TOPICS
TOPICS
Just joking
When the Army Corps of Engineers posted an opening for an engineer in North Dakota in 1997, Parveen K. Vij didn't bother applying because he believed the selecting official already had a candidate in mind for the job.
Vij, a GS-11 office engineer at the Corps' facility in St. Paul, Minn., facility, alleged the selecting official discouraged him from applying for the GS-12 job in Devils Lake, N.D., because of his race (Asian), national origin (India) and religion (Hinduism). The agency originally listed the Devils Lake job at the GS-11 level, but when the desired candidate--a GS-12--turned it down, the selecting official re-advertised it as a GS-12 position.
Vij accused the selecting official of discriminating against him by constantly joking about his non-meat diet and religious rituals. The selecting official dissuaded him from applying for the Devils Lake position by telling him that he would be wasting his time, Vij alleged.
The administrative judge found that Vij was qualified for the Devils Lake job and that the selecting official had dissuaded the complainant from applying for the position and had discriminated against him. The agency disagreed, saying the selecting official's comments were made in jest and were not derogatory.
On appeal, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upheld the administrative judge's finding and ordered the Army to offer Vij a GS-12 office engineer's position, with pay and benefits dating back to August 1997. EEOC also directed the agency to consider taking disciplinary action against the selecting official and pay the complainant's attorney's fees.
Parveen K. Vij v. Department of the Army, EEOC ( Appeal No. 01996128), Feb. 5, 2002.
Taxi!
Brian T. Walsh, a Labor Department employee who travels often for his job, frequently uses taxis and rental cars to get around when on official government business.
When Walsh submitted one set of vouchers to his agency, the finance office limited his taxicab fare reimbursements to $50 plus tip, and would only validate certain expenses associated with the rental cars. Referring to a Labor Department regulation and the Federal Travel Regulation, the finance office decided that Walsh was not eligible for full reimbursement of his expenses because cheaper transportation provided by the airport's shuttle service was available.
The Labor Department restricts employees to taxicab fare reimbursements of $50 plus tip when cheaper transportation is available. The Federal Travel Regulation allows agencies to restrict the amount it will reimburse an employee for the use of a taxicab when suitable shuttle service is available.
The Board of Contract Appeals ordered the Labor Department to reimburse Walsh the full amount of his travel because the shuttle service, although less expensive, was inconvenient and took up too much of Walsh's time.
"If an employee travels frequently, as does Mr. Walsh, or if an employee is required to travel at a time when his presence is especially needed in his office, it is easy to imagine how these nonproductive hours could have a detrimental effect upon the work of an office," the board's decision said.
The board also said that Walsh's supervisor, who authorized the travel, and not the finance office was in the best position to determine whether Walsh's travel was in the government's best interest.
In the Matter of Brian T. Walsh, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA 15703-TRAV), Feb. 15, 2002.
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.