Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ruling expands veterans' access to federal jobs

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Just so you know, my COE is conditional only in the sense that I have to get my medical clearance for worldwide service. I currently work for the organization and already have the required clearance. Not sure why the person in your office offer got yanked, perhaps he had issues with obtaining the required clearance (the biggest reason COE's get "yanked"). I don't know. One thing I do know is that every "preference eligible veteran" over the age of 37 is eligible to apply for the 1811 6c positions. Note it only applies to veterans. The age limit was never a qualification for the job but was there in order to allow 20 years before the maximum age of 57 was reached. The MSPB ruled that unless an agency can prove that being 37 is BOQ Bonafide Occupational Qualification for the job, they can't get around the age waiver. THe law is on the books to give veterans an equitable opportunity to compete for covered positions.

    The "done deal" is in that agencies must now follow the law and waive the age limit for pref eligible vets. If you don't believe ME then you call the Applicant coordinator. Reference the following MPSB case

    Isabella, Robert P. - AT050409R1 - Opinion and Order



    Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
    Well, lots of people in this job love to stand on the sidelines and predict what is or isn't going to happen, but the one constant is that they're almost always wrong. Case in point: "FBI is going to merge with DEA...". And my personal favorite, and one that was heard for 20+ years before it finally happened in July: "Customs and Immigration Inspectors are going to get 6c..."

    Another example is your conditional offer, because it's "conditional." A person in my office got one two months ago and had it yanked. Point being nothing is a "done deal" or a sure thing until it's actually done, as in you're on the payroll, are no longer a conditional employee, or - in the case of this age issue - every swinging dic% over age 37 is now eligible for 6c-covered positions. Which they most certainly are not. Don't believe me? Call your local FBI Applicant Coordinator and tell them you want to drop an application at age 42.
    Last edited by DSS Hopeful; 12-26-2008, 08:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DSS Hopeful View Post
      . . . the legal precendence has already been set. It would be like the Supreme Court making a decision on a case and then someone bringing an identical case before them and saying "but I'm different because" . Once legal precedence has been set it is pretty difficult to get around it. Just my take.
      MSPB is not the final say on this matter. As pointed out earlier this could still be challenged at the Circuit Court of Appeals. Or as some like to say the "real" court system as opposed to the MSPB, which is an admin law body. I am not aware of whether OPM and/or DSS have filed an appeal, but as pointed out in the ROA article quoted earlier, an appeal is likely. Further, any other agency who has yet to have a pref eligible vet applicant challenge the age limit is free to seek relief from the courts. Yes, it's likely the MSPB would be the first stop, and would reject any claims from the agency based on the Isabella ruling, BUT they would still be able to make an appeal to the Circuit Court.

      I hope you do get the job you want, but it is incorrect to claim this is a done deal for DSS or any other agency.

      Comment


      • #33
        this one isn't going to be decided by an "applicant coordinator" from any agency, but a federal judge (and perhaps even by the USSC).
        Maybe at the other end, a few years down the road and after thousands of such claims have funneled through the system. But at the front end, an AC will tell you no dice - it will be "decided by" the existing policy that the agency has in place. What's in the vacancy announcement is still the standard they'll follow.

        MSPB is not legislation that changes a hiring standard across the board. It's simply a decision that affects the particular individual filing the claim.

        So when you call the FBI (or literally anyone else except DSS), you're going to get a "sorry, you're over 37" response. With that rejection in hand, you can then file an MSPB complaint and work it through the system. But that's going to take time. Enough time that claiming this to be a "done deal" as far as opening the door gov't-wide for everyone over 37 is more than a bit misleading.

        The "done deal" is in that agencies must now follow the law and waive the age limit for pref eligible vets.
        Again, this is not "the law." It's an administrativbe decision made in the case of a certain individual by MSPB. And it sounds to me that based on this decison, DSS is deciding to grant an agency-wide waiver and let everyone apply. Great for anyone who wants to work there, but it doesn't change anything as far as other 6c agencies are concerned - ones who follow the existing legislation and who have not been challenged. Now, if and when they are challenged, and if they decide to grant an agency-wide waiver based on a few claims (nothing says they have to do what DSS did), it'll still be an agency-specific waiver.

        But until you see legislation - which an MSPB decision most certainly is not - there is no removal of the 37 age limit gov't wide, for veterans or anyone else. That may or may not come - as I said, a lot of people will fight it because the minimum age at which one can retire will almost certainly go up. If agencies choose to start hiring people over 37, that's their choice, but it's not the same as removing the restriction entirely.

        Congratulations on getting hired, of that's what COE constitutes with DSS, and encouraging others to apply there makes sense if they're instituting their own waiver there. But right now this affects only DSS.
        "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

        Comment


        • #34
          Ladies and Gents, I am a current DSS agent and please allow me to clarify some pertinent facts as I see them in these cases.

          Contrary to DSS Hopeful's post, he did not receive a COE for a DSS 1811 position, he received an offer for a 2501, Security Officer position. 95% of DSS agents are 2501s not 1811s. This is significant because....

          DSS falls under the Foreign Service retirement system. (My opinion starts here) I would imagine this is the reason the Isabella case did not affect other agencies that fall under the Civil Service retirement.

          At this time there does not appear DoS will appeal the decision, at least not any time soon, because preference vets above 37 are applying and receiving COEs.

          Finally, I think it is fair to say if an applicant for another 1811 agency filed the same appeal OPM would not rollover like it did here. Every XXX agency would appeal until 2025.

          Couple other points, CBP officers are now covered under 6c/12d and if you look at their annoucement there is now a 37 age cutoff.
          Last edited by LivindaDream; 12-27-2008, 12:55 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            I think VEOA is the legislation in question, which mandates (according to my own reading of this Act, and more relevantly, the interpretation/decision of the MSPB) a waiver of maximum age requirements for those applicants that can claim Veterans Preference. And this legislation recognizes no agency boundaries - federal LE agencies that continue to enforce maximum age restrictions are in violation of VEOA and will be challenged by VETS, and eventually the MSPB.

            What is still left to be done is for MSPB to apply the ruling to other federal agencies (after an age 37+ Veterans Pref applicant is turned away and files a grievance), and then perhaps, a court of appeals may have to finally decide this matter (although I don't think it's going to go the way OPM wants).

            OPM isn't going to like it, but I don't think there's any other possible reading of VEOA and I suspect they are going to be forced to comply with this legislation across the board - sooner rather than later.

            Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
            Maybe at the other end, a few years down the road and after thousands of such claims have funneled through the system. But at the front end, an AC will tell you no dice - it will be "decided by" the existing policy that the agency has in place. What's in the vacancy announcement is still the standard they'll follow.

            MSPB is not legislation that changes a hiring standard across the board. It's simply a decision that affects the particular individual filing the claim.

            So when you call the FBI (or literally anyone else except DSS), you're going to get a "sorry, you're over 37" response. With that rejection in hand, you can then file an MSPB complaint and work it through the system. But that's going to take time. Enough time that claiming this to be a "done deal" as far as opening the door gov't-wide for everyone over 37 is more than a bit misleading.



            Again, this is not "the law." It's an administrativbe decision made in the case of a certain individual by MSPB. And it sounds to me that based on this decison, DSS is deciding to grant an agency-wide waiver and let everyone apply. Great for anyone who wants to work there, but it doesn't change anything as far as other 6c agencies are concerned - ones who follow the existing legislation and who have not been challenged. Now, if and when they are challenged, and if they decide to grant an agency-wide waiver based on a few claims (nothing says they have to do what DSS did), it'll still be an agency-specific waiver.

            But until you see legislation - which an MSPB decision most certainly is not - there is no removal of the 37 age limit gov't wide, for veterans or anyone else. That may or may not come - as I said, a lot of people will fight it because the minimum age at which one can retire will almost certainly go up. If agencies choose to start hiring people over 37, that's their choice, but it's not the same as removing the restriction entirely.

            Congratulations on getting hired, of that's what COE constitutes with DSS, and encouraging others to apply there makes sense if they're instituting their own waiver there. But right now this affects only DSS.
            Last edited by ilparkcop; 12-27-2008, 01:29 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              VEOA contains provision for veterans to pay into the retirement system to recoup "lost years" for retirement if I'm not mistaken.

              Further, I don't think the distinction you are pointing out is significant - VEOA only allows the retention of the maximum age requirement when it can be demonstrated that the age requirement is essential to the performance of the job (not due to retirement considerations).

              And this should be pointed out - this doesn't open the door to everyone above 37. This only applies to those Veterans who can claim Veterans preference (and not even everyone who has served in the military qualifies) - so this is a subset of a small percentage of the population.

              Originally posted by LivindaDream View Post
              Ladies and Gents, I am a current DSS agent and please allow me to clarify some pertinent facts as I see them in these cases.

              Contrary to DSS Hopeful's post, he did not receive a COE for a DSS 1811 position, he received an offer for a 2501, Security Officer position. 95% of DSS agents are 2501s not 1811s. This is significant because....

              DSS falls under the Foreign Service retirement system. (My opinion starts here) I would imagine this is the reason the Isabella case did not affect other agencies that fall under the Civil Service retirement.

              At this time there does not appear DoS will appeal the decision, at least not any time soon, because preference vets above 37 are applying and receiving COEs.

              Finally, I think it is fair to say if an applicant for another 1811 agency filed the same appeal OPM would not rollover like it did here. Every XXX agency would appeal until 2025.

              Comment


              • #37
                Notwithstanding VEOA I believe the significance is a challenge to the DSS 37-age rule, is not a challenge to other 1811 6c/12d interpretations and agency rules. Hence I do not see the same outcome with other agencies. This ruling applied singularly to DoS who is a late comer (10 years in fact) to age 57 retirement.

                Comment


                • #38
                  So what, exactly, is the reason another federal LE agency can disregard the age waiver mandated by VEOA? Is there something specific in VEOA that you think allows ATF/FBI/USSS/etc. to avoid the legislative force of the act with regard to the age requirement for any federal job (including 1811's)?

                  In any event, it will be up to MSPB, and possibly a court of appeals, to finally determine whether these other LE agencies are, in fact, in compliance w/ VEOA. I do not believe they are in compliance - but we shall see.


                  Originally posted by LivindaDream View Post
                  Notwithstanding VEOA I believe the significance is a challenge to the DSS 37-age rule, is not a challenge to other 1811 6c/12d interpretations and agency rules. Hence I do not see the same outcome with other agencies. This ruling applied singularly to DoS who is a late comer (10 years in fact) to age 57 retirement.
                  Last edited by ilparkcop; 12-27-2008, 02:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The below excerpt is straight out of the U.S. Code which I believe is general and permanent federal law. Note it doesn't say agencies may waive or can choose to waive. It says SHALL waive. I believe the other "examining agency" referred to below pretty much pertains to the indivdual agencies that might be conducting the hiring process such as FBI, USSS, DEA and all the other agencies that supposedly don't have to comply with the U.S. Code

                    Again this is out of the U.S. Code not a Veterans Employment Rule.

                    TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 3312Prev | Next § 3312. Preference eligibles; physical qualifications; waiver
                    (a) In determining qualifications of a preference eligible for examination for, appointment in, or reinstatement in the competitive service, the Office of Personnel Management or other examining agency shall waive—[/COLOR]
                    (1) requirements as to age, height, and weight, unless the requirement is essential to the performance of the duties of the position; and
                    (2) physical requirements if, in the opinion of the Office or other examining agency, after considering the recommendation of an accredited physician, the preference eligible is physically able to perform efficiently the duties of the position.
                    Last edited by DSS Hopeful; 12-27-2008, 05:50 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Honestly, I have no idea. But I do know this surely cannot be the first time this has been challenged. And there are other legal and regulatory factors you or I are not privy. For example, FBI is excepted service - what effect may that have? The U.S. code Hopeful quoted cites competitive service. Other agencies refer to the need to maintain a "youthful and diverse workforce" and that has held previously. My analysis says the DSS argument was weak and unmotivated; so they loss. The arguments from other agencies, who it appears think they have much more to lose, will be very well organized, very motivated and very well researched.

                      Originally posted by ilparkcop View Post
                      So what, exactly, is the reason another federal LE agency can disregard the age waiver mandated by VEOA? Is there something specific in VEOA that you think allows ATF/FBI/USSS/etc. to avoid the legislative force of the act with regard to the age requirement for any federal job (including 1811's)?

                      In any event, it will be up to MSPB, and possibly a court of appeals, to finally determine whether these other LE agencies are, in fact, in compliance w/ VEOA. I do not believe they are in compliance - but we shall see.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Excepted service argument doesn't work either because the State Department and the Foreign Service are considered Excepted Service Organizations also as stated by the below sites.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excepted_Service

                        http://media.newjobs.com/opm/www/usa...%20Service.pdf

                        Change never comes easy and I think agencies are just resisting the change. I think the bottom line to all of this is you really can't use the argument that being under 37 is a requirement to be an agent whether its DEA, USSS, FBI or the Men in Black when you have a guy that is 50 who is currently an agent and has to perform the same job skills. Additionally where does it say that becuase you come on you have to stay with that agency and retire? But there is a rule that allows agents to stay on until 60 if it is in the best interests of the service/agency.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DSS Hopeful View Post
                          Change never comes easy and I think agencies are just resisting the change. I think the bottom line to all of this is you really can't use the argument that being under 37 is a requirement to be an agent whether its DEA, USSS, FBI or the Men in Black when you have a guy that is 50 who is currently an agent and has to perform the same job skills. Additionally where does it say that becuase you come on you have to stay with that agency and retire? But there is a rule that allows agents to stay on until 60 if it is in the best interests of the service/agency.
                          Bingo - that is why I find it hard to believe that any of those agencies will be able to make the case that the maximum age requirement is essential to the job function of an 1811 (and VEOA only lists that reason and that alone as an exception to the mandate).

                          All that is needed now is someone to get turned away from FBI/ATF/DEA due to maximum age for an 1811 job, a claim to be filed with VETS (which will be unable to resolve this since the fed agencies are unlikely to budge), and then MSPB will again rule against the Fed agency because of non-compliance with VEOA.

                          FBI/ATF/DEA/USSS/etc. can fight this all they want and with as much passion, motivation, and research possible and it will still be for naught - read the language of VEOA - unless they can make an argument that the maximum age requirement is essential to the job function of an 1811 (and good luck with that since, as DSS Hopeful has pointed out, there are 55 year old 1811's running around performing the job admirably) they will lose.

                          And this will be a good thing, b/c these agencies will finally be in compliance with the law.
                          Last edited by ilparkcop; 12-28-2008, 10:17 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LivindaDream View Post
                            Honestly, I have no idea. But I do know this surely cannot be the first time this has been challenged. And there are other legal and regulatory factors you or I are not privy. For example, FBI is excepted service - what effect may that have? The U.S. code Hopeful quoted cites competitive service. Other agencies refer to the need to maintain a "youthful and diverse workforce" and that has held previously. My analysis says the DSS argument was weak and unmotivated; so they loss. The arguments from other agencies, who it appears think they have much more to lose, will be very well organized, very motivated and very well researched.

                            Dream, don't forget that it wasn't just DSS arguing this. OPM was right there with them and appealed the original decision. I think your argument that the DSS argument was "weak" is itself weak. To say that with all the legal resources that State and OPM no doubt have, that they wasted their time and went into the hearing bringing anything less than their "A Game" is a little naive on your part. Besides what stronger argument could the other agencies offer? THat thier agents have to be under 37 wwhen hired because their 1811 missions and duties are so much more demanding than DSS. Hell FBI agents and Secret Service spend just as much if not more time sitting on their butts doing paperwork and other investigative and admin duties as they do kicking in doors and dragging away bad guys. SO lets not try to make out that one or the other agencies do more high speed, high risk work and therefore need a cadre of young virile door kickers. Not to boast but as a 42 year old retired Marine I would put myself up against any of the young virile crew coming on board and venture to say that I can outrun, and outshoot 75% of them. And we won't even go into maturity, sound judgement, leadership experience and plain overall life experience. Last time I looked those weren't classes regularly taught in college.

                            I won't keep beating this horse as all of this is just my humble opinion and we all know what they about opinions. The ruling applies to such a small segment of the population that in the end I don't think it is really going to impact those agencies greatly if they do start bringing people on past 37. The average 37 year old vet is already comfortable doing what they are doing and has no desire to start off as an entry level agent (again my opinion). I don't imagine there will bee droves of guys on walkers and canes dropping applications for these agencies. I am greatful that I did get a COE and hope the rest of the process goes smoothly for me.

                            "One Team, One Fight"
                            Last edited by DSS Hopeful; 12-28-2008, 10:50 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Well first, let me say I am a veteran. And I fully agree with much of the points Hopeful and "the park cop" (funny) have mentioned. I think when it comes to VEOA most federal agencies do not honor the letter, spirit nor intent of the act.

                              I am not naive, but I do share the opinion that DSS's rationale for the age-37 cutoff, and the rationale by other agencies via OPM is not completely the same. If it were OPM would have certainly taken it to the Court of Appeals.

                              I stand firm behind my positon that DSS is not a true test case. And I concede I maybe wrong. Either way DSS Hopeful by this time next year everyone in DS will know who you are - and you and I will be sharing beers at UNGA 09!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                FBI/ATF/DEA/USSS/etc. can fight this all they want and with as much passion, motivation, and research possible and it will still be for naught - read the language of VEOA - unless they can make an argument that the maximum age requirement is essential to the job function of an 1811 (and good luck with that since, as DSS Hopeful has pointed out, there are 55 year old 1811's running around performing the job admirably) they will lose
                                They may lose, but my point is that they will only lose on an individual, case-by-case basis, for each individual filing a claim and pursuing it through the MSPB system (wonder how long that takes?). Again, MSPB decisions are not "law", but as SA13 stated, administrative decisions for individual claims. As such, they are not "applied" across the board to agency hiring rules. So once again, the "done deal" as far as age requirements for all fed agencies is legislation, not a single MSPB decision.

                                You also run into the fact that moving the minimum entry age up will increase the minimum retirement age, so someone is going to have to cross the bridge of how you essentially give a benefit to an entire a group of people (by allowing them to come on board later) while simultaneously taking one away from another group (by telling them they can't retire at X age and have to work longer). Certainly doable, but that has to be worked out before any legislation can be forumlated. Just like with the CBP coverage, it took a lot more work than simply having the support and the stroke of a pen to get it done.
                                "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4850 users online. 207 members and 4643 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X