THE C4C FEDERAL EXCHANGE The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C) Volume 4, Number 2 (SPRING 2017) ISSN 2375-7086 (Online)
HIGHLIGHTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT Anthony Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Before the Supreme Court April Oral Arguments: Anthony Perry v Merit Systems Protection Board
On April 17, 2017, the United States Supreme H.R. 702 Court will hear the case of Federal Employee Antidiscrimination of 2017 Anthony Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The Court is to Class Actions: decide whether a MSPB US Marshals Service decision disposing of a Social Security Administration “mixed” case on jurisdictional grounds is Federal Agencies Most subject to judicial review in Often Accused of Discrimination the U.S. District Court or in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A mixed case is one that challenges certain adverse employment actions and involves a claim under the federal anti-discrimination laws. The pending Supreme Court matter arises from Perry’s mixed case claims involving race discrimination against the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Census. Read more about Perry v MSPB No. 16-399. Click Here. The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. According to its website, the Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each term. However, the Court only grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases. The Perry v MSPB case is open to the public. The Supreme Court of the United States is located at 1 First Street, NE between East Capitol Street and Maryland Avenue. See “Visitors Guide to Oral Arguments.”
On January 27, 2017, Representatives Elijah Cummings, Jason Chaffetz, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, James Sensenbrenner, and Sheila Jackson Lee introduced the bill HR 702 - Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017 that was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The bill includes the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C) recommended measures. Most notably, the bill amends the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 to strengthen Federal antidiscrimination laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to expand accountability within the Federal Government. The bill was previously issued as HR 1557. C4C Federal Exchange Quarterly Newsletter – Spring Edition
Page 1
C4C Salutes Class Agent Matthew Fogg (Matthew Fogg, et.al v Jeff B. Sessions)
On February 24, 2017, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rendered an order on Matthew F. Fogg claims against the U.S. Department of Justice. Fogg, a retired chief deputy U.S. marshal, accuses the law enforcement agency of systematically discriminating against Black U.S. marshals. The EEOC’s earlier July 11, 2012 ruling certified a class of Black U.S. marshals from July 1994, when Matthew F. Fogg first filed his class claims, to the present. The Fogg, et.al class is one of the longest running certified classes in a Title VII complaint against a Federal entity. See EEOC ORDER – Click HERE.
C4C President Tanya Ward Jordan with Class Agent Matthew Fogg, retired chief deputy U.S. marshal
Fogg, who won a jury verdict on a separate lawsuit in 1994, steadfastly pursues measures to improve the workforce culture of the U.S. Marshals Service. The February 24, 2017 EEOC order retains Mr. Fogg as class agent, adds more class agents, redefines the class; allows the class to amend class charges and authorizes discovery.
According to the EEOC, “The Amended Class Charge shall serve as the operable complaint for this case. The class for this complaint is defined as all current and former African American Deputy U.S. Marshals and Detention Enforcement Officers who were subjected to the Agency’s policies and practices regarding promotions, including reassignments and transfers, Headquarters assignments, and hiring and recruitment from January 23, 1994 to present. (EEOC No. 570-2016-00501X) Social Security Administration Class Action in the News The Social Security Administration (SSA), a government agency based in Baltimore County that handles retirement and disability benefits, exists as a workplace frayed with racial equity issues. Three (3) separate class actions have been languishing in the administrative EEO process for years. See below.
Image Credit: Paulette Taylor
Jefferson, et. al v Social Security Administration (SSA), referenced as SSA-1, involves a breach of settlement agreement. [Background: In 2002, the class of African-American male employees at the Baltimore headquarters of the SSA entered into a settlement agreement with the agency regarding their class discrimination claim based on race and sex.] See most recent February 2017 decision on relief for class because of SSA’s breach. Class agents Gilbert Jefferson, Harry Dunbar and Ken Burden have championed this litigation since 1995. [EEOC No. 531-2013-00129X]
Wilkerson, et al v. Social Security Administration (SSA) class complaint was filed in 2007. Class agents, Kirk Wilkerson, Esset Tate, and Maceo Nesmith, lead the employment class action referenced as SSA-2. To learn more about the pending class see article, dated Feb. 27, 2017, entitled Worker’s Complaint against SSA unresolved years later—WBAL TV Feb. 27, 2017. Click HERE. Also, view news coverage at link https://youtu.be/9d9HauSgzVk
C4C Federal Exchange Quarterly Newsletter – Spring Edition
Page 2
Taylor, et al. v Social Security Administration Black female employees have also alleged discrimination in pay and job opportunities. Circa 2006, two African-American females, Paulette C. Taylor and Debra Harley, won a favorable decision from the EEOC to represent more than 3,000 African-American women workers at the U.S. Social Security Administration. On April 14, 2011, an EEOC Administrative Judge issued an interim decision on liability, finding that SSA engaged in class-wide discrimination against the Grade 12 level. The EEOC Judge concluded: "The Class has prevailed in the showing of class-wide discrimination against nonsupervisory African-American female employees who were denied promotions into the GS-12 level, from December 9, 2000 to the present.” The SSA has not resolved the claims brought by the class. (Agency No. SSA-03-0224 & SSA-03-0208.)
Older Workers: Third Circuit Makes it Easier to Prove ADEA Disparate Impact Claims On January 20, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential decision, Karlo, et al. v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. The Karlo case will likely make it easier for subgroups of older workers to bring lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), on a “disparate impact” theory of liability.To learn more click HERE.
EEOC Releases Fiscal Year 2016 “NATIONAL” Enforcement and Litigation Data In fiscal year 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), received 91,503 charges of workplace discrimination. Specifically, the national charge numbers show the following breakdowns by bases alleged: Retaliation
42,018
45.9 percent*
Race Disability Sex
32,309 28,073 26,934
35.3 percent 30.7 percent 29.4 percent
Age
20,857
22.8 percent
National Origin Religion Color Equal Pay Act
9,840 3,825 3,102 1,075
10.8 percent 4.2 percent 3.4 percent 1.2 percent
Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act
238
.3 percent
View report on EEOC’s website - https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm *Retaliation was 45.9% of all complaints filed.
C4C Federal Exchange Quarterly Newsletter – Spring Edition
Page 3
According to the most recent on-line U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report on the Federal work force, in fiscal year 2014, 14,343 individuals filed 15,013 “formal” discrimination complaints against their agencies. Among agencies with more than 15,000 employees, the Department of Labor held the dishonorable title of the agency with the highest rate at .74% of its workforce to file discrimination complaints. The Department of Justice held the second highest complaint rate at .72%. The Social Security Administration, which has at least three pending class actions, held third place with a complainant rate at .66%. [SOURCE: Annual Report of the Federal Work Force Fiscal Year 2014 –Table 2: Agencies with the Highest Complaint Rate in FY 2014].
IN THE NEWS
The Office of Special Counsel and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Both FAIL to Enforce Anti-discrimination Laws. On March 24, 2017, the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C) received its Freedom of Information Act reply from Office of Special Counsel (OSC) reflecting that the agency received only six (6) civil rights violation case referrals for disciplinary action from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Of the six federal sector employment discrimination cases in which civil rights violations were found, OSC reported that it had not pursued or planned to pursue any disciplinary action for the periods covering fiscal year 2014-March 2017. Notably, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists between the EEOC and the OSC. The MOU provides that the EEOC shall refer to OSC for potential enforcement action cases in which the EEOC finds that a federal agency or an officer or employee thereof has discriminated against any employee or applicant for employment in violation of section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite the MOU, the OSC and the EEOC are failing to effectively enforce anti-discrimination laws. See FOIA reply from the OSC [Click HERE.]
Cases
FEDERAL SECTOR EMPLOYMENT CASES FOR REVIEW Click Link Below
Roz Furch v U.S. Department of Agriculture William Porter v U.S. Health and Human Services Kirk Webster v Defense Laray Benton v Merit Systems Protection Board / Nuclear Regulatory Commission
http://tinyurl.com/k2mk9jj http://tinyurl.com/lgahtnr http://tinyurl.com/lo8ybdy http://tinyurl.com/kfsdlmo
About C4C Federal Exchange - The C4C Federal Exchange (Quarterly) Newsletter is a publication of The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C). The Internet publication, which addresses “race” discrimination and retaliation in the Federal sector, obtained its ISSN 2375-7086 from the U.S. Library of Congress in October 2014. GOT NEWS? Contact Us at C4C@coalition4change.org C4C Federal Exchange Quarterly Newsletter – Spring Edition
Page 4