Ads by Google Ads by Google

US DOL: Simeonica Tuiteleleapaga vs. ASG matter moving forward

Local DHR asked for waiver to settle case within ASG
joyetter@samoanews.com

Efforts by the American Samoa Government to settle the matter between Department of Human and Social Services’ employee Simeonica Tuiteleleapaga, a transgender, and ASG’s  Department of Human Social Services Acting Director Taeaoafua Meki Solomona have been declined by Miss Tuiteleleapaga. At the time of the matter, last November 2016, Taeaoafua was the director of DHSS.

Last month Miss Tuiteleleapaga confirmed with Samoa News that she had filed an official complaint with the US Department of Labor- EEOC on grounds of discrimination by then-DHSS director Taeaoafua.

Miss Tuiteleleapaga’s decision was revealed in a letter (obtained by Samoa News) from the United States Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Honolulu Hawai’i, responding to Department of Human Resources acting director Eseneiaso Liu’s request on behalf of the American Samoa Government to “grieve the matter internally (within ASG).”

US-EEOC local officer-director, Gloria Gervacio Saure notes that this letter serves as a notice of law enforcement proceedings by the EEOC that includes an investigation.

A recording of the confrontation between Taeaoafua and Miss Tuiteleleapaga last November surfaced on social media at the time. The recording is alleged to have been taken during a staff meeting that seems to be a harangue of DHSS government employees, who Taeaoafua  says voted against him (by apparently voting against the administration in November’s General Election). Taeaoafua is heard telling Miss Tuiteleleapaga to take off her clothes to see if “she is a boy or a girl.”

In the EEOC letter that was received by the government on Friday, February 3, 2017, Suare informs ASG that “as a matter of public policy, EEOC acts to vindicate the public interest in the eradication of employment discrimination.”

She quotes a federal case between a General Telephone Company versus EEOC in 1980 saying, “The EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination... although it can secure specific relief, such as hiring or reinstatement, on behalf of dissemination victims, the agency is guided by the overriding public interest in equal employment opportunity, asserted through direct federal enforcement.”

Saure, in her letter, also points out that the charge levied by Miss Tuiteleleapaga also serves to trigger law enforcement proceedings by the EEOC that includes an investigation; and if there is a finding of discrimination, it may include conciliation and litigation.

The local EEOC official points out that EEOC’s position is that each individual has the right to file a charge or participate in any manner in an investigation, hearing or proceeding under the laws enforced by EEOC (42. U.S.C 2000e seq). These employees’ rights are non-waivable under federal civil rights laws.

“In this regard, charging party (Tuiteleapaga) has relayed to us that she declines to grieve the matter internally with the government and elected to pursue her statuary right to an investigation by the EEOC,” Saure wrote.

The EEOC also notes that the government can provide a statement of position before February 24, 2017.