GovernmentExecutive.com

A federal court threw out a class action lawsuit against Navy Secretary Gordon England last week, but ruled Navy personnel alleging discrimination can continue their cases individually.

A group of Navy personnel filed a class action lawsuit against Gordon alleging "unlawful gender, race, age and disability discrimination in employment" when they were negatively affected by a reduction-in-force action at the Naval Sea Systems Command in 2001. The group alleges that the Navy violated the 1954 Civil Rights Act.

According to the plaintiffs, NAVSEA wanted to "eliminate [their] predominately female, heavily African-American secretarial workforce. Many of the NAVSEA secretaries were over the age of 40, and a noticeable number were disabled employees."

The Navy argued that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and did not file a class complaint in a timely manner.

Judge Reggie Walton with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Aug. 27 that the class action suit was invalid because the plaintiffs failed to file it within the window of time required under federal law.

However, Walton upheld that the plaintiffs filed their complaints within time to continue their individual cases.

The plaintiffs were notified of the RIF on March 22, 2001, but it did not go into effect until July 1, 2001. The Navy argued that the individual complaints should be thrown out, as well, because they were not filed until September 2001. The Navy said any complaints had to be filed within 45 days after the March 22 notice. The court noted, however, that the RIF did not become effective until July 1, 2001.

"The fact that the plaintiffs had notice of the RIF in March has no bearing on this timeliness analysis because it is not until the effective date of the personnel action that the 45-day window opened," Walton wrote. "Thus, on July 1, 2001, when the employees returned to work in their new rolls, the personnel action became effective and the 45-day window opened at that time. Because the plaintiffs contacted an [Equal Employment Opportunity] counselor prior to Aug., 14, 2001, the date when the 45-day window closed, this court cannot dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies."

Walton also ruled that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction to hear the individual complaints because the affected personnel either worked in Washington, or would have been transferred to Washington had their employment not been terminated.

Workplace Politics

The American Federation of Government Employees has asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether a payroll manager with the Veterans Administration Medical Facility in Iron Mountain, Mich., is violating the 1939 Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act prohibits executive branch employees and workers at state and local agencies that receive federal funding from campaigning on the job. The OSC is charged with overseeing federal employee compliance with the law.

AFGE alleges that the payroll manager is monitoring employee communications for possible violations of the Hatch Act, but has a sign on his door that reads, "Beware of Attack Republican." AFGE further alleges the manager has a picture of President Bush hanging in his office with a note thanking him for his commitment and dedication to Bush's reelection campaign.

AFGE says the campaign photo is "troubling" and the sign posted on the door is creating "a hostile work environment" for federal employees at the VA facility.

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.