Developments at the EEOC: On May 8, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) issued its decision in Lidia B. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2019001712. Lidia B. involved a settlement agreement where the Agency had agreed to reassign Complainant Lidia B. to a specific office where Complainant was on detail, to be accompanied by a transfer of Complainant's full-time equivalent (FTE), and a recredit of Complainant's leave. After the settlement agreement was signed, the Agency then unilaterally declared the settlement agreement void on grounds of alleged mutual mistake, claiming that there was no position to reassign Complainant to in the receiving office (because the Agency hadn't moved over Complainant's FTE yet). The Agency took back Complainant's leave recredit and unilaterally reinstated Complainant's EEO complaint for processing. Complainant timely petitioned to enforce the breached settlement agreement, and further amended in a new claim while OFO was considering Complainant's Petition for Enforcement. OFO agreed with Complainant, finding that no mutual mistake had occurred, and therefore the Agency was bound to implement the terms of its settlement agreement. OFO accordingly declared the settlement agreement reinstated and ordered the Agency to implement all remedies in the settlement. OFO ordered the Agency to update its claims processing for the reinstated EEO complaint to reflect that the original claim was settled, with processing to continue on Complainant's later-amended claim (which was outside the scope of the settlement agreement). OFO further ordered the Agency to pay Complainant's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Developments at the EEOC: On October 15, 2018, Chief Administrative Judge Patrick Kokenge of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Miami District Office issued a Consent Order awarding the Complainant remedies in EEOC No. 570-2014-001194X.
Developments at the EEOC: On September 26, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of Federal Operations issued its decision in Cleveland C. et al. v. Dept. of Defense, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120170405-0120170414. Shifting from prior precedent, the EEOC recognized reasonable accommodation protections for persons suffering from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PB).
Developments at the EEOC: On June 9, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a groundbreaking precedential decision in Lara G. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520130618. On its own initiative, the EEOC reopened the case to reverse prior precedent on compensatory damages awards.
Developments at the EEOC: On January 3, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register, 82 Fed.Reg. 654-681. The Final Rule clarifies the federal government's obligations as a model employer of disabled individuals.
For the first time since 1998, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released proposed guidance earlier this year on how federal employment law applies to retaliation claims. In a nutshell, this new guidance could possibly extend the types of actions taken by federal (and private sector) employers that would constitute illegal retaliation.
If you are a federal employee facing allegations of poor work performance or wrongdoing, you may face severe disciplinary action called an "adverse action." Adverse actions may include a suspension (over 14 days), furlough (over 30 days) demotion or reduction in pay, or removal from your position, all of which can severely hurt your career opportunities.
Developments at the EEOC: On October 5, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a press release announcing a change in how it captions federal-sector decisions from the EEOC Office of Federal Operations (OFO). This change resolved a long-standing problem with giving the names of parties in the captions to OFO decisions.
Federal employees, like their private sector counterparts, have legal protections against discrimination. Under the law, it is illegal for federal employers to discriminate against an employee based on their:
Developments at the EEOC: In a landmark decision, Complainant v. Fox, Sec., Department of Transportation, Appeal No 0120133080 (July 15, 2015), the EEOC has held that a federal employee who brings a complaint of discrimination on account of sexual orientation states a claim under Title VII for discrimination on account of sex. This decision, issued by the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO), was issued over the signature of the EEOC's Executive Secretariat, which means that this decision was actually voted on by the Commissioners, not just issued by the OFO's Director.