You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Lurid Crime Tales-
EEOC worker pilfered $60k in taxpayer funds for Louis Vuitton, Disneyland
2015-04-01
[Wash Examiner] A federal employee used $60,000 in taxpayer funds to buy Armani, Louis Vuitton, and a Disneyland vacation for her personal use, according to documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission is supposed to be an advocate for victims of workplace employment discrimination, but the documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that at least one of its employees had been living quite well using money that was supposed to fund the agency's programs.

The Philadelphia EEOC office began buying American Express gift cards and paying contractors with them, apparently so the contractors couldn't run up limitless bills. That action was taken following a 2012 incident in which a contractor used a commission credit card to run up a huge bill of unauthorized charges.

The commission redacted the employee's name from the inspector general's report released to the Examiner, saying the FOIA "exempts public identification of individuals currently employed in the federal government which could conceivably subject them to harassment or annoyance."

Commission spokesman Joseph J. Olivares said the employee was terminated. He would not say how many months she was on paid leave, or why the agency was protecting someone who stole from it by withholding her name.

The U.S. Attorney's office did not respond to a question about why the Department of Justice declined to prosecute the woman.
"Why the agency was protecting someone...." Wait, wait! Let me guess.
Posted by:Besoeker

#3  probably rehired for Mooch's Travel Office and Future Home Furnishings Division
Posted by: Frank G   2015-04-01 15:55  

#2  [T]he FOIA "exempts public identification of individuals currently employed in the federal government which could conceivably subject them to harassment or annoyance."

It sounds like they were sub sequentially hired at another agency. Meaning the "termination" was more an administrative one, i.e., it wasn't classified as "for cause."
Posted by: Pappy   2015-04-01 11:58  

#1  The commission redacted the employee's name from the inspector general's report released to the Examiner, saying the FOIA "exempts public identification of individuals currently employed in the federal government which could conceivably subject them to harassment or annoyance."

Since they have been terminated, it seems a follow-up FOIA request ought to resolve the issue.
Posted by: gorb   2015-04-01 11:36  

00:00