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 Pages<123
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
FedFunEmp  
#41 Posted : Thursday, April 13, 2017 7:34:10 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)
Originally Posted by: FedFunEmp Go to Quoted Post
Additional EEOC ROI TIPS-Here is what I think you can use as a tip to make sure your ROI has been completed adequately. Go through the MD-110 and look for KEY WORDS like “MUST”, “REQUIRED”, “SHOULD NOT”, etc. and make sure that has happened in your investigation. For example


1. Agencies are REQUIRED to complete investigations within the earlier of 180 days after the filing of the last complaint or 360 days after the filing of the original complaint. Regardless of amendment of or consolidation of complaints, the investigation shall be complete in not more than 360 days, unless there is a written extension of not more than 90 days.


2. Comparative evidence MUST be sought in every case alleging disparity in treatment on a basis protected by a law enforced by the Commission. Comparative evidence is evidence regarding how similarly situated persons outside of the complainant's protected groups were treated.


3. The complainant MUST receive a copy of the complaint file and a transcript of the hearing, if a hearing is held.


4. Relevant information that SHOULD NOT be redacted includes management and/or comparative employees'/applicants' names. Once a document is included in the complaint file, the complainant has a RIGHT TO the entire file. All parties including the agency representative, the complainant and his/her counsel, and the Administrative Judge should all have the same complaint file, either without redactions or containing the same redactions.


5. Within the appropriate time frame for finishing an investigation under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e), and prior to issuance of the notice required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), agencies are encouraged to allow complainants and their designated representatives an opportunity to examine the investigative file and to notify the agency, in writing, of any perceived deficiencies in the investigation prior to transferring the case to the Commission for a hearing or prior to taking a final action without a hearing. A copy of the complainant's notification to the agency of perceived deficiencies MUST be included in the investigative file together with a written description by the agency of the corrective action taken.


6. If the agency agrees with alleged deficiencies in the investigation as identified by the complainant, the agency MUST immediately correct them. If the investigation period has ended or is about to end, the agency should request agreement from the complainant to extend the investigation period pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e). If the agency does not agree with the complainant's claimed deficiencies in the investigative file, the agency will prepare a statement explaining the rationale for the disagreement and include it in the investigative file along with the complainant's notice of claimed deficiencies.

The Process of Developing the Evidence Commission may draw an adverse inference that the requested information, or the testimony of the requested witness, would have reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the requested information.

An adverse inference may be appropriate where the information is solely in the control of that party. Similarly, if a party fails to provide an adequate explanation for the failure to respond fully and in a timely manner to a request, the Administrative Judge may impose sanctions. Adverse inferences are appropriate when the information is solely in the control of that party. These sanctions include, but are not limited to, the authority to:


1. draw an adverse inference that the requested information would have reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the requested information;
2. consider the issues to which the requested information pertains to be established in favor of the opposing party;
3. exclude other evidence offered by the party failing to produce the requested information; and/or
4. recommend that a decision be entered in favor of the opposing party.


COPIED AND PASTED FROM MD-110


Will the Agency actually be held ACCOUNTABLE for following these rules or ACCOUNTABLE if they do not follow these rules, who knows? The jury is still out on this…..TBD!


Valuable information, so I am bumping it up!
thanks 1 user thanked FedFunEmp for this useful post.
DroneBee on 4/14/2017(UTC)
FedFunEmp  
#42 Posted : Friday, September 22, 2017 8:54:51 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)
Bumping this up, so you can see it!! I hope and pray it is helpful to someone! SEE ABOVE TIPS taken from MD-110
DroneBee  
#43 Posted : Monday, October 02, 2017 8:33:13 AM(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)
My EEOC case has been outstanding for over 5 years - it's been over 2 years since the hearing - with NO DECISION. The EEOC is a complete joke.
spacecowboy  
#44 Posted : Friday, October 06, 2017 9:04:41 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/7/2011(UTC)
Posts: 312

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Attorneys won't take your case. Even if it is rock solid. With evidence, and you offer a retainer, and payment upfront.

1. They know it is a long mountain to climb.
2. The deck is stacked against the accuser.
3. There is little hope of positive outcome.
4. It is more lucrative to accept clients working for private companies, that will settle faster, with less paperwork.

Good luck.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
3 Pages<123
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 0.067 seconds.