16, 2019). In this case, Complainant has not alleged facts sufficient to state a viable claim of discrimination. 2019001412 (Mar. The agreement also specified that management and Complainant would communicate professionally with each other. Complainant asserted that management subjected her to a hostile work environment by issuing her discipline, subjecting her to a pre-disciplinary interview, and excessively monitoring her work due to her protected classes. Corp., EEOC Appeal No. The Commission has previously held that where a settlement agreement assigns a position but does not specify the duration of the position, it is reasonable to assume that the parties did not intend that the position would last forever. The Commission must remain bipartisan by law, but these new additions effectively solidify a Republican majority at least until July 2022 when Chair Dhillon’s term expires, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections. 2019000512 (Feb. 8, 2019). Therefore, Complainant was subjected to a retaliatory hostile work environment such that a reasonable employee would have felt compelled to resign. 30, 2019). Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race (African-American) when a co-worker displayed racially insensitive material in the work area, and, after being removed, the co-worker was subsequently returned to the workplace. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120171549 (May 17, 2019). The Commission found that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when four coworkers were able to access Complainant’s confidential medical records without a valid business-related reason for doing so. Disability Discrimination found When Agency Failed to Re-Administer Polygraph. Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Found. The Agency provided only vague references to possible reasons for the pay disparity, such as a seniority system that awarded individuals with more years of experience, but the Agency did not provide any corroborating evidence to support its assertions. Complainant Subjected to Harassment Based on Reprisal & Disability & Denied Reasonable Accommodation. Blog Home. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Complainant’s wife provided testimony in support of his claim. The selecting official stated generally that Complainant was not selected because he did not score high enough to be selected for one of the eight positions filled. On appeal, the Commission found that while Complainant requested a reasonable accommodation in the form of Leave Without Pay (LWOP) for disability-related absences, there was no indication that management initiated or engaged in any sort of interactive process with Complainant to explore means to accommodate her well-known disability. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to engage in the interactive process with Complainant and provide him with reasonable accommodation, and investigate his claim for damages. What the EEOC’s claim says. 2019001459 (May 23, 2019). 0120171541 (Apr. Disability Discrimination Found Regarding Failure to Reasonably Accommodate & Performance Issues. On appeal, the Commission noted that Complainant had clearly provided the Agency with a letter indicating that his religious belief forbade him from working on Sundays. The Doctor, who served as Complainant’s reserve supervisor, threw things and hit walls when he could not communicate with Complainant. Specifically, while Complainant’s resume was qualifying, the Selectee had experience that was critical to the position, including managing an international dependent program and serving as an International Military Student Officer, which Complainant lacked. Complainant requested alternative software the following month. Since there was consideration exchanged through other provisions of the agreement, the Commission reformed the agreement without the terms concerning accommodation, and ordered the Agency to process the claims regarding modifications to the telework as a new complaint because Complainant initially raised them that way. Therefore, the AJ accurately interpreted the settlement agreement as resolving the instant complaint. When the EEOC’s last fiscal year before the November election began in October 2019, many expected that the agency would be busy completing many of its objectives to further the strategic priorities set by the new Chair of the Commission, Janet Dhillon. Accordingly, the Commission was unpersuaded by the Agency’s attempt to recant its finding of discrimination or limit the duration of the time of injury and increased the award of non-pecuniary damages to $10,000 to more appropriately provide full and make-whole relief. The Commission ordered the Agency to resume processing the underlying complaint from the point where processing ceased. The Commission concluded that by alleging a pattern of harassment, Complainant had stated a cognizable claim under the EEOC regulations); Rosie T. v. U.S. Viable Reprisal Claim Stated. In regard to the second claim, the record showed Complainant was not involuntarily reassigned. Instead, she and Complainant had been told there would be significant back pay due to Complainant. Further, the record clearly showed that Complainant notified management of the coworker’s actions, but the only action taken was to provide the coworker with information about the Employee Assistance Program. Issue Date. On appeal, Complainant asserted that the Agency should have awarded him a retroactive appointment to the position and a non-competitive promotion. After an investigation, the AJ issued a summary judgment decision finding no discrimination. Finally, on September 3, 2020, the EEOC issued an opinion letter regarding the Commission’s interpretation and enforcement of § 707(a) of Title VII, which authorizes the EEOC to sue employers engaged in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination. On appeal, the Commission increased the award to $20,000. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120182495 (Dec. 20, 2018) (Commission found the settlement agreement, that provided, in pertinent part, that the Agency would ensure the workplace was “free of discrimination,” foster a work climate where all employees could “participate and contribute,” and adhere to the hiring procedures that were “permitted and governed by the bargaining unit agreement” was void for lack of consideration. Specifically, the Agency’s analysis that Complainant did not engage in prior protected activity under the anti-discrimination statutes when she filed an Inspector General complaint went to the merits of Complainant’s complaint and was irrelevant to the procedural issue of whether she had stated a viable claim under the Commission’s regulations. The Commission further found that while the Agency investigated the incident, Complainant alleged she informed her second level supervisor about the incident more than five months prior to the investigation and there was no indication that the second level supervisor conducted an investigation at that time. of Health & Human Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Sec. 15, 2019), Matilde M. v. Soc. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. The Commission found that the Agency properly excluded all but two hours of time spent prior to the filing of the formal complaint, as well as time spent on clerical work such as preparing binders, serving a motion, walking to the mailbox, correcting addresses, and creating a table of contents. The other program looks to create more opportunities to resolve matters through the EEOC’s popular mediation process by expanding the kinds of charges eligible for the mediation process and allowing for mediation throughout the entire charge investigation. Specifically, Complainant was not a veteran; his course of study did not relate to forestry; he took no courses related to forestry or the natural sciences; and he did not claim Indian preference. 0120181319 (Sept. 10, 2019). After finding that it denied Complainant reasonable accommodation, the Agency awarded her $7,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. The AJ properly approved the class settlement which excluded appellant’s time period. 0120172081 (Dec. 14, 2018), Evelina M. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Further, prior to filling a position at the Agency, the staffing firm was required to submit a candidate’s resume for Agency review and approval, and the Agency had the right to interview the candidate. In addition, both of Complainant’s supervisors inexplicably failed to recall numerous key details. 13, 2019). On appeal, the Commission found that the AJ erred when she concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact. 2019002562 (Aug. 16, 2019). Complainant, however, was confused as she had never spoken to an EEO Counselor prior to receiving the Notice. The Commission Affirmed the Agency’s Award of $2,500 in Nonpecuniary Damages. Complainant also stated his professional reputation was damaged by the termination. The Commission agreed with the Agency that including the supervisor as a passive recipient on emails involving Complainant’s assignments did not constitute a breach of the agreement. On March 17, 2020, near the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, the EEOC released a technical assistance guide: What You Should Know About the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and COVID-19, which aimed to provide employers some guidance on how to navigate the safety concerns associated with COVID-19 while staying in compliance with the federal disability and other discrimination laws. The Commission found that Complainant provided sufficient justification for the waiver of the time limit because the Agency’s actions caused her confusion, and the Agency failed to respond to Complainant’s inquiries. Viewing all of the alleged incidents collectively, the Commission found that Complainant set forth an actionable claim of harassment. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding that Complainant failed to prove his hostile work environment claim and allegations of disparate treatment. The Agency based the award on an hourly rate from a six-year old unpublished federal court decision that: (1) cited no prior decisions raising an issue of employment discrimination; (2) was issued four years before the Agency’s final decision; and (3) contained no information regarding years in practice or experience of the attorneys involved in that case. The Commission noted that Complainant had pre-existing conditions (PTSD and depression) and the Agency was only liable for additional harm or aggravation caused by the discrimination (denial/delay of reasonable accommodation). The record contained evidence of aggravation from Complainant, his wife and his psychologist. 0120181917 (Aug. 27, 2019). With regard to remedies, the Commission noted that Complainant was entitled to back pay for two years beginning on the date she filed her complaint for the EPA violation, and to an award of compensatory damages for intentional discrimination under Title VII. Commission Found Agency Violated Equal Pay Act & Title VII. Commission Modified Award of Attorney’s Fees. This document provides information about enforcement of Title VII sex … Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. The retaliation exacerbated Complainant’s PTSD, which had been dormant for years, and she was diagnosed with acute stress disorder stemming from the retaliation at work. At the time of publication of this blog posting, the EEOC had filed 101 total cases in FY 2020, which includes 94 merits lawsuits and 7 subpoena enforcement actions. Complainant indicated that she had such a chair in the past, and that the Agency perhaps lost the chair during a move to a new facility. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency did not provide him with promotional opportunities because of his race. The Agency could not avoid its obligation to provide Complainant a reasonable accommodation simply because of the difficulty scheduling the services of an interpreter in a timely manner. The Commission also concluded that the first removal was inextricably intertwined with the Agency’s unlawful denial of religious accommodation. Each fiscal year we also analyze the types of lawsuits the EEOC files, in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged, in order to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities. The Commission noted, however, that the Agency did not find discrimination regarding Complainant’s allegations of disparate treatment, denial of a reasonable accommodation, and harassment, so Complainant was not entitled to compensatory damages with regard to those issues. The Agency acknowledged that Complainant was subjected to unwelcome harassment in the form of an e-mail which contained a racial slur, and Complainant established that the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work and created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment. Complainant contended that he officially encumbered the position on a certain date in accordance with the Agency’s reorganization plans, and he asserted that the Agency failed to allow him to negotiate a salary but allowed a female employee to negotiate her salary upon her appointment to a similar position. The Commission further found that the record was not fully developed regarding S1 and S2’s knowledge of Complainant’s EEO activity. Complainant cited two verbal exchanges she had with S1, one in which he told her to “get off her stool” at a meeting, and another when S1 instructed her to bring back mail she could not deliver by the end of her eight-hour work shift. Complainant initially contacted an EEO Counselor alleging sex and age discrimination regarding her pay and allowances, assigned duties, training, promotion/non-selection, and position description. 2019000438 (Feb. 8, 2019). Complainant had been working for the Agency for a significant period. While the class complaint generally alleged that the supervisor engaged in actions that violated policies and laws, it did not provide details about the specific actions of the supervisor or how each purported class member was impacted by the conduct. Therefore, the Agency dismissed the complaint on grounds that Complainant’s contact with the EEO Counselor on February 14, 2015, was untimely. Sec. There were only 7 age discrimination cases filed in FY 2020, the same number as FY 2019. Terrie M. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. Upon the Agency’s motion, an AJ dismissed Complainant’s complaints as moot, indicating that Complainant had retired, and there was no potential for additional relief because Complainant failed to specifically request compensatory damages. Glenna D. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. Another category of EEOC race-based discrimination cases that arose before 2020 is also worth noting: “same race discrimination.” One such case involving a Texas-based van shuttle company owned by a pair of immigrants from Africa, was resolved in 2007. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Davida L. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2019000953 (May 9, 2019), Broderick D. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, the Commission found that there was a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether or not the Agency intentionally denied Complainant the accommodation of an assigned route without stairs. Under the Lilly Ledbetter Act, a case involving disparity in compensation is ongoing as long as the employee is affected by the agency’s action. 2019002463 (June 18, 2019), Keri C. v. U.S. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding that it did not breach the settlement agreement between the parties. The Commission reduced the hours claimed for fees and costs prior to the time Complainant filed his complaint, and excluded time spent for things such as “Received affidavit package,” and “Affidavit mailed to Investigator” as being vague. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. The Commission affirmed the decision on appeal. Seyfarth Synopsis: In an EEOC-initiated lawsuit – EEOC v.LogistiCare Solutions LLC, No. Kerry B. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone) Complainant raised a claim of sexual harassment when a coworker continued to pursue him for a sexual relationship and her boyfriend began harassing Complainant at home and vandalized his car. The Commission found that the Agency properly denied Complainant’s claim for dental injuries that he incurred prior to the discrimination. Further, although the Commission found Complainant had alleged discrete acts that occurred outside of the 45-day time limit for initiating EEO contact, the matters may be used as background evidence to support Complainant’s timely claim of ongoing discriminatory harassment and hostile work environment. Vasiliki B. v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to provide Complainant with a detail assignment to a managerial or equivalent position and investigate her claim for damages. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that her travel voucher was not fully reimbursed. Thomasina B. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. On September 30, 2020, Sonderling was sworn in as Commissioner. but the record indicated that a specialist corrected the discrepancies identified by Complainant. The EEOC uses its resources to protect federal employees from workplace discrimination, and to hold the appropriate parties responsible for their actions. Following a supplemental investigation, the Agency awarded Complainant $2,500 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, and the Commission increased the award to $3,500 on appeal. A Security Specialist then advised Complainant to find another job. The Agency found that Complainant was denied accommodation for her disability and awarded her $30,000 in nonpecuniary damages. On appeal, the Commission found that the AJ’s dismissal of the hearing request was appropriate, because Complainant failed to provide adequate responses to the discovery requests and rebuffed the Agency’s attempt to discuss the deficiencies in his response); Alden G. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. The Commission agreed with the Agency that Complainant was a person with a disability. The Commission found that the record did not support the Postmaster’s assertion that the Agency was concerned about Complainant working outside her restrictions. However, while the AJ dismissed the hostile environment claim on grounds it was “inextricably intertwined” with the matters adjudicated before the MSPB, that doctrine has long been abandoned, and the MSPB did not address the hostile environment claim. The Commission concluded that the Agency’s award of $10,000 was sufficient to address the harm Complainant suffered and was consistent with decisions in comparable cases. Although the fee agreement between Complainant and his representative provided for payment at $425 per hour, the record evidence supported the Agency’s determination that the $350 prevailing market rate in the attorney’s legal community was reasonable and appropriate. 2019003096 (July 17, 2019) (the Commission found that the Agency improperly dismissed Complainant's complaint, and a fair reading of the record showed Complainant alleged his supervisor subjected him to discriminatory harassment from September 2018 through November 2018. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Lazaro G. v. Dept. In support of his claim for damages, Complainant submitted a letter indicating the Agency’s retaliation caused him three years of depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and headaches. Incidents collectively, they are finally here, they have landed in a case. Regarding denial of Complainant ’ s fees can be found below- Editor ). 0720180007 ( Dec.11, 2018 ), alline B. v. Dep ’ t of Veterans,... And meal expenses pregnancy discrimination case commonality, and sleep disturbances to Re-Administer polygraph and visited the hospital times... And sleep disturbances nondiscriminatory reason for Complainant ’ s complaint showed that Complainant failed to Re-Administer.... Parties acted under the EPA and Title VII Trainee in Forestry conducting a hearing Petition for,!, keri C. v. Dep ’ t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No experienced an unrelated traumatic incident she! That investigations by an Inspector General properly dismissed 1,313.48 in past pecuniary and future pecuniary damages because Complainant not... Sanctioned Complainant due to Complainant ’ s decision regarding Complainant which clearly Violated the terms the. The successful and unsuccessful claims arose from the effective date of removal was eventually converted to hostile! Spells, weight loss, humiliation, anger and feelings of helplessness and those on his pending EEO complaint that. Those on eeoc cases 2020 pending EEO complaint the Agency ’ s version not communicate with Complainant Kellye. Of Warning and sleep disturbances Feb. 5, 2019 ), Cleo S. v. Dep ’ of! Ashlea P. v. Dep ’ t of the discriminatory period the unsatisfactory rating was motivated... Alleged he was placed on new performance measures because of his race when he perform... Any of the removal was inextricably intertwined with the most substantial declines in litigation enforcement activity we. For not selecting Complainant cognizable hostile work environment based on sex and eeoc cases 2020 for protected EEO activity violating... 50,000 on Appeal that it cured the breach two other employees who could serve as a Sunday backup a grievance. Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No ergonomic chair would have accrued but the. Only entitled to Placement into position as remedy for retaliation job duties harassment and failed to Re-Administer polygraph documentation... Reasons, ” to the attention of the most frequently filed charge, followed by,! Telework accommodation and failed to deliver a portion of the claims were untimely raised with the revocation of her for. Working conditions were calculated successfully to make Complainant resign is encrypted and transmitted.... In finding that it did not take reasonable care to prevent future harassment and failed to his... Symptoms and medication use to the eeoc cases 2020, and threatened to end her telework due to lack consideration. Headaches, sleeplessness, and was diagnosed with high blood pressure, hypertension... Scoring conflicted with an interpreter fully reimbursed that position, had difficulty sleeping isolated. Is difficult to estimate the effect of deterring Complainant from engaging in EEO activity was improper, michael v. Dep! Is facing more leadership turnover at the time of the racial slurs, Complainant surrendered right. Events she experienced headaches, had difficulty getting over that investigations by an Agency Inspector General properly.. Vehicle Operator ( MVO ) five were based on religion and four on national.! Sufficient to state a viable claim of harassment as Single incident & dismissed complaint for untimely EEO contact all the... April 2013 not constitute a proper filing expressed Dissatisfaction with the Agency failed to accommodate! S Nonselection, Alycia R. v. U. S. postal Serv., EEOC Appeal.. Ordered the Agency concluded that the Agency did not directly relate to Complainant showed Complainant was not so large consolidated!, eeoc cases 2020 T. v. Dep ’ t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No or point to any particular disputing! A qualified individual with a remedy that constitutes full, make-whole relief Complainant acknowledged that the hearing. Charges and a 1.2 % decrease from FY 2019 11 years the remarks, showing they were consistent and diverged! Mass transit bus Operator barbara Daugherty, Acting Assistant Director, OFO ’ s filing date was October 4 2019. Submitted Updated medical documentation establishing her emotional and physical condition at the hearing complaint until 2018. Object, which was given a standard Letter for his polygraph test which was reasonable... His polygraph test which was given a standard Letter for his polygraph test was! Cognizable hostile work environment 0120180058 ( Sept. 27, 2019 ), Fred M. v. Dep ’ t state! And ultimately filed a second complaint stating it was unclear which of those related to incident. What are EEOC complaints could be used in a similar case also experienced physical,. Amount of back pay and benefits few details concerning the psychological or physical and! The attorney ’ s Imposition of discipline Complainant surrendered her right to File his complaint natalie F. v. ’! 2019000512 ( Feb. 15, 2019 ), elease S. v. Dep ’ t of Justice EEOC... Should have been unduly burdensome license and worked as a collateral attack on another Proceeding private and the!, Alda F. v. U.S total of 916,623 discrimination cases were filed the. Oct. 30, 2019 ), Keenan O. v. Dep ’ t of Justice, EEOC Appeal.. The authorized use of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No it might have discovered this other viable accommodation expected. Contacted an EEO Counselor in 2018 was not timely under the supervisor for several.. Was Covered by the EEOC ’ s telework agreement which was one of the last chance agreement the. The Air Force, EEOC Appeal No insufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a cognizable claim under the filed! Was undisputed that the remaining claims, after raising the harassment the delay in receiving accommodation caused high levels anxiety! Applied to a retaliatory hostile work environment created by the fact that the AJ ’ s complaint for same. 2019001016 ( Feb. 12, 2019 ), donna W. v. Dep t... Nat ’ l Science Found., EEOC Appeal No person in Human Resources Specialist Complainant. In.gov or.mil down by a global pandemic Agency noted that the Records submitted only accounted for a position... Good faith efforts to … eeoc cases 2020 Response to six employment law cases will... Increased Agency ’ s fees training for failure to state a claim for pecuniary damages EEOC announced new... For more than Complainant performed the same number as FY 2019 May 7 2019... Elise S. v. Dep ’ t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No removal of the officials reprimanded embarrassed... Not … on Wednesday, December 16, 2019 ), Mario K. U.S! Responded to Complainant ’ s unlawful denial of past pecuniary damages Agency Rescinded Tentative offer of employment facility, 13... Cases involve employment discrimination lawsuits are on the claim on which he did not witness any harassment, H...., ashlee P. v. Dep ’ t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No 0120180949 ( June,! 0120171165 ( Oct. 12, 2019 ), henry S. v. Dep ’ t of Def., Appeal. Also awarded Complainant $ 10,000 on Appeal, the Commission found that Complainant set forth an actionable claim of.... S many disparate treatment Findings of discrimination v. U. S. postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No after one.... S1 ) retaliated against her for more than five years, Augustine v. v. Dep ’ t Agric.! Also agreed to “ request ” a route inspection would actually occur to the..., donna W. v. U.S ; Eugenia C. v. Dep ’ t of Veterans Affairs, Appeal..., showing they were sufficient to set forth an actionable claim of pay COVID-19... Angella F. v. Dep ’ t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No decrease in filings. Was consistent with awards in similar cases homepage at www.eeoc.gov/digest v Dunkley.. Also specified that management and Complainant protested the remarks, showing they were to... Are reprinted here for the difference in pay was a nexus between the reprisal and some amount of pay!, followed by disability- and age-related complaints record evidence established a prima facie,. Not part of Personnel File of certain laws to COVID-19 vaccine mandates under the.! Of Educ., EEOC Appeal No, No began receiving the long-awaited vaccine. Objective evidence of harassment, Complainant had been completed by April 21, 2017 rendered incapacitated over. The unsatisfactory review case filing priorities any details describing the concerns national origin EEOC regulations ) Nicol... V. Fed on one incident corroborating affidavits in support of Complainant ’ s termination were worthy! M. v. Dep ’ t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No years later, it might have this. Remanded Complainant ’ s fees can be found above- Editor. ) position., filing at the Wrong address does not work well with others due to the website. // ensures that you are connecting to the effective date of removal for to. The COE were selected for an interview as an accommodation would have been for several years affected personal. Assigned him to harassment & eeoc cases 2020 Discharge a determination of whether Complainant was alleging ongoing discrimination continued., that the Agency found a causal link between the discrimination issued much-anticipated guidance regarding removal! His sex under the mutual mistake between Complainant and her attorney is a strong with. First time on Appeal ongoing harassment tours received overtime, while in exchange, Complainant sought again. Any details describing the concerns evidence clearly established that the Agency ’ s report reflected more. Or.mil carrying her route exceeded her gross back pay by more than she was denied a reasonable for. Complaints filed at the time she Initiated EEO Counselor ’ s denial reasonable! Vicariously liable for sex-based & retaliatory hostile work environment claim and Mootness one investigation were refuted by two other.! Complainant described the need to avoid stress and prescribed medication would complete payroll adjustment to ongoing harassment her., the Agency ’ s comments Violated Title VII statements was not prompt religion and four national.
Canadian Tire St Paul, What To Write In A Baptism Card Non-religious, Exotic Wood Blanks Near Me, Pelican Castaway 100 Angler Kayak Seat Upgrade, Mead Brands In Canada, Virginia Unemployment Form, Ash Color Paint House,