HR’s lighter side: EEOC commits labor violation
April 3, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Complaint investigation, Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
It’s not so rare that an employer might commit a Fair Labor Standards Act violation. But, jeez, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?
The government’s watchdog agency got nabbed for giving some of its employees comp time instead of overtime pay for working more than 40 hours in a week.
Not only that, but a federal arbitrator in the case ruled that the violation wasn’t just some silly mistake by the EEOC. The arbitrator said the violation was “willful negligence.” In other words, the folks at EEOC knew they were circumventing the rules, and continued to do so anyway.
Officials at the EEOC have vowed to straighten up and fly right, but all of this raises a question for private-employer HR managers:
Who’s watching the people who are supposed to be watching you?
Tags: eeoc, equal employment opportunity commission, fair labor standards act
April 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Sounds like the nominees put up by our president and their lack of tax paying diligence. I sense a trend of more do as I say not as I do.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Actually, MF, these charges were brought up in 2006 under “W”. I’ll take fudging on taxes over what we had the last 8 years any day.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It’s government – and that doesn’t surprise me – but I don’t find this to be on the “lighter side.” Where’s the media outrage? It seems as though nothing can be wrong with the government in this new administration, just like all the tax cheats Nobama hired (or tried to hire).
April 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I seriously doubt that this was happening in only the past 3 months. I’m sure this was ongoing from the last administratiion. Put the partisanship aside and let’s get the facts.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Government rules seldom apply to government. Example: age discrimination, if you are over 35 you can not apply to police or parks etc.
April 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
all i can say is…sweet! nothing says do as i say but not as i do…
August 21st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
If I am not mistaken this happened under W administration and not the current administration. What an administration that was that did a superb job being good steward of tax payers dollars….runaway economic, worst since the depression. All I can say is the chickens came home to roost. The past 8 years of zero accountability, I can see it happening. This administration is being held to a higher standard; just 8 years to late.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
The W administration what can I say, the chickens came home to roost..zero accountability
August 24th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Hold on J.O. or should I say Rev. Wright, the current administration has run up more debt than all the previous administrations. Unemployment is at 9.4%. It’s starting to look like the Carter administration with a spending problem. Can we get past slamming George Bush and address today’s issues? The article is not about “W” it is about the people who make the rules not following them. As I pointed out earlier the US government discriminates openly on age discrimination and there is no BFOQ for doing so. I know park police officers who are 50 years old and doing a fine job but if you are 40 and apply they will not hire you based solely on your age.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
That’s not just parks. That is any law enforcement related field.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Law Enforcement (or being a pilot for an airline, or several other types of jobs) do discriminate on the basis of age. This is not unlawful, and is considered a minimum job requirement in many jurisdictions. It is actions not prohibited by US Title VII or the ADEA, and has already been authorized by law and vetted by the Court system in a variety of different cases.
Interestingly, in the case of the law enforcement agency I work for, we do not have a maximum age; you must show you can meet the physical, mental, and psychological requirements of the position. Nevertheless, like the FBI and other agencies, Peace Officer Standards and Training Regulations “could” require it in my state. They currently do not.
This is not the only form of lawful discrimination allowed in law enforcement. For example, you must also be a US Citizen. Not a permanent resident or otherwise authorized to work in the US, but an actual US Citizen. This is also generally viewed as unlawful discrimination on the basis of citizenship, an act most employers are prohibited by Federal law from committing.
Another example is you cannot have a record of any felony conviction. Even if it is expunged. Again, there are laws in many states, including mine, that would normally prohibit discriminition based on the mere existence of any felony alone, especially in cases where that conviction was expunged.
Age, citizenship, conviction discriminination is unlawful…but not so with law enforcement. You may not like it, but there are some jobs or career fields in the country that form lawful exceptions to what we normally are trained to think of as unlawful discrimination.