And Now Another Word With … Steve Shih

,

Portrait of Steve Shih on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2017 at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

By Dan Gephart, July 30, 2019

Anyone who has ever attended a mediocre leadership training has surely heard the story of the Janitor and the President. Per the legend, President John F. Kennedy was touring NASA in the agency’s early days when he came upon a man sweeping the floor. The president asked him what he was doing. The janitor replied: “Mr. President, I am putting a man on the moon.”

The Janitor and the President is often shared as an example of how a great leader gets buy-in to organizational mission. I imagine that most of you, like me, recognize it as fiction more than reality. The story has more holes than the colander shelf at Bed Bath and Beyond.

What I don’t doubt, however, is the space agency’s amazing success at making all facets of the organization feel a part of the mission, especially when it comes to EEO/Diversity.

Today we pick up our conversation from earlier this month with Steve Shih, NASA’s Associate Administrator of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. (See Part I of the interview here.) Shih and I didn’t discuss the Janitor, President Kennedy, or the Moon Landing. (Happy 50th anniversary NASA!). But Shih did mention the Low-Boom Flight Demonstration (a supersonic flight with technology that reduces the loudness of a sonic boom), the International Space Station, the Parker Solar Probe, and Mars InSight Lander. All these projects are collaborations with academic, commercial and international partners. And they all are projects taken with Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) and EEO in mind, according to Shih.

DG: One of NASA’s most publicized goals is the return to the Moon by 2024. How is EEO part of that mission?

SS: D&I and EEO is an enabler for this exciting mission, including in our emphasis on the equitable and inclusive contributions of the entire diversity of NASA’s organizations and workforce, and our historical and inspirational plan to not only land Americans but to also land the first woman on the moon.

Every aspect of this mission from the rocket to the European Service Module, to the Gateway lunar outpost, to the Lunar Lander – will involve NASA’s collaboration and partnership with other sectors and other countries, and the services of our diverse Astronaut corps.

DG: You’ve worked for several agencies. How does agency culture define EEO’s approach, and how would someone go about changing that culture?

SS: Different agencies have different approaches and different strategic emphases on D&I and EEO. As leaders and practitioners in federal agencies, we have a responsibility to help provide leadership on shaping a culture of inclusiveness, fairness, and employee engagement … and to align culture, policies, programs, and personnel management towards mission accomplishment, both in achieving immediate priorities as well as sustainment of effective and efficient services to the American people.

 

At NASA, our leaders and workforce understand the importance of D&I and EEO for mission accomplishment. Our past and most current work provide abundant examples of accomplishments that required inclusive participation and teamwork across NASA and with external partners in other sectors and countries.

 

DG: How does an EEO professional create an environment where employees take EEO training seriously?

SS: Practitioners can best generate support and commitment for D&I and EEO including training, by ensuring D&I and EEO initiatives align to mission and offer value for agencies, organizations, and workforces. A value-added approach fosters an intrinsic motivation by individuals to support training or other programs, whereas a compliance approach (e.g., mandatory requirement) rests on an extrinsic motivation that not only may fail to create genuine commitment, but sometimes can cause resistance and resentment.

DG: In light of the #MeToo movement, what are some things agencies should know about harassment?

SS: Across our country, we’ve learned a great deal about contributing conditions and risk factors for harassment. Research informs us harassers often possess the following qualities: lack of empathy, belief in traditional gender roles, and a tendency toward dominance/authoritarianism, particularly involving power imbalances between individuals.

 

We know more about factors that increase the risk of workplace harassment, including:

  • Homogeneous workforces
  • Workplaces with cultures or social norms that permit or excuse harassment
  • Existence of cultural and language differences
  • Coarsened social discourse outside the workplace
  • Workforces with many young workers
  • Workforces with “high value” or “superstar” employees
  • Workplaces that rely on customer service or client satisfaction
  • Workplaces where work is monotonous or consists of low-intensity tasks
  • Isolated workspaces
  • Workplaces with cultures that tolerate or encourage alcohol consumption
  • Decentralized workplaces

The EEOC has consistently provided outstanding leadership on the issue of harassment. Most recently, EEOC led a task force to study harassment and subsequently issued a June 2016 Report of the Co-Chairs of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, and resources for employers to proactively prevent and to promptly correct harassment. The EEOC has issued many guidance documents on harassment. Additionally, EEOC’s “Model Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program” Management Directive 715is extremely helpful for agencies to establish and maintain strong policies and programs for EEO, including for anti-harassment.

Gephart@FELTG.com

Where Does It Say I Can Reprimand?

,

By William Wiley, originally published November 14, 2015; posted July 10, 2015

Questions, we get questions. And here’s one that goes to the fundamental nature of an agency’s authority to do anything:

Dear Genius-Level Brains at FELTG-

What is the Statutory or CFR basis that gives Management the authority to issue written reprimands? I’ve reviewed USC Chapter 5 and 5 CFR 752 as well as more OPM webpages than I thought could exist. I see lots on suspensions (<14 days and >14 days) but nothing that seems to give Agency Management the right or authority to issue written reprimands. Do you know of any CFR reg that addresses an Agency Head’s authority to issue written reprimands for the efficiency of the service?

And our sparkly little FELTG answer:

There’s no specific statutory or regulatory authority to issue reprimands. Rather, the authority comes from the statutory delegation of the authority for the general administration of personnel within an agency to the head of the agency, 5 USC 302(b). Issuing a reprimand is part of the “general administration of personnel.” Therefore, it is delegated to the head of your agency.

It is a common misunderstanding to look for the authority to do something specific in government. Rather, this broad delegation of general administration authority effectively allows you to do anything related to personnel administration that you deem necessary, unless there is a prohibition against it. The better way to approach the issue is to ask, “Where does it say I cannot issue a reprimand?” As it does not say that anywhere, then you can.

An analogy would be, “Where does it say in law or regulation you have the right to breathe?” It does not. That right is embedded in the right to “the pursuit of happiness” that is found in our Constitution.

As for the content of a reprimand, generally the belief is that a reprimand was first defined for the practical purposes of progressive discipline in Bolling v. Air Force, 9 MSPR 335 (1981). Subsequently, buckets of Board decisions have relied on the fact of a reprimand being in the record to support progressive discipline. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a reprimand as “to censure formally, especially with authority.” The head of your agency has the authority to administer personnel. Therefore, you can reprimand.

By the way, nothing requires that a reprimand be for “the efficiency of the service.” That is a requirement set forth in statute only for 5 USC 7513(a) actions: suspensions, demotions, and removals. Rather, we are bound to take a personnel action (e.g. reprimand) only on the basis of conduct that adversely affects the performance of the employee or others, 5 USC 2302(b)(1). A reprimand is based on misconduct. Therefore, this standard is satisfied.

Hope this helps. Best of luck-

Bill

 

Wiley@FELTG.com

And Now a Word With … Steve Shih

,

Portrait of Steve Shih on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2017 at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

By Dan Gephart, July 2, 2019

On Feb. 1, 2018, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched a workplace anti-harassment campaign. The campaign was based on the applicable federal laws, EEO guidance on anti-harassment, and the expertise of its creator – Steve Shih.

Shih is that rare person who can explain the fundamental principles and concepts of subjects like employment law and leadership, but is also creative enough to develop outside-the-box solutions. He has held critical roles over the past 25 years with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Homeland Security. Shih has created agency- and government-wide policy and guidance for EEO, leadership, diversity and inclusion, training and development, employee engagement, and agency operations. He is currently Associate Administrator of Diversity and Equal Opportunity at NASA.

When Steve Shih talks, you listen. And we were listening when he discussed the agency’s anti-harassment campaign as being about “safety and effectiveness” of the workforce and the NASA mission. “We know if we take care of the workforce, they will take care of our mission,” Shih said.The campaign focuses on proactive prevention of harassment, and the prompt correction of harassment when it occurs. For prevention, the agency has gone to great lengths to get the message across – everything from meetings with agency leaders to 3-D simulations and gamification.

DG: What specific steps has NASA done to proactively prevent harassment?

SS: First, the NASA Administrator sent a video message and a written memorandum to every NASA employee, communicating:

  • Expectations for the appropriate culture and values in the NASA workplace.
  • Emphasis on accountability.
  • Reinforcement of the agency’s anti-harassment policy and requirements for all NASA personnel to exercise reasonable care to prevent and enable the prompt correction of workplace harassment.
  • Expectations for all personnel to support NASA’s Anti-Harassment Campaign.

I personally conducted briefings for all NASA senior leaders, including at the Administrator’s Senior Staff Meeting in February as well as briefings and trainings at NASA Headquarters and Field Centers across the country.

NASA has just developed and launched an innovative online training involving 3-D simulations, avatars, and gamification, focusing on harassment prevention and bystander intervention. The training is available to the entire NASA workforce, and is aligned specifically to NASA mission and to providing a value to NASA organizations and individuals on mission accomplishment.

NASA field centers and other organizations are also continuing additional efforts to proactively prevent harassment, including town halls, diversity and EEO programs, and partnerships with employee resources groups.

DG: We talked a lot about prevention, but can you briefly tell our readers how NASA effectively handles correction?

SS: NASA’s anti-harassment program is operated through a partnership of relevant NASA organizations and officials (including the agency’s Anti-Harassment Coordinators, the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Office of General Counsel, and senior management officials) who work together to review the fact-finding results of harassment matters and determine appropriate action.

These organizations and officials have both the leadership and program responsibilities and authorities to coordinate appropriate corrective measures when harassment occurs, including deciding and implementing discipline for employee misconduct, and driving organizational improvements (e.g., through training and improved operational policies and procedures).

This approach has enabled NASA to prioritize correction and continual prevention of harassment in a consistent, coordinated, and effective way across the entire agency.

DG: How do you measure the success of the anti-harassment program?

SS: NASA’s recent annual processing times for reports of harassment has averaged only 51 days from receipt to fact-finding to full resolution of reports of harassment, compared to the formal EEO process, which on average easily takes more than two years to fully complete.

We have data demonstrating employees’ increased capability to report harassment through any of multiple avenues and to multiple individuals who can arrange for assistance, including through our Anti-Harassment Program. Our data also indicate employees have experienced increased psychological safety and assurance of protection from retaliation, and these conditions have improved the confidence of employees to report and seek assistance for harassment.

I’m pleased to say NASA has maintained a very low volume of EEO complaints raising claims of harassment. Our data shows NASA’s Anti-Harassment Program has been extremely effective for early resolution of harassment matters so they don’t later become EEO complaints. In fact, during FY 2018, NASA received only 30 EEO complaints of harassment – this is a tremendously small number for an agency with about 17,500 civil servants and additional contract employees – and of these 30 EEO complaints, not a single one them raised a claim of sexual harassment.

Security Clearances as Conditions of Employment

,

By Barbara Haga, June 17, 2019

This month we are looking at what I would describe as the “King of Condition of Employment Cases.” In Egan v. Navy, 484 U.S. 518 (1998), the Supreme Court answered the question of what type of review would apply when the condition of employment involved a security clearance. Anyone who deals with security clearance issues should read this foundational case, if they haven’t yet.

Egan was hired in 1981 as a Laborer at the Trident Refit Facility in Bremerton, Wash., where all positions were deemed sensitive. His appointment was documented as subject to satisfactory completion of security and medical reports. During the interim between his date of hire and the date of the decision on his security clearance, Egan performed limited duty and was not allowed on board any submarines. Upon completion of the requisite inquiry into his background, the Navy proposed his removal based on several factors. First, it was noted that criminal records from California and Washington state reflected that he had been convicted for assault and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. It was also shown that he had failed to disclose on his employment application that he had two earlier convictions for carrying a loaded firearm.  Finally, he had admitted that he had had prior drinking problems and at one point had completed the final 28 days of one of his sentences in an alcohol rehab program.

The Navy completed the next required step in the clearance denial process and provided him an intent to revoke notice. Egan replied that his debt to society for his past convictions had been paid. He also stated that he had not listed convictions older than seven years because he did not interpret the employment form as requiring that information, and that he had not had an alcohol problem for the three years preceding the clearance determination. He also provided favorable references from his supervisors regarding his background and character.

Despite the rebuttal information Egan submitted, the Navy denied his clearance. He exercised his clearance appeal within the Navy. The answer regarding the clearance was not modified. In 1983, the Navy removed Egan since he was not eligible for the job for which he had been hired.

In the initial decision, the AJ reversed the removal ruling that the Board had the authority to review the merits of an agency’s security clearance decision, including that the “… agency must specify the precise criteria used in its security-clearance decision and must show that those criteria are rationally related to national security.”  The AJ held that “… the ultimate burden was upon the agency to persuade the Board of the appropriateness of its decision to deny clearance.”    

The agency petitioned for review and the Board overturned the AJ’s decision. Egan then took the matter to the Federal Circuit where in a divided vote, that court reversed the Board’s decision. In the Federal Circuit decision, the Court explained that because the removal was taken under 5 USC 7512 rather than 5 USC 7532, the Board’s role of deciding the merits of the removal were not limited.  The government took the case to the Supreme Court.  The case was decided as summarized here:

The Majority of the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 3 decision, decided that a denial of a security clearance is not an adverse action and therefore not subject to Board review under 5 USC 7512 and 7513. The Board may only decide whether cause for denial existed, whether the security clearance was denied, and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was feasible. It may not review the agency’s decision to deny a clearance on the merits. The Executive Branch is by law authorized to make judgments with regard to national security matters. This authority has been delegated to heads of agencies. “Certainly, it is not reasonably possible for an outside nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment and to decide whether the agency should have been able to make the necessary affirmative prediction [with regard to an individual’s possible future behavior] with confidence. Nor can such a body determine what constitutes an acceptable margin of error in assessing the potential risk.” The agency head is to have the final say as to whether an individual will be given access to classified information.

Thus, for security clearance denials and revocations, the required proof is that the agency observed the necessary due process in handling of the clearance and in carrying out any subsequent adverse action. Given that, one would think that these were not complex cases and almost impossible to mess up. However, as you’ll see, it is possible to lose one.

Everything that Could Go Wrong

Gamboa v. Air Force, 2014 MSPB 13, provides a checklist of what not to do. Gamboa was moved from the position of Electronics Technician to the position of GS-6, Supply Technician in 2005. It is an unusual change in positions, since one would expect that the Engineering Technician would have higher grade potential that the Supply Clerk, but nothing is provided in the decision to explain the move. The personnel action did not indicate that the new position required a clearance, although it was designated as non-critical sensitive. Unfortunately, neither the position description nor the vacancy announcement included than the position required access to classified information. The decision reflects that there was no affidavit from an agency official or a policy that established that the job required a clearance.

More troubling was the fact that Gamboa’s access to classified material was suspended in early 2007 yet the removal was not effected until December 2010.  The agency claimed that the duties requiring any handling of classified material were given to other employees who had clearance, but the Board was not convinced, writing , “… it is unclear how or why the agency maintained this alleged arrangement for nearly 4 years if eligibility for access and/or actual access to classified information was a requirement of the appellant’s position.”  The Board overturned the removal, holding that the Air Force had not established that there was a condition of employment which Gamboa failed to meet. In other words, the agency’s actions undermined the argument that a security clearance was required, and Gamboa came back to work. Haga@FELTG.com

And Now a Word With … James Abbott

,

By Dan Gephart, June 4, 2019

In a decision earlier this year, the Federal Labor Relation Authority, to the delight of labor relations practitioners government-wide, reaffirmed a seminal decision from 2018, emphasizing the statutory distinction between conditions of employment and working conditions.

Many people first saw the FLRA decision in DHS CPB El Paso, 71 FLRA No. 10, on the Authority’s web site, while others got the news first from FLRA Member James Abbott himself on LinkedIn. Member Abbott wrote:

The Authority found, as it did in DHS CBP El Paso, 70 FLRA 501 (2018), that neither workload increases attributable to “operational demand” or “mere variations” in normal duties do not constitute bargainable changes.

While board offices at the Merit Systems Protection Board continue to sit vacant, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is just now emerging from its own lack of a quorum, the FLRA has kept plugging along, albeit without a General Counsel. Member Abbott has been a public face of the agency, as he has taken to social media to provide context and clarity to his decisions.

Member Abbott deferred when we asked to further explain this distinction between working conditions and conditions of employment, as the Authority is currently considering several cases that involve this question. “What I can say,” Abbott offered, “is that a number of cases will be issued in the very near future that will turn on this question and will serve to further explain the differences.”

Member Abbott also did not expand on comments related to the pending DC Court of Appeals decision on the Trump Executive Orders, but said: “We are awaiting the decision just as anxiously as the rest of the public and the labor-management relations community.”

Below are a few additional comments Member Abbott shared with FELTG.

DG: What was the reasoning behind your decision to be so active sharing cases on LinkedIn?

JA: Before, at, and after my confirmation hearing, I pledged that I would do everything I could to make FLRA decisions relevant and clear. I believe that it is important that FLRA decisions can be understood by laypersons and attorneys alike. To that end, one of the initiatives that I took upon myself was to summarize and highlight the significance of key decisions of the FLRA. My postings, of course, are not official iterations or citations.

DG: What kind of feedback have you gotten? 

JA: At a number of conferences, I have had the opportunity to speak to many union and agency officials. By far, most individuals have stated that they find the comments helpful and serve as a guide to seeing where our precedent is focused or refocused. I have also received many comments from both union and agency practitioners that the decisions of this FLRA cohort are quite clear and much more understandable than decisions of the past.

DG: There have obviously been major changes to prior FLRA case law over the last year. What changes do you find most significant and why? 

JA: Having served as a practitioner before the FLRA for many years, I always consider that every case that comes before us is significant to the parties involved.  Whereas past majorities of the FLRA have advocated for an “incremental extension” of collective-bargaining, I believe our return to and embrace of the plain language of the Statute is most significant.  

DG: What do you think is the appropriate role of a union in the federal government in 2019?

JA: The role of “labor organizations” in the Federal Government is the same in 2019 as it was in 1978.  Section 7114 of the FSLMRS clearly outlines the rights and responsibilities of “labor organizations” as that term is defined in 7103(a)(4).

Gephart@FELTG.com

Sorting Things Out: Defining Adverse Actions

,

By William Wiley, May 21, 2019

In a previous article, I laid out the distinction between the general concept of “discipline” and what constitutes “discipline” relative to the application of “progressive discipline” in the federal workplace. In this piece, we take on an even more complex concept: adverse actions. Consider these interrelated (and somewhat confusing) truths:

  • Not all discipline is an adverse action, but most of it is.
  • All suspensions are adverse actions.
  • Most adverse actions are appealable, but not all of them are.
  • Not all adverse actions are discipline.

Unlike discipline, the term “adverse actions” has a nice legal definition. Turn to Chapter 75 of Title V of the United States code and you will see the title “Adverse Actions.” Within that chapter, you will find two subchapters: Subchapter I for suspensions of 14 days or fewer and Subchapter II for suspensions of more than 14 days, demotions, and removals. So right away, we know that suspensions, demotions, and removals enforced for disciplinary purposes are by statutory definition, “adverse actions.” In comparison, a reprimand, though disciplinary, is not an adverse action.

And here is where we find one of the common misconceptions in our business. Prior to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), the term “adverse action” was defined as applying to appealable (to the Civil Service Commission) long suspensions, demotions, and removals whereas the term “disciplinary action” was defined as applying to non-appealable short suspensions. Subsequent to the CSRA, shorter suspensions still are not appealable and longer suspensions/demotions/removals are (to MSPB). Unfortunately, post-CSRA there is a tendency among the uninformed to continue to use the old concept of “adverse action” as applying to “appealable” actions only.

That’s simply not what the law says. If you’re taking away an employee’s salary for disciplinary purposes by a suspension, demotion, or removal, that’s an adverse action and has been since October 13, 1978. The proper way to think of the distinction between Subchapter I and Subchapter II of Chapter 75 is to refer to “non-appealable adverse actions” (Subchapter I, short suspensions up to a pay period in length) and “appealable adverse actions” (Subchapter II, longer suspensions/demotions/removals).

So now we know why not all discipline is an adverse action (remember reprimands), all suspensions are adverse actions (the title of Chapter 75 of Title V of the USC), and not all adverse actions are appealable (the distinction between Subchapter I and Subchapter II). But what about the claim that not all adverse actions are discipline? There are two places that line is drawn for us:

Statutory: The full title of Subchapter II of Chapter 75 includes an additional personnel action within the definition of an appealable adverse action: furloughs for 30 days or less. I know, I know; the proper phrasing would be “thirty days or fewer,” but we’re stuck with what those folks in Congress have written, at least until they hire an eighth-grade English teacher to do a little editing for them. At any rate, as way too many agencies were forced to remember in the wake of government shutdowns, furlough an employee for 30 days or fewer and you have to use the adverse action procedures of Title II of Chapter 75 (30-day notice period, right to respond and representation, appealable to MSPB). However, a furlough is based on lack of funds, not misconduct. It does not meet the definition of “discipline.” And that’s an important distinction as you will see in a moment.

Case Law: Appealable adverse action removals based on the employee’s misconduct are disciplinary, by definition. However, adverse action removals based on the employee’s medical inability to perform are not disciplinary as there is no misconduct involved, again relying on the definition of discipline. You won’t find this in the law, but you will find it developed as a concept in MSPB decisions over the years.

So we have adverse actions that are “disciplinary” and adverse actions that are “non-disciplinary.” The distinction is important because the Board’s case law related to disciplinary adverse actions does not necessarily apply to non-disciplinary adverse actions. The main precedent relevant to the day-to-day practice of our business and this disciplinary/non-disciplinary distinction is Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981). As every practitioner learns in the first week of employment, if an agency takes an appealable adverse action based on misconduct against an employee, it will live or die by its documentation and defense of its analysis of the famous 12 Douglas factors. However, if the appealable adverse action is not based on misconduct (e.g., a removal for the medical inability to perform), then the Douglas factors need not be analyzed in defense of the penalty. The MSPB will not mitigate a medical-inability removal or a furlough to a lesser level, so there’s no requirement to fire up the old Douglas Factor Worksheet to defend your penalty selection.

Now, if there is anything you need to sort out, join me and FELTG President Deborah Hopkins for MSPB Law Week in Dallas June 3-7, 2019. Wiley@FELTG.com.

Civil Service Status Update

,
By Deborah Hopkins, May 21, 2019
    A lot has happened over the last few weeks as it pertains to the world of federal employment law. Here’s a recap, in case you missed anything.
    • MSPB: We finally have a third nominee for the MSPB. Chad Bungard was recently nominated by the President to be the Vice Chairman, for a term that expires in 2025. Among other positions, he previously served as General Counsel at MSPB for several years. As of today, there is no date for a committee vote on his nomination. When might we see the Board back at full capacity? Your guess is a good as ours.
    • Executive Orders: In early April, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case dealing with the legality of President Trump’s Executive Orders issued May 25, 2018. Most of the discussion dealt with jurisdictional issues and whether the court, or the FLRA, is the proper forum to discuss challenges to these EOs.
    • FLRA: Speaking of labor relations, the General Counsel seat at the FLRA has been empty for two years, but the President nominated Catherine Bird, who is currently Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
    • EEOC: The EEOC has a quorum for the first time since January – and it has a new Chair as well. On May 15, nearly two years after she was first nominated, Janet Dhillon was sworn in as the EEOC’s 16th Chair for a term that expires July 1, 2022.
    • OPM: The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs recently voted to advance OPM Director nominee Dale Cabaniss to the Senate for a confirmation vote. If confirmed she will be the third person to hold this position in just over two years.
    • OPM’s demise: Last week, the administration unveiled the Administrative Services Merger Act, which would effectively eliminate OPM by reorganizing it into a subcomponent of GSA. Under the proposed structure, the person in charge of federal workforce policy would be a non-Senate-confirmed political appointee. As you can imagine, not everyone is happy about this potential change. Because this is a piece of proposed legislation, both the House and Senate will have to agree in order for it to be signed into law by the President.
    • LGBTQ employment protections: A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to look at whether Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes an employee’s LGBTQ status. Arguments are on the docket this fall. Also, last week the House passed the Equality Act, which among other things would make protections for LGBTQ federal employees a statutory right. The Senate and the President would need to sign off on this piece of legislation in order for it to become law.
    As you can see, there is a lot going on, and plenty more to come. Stick with FELTG and we’ll keep you posted. Hopkins@FELTG.com