There's more in the OIG report about IJ hiring than just the sexual harassment stuff. In this example, a senior EOIR employee involved in IJ hiring personally intervened for one candidate and replaced one of the judges on her hiring panel "to improve her chances of being hired." https://t.co/SxRD5lYmDu

It was his day off, but he came into the office anyway to intervene in this particular candidate's hiring. He invited her to his office to admire the view, escorted her to the interview room, and then invited her to his apartment afterward to change clothes.
It's alarming how much of this report is redacted - and there are more records they haven't turned over. The OIG said these actions communicated to the hiring panel that she was his close friend and that he "was providing her preferential treatment based on his relationship"
He had already written her a recommendation letter and wasn't supposed to be involved in her hiring process at all.
Aside from the specific individuals the article names, the OIG report says the use of code words to rate attractiveness was so widely known, one person said she had heard it from "enough people that I can't even remember."
One person the OIG interviewed said this group would use their code words about female candidates as a way to "poke at" a female employee because they knew it "bugged" her. Imagine the kind of workplace culture that allows this.
The investigation by @TalKopan named one of them. But the OIG report was broader - it said "senior managers" at EOIR had developed these code words. And one of them, when interviewed by the OIG, had not told the truth about it. The OIG report chalks it up to "poor judgment"
Aside from rating female IJ candidates, a group of EOIR employees made sexual jokes in the workplace.
The OIG said this conduct didn't violate the DOJ's policies because the conduct was not "unwelcome." Just "poor judgment" they said.

More from Society

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.