dismiss his appeal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Young v. Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 99, ¶ 5 (2002), aff’d, 66 F. App’x 858 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

ORDER
¶10 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113(c) (5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(c)).

Effective March 19, 2001, USPS removed David Gutkowski from his position of Supervisor Level 16, Customer Service, at the Wilkes Barre Post Office in Pennsylvania. Following a hearing, a Merit System Protection Board administrative judge mitigated the removal to a 90-day suspension and a demotion to the next-highest non-supervisory position, and awarded back pay and related retroactive benefits.

At issue in this enforcement proceeding was the Postal Service’s compliance with a final MSPB order that mitigated a removal action to a 90-day suspension and a demotion to the “next-highest non-supervisory position. “Initially, the agency assigned Gutkowski to a Part-Time Flexible PS-5 Distribution Clerk position. The agency later appointed him to the non-supervisory, EAS-11 position of Postmaster, Shawanese, Pennsylvania. In response to Gutkowski’s contention that he should have been considered for a number of identified vacancies, the agency averred that offering him any of these positions would have violated the applicable collective bargaining agreement. In the initial decision that became the Board’s final decision, the AJ ruled that it would not have been “reasonable to require the agency to violate the National Agreement in seeking to place” Gutkowski following the final Board order.”

The Federal Circuit court agreed that an agency is not required, pursuant to the terms of a MSPB order, to assign an employee to a particular position when that assignment would violate the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The court stated that it need not decide, however, whether the Board has the authority to order an assignment that would violate the CBA because an agency’s interpretation of its own orders is entitled to significant deference, and the Board reasonably construed the term “next highest non-supervisory position” as excluding positions that were unavailable under the CBA.”

Gutkowski vs. United States Postal Service (PDF)

On October 16, 2007, GlobalOptions Group, Inc. , a leading provider of domestic and international risk mitigation and management services clarified that, “in the press release dated October 10, 2007, the award for a pilot program is with the United States Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General” and not with the United States Postal Service. “GlobalOptions said it will work with the Office of Inspector General’s Workers Compensation Analyst (WCA) program to investigate and combat workers compensation fraud.”

The Federal Business Opportunities notice posted in May of this year contained more information:

USPS OIG Hiring Workers Compensation Analysts (WCAs)

“Workers Compensation Analyst (WCA) Program Management Services: Manage all stages of the Workers Compensation Analyst (WCA) program for the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPSOIG) - conducting surveillance activities and videotape activities of suspect claimants and analyzing data from employment, medical, Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP) files, and other pertinent sources for indications of possible loss.”

“The Workers Compensation Analyst (WCA) program was developed with the goal of aggressively investigating Workers Compensation Fraud. WCA contracts provided valuable support to these investigations, either through research or surveillance support. WCAs serve as liaisons between the Injury Compensation Unit and the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPSOIG).”

SPECIAL CLAUSES (SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS)
The following requirements are hereby incorporated into the contract.
1. The Contractor, and not the USPSOIG, shall be liable for its unauthorized actions in the handling of workers’ compensation fraud cases.

see statemement of work (PDF)

First-Ever CareerSMART Event in DC Wednesday, Nov. 14th

The U.S. Postal Service will highlight professional employment opportunities in nearly every occupation during a free career information event on Wednesday, Nov. 14 in Washington, DC.

CareerSMART will showcase the Postal Service’s need for professionals, e.g., accountants, lawyers and engineers, and give job seekers opportunities to talk with USPS representatives about advantages of a Postal Service career. Candidates will learn about current openings and can drop off résumés.

“Our business is processing and delivering mail; however, few people know that the Postal Service is one of the largest businesses in the world — and has occupations in every profession from IT to engineering to supply management,” said Deborah Giannoni-Jackson, Vice President, Employee Resource Management.

The Postal Service is on the Forbes Global 100 list as one of the world’s largest companies, with nearly 700,000 career employees. Competitive pay and benefits packages are offered, as well as innovative training, development and educational opportunities. The array of job responsibilities and opportunities for learning enable employees to use skills early in their careers and provides opportunities for changes in jobs while still staying with the same employer, according to Giannoni-Jackson.

 “We want people to recognize the many opportunities and benefits offered by the Postal Service,” said Giannoni-Jackson. “The Postal Service is a leader in the use of innovation and technology, is committed to protecting the environment, and is a leader in the communities where we operate.” 

Current and future career opportunities are available with the Postal Service in these and other areas:

• ·         Marketing and Sales
• ·         Engineering
• ·         Information Technology
• ·         Accounting and Finance
• ·         Supply Management and Logistics
• ·         Law
• ·         Law Enforcement/Forensics
• ·         Global Business
• ·         Human Resources
• ·         Real Estate

CareerSMART will take place from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel (Monet Ballroom, 2nd Floor), 480 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, next to the L’Enfant Plaza Metro stop. Additional information and registration information is available at http://www.usps.com/employment/careersmart.htm.

Early-Out Rumors

…. a fraudulent letter has been circulated among postal employees announcing that early retirement offers and “buyouts” will be made in 2008. No discussions are underway with postal management on early outs and/or incentives, and postal management has refuted the false information.

On several previous occasions, the Postal Service has made early-retirements offers in specific locations without engaging in the required negotiations with the union. Appropriate grievances and NLRB complaints are pending.

William Burrus

President

Updates from USPS on Mail Delivery in Areas Affected by Wildfires

NEW: Julian and Santa Ysabel mail available for pick-up at alternate locations
New: Call Consumer Affairs 858-674-2670 for assistance
Mail delivery in San Diego County is expected to return to normal in most areas except where mandatory evacuations are in place or where air quality is unhealthful. Residents are asked to be patient. Do not attempt to pick up mail at local Post Offices unless instructed to do so. Mail delivery will resume as soon as possible.

Mail for the following evacuated communities has been relocated for customer pick-up. Proper photo I.D. is required.

Julian 92036 moved to the Borrego Springs Post Office, 2599 Country Club Rd.
Santa Ysabel 92070 moved to the Warner Springs Post Office, 31650 Hwy. 79.
Pick-up time is 11 am to 4 pm at both locations.

Dulzura 91917, Jamul 91935, Potrero 91963 and Tecate 91980 moved to the El Cajon Main Post Office, 401 W. Lexington.

Ramona 92065 moved to the Carmel Mountain Post Office, 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, San Diego at the south end of the Margaret Sellers Processing & Distribution Center in Rm. 117 near the flagpole.

Bonsall 92003 and Fallbrook 92028 moved to the Murrieta Carrier Annex, 39571 Los Alamos, just off the I-215 in Murrieta. That facility is located at the west end of a shopping center.

Pick-up time is 10 am to 4 pm at the above locations.

Residents experiencing damaged or destroyed homes or businesses and can no longer receive mail there should contact their local Post Office to make alternative arrangements. Mail that is undeliverable due to property damage will be held for pick-up at local Post Offices or wherever mail is available for that ZIP Code.

Residents can contact USPS Consumer Affairs at 858-674-2670 for local information and assistance with issues resulting from fire-related mail delays or damage. Consumer Affairs will maintain extended hours to assist postal customers Mon-Fri 7am to 6pm; Sat. 8am to 4 pm; and Sunday 10am to 3 pm. Consumer Affairs is located at 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, San Diego, CA at entrance #3.

Most Post Offices are open for business. Postal employees are working diligently to collect, process and deliver all available mail while also following local and state authorities’ requests to honor closed roads and evacuated areas. Every Postal Service employee is committed to restoring service as soon as authorities determine it is safe to do so.

Two Orange County Post Offices remain closed due to fires

Two Post Offices remain closed today because of the wildfires in Orange County. The Postal Service is working hard to divert mail to other locations and make sure mail gets delivered, or is available for pick up.

The Silverado Post Office, 28251 Silverado Canyon Road, remains closed and evacuated. The Silverado Post Office delivers to 550 Post Office Box customers and 400 addresses on a rural route. Mail for Silverado customers is available for pick up at the Orange Post Office, 1075 N. Tustin Street, Orange CA 92863, during regular lobby hours — 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday.

The Trabuco Canyon Post Office, 30595 Trabuco Canyon Road, has been evacuated and closed. Mail for the 700 Post Office boxes has been removed. Fifty addresses in the Live Oak Canyon area will not be able to receive delivery. Mail is available for customer pick up at the Rancho Santa Margarita Carrier Annex, 29862 Avenida De Las Bandera, Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Saturday.