GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: EEOC to establish working groups on federal complaint process

• 52160
  

  These posts are correct. It is plain and simple really - in the federal sector, the fox is guarding the hen-house (and we all know how that turns out). Only the most glaring and blatant violations of discrimination actually see the light of day and true resolution. I worked nearly twenty-five years for the feds in enforcement of EEO and Affirmative Action laws - when shifting EEO jobs from the laws that protect private industry (OFCCP-Executive Order 11246) to the regulations protecting the federal employee, the difference was shocking. In addition, Federal agencies are rarely in full compliance with requirements, such as MD-715 (just ask the EEOC). As of early 2007, there was an EEOC staff of one person responsible for enforcement of federal regulatory compliance. When asked why the agencies were not in compliance 3 years after the regulations (MD-715) were put in place; the response was that it was just too time consuming. Hmmmmmmm...it is good to know that EEOC feels this is a valid excuse for noncompliance. If you are a fed, your best bet is to be flexible and to find one of the agencies taking discrimination seriously. Good Luck.

  Carol Dawson Posted June 12, 2008 12:19 AM
• 27600
  

  Between 2000 and 2003, I filed 20-some claims with the EEOC's field office, against private sector employers who did not hire me (a 50-something-year-old-woman.) Most of the recruiters/employers I spoke to were male veterans. Clearly, much misogyny and age discrimination is prevalent in the ranks of the (retired?) military. Sometimes these guys are not only double-dippers, but triple-dippers, and therefore get two or three chances at a long-term career, whereas women rarely get their first stab at one career. So, I know about the "good ol' boy" network. I have faced it for 1.5 decades.

  What happened after filing my claims, EACH AND EVERY TIME, was that the EEOC investigators ALWAYS FOUND FOR THE EMPLOYER, even when I held a Schedule A (disability) certification, when applying for the jobs I wanted.

  Prior to turning 40, and after working nearly 30 years, I NEVER had any disagreements with my supervisors. I'd landed EACH AND EVERY JOB TO WHICH I APPLIED, before turning 40 and becoming disabled. I did NOTHING different in those 20-some interviews (in the way of my comport, civility, putting my best attributes forward...wore a nice suit, etc.) than I had done prior to turning forty and landing all those other jobs. The rejections from the private sector are what encouraged me to apply for the federal internship, but alas, the cheese was rotten in Denmark (aka, in the federal military agency) in my federal government, too.

  Something has GOT to give.

  Anonymous Posted July 3, 2007 5:59 PM
• 27598
  

  I forgot to add with my first comment that, the Agency that discriminated against me hired others who were, I think "LESS QUALIFIED" than me, if it hired "first jobbers" that had no active secret, federal clearance, when I held an ACTIVE one when applying, and this happened in 2001. What does THAT tell you about our Homeland Security situation?

  Anonymous Posted July 3, 2007 5:20 PM
• 24642
  

  I am in the civil action part of my complaints of wrongful treatment and discrimination against Social Security(SSA). The district court judge does not know that civil action is part of the 29 CFR 1614 complaint process.

  Social Security hired me under the conditions of the Selective Placement Program and 1st,2nd and 3 rd line management does not know what 1614 or the Selective Placement Program is. The EEO counselor who took my initial complaint does not know what 1614 or the Selective Placement Program is.

  I was wrongfully treated and discriminated against by SSA and all SSA needed to do in order to avoid being responsible for their actions was to refuse to meet with me, refuse to allow me to investigate my case with SSA employees and then put in a Motion for summery judgement to EEOC and not provide me with the documents of the motion.

  An ADJ, who was not appointed to the case, only used arguements from SSA to make a decision in favor of SSA.

  The Federal government will ensure that discrimination does not take place in government agencies because the system they have in place will ensure that the government will never get caught discriminating.

  I have been representing myself pro se for over seven year. Lawyers would not take my case because they know the long federal process with its limited awards. Many laywers predicted the long agency bias road I have traveled.

  David LeFebvre Posted June 2, 2007 9:08 AM
• 18826
  

  The annual sexual harassment training that I receive at work is inadequate. The Defense Department should train its employees that if a person inappropriately touches men and women at work, the Defense Department will not find discrimination -- he's an "equal opportunity harasser!" I know because it happened to me.

  If I had known that my supervisor would evade a Defense Department Office of Complaints investigation sexual harassment finding by "diversifying" after my report, I would not have bothered to report the incidences to the Shipyard EEO office. The stonewalling and refusal of the shipyard and Navy to apologize appropriately and acknowledge the multiple inappropriate physical contacts are beyond reason.

  There are other avenues of redress -- use them!

  Perhaps my case and similar types of cases are counted among the "frivolous" complaints lodged where discrimination was not found.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 20, 2006 11:11 PM
• 18771
  

  I agree that the current manner in which complaints are processed within federal activities and agencies is flawed because the representatives (in-house and contract) are not able to investigate and carry out their duties with autonomy. However, the EEOC is supposed to be the review beyond the influence of the federal activities/federal agencies (for appeals filed by complainants). The fact that serious deficiencies in the federal complaints process exists is a reflection of serious deficiencies within the EEOC.

  I believe the EEOC is reluctant to find and rarely finds liability for the federal activities/federal agencies when it should. The federal activities and federal agencies remain uncorrected and emboldened. In my opinion, that is why some unenlightened federal activity and federal agency heads mistakenly believe and routinely write off complaints as "frivolous." Other unscrupulous activities and agencies challenge cases regardless of merit. The bottom line is that it prevents corrective action from being taken and the federal complaint process evolves into a self-perpetuating tool of oppression.

  Few federal employees can take their case to trial against their offending agencies. The cost to do so is prohibitive and the offending agencies have the resources of the government's Department of Justice Special Attorneys to defend them. The Department of Justice Special Attorneys do a great disservice when they recognize the wrong done, fail to persuade the offending agency to apologize appropriately, choose to defend that offending agency at trial, and then use tactics to win that do not represent good government. When they do, they are part of the problem and not the solution.

  It is also interesting to note that the EEOC assists activities and agencies with timely processing problems to improve. The EEOC's own performance with timely processing is abysmal!

  The entire federal complaint process is perceived as a tool of oppression because it is a tool of oppression. Tactics of this oppression at all levels can include misleading, misrepresenting, confusing the issues, and/or tactics and strategies that can be interpreted as unduly harsh.

  Are the working groups going to include victims, solicit comments from victims or answer to victims? The working groups should include all views!

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2006 1:05 AM
• 18622
  

  The current manner in which EEO processes complaints in house is flawed because the representatives are not able to investigate and carry out their duties with autonomy. The cause is usually not adequately corrected after many complaints. This has been the problem for years.

  Another problem is obvious even in your article. Instead of executives using EEO findings as a tool to help correct problems, they want to write off complaints as "frivolous." The good old boy system prevents real corrective action from being taken.

  EEO should not be viewed as some necessary evil. It can be a useful tool for executives. All complaints should be reviewed by someone beyond the influence of the agency being investigated before they are closed. Maybe, if effective actions were taken more often, there would be fewer complaints.

  Robert M. Posted September 8, 2006 7:45 AM