This section does not bar an agency official from counseling an applicant to withdraw from competition for legitimate reasons, for example, because the applicant is not highly qualified or a better position is available.Įxample: A veteran is at the top of the list for hiring, which means that he is blocking other candidates from being selected for this particular position. However, the applicant does not have to actually withdraw from competition in order for the action to be a violation. For a violation to occur, this influence or persuasion has to have happened in order to help or hurt another person's employment prospects. This PPP means that an agency official cannot try to persuade an applicant to withdraw his or her name from consideration for a job. Likewise, a member of Congress may recommend someone for an open position, as long as the member has personal knowledge of the candidate's qualifications. On the other hand, recommendations from colleagues or from other supervisors at the agency would not fall within this prohibition, unless there is an element of political interference. If the official acts upon that recommendation, the personnel action would fall within this prohibition. That Congressman does not have personal knowledge of the constituent’s work performance or character. Thus, a person alleging this PPP must show that political influence was a factor in the recommendation at issue in their complaint.Įxample: A member of Congress contacts a federal official who is hiring an applicant and recommends that the official hire a constituent.
Courts have ruled that the legislative intent of this PPP was to prevent the use of political influence to obtain a position or promotion. Put another way, this means that a recommendation to hire or promote someone in the federal workplace must be ignored unless the person making the recommendation has actual knowledge of the person’s abilities as they would apply to the position in question. This PPP prohibits requesting or considering recommendations about an employee or applicant unless the recommendation is based on the personal knowledge of the employee or records of the person providing it. Shortly thereafter, the supervisor begins to take actions against the employee, including, for example, lowering the employee’s performance appraisal rating for that particular period. Since these kinds of discrimination are not within the jurisdiction of the EEO process, we do not defer them to any other complaint processes.Įxample: A supervisor discovers that a subordinate is a member of the Green Party. Therefore, to avoid duplicating those investigative processes, OSC generally defers complaints involving discrimination on these bases to the EEO process.įor discrimination claims regarding marital status and political affiliation: OSC accepts complaints of discrimination on these bases. This PPP wraps together a number of different laws that prohibit discrimination.įor discrimination claims regarding race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability (or handicapping condition): Please note that while OSC is authorized to investigate allegations of discrimination on these bases, there are Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) procedures for investigating such complaints already established in agencies and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Additional Resources for Outreach, Training, & Certification.Outreach, Training, & Certification FAQs.Outreach, Training, & Certification Overview.Alternative Dispute Resolution Overview.
State, D.C., or Local Employee Hatch Act Information.
0 kommentar(er)
