Recent Published Decisions
Smith v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112724 (Oct. 17, 2011).
On appeal, EEOC finds that the Agency’s 90% reduction in requested attorneys’ fee award was improper. Thus, the EEOC ordered the Agency to pay the full amount of attorneys’ fees requested.
***
In the matter of: Applicant for Security Clearance, ISCR Case No. 08-12181 (Dec. 29, 2009).
Applicant admitted a financial delinquency related to a mortgage loan on a property he purchased for his parents in 1999. Although there was no written agreement, the parents agreed to make all of the mortgage payments. All mortgage correspondence was sent to the parents. Applicant lived in another part of the country from his parents, and he was not aware of their financial situation or their failure to pay the mortgage. Applicant’s parents’ actions were beyond his control.
Applicant was caught in a severe downturn in the real estate market and, unfortunately, he was misused by his own parents, whose refusal to meet their financial obligations reflected poorly and unfairly on Applicant. This is an unusual circumstance, unlikely to recur, and does not cast doubt on Applicant’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
***
Applicant has learned, through experience, some hard financial lessons. He has also acknowledged his financial responsibilities and has made good-faith efforts to satisfy his creditors. His own financial record reflects reasonable risk-taking and responsible financial behavior. He continues to try to resolve a financial obligation he did not seek. He has identified savings and money in his 401(k) plan that he will use, if necessary, to satisfy a deficiency arising from a foreclosure or a short sale of the property. I conclude that AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) apply in mitigation to the facts of Applicant’s case.
***
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to Applicant’s judgment and eligibility and suitability for a security clearance, and I conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.
***
Farrell v. Dep’t of Treasury, Petition No. 0420070019 (Oct. 24, 2008).
EEOC finds that the U.S. Department of the Treasury failed to appropriately determine the amount of back pay, with interest, due to the Petitioner and that increases in SES-level pay, awards and bonuses are not speculative in nature. Specifically, the EEOC ordered the U.S. Department of the Treasury to calculate the Petitioner’s salary based upon the assumption that she would have received the highest performance review available for each review period and should award benefits that the average outstanding SES employee at the agency received during each fiscal year at issue. Further, the EEOC found the Petitioner entitled to receive attorney fees.
***
Smith v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120071175 (Apr. 26, 2007).
EEOC finds that being relieved of one’s duties and involuntarily detailed to another position are actions reasonably likely to deter protected activity; and therefore complainant states a claim of reprisal. http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120071175.txt
***
Massey v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070298 (Feb. 16, 2007).
EEOC holds that a complainant’s formal complaint is deemed filed on the date it was sent to the agency via FedEx.