News

The EEOC May Find You Unreasonable If You’re Not Traumatized by Single Insensitive Email

The Court system is our check and balance against the Judicial and Executive branch of the Government.  So, how is it that the Court system does not consider a single insensitive workplace email or remark to be Insensitive, but the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, considers it to be “Religious harassment” and a fine of around $30,000 – 40,000.

Hans Bader discusses this situation in his article on the CNSNews.com.  In it he discusses how the EEOC’s rulings have been found to disregard the guidelines and prior case law that exists when it is contrary to the EEOC’s decisions.  In this particular case, the ruling from the EEOC was “inconsistent not only with court rulings, but also the language of the relevant status, which only bans harassment when it is sufficiently pervasive as to affect ‘terms’ or ‘conditions of employment’“.

Thankfully the Court’s due have a say in these rulings, and the EEOC has been restrained, but this is immense overreaching on their part.

The original article is here – https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/eeoc-may-find-you-unreasonable-if-youre-not-traumatized-single-insensitive

EEOC: An Agency on the Wrong Track?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been in the news, but you may not have heard about the Litigation Failures, Misfocused Priorities that have raised concerns about the important Anti-Discrimination Agency.

We are spotlighting a report from the US Senate that documents many concerns and issues that were brought to light in 2014.  From the Report’s Executive Summary:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) serves an important role in our nation’s workplaces. Under the leadership of five commissioners and a general counsel, EEOC is charged with protecting employees from discrimination at work through enforcement of equal opportunity employment laws. The commission investigates allegations of discrimination and seeks to mediate cases, allowing lawsuits to go forward if settlements are unsuccessful. The general counsel pursues allegations of discrimination in court and has been deputized by the commission to initiate litigation in many instances. The commission also issues guidance to inform the public about how it believes employers should interpret and apply the laws.

Today’s EEOC, however, is pursuing many questionable cases through sometimes overly aggressive means—and, as a result, has suffered significant court losses that are embarrassing to the agency and costly to taxpayers. Courts have found EEOC’s litigation tactics to be so egregious they have ordered EEOC to pay defendants’ attorney’s fees in ten cases since 2011. The courts have criticized EEOC for misuse of its authority, poor expert analysis, and pursuit of novel cases unsupported by law. Several courts have openly criticized EEOC for its failure to satisfy pre-litigation requirements, such as attempting to resolve discrimination disputes out of court; yet, the general counsel is leading an effort to prevent court review of such requirements.

These court losses also have come at a significant cost to victims of workplace discrimination. While EEOC’s monetary recoveries for victims through settlements are up, EEOC’s litigation has recovered almost $200 million less for victims than under the previous administration over the same time frame. In March 2014, EEOC reported almost 71,000 unresolved complaints of discrimination from individuals who filed charges with EEOC.

EEOC also has suffered from a troubling lack of transparency. In the past two and a half years, EEOC has ignored calls from current commissioners and Congress to allow public review of significant and controversial guidance prior to its adoption. Also, the Office of General Counsel has, since 2010, failed to issue its standard annual report, and the agency is being sued for violating the Freedom of Information Act.

This staff report will first explain the background and operation of EEOC. Next, the report will explore costly rebukes of EEOC’s recent litigation practices. The report will also discuss the ways in which EEOC has shown a lack of transparency.

Today’s EEOC has had successful enforcement efforts and court victories for victims of discrimination, but this report finds the agency is increasingly demonstrating poor judgment and using questionable tactics in pursuit of cases that are not fulfilling the EEOC’s objective of protecting employees from workplace discrimination.

Some of the important key findings of the report:

KEY FINDINGS

  • EEOC’s Office of General Counsel frequently initiates litigation without the benefit of a commission vote. In FY 2012, only three of 122 lawsuits filed by EEOC were brought to the commission for a vote. According to a former EEOC general counsel who served from 2003 to 2005, this represents a significant departure from the previous commission.
  • EEOC has been sanctioned by courts and ordered to pay attorney’s fees ten times since 2011 for untenable litigation and litigation strategies. (See Appendix 1.)
  • Monetary awards pursued in litigation for victims of discrimination are down from previous years. In FY 2012 and 2013, EEOC recovered $44.2 million and $38.6 million, respectively—the lowest recovery amounts in the past 16 years.
  • As of March 2014, EEOC had 70,781 unresolved discrimination charges pending.
  • EEOC’s credibility is at risk. As one commissioner described, EEOC’s “reputation and credibility has … suffered from several recent lawsuits where [EEOC was] not only sanctioned, but openly chastised by the courts.”
  • A federal court reprimanded EEOC for being “negligent in its discovery obligations, dilatory in cooperating with defense counsel, and somewhat cavalier in its responsibility to the United States District Court.”
  • EEOC caused a small employer to spend $100,000 attempting to comply with requests for information that, according to a federal judge, “EEOC had no authority to obtain.”
  • A unanimous three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found “[t]he EEOC continued to litigate . . . claims after it became clear there were no grounds upon which to proceed.”
  • EEOC is not consistently meeting its statutory mandate to attempt to resolve discrimination disputes out of court. One court found EEOC “blatantly contravene[d] Title VII’s emphasis on resolving disputes without resort to litigation,” and another found EEOC ignored its obligation to conciliate. EEOC’s general counsel is leading the fight to prevent court review of such efforts, and the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the issue this term.
  • Successful conciliations (i.e. resolution of a case outside of court) have decreased from 8,273 during the first five years of the previous administration to 6,967 during the same time period in the current administration.
  • Despite Office of Management and Budget best practices found in an agency bulletin and support from a majority of commissioners, EEOC does not allow the public to review or comment upon its draft guidance, even in cases of novel, significant or controversial  guidance. This is especially concerning because in two cases last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected substantive positions found in EEOC guidance.
  • Unlike prior years, EEOC’s Office of General Counsel has only published one annual report since 2010. These reports summarize the activities and litigation record of the Office of General Counsel.
  • EEOC is being sued for failing to meet statutory deadlines imposed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and EEOC’s own FOIA regulations.

The full report is hereOr you can get it from the US Senate here.

 

 

In a Community Divided, Nobody Wins

Speaking Out Essay

In a Community Divided, Nobody Wins

As a long-time resident of the town of Henrietta, I am appalled at the deceitful behavior of the Henrietta Democratic Committee and their candidates with regard to Town Supervisor Jack Moore.

Over the past few weeks, many allegations have been made about Mr. Moore’s character. Let me state, without any hesitation, that these allegations have not been anything more than a blatant manipulation of the facts and a distortion of the truth. Mr. Moore is not now, nor has he ever been a racist or sexist, as has been claimed. I say that with unwavering certainty because I could not support any individual who accepts and practices those beliefs. I have known Mr. Moore and the entire Moore family for more than 40 years. In all those years, I have witnessed their unselfish dedication to and support of all of the people of Henrietta.

It is noteworthy that the timing of this smear campaign is surfacing just before the November election. There is no doubt that this is the motivation behind it all. These accusations are not new, nor are the EEOC claims that were filed a number of years ago by a few disgruntled employees. The credibility of those making these allegations needs to be questioned. One is being charged with secretly recording conversations in the Henrietta Town Court and another was fired in 1994 (before Jack Moore was supervisor) and sued the town to be reinstated. The Democratic Committee and candidates have everything to gain and nothing to lose from this type of campaign, except for one thing—their integrity.

It is a travesty that all the deceitful rhetoric that is being driven by Mr. Moore’s accusers and local wannabe politicians is doing nothing more than tearing our community apart. I am hopeful that after the votes are in and the dust clears, we can heal the wounds and ease the pain that this conflict has caused and emerge a much stronger community. We owe it to ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and to the future of Henrietta.

JODY DAY

Guest Essayist

Retired
Resident of Henrietta
Henrietta Republican Committee Member

Available for Download, Speaking Out Essay October 2017

The Results Tell This Story

Pennysaver Ad No 6 10-18-17.png

In just four years, Supervisor Jack Moore and the Town Board Team have:

  • Lowered our Town Taxes
  • Brought 1,700 new jobs to Henrietta
  • Are developing a Town Center, including
    • Recreation Center (developed, and constructed)
    • A New Library building
    • Senior Center
    • Highway Garage
    • Town Hall
  • Opened the Dog Park
  • Increased and improved Park Lands
  • Developing a Farmland Protection Plan
  • Acquired over 150 acres of open green space

New York State Constitution Convention

The media has been discussing the upcoming vote on the NY State Constitutional Convention, I believe it is important that we make an educated decision to vote for or against this.

Here are some facts about the convention and some websites to refer to for more information:

  • The current State Constitution was drafted in 1938
  • By law a vote to hold a constitutional convention must be held every 20 years.
    • Last convention was 1967 – all proposed changes were voted down
    • In 1997 it was voted down
  • Some view this as an opportunity to make changes, others see it as opening Pandora’s box.
  • If the vote is to hold a Constitutional Convention then:
    • Delegates (3 from each senate district and 15 others statewide) would be elected in 2018
    • Those delegates would meet in April of 2019 for the convention
    • any proposed changes would go before the voters in the 2019 November election.  No changes can occur to the constitution without statewide approval at the ballot box.
  • Backers are the NYState Bar Association and extremely liberal groups
  • Main stream Republicans, Democrats, and Conservatives are opposed to it
  • Even Unions are against it
  • NY City residents have the most to gain from this

The Constitutional Convention, is a topic that we need to be informed about if we are going to make an educated decision for or against.  Keep in mind, while the delegates would come together with unlimited abilities to propose amending the constitution in any and all ways.

What has not been emphasized is that any amendments approved by delegates would need to be ultimately approved by the voters. This is important to remember: No changes can occur to the constitution without statewide approval at the ballot box.

Please take a few moments to look at the following websites before voting on November 7th.

The New York post has a very well balanced look at the convention, including the potential special interest concerns, and the Conservative concerns.

A Pro-Constitutional Convention viewpoint is over at Syracuse.com.  Their stance is that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to use the convention to clean up Albany’s politics & corruption, revise the New York state Electoral system, and add term limits.

A Con-Constitiutional Convention viewpoint is at:  newyorkconcon.info.

Working to keep Henrietta a Great Place

Improving the quality of life for the residents of Henrietta continues to be the platform upon we stand. Working together as we continue to modernize town operations, increase accessibility and appeal of town parks and recreation programs, and remain business friendly while keeping taxes low is imperative.

So Let’s take a moment to recognize the work that Jack Moore has done.

  • Has kept our town taxes low
  • Added more than 1,700 Jobs to Henrietta
  • Is Developing a Farmland Protection Plan
  • Is working on creating the Henrietta Town Center, which incorporates:
  • Renovations at the Veterans Memorial Park (595 Calkins Road)
  • Created new walking trails at the Breese Park (108 Westcombe Park)
  • Renovated the Heating & Cooling (HVAC) in the Henrietta Public Library
  • Acquired 51 acres in 2015, and over 108 acres of open green space in 2016.
  • Established an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Committee to help manage Henrietta’s long term Lang Use Plan.

pennysaver Page 2

There also will be a Supervisor Jack Moore Recognition Event on Thursday, September 28, 2017 at Gro-Moore Farms (2811 East Henrietta Rd).  Refreshments will be served.Moore Recognition Page 1

 

Dr. Alveda King speaking in Rochester

Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martini Luther King Jr., will be speaking in Rochester on October 2nd, 2017 at 6:00 – 8:00 pm at the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church on 304 Joseph Avenue.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. King:

Alveda Celeste King (born January 22, 1951) is an American activist, author and former state representative for the 28th District in the Georgia House of Representatives.

She is a niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and daughter of civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King and his wife Naomi Barber King. She is a Fox News Channel contributor. She once served as a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a conservative Washington, D.C. think-tank. She is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives and the founder of Alveda King Ministries.
– From Wikipedia, for more details see Alveda King @ Wikipedia

Cover Image by Priests for Life.

The Henrietta Reform Party Victory.

The Henrietta Reform Party Primary voted overwhelmingly for the Henrietta Republican Team in the latest party Primary.
The Reform Party Primary included:
  • Jack Moore For Town Supervisor
  • Kristine Demo-Vazquez for Town Board
  • John Howland for Town Board
When the primary closed, and the absentee ballets were accounted for, the Henrietta Republican Team won 74% of the Vote, proving that the Henrietta Reform Party & The Henrietta Republican Committee are a team – Working Together – For Henrietta.