HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobabjto0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
GAO
Un ted States Generai Accounting Offce Office of
Washington, DC 20548 General Counsel
In Reply
Referto: B-197140 (MG]
Mr. W. J. McDonald
Assistant Secretary
(Administration)
Department of the Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Mr. McDonald:
This is in further response to your letter dated Zovernber 30,
1979, requesting an opinion as to the legality of thebse of agency
funds to make cash settlements of discrimination complaints7. [t
is our understanding that you wish to make such settlemen't& with-
out regard to an employeers entitlement to backpay, and without
any findings or admissions of discrimination or of an unwarranted
or unjustified personnel action.
The Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596, would not consititute authori-
zation for cash settlements under the circumstances described in
your letter. The Back Pay Act requires a finding by an appropriate
authority that an employee has been affected by an unwarranted or
unjustified personnel action. 54 Comp. Gen. 760 (1975); B-189239,
October 8, 1976. See 5 C. F. R. 550. 803(b) (1979); and 5 C. F. R
550. 803(c). No such finding is contained in the proposed settle-
ment submitted, and it is clear from the record that such a finding
is not contemplated. Accordingly, and apart from other considera-
tions, the Back Pay Act does not provide authority for the cash
settlements you have proposed.
With respect to the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, we note that Title VII clearly provides
authority for the payment of money damages in the form of a
backpay award, and in fact, the courts have permitted the denial of
backpay only in limited circumstances. Albermarle Paoer Co. v.
loody, 422 U. S. 405, 421 (1975); see, e. Kober v. \ estinziiouse
Electric Co. 480 F. 2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1973). However, we assun-,e
/V/](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobabjto0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)