Following is a summary prepared by the EEOC on its policies regarding compensatory damages that can be . Stating that a complainant was not selected for a supervisory position because she received a lower score than the selectees does not meet an agencys burden of production, unless the agency explains the specific reasoning for the scores; the assertion that a complainant ranked lower than the selectees is meaningless without evidence of the specific scores, the manner in which the scores were derived, and the pertinence of the scores to the position at issue. Lara G. v Postmaster General, EEOC Req. 529 0 obj
<>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<1FB7EE72CCD9854B90DCFC8A33497EB8><1B534663FC186A42AEFC8BA0152CE4CF>]/Index[511 26]/Info 510 0 R/Length 94/Prev 400457/Root 512 0 R/Size 537/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream
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. 24, 2017), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120132211.txt. Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when it did not provide Complainant with adequate equipment and unreasonably delayed the provision of assistive technology, software, and training to support her accommodation of full-time telework; performance counseling memorandum and placement on performance improvement plan for performance issues directly resulted from Agency's failure to provide Complainant with adequate technologies required to telework effectively. v. United States Postal Service anAJ decision certified the following class: All permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the U.S. While the parties may voluntarily settle a claim early in the process or wait until the EEOC completes . An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge may suspend a hearing to allow the parties to settle a case and will accept a settlement to resolve the case at any time before a final decision is reached. 2019002760 (Aug. 18, 2020), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2020_12_07/2019002760.pdf. Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate her pregnancy-related condition because the preponderance of the evidence in the record established that the Agency provided Complainant with an appropriate space other than a restroom to use to express breastmilk; there was no evidence that Complainant followed up with her supervisor or anyone else to notify the Agency that the storage room was not an effective accommodation after it was cleaned, and the supervisor permitted Complainant to use vacant conference rooms or offices instead of the storage room. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone), Call 1-800-669-4000
The US Postal Department had been a cabinet department of the executive branch since 1872. The United States Postal Service (USPS) has fired or forced out nearly 44,000 employees who were injured on the job since 2006 through its National Reassessment Process (NRP), according to a. Terisa B. v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Appeal Nos. 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. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Robin H. v. Environmental Protection Agency, EEOC Appeal No. The Administrative Judge properly reduced Complainant's attorney's fees and costs by 40 percent where Complainant prevailed on only one of his five retaliation claims, the successful claim was not so inextricably intertwined with the unsuccessful claims that Complainant would be entitled to an award of full attorney's fees, the case did not present novel issues, and the fee petition contained numerous instances that might be considered excessive, duplicative, or unreasonable time expended. A class actioncomplaintfor injured on duty postal employees was certified by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) on May 30,2008. 1-800-669-6820 (TTY)
It experienced five straight years of operating losses between 20112016 with the majority of its deficit coming from $5.8 billion in accruals of unpaid mandatory retiree health insurance payments. The Cost to your Company. 2020002285 (Apr. Celine B. v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. I have plenty to say, but will hold my peace as it is very disturbing of what the Postal Service did not only to me, but to all Rehab or Injured employees at Van Nuys District. Agency did not show that employment of Complainant in Deportation Officer position would pose a direct threat where Medical Review Board made a blanket determination that Complainants medication created a potential risk of injury while performing Deportation Officers duties, but the Board ignored his work history in a similarly strenuous law enforcement position and discounted the opinion of his cardiologist. Jennifer K. v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160846 (Apr. IV. The Commission declined to review the award of $54,403.80 for reimbursement of Padillas withdrawal of funds from his Thrift Savings Plan account to support himself following his removal as neither party challenged this award on appeal. 0120152431 (Nov. 29, 2017), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120152431.pdf. Elbert H. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Agency did not meet its burden to show that the disparity between Complainant's pay and that of two male general surgeons was based on a factor other than sex where Agency provided only vague statements to justify the pay differential and there was a lack of information reflecting how the salaries of Complainant and the comparators were set. Agency did not take prompt corrective action, and therefore did not meet its affirmative defense to harassment, when it took six months to engage in an internal investigation and issue a proposed 30-day suspension to the coworker who had sent Complainant a threatening email containing a racial slur. Francine M. v. U.S. The Agency, which first denied Complainant's request for an ergonomically correct chair and then provided her with a chair that did not fit her needs, denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation; the Agency should have worked with Complainant to conduct an individualized ergonomic assessment that would have determined her specific needs. 2020), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2021_04_05/2019005824%20DEC.pdf. Substantial evidence supported the Administrative Judge's finding that the Agency subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment based on age and in reprisal for protected EEO activity when she was issued a lowered performance evaluation, subjected to false allegations, and subjected to unfair terms and conditions of employment. The Administrative Judge properly awarded Complainant $3,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages where Complainant offered corroborative testimony from his family, friends, and colleagues; the AJ found that Complainant's testimony was not credible in some respects but was credible with respect to how the discrimination affected his family and work life; and the amount awarded was consistent with amounts awarded under similar circumstances. According to the Agency Financial Report for FY 2020, the EEOC successfully resolved 6,272 of the 9,036 mediations conducted. After an appeal, complainant later requested the EEOC reopen her case. 131 M Street, NE
A real socialist and internationalist strategy is needed to take control of communications infrastructure from the corporate ruling class and to place it into the hands of the working class worldwide. Compensatory damages are not available in retaliation complaints arising solely out of prior EEO activity related to the ADEA. Class members include individuals with disabilities in permanent rehabilitation positions who allegedly had their duty hours restricted between March 24, 2000 and December 31, 2012. Find your nearest EEOC office
2021001514 (June 28, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2021_08_31/2021001514.pdf. USPS timely processed 99.5% of the 17,054 pre-complaint counselings (without remands) completed in FY 2009. Your claim in this case is a personal asset. 0120171387 (May 2, 2019), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120171387.pdf. 0120173008 (Feb. 27, 2019), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120173008.pdf. The final ruling from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came more than 10 years after a former employee first filed a class complaint alleging USPS subjected employees to a "pattern. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone)
Postal Service who have been subjected to the National Reassessment Process (NRP) from May 5, 2006 to present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Agency discriminated against Complainant based on sex when it gave her a light-duty assignment that changed her starting time but allowed four male comparators who performed light-duty work to retain their normal starting times; Complainant and the comparators were substantially similar in all relevant aspects: they were Mail Handlers who worked on the same tour at the same facility and reported to the same supervisor. 2020004360 and 2020004343 (Nov. 4, 2020), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2020_12_07/2020004360-2020004343.pdf. Complainant did nothing more than raise broad, across-the-board allegations of discriminatory policies and practices covering a variety of personnel processes, she was unable to establish that each allegation happened to every class member, and counsels actions raised concerns that the classs interests would not be protected. Rochelle F. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 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. 0120151790 (Jan. 11, 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120151790.pdf. Agency discriminatorily denied Complainant's religious-accommodation request for an exemption from the requirement that employees carry a cannister of pepper spray where it was undisputed that Complainant, a chaplain, had a bona fide religious belief that prevented him from carrying the spray; Agency did not show that exempting one employee, out of approximately 300 employees, from the requirement would have been an undue hardship; and there was no evidence that Agency explored a lateral transfer to a different facility or any other alternative accommodation. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination allegations. It is not an effective accommodation to require an employee with a disability to take leave when another accommodation would enable the employee to continue working, and it is not the agency's role to dictate what type of assistive or monitoring device the employee uses. 520-2008-00053X; Agency Case No. We are looking for people who may have been affected by the unlawful discrimination alleged in these suits. Moreover, some EEO complaints dated back as far as 2001. The suit alleges that the USPS routinely harassed and discriminated against injured workers and refused to provide reasonable accommodations to workers who had become disabled as a result of their injuries. The Judge set up a course of review that would have had outside masters review a number of claims, but that approach seems to have been stalled out due to USPS objections. "In accordance with remedial compliance action item I contained in the November 7, 2018 decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of Federal Operations (EEOC) in Sandra M. McConnell et al. Stefan C. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. We notified the Judge about this, and argued that this is yet another reason to move this process toward a quick resolution. Mae P. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. An official website of the United States government. The Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of disability (perceived color perception deficiency) when it rescinded a tentative offer of employment for a motor vehicle operator position; the Agency did not perform an individualized assessment of whether Complainant could perform the essential functions of the position without posing a direct threat to himself or others. Sang G. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS In order to have met the federal 2% participation rate goal, 14,158 IWTD were needed. USPS agreed to pay a total of $5,631,795 plus other benefits for 598 complaint closures through settlement agreements, final agency decisions, and final agency orders fully implementing AJ decisions. 2020001922 (May 24, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/2021_08_31/2020001922.pdf. Kristofer D. v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. Malinda F. v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 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.