|
|
Post by foghorn on Aug 10, 2017 16:19:27 GMT -5
Yes, but the point is not the merit of the underlying suit but the US's chicken deboning of its very own EEOC/AJ's. What will be interesting is that on appeal to the US Sct, the US Solicitor General argues only for the United States. Who is the United States here? The US DOJ? The US EEOC? Subtle murmurings I am getting from inside EEOC is this is first step by TPTB toward future desired elimination of EEOC/AJs. Yeah, I think you are completely misinterpreting Zarda's impact on the EEOC, especially as some sort of threat to the AJs. Zarda is a fight over the whether TVII encompasses sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC and DOJ are now at odds over that interpretation; an issue you that will likely be decided by SCOTUS. I cannot see how this decision impacts AJs in any manner unless and until SCOTUS rules regarding sexual orientation coverage under TVII, or the EEOC Commissioner's change the EEOC's position, the AJs will continue interpreting TVII to cover sexual orientation. Nevertheless, the idea that this particular case has any bearing on the future existence of AJs is ludicrous.
The interesting concept that could do damage is the lack of deference to a specialty agency. Agencies are accorded "due deference" because of agency expertise. The administration has said before it will engage in end arounds on agency procedure and has done so. Look at the beginnings, with the travel ban when no one was consulted. Likewise on trans in the military.
So this suggests that they will do what they want to do and if an agency acts otherwise they'll fight their own agency.
I do see that this can be seen as dealing with a singular intersection where two agencies have jurisdiction and are free to interpret, though I would have thought there would have been some inter agency task force that would have worked out such wrinkles. But perhaps with newer minorities seeking civil rights it has to be expected that the political negatives tend to drive away any position taking until the complaint is filed and a position must be taken.
But I do see a danger, and don't think it is "ludicrous" when one agency--which is historically more powerful--takes on another head to head (as it were).
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 11, 2017 7:29:06 GMT -5
The job looks interesting, but a GS-13? Promotion to 14, I guess, but I'm a 14 now as a staff counsel. As much as I'd like to be a Judge...boy, I'd have to seriously think about taking a pay cut to do it. Seems like an AJ should, at the very least, rate a 14 (with promotion to 15).
|
|
|
|
Post by ssa on Aug 11, 2017 8:14:26 GMT -5
The job looks interesting, but a GS-13? Promotion to 14, I guess, but I'm a 14 now as a staff counsel. As much as I'd like to be a Judge...boy, I'd have to seriously think about taking a pay cut to do it. Seems like an AJ should, at the very least, rate a 14 (with promotion to 15). That's how the MSPB AJ was posted (14 with promotion potential to 15) - admittedly it's why I couldn't find the EEOC postings because I wasn't looking for a 13. Surprised me too. |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 11, 2017 12:45:35 GMT -5
The job looks interesting, but a GS-13? Promotion to 14, I guess, but I'm a 14 now as a staff counsel. As much as I'd like to be a Judge...boy, I'd have to seriously think about taking a pay cut to do it. Seems like an AJ should, at the very least, rate a 14 (with promotion to 15). Wage regs do not require that you take a pay cut. If you were hired for this position, the Agency has to bring you in at your current salary or higher, e.g. a 13/10. And given that you are already a 14 you would certainly have the ability to discuss staying at your current pay level. |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 11, 2017 12:52:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I think you are completely misinterpreting Zarda's impact on the EEOC, especially as some sort of threat to the AJs. Zarda is a fight over the whether TVII encompasses sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC and DOJ are now at odds over that interpretation; an issue you that will likely be decided by SCOTUS. I cannot see how this decision impacts AJs in any manner unless and until SCOTUS rules regarding sexual orientation coverage under TVII, or the EEOC Commissioner's change the EEOC's position, the AJs will continue interpreting TVII to cover sexual orientation. Nevertheless, the idea that this particular case has any bearing on the future existence of AJs is ludicrous.
The interesting concept that could do damage is the lack of deference to a specialty agency. Agencies are accorded "due deference" because of agency expertise. The administration has said before it will engage in end arounds on agency procedure and has done so. Look at the beginnings, with the travel ban when no one was consulted. Likewise on trans in the military.
So this suggests that they will do what they want to do and if an agency acts otherwise they'll fight their own agency.
I do see that this can be seen as dealing with a singular intersection where two agencies have jurisdiction and are free to interpret, though I would have thought there would have been some inter agency task force that would have worked out such wrinkles. But perhaps with newer minorities seeking civil rights it has to be expected that the political negatives tend to drive away any position taking until the complaint is filed and a position must be taken.
But I do see a danger, and don't think it is "ludicrous" when one agency--which is historically more powerful--takes on another head to head (as it were).
I don't really see this as problematic. It's just the process in the progression of law in this area. There is already a split in the circuits on this issue (2nd and 7th) and it will go up to the Supreme Court for resolution. The EEOC is an independent agency and sometimes works with DOJ, primarily to forward cases that the EEOC does not have statutory authority to litigate. There is no task force or any coordination on this issue between agencies. Everyone was on the same page until the new administration came in. Right now, EEOC is standing firm on its position.
|
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 11, 2017 12:55:38 GMT -5
The job looks interesting, but a GS-13? Promotion to 14, I guess, but I'm a 14 now as a staff counsel. As much as I'd like to be a Judge...boy, I'd have to seriously think about taking a pay cut to do it. Seems like an AJ should, at the very least, rate a 14 (with promotion to 15). That's how the MSPB AJ was posted (14 with promotion potential to 15) - admittedly it's why I couldn't find the EEOC postings because I wasn't looking for a 13. Surprised me too. EEOC AJs have made this argument for years and we continue to do so. One of the impediments has always been our federal budget. Ninetly percent covers office rent and salaries. But we keep pushing. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 11, 2017 13:36:44 GMT -5
The job looks interesting, but a GS-13? Promotion to 14, I guess, but I'm a 14 now as a staff counsel. As much as I'd like to be a Judge...boy, I'd have to seriously think about taking a pay cut to do it. Seems like an AJ should, at the very least, rate a 14 (with promotion to 15). Wage regs do not require that you take a pay cut. If you were hired for this position, the Agency has to bring you in at your current salary or higher, e.g. a 13/10. And given that you are already a 14 you would certainly have the ability to discuss staying at your current pay level. 13-10 is a pay cut. I fear, even if they had to pay me my current salary, that they'd just assume take someone who they can pay a lower wage. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 12, 2017 22:54:22 GMT -5
Wage regs do not require that you take a pay cut. If you were hired for this position, the Agency has to bring you in at your current salary or higher, e.g. a 13/10. And given that you are already a 14 you would certainly have the ability to discuss staying at your current pay level. 13-10 is a pay cut. I fear, even if they had to pay me my current salary, that they'd just assume take someone who they can pay a lower wage. Nope, doesn't work that way. If chosen, you get what you are entitled to. |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Aug 12, 2017 23:45:28 GMT -5
13-10 is a pay cut. I fear, even if they had to pay me my current salary, that they'd just assume take someone who they can pay a lower wage. Nope, doesn't work that way. If chosen, you get what you are entitled to. Get what i am entitled to? Now that scares me...lol! |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 14, 2017 8:08:00 GMT -5
13-10 is a pay cut. I fear, even if they had to pay me my current salary, that they'd just assume take someone who they can pay a lower wage. Nope, doesn't work that way. If chosen, you get what you are entitled to. I guess it's the "if chosen" thing that concerns me. I would think I'd be less likely to be chosen if there's another candidate, with similar qualifications, who doesn't have to be paid at the higher grade/step rate. And there's certain to be no shortage of highly qualified candidates for this position. |
|
|
|
Post by ssa on Aug 14, 2017 8:11:10 GMT -5
Nope, doesn't work that way. If chosen, you get what you are entitled to. I guess it's the "if chosen" thing that concerns me. I would think I'd be less likely to be chosen if there's another candidate, with similar qualifications, who they don't have to pay at the higher grade/step rate. And there's certain to be no shortage of highly qualified candidates for this position. In my experience, that (the potential grade/step a candidate would come in as) doesn't factor into the decison-making process whatsoever. The selecting officials pick who they want and figure out the rest after making that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 14, 2017 8:16:33 GMT -5
I guess it's the "if chosen" thing that concerns me. I would think I'd be less likely to be chosen if there's another candidate, with similar qualifications, who they don't have to pay at the higher grade/step rate. And there's certain to be no shortage of highly qualified candidates for this position. In my experience, that (the potential grade/step a candidate would come in as) doesn't factor into the decison-making process whatsoever. The selecting officials pick who they want and figure out the rest after making that decision. That's good to know. I did throw my hat in as it looks like a really great opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 14, 2017 9:33:40 GMT -5
I guess it's the "if chosen" thing that concerns me. I would think I'd be less likely to be chosen if there's another candidate, with similar qualifications, who they don't have to pay at the higher grade/step rate. And there's certain to be no shortage of highly qualified candidates for this position. In my experience, that (the potential grade/step a candidate would come in as) doesn't factor into the decison-making process whatsoever. The selecting officials pick who they want and figure out the rest after making that decision. Yep. I thought I had made that point in my earlier post. Guess I was not as clear as I thought. Should be clear now that ssa has said it, and I have said it twice. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 14, 2017 10:31:22 GMT -5
In my experience, that (the potential grade/step a candidate would come in as) doesn't factor into the decison-making process whatsoever. The selecting officials pick who they want and figure out the rest after making that decision. Yep. I thought I had made that point in my earlier post. Guess I was not as clear as I thought. Should be clear now that ssa has said it, and I have said it twice. Pixie Ok, thanks. I initially read your comment as confirming that, if picked, you had to be given the same level of pay as currently held (as opposed to the grade of a candidate not being a factor in hiring discussions). It's good to hear it from both SSA and you that the hiring committee acts blindly with respect to the current grade of a candidate. I'm sorry I misread your intended message. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 14, 2017 10:47:35 GMT -5
I see that there are a couple of EEOC AJs in this thread. I'd very much like to run my background by one of you if you don't mind. In PM, of course. I totally understand if that can't be done, but it can't hurt to ask.
I'm curious as to what sort of chances I might realistically have. If you're willing, please give me a ping. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by prospect on Aug 14, 2017 11:19:40 GMT -5
Sure, PM me
|
|
|
|
Post by 14thebrowns on Aug 14, 2017 12:17:20 GMT -5
I see that there are a couple of EEOC AJs in this thread. I'd very much like to run my background by one of you if you don't mind. In PM, of course. I totally understand if that can't be done, but it can't hurt to ask. I'm curious as to what sort of chances I might realistically have. If you're willing, please give me a ping. Thanks in advance. I would love to do the same. Can I pm one of you? |
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Oct 3, 2017 15:21:28 GMT -5
Just got my notice of referral for the AJ position!  . Hopefully a good sign! |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Oct 3, 2017 16:07:45 GMT -5
Keep track of the dates involved so that later you can post a timeline! Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeyefan on Oct 3, 2017 21:39:45 GMT -5
I recently received emails saying that I had been referred for an eeoc position and another position I applied for in September. This is my first time applying for federal jobs, and I am wondering if the likelihood of being called for an interview is good, or if so many applicants are referred to the next step that it is unlikely I will get an interview? Are people usually contacted within a few weeks if they are going to get an interview? Also, now that the people from the last cert will be starting class soon, any idea when the next cert will be? Another cert in 2017, or no? Thank you.
|
|
. Hopefully a good sign!