Remand statistical analysis 8 2012
-
Upload
tyler-mcdonald -
Category
Documents
-
view
108 -
download
3
Transcript of Remand statistical analysis 8 2012
Introduction
• The remand project was commissioned by the Director of OEDCA and was overseen by the Associate Director
• Purpose: Gain incite on how many cases were being remanded to ORM and at what rate our attorneys issued these remands– Gain an understanding for the most common
reason(s) for why cases were being remanded – Assess trends of remands over the course of FY
2010, FY 2011 & FY2012– Develop suggestions / strategies for more thorough
investigations
TrendsFY 2004-FY 2012
1236
1379
921 868
843
995998
1036
570
52 89 52 53 71 51 52 81 394% 6% 6% 6% 8% 5% 5% 8% 7%0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 (April 30th)
# of Cases Closed
# of Remands
Percentages
Cases Closed and Remands
Statistical Analysis(Raw Numbers)
FY 2010• Remands: 52
• Cases Closed: 998
FY 2011• Remands: 81
• Cases Closed: 1036
FY 2012• Remands: 39
• Cases Closed: 570
Statistical Analysis of Remands
5%
8%
7%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Remanded Cases
Remanded Cases
Fiscal Year
Perc
enta
ge o
f C
ases
Rem
and
ed
ATTORNEY FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Attorney 1 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Remands: 15Cases Closed: 44
Remands: 7Cases Closed: 31
Attorney 2 Remands: 2Cases Closed: 62
Remands: 2Cases Closed: 56
Remands: 3Cases Closed: 22
Attorney 3 Remands: 0 Cases Closed: 74
Remands: 4Cases Closed: 63
Remands: 1Cases Closed: 35
Attorney 4 Remands: 5Cases Closed: 68
Remands: 2Cases Closed: 66
Remands: 2Cases Closed: 33
Attorney 5 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Remands: 4Cases Closed: 48
Remands: 4Cases Closed: 23
Attorney 6 Remands: 3Cases Closed: 68
Remands: 4Cases Closed: 68
Remands: 2Cases Closed: 31
Attorney 7 Remands: 8Cased Closed: 61
Remands: 11Cases Closed: 69
Remands: 4Cases Closed: 30
Attorney 8 Remands: 8Cases Closed: 111
Remands: 5Cases Closed: 105
Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Attorney 9 Remands: 4Cases Closed: 59
Remands: 12Cases Closed: 50
Remands: 5Cases Closed: 28
Attorney 10 Remands: 3Cases Closed: 57
Remands: 4Cases Closed: 51
Remands: 2Cases Closed: 20
Attorney 11 Remands: 0Cases Closed: 41
Remands: 1Cases Closed: 52
Remands: 0Cases Closed: 13
Attorney 12 Remands: 5Cases Closed: 75
Remands: 8Cases Closed: 65
Remands: 5Cases Closed: 22
Attorney 13 Remands: 8Cases Closed: 65
Remands: 8Cases Closed: 58
Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Attorney 14 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Remands: 2Cases Closed: 29
Attorney 15 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A
Remands: 3Cases Closed: 24
Statistical AnalysisBreakdown by Attorney
12%
3%
7%
4%
13%
7% 7% 5% 7%
0%
12%
4% 3%6%
16%
5%
24%
8%
12%
6%
2%
34%
8%6% 6%
13%
18%
10%
23%
3%
0
17%13%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
REMANDS
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Attorney
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Reason for Remands Key
• FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS- General questions usually directed toward the investigator to clarify certain issues.• INSUFFICIENT TESTIMONY• More Detailed Responses-the information provided by those involved in the case was not sufficient. More
information is needed to render a decision.• Failure to Interview all Witnesses- Those whose testimony plays an integral part in the case were not interviewed
by the investigator.• Re-Interview Witness-Those involved in the case were initially interviewed, but must be re-interviewed so that the
investigator can ask further questions.• MISSING DOCUMENTS- Certain documents were excluded from the Complainant’s case file.• REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS- Additional documents that were not initially provided are needed for
the attorney to render a decision.• MISSING INFO. FROM DOCUMENTS- Investigators provided the proper documentation, but certain information
was missing or redacted from the document (i.e a complainant’s disability, dates that certain events occurred, or information that indicates a person’s age)
• CLARIFICATION OF CLAIM/ISSUE- Based on the written investigation, the issue(s)/claim(s) that the Complainant is alleging are not clear or may not fall under a protected bases, based on the way the claim is worded.
• PROCEDURAL• Claims Erroneously Dismissed-ORM improperly dismissed claims that did not warrant dismissal or ORM dismissed
claims without consideration to certain documents and criteria.• Failure to Investigate/Process Claim(s)- Certain claims that were alleged were not investigated at all; claims were
not investigated on the bases alleged; Cases were processed as mixed cases and shouldn’t have been; Certain claims that should have been investigated as independent were investigated as disparate treatment, reasonable accommodation or under the wrong standard.
TEMPLATESFY 2010
Complainant's Name Reason Remanded Issue Attorney
Complainant 1Clarification of Claim/Issue Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1
Complainant 2Missing information from document (dates) Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 3
Removal
Complainant 3Missing Documents Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1
Request for additional documents
Complainant 4Clarification of Claim/Issue Termination Attorney 4
Complainant 5Insufficient Testimony-more detailed Harassment (sexual) Attorney 7
Complainant 6 Request for additional documents Non-selection Attorney 3
Follow-Up Questions
TEMPLATESSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF REMANDS
Attorney's Name: SAMPLE
REASON REMANDED FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total
Follow Up Questions
Insufficient Testimony (all)More detailed responses
Failure to Interview all witnesses
Re-interview Witness
Missing Documents
Request for Additional Documents
Missing Info. From documents
Clarification of Claim/Issue
Procedural (all)Claims Erroneously Dismissed
Failure to Investigate/Process claims
Claims Erroneously Accepted
Statistical AnalysisA number of cases were remanded for several reasons therefore the amount s below exceed the actual total
of cases that were remanded*
REASON REMANDED FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total
RAW NUMBERS
Follow Up Questions 22 22 25 69
Insufficient Testimony (all) 24 36 19 79
More detailed responses 12 10 2 24
Failure to Interview all witnesses 11 19 10 40
Re-interview Witness 1 7 7 15
Missing Documents 15 32 11 58
Request for Additional Documents 13 13 8 34
Missing Info. From documents 2 2 2 6
Clarification of Claim/Issue 3 10 5 18
Procedural (all) 6 11 7 24
Claims Erroneously Dismissed 1 5 4 10
Failure to Investigate/Process claims 5 6 2 13
Claims Erroneously Accepted 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 85 126 77 288
Statistical AnalysisA number of cases were remanded for several reasons therefore the percentages below exceed the actual percentage of cases
that were remanded*
PERCENTAGES-Out of the reasons why cases were remanded*
REASON REMANDED FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Follow Up Questions 26% 17% 32%
Insufficient Testimony (all) 28% 29% 25%
More detailed responses 14% 8% 3%
Failure to Interview all witnesses 13% 15% 13%
Re-interview Witness 1% 6% 9%
Missing Documents 18% 25% 14%
Request for Additional Documents 15% 10% 10%
Missing Info. From documents 2% 2% 3%
Clarification of Claim/Issue 4% 8% 6%
Procedural (all) 7% 9% 9%
Claims Erroneously Dismissed 1% 4% 5%
Failure to Investigate/Process claims 6% 5% 3%
Claims Erroneously Accepted 0% 0% 1%
Statistical AnalysisFrequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved
FY 2010
26%
11%
11%8%
3%
13%
3%
13%
3%
1%0%
3%
1%
1% 0% 0%1% 1%0%0% 0% 1% Non-SelectionHarassment (non-sexual)Reasonable AccommodationReassignmentRemovalSuspensionHarassment (sexual)TerminationTime & AttendancePerformance AppraisalDutiesPayConstructive DischargePromotion Written CounselingTrainingAppointment/HireAdmonishmentDuty HoursDemotion PIPReprimand
Statistical AnalysisFrequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved
FY 2011
21%
19%
12%
1%
6%
4%
5%
6%
4%
5%
4%
1%
2% 2%
2% 2% 1% 0%1%1% 1%0%Non-SelectionHarassment (non-sexual)Reasonable AccommodationReassignmentRemovalSuspensionHarassment (sexual)TerminationTime & AttendancePerformance AppraisalDutiesPayConstructive DischargePromotion Written CounselingTrainingAppointment/HireAdmonishmentDuty HoursDemotion PIPReprimand
Statistical AnalysisFrequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved
FY 2012
11%
23%
18%12%
2%
6%
2%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
1% 1%
3%
1%0%1%0% 0% 0% 0% Non-SelectionHarassment (non-sexual)Reasonable AccommodationReassignmentRemovalSuspensionHarassment (sexual)TerminationTime & AttendancePerformance AppraisalDutiesPayConstructive DischargePromotion Written CounselingTrainingAppointment/HireAdmonishmentDuty HoursDemotion PIPReprimand
Statistical Analysis
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Cases Remanded Twice
Cases Remanded Twice
Fiscal Year
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f C
ase
s
Recommendations
• Request that complainant and witnesses be explicit in the manner in which they answer questions
• Present questions in a different manner until you get the information needed
• Ask follow up questions; require specificity• Interview all witnesses, including RMOs and essentially anyone involved in
the case• Remember to request all information/documents i.e. vacancy
announcements, medical documentation etc.• Review all documents that are submitted thoroughly to make sure no info
is missing i.e. dates, names of officials, etc.• Be clear when articulating claims and issues • When considering whether or not a claim should be accepted determine
whether the claim/issue pertains to a protected basis• Review and understand criteria that warrants when a claim should be
dismissed.