Posted on Nov 19, 2014
Should leaders be PERSONALLY responsible for substantiated EEO violations?
2.48K
10
12
2
2
0
Gov spends millions of dollars on EEO claims..yet rare are senior people at the root cause held personally liable....the same is true on other matters, as we have seen at the VA...
http://blogs.fedsmith.com/2014/11/19/eeoc-issues-fy-2014-performance-report/?utm_source=post%20notifications&utm_medium=email&utm_content=full%20url&utm_campaign=fedsmith.blogs%40lists.fedsmith.com
http://blogs.fedsmith.com/2014/11/19/eeoc-issues-fy-2014-performance-report/?utm_source=post%20notifications&utm_medium=email&utm_content=full%20url&utm_campaign=fedsmith.blogs%40lists.fedsmith.com
Posted in these groups: 
EO
Leadership
EO Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
Leaders, SGM (Join to see)? Maybe, but sometimes a rogue employee's actions are out of the leader's control.
How about holding the perpetrator liable? A fine of some sort? In addition to whatever current punishments apply. That might have an impact as well.
How about holding the perpetrator liable? A fine of some sort? In addition to whatever current punishments apply. That might have an impact as well.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CW5 Montgomery---in order to maintain good order and discipline, we give up some rights and gain some under the UCMJ. The situation you relate is true--the Navy holds a ship's commander accountable; the other services see more shades of grey. There will always be people who abuse power and authority. Under the UCMJ they can be charged with Cruelty, Maltreatment of subordinates, Dereliction of Duty and so on...however, when civilian authorities (such as at the VA) do so, they are exempt from both the UCMJ and being personally liable--although they might be fired, impeached, etc. That's the real issue.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I wonder if government workers are held to the same scrupulous standards that they enforce on the Military?
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
See my response to CW5 Montgomery--no they are not, particularly if an SES or political appointee. Exempt from the UCMJ--Cdr and Chief on down. Exempt under FEREs Doctrine, Cdr and chief of down. Subject to impeachment, firing, yes. Some civil criminal actions, yes, but very few.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought unless there are some very extreme circumstances a Soldier cannot be held Financially liable for something they did while on active Duty. (I know the EPA regs allows you to be fined and there are a few others so please correct me if I am off base)
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Depends on what it is and what your status was when you did it. Under the Ferres Doctrine, the US per se, and officials acting in an official capacity on behalf of the US are not generally held personally liable. That doesn't mean they can't be found liable or sued in civil court if one has "status" to sue. Military people do not have status to sue (for example you can't go around suing your commander--one can imagine he chaos of that --but one does have some UCMJ options); on the other hand your dependent might sue in the case of medical malpractice....that would not likely result in a personal liability, although you might win a civil tort claim for damages from the Gov. However, in past years the definition of "official" act was sometimes interpreted as split between "line of duty" and
"not in the line of duty" status. Commissioned Officers were usually "on" duty . Commanders and medical officers and gov/DOD civilian officials (such as SecDef) all have special status when acting in that capacity. They can still be named in a suit. However, there was a time, despite the doctrine, where if you were a soldier responsible for gov equipment you were accountable for it up to 100% (far less now)--hence we still have a Report of Survey to determine that outcome. There were many draftees who wrecked a vehicle and found themselves still on active duty paying for it throughout the 1970s.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blferes.htm
"not in the line of duty" status. Commissioned Officers were usually "on" duty . Commanders and medical officers and gov/DOD civilian officials (such as SecDef) all have special status when acting in that capacity. They can still be named in a suit. However, there was a time, despite the doctrine, where if you were a soldier responsible for gov equipment you were accountable for it up to 100% (far less now)--hence we still have a Report of Survey to determine that outcome. There were many draftees who wrecked a vehicle and found themselves still on active duty paying for it throughout the 1970s.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blferes.htm
Military Law -- The Feres Docrine (Supreme Court Decision)
federal tort claims, tort claims act, supreme court decision, united states court, money damages, government liability, feres, private bills, executrix, naval personnel, civil actions, furlough, comprehensive system, private individual, district courts, military law, certiorari, united states court of appeals, dependents, active duty
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Military Law -- The Feres Docrine (Supreme Court Decision)
federal tort claims, tort claims act, supreme court decision, united states court, money damages, government liability, feres, private bills, executrix, naval personnel, civil actions, furlough, comprehensive system, private individual, district courts, military law, certiorari, united states court of appeals, dependents, active duty
(0)
(0)
MAJ Dallas D.
As always thanks SGM (Join to see) for your great response. I couldn't recall the doctrine so I am glad you were able to pull it up.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google