Kalpana Kotagal, the most recent addition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has vast experience in DEIA issues, including co-authoring the Oscar ceremony-famous “Inclusion Rider.” Learn more.

There is delicacy and strategy required when charging an appellant with misconduct that requires proof of intent. A recent case shows us how problematic this 6-letter word (i-n-t-e-n-t) can be when it’s put, or even implied, in the wrong place. Read more.

Comments can be, at the very least, disrespectful, disillusioned, and highly uneducated. In this case, they showed a complete misunderstanding of the agency mission and a mistrust of government, in general. Read more.

A generalized recognition of Valentine’s Day could be a nice way to inject some brightness into wintertime at work, but in conversation heart language, “say yes” to Title VII compliance by ensuring that charges of sexual harassment are addressed promptly and thoroughly. Learn more.

Singh provides a fairly narrow comparator analysis that employees generally be from the same work unit, work under the same supervisor, and engage in the same or similar offenses. Here’s our take on Singh v. USPS, 2022 MSPB 15 (May 31, 2022).

Board Chairman/Chief Executive Officer Vincent Logan is a member of the Osage (Tribal) Nation and the agency’s first openly LGBTQ+ Board Chairman and CEO. Here’s why he has made DEIA a priority.

Can an agency charge Absent Without Leave (AWOL) if the employee was working, but in the wrong location? A new MSPB case, Wong v. Commerce, DC-0752-17-0298-I-2 (Dec. 9, 2023)(NP), tackles that very scenario.

In a semi-recent case involving an employee’s request for a dog in the workplace, Dona A. v. SSA, EEOC No. 2022000745 (May 9, 2022), the complainant requested 15 accommodations, including that her dog be permitted to come to work with her. Let’s break it down.

Welcome to another year-end News Flash, where we reveal the two most popular FELTG newsletter stories (based on the number of reads and forwards) for each month of 2023. Let’s dive in.

This week, our focus turns to claims of religious discrimination from another angle – reasonable accommodation. Read more.