A BIG OLD LIAR & A BIG OLD BP+ CHECK

One of the things that pops out of reading the cases employees win before EEOC is how blatant the lies are told by agency officials. Normally, we don’t comment on a specific case, but one just jumped off the page and hit us between the eyes this week. So, we are going to publicize it to drive home the point that employees should use the EEOC process when the agency action makes no sense. Unlike arbitration, it often requires the agency to explain its actions that arbitrators enforcing contracts or other statutes do not. The honor of our first posting about outright lying goes to a Postmaster trying to defend against a charge that he retaliated against an employee for filing an EEO complaint.   As EEOC wrote in its decision,

“Although the Postmaster stated that he was not aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity, the record establishes that he signed the settlement agreement and, therefore, clearly was aware of Complainant’s protected activity.” If you are thinking that perhaps so much time had gone by between signing the settlement and initiating his retaliation, the answer if NOPE. It was three weeks.

For more details, check out Pamala L., v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, EEOC No. 0120171070

 

About AdminUN

FEDSMILL staff has over 40 years of federal sector labor relations experience on the union as well as management side of the table and even some time as a neutral.
This entry was posted in EEO/Discrimination and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.