 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 |
IAM NFFE 1450 |
|
|
  |
||||||||||||
NFFE 1450 News  NFFE 1450 Wins EEOC Discrimination Case for Los Angeles member!9/8/2008On September 5, 2008, NFFE Local 1450 Vice President, Ricardo Miranda, won an EEOC discrimination case of non-selection for promotion on the basis of race (Asian), sex (female) and national origin (Cambodian) for one of our Union members. The complainant, Sayana Chhe, a GS 7 Program Assistant in the HUD Los Angeles Office of Multifamily Housing, applied for a career-ladder position of Project Manager (Trainee)—a GS 7/9/11/12 position—and was not selected even though she was ranked number one on the best qualified list. Four other employees outside of her protected classes were selected including the employee ranked last (number 10) on the best qualified list. The complainant had three more years of experience than three of the selectees in the same exact position and was working towards her Master’s degree. Only one selectee had a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university in the U.S., but had less experience in the HUD Los Angeles Office of Multifamily Housing. HUD’s interview-panel witnesses claimed that the complainant tanked her interview, yet lost all of the interview questions, notes, answers and rankings. The agency’s witnesses testified that no one told them they had to save the interview notes and ranking documentation; they didn’t remember the interview questions nor how the selectees and complainant answered the questions. Through the testimony of other job applicants and the complainant, NFFE Local 1450 Vice President, Ricardo Miranda, was able to demonstrate that none of the interview questions related to the quality ranking factors in the vacancy announcements. The EEOC administrative judge ruled that the agency did not meet its burden of proof to provide specific non-discriminatory reasons for the selections and found that the complainant was more qualified than the selectees. The judge also granted the Union’s motion for adverse inference and a sanction of a finding of discrimination because the agency lost the interview documentation in violation of EEOC regulations. The remedy ordered by the judge was a |
| |||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| Contact Us | Search | GoIam | iMail Signup |  |
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Last modified: 1/1/2009 Copyright 1996-2001, The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers |
||||||||||||||||
