Rally for Justice Wed., Oct. 1St Noon North Plaza

12 ALERT!!!

Rally for Justice – Wed., Oct. 1st @ Noon – North Plaza

DOL manager Eric Raps has cost the DOL over a million dollars in discrimination payments and legal fees. Bennett Gamble has been personally honored by several Secretaries of Labor. Can you guess which one was removed from the FPB and terminated without just cause?

Something is amiss! Raps is fully employed; Gamble is fired!

In the case DOL Worker (A) v. Hilda Solis, Civil Action No. 07-2216 (JMF), Judge John M. Facciola of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that supervisor Eric Raps in EBSA violated Worker (A)’s rights under the Rehabilitation Act. At p. 33. The judge suggested that Mr. Raps had been obstructionist during the process of Ms. Worker attempting to obtain a reasonable accommodation during her employment with EBSA. Specifically, the judge found that “Raps’ actions during this time period amount to a failure to engage in the interactive process, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Indeed, Raps’ actions amount to coercion – he demanded that Worker waive the very confidentiality the statute and regulations created before he would even consider Worker’s request.” At. P. 30 Further, the judge stated that “Raps’ continued yet unwarranted skepticism of Worker and the resulting delay in issuing Worker a workable accommodation constituted bad faith with regards to the interactive accommodation process.” At p. 31. The judge was appalled by the fact Eric Raps was demanding to see non-redacted gynecological reports from Ms. Worker’s physician. He noted that:

…Raps’ demand that Worker submit highly sensitive and personal medical evaluations to him in un-redacted form was in direct contravention of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance …There was no need whatsoever for Raps or any non-physician to see detailed information regarding Worker’s condition. By insisting upon seeing it and conditioning any further progress towards arriving at an accommodation upon Worker’s disclosing the full letter to him…Raps violated these regulations and unnecessarily inhibited the continuance of Worker’s reasonable accommodation.

Judge Facciola concluded that “DOL violated the Rehabilitation Act when Raps limited Worker’s reasonable accommodation….” The judge awarded Ms. Worker (A) $300,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus attorney’s fees. He added that if he were not precluded by a statutory cap on compensatory damages, he would have granted more compensation. At p. 38. Further, the judge instructed the parties to calculate the back wages owed to Ms. Worker (A), as a result of her loss of employment. At pp. 38-39.

The decision expressly stated that nothing in the circumstances of the case “justified the mean-spirited behavior of Raps that was…indefensible and subjected Worker, an obviously sick woman, to much unnecessary anxiety, concern, and additional suffering.” At P. 37.

In the settlement of yet another case involving a female employee under Mr. Raps’ supervision in EBSA, DOL Worker (B), without admitting any liability, the Department of Labor agreed to pay Ms. Worker (B) $235,000.00 “in full settlement of [her] claims of discrimination and retaliation and to compensate her for injuries that she alleges she suffered as a result.” U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil action No. 09-1035 (RMC).

Finally, in the case DOL Worker (C) v. Thomas Perez, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

Civil Action No. 10-2051 (BJR), DOL Worker (C), who was also supervised by Mr. Raps, reached a settlement with DOL to resolve the claims of discrimination which she brought against him. DOL agreed to pay Ms. Worker (C) a total of $295,000.00 “in full settlement of [her] claims of discrimination and retaliation and to compensate her for injuries that she alleges she suffered ….” Because the case was settled, there was no decision as to liability and no admission of such.

The common thread in the cases of female Workers (A), (B), and (C) is Eric Raps. He is still employed at DOL, in EBSA.

Bennett Gamble was terminated for having written an e-mail in 2008, being questioned about it 2011, and found to have been less than forthcoming about the e-mail he had written 3 years before being questioned about it.

Here’s Mr. Gamble’s Story--

Bennett Gamble has an unblemished 27-year performance record at DOL. He has earned many performance awards and commendations over the years, and has been the de facto DOL Pianist for any number of special DOL events. He has been removed from his employment at the Department of Labor based on the report by DOL’s Inspector General (IG) of an event that occurred in 2008. The “event” was his having written an e-mail to an outside entity that DOL thought should have been cleared in-house before being sent. At the time, 2008, he was told this, and the matter was dropped. However, at some point thereafter the IG launched an investigation of other matters, but also looked at the e-mail event.

When asked by the IG and the FBI in 2012 about the e-mail, Mr. Gamble did not recall the e-mail event. The investigators then said that he lied, and Carl Fillichio, Director of the Office of Public Affairs, used the IG’s report to then remove Mr. Gamble on the basis that he made unauthorized disclosures (informed a news outlet that it was under investigation), provided unauthorized access to government space, and “communicated in inappropriate ways about government business.” Mr. Fillichio also charged that Mr. Gamble gave “inaccurate and misleading information” to the OIG. Mr. Fillichio relied totally upon the IG’s report to remove Mr. Gamble from his employment.

When asked for the substantiating documents of the report, the IG refused disclosure. Deputy Secretary Ed Hugler asked (in writing) that the documents be given to Local 12, as Mr. Gamble’s exclusive representative. Again, the IG (in writing) declined to make the disclosure.

We have asked for higher-level intervention, but Carl Fillichio appears to be in total control of this matter. Local 12 informed Mr. Fillichio that under the parties’ CBA, we are entitled to all of the evidence relied upon by management to fire Mr. Gamble, including the substantiating documents to the IG’s report. The IG’s refusal to disclose this information had no impact on Mr. Fillichio’s decision.

The processes of redress where there is a report from the OIG are broken at DOL.It appears that any manager can do indirectly what, by law, he/she cannot do directly. He/she can have findings compiled against an employee, via the IG, and then claim that he/she does not have to produce the evidence to substantiate the findings made against the employee because the IG is not subject to the disclosure rules. However, as Local 12 stated to DOL’s IG, Scott Dahl, the OIG works for the agency in which it is located. The Supreme Court has made this point crystal clear, noting that

[i]n conducting their work, Congress certainly intended that the various OIG's would enjoy a great deal of autonomy. But unlike the jurisdiction of many law enforcement agencies, an OIG's investigative office, as contemplated by the IGA, is performed with regard to, and on behalf of, the particular agency in which it is stationed. See 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 2, 4(a), 6(a)(2). In common parlance, the investigators employed in [he agency’s] OIG are unquestionably “representatives” of [the agency] when acting within the scope of their employment.

As representatives of management (the agency), the OIG is not immune from the requirements of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute or of the parties’ CBA.

The clarity of the law has made no difference in this case. All law and common sense have been ignored!!!

Watch for the next 12 ALERT! about how Donna Kramer & Stephen Barr forced Bennett Gamble from the FPB!!! Barr & Kramer, along with the IG and (especially) Fillichio must GO!!!