MANAGERS SAY THE DARNDEST UNTRUE THINGS UNDER OATH

Bargaining unit employees can be fired, and even criminally prosecuted, for making a false statement on a federal document or under oath. So, it always amazes us that once the employees move into management too many feel free to make up the most unbelievable things. For example, take a recent case out of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which you would think places a very high value on being truthful.  A supervisor submitted all the paperwork to have one of her employees upgraded from a GS-12 spot to a GS-14. She did that because the employee was doing the GS-14 work already and her co-workers all had GS-14 jobs. But then for over a year the higher-level managers and HR folks sat on the request until the first line manager retired and they could kill the request permanently. Apparently unaware employees could file or even win EEOC discrimination cases involving classification matters, the managers got on the witness stand at EEOC and demonstrated that when they speak under oath no one should expect them to be telling the truth. For example, …

one of the managers testified that among the reasons he refused to support the upgrade request was because the GS-14 job required the employee to perform certain duties which she did not now do.  However, the EEOC judge pointed out that, “Those functions are clearly laid out in the first element of Complainant’s performance appraisal.”  When the manager doubled down with the same statement about another duty the employee did not perform, EEOC wrote, “Therefore, [the manager’s] assertion that Complainant’s duties were not the same as those of a Budget Analyst is completely at odds with her performance as documented in the request-for-approval issued in June 2018 and Complainant’s 2018-2019 performance appraisal.” It seems things are comfy enough for managers over at Global Media that they do not even see the need to read over the case documents before they start making things up under oath.

Maybe we should not be so hard on this manager because as EEOC noted later in its decision, even that manager’s managers felt it was OK to make things up on the witness stand. When asked if he had promised Complainant that he would consider changing Complainant’s job title after reviewing her resume to ensure that she had the required skills for the budget analyst position, the higher-level manager said that he only promised to review her resume and provide feedback for professional development as it relates to the Budget Analyst job series. But EEOC pointed out that, “Yet he had already signed off on a performance appraisal which demonstrated that Complainant did possess the qualifications needed for the Budget Analyst series by virtue of having performed budget-related functions since April 2017.”

Continuing what seems to be a pervasive pattern of false statements by our government’s Global Media management team, EEOC also noted that even the HR staff was comfortable deviating from the truth when under oath.  The HR Specialist testified that the employee was not upgraded because HR disapproved the first line manager’s SF-52 request to upgrade the employee.  Yet, the documentary evidence showed that “HRS emailed her reply to [the manager] in which she told him, “yes, please proceed for approval signatures.” Although the HRS asserted that her office had disapproved of the SF-52, there is no documentation of that disapproval anywhere in the record. The email correspondence between [the manager] and the HRS indicates the opposite – that the SF-52 had been given clearance by the Human Resources Office and all that [the manager] had to do was to obtain the necessary signatures for final approval. The HRS’s statements regarding the need for approval appear to be an after-the-fact justification for the Human Resources Office’s failure to act on the SF-52.”

We could go on about other parts of this case, but at this point it no one should be surprised to learn that EEOC ordered the agency to give the employee the GS-14 retroactively.

It also ordered the agency to consider disciplining the managers. Frankly, these statements made under oath are so egregiously false that in a perfect world someone refers this case to the local US Attorney for criminal prosecution. After all, playing fast and loose with the truth while under oath at EEOC is something that even our limited reading of case decisions has found here as well as at FDIC, the VA and CBP.

If you want to check out the full decision, it is Glynda S., v. Kelu Chao, Act’ing CEO, U.S. Agency for Global Media, Agency. EEOC No. 2020004387 (2022)

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 Discipline/Adverse Action, EEO/Discrimination and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.