The parties are required to abide by the orders and requests of the AJ to provide for, among other things, the attendance of witnesses. Noncompliance without good cause shown can result in sanctions. The Agency admitted that the AJ notified the parties that the failure to follow her orders could result in sanctions. Further, Complainant's attorney indicated that the Agency's representative did not inform him that E1's temporary employment was going to expire at the time the representative requested that the depositions be postponed.
Based on the Agency's failure to properly provide witnesses for the scheduled depositions on multiple occasions, the Commission found the imposition of sanctions and the award of attorney's fees and costs to Complainant proper. The Commission agreed with the AJ that the attorney's request for 9. Dismissal of Hearing as a Sanction Was Improper. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of his physical disability.
On August 3, , the AJ acknowledged Complainant's hearing request and informed both parties they were entitled to representation. The notice informed Complainant that if he was represented during the EEO counseling and investigation phases he must renew that designation for the Commission. The notice instructed the parties to complete and return the Designation of Representative form. Complainant was also required to certify within fifteen days, that he and his representative had read certain information.
Complainant failed to certify that he and his representative read the information and complete the Designation of Representative within the specified time frame. On January 5, , in a prehearing teleconference, the AJ asked that Complainant and his representative submit this information by January 12, Complainant did not submit the information by the requested deadline.
The AJ found Complaint's explanation for non-compliance to be insufficient for good cause and remanded the case to the Agency for a decision on the record. The Agency issued a final decision finding no discrimination. On appeal, the Commission found that Complainant's actions did not warrant the sanction imposed by the AJ in this case. The Commission has held that sanctions, while corrective, also act to prevent similar misconduct in the future and must be tailored to each situation, applying the least severe sanction necessary to respond to the party's failure to show good cause for its actions, as well as to equitably remedy the opposing party.
The record showed that all interested parties had notice of the identity of Complainant's representative and his contact information by January 5, , a week before the January 12, deadline. In addition, Complainant's representative participated in the prehearing teleconference and had been identified by name, address, and telephone number on the formal complaint filed by Complainant.
Furthermore, although Complainant failed to certify that he and his representative had read the information posted on the Commission's website, it did not impede the taking of testimonial or documentary evidence relevant to or necessary for an adequate adjudication of the claim at hand.
Thus, the Commission was not persuaded that Complainant's noncompliance impacted the integrity of the EEO process as neither the AJ nor Agency was denied information they did not already possess or otherwise needed. The Commission remanded the complaint for an administrative hearing. Settlement Agreement Lacked Consideration. Complainant appealed an Agency finding that it was in compliance with the terms of a settlement agreement between the two parties.
The agreement provided that Management would review the issue of health benefits premiums, Complainant and Management would treat each other professionally and have an open line of communication, Complainant would arrange an appointment with the Injury Compensation Office when necessary, and any routine paperwork would be forwarded by Management to Complainant.
On appeal the Commission voided the Agreement and remanded the claim for further proceedings because the Agreement lacked consideration. While generally the adequacy or fairness of the consideration in a settlement agreement is not at issue, settlement agreements that lack consideration are unenforceable.
A settlement agreement lacks consideration when one of the parties incurs no legal detriment based on the agreement's obligations. In this case the agreement did not obligate the Agency beyond its already existing obligations owed to all employees under the OWCP process. Thus with no additional obligations, the Agreement lacked consideration and was unenforceable. No Breach of Settlement Agreement Found. Complainant appealed an Agency finding that it was in compliance with a settlement agreement between the two parties.
The Agency offered Complainant the position for a period of one year, with possible extensions for an additional two years. Complainant claimed that this time limitation was not in line with the spirit and intent of the agreement and the Agency's offer should have been a permanent position.
On appeal, the Commission found the limitation did not violate the settlement agreement. In this case, there was nothing in the agreement that indicated intent by the parties to only provide or accept a permanent position. A Human Resources Specialist indicated that promotion rules for the position require that employees must have previously held a second-line position in order to be promoted non-competitively, and Complainant could apply and compete for a permanent CBP Officer position.
If the intent of the parties was to place Complainant in a permanent position, it should have been indicated as such. Dep't of Homeland Sec. Complainant appealed the Agency's final decision that it was in compliance with a settlement agreement between the two parties. Complainant originally filed an EEO claim for harassment based on sex. The Agency and Complainant entered into a settlement agreement specifying, among other things, that 1 the alleged discriminating Manager was to participate in an anti-harassment educational course and 2 certification of the Manager's course completion was to be sent to Complainant.
According to the record, Complainant was terminated two weeks after entering into the agreement. The Commission found that the Manager had likely acted in bad faith during the settlement negotiations. It was likely that the Manager knew at the time of the negotiations that Complainant was going to be terminated because of his work performance. Consequently, Complainant was persuaded to withdraw his pending EEO complaint in exchange for actions that the Manager knew would never come to pass.
As such the Commission voided the settlement agreement and remanded the matter to be consolidated with Complainant's subsequent complaint regarding his termination. Agency Not in Breach of Settlement Agreement. At the time of the pertinent events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was a Rural Letter Carrier at the Agency's postal facility in Glendale, Arizona.
Complainant alleged unlawful discrimination and subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the Agency which provided that Complainant would be returned to work in the position of Rural Letter Carrier at the Glendale facility, retaining the same seniority, salary and benefits including leave accrual. In order to return to work, Complainant needed to provide return to work clearance from a medical provider.
The parties also agreed that Complainant would receive a reasonable accommodation. At Complainant's request, the Agency assigned a Nurse and Complainant met with the DRAC, but there was continuing disagreement over the effectiveness of the accommodation. On appeal, the Commission noted that the ordinary rules of contract construction apply to settlement agreements, and that the actual intent of the parties to the agreement controls, not an unexpressed idea not found in the agreement itself.
The Commission stated that the Agency had expressed a willingness to work with the Complainant's physician to determine the appropriate accommodation, but that there was nothing in the agreement requiring payment of the physician's fees by the Agency as Complainant had requested. The Commission found that the Agency engaged in a good faith effort to work with the Complainant to find a reasonable accommodation, to no avail.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the Agency was not in breach of the settlement agreement. Based on the totality of the record, the Commission determined that Complainant was actually asserting a new claim of discrimination based on denial of reasonable accommodation that the Agency should process as a separate claim under the Rehabilitation Act.
No Breach of Settlement Found. Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission challenging the Agency's finding that it was in compliance with a settlement agreement. After consideration of his qualification and available positions, the Agency offered Complainant four positions, which included the three positions specified.
Upon turning the offer down, the Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach for not selecting him to be the Deputy Congressional Affairs Chief as he desired, claiming that it was his understanding from the settlement that he would not be denied any open position for which he was qualified.
The Commission found that the Agency was in compliance with the settlement agreement and that the job selection process in question had been adhered to.
There was no provision in the agreement that would have allowed Complainant to transfer to a position of his choosing. The plain language of the contract did not show any intent of the parties to allow Complainant to choose his new position, despite his claim otherwise. If such intent existed between the parties at the time of the settlement, it should have been included in the contract. Breach of Settlement Found.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Agency was to transfer Complainant back to the Agency's Trenton facility and retain her seniority date of February 25, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the settlement agreement when it changed her seniority date to August In the Agency's final decision, it modified the settlement agreement because the provision regarding Complainant's seniority date violated the collective bargaining agreement CBA.
The CBA provision stated that "a full time employee begins a new period of seniority when the change is from one facility to another at the employee's request. As a result, the Agency set aside Complainant's prior seniority date. On appeal, the Commission stated that while an Agency cannot enter into a settlement agreement that would violate a pre-existing CBA, the Agency carries the burden of ensuring that settlement agreements are in compliance with its CBA.
The record in this case showed that the Agency did not properly review the August settlement agreement prior to its execution. The Commission emphasized the importance of having the Agency's Labor Relations personnel review agreements prior to execution in order to avoid conflicts with relevant CBAs, noting that the proper time for the Agency to have raised its concerns about the CBA was before the settlement agreement was executed. The record showed that both the Agency and the union were involved in the negotiation of the instant agreement, and Complainant's union representative signed the agreement in his union capacity.
The Commission noted that the Agency executed a separate settlement agreement to which Complainant was not a party indicating that her transfer was not involuntary. However, Complainant's transfer appeared to have directly resulted from her initial involuntary transfer. Therefore, without more, the Commission could not conclusively state that Complainant's transfer to Trenton was "voluntary" based on the record, and there was no longer any basis for the Agency's claim that its compliance with the settlement agreement would violate the CBA.
The Agency was ordered to implement the terms of the settlement agreement. In August, , Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement which stated, among other things, that the Agency would hold Complainant's fifteen-day suspension in abeyance for one year from the effective date of the agreement, provided that Complainant complied with each of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Upon Complainant's successful completion of the one-year period, the Agency would not issue the fifteen-day suspension, and remove all mention or reference to the proposed suspension from its records. The agreement did not specify that any other disciplinary action would be held in abeyance or removed from Complainant's records. In June , Complainant contacted the Agency alleging that it was in breach of the agreement when, on August 25, , she was suspended for three days for improper conduct.
On appeal, the Commission found that Complainant failed to show that the Agency breached the terms of the settlement agreement. The Commission has held that the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, and not some unexpressed intention, controls the contract. The settlement agreement between Complainant and the Agency expressly concerned only the proposed fifteen-day suspension.
If the parties intended the Agency to have obligations concerning the three-day suspension, that should have been expressly stated in the agreement. The agreement clearly indicated that Complainant gave up her right to pursue her EEO complaint concerning the three-day suspension in exchange for the Agency holding the subsequent fifteen-day suspension in abeyance.
In the following cases, the Commission found complainants' claims to be cognizable. S Postal Serv. The Agency erred in stating that an employee cannot file an EEO complaint concerning the alleged harassing actions of a co-worker who was not acting in a supervisory capacity. The Commission stated that an Agency is responsible for acts of co-worker harassment in the workplace where the Agency knew or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.
While the Agency asserted that the group was not an Agency sponsored activity, the employees who organized the group initially sent e-mails from their work accounts signed with their official Agency titles; letters and documents from the group were reviewed by Agency Officials; and the purpose of the group was to help improve networking among employees so they could obtain better assignments.
Therefore, the Commission found that the group was a privilege of employment which Complainant was denied, allegedly based on her age. Looking at the events as a whole, Complainant's allegations were sufficient to state a claim of hostile work environment, and the Commission was not persuaded by the Agency's argument that Complainant did not allege that she was harmed by the co-worker's return. Complainant asserted that, because of the memoranda, she was treated differently than similarly situated employees when she did not receive an award.
The Commission found that the matter was reasonably likely to deter Complainant or others from engaging in protected EEO activity.
Complainant alleged that the individual was not a co-worker but served, at least part of the time, as an Acting Supervisor and a fair reading of Complainant's complaint shows that he alleged that the individual played a part in blocking his receipt of a quality step increase and reassigning him to a less desirable division.
Therefore, Complainant raised sufficient allegations to state a viable claim that the individual engaged in a series of unlawful retaliatory actions. While it was unclear from the record what type of medical documentation was allegedly compromised, the EEOC's regulations specifically provide for the confidentiality of medical records, and Complainant stated a claim of breach of confidentiality under the Rehabilitation Act's confidentiality requirement.
Furthermore, under GINA, the Agency must maintain genetic information in separate files and treat the information as confidential. A fair reading of Complainant's complaint presented a claim of harassment by his Supervisor that included assigning him additional responsibilities without adjusting completion time, taking away significant work projects, and denying him the opportunity to speak at conferences.
A volunteer may be deemed a protected employee if the volunteer either receives benefits which constitute "significant remuneration," or holds the volunteer job because it regularly leads to employment with the Agency.
In this case, Complainant would have been eligible, upon completion of his internship, to a monetary stipend which the Commission found constituted significant remuneration. In addition, the record showed that the internship program was part of the process to obtain certification as a licensed social worker. Complainant stated that she contacted an EEO Counselor prior to resigning from the Agency and raised allegations of discrimination and harassment.
The Agency's request that the contractor for whom Complainant then worked remove her from her position at an Agency facility was akin to refusing to provide post-employment letters or offering negative job references on behalf of a former employee, actions which violate the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII. Complainant claimed that the decision to allow Counsel to review her files resulted from discriminatory animus and was in retaliation for her prior protected activity.
Complainant also stated that management had allowed others to review her personnel files several times in the past. While Complainant worked as a "dual status" military technician, the Commission requires a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the alleged discriminatory action impacted Complainant in the capacity of federal civilian employee or uniformed member of the military.
Therefore, the application of a per se rule denying jurisdiction over dual status employees was in error and the matter was remanded so that each allegedly harassing incident could be examined to determine whether the challenged conduct was military in nature. The Agency's assertions concerning Complainant's qualification or eligibility for the position go to the merits of the complaint and were irrelevant to the procedural issue of whether Complainant stated a viable claim.
The Agency had partial or complete control over the decision to hire Complainant, Complainant received her assignments via an Agency ticketing system, Agency employees guided Complainant on how to do her work in accordance with Agency standards, and Agency customers had input into the work.
Complainant's appraisals were completed with input from the Agency, Complainant worked on Agency premises using Agency equipment, she worked for the Agency for almost three years, the Agency controlled her schedule, and although the contractor provided Complainant leave, she had to get Agency approval to use it.
The contractor ultimately terminated Complainant after receiving complaints from the Agency. While the contractor paid Complainant and provided her with benefits, the Commission found that the Agency exercised sufficient control over Complainant's position to qualify as a joint employer ; see also, Complainant v.
Complainant's work required a high level of skill and was not part of the Agency's main mission, and the Agency did not provide him with pay or benefits. Nevertheless, Complainant's first line Agency Supervisor assigned him work and assisted him in developing certification and accreditation packages, Complainant worked on Agency premises using Agency office equipment, and served the Agency for approximately four years.
Therefore, the Agency exercised sufficient control over Complainant's position to qualify as his employer for purposes of the EEO complaint process. Further, there was some dispute as to whether the Agency played a role in Complainant's termination which could only be resolved through an investigation of the merits of Complainant's claims ; but see Complainant v.
While the Agency provided a suitable work location and certain office and protective equipment, the contractor assigned duties to Complainant, completed his performance evaluation, approved his leave, established his work schedule and dictated the terms and conditions of his employment relationship.
While the Agency Commander initiated the process to have Complainant reassigned from his facility the contractor ultimately made the decision to terminate Complainant. Therefore, the Agency was not a joint employer of Complainant.
Viewing the allegations of harassment together in the light most favorable to Complainant, he may be able to prove events which are sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and prove that the Supervisor's actions were reasonably likely to deter him or others from engaging in protected EEO activity.
Complainant was not challenging the actions of the Inspector General's office, but was instead claiming that the Supervisor's actions in reporting her to the Inspector General were retaliatory. Therefore, Complainant alleged a viable claim of unlawful retaliation.
Complainant conceded that there was ample regular parking at the facility, but asserted that the Agency reduced and moved the parking for persons with disabilities making it difficult to reach the facility. The Commission rejected the Agency's argument that its attorneys are immune from suit while acting in their representational capacity, stating that physical intimidation cannot be said to constitute conduct within the attorney's representational capacity. Complainant was alleging that the attorney engaged in physical conduct that was reasonably calculated to intimidate him in reprisal for his prior EEO activity.
In the following cases, the Commission affirmed the Agency's determination that the Complainant failed to state a claim. Other: For the period between and , committee minutes are available on microfiche at the State Law Library and the Legislative Reference Center.
The Montana Historical Society has audio tapes of committee meetings since Print: The Montana Legislature has paper copies of bills from to the present. Since , bills are also in paper form in bound books at the State Law Library. The Montana Historical Society has a complete set of printed committee bills back to the earliest sessions. Online: Since , bills are available from the legislative website at leg.
Other: The Montana Legislature has a CD with all bills on it from to prior to the bills going online. Online: Since , exhibits are available from the legislative website at leg. Back to top. In , the Legislature began making audiotapes of its committee hearings. In , the Legislature began making committee hearings available on the legislative website at leg. The time log refers the user to the audiotapes or, later, to the audio file of the hearings available.
Verbatim transcripts of the legislative committee hearings do not exist. Beginning with the session, the Legislature started recording the floor debate in each house. Prior to that time, no transcript, summary, or recording of these floor debates was made beyond the short notations in the daily Journal for each house.
In , floor sessions were video streamed and archived. Exhibits include such items as proposed amendments, copies of written testimony, roll call attendance, roll call votes, and visitor registers. In Montana, any drafting notes that accompany the bill draft request are public record and available for viewing. The Legislative Services Division keeps the previous two sessions of junque files. Legislative intent must be determined from the plain meaning of the words used, and if the interpretation of a statute can be so determined, a court may not apply any other means of interpretation; plain, unambiguous, direct, and certain language leaves nothing for the court to construe.
White v. White, M , P2d Where the intention of the Legislature can be determined from the plain meaning of words used in a statute, the courts may not go further and apply any other means of interpretation. Tongue River Elec. Co-op, Inc.
Power Co. State ex rel. Palmer v. Hart, M , P2d See also Estate of Langendorf, M , P2d The AJ also concluded that Complainant was not subjected to a hostile work environment. The AJ instructed Complainant to submit a petition for attorney's fees. The Commission found that the AJ erred in determining the market rate for Complainant's attorney and improperly placed the burden on the Complainant instead of the Agency to show that the decision to retain out-of-town counsel was unreasonable.
In this case, the Agency did not assert that Complainant's attorneys' hourly rates were not reasonable. Further, although, only one of Complainant's claims was successful, the Commission concluded that there should be no reduction in fees for the failed claim because it was intertwined with the successful claim. In this case, Complainant's retaliatory harassment claim encompassed his claim of retaliation and the facts of the two claims were intertwined.
The Commission did concur with the AJ's finding that Complainant's claim was separate and distinct from the claims of two other employees that were consolidated with Complainant's claim for hearing. Therefore, the Commission found that fees for work related to those employees' claims should be excluded from the award.
Complainant v. Class Certification Granted. Complainant Class Agent was an applicant for the Foreign Service who underwent the Agency's medical examination to determine if she could receive a Class 1 "Worldwide Availability" determination. The Agency defined "Worldwide Availability" as being medically qualified to work at one of more than posts around the world including those with limited medical facilities.
If candidates did not receive Class 1 classification they were forced to seek a waiver from a Foreign Service hiring agency directly. Class Agent was initially disqualified for medical reasons, but later applied for and received a waiver from the Agency. She was ultimately selected for a position in July Class Agent filed an individual complaint in January , and filed a Motion for Class Certification on August 21, , to convert her original complaint to a class complaint.
Class Agent alleged that the Agency's Worldwide Availability policy, as administered, disparately treated and disparately impacted qualified individuals with disabilities. She also claimed that the policy disparately impacted individuals over The AJ denied the class claim of age discrimination but certified a class of applicants for career Foreign Service employment with a disability who "have been or will be" denied employment from October 7, until the present because the Agency's Office of Medical Services denied them Class 1 Worldwide Availability clearance.
The Agency issued a final order which rejected the AJ's finding that the class should be certified. On appeal, the Commission reversed the Agency's final order and remanded the matter for further processing. The Commission found that the AJ's decision regarding class certification based on age was correct due to lack of anecdotal or statistical evidence that the policy discriminated against applicants on that basis.
The Commission also agreed with the AJ that Class Agent satisfied the requirement for class certification, although the Commission modified the class definition for clarity. The Commission found that Class Agent was an individual with a disability. In addition, Class Agent met the requirements of commonality and typicality. She alleged that the Worldwide Availability policy denied benefits of employment to those with disabilities without regard to accommodation, and without any individualized assessment into the individual's specific condition.
The Commission rejected the Agency's assertion that the waiver process defeated commonality, stating that many did not take advantage of the process and were actually advised that waivers were rarely granted. The Commission also rejected the Agency's argument that the class should not be certified if all members had different disabilities. The Commission noted that other applicants with disabilities would have the same interest and suffer the same injury as Class Agent. Class Agent identified approximately 50 individuals denied employment because they were not granted a Class 1 Worldwide Availability clearance during the specified period a number which the Commission noted could grow each year the Agency continues to employ the policy in question.
Thus, Class Agent met the requirement of numerosity. Finally, the class was adequately represented by attorneys with sufficient legal training and experience. Denial of Class Certification : The Commission affirmed the Agency's final order denying class certification for Complainant, the class agent, who brought an EEO claim alleging, among other things, that female African-American Program Support Assistants at a specific Agency facility were discriminated against when male employees were hired or promoted outside of the competitive hiring process.
The Commission found that Complainant established the elements of commonality and typicality. The Commission noted, however, that Complainant must also meet the requirements to establish numerosity and adequacy of representation.
With regard to numerosity, the Commission found that the proposed class of five was unlikely to grow based on facility size and had already decreased from the original filing of eight.
Although there is no specific number requirement, the Commission cited past claims where numerosity was not met when the proposed class encompassed 20 or more employees working in the same facility. Complainant, as class agent, presented no evidence showing that it would be impractical to consolidate the individual complaints. With regard to adequacy of representation, the Commission stated that Complainant lacked the experience, time and resources to fairly and adequately represent herself and fellow proposed class members.
Complainant filed her original complaint and her appeal pro se and she was not an attorney or adequately trained in the complexities of EEO class actions to fairly represent other individuals. The Agency was ordered to process Complainant's claim and any other claims associated with it as individual complaints of discrimination. Class Certification Denied. Complainant worked as a Transitional Employee TE Carrier, and filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment which included denying him an interview, refusing to hire him, denying him training, orientation and pay, and terminating him from employment.
Complainant indicated that he wished to file a class action, and the matter was forwarded to an AJ who ultimately issued a decision denying class certification. The AJ determined that Complainant did not present any evidence of a policy or practice that affected the class members, nor did he allege that he was subjected to the same treatment as the class members.
Further, the AJ found that a class of four individuals was not sufficiently large to constitute a class. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the AJ's decision. The Commission found that Complainant, by identifying only four members of the class, failed to meet the numerosity requirement. In addition, although Complainant provided a statement to the AJ, he failed to articulate any facts related to the selections, work locations, or supervisors in order to show that there was a common policy or practice of discrimination.
Except for a general claim that the Agency's decisions, policies and practices were adverse to Hispanics and those who filed EEO complaints, Complainant did not identify any particular policies or practices that had the effect of discriminating against the class as a whole. The Commission has previously held that a claim of "across the board" discrimination without evidence of some common policy or practice does not support class certification.
Therefore, Complainant failed to establish the criteria of commonality and typicality. Finally, Complainant was not an attorney and did not identify an attorney or law firm that would assist him, and, as such, did not show that the class was adequately represented.
Postal Serv. Complainant did not identify any particular policies or practices that had the effect of discriminating against the class as a whole or identify any facts common to or typical of the four members of the class. The decisions below are a selected sampling of recent awards of compensatory damages.
See, also, "Findings on the Merits," and "Remedies" this issue. In a prior decision, the Commission found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of national origin and retaliated against him when it involuntarily reassigned him and denied him higher-level pay. On appeal, the Commission concurred with the AJ's finding that Complainant provided substantial evidence that the Agency's discriminatory conduct caused him physical and emotional harm.
Complainant testified that he suffered anxiety attacks, difficulty sleeping, fatigue, loss of appetite and weight loss, and withdrew from personal interactions. Two former employees stated that Complainant's demeanor changed after the reassignment.
While the AJ awarded Complainant differing amounts for various periods of time, the AJ did not explain in any detail how he arrived at the amounts awarded. He did not explain the reasoning for dividing the compensable period into separate timeframes, nor did he cite to specific evidence that he felt warranted the awards.
The record showed that Complainant filed additional EEO complaints during two of the periods for which the AJ awarded damages, but no discrimination was found in those matters. In addition, Complainant attributed the emotional distress he experienced during a period of time to the stress of his EEO hearing for which he could not recover damages. The Commission also determined that the AJ's finding that Complainant would likely have been transferred to other management positions was speculative and not supported by the record.
Complainant stated that he suffered headaches, insomnia, humiliation and marital problems after the retaliation. Complainant's wife and pastor testified as to the humiliation, job stress and depression that Complainant experienced, and Complainant stated that the retaliation affected his relationship with his wife to such a degree that she suggested he quit his job. Complainant adequately and sufficiently described his symptoms including weight gain, loss of enjoyment of life, and increased blood pressure.
In addition, Complainant stated that the discrimination aggravated his existing medical conditions, and affected his relationship with his family. Complainant provided statements from his treating physician. The Commission noted that while Complainant attributed at least a portion of the exacerbation of his conditions to a long commute, it was speculative whether his commute would have been shorter if not for the discriminatory selection.
Dep't of Argic. Complainant testified that she became fearful of encountering the co-worker who was involved in the underlying action, and experienced nightmares. Two family members testified that, following the altercation, Complainant was jittery, had more frequent headaches, and was teary eyed, tired and short tempered.
In a prior decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's finding of reprisal discrimination with regard to a performance improvement notification PIN , and ordered the Agency to investigate Complainant's claim for compensatory damages.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency's award of the bonus, noting that Complainant did not present any evidence to support his claim for a higher amount.
The Commission concluded, however, that the amount of damages awarded by the Agency was insufficient. Complainant described the retaliation as "devastating. The Commission stated that while Complainant did not provide affidavits or medical records concerning the harm he incurred, evidence from a medical provider and expert testimony were not mandatory prerequisites for recovery of compensatory damages.
An AJ previously found that Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her race when her Supervisor regularly yelled at her and invaded her space, counseled her regarding allegedly unnecessary credit card use, and intimidated her.
The Commission denied Complainant's appeal based on the AJ's analysis of the facts and cited past claims with similar fact patterns and similar damages awards. The AJ noted the stress Complainant was under during the hostile work environment, but pointed out that Complainant provided very little detail regarding the harm suffered due to the harassment during the hearing.
Personal and witness testimony or medical records would all have been acceptable. The Commission found that the AJ's rationale was based on substantial evidence.
Even though Complainant stated that she had medical evidence and documentation to support her assertions, she did not provide them on appeal. Finally, while Complainant stated that she was further harmed by the EEO complaint process, the Commission noted that compensatory damages are not available for stress from pursuing an EEO complaint. Dismissal of Complaint Improper. Complainant, a Registered Nurse, brought a claim of discrimination and hostile work environment against the Agency, alleging that her supervisor passed her over by promoting a less experienced white nurse to a supervisory position, falsely accused her of violating policies, and routinely disciplined her for minor infractions.
The Agency dismissed the complaint on two procedural grounds. First, the Agency found that Complainant raised the proposed removal with the EEO Counselor but did not receive counseling regarding her hostile work environment claim.
The Agency also asserted that Complainant's union brought a formal grievance on her behalf on the same grounds. The Commission found that both bases for dismissal lacked merit. First, the Commission noted that the claim of hostile work environment was related to the proposed removal and concerned allegations of harassment. In addition, the Commission noted that it is the Agency's burden to show that the collective bargaining agreement includes discrimination claims within its grievance process, and that Complainant elected to pursue a grievance in order to issue a dismissal on this ground.
The record shows that even though Complainant consulted her union representative, Complainant only sought a resolution through the Agency's EEO process.
While the union independently initiated a grievance against the Agency based on Complainant's experience, the record indicated that the Agency was on notice that she did not authorize this action. Most notably, the union president and its attorney provided a memorandum stating that Complainant did not request the grievance and the union filed the grievance "for its own purposes.
Complainant filed two EEO complaints against the Agency. The first complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability when it failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation was pending an administrative hearing when Complainant brought the second claim of retaliation for previous protected EEO activity.
The second complaint concerned a Report to Work letter Complainant received a few weeks after she made her request for accommodation.
Complainant requested that the Agency amend her first complaint to include additional claims of discrimination, however, the Agency did not include the Report to Work letter or the surrounding events. The Agency dismissed the second complaint, reasoning that it arose from the same factual issues as the first complaint, which was still pending with the Commission. On appeal, the Commission noted that the Agency only allowed Complainant to narrowly amend her complaint, failed to include surrounding events, and did not specifically mention the Return to Work letter.
Therefore, the Commission remanded the matter to the Agency. Dep't of Agric. Complaint Properly Dismissed for Failure to Cooperate.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in March , alleging that the Agency discriminated against him when it issued him a notice of proposed removal and subjected him to a hostile work environment. The Agency initially accepted the complaint and began an investigation. After unsuccessfully attempting to get an affidavit from Complainant, however, the Agency notified Complainant that he risked dismissal of his complaint if he did not provide a date when he could be interviewed for his affidavit.
Complainant replied that he was invoking his "Fifth Amendment right not to give a statement. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the dismissal, finding that Complainant was clearly refusing to be interviewed or to provide an affidavit. In addition, his response provided sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that he purposely engaged in contumacious conduct. Complainant did not provide specific dates of the incidents supporting his hostile work environment claim, and there was insufficient information in the record to have permitted the Agency to continue the investigation without Complainant's affidavit.
Complaint Improperly Dismissed. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to racial harassment. The Agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was signed by Complainant's non-attorney representative rather than Complainant himself. On appeal, the Commission found that the dismissal was improper.
A review of the record showed that Complainant signed an information for pre-complaint counseling form, and there were other documents with his signature. In addition, there was no indication that the Agency attempted to cure the defect by giving Complainant the opportunity to submit a signature.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that justice would not be served by dismissing the complaint on a technicality, and remanded the matter for processing. Complainant filed a complaint, which alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of disability.
The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and on grounds that it alleged a proposed action which did not occur. Recording device will be marked with a green tick mark. Click Properties , and then click on Levels.
If the issue still persists, I would suggest you to update the drivers for the sound device and check if it helps. Please reply us if the issue still persists. At the end of our meeting with the President Walt Rostow asked all of us to join him for a few minutes in his office where he emphasized to Minister Shoaib and Ambassador Ahmed the President's great concern about the facilities and the need to have them reopened.
He said the President saw this as a possible breakdown between him and Ayub and he was troubled by it. The telegram summarized the portion of Johnson's conversation with Shoaib that dealt with the closed installations. You will see from this that the President has made it very clear to Shoaib what general understandings we must have before we can resume assistance to Pakistan.
The President did not, however, get into the specifics of aid figures and military levels. It would seem, therefore, in your meeting with Shoaib that this is the subject on which you might wish to concentrate. The April 28 briefing memorandum from Rostow to the President listed a number of suggested points the President might want to make in his meeting with Shoaib.
No classification marking. Dear Mr. President, I thank you for your letter of April 17, I am grateful to you for informing me of your discussions with Prime Minister Mrs. We in Pakistan earnestly desire to implement the Tashkent Declaration with a view to restoring peace in the sub-continent.
However, unfortunately, we have not as yet seen any tangible signs, barring verbal professions of peace, of a like desire on the part of the Indian Government and its leaders. On the other hand, plans for a major expansion of the Indian armed forces continue to be implemented as a matter of great urgency. In the meantime, the Soviet Union has decided to resume supplies of heavy military equipment to India.
All this is bound to increase tension in the sub-continent. We are not oblivious of the domestic political and economic problems which the Indian Prime Minister faces in her country in preparation for the forthcoming general elections in India. However, I do not see why progress towards removing the underlying cause of the India-Pakistan conflict should adversely affect her election prospects.
In my judgment it should strengthen her position. You have expressed concern about the possible effect of the recent visit of the Chinese leaders to Pakistan on relations between Pakistan and India. As you know, Chairman Liu Shao-chi came to Pakistan in response to a long-standing invitation extended to him during my visit to China last year.
I see no reason why this visit should come in the way of implementing the Tashkent Agreement by either country. Ambassador Bowles has asked that two long cables of his be called to your personal attention.
They are attached. Straws in the wind indicate that the Soviets are trying hard to undercut the new Indo-US cooperation generated by Mrs.
Gandhi's visit here and subsequent progress on economic programs. The attack focuses on the wide range of economic reforms we and the World Bank are pressing, which the Soviets and their Indian backers see as a threat to socialism. While we have a lot of momentum, Soviet prestige is high, and many Indians are uncertain of our intentions, so the battle will not be one-sided.
Second, Bowles sees military aid as an important key to this struggle. This is where the USSR can put the heat on most effectively, and where the Indians are most sensitive. We think Soviet deliveries of military equipment have already slowed. Bowles fears resumption of US military aid to Pakistan would play right into Soviet hands.
Third, Bowles has long felt that our military aid to Pakistan has been a mistake. India is the big power in the subcontinent, and it opposes China.
He feels we muffed our opportunity in after the Chicom invasion by not moving into India with large-scale military aid to pre-empt the Russians, and he feels our unwarranted concern for the Paks led us down that false path. He would like to see us resume limited military aid to India now, but says that resuming lethal aid to Pakistan--even spare parts--would undo all the progress we have made with India in the last few months.
He would not resume any military aid to the Paks unless they renounce Chicom aid and cooperate in the defense of the subcontinent against China.
Our view is: 1, India is, indeed, more important than Pakistan. But 2. It is the Indian interest as well as ours to keep a Western option open to Ayub. In this spirit Secretary Rusk is considering an instruction to Bowles which he will check with us suggesting he discuss frankly with the Indians how we keep that door open for Ayub without endangering India.
The Indians have to recognize that our dilemma is theirs because they have a bigger stake than we do in where Ayub and Pakistan go. Most of the town feels we will have to get back into at least selective sales to both sides when we have established a better political and economic framework, and agreed force levels.
We are not, therefore, asking you for a decision now. We will wish to make some concrete progress towards limiting military spending on both sides before we put some operational choices to you. Drafted by Handley. Nehru this morning at am. Bell, Rostow and Handley were present. The President began the meeting by saying how delighted he was to meet with Minister Mehta. He said that he had had good reports about the Minister's discussions in Washington and invited him to tell him about what was going on in India.
The President added that there was no area or people in which we were more interested or more concerned about. He said that the recent visit of Prime Minister Gandhi has been applauded in the United States and that we were inspired by what India was doing. Minister Mehta made the following points: 1 He had just returned from Canada. These changes kept people like him going.
He spoke at length about progress in agriculture, family planning, and about the way younger people were coming to the fore. Farmers want to break away from traditions, putting pressure on him for electricity, fertilizer and irrigation. They are "clamoring for changes. The President recalled that a substantial part of the talk he had with Prime Minister Nehru when he visited India concerned rural electrification. They say they cannot go back to their states without some commitment on this subject.
In five states annual targets for "the loop" had been reached within five months. Twenty-nine million IUD's would be fitted within the next five years. India is no longer an under-developed country, although still not fully developed.
Within a few years India would be largely self-reliant in transportation and power.Each year, we review your comments and try to provide information on topics that you have requested, and share materials that will directly benefit you in your work. IAAO President-Elect Randy Ripperger, who is Polk County Assessor from Des Moines, Iowa, will speak at the opening session, and at various times during the Conference.