Compliance Stuff

Employers sometimes find it necessary to make the difficult decision to undergo a reduction-in-force (RIF), resulting in employee layoffs and/or terminations. Before moving forward with an RIF, employers should develop an implementation gameplan to help minimize legal risk and ensure the process goes as planned. Selection decisions should not run afoul of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and other laws relating to employee terminations. Some initial considerations include the following: Selection Criteria.  Are there established criteria to assist in determining who will be laid off or terminated, e.g., performance reviews, job duties, position elimination, years of services/seniority? In other words, what are the non-discriminatory business reasons for the selection decisions? Is there contemporaneous documentation supporting the proposed selection decisions? In a unionized workforce, does the applicable collective bargaining agreement govern the criteria and process for layoff...

Today’s blog addresses two significant technology related changes at GSA.  First, GSA’s rollout of its  Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Catalog Program (FCP)  continues with minimal disruptions.  Second, reductions in IT staff are having an impact on GSA’s other, more established, tools. The FCP rollout is increasing in pace.  As a refresher, FCP is replacing GSA’s horribly outdated SIP program.   FCP is a web-based application, as opposed to the SIP desktop software.  It is more flexible, reliable, better integrated into other GSA tools ( e.g. , GSA Advantage and eMod), simpler, and provides access to GSA market research.  GSA is currently rolling FCP out to contractors with product catalogs and will move to service catalogs in FY2025.   We’ve received a lot of questions from clients regarding the onboarding emails, but very few questions once clients have begun the transition process.  In other words, the onboarding email is a little...

  If the Trump administration doesn’t get the number of resignations it’s hoping for through its “deferred resignation” program, agencies may have to prepare for the administration’s next possible move to reduce the size of the federal workforce: conducting reductions in force (RIFs) . But conducting a RIF is a much lengthier and more complex process than what the Office of Personnel Management is so far attempting to do through its deferred resignation program. The program was initially set to expire Feb. 6, but the offer has since been  put on hold  by a federal judge . In the meantime, federal employees at agencies such as the General Services Administration have been told that a  nonvoluntary RIF  is expected “shortly.” Ron Sanders, a former career federal executive, views the two efforts toward reducing the size of the federal workforce differently — with one being a “blunt instrument” and the other being a “scalpel.” “Reducing head count through separation...

  Takeaway:  Before conducting a reduction in force, an employer should review its possible exposure to age discrimination claims. A reduction in force (RIF) is not necessarily a sufficient explanation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for the dismissal of an older worker , the state Court of Appeals ruled as it sent an age discrimination claim to a jury. The plaintiff, a customer service manager at Pacific World Corp., alleged age discrimination, disability discrimination, and failure to reasonably accommodate following her layoff. The California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer, a personal care products company, on the latter two claims but revived the age discrimination claim. At the time of the layoff, the plaintiff, who was in her early 60s, was training a younger male co-worker to replace her after she retired, which she was planning to do in a few years. The plaintiff reported to the vice president of operations and s...