This Is Too Funny.

[Bob Owens]

Sorry Art, I have to disagree . . .

U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20036-4505


U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL SECURES CORRECTIVE AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN CASE OF FEDERAL JOB APPLICANT DENIED JOB BECAUSE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 6/20/03
CONTACT: KAREN DALHEIM
(202) 653-7984

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) today announced that -- on the basis of the results of an OSC investigation -- the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has agreed to provide backpay to a job applicant who was denied a federal position because of his homosexuality. IRS also agreed, at OSC’s request, to suspend the discriminating supervisor for 45 days, without pay, and to detail the individual to a non-supervisory position for one year.

The job applicant, a GS-12 computer specialist, applied for a GS-13 computer specialist position with the IRS in 2000. The individuals who interviewed him recommended that he be hired. The applicant, however, never heard back from the IRS. He assumed that he had not been selected.

In September 2001, the applicant was contacted by one of the individuals who had interviewed him. That individual told the applicant that he had recommended to his supervisor, the hiring official, that the applicant be hired. According to the individual, the supervisor responded that she had a “good friend†who had worked at a federal agency where the applicant formerly worked and that she would ask for a reference. Later, when this individual asked about the status of the application, the supervisor replied that the IRS would not hire him because of his homosexuality, referring to that sexual orientation in a derogatory manner.

Thereafter, the applicant filed a complaint with OSC, alleging that the IRS had discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation when it refused to hire him. After an investigation, OSC concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the IRS supervisor who had refused to hire the complainant had violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302( B )(10). That provision makes it a “prohibited personnel practice†to discriminate against a federal employee or job applicant on the basis of off-duty conduct that does not affect job performance, including sexual orientation.

Upon being advised of OSC’s findings, the IRS promptly agreed to offer the complainant the job he had been denied, as well as backpay. The complainant declined the job offer, but accepted a monetary settlement. The IRS also agreed to discipline and detail the supervisor who had rejected the complainant’s application. The supervisor agreed not to challenge those actions.

OSC thanked the IRS for its cooperation in resolving the case, and noted that discrimination based upon sexual orientation, or any other factor that has no bearing on an employee’s ability to do the job, is irreconcilable with the fundamental principles that underlie the merit-based civil service, and should not be tolerated.

OSC is an independent federal agency that investigates and prosecutes complaints alleging the commission of a prohibited personnel practice. In cases where an OSC investigation reveals reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice has been committed and an agency declines to voluntarily provide corrective and/or disciplinary action, OSC will prosecute the case before the Merit Systems Protection Board. In many cases, such as this one, OSC obtains corrective and disciplinary action through negotiations with the employing agency.
***** ***** ***** *****

As you can see, 5 U.S.C. § 2302( B )(10) extends federal protections based on sexual orientation. While this case is the reverse of your example (i.e., refusal to hire due to sexual orientation) the same rules will apply if one is fired for no other reason than sexual orientation.

The federal government took itself out of the bedrooms of american citizens years ago. Now, the only ones who seem to care about what goes on in the bedrooms of it's citizens are a few of the (bigoted) states and, thanks to the supreme court, even those nasty state politicians are being handily delivered their come-uppances!

We are all one people. It's a damn shame when the government has to legislate that. Humanity can be short-lived but bigotry seems to be forever. I thank pious men in robes for that.

Thanks for the post but Art may be right. The example you posted stated "Federal". So it may only apply to Federal jobs, however AA and most other companies have regs that include similar rules. If the company had it in their rules and violated those rules the employee, even without a union would have certain rights as far as enforcement of those rules. These regs are like a contract, except that the company can change them as they see fit, kind of like a TWU contract!

 

[firstamendment]

Get this one....our wonderfully supportive management team at US Airways has decided that if you are going to get sick 2 hours or under before your trip starts, you will be placed on the dependability list, which is their way of saying you are not reliable and perhaps (or in U's case, you are) lying. This team has hit an all time low. So lets say my checkin is at 0500 and I wake up at 0300 with the flu. If I call scheduling two hours before check in, I am disciplined. Who cares if I can barely hold my head up as long as management gets a chance to prove a point...whatever THAT is.

All the airlines highly overexaggerate their sick calls, but if they are not, maybe it's time the perspective airlines look at why. Btw, as of Jan 1, I will only have 1 sick call, so I am not writing trying to defend my abuse...or in this case, lack of.

So see guys, this crap goes on everywhere else. Have a great Christmas, Hanukka, and Kwanza.

 

[Garfield1966]

First,

How do airlines “over exaggerate their sick calls� I am not sure what you mean. If a fa calls in sick to me, I place them on the sick list.

I do see your point about waking up first thing and not feeling well and I would hope that there is some “understanding†on the airlines part although I doubt that would happen either at AA or any other airline. If as you say you only have one sick call, I would doubt that if one calls in with in the two hour window just once, that it would have any effect on your record (although I could be wrong). As non union we are rated as, managed (good) or non self managed (bad). I believe non managed has been dropped to 2 occurrences with in a calendar. For a while I was non managed. Since it has never been a recurring issue with me and this is the first time in close to 20 years that I was out that much, it was taken into account and no “corrective action†was taken.

As far as the 2 hour window, from a crew skd perspective it is a step in the right direction. I cannot count the number of times that I have called and woken up a FA with in 1 hour to dept (that’s when we get the late alert only to be told that they are “sickâ€. Or someone calls mid day 1 hour prior and says they are “sickâ€. Illness usually does not just magically appear, it can but not to often. Standby are limited, especially during the holidays so the effect that a last min sick call can have can be quite dramatic. Unfortunately, reactions from management is often like a pendulum, one extreme or the other. And a lot of times it is in response to abuses that have gone on for quite some time unchecked.

 

[ArtTang]

Hi WingNaPrayer,

I should have been more specific in my post about that. I don't think there has been any federal legislation to codify rights based on sexual orientation outside of the context of government work/contracting. But in the private sector, where
most people are employed, there is still to my knowledge no federal
protection based on sexual orientation. California is one state that does
provide for such.

Regards,
Art Tang

 

[woztwa]

Flight Attendants are not easily replaced. The minimum amount of training to be a line Flight Attendant per the FAA is 3 weeks. Those applicants you refer to back in 93' never would have made it to the line in time. Interview, background check, drug screen and 3 weeks of training. Total time for all of that is about 4-6 weeks or longer to get someone trained as a line Flight Attendant.

A little FYI for you Garfield, when the Flight Attendants are certified like Pilots, Parachute Packers etc., It will be impossible to replace us even after the FAA minimum 3 week training requirement.

Nice to hear that kind of sentiment. Where was it last April?

Hey dont forget that mechanics are certified too. If I recall its 2000 hours of training (roughly the equivelent of a Batchelors- without as much homework) to get the A&P plus whatever the maintenance program for the carrier is. Typically at AA 40 to 80hrs Gen Fam, 40 hrs Avionics for each fleet type.

Dont get too cocky though, while everyone is important, no one is irreplaceble. I would not count too much on certification for job security, sure it will help but it wont change things all that much when it comes strike time. You guys did not need certificates back in 93, solidarity provided all that was needed and you had it! With us, the company could rewrite their manuals to allow for un-certificated mechanics to do the work and let an A&P sign for it. All of Aircraft maint mgmt are A&Ps. I'm sure that the FAA will allow one certified FA to supervise a crew of "trained" F/As. While you would have many arguements against that-such as if the certified one became incapacitated, the fact that crises' have to be dealt with without notice, etc, they will likely fall back on the fact that the airlines operated for over 50 years without certificated flight attendants. Good luck with your struggle and I applaud your efforts to elevate your profession.

What is a Ba't'chelors? Am I taking this out of context but are your last two sentences demeaning?