In recent years, employees have been more open about their faith in the workplace, much of this trend fueled by a number of religious-themed Supreme Court decisions. We’re taking a deeper look.
Posts
By Dan Gephart, September 11, 2023
The overworn idiom about the road to a certain scorching and undesirable place (no, I’m not talking my former state of residence, Florida) being “paved with good intentions” applies to the Rehabilitation Act. Just replace the H, the E, and both hockey sticks with an even spookier term — compensatory damages.
In Complainant v. GSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0120083575 (2009), that amounted to $3,000.
The lesson of Complainant v. GSA is this: When it comes to medical records or any information about an employee’s medical condition, you must remember the information is confidential. It should not be shared except in limited prescribed circumstances – and good intentions is not one of those circumstances.
The employee, who had multiple disabilities, had moved between jobs while working for the agency over a decade. When one job ended due to lack of work, the employee was transferred to a warehouse facility. Instead of reporting to the new workplace location, she applied for the agency’s voluntary leave program.
Her application contained a certification from her doctor stating that she suffered from “panic disorder without agoraphobia, adjustment disorder unspecified, and occupational problems.” The application also noted that the complainant had a negative sick leave balance of 231.7 hours and had used 240 hours of advanced sick leave.
The employee’s request for voluntary leave was approved.
Everyone is happy. Great solution. End of story, right? Umm, not so fast.
While soliciting voluntary leave donations for the employee, her supervisor emailed coworkers and happened to mention the employee suffered from PTSD/anxiety disorder “with” agoraphobia.
As a result, the employee experienced a drastic increase in insomnia, anxiety, stress, major depression, emotional distress, shame, loss of self-esteem, and radical weight fluctuations. It’s more powerful in her own words:
I was at least able to hide my mental conditions before my diagnosis was publicly released. After my diagnosis was released, I suffered nausea and pain in my stomach for several weeks. My head hurt me constantly. I was too depressed and ashamed to leave my home unless it was for something that was absolutely necessary such as to buy food or other necessities. I tried to hide when I was in public for fear of running into someone that saw the email. The subject e-mail was even forwarded outside of the agency.
There was not a widespread email in Becki P. v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC No. 0720180004 (2018). Nor was there any mention of a specific disability. Yet, the results were similar.
A supervisor had a heated discussion with an employee. After the employee left, the supervisor tried to explain the employee’s behavior to a contract employee who had witnessed it. The supervisor told the contractor the employee is “on medication.”
This, FELTG Nation, is a per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Once again, the disclosure caused distress for the employee with a disability. In the employee’s words:
It became known around the office that I was on mental medication and my symptoms-psychological and physical-worsened. I felt greatly embarrassed and I was deprived of my dignity. I felt even greater distress and sadness, fell into a deeper depression, and became more withdrawn.
The AJ awarded the employee $1,000. Upon review, the commission determined an award of $2,000 was more consistent with awards in similar cases.
It’s important to note that there were multiple claims in each of these cases, and yet the only finding of discrimination in both was for the inappropriate disclosure of medical information.
Join us next week (Sept. 18-22) for Absence, Leave Abuse & Medical Issues Week where leave, medical records, confidentiality, and more will be discussed. Click here for the day-by-day description and register here for one day, all five days, or anything in between. [email protected]
An agency should not make a decision on a reasonable accommodation request until it determines whether the employee is “qualified,” and that step can’t be completed until the agency has identified the essential functions of the job at issue. Read more.
By Dan Gephart, August 14, 2023
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act last week. Members of the public wishing to comment now have approximately 55 days to do so.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) has generally flown under the radar. If you haven’t yet paid attention, now might be the time. The EEOC is already accepting charges under PWFA, which requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship.”
Does the act create a new EEO category? How do pregnancy protections under the PWFA differ from those under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act? What are the common effective accommodations for pregnant employees? If you want answers to these questions, register now for FELTG Instructor and Attorney at Law Katherine Atkinson’s upcoming two-hour virtual training class Everything You Need to Know About the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act on Sept. 14.
In the meantime, here are a few points to remember:
- Do not tie an individual’s job performance or pay to their history of pregnancy. This seems kind of obvious now, right? But back in 2008, an air traffic controller was denied a pay increase for the previous performance year. How do we know her maternity was the reason? Well, her manager said the quiet part out loud. “Just keep doing what you’re doing and I’ll see what I can do for you next year,” the manager said, “unless you plan on taking maternity leave again. You don’t have something you need to tell me, do you?” Complainant v. Fox, EEOC App. No. 0120122370 (Oct. 24, 2014)
- It’s not your role to “protect” a pregnant employee. A desk officer was selected for a new position, which was contingent on her completing a two-week training session. Per the agency, which cited “team camaraderie,” the training needed to be completed during one two-week stretch. As it got closer to the training, the agency made the decision to not allow the employee to attend the training because her due date fell “within the final two weeks.” The employee requested accommodations that would allow her to attend the training. The agency admitted that the employee’s pregnancy played a role in its decision, and that supervisors were concerned about her driving and taking the stairs. Well-meaning discrimination is still illegal discrimination. Roxane C. v. DoD, EEOC App. No. 0120142863 (Jul. 19, 2016)
- Treat individuals who are pregnant (or have pregnancy-related conditions) the same as others on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A letter carrier on a one-year appointment had an excellent attendance record, until her high-risk pregnancy forced her to miss work due to pre-natal appointments and medical incapacitation. According to the letter carrier, one supervisor told her she should have an abortion unless she wanted to be fired.
The letter carrier was not reappointed after her term expired. The agency cited her attendance issues as a reason. She was the only transitional employee not reappointed because of attendance. Others were not reappointed because of poor work performance or instances of bad driving. Meanwhile, an employee who similarly experienced attendance difficulties because of a foot injury was reappointed. The EEOC ordered the agency to immediately reinstate the letter carrier, and provide her with appropriate back pay, benefits, and seniority. Robertson v. USPS, EEOC App. No. 01956011 (Jan. 5, 1998).
- Know all of the applicable laws. The cases detailed above were violations of Title VII, which protects employees from discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. The PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation, just as the Americans With Disabilities Act does for employees with disabilities. While pregnancy is not a disability under the ADA, some pregnancy-related conditions may be. There is also the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides covered employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons; and the new PUMP Act, enforced by the Department of Labor, which broadens workplace protections for employees to express breast milk at work. [email protected]
By Dan Gephart, July 18, 2023
Sometimes, a Federal employee’s misconduct is so far beyond the pale that it’s impossible to ever again trust that employee. That was certainly the case for a certain IRS contact representative/Howard Stern devotee. Sorry, I meant to say former IRS contact representative. (I don’t know the status of the ex-employee’s Stern fandom).
The employee arrived at work and called the Howard Stern radio show on his personal cellphone. He was put on hold. When the employee’s 8 am shift started, he began handling incoming phone calls from taxpayers on his work phone.
Two hours later, the Stern show took him off hold. The employee didn’t realize this and continued his conversation with a taxpayer, which was now being broadcast live. He unknowingly shared the taxpayers’ personally identifiable information, including her phone number and the amount of back taxes she owed, to thousands of Sirius XM listeners.
Howard Stern shouted the employee’s name to get his attention. The employee then put the taxpayer on hold to talk to Howard Stern, where he “gleefully” identified himself as a Federal employee.
It’s no surprise that the agency removed the employee, nor that the MSPB upheld that removal earlier this year, citing the effect of the employee’s misconduct on his supervisors’ confidence, while questioning his potential for rehabilitation. Forsyth v. Treasury, NY-0752-16-0246-I-1 (Mar. 15, 2023)(NP). Regarding the latter, the employee was directed to make a post-incident call to the Howard Stern show to ask them to not rebroadcast the telephone exchange, which the employee did, while also requesting a tour of the show’s broadcast studio.
A few months back, Ann Boehm extolled the value of Douglas Factor Five in her monthly Good News column. Douglas Factor 5 is consideration of “the effect of the offense upon the employee’s ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon the supervisor’s confidence in the employee’s ability to perform assigned duties.”
FEMA similarly lost confidence in a Senior Executive Service employee who misused her position to help a friend gain employment at FEMA. The SESer also provided her friend with personally identifiable information of FEMA employees. Clark v. Department of Homeland Security, DC-0752-13-0661-I-1 (Feb. 21, 2023)(NP).
The employee, who worked in the agency’s Chief Component Human Capital Office, pointed to a positive evaluation she received after the incident to argue that her supervisor had not lost confidence in her. The Board held, however, that “the penalty judgment belongs to the agency, not to an appellant’s supervisor … in the absence of an agency’s failure to consider the relevant Douglas factors adequately, a supervisor’s opinions are insufficient to overcome the agency’s judgment concerning the appropriateness of the agency-imposed penalty.”
How much confidence would you have in an employee who “golfed during official duty hours on at least 205 days for which he claimed no annual leave on his official timesheets.” In Sheiman v. Department of Treasury, MSPB No. SF-0752-15-0372-I-2, at 15 (May 24, 2022) (NP), the Board agreed removal was the right penalty, stating that it was “clear from the deciding official’s testimony that his loss of trust and confidence in the appellant played a major role in his decision.”
The MSPB decisions in this article have been issued within the last couple of years. For guidance on increasing the chances that your removals match the Board’s view on penalty assessment, register for Charges and Penalties Under the New MSPB on August 1. This half-day session is part of FELTG’s weeklong Federal Workplace 2023: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends event. [email protected]
By Dan Gephart, June 14, 2023
Several years ago, Verna Myers, VP of Inclusion Strategy at Netflix, explained the focus of her job by telling attendees at a Cleveland Bar event: “Diversity is being invited to the party, but inclusion is being asked to dance.”
Several years later, Myers’ quote still pops up regularly on LinkedIn and Facebook, and during D&I-related presentations.
We should give Myers at least partial credit for dispelling the confusion around what inclusion means. Inclusion is no longer such a seemingly abstract concept, and no longer diversity’s “and one.” It is one of the four pillars of President Biden’s Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA).
FELTG has done numerous DEIA training sessions for agencies since the President signed EO 14035 in June 2021, and we cover every letter in that acronym. Sometimes, per agency request, we’ll add another letter to make it DEIAB training. Where the heck did that “B” come from and what does it stand for?
FELTG Nation, meet “belonging.” You may already know it, as belonging is among the buzziest of HR words these days. Belonging is tied closely with psychological safety, a concept we discussed earlier this year, and one that J. Bruce Stewart defined as the “ability of a person to feel safe in speaking up at work or in the community, especially if that person has a different perspective or viewpoint.” [Editor’s note: Join Bruce on Aug. 2 for The Race Ahead: Breaking the Cycle of Racial Bias by Rewiring the American Mind.]
Some of you may not value an employee’s comfort in speaking up. I can hear you now: “Implement something that’s going to make people feel more comfortable about complaining even more? No way!” To those skeptics, I’d say you’re doing that whole baby and the bath water thing. Yes, some employees in a psychologically safe workplace will feel the need to complain about everything. But, as we all know, those employees are very capable of complaining regardless of the psychological safety of the environment.
When employees feel they belong, they don’t fear punishment for mistakes and feel comfortable enough to take risks and share creative ideas. This is the kind of workplace environment that leads to improved engagement, heightened morale, and increased FEVS scores. Oh, and fewer EEO complaints. Would you rather have an employee tell you that something “felt like a microaggression” and allow you to appropriately address it? Or would you rather hear about it later from the Office of Federal Operations?
There are several ways you, as a supervisor, can create a sense of belonging. Ask for feedback about your management of a meeting. Encourage collaboration instead of competition and replace blame with curiosity.
FELTG Instructor Katherine Atkinson will address belonging as part of her Addressing Bias and Microaggressions to Advance Agency DEIA on June 29 from 1-3 pm ET and in Setting the Bar: Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility for FY ’24 on Sept. 26 from 1-4:30 pm ET.
[Editor’s note: You can bring either of these classes to your agency virtually. Just contact us at [email protected]. For more on bias and microaggressions, check out Advanced EEO: Navigating Complex Issues July 12-13.]
If you’re looking for a pithy saying to encapsulate what belonging means, we can build onto Myers’ quote, as Indeed Executive LaFawn Davis did on the company’s website.
“Diversity is being invited to the party, but inclusion is being asked to dance,” Davis wrote. “I love that quote — and I’d like to adapt it by adding that belonging is knowing all the songs. Knowing all the songs goes beyond simply being invited to the party; you feel like you belong there. And you can’t help but dance; it’s your jam!”
It can be quite easily argued that Carlton Hadden is the face of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Federal business. He recently took time to answer our questions. Learn more.
By Dan Gephart, May 16, 2023
Record scratch.
Freeze frame.
“Yep, that’s me. You’re probably wondering how I got here.”
I often think of this movie-cliche-turned-meme when I read or hear about EEO reprisal. I picture a supervisor, sitting in an EEOC-ordered training, explaining how an employee made claims about discrimination that had no basis, and were eventually dismissed. However, in a huff of frustration or anger, that supervisor said or did something rash that cost his agency and landed him in the training.
The EEOC defines reprisal, aka retaliation, as “treating employees badly because they complained about discrimination on the job, filed a discrimination charge or complaint, or participated in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding.”
It’s human nature. A knee-jerk reaction. Someone has accused you either directly or indirectly of a violation of the law and, in the moment, you say or do something that is influenced by your emotional state. It’s no wonder reprisal claims make up such a big bulk of EEOC’s case load. And what we’ve seen trip up many supervisors is that you don’t have to be directly accused of discrimination for reprisal to be found. The employee doesn’t even have to file a complaint before the reprisal claim arises. Remember that definition in the previous paragraph and consider the key words: “or participated in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding.”
The complainant in Green v. Secretary of Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01964701 (1997) alleged he was subjected to discrimination in retaliation for prior EEO activity, naming the following incidents:
- He was forced to assume duties and responsibilities without commensurate pay and adequate personnel.
- He was forced to work in an unsafe environment.
- The agency failed to remit documentation to him.
- He was forced to work under “management personnel who commit waste, fraud and abuse.”
- The agency threatened to eliminate his position.
The agency dismissed this portion of the appellant’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Basically, the agency’s response was: What EEO activity? Before this all went down, the employee had notified the agency of his intention to testify on behalf of other employees alleging discrimination. But he never actually testified.
Doesn’t matter, the EEOC ruled: Simply notifying the agency of his intention to provide testimony on behalf of other employees alleging discrimination was participation in protected EEO activity.
On a related note, a seminal case in this area is the Supreme Court decision Thompson v. Northern American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. (2011). In Thompson, it wasn’t the employee who participated in an EEO activity – but the employee’s fiancée. Previous courts, including the District Court in this case, had ruled that retaliation was limited to “persons who had personally engaged in protected activity by opposing a practice, making a charge, or assisting or participating in an investigation.”
The Supreme Court decided differently: “We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.”
So, add close relationship/association with individuals who file complaints as close enough to constitute protected activity. Just how close should that association be? Well, we don’t really know that. In Thompson, the Supreme Court declined to “identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful.”
What other activities are protected? Here are some activities that are a little more obvious, yet still too-often overlooked:
- Contacting an EEO counselor.
- Filing a formal EEO complaint, even if it’s a frivolous complaint.
- Testifying at an investigation or hearing.
- Representing a complainant.
- Providing documents to a complainant.
- Requesting a reasonable accommodation.
Look at all the different activities that are protected. It’s no wonder there are so many successful reprisal claims. If you want to avoid the being a meme, think before you talk, only take actions based on legitimate business reasons, and, oh yes, join Bob Woods this Thursday (May 18) at 1 pm ET for Avoid the Pitfalls of EEO Reprisal. (Register now.) [email protected]
By Dan Gephart, April 17, 2023
It’s no secret the current administration wants the Federal workplace to be more inclusive. A key to achieving that goal is rooting out harassment. This is not a new concern. Several years ago, agencies started their own anti-harassment units, which don’t fall always under the auspices of its EEO Office. These anti-harassment teams are charged with limiting harassment of all types – even those that don’t result in legitimate claims of discrimination.
For years now, the EEOC has been emphasizing the need to address the broader range of harassment, noting time and again that without an exhaustive anti-harassment policy, agencies cannot be model EEO employers. You’d be hard-pressed to find an agency today that doesn’t have some type of anti-harassment policy.
Yet too many people still think harassment is solely an EEO issue. Not us here at FELTG. If you’ve attended any of our courses that address harassment, you’ve heard FELTG President Deborah Hopkins and other instructors say quite clearly: Harassment is misconduct. It must be addressed, whether it has led to an EEO complaint or not.
And whether alleged harassment goes through the EEO process or not, an investigation will likely be required. FELTG offers numerous opportunities to improve your investigations skillset over the next few months, beginning with the three-day virtual program Conducting Effective Harassment Investigations April 25-27. Workplace Investigations Week will be held August 14-18, and the two-hour training Misconduct Investigations: Get Them Right From the Start takes place on July 25. Also, be on the lookout for the official announcement soon of Bad Detective: The Mistakes That Hamper Agency Investigations with special guest presenter Roslyn Brown. That session will take place on Aug. 4, as part of FELTG’s annual Federal Workplace: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends event.
Let’s look at different categories of workplace harassment. The actual steps you need to take after each type of harassment are different. Regardless, take all harassment claims seriously and act promptly.
Category 1 – EEO harassment. An allegation has been made that someone has engaged in harassing behavior due to the complaining employee’s protected category. (To recap: Those protected categories are sex, race, color, national origin, religion, genetic information, disability, age, participation in protected activity). Could this be a legitimate complaint of EEO discrimination? It very well may be, but at this point, it’s still too early to tell. The person alleging harassment has 45 days to make contact with an EEO counselor. But you will need to investigate right away, whether they contact a counselor or not.
Category 2 – Actionable EEO harassment. Once the formal complaint is filed and the EEO office accepts the claim, the agency is on the clock. It’s time for a prompt, thorough investigation to determine the facts: was there unwelcome conduct, based on a protected category, so severe or pervasive it created a hostile, intimidating or abuse work environment?
Category 3 – Non-EEO harassment. Is it just me or does it just seem like bullies are pouring out of the woodwork lately? Mocking an individual’s work habits. Giving co-workers unflattering and unwanted nicknames. Pestering a peer repeatedly with requests to go on a date. Sometimes it’s hard to fathom the sheer gall of these bullies.
That’s not to say that these actions never meet the elements of proof for EEO harassment. They may. But smart bullies (there are a few) seem to know how to stop short of those requirements. Yet just because these actions may not lead to a legitimate EEO complaint doesn’t mean they should be overlooked.
Other examples of non-EEO actions to keep an eye on are conduct that is unprofessional, threatening, intimidating, violent, and disturbing.
Category 4 – Not harassment. The final category covers actions that are not harassment, despite what employees say. Several agency officials have told us of an increase in complaints lodged against supervisors for actions that are, quite frankly, what you’d expect a supervisor to do.
- Assign work.
- Set deadlines.
- Create a work schedule.
- Assess performance or providing feedback.
- Manage work groups.
- Set a dress code.
Just because an employee disagrees with his supervisor’s management style does not make a case of harassment. If the actions listed above are “exercised in a reasonable and professional manner,” they are not harassment. The same goes for any other actions supervisors have the right to take based on 5 USC 301-302. Deb Hopkins’ article from a few months ago addressed these faux claims.
Here’s the takeaway: Do whatever you can to prevent harassing conduct in the workplace. If you do that, harassment won’t happen, right? No, of course harassment is still going to happen from time to time. And when it does, know your options and responsibilities to correct the conduct before it happens again.
Also, it sure wouldn’t hurt to get to know your agency’s anti-harassment policy a little better. [email protected]
By Dan Gephart, April 11, 2023
Long-time members of FELTG Nation recall Meghan Droste as an engaging instructor and writer, who could break down difficult subjects into easy-to-understand guidance. At the same time, she’d often leave this FELTG Newsletter Editor with an earworm or two.
Ms. Droste, now an administrative judge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, will kick off Day 1 of FELTG’s upcoming Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law event, presenting Avoiding Pitfalls: Advice from an EEOC AJ on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, at 10:30 am ET.
[The theme for Day 1 is Lessons Learned and we’ll also have presentations from former MSPB Member Tristan Leavitt and FELTG’s own Joseph Schimansky. Check out the full agenda. Register for one session, one day, the whole event or any combination of sessions – it’s up to you.]
We recently caught up with Ms. Droste to discuss her career transition and what she plans to cover in her session on April 18.
DG: As a practicing attorney, you were very familiar with the EEO process. Did anything surprise you or was there anything about the process you didn’t realize until after you became an administrative judge?
MD: When I first started it was very interesting to see all of the work that is done “behind the scenes” — everything that AJs have to juggle that the parties don’t see. But I think the most surprising thing was the number of self-represented, or pro se, complainants who we see in the Washington Field Office. As a complainant’s representative I of course did not have any involvement in those types of cases, and even when I represented a Federal agency, I often encountered representatives on the other side. The process is meant to be accessible for self-represented complainants and it has been very interesting to see just how many there are.
DG: What is the most common misunderstanding about the EEO process?
MD: I think one of the most common misunderstandings, from both complainants and agencies, is an assumption that the hearings process is informal and not as serious as litigation in Federal court. AJs don’t wear robes or sit in courtrooms, but we still issue orders and set schedules that the parties have to abide by. It seems that some parties don’t understand that and think that deadlines are optional or that they can ignore their obligations that we set out in our orders or are in the EEOC’s Management Directive 110.
DG: What’s your advice to parties who are new to the EEO process on the importance of the initial conference?
MD: It is so important for the parties to be prepared for an initial conference (IC). By the time I hold an IC, I have reviewed the Report of Investigation, the parties’ Preliminary Case Information submissions, and anything else that they have uploaded to the Public Portal/FedSep; I expect the parties to have done the same and to be familiar with their case. The parties should be ready to address all of the topics outlined in the Acknowledgment Order and answer any questions I have for them about the record or their discovery needs. If they aren’t prepared, it slows down the IC and can result in a party waiving its right to raise an issue or object to something that I cover during the IC.
DG: You will be discussing the importance of civility in the EEO process at Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law. Can you provide an example where lack of civility negatively impacted a party’s position in settlement or litigation?
MD: One way that this comes to my attention is when parties are filing a motion for an extension or a motion to compel. I generally do not see the parties’ interactions with each other, but when it comes time to file a motion that requires the party to note the opposing parties’ objections to the motion or to refer to the parties’ discussions about discovery, I see copies of correspondence between the parties as exhibits.
It’s easy to see when the parties are being civil to one another and when they are not. It’s also easy to see how, as the parties become more heated, they are less willing to work with each other to resolve routine issues. This impacts the issue they are filing the motion for and can make any later settlement discussions more difficult, if not impossible, as each side digs into their own positions and are unwilling to compromise.
DG: Agencies often miss the mark in their pleadings. What’s the most common problem with pleadings and how do you suggest that problem be fixed?
MD: Two things come to mind right away, and both are easy for agencies to fix. The first is exceeding the page limits for motions or otherwise failing to follow the requirements I set out in the Case Management Order (CMO). I remind the parties during every IC to review the CMO thoroughly because each AJ does things a little differently. Despite this, I can always tell when a party has failed to do so, and it can have a real impact for them. For example, if a party exceeds the page limit, I stop reading the motion at the last allowable page. I don’t give any consideration to any argument that comes after the page limit. The second common problem is allowing the agency’s arguments to creep into the statement of facts. The statement of facts should be, as it sounds, just the facts. An agency loses some credibility with me in the summary judgment process if it tries to spin the facts rather than presenting them without argument.
Have your own questions for Judge Droste? Register now for Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law. [email protected]
