Shaler man files federal lawsuit to obtain copy of his personnel records
A retired postal worker has tried four times in the past eight months to obtain a copy of his retirement records, but the agency holding them won't even respond to his requests, the Shaler man says in a federal lawsuit filed on Monday.
Daniel Sagi, 57, retired in November 2012 and started receiving his pension, the lawsuit says. The Office of Personnel Management in February 2013 told him it had miscalculated his payments and that he owed the government money.
The agency referred questions to the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokesperson couldn't be reached for comment.
Sagi's attorney, Jonathan Cohn, said he can't evaluate the government's claims about the overpayment without seeing Sagi's retirement file.
“I can't provide him any meaningful assistance until I see what the government is saying,” he said.
He filed Freedom of Information Act requests for Sagi's records in July, August, October and January. The Office of Personnel Management has a policy of responding to such requests within 10 days, and federal law requires a response by at least 20 days.
The agency hasn't approved or denied any of the requests, the lawsuit says. Its only response has been an automatic email acknowledging the receipt of one request and a signature receipt on a request that was sent by certified mail, Cohn said.
“No one has ever called me,” he said. “No one has sent me any letters.”
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Distracted Steelers show nothing in loss to Eagles
- Scientists hope tiny robotic bee’s big dreams take flight
- Friday’s scouting report: Pirates at Brewers
- Google Maps opens business doors to online views
- NFL could delay punishment
- LaBar: Hulk Hogan wants to fight Brock Lesnar?
- Pitcairn police department 1st in Western Pennsylvania to carry Narcan for heroin overdoses
- Pirates, Brewers possess strengths up the middle
- Will soft foes mean fast start to the season for Pitt football team?
- Accountant unwound with family, outdoors
- Man shot to death in Homewood