Court: DoD violated veterans hiring preferences

[JohnP]

Court: DoD violated veterans hiring preferences

By Elise Castelli - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 17:21:11 EST

The Defense Department violated the rights of a veteran who was seeking an entry-level, civilian auditing job when it decided to hire two nonveteran candidates instead, a federal court has ruled.

In a Dec. 24 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that an Office of Personnel Management authority that allowed Defense to bypass traditional competitive hiring procedures for entry-level positions was invalid because the regulation conflicted with statutory requirements.

Congress required that OPM give permission to DoD to pass over a veteran or other preferred candidate for a job, but in this case Defense made that decision on its own when it passed over veteran Stephen Gingery for a job at the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Defense used a special authority to hire candidates through the Federal Career Intern Program, which under OPM’s regulation allowed the department to decide whether to give preference to the veteran. In exercising this hiring authority, the department denied Gingery, who has a 30 percent or greater disability, his preference rights, Judge Kimberly Moore wrote in the decision.

The court reversed a previous decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to uphold the Defense hiring decision under the intern program and sent the case back to the board for further action.

Although Gingery had also questioned the legality of the intern program as a whole, saying it violated requirements that exceptions to competitive service be “necessary” for “conditions of good administration,” the court decided not to rule on this issue.

“Because we conclude that OPM’s pass-over regulation is invalid and that Mr. Gingery’s veterans’ preference rights were violated, we need not reach the broader questions of the FCIP’s validity,” Moore wrote.

The intern program allows agencies to shorten hiring times and target recruitment to particular applicants by allowing managers to fill jobs without public notice or competition. The program’s authorities allow the interns to be converted to permanent employees after a two-year probationary period. In contrast, traditional competitive hiring procedures, which would have favored Gingery, require agencies to post vacancies nationally and to hire from a list of highly qualified candidates.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which filed a brief in support of Gingery during the case, said it was pleased the court ruled in Gingery’s favor, but was disappointed the court took no action with regard to the intern program.

NTEU president Colleen Kelley has criticized the program on grounds that it enables federal hiring managers to skirt traditional competitive hiring methods.

One judge on the three-judge panel that heard the case said the court should have settled questions regarding the intern program. The validity of the intern program and how it was implemented was central to the case and could have larger implications for Gingery’s legal rights, Judge Pauline Newman said in a concurring opinion.

[JohnP]

I'm a 10 point vet, a life member of the VFW and a strong proponent of the VHP. This is another benefit of service that congress would love to take away.

When I retired I had no marketable skills. I could run for days on little food and no sleep, engage an enemy in CQC, field strip every weapon blindfolded and stand inspection within 4 hours of returning from the field. (True, I have a degree in communication, would you like fries with that?) On the surface, these are wonderful traits, but few civilian companies will give you a 2nd glance.

If it were not for VHP, I would not have been able to compete with others that had better educations and an inside track for a government position. The VHP also works in getting you a "step up" into certain other careers that receive government monies.

In my opinion, this is a good ruling.

[03_SHOOTER]

Awww, come on brother, don't be modest, you forgot to mention your dashing good looks and sparkling personality.

[txb&b]

Originally Posted by JohnP

In my opinion, this is a good ruling.

I agree and then some. There are some things in our government and military that I just can't fathom and one of them is how they treat disabled veterans. I know of one case where a Special Forces soldier was injured in combat and wanted to continue serving in the military; the Army says he's too disabled to perform his duties since he can't hump a ruck 30 miles and yet the VA says he's not disabled enough to be classified as 30% disabled. There are lots of jobs in the military that don't require the need to be 100% physically capable; and it seems to me that if someone voluntarily sacrificed a part of themselves to defend their country, then our military has an obligation to further train them and help find them a new position that can accomodate their physical constraints if they decide they want to continue to serve.

[reddog]

Amen, txb&b. I have a bit of experience having delt with what you've tendered. I ran right into that proverbial wall a long time ago. The Army simply shut the door in my face and my feelings were that, we still had much more to give. Their loss..
Easy Brother,
Reddog...