We have reminded readers several times that when they grieve telework denials they should ask to be reimbursed for the mileage they racked up coming to the office when they should have been allowed to work from home. EEOC issued a recent decision that might help unions convince managers and arbitrators that mileage reimbursement is allowed when employees are forced to commute in violation of an agency obligation. Continue reading
When Alisia, a VA employee, asked to have every Sunday off to practice her religion, management asked her to prove that she actually participated in religious activity. More specifically, it wanted the name and address of her house of worship. (Were they going to contact the pastor to confirm she showed up in a pew each week?) And until she coughed that information up it was not going to grant her a religious accommodation. Alisia gave them an EEO charge instead that was just decided by the EEOC addressing whether or when employers can demand employees prove their religious activity. It wrote: Continue reading
Are your legal protections different between them? YUP! The Solomon Law Firm did a good job in laying out the differences and we recommend that you take use a few minutes to read through what they have to say. You could also circle back to review a piece we posted this summer outlining what the EEOC says about co-worker harassment. You might also want to refresh your recollection about what we said in 2023 about how it is easier to prove discriminatory retaliation or reprisal than harassment.
Let’s start with a hypothetical. Assume that the local’s election of officers is coming up in three months and that the only member who can beat the current local president is waffling over whether he, Marvin, will run. Marvin is currently a steward. Who wins this election is important to the district business agent because she, Susan, and her boss want to see the current local president, Tom, put out of office. Tom has voted against the district and national leadership at recent conventions, regularly refused to follow their representational advice, signed bad local agreements, and publicly mocked the union’s national political endorsement for the nation’s President. So, the district business agent, a full-time employee of the union and not a member of the local in question, contacts Marvin to ask what she can do to convince Marvin to run. Continue reading
We recently wrote that agencies will sorely regret it if they decide to no longer consider the Douglas Factors when disciplining employees. The White House brain trust may want them to do so, but those are the same people who brought us the promised two-week Iran conquest, the bungled repairs of the reflecting pool that needed no repairs, and measles-measles-measles. But back to the endangered Douglas Factors and the stupidity of the new regulations. Continue reading
Actually, a guy named Tony gave it away for them, but I will get to that later. As far as I know, the largest arbitration battle in the history of federal sector labor relations ended with the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Service required to pay its employees $900 million in back pay, plus interest. I know it was $900 million because CBP attorneys filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals confirming that the arbitrations “would require the Government to pay nearly $700 million (plus interest) in back pay awards,” and “An additional back pay award ordered by the FLRA in a third related case, now pending in the Fourth Circuit, threatens additional liability of nearly $200 million (plus interest).” (See CBP briefs in Homeland Security v. FLRA, D.C. Cir. No. 15-1351 (March 9, 2016)). Yet, despite the FLRA and court refusing to overturn the $900 million debt, in the end NTEU agreed to let CBP pay only around $200 million. Given that the court’s decision left CBP no choice but to pay the money, why didn’t the union demand full payment? See if you can figure it out after I give you a few more facts and share my reasoning. Continue reading
While we have posted a bundle of material about the reasonable accommodation obligations, a recent EEO decision spelled them out so clearly, we thought we would outline the law for you. Here is what EEOC wrote. Continue reading
What happens when an employee is granted a big chunk of retroactive annual leave pursuant to a grievance, EEO complaint, or other litigation, but it is too late in the leave year for her to use it all. Does she lose what she can’t use or does the normally powerful use or lose concept bend to avoid her losing any leave? While the resolution might differ depending on the reason the leave was restored, when it is due to illegal discrimination EEOC has made it clear that she is not to lose any of the retroactive leave she was awarded, even if only through a settlement agreement. The commission recently wrote, Continue reading
These meetings can border on mental torture triggering thoughts of war crime prosecutions. But they can also be physical torture for those disabled employees who are often required to put their normal reasonable accommodations on hold. That is what happened at Pete Hegseth’s shop when an employee was ordered to attend a two-hour meeting even though Pete’s shop would not provide her the normal reasonable accommodations during the meeting that she was entitled to back in her workplace. While it may only have been a two hour loss of her accommodations, EEOC recently held that violated the disability related laws and regulations. Aside from ordering Warrior Pete and his high testosterone staffers to not do that again it made Pete write the employee a check for over $11,000 to cover the damage. This is another one of those situations that occurs all too often in the workplace such that unions should make employees aware that, absent an undue hardship, once an accommodation is provided it cannot be put on a temporary hold. For more details, check out Gaynell A., v. Pete Hegseth, Secretary, Dep’t. of War (DLA), EEOC No. 2023004297 (2026)
Managers talk with employees all the time, individually, in regularly scheduled periodic meetings and even informally during breaks. In my experience, it is not uncommon for an employee to ask a manager about a co-worker’s absence. It is also far too common for a manager to respond telling them that the co-worker is on sick leave due to some medical condition, e.g., pregnancy complications,hemorrhoids, colon problems, etc. While that kind of exchange happens often in federal and other workplaces, the manager violates the law when s/he discloses an absent employee’s medical condition. EEOC just reminded a National Park Service manager of that by finding he had violated the employee’s right to medical privacy by responding in detail to a question under the Rehabilitation Act and ordered the agency to give the employee over $12,000 to make up for that single, and often innocent, disclosure. This is something unions should make their members very aware of, e.g., email them a copy of this post. For more details, check out Sadie M., v. Douglas J. Burgum, Secretary, DoI (National Park Service), Agency. Appeal No. 2025002310 (2026). You can also check out our index under the Medical Issues and Medical Privacy headings.