Source: https://slphrbenefitsupdate.com/category/government-accountability/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:59:21+00:00

Document:
State and local political subdivisions employing fewer than 20 employees should reconfirm the defensibility of their employment policies and practices under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various other laws in light of the unanimous ruling issued this morning by the United State Supreme Court holding that the ADEA applies to all state and local political subdivisions regardless of size.
In its ruling in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, – U.S. -, 2018 WL 5794639 (November 6, 2018) released this morning, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ADEA applies to all state and local subdivisions regardless of the number of employees the political subdivision employs.
The Supreme Court’s ruling arose from an ADEA lawsuit brought by John Guido and Dennis Rankin against a small Arizona fire department, the Mount Lemmon Fire District (District) challenging their layoff by the District. Faced with a budget shortfall, the District laid off Guido and Rankin, who at the time were the District’s two oldest full-time firefighters. Guido and Rankin sued the Fire District, alleging that their termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. The Fire District sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the District was too small to qualify as an “employer” within the ADEA’s compass.
In response to Guido and Rankin’s lawsuit, the District asserted that was not covered by the ADEA because its employment of fewer than 20 employees rendered it “too small” to qualify as an “employer” as defined by 29 U. S. C. §630(b). In its ruling against the Fire District this morning, the Supreme Court rejected this numerosity defense, holding instead that the ADEA applies to all political subdivisions regardless of the size of their workforce.
“The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” 29 U. S. C. §630(b); 29 U. S. C. §203(d), (x).
In construing this definition, the Supreme Court weighed whether the phrase “also means” added new categories to the definition of “employer” or merely clarified that States and their political subdivisions are a type of “person” included in §630(b)’s first sentence. While acknowledging that various Courts of Appeals previously have reached differing conclusions concerning the appropriate interpretation, the Supreme Court ruled that the phase “also means” added a new category to the definition of “employer” for purposes of the ADEA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the District’s claim that the ADEA definition of “employer” includes the requirement of employment of at least 20 employees applicable to the ADEA’s private sector definition of “employer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ADEA applies to all State and local political subdivisions.
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, any State or local subdivision that has operated in reliance upon the now discredited interpretations of the ADEA or FLSA definitions of “employer” as applicable only to State or local governmental entities employing at least 20 employees immediately should take all necessary corrective action to bring their policies into compliance with the ADEA and FLSA. These governmental entities also should seek the advice of qualified legal counsel about the advisability of taking any retrospective action to self-correct any potential past deficiencies in compliance, if any, for which the entity might bear potential liability to the extent that the applicable state of limitations has not run on those claims.
 Justice Kavanaugh did not join in the opinion as he took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Department of Labor (DOL) and other agencies’ spending reports posted at USASpending.gov to comply withthe Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) are intended to help taxpayers, government leaders and others monitor and evaluate agency spending. However a new report from the DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG) found data reporting and other issues have compromised the reliability of the data reported in DOL reports posed on USASpending.gov.
The Data Act requires federal agencies to report spending data in accordance with new government-wide data standards developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Treasury (Treasury). The data reports are posted on so taxpayers and policy makers understand how the Department is spending its funds. The Act requires federal agencies to report spending data in accordance with new government-wide data standards developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Treasury (Treasury). The Act also requires the Inspectors General of each federal agency to conduct a review of the agency’s DATA Act compliance every two years and report on the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and quality of the agency’s data.
Did not report all the required data elements for 19 percent of the transactions sampled. OIG found 77% of these errors occurred because the Department did not include Unique Record Identifiers for transactions when it was required to. This could cause issues when linking financial data with grant data on USAspending.gov.
74% of the transactions sampled contained an error in one or more data elements. OIG reports many of these errors resulted from issues in the Treasury’s DATA Act broker data extraction process.
Excluding those errors, 52% of the transactions sampled contained inaccurate information.
In addition to errors uncovered from OIG’s sampling audit, DOL also reported inaccurate program activity and object class codes for 5 and 7 percent of transactions, respectively, in its File B submission.
OIG attributes these errors in accuracy and completeness occurred because of data entry mistakes, data extraction issues, and weak data validation processes and concluded that these control deficiencies will have a negative impact on the quality of the data DOL reports until corrected.
Based on these findings, OIG has made eight recommendations to DOL’s Principal Deputy Chief Financial Officer to improve the quality of the data the DOL reports to USAspending.gov in the future and to strengthen internal controls over its data management processes.
While OIG reports DOL has concurred with these recommendations and has stated it has implemented additional controls, resulting in fewer errors with each submission, taxpayers and others using past reports need to consider the reported deficiencies in their evaluation and use of the data as well as assess the validity of future reported data for possible issues for future assessments. Even considering these issues, however, taxpayers and government leaders should consider consulting the data when investigating or evaluating DOL or other program activities or expenditures for policy, enforcement priority or other purposes.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Government Accountability category.

References: v. 
 §621
 §630
 §630
 §203
 §630