The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held the Postal Service incorrectly terminated a member of the National Guard under false assumptions in that he abandoned his position.
Amid a dearth of job opportunities in the private sector, a shockingly high number of veterans last year continued to run into problems as they attempted to enter or reenter the federal civil service.
A recent appeals court decision vacated a previous decision dismissing a class action discrimination case against the Federal Reserve Board for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has clarified and lowered the threshold of what defines “retaliation” in claims of discrimination. The Court of Appeals held that an agencyâ€™s actions can be considered retaliatory if the actions would discourage a reasonable person from making or supporting a discrimination claim.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently changed the way federal employees and agencies may approach partial relief in future discrimination claims.
In a recent decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmed an Administrative Judge’s decision finding the Department of Defense liable for illegal disability discrimination.
In the author’s last article, “Agencies Legally Discriminate Based on Sexual Orientation,” readers asked whether it is “really” legal for agencies to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation under the current law. Here is a response to these questions.
It remains legal for agencies to discriminate against federal employees based on sexual orientation. This was reiterated by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which recently granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
An appeals court recently issued an en banc decision finding the U.S. District Court of for the Northern District of Alabama erred in granting summary judgment in a sexual harassment case where the harassment was not directed specifically at the plaintiff.
HHS has been ordered to hire a veteran and to compute back pay and benefits where the agency conceded that it would have selected a veteran had it not made an error in removing his name from the list of candidates for a competitive service position.