![]() ![]() She served as operating EEO Officer for HQ TASCOM in Worms for four years and as FWP Coordinator for HQ TASCOM for two years, both on a collateral duty basis. During this time, she held collateral duty assignments in Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") and Federal Women's Program ("FWP"). From 1968 through August, 1979, she was a program analyst, GS-13, in the finance job series at an Army installation in Worms, Federal Republic of Germany. Plaintiff Rosabelle Judge began working for the federal government in 1947. Upon consideration of all the evidence, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet her burden with respect to these claims. § 2000e-16 by defendant's failure to select her for promotions and to assign her higher performance and merit ratings. ![]() Plaintiff, a black female, claims that she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. The Court took the matter under advisement and herein issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law. ![]() At the conclusion of trial the Court requested the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. This action came before the Court for trial. Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C., for defendant. *771 *772 Wendy Kahn, Zwerling, Leibig & Kahn, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Defense lawyers and employers will have to wait and see if this program, in practice, results in employment cases initially filed by pro se plaintiffs being resolved early on in the litigation process.United States District Court, District of Columbia. While some may dislike the extremely condensed timeframes established by the Standing Order, the program created by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, if successful, could save employers the significant costs and time associated with litigating an employment case filed by a pro se plaintiff. The appointment of counsel should enable pro se plaintiffs to receive sound legal advice on the merits of their claim, and the mediation process provides a mechanism for a previously unrepresented plaintiff to get in front of a federal judge and potentially resolve his or her case very early in the litigation process. In short, the Standing Order fast-tracks employment cases, originally filed by pro se plaintiffs, into court mandated mediation.įrom all indications, the Standing Order was entered by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with the goal of more effectively handling a growing trend of employment cases being filed by pro se plaintiffs. Only the judge assigned to the case may choose not to have the case referred to “early mediation.” The same Standing Order further explains that unless an extension is granted, the mediation “shall take place within 21 days” of the attorney being appointed to represent the pro se plaintiff who originally filed the employment case. Within 7 days of an attorney being appointed to represent the previously unrepresented pro se plaintiff, the employment case must be referred to “early mediation” before a judge other than the judge who is assigned to the case. The initial 90 day suspense period may be further extended by the judge assigned to the case. Under a Standing Order that was entered by the Court, pro se employment cases are placed “in suspense for 90 days” while an attorney, chosen from a preexisting panel, may be appointed to represent the pro se litigant. While many pro se litigants may have the best of intentions, the end result is a docket in federal and state court filled with cases filed by pro se plaintiffs that have little to no merit.įaced with a growing docket of employment cases filed by pro se plaintiffs, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently acted in an effort to manage these cases. Unfortunately, many of these pro se litigants have very little understanding of the nuances associated with attempting to file a discrimination lawsuit including, for example, the timing for filing the lawsuit and the requirement to first exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing a discrimination lawsuit. These cases, in many instances, are brought by spurned and angered employees who believe they have viable claims under federal, state and/or local anti-discrimination statutes. In the context of employment cases, pro se plaintiffs regularly file lawsuits against their current or former employer. Clients and lawyers alike dread the costs, difficulties and the multitude of other headaches they can usually expect when dealing with a pro se litigant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |