 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
In 2009 EEOC found discrimination on less than 3% of cases. See more.
The reasons for the low winning rate of discrimination complaints in the federal employment
cases may be as follows (assuming that the complaint is properly articulated and timely filed and
that no deadlines are missed during each federal EEO processes):
For the reasons stated above, it is better to enter into an amicable settlement agreement. More
on settlement.
Regarding concealment, removal, or mutilation of records, see Title 18: Crimes and Criminal
Procedures, Part 1, Chapter 101: Records and Reports.
AJ's pleas for reforming EEOC
The reasons for the low winning rate of discrimination complaints in the federal employment
cases may be as follows (assuming that the complaint is properly articulated and timely filed and
that no deadlines are missed during each federal EEO processes):
- Witnesses generally lie in favor of the Agency for fear of retaliation.
- Agency has all the resources at its disposal such as EEO counselor, EEO Directors, EEO
investigators, managers, HR, and in-house attorneys. Despite their claims, EEO
counselors, directors, and investigators are generally not "objective." They are on the
Agency payroll and are encouraged by the Agency head to eliminate or sabotage EEO
claims. - EEOC administrative judges (AJ's) are usually conservative and want to err on the side of
the Agency. After all, Agency is innocent until proven guilty. - Agency can sit it out for a long time and has greater resources to do so than complainant.
- Agency may produce misleading, if not altered, records in favor of their position.
- Management would corroborate with each other and may even lie in order to protect each
other. - The legal theories of discriminations are complex. You must first establish the prima
facie case. And then establish the pretext in the decision makers' purported non-
discriminatory/retaliatory reasons for acting the way they did which is at issue. In each
theory of discrimination generally established by legal precedence, the prima facie case is
different from the other theories; and how to prove pretext is also different from the others.
See samples of AJ decisions for more on legal standards, prima facie cases, and pretext. - It is difficulty to establish favorable treatment of the "similarly situated individuals." Unless
the case involves a direct evidence (where the decision maker states under declaration
that he or she acted based on your race, age, sex, disability, national origin, prior EEO
activity, etc.); complainant must establish favorable treatment of the other similar situated
individuals by management who treated you unfavorably. Defining the "similarly situated"
is always contentious; and establishing the favorable treatment of them under
comparable circumstances involves large amount of data (on those individuals) which the
complainant usually does not have, and which is difficulty to present due to large volume
and difficulty in the comparative work that is necessary.
For the reasons stated above, it is better to enter into an amicable settlement agreement. More
on settlement.
Regarding concealment, removal, or mutilation of records, see Title 18: Crimes and Criminal
Procedures, Part 1, Chapter 101: Records and Reports.
AJ's pleas for reforming EEOC
|
| Reasons for the Low Rate of Finding Discrimination |