Dear Mr. James:

Apparently, the OFCCP’s right hand does not know what its left hand is doing or saying.

The OFCCP has “STONEWALLED” my complaint for seventeen (17) years.

I have in my possession letters from the OFCCP's district and regional offices which state that the OFCCP does have jurisdiction over the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) which are dated from the years 1989 and 1990. 

I also have in my possession letters from the OFCCP's district and regional offices which state that you are examining the relationship between the PMA and its member companies to determine jurisdiction which are dated from the years 1989 and 1990.

Regardless of what the OFCCP’s thinks or says about the PMA and their jurisdiction is totally irrelevant.

Judge Kenyon has already established the OFCCP’s jurisdiction over PMA with judicial notice in his decision and ruling, in Fairchild v. Robert Reich, Sec. Labor, et. al., CV 92-5765 Kn.

Judge Kenyon states: “The Court finds that PMA is in fact subject to the requirements of Section 503 and VEVRA and their implementing regulations, including the written AAP requirements of §§ 60-250.5 and 60-741.5” 

If the Court finds that the PMA is subject to the rules and regulations of the Code of Federal Regulations that the OFCCP administers and investigates; then the OFCCP has jurisdiction over the PMA.

Judge Kenyon further states: “If PMA is not covered by these Section 503 and VEVRA, and all the hiring for PMA member companies is done through procedures maintained by PMA, then the thousands of shipping-related jobs provided by the member companies would completely escape regulation under these statutes.  Congress could not have intended such a result  PMA acts as an agent for its member companies on personnel hiring decisions, and as such is subject to the same hiring regulations as would be imposed on its member companies under Section 503 and VEVRA.”

Judge Kenyon goes on to state: “In sum, the Court finds:  (1)  PMA is subject to all regulations imposed under Section 503 and VEVRA, including the written AAP requirements of §§ 60-250.5 and 60-741.5;  (2)  OFCCP’s investigation of whether PMA had the written AAPs required under Section 503 and VEVRA was so unreasonable as to be a ‘sham’;  and  (3)  under the APA, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling OFCCP to undertake a reasonable investigation of the adequacy of PMA’s written AAPs.”

Finally, Judge Kenyon ordered the OFCCP on December 15, 1994: "...(1) To exercise jurisdiction over the Pacific Maritime Association pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 4212 (b), and their implementing regulations; (2) Pursuant to these statutory sections, as well as 41 C.F.R. §§ 60-250.26 and 60-741.26, to undertake a prompt and reasonable investigation of PMA's compliance with the written AAP requirements of 41 C.F.R. §§ 60-250.5 and 60-741.5.  This investigation, including any national office review, must be completed in a reasonable amount of time; (3) Within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, and every sixty (60) days thereafter until the issue of PMA's compliance with the aforementioned written AAP requirements is resolved, to serve on Plaintiffs and this Court a report indicating the steps Defendants have taken, and the steps Defendants are planning to take, to fulfill their enforcement responsibilities under the Section 503 and VEVRA implementing regulations."

It has been eleven (11) years and four (4) months since Judge Kenyon ordered the OFCCP to exercise jurisdiction over the PMA and to investigate whether PMA is in compliance with the written AAP's required under Section 503 and VEVRAA and their implementing regulations.

It is apparent, by the behavior and actions of the OFCCP and their representing counsel, the U.S. Solicitors office, and in conjunction with their discretionary decisions not to act against the PMA, as ordered by Judge Kenyon, that both agencies have consciously and expressly adopted  general policies that are so extreme as to amount to an abdication of their statutory responsibilities, as found by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heckler v. Chaney.   

The OFCCP failed to submit reports to the Plaintiffs and the Court every sixty (60) days until the issue of PMA's compliance is resolved as ordered by Judge Kenyon.  The reports they did submit were redundant and did not address the criteria - the steps the OFCCP have taken and the steps the OFCCP are planning to take - as Judge Kenyon stated in his order. 

This is unconscionable behavior and dishonors all veterans who have served, fought and died for our country.  This is a disgrace.

I am eagerly awaiting for your next creative reply and spin, in which you manipulate, fabricate and distort the facts in order to fit the OFCCP's agenda and erroneous position.  A position, as mentioned above, to be so extreme as to amount to a total abdication of your statutory responsibilities.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Sincerely,

Wes Brickner