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

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Employees: You be the Judge


Get real-life reviews of key court cases involving federal employees. Share your opinion on the outcomes of these cases, or participate in other discussions about workplace issues that may impact your job.

Be civil when debating with others in the forum. Uncivil remarks toward any other forum member is prohibited on FederalSoup and should be reported immediately.


To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

3 Pages123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Newhouse  
#1 Posted : Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:45:59 PM(UTC)
Newhouse

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/22/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1

Does anyone know specifically what the EEOC investigators / contractors are mandated to do once they are hired / assigned to investigate a formal EEOC case? How do we know whether they have done their job? I'm concerned that they are hired and paid for by the gov't to exculpate or absolve the gov't of wrongdoing and might fail to truly ivestigate as nonbiased entities. I'm not acusing anyone specifically of this, but I would like to know whether they have a specific job description that describes their duties and responsibilities. Thanks for any help anyone could offer....
Inquire  
#2 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 1:21:39 AM(UTC)
Inquire

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/26/2006(UTC)
Posts: 688

One of the investigators that was assigned to my claim outright told me that he worked for the agency - go figure....If you work for the General Services Administration then you are at a sustantial loss because GSA issues the contract - but who cares that that is a glaring conflict of interest. I sent a partial list of GSA investigator contractors to this board.

quote:
Originally posted by Newhouse:
Does anyone know specifically what the EEOC investigators / contractors are mandated to do once they are hired / assigned to investigate a formal EEOC case? How do we know whether they have done their job? I'm concerned that they are hired and paid for by the gov't to exculpate or absolve the gov't of wrongdoing and might fail to truly ivestigate as nonbiased entities. I'm not acusing anyone specifically of this, but I would like to know whether they have a specific job description that describes their duties and responsibilities. Thanks for any help anyone could offer....
"Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil."
Che  
#3 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 3:46:19 AM(UTC)
Che

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/13/2009(UTC)
Posts: 94

they are fact finders amd most claims really aren't based on any facts just hurt feelings. most of these guys love the money but can't believe that the gov't tolerates these frivlous claims
Mugician  
#4 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 7:23:52 AM(UTC)
Mugician

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/25/2009(UTC)
Posts: 194

quote:
Originally posted by Newhouse:
Does anyone know specifically what the EEOC investigators / contractors are mandated to do once they are hired / assigned to investigate a formal EEOC case? How do we know whether they have done their job? I'm concerned that they are hired and paid for by the gov't to exculpate or absolve the gov't of wrongdoing and might fail to truly ivestigate as nonbiased entities. I'm not acusing anyone specifically of this, but I would like to know whether they have a specific job description that describes their duties and responsibilities. Thanks for any help anyone could offer....


They are hired to work for the agency. If you think they don't perform, complain to the EEOC or regional EEO office and request another EEO investigator.
hablo  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:27:29 AM(UTC)
hablo

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/23/2008(UTC)
Posts: 136

An EEO Investigator's "job description" is clearly outlined in MD 110.
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/md110/chapter6.html

If someone feels like the investigator assigned to them is doing their job inadequately, then yes, they need to contact their agency's EEO office. However, the agency isn't under any obligation to change the investigator.

Nor does the investigator "work for" the agency (if they are a contracted investigator). The investigator is paid by the agency. Once the contract has been bid on and signed, the only thing the agency holds over the investigator is the ability to withhold payment if they didn't follow the terms of the contract.
waddle  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:36:12 PM(UTC)
waddle

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 27

Of course bottom-feeders are going to do everything to insure the continuance of contracts with a particular agency. That is, don't do too much looking under the tree stump, and if something is found, straw-man or simply ignore the issue to the agency's (i.e., contract-granter's) best interests.

IMHO, all investigations should be detached from bottom-feeding contract firms and agency EEO and conducted by EEO itself.
rsteven  
#7 Posted : Friday, July 29, 2011 10:21:34 AM(UTC)
rsteven

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2

I've been doing EEO investigations as a contract investigator for the past 10 years since my retirement from federal civil service. The investigator is charged with gathering information regarding the issues accepted by the agency by interviewing all concerned parties (the complainant, alleged discriminating official, and witnesses identified by either side), collecting documents pertinent to the issues complained of, and writing a synopsed report that summerizes all testimony.  The investigator makes no recommendation of whether or not he/she believes discrimination has occurred.  While it is true I and all investigators are paid by the respondent agency, there is no feedback given them regarding the outcome of each case.  Once the investigation is completed, and the report submitted to the agency, the complainant has the option of either accepting the agency's decision, requesting a hearing before an administrative judge, or taking the case to court.If you are interested in looking at the percent of cases in which discrimination is found, go to the EEOC web site and review this.  I haven't looked recently, but the last time I did I believe the figure was something like 2-3%.
I hope this helps those who may be involved in discrimination complaints better understand the role of the investigator and how their complaint is processed. 
StellaMaris  
#8 Posted : Saturday, July 30, 2011 10:23:21 AM(UTC)
StellaMaris

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/9/2008(UTC)
Posts: 660

what is the average cost of an investigation?  Any ball park figures?

Great Spirit, let me not judge another until I have walked in his moccasins a moon or two.
rsteven  
#9 Posted : Saturday, July 30, 2011 12:44:09 PM(UTC)
rsteven

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2

That's a two-part figure.  Investigator usually get between $1400 and $2200, depending on how many issues are included in the complaint, plus travel is reimbursed at the GSA rates.  The contractor (the one who has the GSA contract and who assigns the cases to the investigators) gets paid by the agency, out of which he pays the investigator.  Hope this helps...
rabbitdog99  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, August 03, 2011 3:51:13 AM(UTC)
rabbitdog99

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 396

rsteven wrote:
If you are interested in looking at the percent of cases in which discrimination is found, go to the EEOC web site and review this.  I haven't looked recently, but the last time I did I believe the figure was something like 2-3%.
 

Don't let that 2% number make you think you don't have much of a chance of winning.


 


I believe the 2%
figure refers to the percentage of all complaints filed in which discrimination is eventually  found  by an Administrative Judge.  Along the way there are dismissals, withdrawals and settlements.  Depending
on whether the starting point for data is the initial complaints or the requests
for a hearing (the point when the EEOC becomes involved), there are 20% to 30%  settlements (where the agency awards
a monetary or non-monetary benefit to an individual who agrees to not file a formal complaint or to withdraw a formal complaint).  In my mind a settlement is a win for the complainant and indicates an element of discrimination was present.  So about 20% to 30% of all complaints end up in favor of the complainant.



Oosik  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:37:48 PM(UTC)
Oosik

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 476

Rabbitdog, I think your statistical analysis is also a bit flawed.  While it's true that many settlements are not reflected in the 2% win figure, many settlements are merely face saving measures for the complainant that provide them with little.  It can be a nice and polite way to end a complaint but most settlements I have seen involve no money - even though the complainant may have spent tons on an attorney.  For example, many removals are "settled" by replacing the removal with a resignation or retirement - something the agency would have readily agreed to during the removal process.  Hard to put many of these "settlement" cases into the win column.  
rabbitdog99  
#12 Posted : Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:02:32 AM(UTC)
rabbitdog99

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 396


Oosik wrote:
Rabbitdog, I think your statistical analysis is also a bit flawed.  While it's true that many settlements are not reflected in the 2% win figure, many settlements are merely face saving measures for the complainant that provide them with little.  It can be a nice and polite way to end a complaint but most settlements I have seen involve no money - even though the complainant may have spent tons on an attorney.  For example, many removals are "settled" by replacing the removal with a resignation or retirement - something the agency would have readily agreed to during the removal process.  Hard to put many of these "settlement" cases into the win column.  
 

I see settlements as a way for the agency to avoid a finding of discrimination against them.  I'm sure that management would much rather list a case as settled than have it listed under discrimination found.  That way they can spin it anyway the want to their higher headquarters.  Why would the agency settle if there was no discrimination?  The agency lawyers are not nice and polite and their job is to protect the agency, not find a nice and polite way to end a complaint.  Last year the average settlement during pre-complaint stage was $5,457.  During the formal complaint stage it was $12,333.  But after all, it's more than about the money.  It's about standing up for truth, justice, and the American way.  (Check that, let's
make it truth and justice; I'm not really sure what the American way is anymore.)


freeageless  
#13 Posted : Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:12:15 AM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,335

Rabbitdog, Could you kindly give us the source where you got those dollar amounts from-and the source that states what those dollar amounts are for. This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with Oosik. Unfortunately, there is very little incentive for the agencies to settle a case. The agency has unlimited funds, unlimited lawyers and unlimited support personnel. In addition, the more cases there are, the more job security for the agency lawyers and support personnel. It is sad-but that is the way it is.
rabbitdog99  
#14 Posted : Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:46:42 AM(UTC)
rabbitdog99

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 396


freeageless wrote:
Rabbitdog, Could you kindly give us the source where you got those dollar amounts from-and the source that states what those dollar amounts are for. This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with Oosik. Unfortunately, there is very little incentive for the agencies to settle a case. The agency has unlimited funds, unlimited lawyers and unlimited support personnel. In addition, the more cases there are, the more job security for the agency lawyers and support personnel. It is sad-but that is the way it is.


You are right.  The agency resources vastly overwhelm that of any complainant.  Thus the only reason
for the agency to settle is if they see that they will lose and have a judge issue a finding of discrimination against them.  When the choice comes down to either a finding of discrimination or a no
admission of guilt settlement, the lawyers are doing their job by getting a settlement.  


This is where I got my info:


http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2010/upload/FY-2010-Annual-Report-Part-I-EEO-Complaint-Processing.pdf


pre-complaint stage: page I-10, Table 6


formal complaint stage: page I-16, Table 12


Oosik  
#15 Posted : Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:57:51 AM(UTC)
Oosik

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 476

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 

Rabbitdog, 
Even if you go by the two charts you direct us to, at the formal stage only about 20% settled and of them only about 20% had monetary benefits.  At the informal stage only about 20% settled and of them less than 10% had benefits.  Your belief that the average settlement is about $5500 during the precomplaint or $12,333 during the formal stage is simply bad math on your part.

Even when the agency wins there are significant costs - such as court reporters, lost productivity, management time, etc.  The agency often settles a complaint to quit wasting time and money - they seldom settle because of a fear that there will be a finding of discrimination.  

If there was such great potential liability for the agency as you suggest, why would a complainant give up the $300,000 that they think they are entitled to for chump change?
rabbitdog99  
#16 Posted : Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:29:55 PM(UTC)
rabbitdog99

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 396



Oosik,


 


Those are the numbers; they aren't bad or good math, they are simply the numbers given.  Whether or not all settlements had monetary benefits or not is insignificant.  It
could be the complainant wasn't asking for monetary benefits; perhaps they were entitled to a promotion, training, or some other non-monetary award.  My original point was that the 2% number
people like to throw around is not an accurate estimate of the chances of getting what you are entitled to.


 


The only reason an agency has to settle is fear of a finding of discrimination.  Discrimination is illegal and if such a
finding is issued then some kind of penalty is appropriate for those that committed the illegal act.  Thus, if  the evidence is in favor of the complainant, those in the agency are smart to settle.  Settlements are made with no admission of guilt and those responsible
are thus free to spin the facts any way they want in order to save their jobs.  For example, they can b.s. their superiors that there was no  evidence of
discrimination and they settled to save the costs associated with processing the claim.  Ideally the agency would want
a finding of no discrimination but when that isn't possible, because the evidence shows them guilty, the next best outcome is a settlement.


 


You are right that an agency often settles a complaint to quit wasting time and money.  The waste of time and money is because they
know they are guilty and thus they don't need to spend time and money to have a judge tell them so.


 


In fact, the
more I think about it, an agency should never settle a complaint just to save time and money unless they know they are guilty.  Settling to simply save some time and money
doesn't allow them the chance to determine if in fact discrimination occurred and then correct the problem that caused it;  thereby improving their EEO standing.  It just doesn't make sense for them to settle unless they are guilty.


 


If a complainant thinks he is entitled to $300,000 he shouldn't settle for anything less.  


Oosik  
#17 Posted : Friday, August 05, 2011 9:35:09 AM(UTC)
Oosik

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 476

Rabbitdog,

I understand they are numbers but you are drawing the wrong conclusions.  You stated that the average settlement for precomplaint cases was $5457 but there were 6332 settlements.  The average for all precomplaint settlements in 2010 was less than $500 per claim.  But of those 6332 settlements only 577 involved any money.  That is how you get to the $5457 figure.

As for your conclusion that the agency settles only when there is actual discrimination - well, that's probably about the most naive comment made on this board comparable only to Freeageless's view that agencies have unlimited resources. 

Oosik2011-08-05 17:43:14
rabbitdog99  
#18 Posted : Friday, August 05, 2011 11:05:05 AM(UTC)
rabbitdog99

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 396


Oosik wrote:
Rabbitdog,

As for your conclusion that the agency settles only when there is actual discrimination - well, that's probably about the most naive comment made on this board comparable only to Freeageless's view that agencies have unlimited resources. 
 

If


1. Prior to the formal complaint the agency gives
monetary or non-monetary benefit to a complainant to go away even though no discrimination exists;


 


or


 


2. After the formal complaint is made the agency has
done its required job which is to investigate a complaint to develop an
impartial and appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the
claims raised by the written complaint. (An appropriate factual record is one
that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred.)  And if that
record shows no discrimination but the agency gives monetary or some non-monetary benefit to the complainant anyway;


 


Then


 


The agency is giving an individual money or benefit they have not earned and are not entitled to.  That's got to be waste and abuse of tax payers' money (or paying ransom to a swindler) and I want it stopped by noon tomorrow.


 



Oosik  
#19 Posted : Monday, August 08, 2011 1:24:37 PM(UTC)
Oosik

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 476

rabbitdog99 wrote:


The agency is giving an individual money or benefit they have not earned and are not entitled to.  That's got to be waste and abuse of tax payers' money (or paying ransom to a swindler) and I want it stopped by noon tomorrow.


 




I have to agree with you on that!
frankgonzalez  
#20 Posted : Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:57:53 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,243

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)

rabbitdog99 wrote:

Oosik wrote:
Rabbitdog,

As for your conclusion that the agency settles only when there is actual discrimination - well, that's probably about the most naive comment made on this board comparable only to Freeageless's view that agencies have unlimited resources. 
 

If


1. Prior to the formal complaint the agency gives
monetary or non-monetary benefit to a complainant to go away even though no discrimination exists;


 


or


 


2. After the formal complaint is made the agency has
done its required job which is to investigate a complaint to develop an
impartial and appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the
claims raised by the written complaint. (An appropriate factual record is one
that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred.)  And if that
record shows no discrimination but the agency gives monetary or some non-monetary benefit to the complainant anyway;


 


Then


 


The agency is giving an individual money or benefit they have not earned and are not entitled to.  That's got to be waste and abuse of tax payers' money (or paying ransom to a swindler) and I want it stopped by noon tomorrow.


 


And yet, if the cost to the agency to continue through the court process is MORE than they settle the complaint for, they have saved the taxpayer money by settling it, especially when it is with a non-monetary/non-promotion method.  (ie training...benefits the agency as well as the employee, change appraisal factor(s) by one point, exchange AWOL for LWOP, etc)

Settling a complaint rarely (IME), is because the complainant has a valid complaint.  Often it is the "nuisance factor" that is calculated and if it is low enough to resolve the complaint, then the agency will do so.  Usually the issue will not survive the EEO process, but to enable a section to move forward and address the real issues (read "Not EEO") of the person, management will consider a settlement as being the easiest way forward if it is cheap enough.  This happens more frequently in the private sector.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>
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 1.564 seconds.