agency tries to argue they were denied cross exam of witnesses
To gain an awareness of DHS legal team, and their in house director of EEOC office at DHS, we see
how unscrupulous they are on destroying the complainant morally, delay tactics of appealing and then delay tactics of reconsideration.
d. Opportunity for Cross Examination or Discovery
We disagree with the agency’s assertion that it was placed at a
disadvantage in having been deprived of an opportunity to conduct
discovery and cross-examine complainant’s witnesses. We remind ICE that
it was the agency (DHS) that issued the discrimination finding and ordered
various remedies, which included an order stating that “complainant should
submit a claim for [compensatory] damages, if any, to [the Director of
the EEO Office at DHS].” DHS certainly was not precluded from ordering
ICE to conduct a supplemental EEO investigation on compensatory damages,
which could have minimally included a fact-finding conference, enabling
the agency to conduct direct and cross-examinations. Moreover, there is
nothing in the Commission’s regulations which would have precluded ICE
from carrying out the DHS order (as written) in a more thorough manner
(e.g., by conducting a thorough EEO investigation on compensatory damages,
including information and document requests and scheduling a fact-finding
conference). The agency was not placed at any disadvantage, but rather
failed to take advantage of numerous opportunities to obtain additional
information.
reference:
Milton Aponte,
Complainant,
v.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security,
(Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200635321
Agency No. 040228
