DOJ accused of nepotism for third time in eight years
Connections are everything when it comes to landing a job. But eyebrows are raised when those connections are blood relatives.
July 27, 2012 at 07:12 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Connections are everything when it comes to landing a job. But eyebrows are raised when those connections are blood relatives.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) internal watchdog released a report accusing members of the agency's Justice Management Division (JMD) of violating “the federal nepotism statute by advocating for the appointment of their own relatives” to DOJ positions.
The report found that eight current or former JMD officials steered jobs toward their children or other family members. According to the report, “during the second quarter of 2010, relatives of JMD employees occupied 6 of 11 paid [human resources] internships,” each of which paid salaries of between $27,000 and $40,000 and increased the chances of landing a permanent position at the DOJ.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz accused JMD executives of “improperly manipulating the hiring process to ensure that their own children or the children of other JMD employees were appointed to DOJ positions.” He added that in at least one case, “two senior officials simultaneously attempted to assist each other's relative in securing DOJ employment.”
The report comes after two others in 2004 and 2008 in which the DOJ's internal watchdog found instances of nepotism within the JMD. Both times, JMD officials promised to change hiring practices within the department.
Read the Wall Street Journal for more information about the nepotism allegations.
Click here for more InsideCounsel stories about the DOJ.
Connections are everything when it comes to landing a job. But eyebrows are raised when those connections are blood relatives.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) internal watchdog released a report accusing members of the agency's Justice Management Division (JMD) of violating “the federal nepotism statute by advocating for the appointment of their own relatives” to DOJ positions.
The report found that eight current or former JMD officials steered jobs toward their children or other family members. According to the report, “during the second quarter of 2010, relatives of JMD employees occupied 6 of 11 paid [human resources] internships,” each of which paid salaries of between $27,000 and $40,000 and increased the chances of landing a permanent position at the DOJ.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz accused JMD executives of “improperly manipulating the hiring process to ensure that their own children or the children of other JMD employees were appointed to DOJ positions.” He added that in at least one case, “two senior officials simultaneously attempted to assist each other's relative in securing DOJ employment.”
The report comes after two others in 2004 and 2008 in which the DOJ's internal watchdog found instances of nepotism within the JMD. Both times, JMD officials promised to change hiring practices within the department.
Read the Wall Street Journal for more information about the nepotism allegations.
Click here for more InsideCounsel stories about the DOJ.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Beyond the Title: Developing a Personal Brand as General Counsel
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 2Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 4Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
- 5‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
