GovernmentExecutive.com

Several minor housekeeping details are delaying the release of regulations implementing a federal anti-discrimination law, according to an Office of Personnel Management official.

OPM aimed to publish guidelines for complying with the 2002 Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act in time for Oct. 1, the law's effective date. But OPM is running several weeks behind schedule because officials there are still resolving several minor issues with the Justice and Treasury departments.

Regulations are now expected next week, the OPM official said Thursday.

The No FEAR Act, signed in May 2002, requires agencies to use their own funds, rather than a general Treasury fund, to settle discrimination and whistleblower lawsuits. But the law does not say what office within an agency is responsible for the payments, nor does it establish whether agencies will need to pay judgments on lawsuits filed prior to Oct. 1.

In early July, the White House put OPM in charge of writing rules clearing up payment procedures. The agency is also responsible for issuing regulations on some of No FEAR's reporting and data collection requirements.

Car Trouble

The Army Corps of Engineers reimbursed an employee based in Washington state for transporting her car to and from a six-month leadership training session in Hawaii.

Before sending Rebecca Kalamasz, a civilian employee based in Walla Walla, Wash., to Hawaii, the Corps calculated that it would be cheaper to ship her car overseas for half a year than to have her rent a car or use a taxi for transportation. This is how the agency originally justified paying $1,714 for the car transport.

But after Kalamasz returned from Hawaii, the Corps asked for the $1,714 back. Federal travel regulations do not give agencies permission to reimburse workers for shipping personal vehicles to training sessions, the Corps said.

Kalamasz subsequently asked the Contract Board of Appeals to review her case.

Under United States Code, Title 5, agencies are not usually allowed to cover car transport costs for employees attending training sessions or traveling on temporary assignments, the board said in an Oct. 6 ruling. Agencies can make exceptions for workers assigned a "temporary change of station," defined as travel for a period of six months to three years.

The Corps did not provide enough information in Kalamasz's travel orders for the board to determine whether her training trip could count as a temporary change of station, the ruling said. The board gave the Corps permission to retroactively revise the orders to expand on the nature of her assignment.

The decision allows the agency to decide whether to describe Kalamasz's work in such a way that it could then justify paying $1,714 to ship her car.

Rebecca Kalamasz v. Army Corps of Engineers, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (15971-TRAV), Oct. 6, 2003

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.