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
Nurse4KU  
#1 Posted : Saturday, February 24, 2018 11:21:32 AM(UTC)
Nurse4KU

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/23/2015(UTC)
Posts: 25
Woman
Location: texas

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I am a federal employee that filed an EEO in 2013, and now have 2 EEO complaints with 7 addendum's. I will not go into the details of my Federal EEO cases, but I have been assigned to a hearing at the end of March. I no longer have money for representation, I have already spend $15k. I did not expect to suddenly have a hearing assigned. My cases started in 2013, and has gone through the entire process. I had a lawyer that I paid a lot, but I am not able to keep paying for representation.
Those individuals who have gone to a hearing, does this mean anything at all regarding the strength of my case, or did I just wait long enough it was inevitable. The process is exhausting of course, and now i have to prepare for this hearing. I am just debating on whether a hearing means anything positive.

Of course I think I have a case, but really I am just wondering if every one waits long enough they will eventually have a hearing.
frankgonzalez  
#2 Posted : Monday, February 26, 2018 4:59:04 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Nurse4KU Go to Quoted Post
I am a federal employee that filed an EEO in 2013, and now have 2 EEO complaints with 7 addendum's. I will not go into the details of my Federal EEO cases, but I have been assigned to a hearing at the end of March. I no longer have money for representation, I have already spend $15k. I did not expect to suddenly have a hearing assigned. My cases started in 2013, and has gone through the entire process. I had a lawyer that I paid a lot, but I am not able to keep paying for representation.
Those individuals who have gone to a hearing, does this mean anything at all regarding the strength of my case, or did I just wait long enough it was inevitable. The process is exhausting of course, and now i have to prepare for this hearing. I am just debating on whether a hearing means anything positive.

Of course I think I have a case, but really I am just wondering if every one waits long enough they will eventually have a hearing.
Getting a hearing means nothing on the strength of a case. It means it got to the top of the pile and assigned to a hearing AJ finally.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
Nurse4KU  
#3 Posted : Monday, February 26, 2018 8:26:27 AM(UTC)
Nurse4KU

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/23/2015(UTC)
Posts: 25
Woman
Location: texas

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
That is what I assumed, I have already spent more money then I should have on a lawyer, but I have difficulty articulating the case and the lawyer I used mostly did disability claims. I believe she did not understand the complexity of the case, like most cases they are complicated and involve more that what is on paper. I appear to be a weak witness so it makes it difficult. While it is clear to me the retaliation that occurred, I still have my job and was not physically injured so I don't stand a chance in winning. Preparing for the case is a huge undertaking and stress, so I have to decide how much effort to put in something that I do not believe I stand a chance in "winning", besides my lawyer fees, all i want is management to realize they are held accountable. Harassment is ramped where I work, and no one is held accountable.
I have to prioritize my life at this point, I never want to give up on something that has taken 5 years and caused a great deal of harm physically, mentally, and career wise. But I go work FT, go to school FT, and have a family, preparing for this case would be a huge sacrifice that I am not sure is worth it.

Hawaiiannative  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:22:55 PM(UTC)
Hawaiiannative

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/4/2014(UTC)
Posts: 65
United States
Location: Hawaii

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 24 post(s)
As far as what I have seen and experienced, you will get to tell your story, you may even get a judgement in your favor, but it is meaningless. The perpetrators continue their abuse and maybe, get a paper in their file for 6 months.

Few attorneys will even acknowledge retailiation and harrassment cases, it is not against the law to be a jerk. And unless it was an obviously blatent EEOC issue, it is usually trivialized by management. Victim blaming is rampant, and you will be portrayed as a crazy psycho, who can't accept supervision and direction without taking offense.

Get your alligator skin, you are going to have to be tough as nails to take the abuse.

I wish you the best.
frankgonzalez  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:59:33 PM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Hawaiiannative Go to Quoted Post
As far as what I have seen and experienced, you will get to tell your story, you may even get a judgement in your favor, but it is meaningless. The perpetrators continue their abuse and maybe, get a paper in their file for 6 months.

Few attorneys will even acknowledge retailiation and harrassment cases, it is not against the law to be a jerk. And unless it was an obviously blatent EEOC issue, it is usually trivialized by management. Victim blaming is rampant, and you will be portrayed as a crazy psycho, who can't accept supervision and direction without taking offense.

Get your alligator skin, you are going to have to be tough as nails to take the abuse.

I wish you the best.

Apart from the fact that reprisal cases are found for complainants on a ratio of 2:1 vs the initial complaint.

Yes, people can legally be jerks (the SCOTUS said "the Civil Rights laws are not civility laws" a few years ago).
You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
DroneBee  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:08:09 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 430

Thanks: 168 times
Was thanked: 99 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Apart from the fact that reprisal cases are found for complainants on a ratio of 2:1 vs the initial complaint.


What does this mean? Complainants have a 2% chance of "winning" some have zero percent! See https://www.eeoc.gov/fed...rts/fsp2014/profiles.cfm

The EEO process is an entire sham. It's used for the government to protect the abusers and punish the victims.



frankgonzalez  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:00:49 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Apart from the fact that reprisal cases are found for complainants on a ratio of 2:1 vs the initial complaint.


What does this mean? Complainants have a 2% chance of "winning" some have zero percent! See https://www.eeoc.gov/fed...rts/fsp2014/profiles.cfm

The EEO process is an entire sham. It's used for the government to protect the abusers and punish the victims.



While only about 3% of all cases heard at the EEOC or any court are found for a complainant, 2/3 of those won are reprisal complaints. So...statistically, you have a 1% chance on winning with the initial issue, but a 2% chance of winning a reprisal case (this is mainly due to the fact the threshold for proving reprisal is easier than proving discrimination).

And while issues exist, there are plenty of cases where the employee is filing because they were being held accountable, etc and these tie up the system and lead to the low success rate in court by complainants. I've had a union president state "we are representing this member because we have to...but no more than we have to as he is a lazy, good for nothing, POS who makes life more difficult for the other bargaining unit members by not doing the what they are supposed to be doing. If he'd show up for work regularly, he wouldn't have the current issue he is filing his complaint on!"

And I've had other complainants give all the right words when they initiate their complaint, and when interviewed later, they state the manager does the same thing to everyone (thereby showing it isn't illegal discrimination, simply bad people skills...or even simply holding everyone accountable). And then they get mad when they lose their case...saying the same things you do about the process.

Edited by user Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:07:58 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
GSBS  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:51:05 PM(UTC)
GSBS

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,379

Thanks: 177 times
Was thanked: 251 time(s) in 214 post(s)
There is an attorney firm that takes Federal Employee cases on a contingency basis (pay nothing unless you win). You might want to speak with them after fully checking out their standing with the State Bar.

http://www.flookandgraham.com/
DroneBee  
#9 Posted : Friday, March 02, 2018 3:50:41 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 430

Thanks: 168 times
Was thanked: 99 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Apart from the fact that reprisal cases are found for complainants on a ratio of 2:1 vs the initial complaint.


What does this mean? Complainants have a 2% chance of "winning" some have zero percent! See https://www.eeoc.gov/fed...rts/fsp2014/profiles.cfm

The EEO process is an entire sham. It's used for the government to protect the abusers and punish the victims.



While only about 3% of all cases heard at the EEOC or any court are found for a complainant, 2/3 of those won are reprisal complaints. So...statistically, you have a 1% chance on winning with the initial issue, but a 2% chance of winning a reprisal case (this is mainly due to the fact the threshold for proving reprisal is easier than proving discrimination).

And while issues exist, there are plenty of cases where the employee is filing because they were being held accountable, etc and these tie up the system and lead to the low success rate in court by complainants. I've had a union president state "we are representing this member because we have to...but no more than we have to as he is a lazy, good for nothing, POS who makes life more difficult for the other bargaining unit members by not doing the what they are supposed to be doing. If he'd show up for work regularly, he wouldn't have the current issue he is filing his complaint on!"

And I've had other complainants give all the right words when they initiate their complaint, and when interviewed later, they state the manager does the same thing to everyone (thereby showing it isn't illegal discrimination, simply bad people skills...or even simply holding everyone accountable). And then they get mad when they lose their case...saying the same things you do about the process.


I wouldn't buy a cell phone with 2% success rate - the US taxpayer shouldn't be paying for the expensive EEO system with a 2% success rate, no matter how one slices it. If the opposite is taken - that there is a 98% success rate (for the government) - then the EEO system isn't needed because this success rate shows that there is virtually no discrimination in the federal workforce. The Village Idiot can see something's wrong with the EEO system.
frankgonzalez  
#10 Posted : Monday, March 05, 2018 5:19:10 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Apart from the fact that reprisal cases are found for complainants on a ratio of 2:1 vs the initial complaint.


What does this mean? Complainants have a 2% chance of "winning" some have zero percent! See https://www.eeoc.gov/fed...rts/fsp2014/profiles.cfm

The EEO process is an entire sham. It's used for the government to protect the abusers and punish the victims.



While only about 3% of all cases heard at the EEOC or any court are found for a complainant, 2/3 of those won are reprisal complaints. So...statistically, you have a 1% chance on winning with the initial issue, but a 2% chance of winning a reprisal case (this is mainly due to the fact the threshold for proving reprisal is easier than proving discrimination).

And while issues exist, there are plenty of cases where the employee is filing because they were being held accountable, etc and these tie up the system and lead to the low success rate in court by complainants. I've had a union president state "we are representing this member because we have to...but no more than we have to as he is a lazy, good for nothing, POS who makes life more difficult for the other bargaining unit members by not doing the what they are supposed to be doing. If he'd show up for work regularly, he wouldn't have the current issue he is filing his complaint on!"

And I've had other complainants give all the right words when they initiate their complaint, and when interviewed later, they state the manager does the same thing to everyone (thereby showing it isn't illegal discrimination, simply bad people skills...or even simply holding everyone accountable). And then they get mad when they lose their case...saying the same things you do about the process.


I wouldn't buy a cell phone with 2% success rate - the US taxpayer shouldn't be paying for the expensive EEO system with a 2% success rate, no matter how one slices it. If the opposite is taken - that there is a 98% success rate (for the government) - then the EEO system isn't needed because this success rate shows that there is virtually no discrimination in the federal workforce. The Village Idiot can see something's wrong with the EEO system.
Why? It is closer to a 3% rate for the complainant historically, not 2%.

Let's see...the system success rates for complainants could be so low because there are a lot of people clogging the system because they are in the wrong forum or have not experienced discrimination. And remember, that success rate does NOT include the cases that are settled prior to a decision. I know I settled mine after discovery and deposition were complete. So...while I had a hearing date, we never made it that far as the agency decided to (finally) enter settlement discussions (something I had brought up as early as the informal stage of my complaint). Could I have gotten more from a judgment? Maybe. But I could have also lost. And I am happy with the result I got) but that doesn't count in the "success" rate for EEO complaints.

And you appear (based on your posts here) to think all complaints are valid and the agency should be punished each time. I can see why you feel that way, but I would guess I have seen way more complaints over the past 20+ years than you have ever seen, and I can tell you the majority are wasting everyone's time because they are simply being asked to do their job and apparently didn't like being asked. Disability complaints of not being accommodated when they refuse to tell the manager what they need or provide any documentation from their medical provider to show what they need (or even that they have a disability). People claiming their boss is a _____ist because they were asked to do something loosely connected to their job duties but it isn't specifically spelled out in their PD. Or when they weren't allowed to go to the conference/training/TDY but others were, but the complainant declined the opportunity but then changed their mind once they discovered it was somewhere nice. And so on.

For example. a previous office I was in was offered some slots in a class at Pearl Harbour (a surprise for us, and would let some of our people to get trained earlier than expected). I contacted all the people who had volunteered for the collateral duty, and did not give them the location..typically it would have been at Patrick AFB, FL...and asked who wanted to go. We were offered enough seats that ALL of them could have gone. Only ONE said they wanted a slot, but had to confirm with their boss they could go (and it took less than 10 minutes to get an email from her boss confirming she was cleared to attend). I went back to the other 5 people to double check, letting them know that this was their last chance for this particular date, and they all declined the class. A week later, once they all heard it was going to be held in Hawaii, I heard whining and complaining and that I should try and get slots for them again. My boss informed the people that as they declined the class, it was not my job to try and get them a seat at this late stage, and they will be heading to Patrick AFB for the next available class instead. At least two people said I discriminated against them by not putting them in the class when they asked to go. Luckily, I had the email that was sent to everyone...that explained we got some unexpected seats in a class, and if they wanted to go to it to vs going later in the year. I did leave the location off the email to ensure folks who replied did so for the training, not the location. I did say it wasn't going to be at Patrick AFB. The person who said "yes" in her response said she didn't care where it was, as she wanted the training to be able to do better at her collateral duty. And I saw complaints like this frequently.

There are some days I'm surprised the success rate for complainants is as high as 3%...but then again, I also know if there is a strong complaint, the agency usually tries to settle it long before an judge (EEOC AJ or Fed District Court judge) makes a ruling.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
DroneBee  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, March 07, 2018 2:50:11 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 430

Thanks: 168 times
Was thanked: 99 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Frank - you write too much. In a nutshell, my EEOC hearing was over 2 years ago with no decision in sight. Clearly, this is no justice system for the oppressed.
frankgonzalez  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:46:50 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Frank - you write too much. In a nutshell, my EEOC hearing was over 2 years ago with no decision in sight. Clearly, this is no justice system for the oppressed.
Why you say this? The fact I give examples and reasons for why most of your complaints about the system have little merit?

How about this...you want a faster system? Propose something that is fair to BOTH sides? Not just the complainant being given what they want, but something that actually addresses if it really was discrimination? Remember, while the "win" rate for complainants is low, it is NOT because there isn't issues in their work place, it is only that those issues do not meet the legal threshold to be considered illegal discrimination. And find a way to decrease the sheer number of people complaining without depriving people of an avenue of redress, even if you know the complaint has no shot in court.

As for your personal issue....have you reached out to the court to ensure a decision is still waiting and not they made a decision and you weren't informed? Or are you sitting there waiting while getting madder at the system because you know it may not be found in your favor?

My case went through the system fairly quickly (especially considering it was in the 9th circuit region), but I ended up settling my case after discovery and depositions. Could I have gotten more by continuing to fight? Maybe...but I could have also lost. In the end, I was happy with the outcome..and I am unlikely to ever apply to a job with that agency in the future as I got to see how badly their quality has sunk in the years since I left them and I am very happy with my current agency.



You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
FedFunEmp  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, March 07, 2018 10:22:27 AM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 181
Location: California

Thanks: 24 times
Was thanked: 91 time(s) in 74 post(s)
I cannot speak for everyone and I make it my best interest to try to NOT MAKE GENERAL STATEMENTS when I post on here.
That being said, I wonder how much of that 3% (success) rate or the 97% FAIL RATE is attributable to all shenanigans that go on behind the scenes that most are not aware of that some AJ’s allow and engage in? When I say shenanigans I specifically mean:

• Some AJ’s ignoring a complainants request to correct the lies included in the ROI by an agency.
• Some AJ’s ignoring a complainants request for the missing material information from the ROI that has been intentionally left out by an agency
• Some AJ’s not ensuring discovery takes place even though it was requested and needed by an complainant based on the lies included and the material info missing from the ROI
• Some AJ’s who instead of making impartial decisions, they ask the agency questions about what they think the AJ should allow
• Some AJ’s do not follow MD-110 and who does not ensure agencies follow the MD-110 guidelines
• Some AJ’s who fail to draw a variety of bad faith inferences
• Some AJ’s who tell an agency to change the info included in the agency’s brief, in an effort to help the agency

Long story short(er), I wonder what percentage of the low success rate and the HIGH FAIL RATE is attributable to having an EEOC AJ who is not impartial. One who instead of making sure there are no shenanigans during the EEOC process, s/he participates in the shenanigans? Consider yourself Lucky/Blessed if you get an impartial EEOC AJ and you have a fair chance in your EEOC case!
frankgonzalez  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, March 07, 2018 12:08:53 PM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
My responses in bold:
Originally Posted by: FedFunEmp Go to Quoted Post
I cannot speak for everyone and I make it my best interest to try to NOT MAKE GENERAL STATEMENTS when I post on here.
That being said, I wonder how much of that 3% (success) rate or the 97% FAIL RATE is attributable to all shenanigans that go on behind the scenes that most are not aware of that some AJ’s allow and engage in? When I say shenanigans I specifically mean:

• Some AJ’s ignoring a complainants request to correct the lies included in the ROI by an agency.The ROI is the ROI and this is where you use discovery to address short comings of the ROI
• Some AJ’s ignoring a complainants request for the missing material information from the ROI that has been intentionally left out by an agency Again, this would be what discovery is for
• Some AJ’s not ensuring discovery takes place even though it was requested and needed by an complainant based on the lies included and the material info missing from the ROI This is an issue. In my experience in my case, the agency tried to not provide anything we asked for. However, my lawyer and I addressed each item after getting the poor response identifying their failure to provide, why the item was critical, and a hint that if it wasn't produced, we would ask for sanctions up to and including a finding in my favor as a sanction with a reminder of the deadline to produce. They eventually requested an extension to discovery we agreed to and produced what we asked for. It made a strong case stronger, in my situation.
• Some AJ’s who instead of making impartial decisions, they ask the agency questions about what they think the AJ should allow I've seen AJs do this to both sides. Usually they have already made a decision in their head, but want to see what one side wants to do. If the agency/plaintiff says to allow it, and the AJ was inclined not to...then the AJ would typically defer to that as the side it would be detrimental to agreed to allow it.
• Some AJ’s do not follow MD-110 and who does not ensure agencies follow the MD-110 guidelines A problem to be concerned about. However, it does give help to the appeal if they rule against you.
• Some AJ’s who fail to draw a variety of bad faith inferences This is subjective. What might seem to be bad faith to one person, may not be to another.
• Some AJ’s who tell an agency to change the info included in the agency’s brief, in an effort to help the agency Again, it depends...and the AJ may simply be looking at the record and wants the agency (or in some cases the plaintiff) to make their brief clearer and neater.

Long story short(er), I wonder what percentage of the low success rate and the HIGH FAIL RATE is attributable to having an EEOC AJ who is not impartial. One who instead of making sure there are no shenanigans during the EEOC process, s/he participates in the shenanigans? Consider yourself Lucky/Blessed if you get an impartial EEOC AJ and you have a fair chance in your EEOC case!

And, there are plenty of cases where the complainant was untimely, testified to the fact others not in their protected class were treated the same way, and so on that also contribute to the low success rate.

In my case, the agency did not want to engage in mediation or settlement discussions at any time (in fact, I was told the settlement official did not believe in settling cases as it simply means more people will file complaints!). However, once discovery was over and immediately after the depositions were complete (I was the last person deposed by the agency), the agency attorney asked if we could discuss settlement. My response was I was open to settlement on day 1 on my complaint...the agency has been the one avoiding the discussion. A week or so later, we had a signed agreement.

If you lose at the EEOC, you can appeal and eventually get to federal court. Just make certain you get your objections on the record as they occur so they remain alive in the appeal. Realize that an AJ can be GS-12! So...they aren't all equipped with years of EEO (or even Labor Law) experience. That also doesn't help. Most Chief AJs try to not hire at the GS-12 level if they can avoid it for that very reason.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
FedFunEmp  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:17:52 PM(UTC)
FedFunEmp

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 181
Location: California

Thanks: 24 times
Was thanked: 91 time(s) in 74 post(s)
As I have ALWAYS said, “Be careful who you seek help or advice from on this site! Everyone is not here to help complainants.”

My previous post lists potential examples as to why maybe only 3% of complainants win in EEOC or 97% of complainants lose in EEOC. My post was based on the assumption the person had a legitimate case and had met all timely deadlines. Any reasonable person would be able to infer, if the complainant endured all the above, they more than likely had a somewhat strong case or had the potential to have somewhat of strong case. If they did not, the EEOC AJ would not have basically participated in denying the complainant a chance for fair due process.

FAIR DUE PROCESS IS AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY and ALL complainants should be receive fair due process during the EEOC process. When I post, I post to help other complainants know what unfair craziness to look out for and what to do during their EEOC case. It says a lot about the EEOC process that so many people tell you to skip it. Why did so many women skip EEOC when they were harassed; or did they and the EEOC just turned a blind eye to it? EEOC REFORM IS NEEDED!

Please see “EEOC ROI MD-110 TIPS based on key words like must & required” for EEOC tips
frankgonzalez  
#16 Posted : Thursday, March 08, 2018 5:09:55 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: FedFunEmp Go to Quoted Post
As I have ALWAYS said, “Be careful who you seek help or advice from on this site! Everyone is not here to help complainants.”

My previous post lists potential examples as to why maybe only 3% of complainants win in EEOC or 97% of complainants lose in EEOC. My post was based on the assumption the person had a legitimate case and had met all timely deadlines. Any reasonable person would be able to infer, if the complainant endured all the above, they more than likely had a somewhat strong case or had the potential to have somewhat of strong case. If they did not, the EEOC AJ would not have basically participated in denying the complainant a chance for fair due process.

FAIR DUE PROCESS IS AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY and ALL complainants should be receive fair due process during the EEOC process. When I post, I post to help other complainants know what unfair craziness to look out for and what to do during their EEOC case. It says a lot about the EEOC process that so many people tell you to skip it. Why did so many women skip EEOC when they were harassed; or did they and the EEOC just turned a blind eye to it? EEOC REFORM IS NEEDED!

Please see “EEOC ROI MD-110 TIPS based on key words like must & required” for EEOC tips
And, when you raise issues that ARE not going to occur in the manner you seem to want them to, then you provide bad advice. AND...you did not start off with "Based on the assumption the person had a legitimate case..." And even if you did, my responses would have been the same. The AJ will NOT correct the ROI. That would be tampering with evidence. Discovery is where you are supposed to supplement the record beyond the ROI. And if the ROI is that bad, then you address the issue the agency failed to investigate in good faith/is trying to hide evidence. The AJ may rule the agency needs to conduct a supplemental investigation to complete the investigative record. (I have seen this happen a few times over the years) They won't change the original ROI (and you don't want that...you want the original to show the poor job the agency did in the investigation, especially if you end up in fed district court and a jury), but can add an additional supplemental ROI to the record (and the agency is usually only given 60-90 days to complete the supplemental and provide the Supplemental ROI to you and the court.

FedFunEmp...I've been a complainant, and dealt with a poor counselor who wouldn't even tell me how many EEO cases they had worked (my suspicion is less than 5), who failed to relay my request for ADR and made it appear I was demanding who sits at the table for the agency (I simply asked that whomever was selected to sit at the table, the selection was made by the center commander or exec director), and many other issues. The investigation was better (and did provide a record very useful to me), but I have experience in this area and made certain I put everything in writing beyond the verbal interview and made certain my rebuttal to the agency witnesses was done line-by-line and caveated that without certain evidence (such as the interview notes or the selectee's resume) I could not address certain items and therefore will preserve my right to amend once those items are provided, either in the ROI or as part of discovery.

They will try to avoid providing anything useful in discovery, perhaps even saying it is already in the ROI. Your job (and your lawyer if they are good) is to show specifically how what you requested is NOT in the ROI and is therefore needed. If need be, a motion to compel may be needed.

In my case, the RMO stated his participation in the deposition was depending on the questions asked and threatened to walk out early. My attorney simply asked the agency attorney to remind the RMO that he was required to participate in the depo or face potential adverse actions. I could tell the agency attorney did not want the RMO on the stand at a hearing (the RMO lost his temper several times during the deposition questioning, and contradicted his sworn statements in the ROI, and even other responses in his deposition!), which I think helped lead the agency to wanting to settle my case, because if they didn't put him on the stand, we would.

I also provided info that some AJs are inexperienced, which doesn't help anyone in the process. And I pointed out that you need to address every error you see to preserve it for your appeal. If it wasn't raised at the time, it can be deemed to have been abandoned later on in your appeal.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
DroneBee  
#17 Posted : Friday, March 09, 2018 6:06:09 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 430

Thanks: 168 times
Was thanked: 99 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
As for your personal issue....have you reached out to the court to ensure a decision is still waiting and not they made a decision and you weren't informed?


You can't be serious that the EEOC is a "court"; also, it is bizarre that "they" would not inform the oppressed of "a decision." This just proves my point that the EEOC is a useless process that only benefits the oppressors. Let's drain the swamp, save taxpayer money, and get rid of the EEOC.
frankgonzalez  
#18 Posted : Monday, March 12, 2018 4:30:00 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
As for your personal issue....have you reached out to the court to ensure a decision is still waiting and not they made a decision and you weren't informed?


You can't be serious that the EEOC is a "court"; also, it is bizarre that "they" would not inform the oppressed of "a decision." This just proves my point that the EEOC is a useless process that only benefits the oppressors. Let's drain the swamp, save taxpayer money, and get rid of the EEOC.
Mail get delivered to the wrong address all the time, and not everyone is nice enough to take it to the right place (if nearby). People move after their case gets to the EEOC and don't remember to update the record with the new address. Admin uses the old address as that is the first one they see...and so on. So yes, the complainant (not "the oppressed" as you wish to be made out as...which may be the source of much of your issues. If you feel everyone is oppressing you, then everything done by anyone is seen as part of the problem, whether or not it is directed at you) may not be updated on the decision.

The AJ doesn't personally mail out the decisions. They have an adminst support team that does that work...and they aren't exactly underworked these days, so things can slip through the cracks. So, unless you have requested an update from the EEOC and gotten one, then you do not know if a decision has been rendered or not. And if you have a representative (especially if they are an attorney), they should have done this on a periodic basis to ensure the case doesn't get lost in the system.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
DroneBee  
#19 Posted : Monday, March 12, 2018 9:22:19 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 430

Thanks: 168 times
Was thanked: 99 time(s) in 85 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
So, unless you have requested an update from the EEOC and gotten one, then you do not know if a decision has been rendered or not.


Wow... this EEOC "system" is biased on all fronts! Thanks for bringing this horrendous"system" to light. I agree with you, Frank - Drain the Swamp by getting rid of the useless EEOC "system."
frankgonzalez  
#20 Posted : Monday, March 12, 2018 9:47:35 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,838

Thanks: 58 times
Was thanked: 843 time(s) in 666 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
So, unless you have requested an update from the EEOC and gotten one, then you do not know if a decision has been rendered or not.


Wow... this EEOC "system" is biased on all fronts! Thanks for bringing this horrendous"system" to light. I agree with you, Frank - Drain the Swamp by getting rid of the useless EEOC "system."
Sorry...your selective edits is not what I said. And any bureaucracy can have things slip through the cracks. And that is not "bias" unless your definition of bias is anything that doesn't give you exactly what you want when you want it.

I've been through the process, and while it isn't perfect...it is amazingly better than what preceded it.

You go ahead and keep calling to burn the system down and let me know how far you get with that.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
FedCivServ on 3/12/2018(UTC)
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 0.842 seconds.