GovernmentExecutive.com

Michael O'Brien was upset when he was passed over for a position as a social insurance specialist at the Social Security Administration last year.

So O'Brien filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint with his agency, alleging he was discriminated against because he was white and male. After the EEO completed its investigation, O'Brien asked for a hearing before an administrative judge. The judge decided that O'Brien was discriminated against when the agency chose 10 people--one black man, one Asian woman, four black women and four white women--to fill all the positions despite the fact that O'Brien scored higher than the majority of them on the assessment criteria.

According to the administrative judge, the reasons for not choosing O'Brien were suspect. The Social Security Administration appealed the administrative judge's decision, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upheld the judge's decision. Now SSA has to hire O'Brien as a Social Insurance Specialist and give him back pay with interest at the pay rate he would have earned as a specialist.

Michael O'Brien v. Social Security Administration, (Doc. #07A10034), Oct. 3, 2001.

Missing in Action

In 1996, Robert Lugo filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint with the Navy, alleging that the department passed him over for a merit promotion because he was a Hispanic and hailed from Puerto Rico.

When the agency completed its investigation, Lugo asked for a hearing before an administrative judge. The judge found that Lugo had a case, and asked the Navy to produce the two employees who had made the decision not to give Lugo the job.

But the Navy said it could not get the two employees to the hearing because they had moved to new positions. As a result, the judge declared that all the actions of the witnesses be struck from the record and ruled that the hiring decision was discriminatory.

The Navy appealed the administrative judge's decision, contending that they had tried to locate the two employees, who had both moved to other locations, but had no luck. Navy officials claimed that even without the two witnesses, there was enough evidence available to prove that they hadn't discriminated against Lugo.

The EEOC upheld the judge's original decision because the Navy did not show "good cause" for not producing the two witnesses. The Navy must now offer Lugo the position he originally applied for or an equivalent position. It must also give him back pay with interest at the rate of pay he would have earned in the new position. The commission also awarded Lugo $5,000 in compensatory damages.

Robert Lugo v. Navy, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ( Doc. #07A00019), Oct. 3, 2001.