The University has failed to update their AAP, a violation of 41 CFR § 60-300.40(c); Despite being under review into June 2017, the University did not update their AAP at all during calendar year 2017. As of the date of this letter, their website still only shows an AAP for 2016.

University personnel processes often do not include invitations to self-identify as veterans, a violation of 41 CFR § 60-300.42; Interview notes from the Interim Dean clearly show there was no process for identifying veteran status in hiring the “Senior Director of Admissions and Financial Aide,” another interviewee. OFCCP failed to consider these facts, despite being in possession of evidence to their effect.

The University did not display policy statements indicating protection of disabled veterans, a violation of 41 CFR § 60-300.44(a); OFCCP never asked University officials to produce compliant policy statements, and no such statement was ever on display at the University at any point in the duration of the case. OFCCP failed to consider these facts, and never made any attempts at discovery.

Duke University’s discrimination and harassment policies excluded veteran status, a violation of 41 CFR § 60-300.44(e); no such policy included veteran status until the University quietly altered them on November 7, 2016. OFCCP failed to consider these facts, and never made any apparent request to acquire pertinent contractor policies.

Duke University did not provide EEO/Affirmative Action training, a violation of 41 CFR § 60-300.44(g) and (j); OFCCP ignored multiple interviews in which managers openly admitted to never having had any training on EEO/Affirmative Action or anything regarding protected veteran status. OFCCP failed to consider these facts despite being in possession of evidence to their effect.

OFFCP ignored allegations of ongoing intimidation and harassment by University managers, a violation of 41 CFR §60-300.69; OFCCP called a quid pro quo threat of reprisal made after the case was opened “a request” and took no action to enforce subsection (b) of this part when the Divinity Dean refused to intervene. OFCCP failed to consider these facts, and refused to investigate repeated acts as a “continuing violation” pursuant to FCCM §7B.

The University engaged in criminal obstruction of justice and violated 41 CFR §§ 60-300.44(f)4 and 60-300.80(b); If what OFCCP conducted was an investigation, then EEO policies represent direct evidence, the alteration of which while under federal investigation represents a criminal act according to 18 USC §§1505 and 1519. The unannounced alteration is also a violation of the University’s “recordkeeping obligations.” This action alone “constitutes noncompliance” according to 41 CFR § 60-300.80(c). OFCCP failed to consider these facts.

~~~

To dispute the veracity of any of the above claims, use our Contact Page to send supporting evidence and we will update this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s