Letter of Caution's reference to an EEO settlement and Complainant's claim of discrimination constituted per se reprisal; references to Complainant's EEO activity in a disciplinary context could reasonably have a chilling effect on the use of the EEO complaint process. Terisa B. Supervisor engaged in per se reprisal when he told Complainant that her complaints about EEO issues were causing him extra work and stress, threatened her with termination, and labeled her as someone who does not work well with others because of her oral complaints about co-workers.
Leora R. Agency subjected Complainant to a retaliatory hostile work environment when, during a conversation in which Complainant asked her supervisor to investigate her allegations of race discrimination, the supervisor reminded Complainant that she was still in a probationary status, denied that the Agency was discriminating, told Complainant "to calm down on that," and stated that Complainant's co-workers might file complaints against her because they found her claims of race discrimination offensive.
Substantial evidence supported the Administrative Judge's determination that the Agency retaliated against Complainant for protected EEO activity when it issued her a Letter of Counseling.
The Agency articulated a legitimate reason for disciplining Complainant, but it did not explain why other employees who engaged in similar behavior were not disciplined.
The Agency subjected Complainant to adverse treatment based on protected EEO activity when the office director informed Complainant's detail supervisor that Complainant was engaged in settlement discussions for an EEO complaint.
The Agency subjected Complainant to per se reprisal when a manager made statements during a staff meeting that were intended to discourage employees from engaging in protected EEO activity. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider appeals from Peace Corps volunteers and applicants, who have a separate EEO complaint process outside Commission jurisdiction; although Complainant filed her complaint against the State Department, it concerned a Peace Corps volunteer position over which the Commission did not have jurisdiction.
The Commission has jurisdiction over complaints alleging discrimination occurring in the course of a dual-status technician's civilian employment in a General Services position. Complainant not entitled to personal relief for discriminatory non-selection where substantial evidence of record supported Administrative Judge's conclusion that Agency canceled the selection process because of a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and would not have selected Complainant for the position absent the discrimination.
Claim regarding the denial of official time remanded to Agency for investigation; although Agency did not need to investigate whether the denial was discriminatory, it should have determined whether the denial was justified. Administrative Judge properly ordered Agency to stop issuing cease-and-desist letters to employees who have reported discrimination, absent clear, documented evidence of some conduct other than reporting discrimination that the Agency reasonably concludes would warrant discipline in the absence of the employee's protected activity; issuing Complainant a cease-and-desist letter gave the appearance that Complainant, who complained of ongoing racial and sexual harassment, was just as culpable as her harasser.
Complainant not entitled to award of Thrift Savings Plan reimbursements where there was no evidence that she participated in the program. The appellate decision modified an Administrative Judge's order requiring the Agency to post a notice to employees at facilities other than where the discriminatory conduct occurred because the AJ did not provide a justification for ordering the wider distribution.
Sherrill S. Although Petitioner was entitled to back pay as a component of make-whole relief, she was not entitled to a sum greater than what she would have earned but for her constructive discharge; because her earnings while in active-duty military service between the time of her constructive discharge and her reinstatement exceeded her gross civilian back pay, Petitioner was not entitled to receive back pay.
Administrative Judge's remedial order requiring Agency to develop and adopt policies and procedures concerning the recruitment and selection of employees for non-competitive, temporary positions and to ensure equal opportunity and consideration in the selection process was appropriate. Dismissal of hearing request not warranted where any problems concerning the adequacy of Complainant's discovery responses could have been cured well before the discovery period ended, failure to issue a show-cause order deprived Complainant of the opportunity to respond to Agency's motions for sanctions, and Commission could not independently assess adequacy of Complainant's responses to Agency's discovery requests because the requests and responses were missing from the record.
Kylee C. Administrative Judge should not have sanctioned Agency for holding a fact-finding conference where legal counsel for Agency and Complainant were allowed to ask follow-up questions after EEO Investigator questioned witnesses; EEO MD language permitting an EEO Investigator to be a "presiding official at a fact-finding conference" anticipates that parties may ask questions, and the fact-finding conference transcript showed that Agency counsel did not direct, control, interfere with, or overrule the investigator.
The Administrative Judge erred when, in the absence of an order, he sanctioned the Agency for its failure to complete the EEO investigation in a timely manner by issuing a default judgment in favor of Complainant. Complainant's request for default judgment granted where Agency did not issue its final decision until days after Administrative Judge's order remanding the complaint to Agency for a final decision and Agency provided no explanation for its significant delay.
Agency, which provided no explanation for the more-than-one-year delay in its issuance of the final decision, was ordered to post a notice at its Complaint Adjudication Office regarding its failure to comply with the Commission's regulatory timeframes and orders and to provide training to its EEO personnel.
Complainant's request for default judgment granted where Agency began its investigation only after Complainant requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge and provided no explanation for its failure to investigate complaint in a timely manner; because the record did not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a claim of harassment, or a prima facie case of compensation discrimination, Complainant was not entitled to individual relief.
Administrative Judge properly sanctioned Complainant, by cancelling the hearing and remanding the complaint to the Agency for a final decision, when Complainant failed to abide by the AJ's order to remove video depositions of management officials from YouTube and to provide written confirmation that he had done so. Complainant's ADEA claims reinstated where settlement agreement was not valid under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act because it did not state that Complainant was waiving her claims under the ADEA, Complainant was not advised in writing to consult with an attorney before executing the agreement, and the record did not reflect that Complainant was given a reasonable amount of time within which to consider the settlement.
Deandre C. The Commission found that the Agency complied with the terms of a settlement agreement, including the provision of accepting a letter of resignation from Complainant.
Robin H. Agency was not joint employer of Complainant where it did not have sufficient control over Software Engineer in laboratories operated by staffing firm on Agency premises; deciding whether to pay for projects that Complainant proposed was not equivalent to assigning and managing his work. Allegations of retaliation by IRS Examiner and Taxpayer Advocate properly dismissed for failure to state a claim where actions at issue occurred to Complainant as a taxpayer, not as a former employee, and allegations constituted a collateral attack on the tax adjudication process.
Norbert K. Complainant stated a viable claim of harassment based on race and national origin where Complainant alleged that subordinate disparaged Chinese immigrants, mocked Complainant's language and communication skills, insinuated that Complainant was un-American, and interfered with work performance. Amina W. Agency dismissal of complaint for failure to state a claim, on ground that Commission did not have jurisdiction to review substance of security clearance, reversed where agency made a determination based on suitability, not a security clearance.
Herschel T. National Aeronautics and Space Admin. Record was insufficient to determine whether Agency jointly employed Complainant where record did not contain the contract between the Agency and staffing firm, Complainant's position description, or any evidence regarding the day-to-day actions, duties, and responsibilities of Complainant's job.
Where there is an actionable third-party retaliation, both the employee who engaged in the protected activity and the third party who is subjected to the materially adverse action may state a claim. The Agency provided insufficient evidence to support its dismissal of a complaint, on the basis that Complainant was not an Agency employee, where the record that the Agency submitted contained only the EEO Counselor's Report, the Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint, and the formal complaint; the Agency did not provide any contracts or affidavits from management officials regarding the day-to-day responsibilities and management of Complainant's position.
Agency, which conceded that it jointly employed Complainant with his staffing firm, should not have dismissed complaint for failure to state a claim; Agency's contention that it did not know of the alleged harassing behavior of staffing firm employees went to the merits of the complaint, which must be investigated.
A transgender male complainant stated a cognizable claim of sex discrimination when he alleged that his Federal Employee Health Benefits insurance plan denied pre-authorization for nipple-areola reconstruction; the failure to use or exhaust the process for Agency review of an insurance carrier's decision does not preclude an employee from asserting a viable claim in the EEO process.
An agency will qualify as a joint employer if it has the right to control the means and manner of the individual's work, regardless of whether the individual is paid by an outside organization or is on the federal payroll. Summary judgment in favor of Agency inappropriate where AJ abused her discretion in denying Complainant's Motion to Compel and there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Agency had a policy or practice of not accommodating pregnant workers while accommodating other categories of workers.
Antony Z. Summary judgment in favor of Agency appropriate where there were no genuine issues of material fact or credibility that merited a hearing; record showed that Agency issued Complainant a Letter of Counseling because of allegations that he had used improper language of a vulgar or sexual nature and that Agency discharged him during his probationary period due to his repeated discourteous behavior; Complainant provided no evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact that any of his protected bases played a role in the Agency's actions.
Agency properly dismissed complaint as untimely filed where Agency notified Complainant of applicable filing deadline and proper address to file her complaint with the Agency but Complainant nonetheless sent the complaint to the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations. Complainant raised his reasonable-accommodation claim in a timely manner; the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is ongoing and, at the time that he contacted the EEO Counselor, Complaint was alleging that the Agency remained unwilling to provide him with reasonable accommodation.
Agency's appeal of Administrative Judge's decision was untimely filed where Agency filed the appeal more than 45 days including a five-day presumption of receipt after issuance of the decision; Agency did not show that it received the decision beyond the presumed five days; Agency failed to seek waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling; and Agency failed to offer adequate justification for an extension of the applicable time period.
Rick G. Ramon L. Lauralee C. Sang G. Class Complaints Velva B. Compensatory Damages Sonia B. Pamula W. Lois G.
Brendon L. Lara G. Complaint Processing Sheila D. Calvin D. Cristen T. Irina T. Dismissals Harlan P. Alline B. Joan S. Margeret M. Jenna P. Stefan C. Under the Rehabilitation Act Salvatore K. Lacy R. Sherrie M. Francine M. Alonzo N. Joshua F. Patricia W. Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws 20 employees in age discrimination cases. Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered. The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. Official websites use.
Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Employment discrimination complaints in the federal government are handled by the agency involved. If the individual who filed the complaint does not agree with the agency's decision, he or she can file an appeal with the EEOC.
0コメント