Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Office of Personnel Management

OPM is responsible for several broad categories such as employee recruitment and retention and oversees the overall federal workforce including managing, job announcement postings at USAJOBS.gov and setting governmentwide policies on hiring procedures.
4 Pages«<234
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
afraid_sailor  
#61 Posted : Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:27:00 PM(UTC)
afraid_sailor

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by: SD Analyst Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
The EEOC has to by law ensure that things are even if you served in a position that was traditionally reserved for normal military (and got denied), or not, so that time they put in through the front door has to be equal to that put in the back door regardless of any other federal laws that may exist.

Can you please cite the specific statutory provision requiring the EEOC to do this?


32 CFR 47.4 clearly states
(a)Eligibility for consideration. To be eligible to apply for consideration under Public Law 95-202 and this part, a group must: (illogical as it's written, but it means 1 of the requirements based upon how it's written)

(1) Have been similarly situated to the Women's Air Forces Service Pilots of World War II. (Merchant Marines fit here as piracy is sometimes done by major terrorist organizations)

(2) Have rendered service to the United States in what was considered civilian employment with the U.S. Armed Forces either through formal Civil Service hiring or less formal hiring if the engagement was created under the exigencies of war, or as the result of a contract with the U.S. Government to provide direct support to the U.S. Armed Forces. (unrep/vertrep)

(3) Have rendered that service during a period of armed conflict. (GWOT campaingns)

(4) Consist of living persons to whom VA benefits can accrue. (not sure on the requirements other than alive)

(5) Not have already received benefits from the Federal Government for the service in question. (My claim has been pending for over 1 year, and not receiving them yet)


(i)Submission to the U.S. Armed Forces for protection. A group that seeks protection and assistance from the U.S. Armed Forces and submits to military control for its own well-being is not deemed to have provided service to the Armed Forces equivalent to AD military service, even though the group may have been as follows: (we did not seek protection, but met up just ti resupply the navy ships then get back on our way)

(A) Armed by the U.S. military for defensive purposes. (we had our own firearms, but on rare occasion, like training exercises we had military come on)

(B) Routed by the U.S. military to avoid the enemy. (all maritime vessels do so to avoid piracy)

(C) Instructed by the U.S. military for the defense of the group when attacked by, or in danger of attack by, the enemy. (we had our own instructions from the guy who goes on the news for Piracy information)

(D) Otherwise submitted themselves to the U.S. military for sustenance and protection. (we protected ourselves, and the military submitted to our rules for sustenance at sea)


What you are failing to understand (among many other things previously cited) is that this section of the CFR as well as PL 95-202 are specifically targeted to allow WASP members (Womens Army Service Corps during WWII) and "U.S. Civilian Flight Crew and Aviation Ground Support Employees of Northwest Airlines, Who Served Overseas as a Result of Northwest Airline's Contract with the Air Transport Command during the Period December 14, 1941 through August 14, 1945,'' and the group known as ``U.S. Civilian Female Employees of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps While
Serving in the Defense of Bataan and Corregidor during the Period January 2, 1942 to February 3, 1945" to be considered as U.S. Military.

You are NOT in any of these groups! You are NOT in the U.S. Military!! You are a Civil Service employee who happens to work for the U.S. Navy, like a couple of hundred thousand others. You are not entitled to any military benefits like use of the V.A., military hospitals, or Tricare. You made the very poor decision to take a job as a civilian seaman on a ship, for which you were obviously unsuited. It didn't work out. Get over it. I can bet that attorney you hired is laughing all the way to the bank cashing your checks.

As far as you trying the EEO route and trying to tell Frank and others here what the law is, I think I would go with the opinion of a GS-14 EEO Manager with many years of experience, both military and civilian, over your misguided and incorrect interpretation. Done here, you are hopeless....


38 U.S. Code § 106 states:
(b) Any person—
(1) who has applied for enlistment or enrollment in the active military, naval, or air service and has been provisionally accepted and directed or ordered to report to a place for final acceptance into such service; or

this sounds like the Merchant Marine under the Navy, because the Merchant Marine is a maritime service, but in supporting the war effort the job significantly changes from the commercial shipping duties and the Merchant Marine was the original Navy, that the military Navy came out of.

When I get pointed to the Supreme Court case where this exact topic was discussed, and everything that came out of it then I'll believe what you say, until then I'll believe what the words in their order say, and claim that I'm missing EEOC points.
TheRealOrange  
#62 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 2:49:44 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 268

Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 33 post(s)
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
The EEOC has to by law ensure that things are even if you served in a position that was traditionally reserved for normal military (and got denied), or not, so that time they put in through the front door has to be equal to that put in the back door regardless of any other federal laws that may exist.

Can you please cite the specific statutory provision requiring the EEOC to do this?


32 CFR 47.4 clearly states ....

Based on the plain language of the regulation and statute you cited, and your description of the facts, neither 32 CFR § 47.4 nor 38 U.S.C. § 106 seem to apply. Best of luck to you, but I think your interpretations of the law are pretty far off base. If you take your case to the EEOC, my guess is that it will be quickly dismissed for failure to state a claim. I can see no source of EEOC jurisdiction based on the factual scenario and legal analysis you presented. But, strange things can sometimes happen and there is certainly nothing stopping you from trying.
frankgonzalez  
#63 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 3:40:34 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
From https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/dig.../xvii-1.cfm#jurisdiction

Quote:
On appeal, the Commission noted that courts have held that, unlike civilian employees, military personnel of any branch of the armed forces, including military personnel within the reserve components, are not covered under federal nondiscrimination law. The EEOC recognized the “dual status” of federal technicians in the reserves, noting that those individuals are considered both uniformed military personnel, as well as civilian employees. However, EEOC held that federal technicians are covered by federal nondiscrimination law only when the alleged discriminatory action arises from their capacity as civilian employees, and not when personnel decisions affect their capacity as uniformed military personnel. The Commission found that claims (1) and (2) exclusively involved a military matter and were outside the purview of EEOC’s regulations. However, the Commission found that the agency did not address complainant’s “amended” claims (3) and (4), which raised issues of disparate treatment and harassment. The Commission found the record unclear as to whether those claims arose from complainant’s capacity as a civilian employee or as a military employee. Since the agency did not explain, in its decision or on appeal, how, specifically, the claims at issue arose from complainant’s military employment, the Commission remanded claims (3) and (4) to the agency for it to supplement the record with evidence that addressed whether the claims at issue arose from complainant’s capacity as a military employee. McInvale v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A51484 (March 24, 2005).


So...if you have standing as a military member...you have NO standing at the EEOC. If you have standing at the EEOC, you are not a military member.
You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
afraid_sailor  
#64 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 7:09:42 AM(UTC)
afraid_sailor

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
From https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/dig.../xvii-1.cfm#jurisdiction

Quote:
On appeal, the Commission noted that courts have held that, unlike civilian employees, military personnel of any branch of the armed forces, including military personnel within the reserve components, are not covered under federal nondiscrimination law. The EEOC recognized the “dual status” of federal technicians in the reserves, noting that those individuals are considered both uniformed military personnel, as well as civilian employees. However, EEOC held that federal technicians are covered by federal nondiscrimination law only when the alleged discriminatory action arises from their capacity as civilian employees, and not when personnel decisions affect their capacity as uniformed military personnel. The Commission found that claims (1) and (2) exclusively involved a military matter and were outside the purview of EEOC’s regulations. However, the Commission found that the agency did not address complainant’s “amended” claims (3) and (4), which raised issues of disparate treatment and harassment. The Commission found the record unclear as to whether those claims arose from complainant’s capacity as a civilian employee or as a military employee. Since the agency did not explain, in its decision or on appeal, how, specifically, the claims at issue arose from complainant’s military employment, the Commission remanded claims (3) and (4) to the agency for it to supplement the record with evidence that addressed whether the claims at issue arose from complainant’s capacity as a military employee. McInvale v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A51484 (March 24, 2005).


So...if you have standing as a military member...you have NO standing at the EEOC. If you have standing at the EEOC, you are not a military member.


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Edited by user Thursday, October 05, 2017 7:34:55 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

frankgonzalez  
#65 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 7:27:07 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
From https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/dig.../xvii-1.cfm#jurisdiction

Quote:
On appeal, the Commission noted that courts have held that, unlike civilian employees, military personnel of any branch of the armed forces, including military personnel within the reserve components, are not covered under federal nondiscrimination law. The EEOC recognized the “dual status” of federal technicians in the reserves, noting that those individuals are considered both uniformed military personnel, as well as civilian employees. However, EEOC held that federal technicians are covered by federal nondiscrimination law only when the alleged discriminatory action arises from their capacity as civilian employees, and not when personnel decisions affect their capacity as uniformed military personnel. The Commission found that claims (1) and (2) exclusively involved a military matter and were outside the purview of EEOC’s regulations. However, the Commission found that the agency did not address complainant’s “amended” claims (3) and (4), which raised issues of disparate treatment and harassment. The Commission found the record unclear as to whether those claims arose from complainant’s capacity as a civilian employee or as a military employee. Since the agency did not explain, in its decision or on appeal, how, specifically, the claims at issue arose from complainant’s military employment, the Commission remanded claims (3) and (4) to the agency for it to supplement the record with evidence that addressed whether the claims at issue arose from complainant’s capacity as a military employee. McInvale v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A51484 (March 24, 2005).


So...if you have standing as a military member...you have NO standing at the EEOC. If you have standing at the EEOC, you are not a military member.


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.
Final comment...YOU WERE NOT IN THE MILITARY. YOU WERE A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE. YOU ARE NOW WHAT I HAVe TO THINK IS A TROLL BECAUSE N-ONE IS THIS WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
afraid_sailor  
#66 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 7:37:34 AM(UTC)
afraid_sailor

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
From https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/dig.../xvii-1.cfm#jurisdiction

Quote:
On appeal, the Commission noted that courts have held that, unlike civilian employees, military personnel of any branch of the armed forces, including military personnel within the reserve components, are not covered under federal nondiscrimination law. The EEOC recognized the “dual status” of federal technicians in the reserves, noting that those individuals are considered both uniformed military personnel, as well as civilian employees. However, EEOC held that federal technicians are covered by federal nondiscrimination law only when the alleged discriminatory action arises from their capacity as civilian employees, and not when personnel decisions affect their capacity as uniformed military personnel. The Commission found that claims (1) and (2) exclusively involved a military matter and were outside the purview of EEOC’s regulations. However, the Commission found that the agency did not address complainant’s “amended” claims (3) and (4), which raised issues of disparate treatment and harassment. The Commission found the record unclear as to whether those claims arose from complainant’s capacity as a civilian employee or as a military employee. Since the agency did not explain, in its decision or on appeal, how, specifically, the claims at issue arose from complainant’s military employment, the Commission remanded claims (3) and (4) to the agency for it to supplement the record with evidence that addressed whether the claims at issue arose from complainant’s capacity as a military employee. McInvale v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A51484 (March 24, 2005).


So...if you have standing as a military member...you have NO standing at the EEOC. If you have standing at the EEOC, you are not a military member.


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.
Final comment...YOU WERE NOT IN THE MILITARY. YOU WERE A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE. YOU ARE NOW WHAT I HAVe TO THINK IS A TROLL BECAUSE N-ONE IS THIS WILLFULLY IGNORANT.



You're being willfully ignorant of the reverse discrimination statutes that applies if you get denied at MEPS, but still sail with the Navy.
TheRealOrange  
#67 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 8:37:57 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 268

Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 33 post(s)
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Actually, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" of any type. Discrimination based on a disability (any disability) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on race (any race) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on sex (any sex) is simply discrimination; etc. The rest of your post is also incorrect. Be that as it may, in your original post, many moons ago before the topic went wildly off track, you asserted that you have a disability and were denied reasonable accommodation (telecommuting and job retraining). If the denial of your reasonable accommodation request was improper, that is disability discrimination. So, if you are certain of your reading of the facts and law, you should seek EEO counseling then file your formal complaint and let it go through the process. If you are unsuccessful with the agency and EEOC, then you can file a lawsuit in federal court. You have possible redress, so go for it.

afraid_sailor  
#68 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 10:43:38 AM(UTC)
afraid_sailor

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Actually, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" of any type. Discrimination based on a disability (any disability) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on race (any race) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on sex (any sex) is simply discrimination; etc. The rest of your post is also incorrect. Be that as it may, in your original post, many moons ago before the topic went wildly off track, you asserted that you have a disability and were denied reasonable accommodation (telecommuting and job retraining). If the denial of your reasonable accommodation request was improper, that is disability discrimination. So, if you are certain of your reading of the facts and law, you should seek EEO counseling then file your formal complaint and let it go through the process. If you are unsuccessful with the agency and EEOC, then you can file a lawsuit in federal court. You have possible redress, so go for it.



bad eyesight (-18 total), and now PTSD is discrimination against those who couldn't serve but were able to enter the Navy through a direct wartime effort going in formation.
frankgonzalez  
#69 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 11:11:53 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Actually, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" of any type. Discrimination based on a disability (any disability) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on race (any race) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on sex (any sex) is simply discrimination; etc. The rest of your post is also incorrect. Be that as it may, in your original post, many moons ago before the topic went wildly off track, you asserted that you have a disability and were denied reasonable accommodation (telecommuting and job retraining). If the denial of your reasonable accommodation request was improper, that is disability discrimination. So, if you are certain of your reading of the facts and law, you should seek EEO counseling then file your formal complaint and let it go through the process. If you are unsuccessful with the agency and EEOC, then you can file a lawsuit in federal court. You have possible redress, so go for it.

Based on the original posts, the EEO case would be dismissed for being untimely as the clock started the moment he was aware of the denial. While a continuing violation argument can be made to restart the clock each day an accommodation is not provided, once the employee is terminated/resigns, the clock runs 45 days from that point and anything past that allows the agency to dismiss the complaint as untimely per 29 CFR 1614.107(a)(2).
You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
afraid_sailor  
#70 Posted : Thursday, October 05, 2017 12:09:01 PM(UTC)
afraid_sailor

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Actually, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" of any type. Discrimination based on a disability (any disability) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on race (any race) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on sex (any sex) is simply discrimination; etc. The rest of your post is also incorrect. Be that as it may, in your original post, many moons ago before the topic went wildly off track, you asserted that you have a disability and were denied reasonable accommodation (telecommuting and job retraining). If the denial of your reasonable accommodation request was improper, that is disability discrimination. So, if you are certain of your reading of the facts and law, you should seek EEO counseling then file your formal complaint and let it go through the process. If you are unsuccessful with the agency and EEOC, then you can file a lawsuit in federal court. You have possible redress, so go for it.

Based on the original posts, the EEO case would be dismissed for being untimely as the clock started the moment he was aware of the denial. While a continuing violation argument can be made to restart the clock each day an accommodation is not provided, once the employee is terminated/resigns, the clock runs 45 days from that point and anything past that allows the agency to dismiss the complaint as untimely per 29 CFR 1614.107(a)(2).


I filed the day I was sent the letter, and they took over a year just to begin processing it, as well as trying to join the Navy Reserve before my first deployment, but after training so I was denied the accommodation to join as a reserve member of the Navy. If the agency simply dismisses it to protect one of their own then they keep pointing out management inaccuracies and not shutting up there's clearly a problem going on in the agency that upset the employee enough to look at their managers as the enemy. Had the agency's EEO department chosen to listen an employee would've got along with everyone just fine, instead management chose to pick a fight with the employee, so the employee "fought" back the only way that would catch their attention leaving a long paper trail of emails.

I have been claiming my time in the Navy Merchant Marine when applying for work, just received a lot of denials for work.
frankgonzalez  
#71 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:56:42 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Actually, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" of any type. Discrimination based on a disability (any disability) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on race (any race) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on sex (any sex) is simply discrimination; etc. The rest of your post is also incorrect. Be that as it may, in your original post, many moons ago before the topic went wildly off track, you asserted that you have a disability and were denied reasonable accommodation (telecommuting and job retraining). If the denial of your reasonable accommodation request was improper, that is disability discrimination. So, if you are certain of your reading of the facts and law, you should seek EEO counseling then file your formal complaint and let it go through the process. If you are unsuccessful with the agency and EEOC, then you can file a lawsuit in federal court. You have possible redress, so go for it.

Based on the original posts, the EEO case would be dismissed for being untimely as the clock started the moment he was aware of the denial. While a continuing violation argument can be made to restart the clock each day an accommodation is not provided, once the employee is terminated/resigns, the clock runs 45 days from that point and anything past that allows the agency to dismiss the complaint as untimely per 29 CFR 1614.107(a)(2).


I filed the day I was sent the letter, and they took over a year just to begin processing it, as well as trying to join the Navy Reserve before my first deployment, but after training so I was denied the accommodation to join as a reserve member of the Navy. If the agency simply dismisses it to protect one of their own then they keep pointing out management inaccuracies and not shutting up there's clearly a problem going on in the agency that upset the employee enough to look at their managers as the enemy. Had the agency's EEO department chosen to listen an employee would've got along with everyone just fine, instead management chose to pick a fight with the employee, so the employee "fought" back the only way that would catch their attention leaving a long paper trail of emails.

I have been claiming my time in the Navy Merchant Marine when applying for work, just received a lot of denials for work.
Sorry...Dismissed for failure to state an actionable claim. EEOC has no oversight of military functions. Joining the military is a military function.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
ex-military  
#72 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 5:28:47 AM(UTC)
ex-military

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/19/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,096

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 85 time(s) in 69 post(s)
Why are we still giving this idiot the time of day? Let it die fellas!
thanks 1 user thanked ex-military for this useful post.
habu987 on 10/11/2017(UTC)
afraid_sailor  
#73 Posted : Tuesday, October 10, 2017 6:31:45 AM(UTC)
afraid_sailor

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 42

Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: afraid_sailor Go to Quoted Post


I was standing at the merchant marine when the Navy chose to take me due to having a BS, and say we need you to aid in the war effort, and it doesn't matter that MEPS won't let you join, but we will.

There is something called reverse discrimination that can be proven if you have bad eyesight, and MEPS refuses to take you, but the Navy still takes you, but refuses to grant you your benefits for serving in a campaign, but not granting you your medals, and/or all the proper training you need.

Actually, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" of any type. Discrimination based on a disability (any disability) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on race (any race) is simply discrimination; discrimination based on sex (any sex) is simply discrimination; etc. The rest of your post is also incorrect. Be that as it may, in your original post, many moons ago before the topic went wildly off track, you asserted that you have a disability and were denied reasonable accommodation (telecommuting and job retraining). If the denial of your reasonable accommodation request was improper, that is disability discrimination. So, if you are certain of your reading of the facts and law, you should seek EEO counseling then file your formal complaint and let it go through the process. If you are unsuccessful with the agency and EEOC, then you can file a lawsuit in federal court. You have possible redress, so go for it.

Based on the original posts, the EEO case would be dismissed for being untimely as the clock started the moment he was aware of the denial. While a continuing violation argument can be made to restart the clock each day an accommodation is not provided, once the employee is terminated/resigns, the clock runs 45 days from that point and anything past that allows the agency to dismiss the complaint as untimely per 29 CFR 1614.107(a)(2).


I filed the day I was sent the letter, and they took over a year just to begin processing it, as well as trying to join the Navy Reserve before my first deployment, but after training so I was denied the accommodation to join as a reserve member of the Navy. If the agency simply dismisses it to protect one of their own then they keep pointing out management inaccuracies and not shutting up there's clearly a problem going on in the agency that upset the employee enough to look at their managers as the enemy. Had the agency's EEO department chosen to listen an employee would've got along with everyone just fine, instead management chose to pick a fight with the employee, so the employee "fought" back the only way that would catch their attention leaving a long paper trail of emails.

I have been claiming my time in the Navy Merchant Marine when applying for work, just received a lot of denials for work.
Sorry...Dismissed for failure to state an actionable claim. EEOC has no oversight of military functions. Joining the military is a military function.



If the action is ongoing, and they assume they're automatically right then from what I understand the time never expires after reading a lot.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.872 seconds.