FAA used race vs. ability in promoting personnel. YOUR safety is at risk when the FAA hires people according to their race and ethnicity, and not according to their qualifications, abilities or merit! Equal treatment without regard to race!

Site Index / Menu.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
Significant Cases and News

BACK:  Federal Agency News

White FAA employee Michael C. Ryan won a HUGE award against FAA for their illegal anti-white-male bias!  (Judge's order entered 10-06-04)

          Adversity.Net (Horror Stories, Case 41, this site): Michael C. Ryan is white, and he has worked for the FAA since 1976.  He has excellent performance reviews.  He even was a supporter of "affirmative action" until the FAA began promoting less-qualified minorities over him.  He proved illegal discrimination in a court of law, and he WON a victory for race-blind merit-based promotions at the FAA.

          It took Michael Ryan more than nine years of litigation and hearings before the FAA agreed to change their policies as well as award him back-pay, attorney's fees and the promotion which he so clearly deserved.

          This is a case study in forced diversity goals run amok.  Senior FAA personnel deliberately and illegally deprived Mr. Ryan of his civil rights in order to meet unconstitutional racial quotas.

[link http://www.adversity.net/FAA/ryan_v_mineta.htm]

FAA Says Skin Color is More Important Than Air Safety! (Revised 12-30-98)

          Adversity.Net (Horror Stories, Case 7, this site):  DeWayne T. Currier's qualifications far exceeded the FAA's requirements for the job.  Mr. Currier had multiple college degrees in the required subjects, he had over 10 yrs. experience in the field, plus he had Veteran's points and Disability points.  Nonetheless, he was rejected because the FAA only had openings for minorities!

          On numerous occasions, FAA personnel told Mr. Currier that the government only wanted minorities for the jobs for which he was applying.

[link  http://www.adversity.net/c7_tbd.htm ]

Federal Aviation Administration Doles Out Quotas, Not Safety! (Revised 01-30-99)

          Adversity.Net (analysis, this site):  As part of U.S. DOT, FAA is a separate administration which maintains a huge minority set-aside program.

          In fiscal year 1996 white, male-owned businesses were excluded from $549,820,000 in FAA contracting dollars.  And FAA is only one of U.S. DOT's operating arms. 

          Businesses owned by selected minorities and women were "protected" from pesky competition by white male owned businesses for that 1/2 billion dollars.  This is a common, government-wide practice that has cost white male owed contracting firms hundreds of billions of dollars.

[link http://www.adversity.net/special/usdot_faa.htm ]

FAA Found Guilty of Sex-Discrimination... Against MEN!  (Oct. 14, 2004)

Excerpted from GovExec.Com "Daily Briefing" Oct. 14, 2004:

          In a story titled Judge finds FAA managers participated in sex discrimination plot, GovExec.Com reporter Chris Strohm reports that at least three FAA managers falsified personnel records and lied under oath in order to meet FAA's gender-quota goal for female hires and promotions.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but several highly-qualified male employees of the FAA were screwed in the process in order to achieve FAA's illegal, quota-based "diversity" goals.

Here are the highlights of what GovExec.Com reported:

          "An administrative judge has ruled that at least three Federal Aviation Administration managers participated in a sexual discrimination plot that included manipulating personnel records and lying under oath in order to artificially meet diversity goals.

          "The FAA unlawfully appointed a woman to replace [male employee] James Vanderpool as division manager for the agency's Northwest Mountain Region office in Renton, Wash., said Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Judge Zulema Hinojos-Fall, in a decision obtained by Government Executive. Vanderpool filed a complaint after being replaced by Susan Underwood, who was appointed without competition and given a higher salary, the judge found.

          In her ruling, EEOC Commission Judge Hinojos-Fall wrote "One may infer from the evidence that the agency engaged in impermissible machinations to deprive [Vanderpool] of his division management position in order to elevate Ms. Underwood in title, pay and position in order to satisfy its diversity goal, an action which is clearly contrary to [the law] and which [Vanderpool] has established to have been discriminatorily based on [gender]."   She went on to say that the action violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

          "Three weeks before [male employee] Vanderpool was [illegally] replaced, [FAA manager] Gripper convened a meeting of division managers in which he mentioned the need for diversifying ranks in order to meet FAA diversity goals.  According to one witness, after the remarks [the FAA managers] 'joked amongst themselves about their diversity bonus'."

          "[FAA Manager] Gripper, the judge said, "was evasive, refused to answer even the most direct yes-or-no questions, and was effectively impeached by [Vanderpool's] attorney on a number of material facts on which his oral testimony at the hearing contradicted the affidavit he had provided for the record of investigation."

          "Gripper was guilty of "clearly perjuring himself," the judge added, noting: "This is hardly conduct befitting a highly placed official of the FAA."

          "Additionally, the judge said three male division managers were actually removed without cause and replaced by three women in late 2002, following the meeting in which Gripper made his remarks about diversifying ranks."

Last known link: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/101404c1.htm (Opens new window).

Send email GovExec.Com reporter Chris Strohm at: cstrohm@govexec.com

Over Representation of Minorities at DOT
Oct. 1, 2002 to Sept. 31, 2003
% in Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF)
(affirmative action target)
% in Federal Workforce (FW)
(actual % employed by DOT)
Difference between target (col A) and actual (col B)
Rate of OVER HIRING of selected minority groups by DOT
Blacks 7.4% 14.9% +17.5% +101.4%
DOT hired 101.4% more blacks than their proportion in the civilian labor force
Hispanics 5.8% 5.9% +0.1% +1.7%
DOT hired 1.7% more Hispanics than their proportion in the civilian labor force
Asian Pacific Islanders 2.9% 3.9% +1.0% +34.5%
DOT hired 34.5% more Asian Pacific Islanders than their proportion in the civilian labor force
Native American 0.5% 1.2% +0.7% +140.0%
DOT hired 140% more Native Americans than their proportion in the civilian labor force
White Males
Note 4
No Data! No Data! No Data! No Data!
  Note 1 Note 1 Note 2 Note 3
Note 1 -- Source: OPM "Annual Report to Congress; Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 [FY 2003].  Current link to original, unedited OPM report (Adobe Acrobat PDF format): http://adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2004/feorp2003.pdf

Note 2 -- Computation:  Col (B) - Col (A) = Col (C)

Note 3 -- Computation:   [Col (C) / Col (A)] X 100 = Col (D)  This figure represents the % by which the DOT has over (or under) hired the specified racial groups when compared to their proportion in the relevant civilian labor force.

Note 4 -- Strangely enough, the annual OPM report upon which this analysis is based does NOT report hiring or firing data for white males employed by the government.

View Adversity.Net's detailed analysis of minority overhiring for ALL federal departments at the following link:


Additional Reading:

Racial Quotas in the Unfriendly Skies of United Airlines (an ongoing Adversity.Net investigative report)

END of Federal Aviation Administration Page

Return to Federal Agency News

Main NEWS Links Index

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: October 17, 2004.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.