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
FedFunEmp  
#1 Posted : Friday, October 09, 2015 6:07:35 AM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 172
Location: California

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 72 post(s)
I was contemplating on whether I should post this. I really wanted to focus on positive experiences with the EEOC to HELP ENCOURAGE OTHERS, but the truth according to what I’ve read and others have experienced is, this process is set up for you to lose!

Some (and I say “some” because I am hoping all are not like this) of these ALJ will conspire with the Agency to ensure you lose and as you are going through the EEOC process, that will become more obvious to you.

Contradictions and lies that are apparent by the conflicting stories included in the investigation report and their affidavits will be overlooked. You record will be documented in a way to favor the agency.

Sorry do not mean to be a Donald Downer, so HERE IS A TIP OR TWO that will hopefully help others:

1. If you ever have a teleconference, PUSH to have the audio upfront. If not, the hearing transcript may not (and I say that loosely) reflect verbatim information. Hearing transcripts become a part of your record that someone else will look at, so you want it to be as accurate as possible if you plan on moving forward with your case.

2. If you are ever on a teleconference and the judge tries to word something for you and then says is that what you are saying. That could be a set up and that is called leading. S/he may be leading you to agree to something that’s harder to prove or more favorable for the Agency. Say, no and say it in your OWN WORDS.

THOSE ARE MY TIPS-Good Luck!

Edited by user Thursday, December 22, 2016 4:43:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Because I no longer want to use the term “rigged” and I still have HOPE

thanks 3 users thanked FedFunEmp for this useful post.
Draconian on 10/14/2015(UTC), Harrigan on 12/6/2015(UTC), nieburhlungen on 8/22/2016(UTC)
hopie  
#2 Posted : Friday, October 09, 2015 8:57:51 AM(UTC)
hopie

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/31/2015(UTC)
Posts: 125

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 26 post(s)
I believe this to be true along with supervisors and managers lying to cover up their mistakes.
thanks 1 user thanked hopie for this useful post.
Draconian on 10/14/2015(UTC)
ToosieJoie  
#3 Posted : Friday, October 09, 2015 10:34:01 PM(UTC)
ToosieJoie

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/19/2011(UTC)
Posts: 26

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I couldn't' agree more. The EEOC is rigged from the get go. How can they be bias and fair to all parties when the Agency has the privilege of an attorney to represent them free of charge. As for the person who filed the claim, I have no way of paying a retainer of 10k plus. I am trying to do it alone but have no idea what the process is. I have a little legal background as a paralegal but not in Employment Law. The attorney called me the night before the scheduling phone conference and went on about wanting to settle, save time and money etc. Within 5 minutes of the phone conference, he said the Agency would not settle and I have no case.

I was in shock when I realized the 500 pages of evidence I submitted was narrowed down to 6 issues. Only 1 I am able to really work with as the others are he said, she said. The real issues were not listed. This is a matter of me keeping my job or not. I am 52 years old and no one to help me.

I even said to the Judge in front of the attorney that it wasn't fair in the least that the Agency has a lawyer and I do not. The Judge says that the EEOC doesn't supply one yet there he is. Then the Judge had the audacity to say, well life isn't fair.

I have no idea what to submit for Discovery and what form to use. There is no guidelines.

Oh, and the Judge did try to put words in my mouth and change the meaning of a sentence I wrote and the attorney for the agency actually stood up for me at that point.

One major factor that pisses me off is that there are initial issues allowed. Then I was told that once the Investigation was done, I would be allowed to introduce more issues (especially, historical) that supports my case. Not true. I filed them within their guideline, and the harassment is continuing so the dates need to be updated but the attorney for agency said it was outside the filing limits, the Judge agreed and everything was thrown out.

Why state that the EEOC is a third party and bias when in fact they are not. Agency sticking up for Agency. Plain and simple. To hell with the aggrieved.
thanks 1 user thanked ToosieJoie for this useful post.
Draconian on 10/14/2015(UTC)
FedFunEmp  
#4 Posted : Monday, October 12, 2015 6:35:01 PM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 172
Location: California

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 72 post(s)
That is one way of looking at it, but I am speaking more in terms of the Administrative Judges not following the MD 110 rules. What was the point of having public input and a revised MD 110 if the Administrative Judges are not going to ensure your EEOC complaint and process is carried out in accordance to the MD 110?!?!

ToosieJoie-I would generally say, utilize the Management Directive 110 (MD-110) as a starting point to make sure your case is moving forward accordingly, but it appears no one is being held (accountable) to this other than the complainant.


I know a complainant who once they received their Report of Investigation, timely submitted the errors identified in the report to the agency as suggested in the MD-110. The agency did not correct or address these errors nor did the administrative judge insist the agency correct these errors. Then to add insult to injury, the administrative judge denied the complainant the opportunity for discovery.


As for what to submit for discovery, it all depends on your case and what you are trying to prove/find out. Google is your friend and so is the search button on this site. There are a lot of areas around discovery on this site. Search….


Please do not solely rely on anyone to do all the work for you, especially if you do not have the money to pay for that. Sad to say, the way the EEOC is set up for complainants to lose, you may have 85% of the pieces to the puzzle and put them together perfectly, but still lose, just because the EEOC “may” not truly be independent of the Agency you are going against!


FrankGonzalez what would you suggest on paragraph 3 above?
thanks 1 user thanked FedFunEmp for this useful post.
Draconian on 10/14/2015(UTC)
Draconian  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:32:35 PM(UTC)
Draconian

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/7/2013(UTC)
Posts: 535

Thanks: 368 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 52 post(s)
I've recently discovered another resource - every state has a 'Disability Rights Network' that provides advocacy, including legal counsel, to disabled individuals. State DRNs are likely to be aware of which lawyers in your area are taking or may accept a case as pro-bono/on contingency (or reduced fee, with payment plans, which actually do exist, believe it or not).

The national website has links to each state's website(s).
http://www.ndrn.org/index.php

I've also been reading about some AJ decisions & actions that are being overturned/reversed by the EEO Commission, interestingly.
http://www.eeoc.gov/fede...gest/xxiii-4.cfm#compens

Also, there's an AJ guidebook:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Handbook for Administrative Judges July 1, 2002
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/ajhandbook.cfm

Also, & I can't stress this enough, contact your local Union. They're excellent for support, sounding boards, & may know of potential resources (such as a lawyer interested in taking a specific kind of pro-bono case, as a teaching/learning tool, to help inform a book they're writing, etc).

Along the same lines, contact local law colleges or colleges that offer disability study-related courses. The professors may also know of potential resources & points of contact who may be able to assist.

I hope these help a little.

I agree wholeheartedly that the whole EEO process is absolutely terrible & in dire need of a complete overhaul. We're essentially tossed overboard in shark infested waters while some fool chums the water around us. It's just not right.

Hang in there, everybody.
~Leave everyplace better than you found it.
thanks 1 user thanked Draconian for this useful post.
J_10 on 2/20/2016(UTC)
hopie  
#6 Posted : Friday, October 16, 2015 2:13:24 PM(UTC)
hopie

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/31/2015(UTC)
Posts: 125

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Those are helpful resources. If the Union is assisting you with a grievance, I would not ask them for an attorney recommendation since they have their own attorney. While I was going through the grievance process, they had a new attorney since the regular attorney left. It was a problem because the new attorney was not as experienced or did not seem to know all the answers. This left me calling a Union in another region for advice, which was different than the advice given by the Union I was already dealing with.

Edited by user Friday, October 16, 2015 2:57:28 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Draconian  
#7 Posted : Saturday, October 17, 2015 10:35:06 AM(UTC)
Draconian

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/7/2013(UTC)
Posts: 535

Thanks: 368 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 52 post(s)
Actually, I haven't gone the grievance route (I can't, due to 'choosing to start the process in EEO'). Union lawyers aren't able/allowed to pursue EEO Complaint cases, which is why I mentioned asking the Union for a referral.

Even so, my Union Reps have been a wealth of information, assistance, & support. They understand my Agency's & Command's management, as well as the political climate (both local & national), & are very knowledgeable of the HR regs.

That's good thinking, contacting another Union group in another region.

-Update - Some Unions ARE allowed to pursue/assist with EEO cases. Just FYI

Edited by user Sunday, November 22, 2015 7:26:45 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

~Leave everyplace better than you found it.
DroneBee  
#8 Posted : Sunday, October 18, 2015 8:24:40 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 269

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 43 post(s)
NEVER submit an EEOC complaint - there is less than 1% of "winning" - and "winning" is not "winning" in any definition of the word. Instead, a complainant may want to submit an Office of Special Council (OSC) complaint - make sure you do your research and see what is and is not reviewed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), then when the OSC tells you that you are an idiot and have no case, bring the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSBP is a much better system (not that you will "win," but at least everything is online and you can track all documents). On a side note, it's telling that the EEOC system is so messed up unlike the MSPB system - the EEOC relies upon confusion, and exhausting the complainant - mentally, spiritually, physically, and financially. After the MSPB kicks out the case, it could then be brought to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The EEOC process takes 5 years; the other way takes about 1 year.

So, instead of fighting on discrimination, you may be fighting on a different basis; you should do your homework before proceeding.

In any case, the EEOC system is corrupt, and every AJ is in cahoots with the Agency. Also note that each government system - EEOC, OSC, MSPB, etc. - is just that - a government system. You will not obtain equal footing until you can bring the issue(s) to Court.

Edited by user Sunday, October 18, 2015 8:25:18 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked for this useful post.
Frank20 on 10/6/2016(UTC)
hopie  
#9 Posted : Monday, October 19, 2015 6:04:29 AM(UTC)
hopie

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/31/2015(UTC)
Posts: 125

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 26 post(s)
The Union has an attorney to sue the agency. If they decide to sue the agency after they take your grievance case, the employee has no say in it whether or not they want to sue the agency. I don't know what process the Union was referring to when they talked about suing the agency. The Union President was not happy when I told her that I had a phone consult with a federal attorney to see what my options were. I am the one who had to make a choice what action to take fast. She said they had their own attorney, but that attorney did not know too much.
thanks 1 user thanked hopie for this useful post.
33years_here on 10/29/2015(UTC)
33years_here  
#10 Posted : Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:10:54 AM(UTC)
33years_here

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 80
United States
Location: USA

Thanks: 53 times
Was thanked: 25 time(s) in 22 post(s)
After 3+ years fighting blatant age & disability discrimination and reprisal, I finally retired about a month ago. Since leaving, the stress-driven components of my disabilities have abated & today I am able to function as a normal person most of the time. It makes me a little mad knowing I could have functioned this well years ago, with reasonable accommodation. Mostly, though, I'm grateful to know my health wasn't irrevocably harmed as a result of my not being accommodated. I'm still disabled, but I'm able to be moderately active again for the first time in years. That's one victory.

---- My advice is watch timelines, always always always document conversations with follow-up emails & know the basics about the process - things like what disabled means, what the law says is discrimination, and understand definitions of things like essential duties, etc. The Agency tried SO MANY times to trick me into saying things that would have gotten the offending boss off the hook. If you don't understand the law & definitions, etc. it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot in ways you cannot imagine. The process is very specific in its intent.

----- Don't shy away from using the words "reasonable accommodation"-"covered disability"-"limitations" & "reprisal for covered EEO activity" in your communications with the Agency. The EEO enforcement guidance says magic words aren't necessary & that's true --- BUT if you use them, you will minimize the Agency's ability to "spin" ambiguities in your wording to manipulate the process. For example, witnesses told the investigator that I told my boss I had a benign tumor, specifically how it affected my ability to work, and asked for accommodation. They also say my boss refused to discuss accommodations with me. Still, the Agency maintains that wasn't a clear disclosure. The process forced me to pay a lawyer (or fight their lawyers on my own) and wait 3+ years for a judge to decide who was right.

For me, the process was worth it, if only because it kept a power-crazed middle manager & his cronies from firing me just because I was sick & therefore not as useful to him in terms of helping him reach the ranks of SES. When I asked for accommodation, he said no & told me if I couldn't do the job, then he'd push me out so he could get someone new. Because I had a spotless record, stuck to the EEO process, & continued to do my job in spite of being treated like I was beyond worthless, I was able to last until retirement. Another victory.

My heart breaks for others who suffered worse, had to pay attorneys when they had no income, etc. The damage I suffered was horrible, but not as grave as many others here. I had a paycheck throughout, and regardless of what the judge does in my case, I'll continue to have a paycheck.

I am outraged that our government spends so much money defending the unlawful treatment of others by defending petty tyrants like my boss while people are left with no income, can't afford lawyers, etc. these civil servants need help from the EEOC most of all, but the way the process is so badly broken that the ones who need it most are least able to use it. To me, that's the biggest flaw in the system.

I do try to be sympathetic. The EEOC & all of our Agencies are political organizations. They have pressures. Also, there are a people who cry "discrimination" where it doesn't really exist. It's hard to be too sympathetic, though, after the years of needless reprisal that I suffered as a result of asserting a right that has been granted to me by law.

I am still awaiting AJ decision on the Agency's request for summary judgement on my original discrimination complaint. I missed a deadline for a follow-on reprisal complaint, but lawyer says the Agency has left holes where the reprisal evidence can be brought in by me to defend against their false allegations (pretext). I'm going through with the hearing. After that, we'll re-evaluate. Right now, I'm enjoying my improved health & spending time with my family.

Edited by user Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:13:50 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Typos...lol

thanks 1 user thanked 33years_here for this useful post.
Draconian on 10/29/2015(UTC)
FedFunEmp  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, November 10, 2015 4:13:56 PM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 172
Location: California

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 72 post(s)
Hey Guys!!

I’ve been M.I.A for a bit as I had to take care of some personal issues!!

Anyway, thx for keeping the thread going and sharing! Sharing is the only way to help others, so I am committed to doing that. I have decided I am going to share my EEOC experience good or bad to help others.

33years_here CONGRATS on your retirement!! I hope you are enjoying it!!

I do not mean to be a Donald Downer, but I would plan for the worse on the decision from the AJ on the Agency's request for summary judgment and start preparing for an appeal so you are two steps ahead of them.

Not saying that is going to be the outcome, just trying to get you to plan ahead just in case it is. As you said, “they have pressures” and I am sure the AJ’s are pressured to close out as many cases as possible. Even if that means ruling in an Agency’s favor, when they should not.

Good luck guys and keep pushing!
Draconian  
#12 Posted : Sunday, November 22, 2015 6:55:45 PM(UTC)
Draconian

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/7/2013(UTC)
Posts: 535

Thanks: 368 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 52 post(s)
I just found a 'how to discriminate and get away with it' document put out by the Department of Justice (of all the agencies to publish this....).

It's basically a 'how-to' manual for 'defending your Agency's choice to discriminate and take unlawful, discriminatory actions' - by openly attacking disabled individuals' cases, methodically and unethically.
http://www.justice.gov/s.../2009/05/07/usab5702.pdf

It certainly explains some of the tactics that have been used against so many of us.

It includes things like:

"Elicit as much testimony as possible regarding how disabled plaintiff is, in the hope that the jury will conclude he/she is not an "otherwise qualified individual with a disability." (yes, 'in the hope that'.... because it doesn't matter if the person is or isn't disabled or is or isn't actually qualified, according to this document)

And 'defenses' (that are not based in fact, but are encouraged to be used) such as -

"plaintiff is an unreasonable, selfish, egocentric whiner with an exaggerated sense of entitlement who wanted to be put in a better position than his/her coworkers"
"Plaintiff is a cynical opportunist gaming the system [i.e., it's all about a big payday or avoiding work, and/or this whole case is a set up by plaintiff]"

And - "Because disability discrimination cases turn as much on motivations and social values as on legal or technical issues"

And here I had believed that the law was the law, & not following it was illegal. WHY a person chooses to steal does not change the fact that they broke the law and can be charged with theft. Whether the person who suffered the loss caused by the theft was 'motivated by the material loss, motivated by the violation of safety' or some other motivation when they reported the crime does not change whether or not the thief is found guilty.

But apparently, blaming the victim in discrimination cases is not only allowed, but is encouraged, and is considered 'par for the course', at least by the DOJ.

They actually instruct agencies to do their damnedest to destroy anyone bringing an EEO discrimination claim.

They don't instruct them to fix the discrimination, nor to the correct the discriminatory actions and non accommodation.

It's so unethical.

My hope is that by having this information, we can better prepare ourselves (or at least brace ourselves) for the additional unethical, discriminatory actions that reporting discrimination always seems to result in.

At least, that's how I'm going to use it. I hope it helps some of you, as well.
~Leave everyplace better than you found it.
thanks 1 user thanked Draconian for this useful post.
hopie on 11/23/2015(UTC)
hopie  
#13 Posted : Monday, November 23, 2015 5:41:52 AM(UTC)
hopie

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/31/2015(UTC)
Posts: 125

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 27 time(s) in 26 post(s)
I worked for an agency that dealt with fraud so they had a partnership with the Department of Justice. I already thought it was unethical how they would try to charge people for things they didn't even know if they were guilty of, but expected they would be submissive since they couldn't fight the government. Or the more cases they charged, the more successful they appeared to themselves.

This reminds me of the Hunting Game documentary I watched last night about women who are treated in the same manner for filing a sexual assualt complaint at a university. Some of the women have committed suicide due to the retaliation. It was explained that the university protects the university, not the students. Federal government agencies do the same although they're aware of the federal laws involving discrimination.

Edited by user Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:16:11 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

frankgonzalez  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:15:48 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: Draconian Go to Quoted Post
I just found a 'how to discriminate and get away with it' document put out by the Department of Justice (of all the agencies to publish this....).

My hope is that by having this information, we can better prepare ourselves (or at least brace ourselves) for the additional unethical, discriminatory actions that reporting discrimination always seems to result in.

At least, that's how I'm going to use it. I hope it helps some of you, as well.
Let's see...you are going to argue the agency is violating your rights and should be punished. They have to show that discrimination did not occur. Welcome to the adversarial legal process we have in the US. The defense in disability cases that is a solid win is showing the person couldn't do the job as there is no accommodation what would let them do it..and therefore, the plaintiff is not a qualified employee. Pre-ADAAA, the agency would work to show the disability didn't effect a major life activity. Since the ADAAA, that is pretty much a non-starter defence in 99.9% of Rehab Act and ADA cases.



You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
Draconian  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:56:14 AM(UTC)
Draconian

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/7/2013(UTC)
Posts: 535

Thanks: 368 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 52 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Let's see...you are going to argue the agency is violating your rights and should be punished. They have to show that discrimination did not occur. Welcome to the adversarial legal process we have in the US. The defense in disability cases that is a solid win is showing the person couldn't do the job as there is no accommodation what would let them do it..and therefore, the plaintiff is not a qualified employee. Pre-ADAAA, the agency would work to show the disability didn't effect a major life activity. Since the ADAAA, that is pretty much a non-starter defence in 99.9% of Rehab Act and ADA cases.





My point is that this document is an instruction for federal Agencies to attack the disabled person directly as a 'defense' against allegations of discrimination that they know are legitimate.

Because they can't win them on a legal basis. They know they violated the law, & their 'last resort' isn't to remedy this, but to actively seek to destroy the person who objected to their illegal actions & brought them to light.

This is part of why nothing changes.

The cycle of discrimination just keeps going round & round.

It would save SO much time, effort, & energy (not to mention actually be ethical), if Agencies fixed the problems once they become aware of them.

I have no problem with defense based on legal grounds, but to resort to parlor tricks & slight of hand because they know darn well they're violating the law and have no actual legal defense, does not give me confidence that the Agency will act ethically in other realms/areas.

Unethical behavior should not be allowed to be the norm.

These are positions of 'public trust'. Federal Agencies are supposed to actually follow the federal government's laws - they're supposed to 'set the standard'.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust people who break the law & then intentionally inflict as much pain as possible on the victim in an attempt to not take responsibility & not change the illegal behavior.

But then, I also believe in our Constitution, & that all people deserve to be treated as people - with basic dignity & respect.

Edited by user Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:57:07 AM(UTC)  | Reason: added missing words

~Leave everyplace better than you found it.
frankgonzalez  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:21:10 PM(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: Draconian Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Let's see...you are going to argue the agency is violating your rights and should be punished. They have to show that discrimination did not occur. Welcome to the adversarial legal process we have in the US. The defense in disability cases that is a solid win is showing the person couldn't do the job as there is no accommodation what would let them do it..and therefore, the plaintiff is not a qualified employee. Pre-ADAAA, the agency would work to show the disability didn't effect a major life activity. Since the ADAAA, that is pretty much a non-starter defence in 99.9% of Rehab Act and ADA cases.





My point is that this document is an instruction for federal Agencies to attack the disabled person directly as a 'defense' against allegations of discrimination that they know are legitimate.

Because they can't win them on a legal basis. They know they violated the law, & their 'last resort' isn't to remedy this, but to actively seek to destroy the person who objected to their illegal actions & brought them to light.

This is part of why nothing changes.

The cycle of discrimination just keeps going round & round.

It would save SO much time, effort, & energy (not to mention actually be ethical), if Agencies fixed the problems once they become aware of them.

I have no problem with defense based on legal grounds, but to resort to parlor tricks & slight of hand because they know darn well they're violating the law and have no actual legal defense, does not give me confidence that the Agency will act ethically in other realms/areas.

Unethical behavior should not be allowed to be the norm.

These are positions of 'public trust'. Federal Agencies are supposed to actually follow the federal government's laws - they're supposed to 'set the standard'.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust people who break the law & then intentionally inflict as much pain as possible on the victim in an attempt to not take responsibility & not change the illegal behavior.

But then, I also believe in our Constitution, & that all people deserve to be treated as people - with basic dignity & respect.
I agree the agencies are supposed to follow the law. However, they have to defend themselves, the complainant has to prove their case. This is the basis of our legal system. And as such it is adversarial. And, as the plaintiff is the one saying the agency violated the law, the agency is entitled to challange that claim. And sometimes the best way is to challange the credibility of the plaintiff. And there are plaintiffs who are wrong in their claims. And there are plaintiffs who lie in their complaints. Just as their are managers who do those things.

The actions you see as "unethical" are nothing of the sort. They are tools to elicit infomation to sway a jury one way or another or to obtain details previously left out of the record (usually because it is known to be harmful to their case). The document you linked to also said this about plaintiff's attorney's strategery:"But a competent
plaintiff's counsel will understand that one simple strategy can maximize his/her client's recovery in a disability discrimination case: mobilize the jury's emotions. If plaintiff's counsel is effective, the jury will view plaintiff as a victim, martyr, saint, or even hero standing up against a powerful, cruel, unfeeling, ungrateful and, most important, faceless government." Is this also not as "unethical" as you claim the agency attorneys are?

In fact, it also says this: "These themes are not intended to suggest that all Rehabilitation Act claims are frivolous or even weak. Certainly, the themes listed in this section
would need to be toned down in many cases and would not be appropriate at all in others." when talking about ways to best defend the agency. Each case is unique, but there are general themes to look for in the fact pattern.

Just as you (or your counsel) will attempt to show the agency and the manager as wrong, the agency must do the same to you.



You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
FedFunEmp  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:26:04 PM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 172
Location: California

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 72 post(s)
Yes, I agree both parties will attempt to show the other is wrong, but what I am shocked at, are the underhanded tactics some use to do so.

Lying is wrong on both sides, but it appears it should be considered the norm from some agency lawyers based on some of these comments. SMH

It is not a level playing field to begin with, as agencies have the benefit of unlimited or budgeted resources and a variety of individuals on payroll to defend against charges of discrimination. On the other hand, the employee is spending their hard earned money to fight for what’s right. Then on top of that, some agencies have Administrative Judges in their back pocket to help them win, so there really should be no reason for them to lie!

I was floored by the amount of lies I heard and read in documents!

Either side should be able to defend their point of view without resorting to lies and slander! It appears the lies and slander are thrown in just to validate the agency’s discriminatory reasons and because in reality, they cannot honestly defend their stance!!

What happened to winning “FAIR AND SQUARE”! Clearly I am naïve for thinking this way….and that is very sad!


Wishing you all a HAPPY THANKSGIVING by the way!! Keep Pushing!!

Edited by user Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:33:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked FedFunEmp for this useful post.
Draconian on 11/25/2015(UTC)
hustonj  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, November 25, 2015 5:25:43 AM(UTC)
hustonj

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/17/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,270

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 320 time(s) in 257 post(s)
If it has reached a jury-based court case, it isn't about the truth anymore, it is about winning in the courtroom. Frequently, hooking and using the emotions of the jurors is far more effective than presenting an iron-clad case.

If proof and logic consistently won the day in jury cases, these tactics wouldn't be listed or used. Lawyers are paid to win, not find truth.
FedFunEmp  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, November 25, 2015 7:25:50 AM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 172
Location: California

Thanks: 22 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 72 post(s)
Originally Posted by: hustonj Go to Quoted Post
If it has reached a jury-based court case, it isn't about the truth anymore, it is about winning in the courtroom. Frequently, hooking and using the emotions of the jurors is far more effective than presenting an iron-clad case.

If proof and logic consistently won the day in jury cases, these tactics wouldn't be listed or used. Lawyers are paid to win, not find truth.


Just for clarification purposes:

1. EEOC does not have a jury. A plaintiff’s judge and jury is the Administrative Judge during the EEOC process.

2. I believe in order to get to a jury (Federal Court) a plaintiff/employee has to go through certain EEOC channels and spend time and their hard earned money to do so. Folks please believe your case can get dismissed in federal court if you skip certain aspects of the EEOC process.

3. You said “If it has reached a jury-based court case” well based on 1 & 2 above, at that point, your file is included with a bunch of lies and slander to lessen your merits that you now have to defend against in Federal Court.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Prepare in how your case is defended whether via a jury case (Federal Court) or tribunal (EEOC) case!! They are not going to play nice even if you have proof you were discriminated against. No agency wants to have to admit or get dinged with a discrimination charge, so they have “some” paid lawyers who will do and say anything to fight against it, even if (a blind man could see) it happened.

Again, wishing you ALL a HAPPY THANKSGIVING!! Keep pushing

Edited by user Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:21:23 AM(UTC)  | Reason: I over analyze and I did not want something to be interpreted in the wrong way

Draconian  
#20 Posted : Wednesday, November 25, 2015 7:58:42 AM(UTC)
Draconian

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/7/2013(UTC)
Posts: 535

Thanks: 368 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 52 post(s)
The link/document I provided referenced jury trials, but I've seen my Agency using some of the tactics mentioned during the EEO informal & formal complaint process, hence the reason I shared it.

I was, and still am, shocked by the unethical/unlawful actions/tactics and personal attacks that some members of agency management have engaged in throughout this already skewed, uphill ordeal.

Seeing some of the guidance/instructions their legal counsel is using gives me (& all of us) an idea of what they're going to hit me with next.

If you're defending yourself from bullets, even if your defenses are excellent, and the ground beneath you is destroyed by an earthquake inducing weapon that you didn't know was in play, the chances you'll survive are slim.

If you know there's an earthquake machine, you have a better chance of preparing for it, even if that preparation is just bracing for the impact and being aware of the potential for increased injuries/damage.

Thank you everyone, for making this a really good, very useful, and awesomely respectful discussion.

May you all have a wonderful Thanksgiving

~Leave everyplace better than you found it.
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 1.989 seconds.