By 
I currently represent, and have historically represented, many employees working for various state and local agencies and government entities, as well as employees of federal agencies, on employment, civil rights and pension matters. Most of the issues involve helping employees who are in the process of being reprimanded or removed, or who claim they have been discriminated against in some way. At any given time I have many such cases in progress, and in recent years I have opposed the United States Postal Service, the United States Mint, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Navy. , the FBI, the Department of the Interior, and the Social Security Administration, and this is only a partial list.
I also represent employees in various situations involving private employers. The difference between representing employees working in the private sector is that a resolution can generally be reached between the parties without resorting to lengthy and costly litigation. There are always exceptions, but it is generally easier to deal with companies that are aware that fighting tooth and nail against a current or former employee may not be profitable for them in the long run and it can also be bad for other employees. ” moral. Private companies, or their attorneys, generally consider the effect litigation will have on their bottom line, even if they feel they have a wonderful defense.
However, government entities do not appear to consider the financial impact of litigating a case, either before a government agency or in court. This really disappoints me, in a couple of ways. First, I feel like my money is being wasted as a taxpayer. Government agencies have lawyers working for them, and their mantra seems to be “we have no authority to offer money (or a very low amount is offered) to solve this case.” This is ridiculous, because the federal government obviously has loads of money and seems to waste a lot of it. I’m not saying that agencies should give money to all employees who file a claim, but a cost-benefit analysis should be done, which is typically done by private companies. I have two examples where agencies are spending thousands and thousands of dollars against long-term employees whom they are trying to remove from their jobs. The first example is that the Postal Service is opposed to a man who can perform his job if he is allowed to sit in a sliding chair due to a back condition, and this chair has been provided for many years. His chair was taken from him and now he receives unemployment compensation because he is not allowed to work. We are fighting to get his chair back and allow him to work. Unfortunately, this type of situation is rampant these days as the Postal Service is losing money and trying to weed out disabled employees who can work if they are given a small accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The second example is that at a recent hearing, five agency employees spent the day waiting to testify instead of doing their assigned work, in a case where a 25-year-old government employee was removed for reasons that are certainly debatable, I would have accepted a very reasonable decision. settlement.
In certain forums, if the initiating party wins the case, the agency pays the attorney’s fees and costs. So, in both cases, a cost-benefit analysis would definitely favor the liquidation. Yet again and again, agencies will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars fighting a case.
That brings me to the second cost of these types of cases. Do we want our government agencies to hit average people, usually employees who don’t make a lot of money? In most cases, each side is not 100% correct. Additionally, employees who work with, or have worked with, the employee dealing with the matter avidly follow up on these matters and often hire an attorney because a co-worker did, or they don’t appreciate the firm stance they make. the agency adopts against a partner. employee, and they become demoralized and unhappy in their work situation.
So my point is this, and it is a very popular point in politics these days, I feel that agencies should operate like businesses, and part of the business decisions they make should be the best way to resolve a matter in the that each part leaves with something. Does this analysis happen on a daily basis in private industry and the legal system? I suggest that using the financial power of the Federal Government against its citizens and employees is not the best way to manage tax money and employees.