Jump to content


Photo

Class Action Time?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 RaggedyAnn

RaggedyAnn

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationA legend in my own mind

Posted 27 October 2015 - 09:49 PM

For 1801.If anyone is concerned about whether persons that have been hired over others have college degrees, ask for certified college transcripts for these individuals be submitted in discovery or court. The school sends them sealed straight to the requesting person. That way they cannot be tampered with. I have had my degrees used by more federal employees than I can count as the managers who are the relatives/cronies have removed mine from my personnel file to hinder my ability to compete while letting their relatives/cronies put their names on it to improve their ability to compete. I have had it done to me 10 times already. One can go to the US Department of Education website to search to if the college listed on the degree is accredited. That came about after the 2006 Diploma Mill case in Washington state where a bunch of federal employees were buying diploma mill degrees to get jobs and/or promotions.

I don't know if you are aware of this ruling. Maybe you can use it in your case. I just summarized the case law.

On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court again increased employers’ exposure to employment discrimination claims. In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. ___ (2011) (pdf), the unanimous Court concluded that employers may be held liable for unlawful discrimination if a lower level supervisor influences an adverse employment decision, even if the decision is ultimately made by an independent manager. The theory that an employer may be liable when it relies on facts supplied by a biased supervisor when making an adverse employment decision is known as the "cat’s paw" theory.

The focus of the Court’s decision was whether the supervisors’ anti-military animus was "a motivating factor in the employer’s action," in violation of the USERRA. Importantly, and unfortunately for employers, the Court pointed out that the "motivating factor" language from the USERRA is also found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, it is clear that the "cat’s paw" theory is viable under Title VII.

 

Good luck

 

 



#2 Fedupwrkr

Fedupwrkr

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 04 September 2015 - 05:11 PM

I second that, I wish you luck 1801.  A couple of years ago a supervisor position opened up, it was posted at USAJOBS, applications accepted; however, no one was ever interviewed.  Why was no one ever interviewed?  It was because one of the applicants already knew he was going to be chosen, and in the end, was chosen.  I knew one of the other applicants that applied.  He was not too happy since he wasn't even interviewed for the position.  He had been in the same position a year and half more than the person chosen.  They were both white in case anyone wonders.  I thought ATF management was suppose to abide by the competitive hiring process.  I guess not since they do so with impunity and no one will hold their feet to the fire due to unethical hiring practices.



#3 GoodWorker

GoodWorker

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 August 2015 - 07:37 PM

1801 I wish you luck,

 

I've had my share of issues with the selection process for hires.  From the board I interviewed with telling me they are only looking for women candidates to one another telling me they've already hired someone else for the job.  And then lately having them hire me, and then wait for over a year only to tell me my hiring offer "timed out" and that I should re-apply and then they do not hire me on a second time!  Yup, they stink like a sewer there so if you can stick them then I say good for you.

Pre-selection, nepotism, favor pay back, and questions provided in advance all lead to an inferior agency.



#4 James Miller

James Miller

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationWV

Posted 25 August 2015 - 07:22 AM

1801 I wish you luck,

 

I've had my share of issues with the selection process for hires.  From the board I interviewed with telling me they are only looking for women candidates to one another telling me they've already hired someone else for the job.  And then lately having them hire me, and then wait for over a year only to tell me my hiring offer "timed out" and that I should re-apply and then they do not hire me on a second time!  Yup, they stink like a sewer there so if you can stick them then I say good for you.



#5 abteilung

abteilung

    Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • LocationAmerica

Posted 15 August 2015 - 04:08 PM

Cronyism is probably the cause of most of ATF's ills.  And when I say "cronyism," I include family connections -- the "legacies" who not only got on the job but get promoted because they're related to someone else.  For example, The Divine Right of the Reihls.



#6 1801

1801

    FNG

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 15 August 2015 - 07:37 AM

I am acting as the Class Agent on EEO Class Complaint Case # ATF-2015-01870 which is based on Race, African American, Color, Black, Sex, Female or Male, Retaliation/Reprisal, Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact on Promotion Non-Selections.  I have made the BQL, Interviewed and Not Selected for over 13 Supervisory, Industry Operations Investigator (Area Supervisor) GS-1801-14 positions.

 

I have over 25 years of experience with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ranging from Imports Branch, National Firearms Act (NFA) Branch, Alcohol Labeling and Formulations Branch, Field Operations, IOI Pittsburgh, PA 5 years, SIOI Tallahassee, FL 8 years and the ATF National Academy 1 year.  Various training such as the Leadership Enhancement Program (LEP).  Bachelor of Science Degree in Human Resources, Associate in Science Degree in Business Management and Associate in Science Degree in Marketing Management and Outstanding Performance Evaluations.

 

DISPARATE IMPACT

 

A successful disparate impact case is established when the Plaintiff identifies specific employment practices and shows that such practices caused a disparate impact on the protected group.  Watson v Fort Worth Band & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1998).  The first requirement, of needing to identify specific employment practices, cannot always be met in those situations where an employer's decision-making process cannot be readily separated into separate practices; in such instances, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allows the Plaintiff to meet the "specific practice" requirement by analyzing the employer's entire decision making process as one practice.  42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k)(1)(B(i); see also Smith V. Xerox Corp., 196F. 3d 358, 367-68 (2nd Cir. 199).  Using these standards, I, Class Agent, can demonstrate (1) that the selection process is strongly influenced by cronyism.

 

Cronyism is the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.  Cronyism by itself is not evidence of discrimination.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and their representatives violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), The Civil Rights Act of 1991, NO FEAR ACT and The Merit Promotion Plan, ATF O 2311.1A.  According to the NO FEAR ACT, Federal employees with personnel authority may not;

 

1.  IMPROPERLY INFLUENCE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.

 

2.  VIOLATE THE MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES.

 

3.  IMPROPER INFLUENCE AN APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW FROM COMPETITION FOR A POSITION.

 

4.  IMPROPERLY INFLUENCE EMPLOYMENT RECOMMENDATION.

 

Cronyism is not a violation of Title VII but it's clearly a violation of the NO FEAR ACT.

 

According to the Merit Promotion Plan, ATF O 2311.1A, the Merit Promotion Board, which consist of five members who are at an equivalent grade level or higher than the position being filled.  At least one representative shall, but as many as three may, be from the recruiting directorate, including the incumbent of the position being filled, if possible.  Another member shall be from another job series and directorate, with the Chair assigning any remaining member(s) as my be necessary, to complete the MPB.  The Chair may serve on any MPB (page E-2).  The Merit Promotion Board Panel Members receive the Best Qualified List (BQL) of applicants, the Merit Promotion Board Panel Members does not follow any specific procedure or process in vetting the applicants to determine their rankings.  As such, it is fully acceptable to (as opposed to focusing on one specific policy or practice) determine possible disparate impact.  Also because the Merit Promotion Board Panel Members selection procedure was a is loosely structured, with no firm parameters and no strict guidelines in place, and because it relied heavily on recommendations from the Merit Promotion Board Panel Members, this disparate impact analysis is necessarily about the ATF's Merit Promotion Board Panel Members subjective decision-making process.  Watson, 487 U.S. 977, 990 (1988) and (2) by the statistical evidence which showed that the data for selections between September 11, 2009 - June 27, 2013, were twenty four (24) Supervisory, Industry Operations Investigator (Area Supervisors) positions announced.  The twenty four (24) Supervisory, Industry Operations Investigator (Area Supervisor) selected were all Caucasian Male or Caucasian Female.

 

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) John C. Truong, Washington, DC stated that, "No African Americans were selected September 11, 2009 - June 27, 2013 for the Supervisory, Industry Operations Investigator (Area Supervisor) positions".

 

According to the Merit Promotion Plan, ATF O 2311.1A, Supervisors and Management Officials shall: (3) Ensure that eligible minorities, women and persons with non-disqualifying disabilities are fully considered for all positions and that applicable affirmative action plans are followed (page A-2 and A-3).

 

EEOC MD 110 - Chapter 8 Complaints of Class Discrimination in the Federal Government.

 

1.  Section 1614.204 of Title 29 C.F.R. provides for processing class complaints of discrimination.  A class is defined as a group of employees, or applicants who are alleged to have been adversely affected by an agency personnel policy or practice which discriminates against the group on the basis of their common race, color religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.  A class complaint is a written complaint of discrimination filed on behalf of the class by the agent of the class, alleging that the class is so numerous that a consolidated complaint by the members of the class is impractical, that there are questions of fact common to the class, that the claims of the agent of the class are typical of the claims of the class, and that the agent of the class and, if represented, the representative, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class

 

I, Class Agent, request that if you have not been selected (Non-Selection) for a promotion in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives based on Race, African American, Color, Black, Sex, Female or Male, Retaliation/Reprisal, Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact to join the Class Action Complaint Case # ATF-2015-01870.

 

Please write to the address below if you wish to join as a member and you meet the criteria.  Please send your name, address and a contact telephone number.  I will contact you once I receive your information to tell you my name, Class Agent, and request that you write a brief statement that reflects the following.

 

                                                EEO Class Complaint Case # ATF-2015-01870  

                                                P.O. Box 1741

                                                Jesup, Georgia  31598

 

 

I,___________________________, wish to join the EEO Class Complaint Case # ATF-2015-01870 as a member and elect, ___________________________, Class Agent to represent me in the EEO Complaint regarding Promotion Non-Selection in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives based on Race, African American, Color, Black, Sex, Female or Male, Retaliation/Reprisal, Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact. 

 

 

 

 



#7 1801

1801

    FNG

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 15 August 2015 - 04:49 AM

Finally..... Here is a sneak preview of my story.  Please join as a member if you meet the criteria.

 

 



#8 1801

1801

    FNG

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 30 July 2015 - 02:37 PM

Details to join Class Action Complaint for Job Discrimination (non-selection) coming soon.......  Stay tuned.......



#9 1801

1801

    FNG

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 30 July 2015 - 02:19 PM

More to come very soon.    Stay Tuned................



#10 1801

1801

    FNG

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 12:26 PM

1801 Please share your stories............






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users