NEWS
Controversy over No FEAR continues
By Clarissa Spasyk
cyberFEDS® Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Already critical of the Office of Personnel Management's proposed regulations on penalties for managers who harass their subordinates, some civil rights advocates are now questioning how public comments were gathered.
From Jan. 25 through May 1, the agency accepted e-mailed, faxed or mailed remarks on its proposed rules for the Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002. Many minority leaders immediately slammed the OPM's recommendation to expand the definition of "discipline" -- normally reserved for adverse actions such as demotions and removals -- to include oral reprimands.
However, some opponents of the measure became more outraged when a federal employment attorney claimed his e-mailed comments, sent twice to the address provided in the regs, didn't make it to the OPM because they were blocked.
"We're suspicious," said Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, chair of the No FEAR Coalition. "It's a very serious situation." The major concern, she said, is whether others' e-mailed feedback got lost in cyberspace.
In a statement issued to cyberFEDS®, the OPM's acting general counsel said she was unaware of any difficulties.
"We have no reason to believe there was a significant problem with e-mails being delivered," Kathie Whipple said. "Comments were encouraged via mail, fax or e-mail."
GOVEXEC.COM
April 27, 2006
Proposed anti-discrimination rule draws fire
By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com
Federal employee minority groups convened a town hall meeting earlier this week to decry recently proposed regulations for implementing a 2002 anti-discrimination law.
The groups said the regulations suggested by the Office of Personnel Management are too weak because they allow federal managers to orally reprimand those who have violated the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act.
"This rule is really an affront to all of us, to think that they would slip under the door a verbal reprimand," said Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency and one of the driving forces behind the No FEAR Act.
OPM's Jan. 25 proposed regulations state that the agency is "considering expanding the range of disciplinary actions reported to include unwritten actions such as oral admonishments."
Oral reprimands are an insufficient response to cases of discrimination, groups participating in the town hall meeting said in a statement.
"The issuance of oral reprimands for civil rights violations is in sharp contrast to the traditional written reprimands or firing for serious offenses," the statement said. "The OPM proposal would allow managers to escape genuine punishment and send precisely the wrong message of tolerance and no accountability."
OPM extended the period for comments on the proposed regulations from mid-March to May 1 in response to requests from the No FEAR coalition and members of Congress.
"OPM is seeking input from the public on expanding the definition of discipline to a broader reach, including unwritten actions such as oral reprimands," said Kathie Whipple, the personnel agency's acting general counsel, in a statement. "We have provided an extended comment period in part for this reason."
People wishing to comment are encouraged to e-mail their thoughts to nofear@opm.gov, Whipple said.
Matthew Fogg, a vice president of Blacks in Government, said the regulations backpedal from a victory his group thought it won in 2002. "When the bill passed, we ... believed that we were making a difference," he said.
Fogg said oral reprimands devalue the spirit of this legislation, and also undermine employees' ability to have a clear paper trail to use if they decide to take legal action.
The No FEAR act requires agencies to keep close tally on the number of civil rights violations.
In a sample letter produced in reaction to the OPM regulations, the No FEAR coalition also said including oral admonishments in this count will make it less credible by misrepresenting "the disciplinary actions taken by agencies and [inflating] the actual number of credible punitive measures used to discourage and eliminate discrimination and retaliation."
This document is located at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0406/042706r1.htm
Coleman-Adebayo Back at EPA After Losing Disability Bid
By Lisa Troshinsky
cyberFEDS® Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- An Environmental Protection Agency employee who was instrumental in the passage of major equal employment opportunity and whistleblower protection legislation -- the Notification of Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 -- has lost her bid for disability retirement and has been ordered back to her office.
A U.S. District Court dismissed Marsha Coleman-Adebayo's application in November and she returned to work at the agency on Dec. 29, an EPA spokesperson said. She had been teleworking from home after suffering health problems following her successful claim against the agency for racial and gender discrimination.
Whistleblower protection and how agencies deal with equal employment opportunity claims are gaining more attention as activists seek to pressure Congress to strengthen laws. In addition, federal agencies are under pressure to give federal employees greater opportunity to telework.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Also on cyberFEDS®:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Following her successful suit against the agency, in which she was awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages, Coleman-Adebayo claimed to have been harassed and threatened with violence.
Coleman-Adebayo told cyberFEDS® her work does not require her physical presence in the office. Since she started working at home, her blood pressure, which had risen as a result of the harassment, has returned to normal, she said.
"There is escalation of retaliation [for EEO complaints] throughout the federal government," she said. "[The EPA] wants to set an example for other federal government workers who speak out against injustice. I assume their plan is to entrap me."
The EPA spokesperson declined to discuss the case in detail. "EPA does not comment on confidential personnel matters," she said.
New legislation
In early 2006, the NO FEAR Coalition, an advocacy group that backed Coleman-Adebayo, plans to seek introduction of NO FEAR II, which would subject individuals guilty of harassment to sanctions and fines. The current NO FEAR Act requires only that the responsible agency reimburse the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, while individuals are protected under sovereign immunity. Agencies that claim financial hardship may postpone their Judgment Fund payments. The proposed legislation also might require agencies to reimburse 10 to 20 percent of their fines to the Judgment Fund immediately, set up a repayment schedule, and not allow agencies to apply for payment extensions, Coleman-Adebayo said.
Another group, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, also plans to push for legislation, which would:
- Hold an individual responsible for harassment with civil and criminal liability.
- Remove those exempted from NO FEAR, including agencies claiming financial hardship, government contractors, and cases the government says fall under "state secrecy privilege."
- Create a whistleblower retaliation accountability commission that would be more independent and have more enforcement than the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
- Have Congress request annually or biennially a Government Accountability Office report on the number of retaliation cases and cost of retaliation for the government.
Walter Fauntroy, president of the National Black Leadership Roundtable and former D.C. Democratic delegate, sent EPA administrator Steve Johnson a letter of protest on Coleman-Adebayo's return to work and hopes to meet with him in person to discuss the situation.
Post your comments in cyberFEDS® Online Conferences.
January 3, 2006
Copyright 2006© LRP Publications
