Judge rejects challenge to five-year rule
for civilian employees working overseas
By David Josar,
Stuttgart bureau
A U.S. federal court in Washington has rejected a challenge that
could have ended the rule that requires many civilian employees working overseas to give
up their jobs after five years.
The “five-year rule,” according to a March 27 order by U.S.
District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, is valid.
The Department of Defense has defended the policy by saying it
fosters career development and allows civilian employees to work under different military
commands. In addition, the rule is needed to accommodate changing mission requirements,
the DOD said in court filings.
Opponents of the policy, which began in 1966, have argued that it
hampers the military because good workers are forced to move, and the policy is too costly
at a time the DOD is cutting its manpower and budget.
They also say that each time a worker is brought overseas, the
military pays moving costs to the new station and back, as well as temporary living
expenses, expenses that could be partially eliminated if workers were allowed to stay.
The plaintiffs specifically sued because a new version of the
guidelines is proposing that exceptions to the five-year rule become more rare.
Under the proposal, the extensions must now be granted on the major
command level instead of the local level.
Previously, the practice of granting five-year extensions could be
done indefinitely as long as an employee was rated “fully successful” in his or
her job; the proposed guidelines call for extensions only in “rare
circumstances.”
The plaintiffs, in their lawsuit, claimed U.S. Army Europe and U.S.
Air Forces Europe now grant rare extensions because they are following the proposed rule
instead of the current rule.
The DOD does not know when the proposed rules will be adopted.
Calls to USAREUR and USAFE were not returned, but according to court
documents, attorneys for the government say any recent reductions in the number of
extensions is “based on changing mission requirements” and not the new policy.
In court filings, government attorneys asserted that opening up
overseas positions “ensures that employment opportunities are available to the
increasing number of spouses of servicemembers who are stationed abroad.”
Providing employment opportunities for military spouses is essential
to the recruitment and retention of active-duty personnel, the DOD asserted.
However, the civilian employees claimed it was difficult to find
replacements because many of the affected jobs were GS-12 or higher positions that
demanded experience and technical skills.
They also said the lengthy security clearances for the jobs
discouraged new applicants and that most military spouses lacked the credentials for the
affected jobs.
The judge, however, ruled that the plaintiffs were unable to provide
facts to back up their claims.
Calls to Amanda Quester, the lawyer who handled the case for the
Department of Defense, were not returned.
Lawyers for the roughly 250 overseas career civil servants who filed
the lawsuit say they doubt they will appeal the judge’s ruling.
“We’re weighing our options but we’re not too hopeful
at this point,” attorney Walter Birkel said.
Civilian employees who hoped the ruling would go in their favor were
disappointed.
“This has never made much sense to me,” said Aaron Burns,
an administrator in logistics at Ramstein Air Base. “Why force your best, experienced
workers to leave when they want to stay?”
Nearly all civilian Department of Defense employees stationed
overseas are affected by the five-year rule.
Exceptions are teachers for the Department of Defense Dependents
Schools, employees of nonappropriated fund entities, contract workers and local nationals.
Because 70 percent of the DOD overseas workforce turns over normally
every three years, most of the employees forced to leave under the five-year rule are in
senior positions, generally of a GS-12 or higher level, according to information supplied
by the DOD.
Back to April's stories
Page Two news roundup
Stories from March, 2001
Stories from February,2001
Stories from January, 2001
Stories from December, 2000
Stories from November, 2000
Stories from October, 2000
Stories from August and September, 2000
Stories from June and July, 2000
Home |
