One of the criticisms that can be leveled against most unions is that they often file grievances that fail to pursue all the potential remedies an employee is due. To put it more bluntly, they are letting an agency off too lightly. As we see it, when agencies get hit with extensive remedy orders they are less likely to fight similar grievances all the way in the future; they start looking for early settlements. So, we have devoted more than a few lines of print to remedies, e.g., Grievance Strategy Issues (Remedies). We just came across an EEOC decision which went to great lengths to give the employee all the remedies she was entitled to, and we want to pass along an excerpt of the case so you can see all the corrective actions that are possible and legal when you include an alleged EEO violation in your grievance. Even if you can’t sustain an EEO violation, the list of remedies in this case should be considered whenever grieving. LET’S END OF VIRTUALLY USELESS GRIEVANCE MERELY ASKING FOR A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER. EEOC wrote as follows, but we added the underlining: Continue reading
All too often managers reply to employee requests for a work accommodation with a quick “No” or “HR said no.” A large bundle of case law holds that it violates law to dismiss a disabled employee’s request for an accommodation without exploring options in a back and forth communication. It is called the “interactive process.” We have written about it often. When managers fail to do this, they make it very easy for employees to win claims of disability discrimination with cash payouts. Although it is a smaller bundle of case law, precedent also holds that managers owe employees requesting accommodations for religious purposes the same quality of interaction. The folks at the Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete law firm posted a good article explaining all this that union reps should find helpful. Click here to read it in about 3 minutes time.
This is also something you should pass on to your members, most of whom have little to no idea what the union can do for them because they do not know their rights.
If an agency has terminated your right to telework, do you have the right to be reassigned to a job that does permit telework? Continue reading
It is a mystery why agencies still do not seem to understand what sexual harassment looks like. In a recent EEOC case, the facts showed that for nine months an employee was subjected to, “unwelcome touching such as hugging, pressing himself against Complainant, and attempting to massage her, inappropriate comments about her appearance, asking her out on a date multiple times, aggressively asking her for her address, harassing messages, and texting her when he drove past her house.” What was so tough about recognizing that as a violation of civil rights law? In the end, EEOC ordered the agency to pay the employee $95,000.00. If unions publicized these cases among unit employees, members might not only get some justice, but sensitivity to the issues might also trickle down to managers. For more details on this case, check out Kasie L., v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary, Dep’t. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC No. 2025003799 (2026)
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