Loading

value

HOW TO FIGURE OUT "VALUE" OF YOUR EEOC CLAIM
STEP 1. CHOOSE WHAT YOU THINK YOUR CASE IS WORTH
Note: Federal Employees limited to $300,000.00 per discrimination
eeoc cases worth $10,000 eeoc cases worth $20,000 eeoc cases worth $30,000
eeoc cases worth $40,000 eeoc cases worth $50,000 eeoc cases worth $60,000
eeoc cases worth $70,000 eeoc cases worth $80,000 eeoc cases worth $90,000
eeoc cases worth $100,000 eeoc cases worth $200,000 eeoc cases worth $300,000
note: most eeoc cases are dismissed, and result in $0 award

discrimination

Initially, we point out that non-pecuniary compensatory damages are designed to remedy a harm and not to punish the agency for its discriminatory actions.

Valuing

STEP 2. HOW TO GET THE MOST $$$ VALUE IN YOUR CASE
1. SAVE YOUR RECIEPTS
2. OBTAIN YOUR OWN MEDICAL REPORTS
3. KEEP A DIARY OF PAIN/SUFFERING/SUICIDE ATTEMPTS
4. KEEP RECORDS OF:

PRESCRIPTIONS
OTC DRUGS/SUPPLIES/ASPIRIN
PSYCHOTHERAPY VISITS
DOCTOR VISITS
HOSPITAL VISITS
MASSAGE TREATMENTS
ACUPUNCTURE EXPENSES
CHIROPRACTIC EXPENSES
PHYSICAL THERAPY EXPENSES
SPIRITUAL ADVISER VISITS
RELIGIOUS ADVISER VISITS
TRAVEL TO/FROM PER MILE
POSTAGE/STAMPS
JOB HUNTING EXPENSES
MOVING EXPENSES
OTHER QUANTIFIABLE
OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES
note: If you win your eeoc case you have a limited time to produce evidence
Who are you, and why have you come to this higher education blog about your legal rights in a civil rights discrimination being heard by the EEOC commission?

Who are you? Why have you come to my educational blog about your legal rights in a civil rights discrimination being heard by the EEOC commission?

Are you a law student? Reporter, Lawyer, Complainant or Defendant, Administrative Judge, Paralegal, family member of someone involved in a discrimination? Are you a union member?

Just by knowing about a case that is similar to yours, and knowing how to cite that case, will quite literally be the difference from being taken advantage of for your lack of LEGAL knowledge and feeling satisfied that you did everything possible to be successful.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't give legal advice. I made this site for myself, to help me remember laws, rules and citations in pro se. I understand that its very useful.

Regardless of your interaction, just visiting my blog and learning something you did not know, is a benefit to you.

It's kind of my therapy against feeling hopeless and terribly depressed. Maybe due to my ill health or memory problems, I have placed my notes in a pro se format, so I don't forget where I placed them.

The notes are staggered and do not follow in any order or sequence (i.e. not numbered or alphabetical) So I suggest you use the "This site only search option", as it kind of puts things in order. I use it myself, to locate similar topics.

The navigation bar or deck that I created is by far the easiest way to get around the site, but it does not include all my posts. Use the search box!

Robson
Union Member AFGE Local 1234

Sunday, June 24, 2012

disparate treatment analysis


disparate treatment analysis

and found that complainant failed to show that similarly-situated

co-workers were treated more favorably under similar circumstances.


Disparate Treatment - Disability



As a threshold matter, a complainant claiming protections under

the Rehabilitation Act must show that s/he is an individual with a

disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.  An individual

with a disability is one who has, has a record of having, or is regarded

as having an impairment that substantially limits one or more major

life activities.  29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g).  Major life activities include

caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,

speaking, breathing, learning, and working.  29 C.F.R. ' 1630.2(i).4

For purposes of further analysis, we assume, arguendo, without finding,

that complainant established that he is an individual with a disability

and is entitled to coverage under the Rehabilitation Act.



In general, disparate treatment claims, such as the complaint herein,

are examined under a tripartite analysis whereby a complainant must

first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting

facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of

discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor

in the adverse employment action.  McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 802-804 (1973); Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438

U.S. 567 (1978).  The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.  Texas Department of

Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).  If the agency is

successful, the burden reverts back to the complainant to demonstrate by

a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons were a pretext

for discrimination.  At all times, complainant retains the burden of

persuasion, and it is his/her obligation to show by a preponderance of

the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); U.S. Postal

Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983).

Post a Comment

Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr.

Popular Posts

Win your EEOC claim. Join the email list.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

De Novo opinion?

De Novo opinion?