EEOC “Leadership” Says No Need for Code of Judicial Ethics

The EEOC has defended  the fact that it does not require EEOC judges to follow any code of judicial ethics.

In response to an ethics complaint, EEOC Associate Legal Counsel Carol R. Miaskoff ruled last month that EEOC judges are mere attorneys and not judges at all. “Because judicial standards do not apply, they could not have violated these rules,” states Miaskoff.

EEOC spokesperson Christine S. Nazer Friday rejected the premise that lack of a judicial ethics code is problematic.  “EEOC leadership feels its judges should be fair, impartial, and follow the law, and all evidence suggests that this is exactly what happens in our federal sector decision-making process,” she said.

Nazer said Acting EEOC Commissioner Victoria Lipnic declined to answer questions,  such as the following:

Every  U.S. District Judge and every state court judge is required to follow a code of judicial conduct . These codes address the unique power held by decision makers in adversarial proceedings. It seems clear that EEOC judges are covered under both ABA codes.

The ABA Model Code requires judges to perform the duties of judicial office “impartially, competently, and diligently” and to follow the law.

The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct for Federal Administrative Law Judges applies to  “anyone who is authorized to perform judicial functions, including… a member of the administrative law judiciary.” EEOC judges decide discrimination complaints  brought against federal agencies.

Maskioff contends that  EEOC “Administrative Judges” are required only to follow a general code of ethics applicable to all federal employees that addresses bribery and conflict of interest.

Interestingly, Nazer refers to the EEOC judges as “judges”  whereas Miaskoff  insisted that EEOC judges are mere attorneys.

The ethics complaint was filed after the EEOC dismissed a case of alleged age discrimination in hiring without a hearing.

In that case, the Social Security Administration (SSA) admitted it ignored the objective qualifications of a 60-year-old female attorney and hired four applicants under the age of 40, includng recent law school graduates. The SSA said the hiring officer based his hiring decisions upon cultural fit.

EEOC Administrative Judge Daniel Leach and Carlton M. Hadden, the director of the EEOC’s appellate unit, the Office of Federal Operations, did not cite any legal authority for  holding that employers can base hiring decisions entirely on subjective criteria and they ignored contrary legal authority and long settled  EEOC policy.

In addition, Hadden upheld Leach’s dismissal of the complainant’s retaliation claim,without addressing undisputed evidence that Leach’s ruling was based upon an egregious error of fact. Moreover, Leach and Hadden ignored evidence that three SSA attorneys improperly interfered in the investigation of the case. The EEOC refused to reconsider Hadden’s decision.

This was one of two cases that became public last year where EEOC judges treated  the ADEA differently than  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color and national origin. The substantive provisions of the ADEA and Title VII are identical. Both laws make it illegal “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that individual’s protected status.

5 thoughts on “EEOC “Leadership” Says No Need for Code of Judicial Ethics”

    1. I am a former EEOC Judge. Chairwoman Carrie Dominguez ordered me to change a decision I wrote in 2001. She said, “I do not want my sister Agency the SEC to suffer.” I refused to change the decisions. I relayed it was unethical and illegal for her to even ask me to do so and reminded her of the EEOC mission statement which is to eradicate all vestiges of discrimination. I had ovarian cancer surgery 12 hours prior to her demand that I report to the office ASAP. Dominguez said she did not care that the doctor would not release me. After going back to the hospital Dominguez related to Headquarters as well as Los Angeles that I was to be terminated by any means necessary! As a disabled employee all of my former accommodations were taken away and my physicians requests for the return of my prior accommodations be reinstated and the ones he ordered be in place immediately. That did not happen. At trial I pulled out an email from the Commission stating that the LA office was to withhold all accommodations until after the trial when I filed an EEO complaint against the EEOC for failure to promote, failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, and retaliation (which continues today by Hadden and all other well positioned EEOC officials). See Bullock v Berrien Ninth Circuit Court case. Because of what they attempted to do to me (My supervisor relayed that I would be dead by their hands by the time this case was over and they almost got what they asked for). I speak nationally about judicial corruption and especially within the EEOC. Moreover, the argument made by the EEOC that the judges are attorneys is simply untrue. To be an attorney you must be licensed. The majority of EEOC judges are not licensed to practice law. In the LA office most had been unlicensed from ten to twenty years. Ergo they were not attorneys and no standing decisions about their work could be determined since the State Bars will only take complaints about attorneys. The EEOC goes to great lengths to obfuscate the truth.,They are and continue to be one of the most corrupt judiciaries. The federal government is the largest employer. All of their employees must go to the EEOC for complaints of discrimination which are for many valid. They will not find justice. It is a tragedy! I weep for all of those people who’s life has been destroyed by ill trained, psychopathic management, cruel decision makers who do not care about anyone but themselves. I apologize for the length of my comment but I have so much more to share.

      Mary Elizabeth Bullock

  1. What’s the best way to battle a corrupt judge when representing an employee? what’s the best way to deal with a corrupt Agency attorney? What is the EEOC inspector general for?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.