• About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Service
  • DMCA Notice
  • Affiliate Agreement
  • Anti-Spam
  • Disclaimer
  • Sitemap
Civil Rights Federal
  • Home
    • Home – Layout 1
    • Home – Layout 2
    • Home – Layout 3
    • Home – Layout 4
    • Home – Layout 5
    • Home – Layout 6
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW
    • All
    • Business
    • Politics
    • Science
    • World

    Hillary Clinton in white pantsuit for Trump inauguration

    Amazon has 143 billion reasons to keep adding more perks to Prime

    Shooting More than 40 Years of New York’s Halloween Parade

    These Are the 5 Big Tech Stories to Watch in 2017

    Why Millennials Need to Save Twice as Much as Boomers Did

    compensatory damages

    Doctors take inspiration from online dating to build organ transplant AI

    Trending Tags

    • Trump Inauguration
    • United Stated
    • White House
    • Market Stories
    • Election Results
  • DISCRIMINATION
    • All
    • Apps
    • Gadget
    • Mobile
    • Startup

    The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild gameplay on the Nintendo Switch

    Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Review

    macOS Sierra review: Mac users get a modest update this year

    Hands on: Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 review

    The Last Guardian Playstation 4 Game review

    These Are the 5 Big Tech Stories to Watch in 2017

    Trending Tags

    • Nintendo Switch
    • CES 2017
    • Playstation 4 Pro
    • Mark Zuckerberg
  • RESOURCES
    • All
    • Gaming
    • Movie
    • Music
    • Sports

    The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild gameplay on the Nintendo Switch

    macOS Sierra review: Mac users get a modest update this year

    Hands on: Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 review

    Heroes of the Storm Global Championship 2017 starts tomorrow, here’s what you need to know

    Harnessing the power of VR with Power Rangers and Snapdragon 835

    So you want to be a startup investor? Here are things you should know

  • SITEMAP
    • All
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Health
    • Travel

    Shooting More than 40 Years of New York’s Halloween Parade

    Heroes of the Storm Global Championship 2017 starts tomorrow, here’s what you need to know

    Why Millennials Need to Save Twice as Much as Boomers Did

    compensatory damages

    Doctors take inspiration from online dating to build organ transplant AI

    How couples can solve lighting disagreements for good

    Ducati launch: Lorenzo and Dovizioso’s Desmosedici

    Trending Tags

    • Golden Globes
    • Game of Thrones
    • MotoGP 2017
    • eSports
    • Fashion Week
  • Review

    The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild gameplay on the Nintendo Switch

    Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Review

    macOS Sierra review: Mac users get a modest update this year

    Hands on: Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 review

    The Last Guardian Playstation 4 Game review

    Intel Core i7-7700K ‘Kaby Lake’ review

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • Home – Layout 1
    • Home – Layout 2
    • Home – Layout 3
    • Home – Layout 4
    • Home – Layout 5
    • Home – Layout 6
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW
    • All
    • Business
    • Politics
    • Science
    • World

    Hillary Clinton in white pantsuit for Trump inauguration

    Amazon has 143 billion reasons to keep adding more perks to Prime

    Shooting More than 40 Years of New York’s Halloween Parade

    These Are the 5 Big Tech Stories to Watch in 2017

    Why Millennials Need to Save Twice as Much as Boomers Did

    compensatory damages

    Doctors take inspiration from online dating to build organ transplant AI

    Trending Tags

    • Trump Inauguration
    • United Stated
    • White House
    • Market Stories
    • Election Results
  • DISCRIMINATION
    • All
    • Apps
    • Gadget
    • Mobile
    • Startup

    The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild gameplay on the Nintendo Switch

    Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Review

    macOS Sierra review: Mac users get a modest update this year

    Hands on: Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 review

    The Last Guardian Playstation 4 Game review

    These Are the 5 Big Tech Stories to Watch in 2017

    Trending Tags

    • Nintendo Switch
    • CES 2017
    • Playstation 4 Pro
    • Mark Zuckerberg
  • RESOURCES
    • All
    • Gaming
    • Movie
    • Music
    • Sports

    The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild gameplay on the Nintendo Switch

    macOS Sierra review: Mac users get a modest update this year

    Hands on: Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 review

    Heroes of the Storm Global Championship 2017 starts tomorrow, here’s what you need to know

    Harnessing the power of VR with Power Rangers and Snapdragon 835

    So you want to be a startup investor? Here are things you should know

  • SITEMAP
    • All
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Health
    • Travel

    Shooting More than 40 Years of New York’s Halloween Parade

    Heroes of the Storm Global Championship 2017 starts tomorrow, here’s what you need to know

    Why Millennials Need to Save Twice as Much as Boomers Did

    compensatory damages

    Doctors take inspiration from online dating to build organ transplant AI

    How couples can solve lighting disagreements for good

    Ducati launch: Lorenzo and Dovizioso’s Desmosedici

    Trending Tags

    • Golden Globes
    • Game of Thrones
    • MotoGP 2017
    • eSports
    • Fashion Week
  • Review

    The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild gameplay on the Nintendo Switch

    Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun Review

    macOS Sierra review: Mac users get a modest update this year

    Hands on: Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 review

    The Last Guardian Playstation 4 Game review

    Intel Core i7-7700K ‘Kaby Lake’ review

No Result
View All Result
Civil Rights Federal
No Result
View All Result
Home Discrimination Claims Protected EEO Activity

Terminated for no genuine issues of material fact

civilrightsfed by civilrightsfed
February 1, 2020
in African American Female, Discrimination Claims, National Origin Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Reprisal Discrimination, Wrongful Termination
0 0
0
disability
0
SHARES
97
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Filing an EEOC Claim with multiple discriminations I’m sorry to inform you, helps the agency more than it helps the complainant, because the agency can work to reduce your award from the getgo. If they can remove one of your claims, it will reduce the award.

disability

 

In this EEOC claim, almost all of the discrimination’s were found not to be discrimination’s, except the disability discrimination. 

 

Her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of:

race (Black)

national origin (Black)

sex (female)

reprisal (prior EEO activity)

physical disability (bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with ulnar neuropathy)

 

 

Donnett G. Jenkins v. United States Postal Service

01980547

March 28, 2000

Donnett G. Jenkins,                  )

Complainant,                        )

)  Appeal No.  01980547

v.                               )  Agency No.  1A106104094/4294

)  Hearing No. 160-97-8549X/8550X

William J. Henderson,                )

Postmaster General,                  )

United States Postal Service,        )

(Northeast/New York Metro Region),   )

Agency.                             )

)

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal from a final agency decision (FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of race (Black), national origin (Black), sex (female), reprisal (prior EEO activity), and physical disability (bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with ulnar neuropathy), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405).

The following decision VACATES AND REMANDS the agency’s FAD.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed as a Distribution (Letter Sorting Machine) Clerk at the agency’s Mount Vernon, New York postal facility.  She filed two formal complaints against the agency, claiming that she was discriminated against on the bases of race, sex, national origin, and reprisal as follows:

(1) on July 15, 1994 she was charged with AWOL (absence without leave), and on July 25, 1994, her supervisor (S) failed to conduct an exit interview in connection with her removal; and

(2) on June 17, 1994, she did not receive payment for sick leave as she had requested, and her employment was terminated with a Letter of Removal (LOR) which charged her with abusive language toward S, and failure to meet attendance requirements.

At the conclusion of the investigation of these complaints, complainant was provided with a copy of the investigative file and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).  The AJ ordered that the case be remanded back to the agency for a supplemental investigation upon her finding that complainant had also claimed discrimination on the basis of disability, and also raised the issue of the agency’s failure to accommodate this disability by refusing to excuse her use of leave. At the conclusion of this supplemental investigation, the AJ rendered a Recommended Decision (RD) without a hearing. Assuming arguendo that complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination on all of the claimed bases, the AJ then concluded that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its failure to timely approve the July 15, 1994, leave request, instead charging complainant with AWOL, namely that due to the hectic pace on the day the request was submitted, and the Manager’s rush to leave on vacation, the approval was delayed and AWOL was charged as a result. The AJ additionally found that the agency articulated a legitimate  nondiscriminatory reason for the Manager’s failure to conduct an exit interview when complainant was terminated, when he testified that he did not conduct these interviews for any departing employees.  The AJ then held that complainant failed to submit evidence to show that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination, and recommended a finding of no discrimination. Again assuming that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established on all bases, the AJ found that the agency proffered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its failure to pay complainant for her sick leave on the date in question, noting that the record showed that a Data Clerk error was responsible, and not S.  Again, the AJ recommended a finding of no discrimination finding that complainant failed to produce any evidence to suggest that the agency’s reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

Regarding her removal, the AJ determined complainant was unable to identify similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably when they used abusive language toward their supervisors, noting that none of the comparators identified by complainant had a disciplinary record similar to complainant’s.  The AJ also held that although complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal regarding the abusive language charge, she failed to show that reprisal was a factor in the agency’s decision to terminate her employment for this reason.  The AJ additionally determined that this charge, standing alone, absent the showing of a discriminatory motive, was sufficient to justify complainant’s removal.

Accordingly, the AJ recommended a finding of no discrimination on this issue.  However, with respect to the charge that complainant used excessive leave, the AJ recommended a finding of discrimination, holding that the agency failed to accommodate complainant’s disability when it did not excuse these absences.  Based on this finding of discrimination, the AJ ordered the agency to:  pay complainant for all leave, medical expenses and associated costs resulting from its failure to accommodate up to the effective date of removal; to pay reasonable attorney fees; and to post a Notice regarding this finding. The FAD adopted that part of the RD which recommended findings of no discrimination, but rejected the AJ’s finding of discrimination regarding the failure to accommodate issue.  Furthermore, on appeal, the agency contends that the AJ erred when she failed to conduct a hearing on this issue, arguing that issues of material fact were in dispute regarding the existence of a nexus between complainant’s disability and her leave requests, and whether the agency knew, or should have known that this leave was being requested as an accommodation.  The agency also argues that it was not given an opportunity to present an undue hardship defense. In her appeal, complainant also argues that the AJ erred in failing to conduct a hearing given the complexity of the issues and the credibility dispute regarding whether she used abusive language as charged, and also whether this was sufficient to justify her removal in light of a union arbitration decision that it was not.<2> However, regarding complainant’s removal, we find that the AJ erred in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact. The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact.  This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The United States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate where the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive law, no genuine issue of material fact exists.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).  An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.  Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988).  In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate investigation, complainant has failed to establish the essential elements of his or her case.  Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, 839 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1988).  In determining whether to grant summary judgment, the trier of fact’s function is not to weigh the evidence and render a determination as to the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether there exists a genuine factual dispute.  Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.  The courts have been clear that summary judgment is not to be used as a “trial by affidavit.” Redmand v.  arrener, 516 F.2d 766, 768 (1st Cir. 1975).  The Commission has noted that when a party submits an affidavit and credibility is at issue, “there is a need for strident cross-examination and summary judgment on such evidence is improper.” Pedersen v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05940339 (February 24, 1995). We note that the hearing process is intended to be an extension of the investigative process, designed to “ensur[e] that the parties have a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and supplement the record and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.”  See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 6-1 (November 9, 1999). “Truncation of this process, while material facts are still in dispute and the credibility of witnesses is still ripe for challenge, improperly deprives complainant of a full and fair investigation of her claims.”  Mi S. Bang v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01961575 (March 26, 1998).  See also Peavley v.  United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950628 (October 31, 1996); Chronister v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940578 (April 23, 1995). Although we need not now determine whether complainant is a qualified disabled individual under the Rehabilitation Act, even assuming that she is for the purpose of analysis, we find that the AJ erred in failing to conduct a hearing in this case. Specifically, in reviewing the record, we agree with the agency that it is a matter of dispute as to whether complainant’s many leave requests were related to her claimed disability. Although the AJ finds that this nexus exists, our review of the record fails to confirm this because many of the leave requests do not indicate a reason for the leave.  Testimony of both complainant and S would be pertinent to this inquiry as complainant claims that she discussed her need for leave on several occasions with S.  Moreover, the AJ includes in her analysis the leave used by complainant in connection with a neck and shoulder injury, in addition to her carpal tunnel disability, but does not address whether the former is a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.  Further development of the record on this issue is necessary as a preliminary step to defining the disability at issue, and in determining whether complainant is an individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act, all of which must be ascertained prior to determining whether there is a nexus between complainant’s leave and her “disability.” Additionally, further development is necessary, via testimony of the responsible agency officials and complainant, as to whether the agency was on notice, either actually or constructively, that complainant’s use of leave constituted a request for an accommodation.  See McNeil v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 05960436 (July 28, 1998). Furthermore, a hearing is needed in order to provide the agency with an opportunity to set forth an undue burden defense.  See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (March 1, 1999). We also find that a hearing is necessary in light of the credibility issues involving the abusive language charge, where the complainant denies engaging in this conduct as charged, and where the AJ relies only on the credibility determination, based on “witness demeanor,” in the union arbitration proceeding as a means of resolving this evidentiary conflict. Further development is also needed to address the issue of whether this charge, if proven, is sufficient to justify complainant’s removal in light of the arbitration determination that it is not. Additionally, we find that a hearing should also be conducted regarding complainant’s claims of discrimination regarding the handling of her leave and S’s failure to conduct an exit interview, as more fully referenced above, so that the entire matter of this complainant can be considered by the AJ. In summary, there are simply too many unresolved issues which require an assessment as to the credibility of the various management officials and complainant herself.  Therefore, judgment as a matter of law on these issues should not have been granted.

Accordingly, we VACATE the FAD in pertinent part, and REMAND this matter to the agency in accordance with this decision and the ORDER below.

ORDER

The complaint is remanded to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC field office for scheduling of a hearing in an expeditious manner. The agency is directed to submit a copy of the complaint file to the EEOC Hearings Unit within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.  The agency shall provide written notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below  that the complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on the complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109 and the agency shall issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C.  20036.  The agency’s report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the

complainant.  If the agency does not comply with the Commission’s order,

the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.

29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).  The complainant also has the right to file a

civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior

to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.  See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. §

1614.503(g).  Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a

civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph

below entitled “Right to File A Civil Action.”  29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407

and 1614.408.  A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the

underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993).  If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated.  See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS – ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED

WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS OF

RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY’S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405); Equal Employment Opportunity Management

Directive for 29 C.F.R. § 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of

Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box

19848, Washington, D.C. 20036.  In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604).  The request or opposition must

also include proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request.  Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration.  The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances.  See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint.  However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision.  In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission.  If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS THE DEFENDANT IN

THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD OR DEPARTMENT

HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS OR HER FULL NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE.

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.

“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the

local office, facility or department in which you work.  Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security.  See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court.  Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action.  Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

(“Right to File A Civil Action”).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

March 28, 2000

Date                         Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed.  I certify that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant’s representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

Date                         Equal Employment Assistant

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC’s federal sector complaint process went into effect.  These regulations apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative process.  Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the present appeal.  The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the Commission’s website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.

2 The arbitration decision held that the removal was justified based on the abuse of leave charge, but not on the abusive language charge.

Tags: fadletter of removallornational originracerdRecommended Decisionreprisalundue burdenundue hardshipwrongful termination
civilrightsfed

civilrightsfed

Stay Connected test

  • 2.1k Fans
  • 139 Followers
  • 27.7k Followers
  • 205k Subscribers
  • 23.9k Followers
  • 99 Subscribers
  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest

can you work for TSA with type II diabetes?

February 2, 2020

Federal Employee Attorney Information

February 4, 2020
Non-Pecuniary Damages

What are non-pecuniary damages?

February 1, 2020

DOUGLAS FACTORS – not to be missed by you

February 4, 2020

A Year of Lives Lost to Diseases Science Has Yet to Tame

0

5 Fashion stories from around the web you might have missed this week

0

Smooth-Talking Hacker Remote-Wipes Reporter’s iPad, MacBook

0

You Have To Watch Mariah Carey’s New Year’s Eve Nightmare in Times Square

0
holocaust-museums

Holocaust Museums in the United States

September 11, 2020

United States District Court is the next step

February 4, 2020

Voluntary settlement attempts

February 4, 2020

DOUGLAS FACTORS – not to be missed by you

February 4, 2020

Recent News

holocaust-museums

Holocaust Museums in the United States

September 11, 2020

United States District Court is the next step

February 4, 2020

Voluntary settlement attempts

February 4, 2020

DOUGLAS FACTORS – not to be missed by you

February 4, 2020
Civil Rights Federal

We bring you the best Premium WordPress Themes that perfect for news, magazine, personal blog, etc. Check our landing page for details.

Follow Us

Categories

  • ADA
  • Administrative Judge
  • Administrative Remedies
  • African American Female
  • Aggrieved Employee
  • AJ
  • Anti Semitism
  • Apps
  • Attorney
  • Attorney Fees
  • Award Reduction
  • Back Pay
  • Back Pay Act
  • Best Qualified
  • Bullying
  • Business
  • Calculations
  • Carpenter
  • Case
  • Catholic Religion
  • Chain Of Command
  • Chiropractic
  • Christian Religion
  • Civil Action
  • Civil Rights Act
  • Civil rights Activist
  • Civil Rights Attorney
  • Class Action Attorney
  • Compensatory Damages
  • Complainant
  • Constructive Discharge
  • Court Records
  • Credibility
  • Damages
  • Database
  • Denied Awards
  • Denied Training
  • Department Of Justice
  • Department Of Veterans Affairs
  • Deposition
  • Deposition
  • Depression
  • Destruction Of Evidence
  • Disabilities
  • Disability Discrimination
  • Disability Retirement
  • Discrimination Claims
  • Dismissal Decisons
  • Disparate Treatment
  • District Court
  • Doctor
  • Documentation
  • DOJ
  • Douglas Factors
  • Earnings
  • EEOC
  • EEOC Administration
  • EEOC Appeal
  • EEOC Claim
  • EEOC Complaint
  • EEOC Counselor
  • EEOC Discrimination
  • EEOC Lawyer
  • EEOC Settlement Agreement
  • EEOC Training
  • Emotional Distresss
  • Emotional Injuries
  • Employment Attorney
  • Employment law
  • Equitable Relief
  • Evidence Of Record
  • Examine
  • Expense Report
  • expenses
  • Expert Witness
  • FAA
  • FAD
  • Failure To Disclose
  • Family
  • FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
  • Family Medical Leave Act
  • Fashion
  • Federal Agencies
  • Federal Agency
  • Federal Court
  • Federal Employee
  • Federal Employee Attorney
  • Federal Employee Attorney
  • Federal Employee Discrimination
  • Federal Employment
  • Federal Investigator
  • Federal Judiciary
  • Federal Laws
  • Federal Retirement
  • Female
  • Filing Complaint
  • Final Agency Decision
  • FMLA Attorney
  • FMLA Discrimination
  • FOIA
  • Food
  • Funeral Cost
  • Future Damages
  • Gadget
  • Gaming
  • Gender Discrimination
  • Good Faith
  • Health
  • Hospital Bill
  • Hostile Work Environment
  • Inappropriate Behavior
  • Incidences
  • Individual Right Of Action
  • Invoices
  • Jewish Religion
  • Jurisdiction
  • Law
  • Lawsuit
  • Legal Actions
  • Legal Assistance
  • Legal References
  • Legal Representation
  • Lifestyle
  • Make Whole
  • Manager
  • Medical Claims Review
  • Medical Documentation
  • Medical Evidence
  • Medical Expenses
  • Medical Opinion
  • Medical Reimbursement
  • memory loss
  • Mental Disability
  • Mental Impairment
  • Misconduct
  • Mistakes
  • Mobile
  • Monstrously Excessive
  • Movie
  • MSPB
  • MSPB
  • MSPB Attorney
  • Music
  • National Origin Discrimination
  • NELA
  • News
  • No Fear Act
  • Non Pecuniary
  • Non Selection
  • Non Selection
  • Out Of Pocket Expense
  • Past Pecuniary
  • Pay Discrimination
  • Pecuniary Damages
  • Pecuniary Losses
  • Personnel Files
  • Physician
  • Politics
  • Postal Worker
  • Pre Existing Medical Condition
  • Privacy Laws
  • Promotion Discrimination
  • Protected EEO Activity
  • Punitive Damages
  • Racial Discrimination
  • Rape
  • Reasonable Accommodation
  • Reasonable Accommodation
  • Record Keeping
  • Referee Doctor
  • Reimbursement
  • Religious Discrimination
  • Remedy A Harm
  • Reprisal Discrimination
  • Request Accommodation
  • Request Accommodation
  • Restore Annual Leave
  • Restore Sick Leave
  • Retaliation Claims
  • Retroactive Promotion
  • Review
  • Right To Civil Action
  • Right To Sue
  • Saving Medical Bills
  • Saving Reciepts
  • Science
  • Seperation
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Settlement Offer
  • Settlements
  • Sexual Discrimination
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Similar Cases
  • Single Incident
  • Smart Agreeement
  • Sports
  • Spouse
  • Spouse
  • Stall Tactics
  • Startup
  • Substantial Evidence
  • Supervisor
  • Symptoms
  • Tech
  • Travel
  • TSP
  • Uncategorized
  • USPS
  • Valuing Your Case
  • voided settlements
  • Winning EEOC claims
  • Witness
  • Witness
  • World
  • Wrongful Termination

Browse by Category

  • ADA
  • Administrative Judge
  • Administrative Remedies
  • African American Female
  • Aggrieved Employee
  • AJ
  • Anti Semitism
  • Apps
  • Attorney
  • Attorney Fees
  • Award Reduction
  • Back Pay
  • Back Pay Act
  • Best Qualified
  • Bullying
  • Business
  • Calculations
  • Carpenter
  • Case
  • Catholic Religion
  • Chain Of Command
  • Chiropractic
  • Christian Religion
  • Civil Action
  • Civil Rights Act
  • Civil rights Activist
  • Civil Rights Attorney
  • Class Action Attorney
  • Compensatory Damages
  • Complainant
  • Constructive Discharge
  • Court Records
  • Credibility
  • Damages
  • Database
  • Denied Awards
  • Denied Training
  • Department Of Justice
  • Department Of Veterans Affairs
  • Deposition
  • Deposition
  • Depression
  • Destruction Of Evidence
  • Disabilities
  • Disability Discrimination
  • Disability Retirement
  • Discrimination Claims
  • Dismissal Decisons
  • Disparate Treatment
  • District Court
  • Doctor
  • Documentation
  • DOJ
  • Douglas Factors
  • Earnings
  • EEOC
  • EEOC Administration
  • EEOC Appeal
  • EEOC Claim
  • EEOC Complaint
  • EEOC Counselor
  • EEOC Discrimination
  • EEOC Lawyer
  • EEOC Settlement Agreement
  • EEOC Training
  • Emotional Distresss
  • Emotional Injuries
  • Employment Attorney
  • Employment law
  • Equitable Relief
  • Evidence Of Record
  • Examine
  • Expense Report
  • expenses
  • Expert Witness
  • FAA
  • FAD
  • Failure To Disclose
  • Family
  • FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
  • Family Medical Leave Act
  • Fashion
  • Federal Agencies
  • Federal Agency
  • Federal Court
  • Federal Employee
  • Federal Employee Attorney
  • Federal Employee Attorney
  • Federal Employee Discrimination
  • Federal Employment
  • Federal Investigator
  • Federal Judiciary
  • Federal Laws
  • Federal Retirement
  • Female
  • Filing Complaint
  • Final Agency Decision
  • FMLA Attorney
  • FMLA Discrimination
  • FOIA
  • Food
  • Funeral Cost
  • Future Damages
  • Gadget
  • Gaming
  • Gender Discrimination
  • Good Faith
  • Health
  • Hospital Bill
  • Hostile Work Environment
  • Inappropriate Behavior
  • Incidences
  • Individual Right Of Action
  • Invoices
  • Jewish Religion
  • Jurisdiction
  • Law
  • Lawsuit
  • Legal Actions
  • Legal Assistance
  • Legal References
  • Legal Representation
  • Lifestyle
  • Make Whole
  • Manager
  • Medical Claims Review
  • Medical Documentation
  • Medical Evidence
  • Medical Expenses
  • Medical Opinion
  • Medical Reimbursement
  • memory loss
  • Mental Disability
  • Mental Impairment
  • Misconduct
  • Mistakes
  • Mobile
  • Monstrously Excessive
  • Movie
  • MSPB
  • MSPB
  • MSPB Attorney
  • Music
  • National Origin Discrimination
  • NELA
  • News
  • No Fear Act
  • Non Pecuniary
  • Non Selection
  • Non Selection
  • Out Of Pocket Expense
  • Past Pecuniary
  • Pay Discrimination
  • Pecuniary Damages
  • Pecuniary Losses
  • Personnel Files
  • Physician
  • Politics
  • Postal Worker
  • Pre Existing Medical Condition
  • Privacy Laws
  • Promotion Discrimination
  • Protected EEO Activity
  • Punitive Damages
  • Racial Discrimination
  • Rape
  • Reasonable Accommodation
  • Reasonable Accommodation
  • Record Keeping
  • Referee Doctor
  • Reimbursement
  • Religious Discrimination
  • Remedy A Harm
  • Reprisal Discrimination
  • Request Accommodation
  • Request Accommodation
  • Restore Annual Leave
  • Restore Sick Leave
  • Retaliation Claims
  • Retroactive Promotion
  • Review
  • Right To Civil Action
  • Right To Sue
  • Saving Medical Bills
  • Saving Reciepts
  • Science
  • Seperation
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Settlement Offer
  • Settlements
  • Sexual Discrimination
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Similar Cases
  • Single Incident
  • Smart Agreeement
  • Sports
  • Spouse
  • Spouse
  • Stall Tactics
  • Startup
  • Substantial Evidence
  • Supervisor
  • Symptoms
  • Tech
  • Travel
  • TSP
  • Uncategorized
  • USPS
  • Valuing Your Case
  • voided settlements
  • Winning EEOC claims
  • Witness
  • Witness
  • World
  • Wrongful Termination

Recent News

holocaust-museums

Holocaust Museums in the United States

September 11, 2020

United States District Court is the next step

February 4, 2020
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Service
  • DMCA Notice
  • Affiliate Agreement
  • Anti-Spam
  • Disclaimer
  • Sitemap

© 2018 Civil Rights Federal - Civil Rights Federal CivilRights.

No Result
View All Result

© 2018 Civil Rights Federal - Civil Rights Federal CivilRights.

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok