![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 20th, 2015 10:08 amI am so full of fuckyou right now. I've started drafting fuckyou comments to the fucking EEOC. I'm weary of good intentions resulting in...
(my coworker said the analysis below was worthy of an employment law blog post; here stripped down)
Very unusual case Appeal No. 0120131447, Hearing No. 550-2009-00190X
EEOC-OFO overrules its own AJ’s credibility determinations because the factual record was ruled to contradict that testimony.
The decision reeks of pro-employee bias and is inconsistent with applicable law. Not only that, but this exact argument and analysis was rejected by these same fucktards in one of our cases with a much more egregiously wrong AJ...they all but admit it, but then cite the record as having substantial evidence so they won't override their AJ to the Agency's favor. It's so transparent...
1. AJ took 3.5 years to issue the decision. Note the EEOC won't reveal their Judge's names...they've got some real stinkers, and some real raging biases...I wonder why they hide the names?
2. The analysis / case law for overturning credibility:
a. "We note that the AJ found that S1 testified credibly based on his demeanor and consistency of statements. Normally, the Commission defers to the AJ on questions of credibility where it is based on a witness's demeanor and conduct. However, we do not defer to the AJ's credibility determination here because the objective evidence in the record described above so contradicts the testimony of S1. See EEO MD-110 at Ch. 9, § VI.B.; see also Gathers v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05890894 (Nov. 9, 1989) (noting that "deference is not automatic, and when there is sufficient evidence on record which suggests the credibility determination to be erroneous, deference will not be given.").
b. Notice...OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
3. See the argument preceding that - the facts they cite are absolutely not clear-cut; it’s a series of opinions of another supervisor and non-supervisory employee. In fact, looking over the “facts” they seem to quote testimony of other people over the supervisor’s testimony credited by the AJ...I think it’s safe to say they overrode the AJ’s credibility determination made in-person with their own based on interpreting a written record of testimony.
a. The termination was already rescinded by “the labor attorney” who was worried how the termination of the pregnant employee would fair in the EEO case.
4. The ending is the polar opposite of the agency’s recent decision in an OFO appeal (redacted case name). “Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we find that the AJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
a. This is demonstrably untrue. They overruled the credibility determinations based on other testimony, and a draft document, which is their right as they have ruled...but there was substantial evidence (which the case law often refers to as “any” or “a pile of any shape or size” ) They could overrule the AJ, but to declare they did so based on not meeting substantial evidence is patently untrue.
This case makes the EEOC look like an arbitration hearing?
(my coworker said the analysis below was worthy of an employment law blog post; here stripped down)
Very unusual case Appeal No. 0120131447, Hearing No. 550-2009-00190X
EEOC-OFO overrules its own AJ’s credibility determinations because the factual record was ruled to contradict that testimony.
The decision reeks of pro-employee bias and is inconsistent with applicable law. Not only that, but this exact argument and analysis was rejected by these same fucktards in one of our cases with a much more egregiously wrong AJ...they all but admit it, but then cite the record as having substantial evidence so they won't override their AJ to the Agency's favor. It's so transparent...
1. AJ took 3.5 years to issue the decision. Note the EEOC won't reveal their Judge's names...they've got some real stinkers, and some real raging biases...I wonder why they hide the names?
2. The analysis / case law for overturning credibility:
a. "We note that the AJ found that S1 testified credibly based on his demeanor and consistency of statements. Normally, the Commission defers to the AJ on questions of credibility where it is based on a witness's demeanor and conduct. However, we do not defer to the AJ's credibility determination here because the objective evidence in the record described above so contradicts the testimony of S1. See EEO MD-110 at Ch. 9, § VI.B.; see also Gathers v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05890894 (Nov. 9, 1989) (noting that "deference is not automatic, and when there is sufficient evidence on record which suggests the credibility determination to be erroneous, deference will not be given.").
b. Notice...OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
3. See the argument preceding that - the facts they cite are absolutely not clear-cut; it’s a series of opinions of another supervisor and non-supervisory employee. In fact, looking over the “facts” they seem to quote testimony of other people over the supervisor’s testimony credited by the AJ...I think it’s safe to say they overrode the AJ’s credibility determination made in-person with their own based on interpreting a written record of testimony.
a. The termination was already rescinded by “the labor attorney” who was worried how the termination of the pregnant employee would fair in the EEO case.
4. The ending is the polar opposite of the agency’s recent decision in an OFO appeal (redacted case name). “Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we find that the AJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
a. This is demonstrably untrue. They overruled the credibility determinations based on other testimony, and a draft document, which is their right as they have ruled...but there was substantial evidence (which the case law often refers to as “any” or “a pile of any shape or size” ) They could overrule the AJ, but to declare they did so based on not meeting substantial evidence is patently untrue.
This case makes the EEOC look like an arbitration hearing?
