|
Michael A. Castelle, Sr.
National Fair Practices
Coordinator
A. F. G. E/Council of Prison Locals #33
Cell: 804-943-1633
Fax: 804-732-2360
Email:
MCastelles@aol.com
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress"
I am for any movement whenever there is a good cause to promote, a right
to assert, a chain to be broken, removed, or wrong to be redressed.
Click on link below to view the memo on workplace violence
VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE MEMO
Employee Rights
In a series of cases, the court
interpreted federal statutes against workplace discrimination and by comfortable margins issued decisions favorable to employees.
Two decisions permitted employees
to pursue claims that their complaints about discrimination had led their employers to retaliate against them. Two statutes
that did not explicitly authorize suits for retaliation should nonetheless be interpreted to allow them, the court said.
In one of these cases, the court
by a vote of 7 to 2 interpreted a Reconstruction-era statute known as Section 1981, which bars racial
discrimination in employment, to include protection against retaliation. The case was CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries,
No. 06-1431. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion, with Justices Thomas and Scalia dissenting.
In the second case, the court
held by a vote of 6 to 3 that the section of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that applies to federal
government employees gives them protection against retaliation for complaining about age discrimination. Justice Alito
wrote the majority opinion
in that case, Gómez-Pérez v. Potter, No. 06-1321. Chief Justices Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas.
The court also ruled that if an
employer claims that a “reasonable factor other than age” accounts for the disproportionately negative impact
that a layoff or other action has on older workers, it is up to the employer to prove it, rather than up to the employees
to disprove the validity of the defense. The vote in this case, Meacham v. Knolls
Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505, was 7 to 1. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion. Justice Thomas dissented,
and Justice Breyer did not participate.
In still another age discrimination
case, the court voted 7 to 2 that failure to file the proper form to make a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not deprive an employee of the ability to go into court later and file a lawsuit. (Under the age discrimination law,
an administrative complaint must precede a lawsuit, to give the commission time to investigate and perhaps resolve the problem.)
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in this case, Federal Express Corp.
v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322. Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented.
The last of these cases, another
age discrimination case, had an outcome that appeared, on the surface, to be ambiguous. The question was whether a plaintiff’s
allegations that co-workers had suffered discriminatory treatment by different managers could be admitted as evidence in a
discrimination case. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas, the court said such evidence, sometimes known as “me-too”
evidence, was sometimes admissible and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances. For employees, the significance of the
decision, Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221, lay in the court’s rejection of the employer’s
argument that such evidence was never relevant and should always be excluded.
In Unity & Solidarity:
Michael A. Castelle, Sr.
"All that is necessary for evil to prevail
is for good people to do nothing" it takes courage to do the right thing, and it's not always easy. Sometimes the few must
take on the sacrifices for the good of the many."(There's) no evil that's inflicted more pain and more suffering than discrimination.
Dear: Presidents, Unionist & Activist:
Dennis Turner has initiated a new class complaint
before the EEOC. The class we are seeking to certify is defined as follows:
“Since 1994, the Bureau of Prisons has maintained
a policy of retaliating against employees after they engage in protected EEO activity. Since 1994, the BOP has maintained
a pattern and practice of retaliating against these employees by systematically denying them promotions.”
Class Counsel is seeking to identify possible class
members. If you were denied a promotion after you engaged in EEO activity or know of someone who was please contact Class
Counsel via email at dturnercase@msn.com or by fax to 303.927.3860.
Marilyn Cain Gordon
Attorney at Law
7603 Georgia Avenue, NW
Suite 301
Washington,
DC 20012
Voice: 202.723.8600
Facsimile: 202.478.0046
****NOTICE****
This notice is posted pursuant to a Final Agency decision by the United States Department of Justice, Compliant Adjudication
Office which found that a violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, occured at this facility.
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of that
persons race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability with respect to hiring, firing, promotion,
compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. By Executive Order there is to be no discrimination on
the bases of sexual orientation or parental status.
The Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Complex at (FCC) Oakdale, Louisana supports and will comply with such Federal
law and will not take action against individuals because they have exercised their rights under law.
The Federal Correctional Complex has been found to have discriminated against an employee on the basis of sex when the
employee was subjected to sexual harassment. The Federal Correctional Complex has been ordered to provide relief to the affected
employee by compensatory damages, attorney fees, corrective action and post notice.
Location of posting: Staff bulletin board (FDC) Oakdale
29 CFR 1614
Authorizing Official
Joseph P. Young, Warden
Posted dateL december 14, 2007
Removal:________________
Federal Bureau of Prisons Segregate Electronic Searches of Female Staff
Presidents, Unionist & Activist:
I have received numerous allegations concerning discriminatory practices being committed by
supervisors and management officials at the various institution throughout the Federal Bureau of Prisons toward our female
bargaining unit staff members during the newly implemented electronic searches of female staff.
I think this is a direct result from cronyism, Good Ole Boy" ideology, the go along to get along
principle and the Code of Silence principles that management practices in the Federal Bureau of Prisons when it comes to known
violations being committed by management officials. Not to mention management violation of Title 5 U.S.C. to refuse to allow
local Union their right to bargain the implementation of electronic searches at the local level.
This is the principal management uses when numerous discriminatory practices are being committed
throughout the Federal Bureau of Prisons on a daily basis. How ironic is it that the agency has implemented the Electronic
Searches of BOP Staff to protect others from potential harm?
However, there are allegations that female staff are being treated differently from their male
counterpart in the Federal Bureau of Prisons based on physical differences. Especially the wearing of an under-wire bra. Because
the agency’s Walk Through Metal Detector is set more sensitive than the Walk Through Metal Detectors currently being
used by the TSA at all the airports in the nation to detect under-wire bras.
Females staff, are being physically pat searched,( which potentially could result in sexual
harassment in some incidents) being instructed to remove their bras in non-private areas under the pretext to pass through
the walk through metal detectors without bras. Female Staff are being instructed directly or indirectly to purchase sports
bras by supervisors or management officials. Female Staff are being exposed to inappropriate comments of others during the
electronic screening process, etc.
This is all occurring under the direct supervision of management during the initial implementation
of the Electronic Searches!
This action by supervisors and management officials of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is a violation
of Title 5 U. S. C. §2302(b), Prohibited Personnel Practice related to Waste, Abuse and Fraud, 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title
VII, 29 CFR PART 1614 as it relates to gender discrimination. Not to include other Federal Bureau of Prisons Policies, Rules
and Regulations along with the National Electronic Searches MOU.
To segregate similarly situated female staff from their male counterparts with the electronic
search procedures is a violation of law. Male employee’s metal zippers are being detected by the metal detector. However,
males are not being instructed to remove their pants or being forced to change into a zipperless pair of pants. Females in
the Federal Bureau of Prisons are being instructed to remove their underwear, specifically, under wire bras or being instructed
to wear wireless bras are a totally different criteria to their male counterparts, in this writer’s opinion.
I would recommend all our female bargaining unit employee contact your EEO Counselor to initiate
the Agency’s Administrative EEO Process, if you are being discriminated against in the agency’s Electronic Search
process.
Please note that the aggrieved party must contact an EEO Counselor no later than forty-five
calendar days after becoming aware of the alleged discrimination. I would also recommend that every individual that is aware
of these violations or has witnessed these violations write your elected local, state and federal politicians to make them
aware of what is occurring in the BOP.
I believe that the Cronyism, Good Ole Boys’ philosophy and Code of Silent are so strong
among management officials in this agency that outside intervention is the only recourse to change the current working conditions
in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
This must also be a Legislative concern also when we all meet in Washington, D.C. in February
2008, for the AFGE’s Legislative Conference. We all must come together now to address these ongoing violations now occurring
in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Sincerely:
Michael A. Castelle, Sr.
National Fair Practices Coordinator
A. F. G. E/Council of Prison
Locals #33
Cell: 804-943-1633
Fax: 804-732-2360
Email: MCastelles@aol.com
"If there is no struggle, there
is no progress"
I am for any movement whenever
there is a good cause to promote, a right to assert, a chain to be broken, removed, or wrong to be redressed.
Helpful Down Loads
OPM Final Directive on NO FEAR ACT Training
|
