A Brief Guide to Age Discrimination

age discrimination

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, commonly referred to as the ADEA, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who are 40 years of age or older. Complaints of age discrimination are extremely prevalent in the federal government. One third of federal sector complaints of discrimination raise age-based allegations, making age discrimination the second most alleged basis in formal EEO complaints.

Age discrimination can take many forms, including the following:

  • Marine V., et al. v. Social Security Administration: The EEOC found that the agency’s use of a pre-employment written examination as a way to screen out internal candidates and recruit external hires was pretext for age discrimination. The EEOC ordered the agency to retroactively place the aggrieved employees in the positions for which they had applied but were not hired.
  • Cook v. Department of Labor: A 59-year-old human resources employee was subjected to age discrimination when her supervisor asked about her retirement plan, removed her supervisory duties, and made age-based comments. The supervisor’s age-based comments, including his statement that “younger people are coming in and out and they are better with computers,” created an inference of discrimination. The EEOC awarded the complainant compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.
  • Kruecke v. Department of Veterans Affairs: An Administrative Judge found that the agency’s discharge of a 67 year-old nurse for alleged deficient performance was pretext for age discrimination because the agency was willing to tolerate substandard performance from a younger nurse. The EEOC affirmed the AJ’s findings and ordered the agency to pay back pay and train its responsible officials.

Though victims of age discrimination may elect to pursue their complaints through the administrative process (the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or other state and local human rights offices), this is not necessary. Employees who feel they have been a target of age discrimination may file a complaint directly in federal District Court.

Contact Alan Lescht and Associates today if you feel that your employer made employment decisions based on your age. We offer strategic and results-driven legal services to federal government employees around the world. Call 202-463-6036 to schedule a consultation.

Follow the Rules Act

On June 14, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Follow the Rules Act, an important extension of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).

Background

The WPA is a law that protects federal government employees from retaliatory action for disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring within the federal government. A 2016 Federal Circuit decision interpreting the WPA, Rainey v. Merit Systems Protection Board, held that an employee who refuses to obey an order that would require him to violate a statute is protected from adverse action, but an employee who refuses to obey an order requiring him to violate a rule or regulation is not protected under the WPA.

What protections does the Follow the Rules Act add?

The Follow the Rules Act overturns the Rainey decision, and prohibits agencies from taking personnel actions against employees who refuse orders that would require the employee to violate a law, rule, or regulation.

In introducing the bill last year, Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) gave the following example:

Congress directed the President to promulgate rules and regulations regarding sanctions against North Korea. Without the additional protections of the Follow the Rules Act, federal employees who were directed to violate North Korea sanctions would have no whistleblower protections under the WPA.

Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) said of the bill, “we need to do all we can to ensure that federal employees are allowed to perform their jobs free from political pressure to violate laws, rules, and regulations.”

If you have been subjected to an adverse personnel action following a protected disclosure regarding illegal or improper activity, contact us today. We offer results-driven legal services to federal employees around the world.

The New VA Reform Bill (S. 1094): What Changes Are Coming?

On June 13, 2017, the House joined the Senate in approving a VA reform bill aimed at making it easier to discipline employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs.  As President Trump has already stated he will sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk, it appears certain that substantial changes are going to be made to the VA disciplinary process.

First, the S. 1094 will create a new framework for the discipline of VA employees, speeding up the process significantly.  It will require the VA to give notice of proposed discipline, accept a response, and make a decision on the proposal within 15 days.  Non SES-employees will still have a right to appeal to the Merit System Protection Board, but must file the appeal within 10 days of the adverse action, as opposed to the current 30 day deadline.  Furthermore, the Board will be required to issue a decision on the case within 180 days.

While non-SES employees would still have the right to appeal to the Board, S. 1094 strips away  SES-employees right to appeal to the Board.  SES employees will need to appeal their discipline through an internal appeals process that will take no more than 21 days.  However, should the internal appeals decision still be adverse, the SES-employee may appeal the Agency’s decision to a U.S. District Court.

Second, and perhaps most controversially, S.1094 establishes a new evidentiary standard used by the Board in reviewing issues of discipline.  The Board currently reviews removals and other appealable adverse actions on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which means that the Agency must prove that the charges for which a VA employee was disciplined more likely than not occurred.  This bill would move the Board to a substantial evidence standard, which would only require that the VA show that there is relevant evidence that would lead a reasonable person to support the discipline.  The substantial evidence standard is the lesser of the two standards, and will make it easier for the VA to not only remove employees, but to have that decision upheld by the Board.

If you are a VA employee, and facing disciplinary action, it is imperative that you do not wait to seek legal advice.  Our attorneys are well versed in the procedural requirements and disciplinary process, and can assist you in protecting your livelihood.  Call (202) 462-6036 or email us today to schedule a consultation with an experienced federal employment attorney.

Alexandria employee sues city for violating FMLA

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eastern District reinstated an employee’s case against the City of Alexandria for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Quintana v. City of Alexandria, No. 16-1630 (4th Cir. filed June 6, 2017).

Monica Quintana was hired by the City of Alexandria in 2011. After one year, the City outsourced its payroll and other administrative functions to Randstad USA, a staffing agency. However, Quintana’s job functions remained the same, and she continued to report to a supervisor who was a City employee.

On or about January 9, 2014, the City granted Quintana’s request for FMLA leave to care for her comatose husband. Quintana told Randstad that she was approved to take three months of FMLA leave. However, on January 17, 2014, the City terminated Quintana’s employment for failing to report to work without notice.

Quintana filed a lawsuit against both Randstad and the City of Alexandria in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The City argued that it was not Quintana’s primary employer, and thus, was not liable for denying Quintana FMLA leave or for retaliating against her for requesting leave. The court accepted this argument and dismissed Quintana’s claims against the City.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and allowed Quintana to continue her lawsuit against the City of Alexandria. The Fourth Circuit ruled that Quintana alleged enough facts to show that the City of Alexandria, along with Randstad, was her employer.

If you believe your employer interfered with your rights to take FMLA leave or retaliated against you for requesting FMLA leave, contact us today. Alan Lescht and Associates, P.C., offers strategic and results-driven legal services to clients in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Northern Virginia, and to federal employees throughout the United States.

D.C. Public Schools sued over discrimination

Employees face discrimination in the workplace for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, a worker is treated differently as a result of his or her gender. Or, an employee may lose their job due to their race or religious beliefs. In Washington, D.C., and the whole country, some people may not realize that disability discrimination is also against the law. Regrettably, employees with a wide variety of disabilities experience discrimination that can be humiliating and make their job very difficult. Regardless of the reasons why workers experience discrimination, it must be identified and dealt with immediately.

A woman claims she was discriminated against and recently took legal action against D.C. Public Schools. The woman, who used to work for the school system as a teacher, said that she was subjected to discrimination over a disability that she suffered from, which was a long-term health condition.

The ex-teacher said that the mistreatment has had a significant impact on her from an emotional and even physical standpoint. Moreover, she claims that she was discriminated against by school staff and administrators. The woman chose to keep her identity private.

Victims of discrimination may feel uneasy going to work and afraid to speak out. However, they deserve a voice and should not think twice about defending their rights. Moreover, employees who decide to take action should know that retaliation is also illegal. For some, figuring out the best path forward can be tricky, especially when their job is involved. However, turning to an attorney may help.

Source: WUSA9, “Former DC teacher sues DCPS for discrimination,” Delia Goncalves, May 4, 2017

How are immigrants discriminated against at work?

If you have moved to the U.S. for work, or are considering immigrating to the country to pursue a job, you may have an array of uncertainties, stressors and immigrations issues to deal with. In Washington, D.C., and all over the country, there are many opportunities that can help immigrants further their lives. Unfortunately, some of them experience discrimination in the workplace and it is vital for you to recognize and take action if you ever experience discrimination yourself.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employment immigrants may be discriminated against at work in many different ways. For example, they may be unlawfully discriminated against as a result of their national origin or the fact that they associate with people who are part of a certain national origin group. Employment immigrants may also be treated unfairly because of their citizenship status, the place their ancestors were born, the way they dress or look and their accent.

Discrimination rears its head in diverse ways in work spaces all over the nation. From the loss of a job to the rejection of a perfectly-qualified job applicant, victims of discrimination may have their lives thrown into chaos. If you think that your employer may have broken the law by treating you differently based upon these reasons or other factors (such as your gender), you should evaluate your rights as an employee and make sure that they are held responsible for their actions.

This article was put together for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.

What is parental status discrimination?

Many people are aware of the prevalence and unacceptable nature of discrimination based on an employee’s age, race or religious beliefs. However, in Washington, D.C., and cities all over the U.S., workers are subjected to many other types of discrimination, such as parental status discrimination. If you think that you may have been illegally discriminated against based on your status as a parent, you should assess the details of what took place and go over your options.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Executive Order 13152 prohibits parental status discrimination. Whle the EEOC does not include parental status discrimination as a covered basis when enforcing discrimination laws, this form of discrimination may constitute disability discrimination or sex discrimination, dependin on the details of what happened. Moreover, if you are a federal worker or are applying for a federal job, you should remember that this form of discrimination is prohibited in the federal workplace by government policy.

If you have children discrimination based on your parental status can be especially troubling. Whether your hours are cut, you are denied a job you are perfectly qualified for or you are fired solely because of your parental status, this discrimination can be financially and emotionally draining. If your employee rights have been trampled on, you need to start reviewing the best path forward and should hold accountable those who have broken laws that were put in place to protect workers from unfair treatment.

Remember, this post is not offered as an alternative to legal advice.

Tip sharing: Is it legal?

Many workers rely on tips to make a living. Wait staff, bartenders, baristas, hair stylists, and cleaning staff are just some examples of employees who rely on tips.

One common practice in industries where tipping is the norm is tip sharing. Tip sharing involves pooling tipped employees’ earnings and dividing them among employees. The tips may be divided among tip-receiving employees and other employees such as dishwashers, bussers, cooks, and others who don’t commonly receive tips themselves.

Most states allow for tip sharing, but there are certain rules and limitations that apply. Here are two important things to remember:

  • Minimum wage requirements: Tip-earning employees are only required to place tips in a pool that exceed minimum wage. Employees are not required to share tips if their total earnings equal less than minimum wage.
  • Employers excluded: Employers cannot take part in tip sharing. Tip sharing is only for employees who receive tips – not those who employ them.

When an employer takes tips from a tip pool, or when a tipped employee is earning less than minimum wage, it may be time to speak to an employment law attorney about what is happening.

Although tip pooling is legal in many states, employers must follow the law. When they don’t, they can be held accountable.

Talk to an attorney today: Call Alan Lescht & Associates, P.C., at 202-463-6036 for answers to your questions about tip sharing – and to learn what to do if your employer is violating the law.

RIFs in the Trump Era: Reemployment Rights after a RIF

Welcome back to our series on RIFs in the Trump era. If you missed Parts One and Two of the series, click here. Today is our final installment of the series, where we will discuss reemployment rights after a RIF.

What are reemployment rights?

Employees who are separated due to a RIF have reemployment priority rights. Agencies use a reemployment priority list (“RPL”) to rehire employees separated as part of a RIF. In filling any vacancies that arise after a RIF, an agency must give priority to certain former employees on the RPL over certain outside job applicants. Agencies are also permitted to consider RPL registrants before considering internal candidates.

Establishing an RPL

An agency must establish and maintain an RPL for each area in which it separates eligible competitive service employees by RIF. Employees are not required to participate in this list and will not automatically be placed on the list. An agency must give employees information about the list when it issues a notice of separation. The former employee must complete and submit the RPL application on or before the RIF separation date to register for the program.

Reemployment and Appeals

To be appointed to a vacant position through an RPL, an employee must meet all requirements for the vacant position. The agency will use a numerical scoring system to rank applicants.

What if the agency does not follow the RPL? An employee can appeal to the MSPB if he believes his reemployment rights were violated.

Questions about RIFs?

Do you feel that your agency improperly failed to consider your reemployment rights? Protecting your job is our job. Call Alan Lescht and Associates, P.C. today at (202) 536-3315 or email Alan.

Security Clearance Determinations

What factors are considered?

To be eligible to access classified information, the agency will consider a number of factors including:

  • Allegiance to the United States;
  • Foreign influence;
  • Foreign preference;
  • Sexual behavior;
  • Personal conduct;
  • Financial considerations, including falling behind on bills or loans;
  • Alcohol consumption;
  • Drug involvement;
  • Emotional, mental, and personality disorders;
  • Criminal conduct;
  • Security violations;
  • Outside activities; and
  • Misuse of Information Technology systems

Can security clearance be challenged after I am hired?

Yes, security clearance can be challenged or revoked at any time during employment. The agency will consider whether the employee voluntarily reported the information, was truthful in responding to questions, sough assistance and followed professional guidance, and has demonstrated positive changes in behavior and employment.

Facing revocation of your security clearance?

We have had success in assisting our clients with security clearance issues. These are just a few.

  • Department of Energy- Our client, a contract electrician, received a denial of access to classified information based on his submission of an EQIP improperly referencing an arrest from 23 years prior. We submitted a written response and then conducted a hearing before the Department of Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals. At the hearing, we demonstrated that our client never intended to deceive the government regarding his arrest and that his conduct did not create a danger or threat to national security. After receiving an unfavorable ruling from the Administrative Judge, we appealed and filed for review to the Appeal Panel at the Department of Energy Office of Departmental Personnel Security, and we persuaded the Appeal Panel to overturn the unfavorable ruling, find in our client’s favor, and held that our client’s behavior did not constitute a threat to national security. As a result, our client was granted access to classified information, and was able to keep his job which required the security clearance.
  • Department of the Navy- Our client received a letter of intent to revoke his security clearance based on allegations that he had mishandled sensitive information and had a disqualifying psychological condition because he suffered from anxiety and depression. We contested the proposal and filed a response demonstrating that the alleged mishandling of sensitive information occurred under unusual circumstances when the employee was tasked with an unfair workload by a hostile supervisor. We also established that the allegations regarding the employee’s psychological condition did not amount to a security concern. The Department of Defense Central Adjudication Facility agreed and restored the employee’s clearance.
  • USCIS- We represented a client whose security clearance (access to classified and Sensitive Compartmented Information) was suspended and then revoked due to his personal use of a government laptop in ways that violated policy and resulted in malware invading the laptop. We appealed the revocation, arguing that most of the client’s personal use of the computer did not violate policy, that he did not intend to violate policy or cause harm to the government, and that his understanding of the seriousness of his actions combined with his long history of exemplary government service indicated that he would never allow such a mistake to reoccur. The Deciding Official agreed that the violation was minimal, most of the violation was unintentional, and that the client was unlikely to ever allow recurrence. Thus, the Deciding Official reversed the revocation of our client’s security clearance and restored his access.

For assistance with security clearance matters, call Alan Lescht & Associates, P.C. at (202) 463-6036, or email alan.lescht@leschtlaw.com.