GovernmentExecutive.com

The Office of Special Counsel has filed a petition for corrective action on behalf of a former Army Corps of Engineers employee under the federal law that protects the civilian careers of persons who perform military service.

OSC filed the petition with the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of Russell Jones, a former environmental engineer in the Corps' Jacksonville, Fla., district. The petition claims that the Corps failed to re-employ Jones after he returned from more than two years of required service in the Air Force.

Jones worked for the Corps from January 1990 until he received orders to report to the Air Force in February 2001. He served in the Air Force from March of that year through June 2003.

After reviewing Jones' case, OSC found that he satisfied the three requirements for acquiring re-employment with the Corps under the 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act:

• Providing the agency advance notice of intent to perform military service.

• Performing qualifying military service.

• Requesting re-employment.

OSC decided that the Corps' failure to re-employ Jones after he was honorably discharged was a violation of USERRA because there was no change in the agency's circumstances that would have made it unreasonable to rehire him. That would be the only defense for failing to re-employ him, OSC said.

The Corps also failed to inform Jones of his USERRA rights and obligations when he left for his military service, which is a violation of Office of Personnel Management regulations, OSC said.

OSC petitioned MSPB for an order requiring the Corps to give Jones back his old position, or one of similar pay, status and seniority; provide him with all his former employee benefits based on seniority, including grade increases and promotions; award him back pay plus interest; make contributions and necessary adjustments to his Thrift Savings Plan; and reimburse him for his legal fees.

OSC also asked the MSPB to order Corps officials to receive USERRA training.

Special Counsel Scott Bloch said that OSC's action "should cause all federal employers to pause and reflect upon their responsibilities under USERRA to ensure that employees who step aside from their civilian careers to perform military service are not forgotten."

"This is a newly filed matter, and is being handled through the appropriate channels," said Nancy Sticht, a Corps spokeswoman.

OSC took on this case as part of a demonstration project established by the 2004 Veterans Benefits Improvement Act and announced in February. The special project allows OSC to investigate cases brought by persons with Social Security numbers ending in odd digits, rather than waiting for the Labor Department's Veterans Employment and Training Service to investigate.

The project also allows OSC to receive and investigate all federal USERRA claims containing related allegations of prohibited personnel practices, regardless of the person's social security number.

Questions, Anyone?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently published on its Web site a list of answers to frequently asked questions about the administrative hearing process for redress of federal sector discrimination complaints.

The question and answer page is designed to help complainants who don't have legal representation understand legal terminology and become familiar with the parties and steps involved in hearings. It also includes a variety of sample forms and orders.

The page was drafted by an EEOC administrative judge and is written in layman's terms.

"Our administrative judges nationwide are constantly told by complainants and their representatives that there is a critical need for information they can understand about how the federal sector hearing process is conducted," said Nicholas Inzeo, director of the EEOC's Office of Field Programs.

The page links to the text of laws prohibiting employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants for government jobs. The EEOC plans to expand it into a plain-language handbook guiding complainants through the administrative hearing process.

COMMENTS

• Ted has hit the nail on the head with many of his comments. As the spouse of a military retiree, I started over from scratch with my federal career so many times I will never catch up with my peers. However, on the main subject, I understand where some folks get upset with the preference system. I really do. I now work with someone who edged out his job competition with his vet preference points. The guy is lazy and arrogant, and feels he can't be touched because he is a "service related disabled vet." But this guy is in the minority. I have worked all over the country for the DoD, Justice, Treasury, and the State Department. Most of the vets are grateful and deserving of the few extra points that get their feet in the door. They still have to be among the best qualified to make the cut. Yes, they volunteered. Vets preference after service is one of the many tools recruiters use to get them to sign up. It is not a guarantee of employment by any means. And even a few years in the military usually instills a better work ethic in people that employers are glad to have. By getting a few extra preference points, it assists vets with making that list to be considered. I don't think that is too much to give someone who has risked themselves for the rest of us for low pay and hard duty. GovExec.com reader Posted December 1, 2005 8:49 AM
• Taxpayer, you have somewhat back-pedaled. Since you believe that special consideration should not be given to those who are "shot up" in war, as you phrased it, I would assume that you should not be eligible for special pay or consideration if some war vet walked into your place of employment and "shot you even if you are a civilian. After all, you volunteered for your job didn't you? You sound more like an angry person who was unable to get into the military rather than an educated person, therefore your only outlet is to criticize those who served. I think you need to take some of your money and find yourself someone who will listen to your story and maybe they can help you get over your anxiety and anger. You are definitely a confused, mixed-up angry person. Charlie Posted November 29, 2005 5:41 PM
• Charlie, let’s set the record straight. I never said the guy that had to leave his job to serve should not get his job back. I think he should. However, I do believe that the vet should have no special consideration for a new job. The vet benefits were designed for draftees not volunteers and they should be changed. I don't understand the dripping venom of the other poster but just because you get shot up does not mean you should get special consideration. What about all the workers in private sector that die or get injured? They get no special benefits. Also, you don't need a silver spoon to graduate from college by age 21-- only dedication and work. Don't you think you can work and go to school at the same time? There are million doing it -- too bad you cannot handle it, but don't cry about a silver spoon. Silver spoon guys become politicians with a few exceptions, but most are lawyers and that is a graduate degree. Even then some worked their way through school. I do not know why the military guys think they are the only poor people and face such a burden -- welcome to the world guys, we all have similar problems. I came from a poor family and lived in the inner city but instead of joining the military I worked my way through school and got a good job that led to making a lot of money. I had no special benefits and no student loans from the government. I worked hard for what I got and I think you need to also. Taxpayer Posted November 23, 2005 6:54 AM