MPF claims that Senate fails to comply with the law of quotas in tenders – 07/20/2023 – Market

The MPF (Federal Public Ministry) claims that the Senate harmed black candidates approved in the last contest for the position of legislative analyst, failing to comply with the law that the House itself helped to approve in 2014. Sheet in April.

The legislation determines that black and brown candidates with a sufficient score for approval by wide competition must be excluded from the list of quotas. The Senate, however, did the opposite: black candidates who would be approved regardless of the legal reserve were placed among the quota holders, reducing the vacancies available to this audience.

The MPF’s opinion was given within the scope of the action brought by Educafro (an organization dedicated to inclusion in higher education) and by four candidates who felt harmed. The document is signed by the Public Prosecutor Luciana Loureiro Oliveira. The process runs in the Federal Court of the Federal District.

In this specific case, 42 people were summoned for the position of legislative analyst specializing in administration based on the competition held in the second half of last year.

Of the 8 blacks nominated, 6 appeared in the top 42 and would have been ranked anyway. Thus, in the MPF’s assessment, the Senate made a mistake by not removing the candidates from the list of quotas and giving way to 6 more blacks.

For the attorney, the methodology used leads to the competition of black candidates only among themselves, reduces the number of approved black and brown people and limits the scope of the reservation of vacancies in the civil service.

“The methodology adopted by the Federal Senate and the FGV in the contest now questioned leads to competition between black candidates only among themselves and actually reduces the number of black candidates summoned/admitted, as it calls black candidates almost exclusively from the list of NC [candidatos negros]even those who have enough passing grades on the AC list [ampla concorrência]”, says the play.

“Thus, in addition to the frontal violation of the provisions of article 3, paragraph 1, of Law No. 12.990/2014 [Lei de Cotas]the methodology adopted by the defendants limits the scope of affirmative action to reserve vacancies and the policy of quotas in public tenders.”

The law of quotas in public tenders —approved in 2014 by Congress— reserves 20% of vacancies for black candidates, but does not limit the number of approved candidates to the percentage.

The Senate argued that the law does not provide “in a specific way the procedure to be observed for making appointments”, and said that it decided to summon one black person for every three vacancies to comply with the percentage established by law.

Since learning about the case, Educafro claims that the Senate turned the floor of 20% of vacancies reserved for blacks into a ceiling, and made the inclusive criterion become an “exclusion criterion”.

The entity argues that, even if the law allowed room for the understanding of the examining committee (which, according to it, is not the case), the Senate should adopt the most beneficial interpretation for black candidates because the intention of the law is to increase the number of blacks and browns in the civil service.

Questioned again by the report, the Senate reaffirmed that the methodology used to convene legislative analysts is correct. The House also said that “it fully complies with the legislation regarding quotas for black candidates and people with disabilities”.

“As for the nomination of the candidates for the current contest, the Federal Senate complied with all the normative provisions related to the matter, and the allegation that there was an error in calling the approved ones cannot prosper”, he said.

The Senate also sent an excerpt from the document prepared in response to Educafro in which it says that the methodology used “guarantees greater stability and predictability to the nomination list, realizing the principles of isonomy and impersonality”.

“The alternative of the Federal Senate, also applied by other bodies of the Public Administration, seeks to guarantee […] the most beneficial situation for each candidate to be nominated, in so far as the nomination considers the best placement, either through ranking in broad competition or through quota.”

Contacted by the report, FGV Knowledge said that it “completed the said competition as provided for in the public notice”. “Therefore, any request for information on summons must be directed to the Federal Senate”, he declared in a note.