EEO Case Update

Download Report

Transcript EEO Case Update

Don Names
Transgender Status States Claim
under Title VII
 Day v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120122376 (2/19/13)
 EEOC reiterates its holding in Macy v.
DOJ that claim of discrimination on
basis of transgender status states a
claim of gender discrimination.
No Harassment
Feces Happens!
 Hillyer v. Interior, EEOC Appeal No.
0120093623 (8/16/12).
 Supervisor places feces on employee’s
 EEOC finds action “highly
inappropriate,” but not due to
protected status or prior EEO activity.
Sex-Based Harassment
 Leggett et al v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0720110039 (7/12/12)
 Group of women were subjected to
harassment on basis of sex by coworker, resulting in total damages of
Class Complaint Prevails
 Garcia v. DOJ (DEA), EEOC Appeal No.
0120122033 (6/7/13)
 Class of female Special Agents found to
be discriminated against in selection
for foreign assignments.
 Att’y fees top $1,000,000! Ka-ching!!
Sanction on Appeal
 Tsosie v. Interior (BIA), EEOC Appeal
No. 0120081612 (8/31/12)
 EEOC sanctions agency for failure to
submit ROI on appeal, resulting in
finding of hostile work environment on
bases of sex and retaliation.
Reasonable Accommodation
 Blocher v. VA, EEOC Appeal No.
0120111937 (1/31/13)
 Agency assertion that supervisors may
not telework not sufficient to support
denial of request for accommodation.
Agency Fails to Engage in
Interactive Process
 Underwood v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No.
0720120001 (1/18/13)
 Agency fails to engage in interactive
process after receiving medical report
with diagnosis and request for
Failure to Reassign to Light Duty a
 Abeijon v. DHS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120080156 (8/8/12)
 Agency denial of reassignment to light
duty found unlawful when
complainant could not perform
essential functions of current job.
Denial of Reasonable
 Pitts v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120130039 (3/13/13)
 Denial of administrative leave for
employee with kidney disease when
restrooms were not working found to
be unlawful.
No Duty to Accommodate
Employee’s Family Member
 Davis v. Interior (BIA), EEOC Appeal
No. 0120123517 (2/12/13)
 Rehabilitation Act does not require
accommodation for spouse of federal
employee who was not a federal
employee or applicant.
Compensatory Damages
 Spence v. NRC, EEOC Appeal No
0120093196 (9/13/12)
 Agency award of $100,000 for delay of 2
years in providing reasonable
accommodation of telework affirmed
by EEOC.
Compensatory Damages
 Austin v. VA, EEOC Appeal No.
0120112574 (7/19/12)
 EEOC awards $100,000 in damages for
extreme emotional distress resulting
from denial of reasonable
Compensatory Damages
 Bennett v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120121982 (4/19/13)
 EEOC awards $2,500 for technical
violation of confidentiality provisions
of Rehabilitation Act (medical
information improperly released).
Compensatory Damages
 Carter v. VA, EEOC Appeal No.
0120122266 (10/18/12)
 $500 damages award for per se violation
of anti-retaliation provisions of Title
VII, taking into account agency actions
and harm.
Compensatory Damages
 Zehe v. NASA, EEOC Appeal No
0120113282 (3/26/13)
 “Outright denial” of telework as a
reasonable accommodation deprives
agency of “good faith” effort exception
to damages award.
Compensatory Damages
 Rathore v. DOD (Defense Security
Service), EEOC Appeal No. 0120114330
 Agency’s failure to provide interpreter
in 4 of 11 requests did not constitute
“good faith” efforts to avoid damages.
Compensatory Damages
 Donahoe v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120120185 (3/14/13)
 EEOC awards $18,000 in damages for
depression following discriminatory
removal (Hispanic), but denies
compensation for loss of home.
No Improper Disclosure of
Confidential Medical Info.
 Debacker v. DOJ, EEOC Appeal No.
0120120307 (1/24/13)
 Commission finds agency acted
lawfully when EAP counselor notified
security that complainant was suicidal
and had access to firearm.
No Improper Disclosure by EEO
 Davis v. Treasury, EEOC Appeal No.
0120102597 (6/21/12)
 Release of description of disability
(recovering alcoholic/addict) to coworker witnesses during EEO
investigation not a violation.
Medical Files Taken Home Violate
 Gray v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120121846 (9/10/12)
 Postmaster who kept complainant’s
medical records in closet at home
violated confidentiality provisions of
Rehabilitation Act.
Improper Disability-Related Inquiry
 Bozeman v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120120923 (5/3/13)
 Pre-employment inquiry by selecting
official regarding complainant’s
medical restrictions violates
Rehabilitation Act.
Improper Disability-Related Inquiry
 Uchtman v. USDA, EEOC Appeal No.
0120110532 (2/27/13)
 Supervisor’s question as to what type of
medication complainant was taking
found to be unlawful under
Rehabilitation Act.
Fitness for Duty Exam
 Sanders v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No.
0120130214 (4/3/13)
 No violation of restrictions on
disability related medical exams when
complainant posed direct threat due to
medical condition.
Race Discrimination Found
 Broomfield v. Treasury, EEOC Appeal
No. 0720110038 (3/26/13)
 Police Officer at Denver Mint subjected
to disparate treatment and hostile work
environment due to his race (African
Race-Based Harassment
 Bryant v. Interior (Park Service), EEOC
Appeal No. 0120091468 (8/31/12)
 EEOC finds complainant subjected to
racial harassment and agency was
liable due to failure to take prompt and
appropriate corrective action.
Per Se Retaliation
 King v. International Boundary and
Water Commission, EEOC Appeal No.
0120112384 (3/19/13)
 Supervisor informing co-workers of
complaint reasonably likely to deter
protected activity.
That’s All Folks!