Dos no fear act annual report to congress 2009

50 %
50 %
Information about Dos no fear act annual report to congress 2009
News & Politics

Published on February 25, 2014

Author: mspbwatch

Source: slideshare.net

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 U.S. Department of State Office of Civil Rights REVIEW AUTHORITY: Barbara Nielsen, Senior Reviewer RELEASED IN FULL Fiscal Year 20Q9 Report Annual Report Under the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of2002 ("No FEAR Act") UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFED TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 n. INTRODUCTION 3 in. BACKGROUND 3 IV. DATA 4 V. ANALYSIS OF TRENDS, CAUSAL ANALYSIS, AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE GAIP>JED THROUGH EXPERIENCE 6 VI. ADJUSTMENT TO BUDGET 8 Vn. RECOMMENDATIONS 8 APPENDIX 1: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AND WHISTLEBLOWER ACTIVITY APPENDIX 2: 3 FAM 4540 & 3 FAM 4377 APPENDIX 3; 3 FAM 1525 & 3 FAM 1526 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UKCLASSFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFIED -2- Annual Report. Pursuant to Section 203 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination andRetaliation Actof2002 (''No FEARAct"), Public Law 107-174, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) hereby submits its fifth Annual Report for fiscal year (FY) 2009. In addition to reporting information on formal complaints filed with the agency at the administrative level, the DOS is reporting on cases filed with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and in federal .court, andthe number of employees disciplined as a resultof discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment. In FY 2009, nine complaints were filed in federal court alleging discrimination and/or retaliation. There were 118 formal administrative Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints filed with DOS's Office ofCivil Ri^ts, under the provisions of29 C.FR. §1614, as promulgated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Three formal administrative Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB) complaints alleging discrimination were filed under DOS's grievance procedures. The OSC made initial contact with DOS regarding three whistleblower complaints filed with OSC. n. INTRODUCTION The No FEAR Act requires Federal agencies to submit a report annually to" theSpeaker of theHouse of Representatives, the Presidentpro tempore of the Senate, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committeeon Government Reform ofthe House ofRepresentatives, each committee of Congress with jurisdiction relating to the agency, the AttomeyGeneral, and the EEOC. m. BACKGROUND (a) Enactment of law. The No FEAR Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 15, 2002, and became effective on October 1,2003. (b) Reporting reanirement. Section203 of the No FEAR Act requires that each federal agency submit an Annual Report not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year. Agencies must report on the number of cases arising under each ofthe respective areas of law specified in the Act in which discrimination was alleged; the status or disposition of&ese cases; the amount ofmoney required to be reimbursed by the agency under section 201 ofthe Act in connection with the UNCLASSFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFIED -3- cases; the number of employees disciplined for discrimination, retaliation, or harassment; the final year-end data posted under section 301(c)(1)(B) for such fiscal year; the policiesthe agency implemented related to appropriate disciplinary actions against a Federal employeewho discriminated against any individual, or committed a prohibited personnel practice; and an analysis ofthe data collected with respect to trends and causality; and any adjustment to the agency budgetto comply with the requirement under section 201. IV. DATA (a) Federal Court Cases. Section 203(a)(1) of the No FEAR Act requires that agencies include in their Annual Report "the numberof cases arising under each of the respective provisions oflaw covered by paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 201(a) in which discrimination on the part ofsuch agency was alleged." In FY 2009, nine complaintswere filed in federal court alleging discrimination and/or retaliation. (b) Reimbursement to the Judgment Fund. In FY 2009, there were no district court cases that resulted in settlements or judgments requiring reimbursement under the No FEAR Act. (c) Discipline. Section 203(a)(4) ofthe No FEARAct requires that agencies include in the annual Reportto Congress "the number of employees disciplinedfor discrimination, retaliation,harassment, or any other infraction of any provision oflaw referred to in paragraph (1)." During FY 2009, eight employees were disciplined as a result of discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment. (d) Final vear-end data posted under Section 301fc)(l)rBL The final year-end data posted pursuant to Section 301(c)(1)(B) ofthe No FEAR Act is included in Appendix 1. The final year-end data indicates that during FY 2009,118 formal complaints of discrimination were filed with the Department's Office af Civil Rights. A complainant may allege multiple bases of discrimination in a single complaint. Counting each individual basis identified as a separate allegation UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. 005452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFIED .-4- "within the 118 formal complaints, there were 178 allegations that included bases covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e, etseq,); 29 allegations under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29U.S.C. 794a, et seq.) and 30 allegations under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967(29 U.S.C. 621, er seq.). During FY 2009, there were two cases with a finding of discrimination or retaliation. These involved complaints underthe Rehabilitation Act by applicants who were not admitted into the Foreign Service. In addition, during FY 2009, a total ofthree grievances were filed that alleged discrimination on the bases ofdisability and age. No findings of discrimination were rendered. (e) Policy on discipline. Section 203(a)(6) ofthe No FEAR Act requires thatagencies include in the Annual Report a detailed description ofthe policy implemented bythe agency relating to disciplinary actions imposedagainstan. employee who discriminated against anyindividual in violation of any ofthe laws cited undersection 201(a)(1) or (2), or committed another prohibitedpersonnel practice that wasrevealed in the investigation of a complaint alleging a violation of any ofthe laws cited under section 201(a) (1) or (2). DOS has two specific policies that reinforce its commitment to establish a workplace free from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The Department's "Sexual Harassment Policy" and the "Discriminatory Harassment Policy" serve as mechanisms to address harassment in the workplace (See Appendix 2). Both of thesepolicies are incorporated intothe Department's internal regulations in the Foreign AffairsM^ual (FAM). Allegations of harassment are processed pursuantto the Department'spolicies. The effectiveness of thepolicies mayexplain the lownumber offormal complaints alleging sexual harassment Thepolicies, which applyto all employees, emphasize the Department's commitmentto hold employeesresponsible for their conduct for engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices or allowing discriminatory practices to exist. Both policies hold supervisors andotherresponsible Department officials to a heightened level ofresponsibilityto report incidents of harassment. The policies also state that said individuals may be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to do so. Additionally, both policies reiterate that retaliation for reporting harassment, serving as a witness, etc., is a violation of federal law and policyand violators willbe subject to discipline. Finally, the policies discuss a rangeof UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFIED -5- disciplinary measures available, ifthere are violations of the policies. 3 FAM 4540 and 3 FAM 4377 also provide tables ofpenalties for various infractions, including discrimination, ranging from reprimandto removal from service. (See Appendix 3) V. ANALYSIS OF TRENDS, CAUSAL ANALYSIS, AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE GAINED THROUGH EXPERIENCE Section 203(a)(7) of the No FEAR Act requires that agencies undertake "an examination of trends, causal analysis, practical knowledge gained through experience, and any actionsplanned or taken to improve complaintor civil rights programs of the agency." (a) Trends, Based on the administrative claims filed in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614, there are two noteworthy trends. The most consistent trend is the continued low number of findings of discrimination. Since annual reporting was required under the No FEAR Act, there have only been five cases that resulted in a finding of discrimination. In FY 2009, there were two findings of discrimination. As discussed below, a number of reasons may explain this trend. •First, the Department continues to emphasize the importance of adherence to EEO policies and laws to its employees. In addition, the Department is committedto ensuring that the Record ofInvestigation (ROI) that serves as the record in each case is comprehensive and complete. The ROIs are time-consuming to complete, but when tiiey are finished the evidence gathered assists the reviewer ofthe record in determining whether or not discrimination occurred. As a result ofhaving a well-developedrecord in the ROI and mformation obtainedthrough discovery'in litigation. Departmentmanagement has a better sense ofhow to respond to the allegations, includingwhether or not to settle a particular case. Having a well-developed record also better enables the Office ofthe Legal Adviser to represent the Department in litigation, and for administrative law and federal district court judges to assess whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. Further, a number of cases are resolved using the alternative dispute resolution program and by EEO Counselors in the informal EEO process, without there ever being a final determination on the merits. Because the Department has another mechanism to address harassment outside of the EEO and grievance processes, numerousworkplace conflicts involving harassment are successfully addressed without a need for a final UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFIED -6- determination of whether or not the conductwas in fact unlawful. Specifically, 3 FAM 1525 and 1526 provide that the Office of Civil Rights will either conduct or oversee an inquiry into the allegations. The reports generated through the harassment inquiries are forwarded to HR for its determination of whether or not Departmentpolicy was violated and whether or not disciplinary action is appropriate. Practically speaking, many reports ofharassmentraised through these policies are swiftly dealtwith and thus do not resultin an EEO complaint or grievance, but mayindicate harassment or other inappropriate conduct for which discipline is imposed. Another trend concerns allegations of discrimination based on disability. The number of complaints alleging disability as a basis rose sharply firom eighteen (18) in FY 2008 to thirty-six (36) in FY 2009, a 50 percentincrease. Complaints alleging discrimination in the reasonable accommodation process rose sharply from three (3) in 2008 to twelve (12) in FY 2009, a 75 percent increase. We believethat the increase may be caused by an increased awareness, partially attributable to the ADAAmendments Act. This increase may include people who are seeking accommodations for medical conditions that are not disabilities. There may have been an issue with employees and management officials fully understanding their responsibilities and the Department's obligations under the law with respectto an employee's medicalconditionand whetherthe Department is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation. The data showsthat, in general, there continues to be an increasing number ofEEO complaints. We believe this rise in complaintsmay be attributed to an increase in employee awareness ofEEO rights. The fact that there have been few findings of discriminationin formal complaints may indicate that there are other issues aside from discrimination in the workplace. It appears that miscommunication or a lackof communication between supervisor and employee concerning the "real problem" oftentimes leads to frustration and ultimatelythe filing of an EEO complaint (b) Causa! Analysis. See above with respect to trends indicated. (c) Practical Knowledge. DOS intends to continue educating the workforce about the value of conflict resolution in the workplace. The Department will continue to emphasize training for all employees regarding theirrights and responsibilities with respect to workplace discrimination and harassment. The Department has placed its version of No FEAR training online, and conducted UNCLASSFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014 UNCLASSIFIED -7- mandatory No FEARtraining for 18,272 Department employees in FY 2009. The Departmentwill continue to educateits employees with respect to disabilityrelated issues and reasonable accommodation, and has created the Disability/Reasonable Accommodations Division within the Bureau of Human Resources to address these issues. The Department will continueto enhance its ADR program and the informal EEO process to focus on the early resolution of complaints. The value of utilizing ADR early in resolvingworkplace issues is critical, especiallywhen issues arise that appear to be based on miscommunication rather than discrimination. DOS will ensure all managers and supervisors receive ADR training (per the EEOC's MD-110) in order to increase the program's success in the future. In addition, the Office of Civil Rights staff will continue to enhance training for EEO Counselors on how to obtain resolution in the informal EEO process.' The goal is training EEO Counselors to look for opportunities to resolve EEO complaints without compromising their neutrality; they should not serve merely as conduits to the formal complaint process. Office of Civil Rights staff will continue to serve as an integral link between individual complainants and DOS management to resolve workplace conflict. VI. ADJUSTMENT TO BUDGET Section 203(a)(8) ofthe No FEAR Act requires that agencies include in the aimualReport to Congress information about ''any adjustment (to the extent the adjustment can be ascertained in the budget of the agency) to comply with the requirements, undersection 201." Budgetadjustment was not necessary in FY 2009. Vn. DEPARTMENT OF STATE RECOMMENDATIONS Continued training on EEOlaws, whistleblower protections, prohibited personnel practices, diversity, cultural awareness/sensitivity, conflict resolution techniques, and improved communications should continue to improve the civil rights program at DOS. It is imperativethat all employees are informed of their, rights and protections under EEO, retaliation, and whistleblower laws. Furthermore, it is crucial to train all managers and supervisors regarding the techniques of conflict resolution and to improve communication. Alternative Dispute Resolution training should facilitate a reduction in the number of future EEO administrative and federal court cases. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452060 Date: 02/11/2014

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452061 Date: 02/11/2014 77je U.S. Department of State Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act: DOS Internal Complaint Activity Data as of September 30, 2009 IREVIEW AUTHORITY; Barbara Nielsen.Senior Revi^^ (Endof 4th Quarter FiscalYear 2009) Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. E 1614.705 Complaint; .ctlvitv RELEASED INFULL| FY2009 End of 4th Qtr 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 118 94 101* 83 77 102 94 97 72 75 1 Repeat Filers 106 117 Number of Complainants 4 0 4 6 2 •uuu iiuiiiua uKiuaes two. compiamte againsttheOfficeof CivilRights Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F<R. S 1614.705 complaints by Basis* FY 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 40 40 38 46 31 31 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 5 2 3 2 5 End of 4th Qtr Race ' 1. American Indian/Aiaskan Native 2. Asian/Pacific Islander 3. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 3. Black/African American 4. White 5. Two or More Races 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 28 29 39 23 22 5 6 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 . UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-28320 Doc No. C05452061 Date: 02/11/2014

I 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(d) Comparative Data o CM Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. S 1614.705 Complaints by Basis* 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 13 16 17 12 12 10 7 5 2 5 4 5 23 17 17 12 21 16 7 3 3 2 6 6 16 14 14 10 15 10 49 48 31 45 31 29 1. Female 35 32 22 34 20 22 2. Male 14 16 9 11 11 7 CM O Qtr B (0 Q CD O CM m m o O c> z o o Q o CM CO CO CM CM Color Religion National Origin 1. Hispanic 2. Other Sex Disability • 29 18 24 19 17 25 1. Mental 12 10 3 3 7 5 2. Physical T- o CM FY 2009 End of 4th 0) ui CO 17 8 21 16 10 20 Age 30 23 34 30 36 18 Reprisal 46 42 28 48 33 35 'nore: uomp§aints can oe mea aiieaina muiaoie bases. The sum of the bases mav not eaual total comolalnts filed. o B 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(e) Comparative Data ro Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. § 1614.705 CO u— o Complaints by Issue* c 0 E t CO CL 0 Appointment/Hire FY 2009 End of 4th Qtr 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 4 10 8 6 9 13 24 10 15 8 18 1 Q Assignment of Duties CO Awards 5 3 4 0 2 0 Conversion to Full-time 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Q LU CO CO 3 o

r o CM 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(e] Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. § 1614.705 CM O Complaints by Issue'*' FY 2009 End of 4tii Qtr 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Disciplinary Action 12 0 3 6 11 .9 1. Demotion 2 0 0 0 0 0 2. Reprimand .3 0 . 1 0 . 3 2 3. Suspension 1 0 1 1 2 3 4. Removal 3 0 0 0 2 1 5. Letter of Warning/Counseling 3 0 1 5 4 1 3 0 2 1 2 2 19 13 14 7 16 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 66 52 38 71 37 27 49 35 67 35 . 24 3 3 4 2 3 (U (0 Q CO o CM If) If) O O o 0 Q o CM CO 00 CM Duty Hours Evaiuatlon/Appraisai Examination/Test 1 CM O CM Harassment 0) M O 0) 55 2. Sexual CO 1. Non-sexual (Hostilie Work Environment) 11 • . . Medical Examination 2 0 2 0 1 1 Pay (including overtime) 2 1 1 0 0 0 Promotion/Non-Selection 30 22 27 22 22 0 3 1 3 3 4 1. Denied 0 1 0 1 0 3 2. Directed 0 2 1 2 3 1 12 3 5 6 5 4 Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retirement 0 0 1 0 1 0 Termination 6 5 8 4 8 4 Terms/Conditions of Employment 4 5 12 4 8 6 20 • ro W Reassignment M— o c d) E •e (0 Reasonable Accommodation CL (D Q CO Z) Q m CO CO 3 o 1

o Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data O CM 29 C.F.R. 6 1614.7fm CM O 0) 1 End of 4th 1__ (0 2008 4 4 2 0 6 4 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4. Non-EEC Issue 5. Investigation/security Clearance 0 0 0 0 3 1 6. Denied Information 7. Privacy Act/Confidentiality Violated 3 CM 8. Religious Expression 2006 2005 2004 0 CM O 0 5 0 7 ucner 1. JoD Classification 2. Denieci Housing at Post 2007 Qtr 4 Q Training CO o CM ID lO o O 1 0 0 3. Selected Out of Foreign Service • o 0 Q o CM CO 00 CM T— 0 2 12 7 8 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 6 3 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 Q CD O CM ID CO o O 0 1 0 0 o 0 a o CM CO CO CM 1 0 0 CM •t— d d Li. Li. O CM o CM 1 0 0 0 0 z z 0 (/) (0 o Processing Time ^-.post the average length oftime it takesto complete each step of the process for every complaint that is pending during any time of the then fiscal O -4-> 0 FY 2009 - End of 4"* ptr Average 71 0 0 •*-d Days 1614.704(f)(1) All complaints In Final Agency Action Stage 0 o Number year..." 0 w u— c 0 B 03 253 >♦— 101 All complaints In which Hearing was not requested E c 0 342 57 E •e 223 2. Time In Final Agency Action Stage 0 Q. 0 119 All complaints in which a Hearing was requested 1614.704(f)(3) Q 654 1. Time In Investigative Stage Z) o 223 1614.704(f)(2) 1. Time in Investigative Stage •e 0 a. 0 Q (O 2. Time In Final Agency Action Stage Q 44 CO Z) 294 Q 111 m 360 tJL 3 3 CO CO CO CO o o 1

I o 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(g) Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. § 1614.705 CM O Complaints Dismissed by Agency B FY2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 End of 4*^ m Qtr a Total Complaints Dismissed by Agency <0 o CM "Min o O 33 19 10 19 27 20 Average days pending prior to dismissal 67 54 96 39 78 173 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(h) Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R, § 1614.705 o 0 Total Final Agenciy Actions Finding Discrimination Q o CM CO 00 CM 1 CM O CM FY 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 End of A*** Qtr # # # # # # % Total Number Findings Without Hearing With Hearing O z 0) V) 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(1) Comparative Data o d) Findings of Discrimination Rendered by Basis* •*-< CO FY2009 1 Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. S 1614.705 (0 1 1 2007 2008 2006 2005 2004 End of 4*^ u- Qtr o -«-• # c (U 1 1# % # #• # 0 2 0 • 0 0 0 0 2 % # Total Number Findings 2 0 1 Number Findings Rendered Without Hearing 0 0 1 Q Number Findings Rendered After Hearing 2 0 0 CO Race 0 0 0 0 1 1. American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 E •e (D Q. wm <D Z) Q 1^ CO CO O z 1 0 100 0 % s

29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(0 Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data 29 C.F.R. S 1614.705 o End of 4"* Qtr B O 2. Male Disability 1. Mental 2 (D z. Physical (0 CD O Age Reprisal ro CO H— o •4-» c 0) E •e (0 Q. 0) Q CO Z) Q LU CO CO 3 o 1 • # % # 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sex (including Equal Pay Act) 1. Female % 0 2. Other 1 % 0 1. Hispanic. Q # 0 Religion u 0 CM 0 % 0 ^oior National Origin O CM 0 0 4. White O o CM CO 00 CM # 0 0 s. Black (O o CM •M" m o # 1% 0 # (0 Q £M 2008 1 2007 j 2006 i 2005 1 2004 FY 2009 Rendered by Basis* CNJ o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 —Note. Complaints can be filed aiieaina muitiole bases. The sum tifthebas*es mav n 100 of eatra/ tot.3i compiaint.sandiIndincfs 0 0 100 0 1 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 %

29 C.F.R. § 1614.7040) Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data Findings of Discrimination Rendered by Issue*" 2008 29 C.F.R. § 1614.70S 2007 I 2006 # 1 Total Number Findings 0 i^n Number Findings Rendered Without Hearing 0 % Number Findings Rendered After Hearing Appoi ntmenVHi re 0 0 1 0 Mm IQO Assignment of Duties Awards Conversion to Full-time Disciplinary Action 1. Demotion 2. Reprimand 3. Suspension 4. Removal 5. Letter of Warning/Counseling Examination/Test Harassment 1. Non-Sexual 2. Sexual Medical Examination 100 0 Pay (including overtime) 0 Promotion/Non-Selection 0 0

29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(j) Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data o CM 2008 12007 12006 29 C.F.R. 8 1614.705 Rendered by issue"' CM O FY 2009 End of 4th 2005 1 2004 Qtr # (0 Q Reassignment % # o/o # % # % # % # 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Directed 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 Termination 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time and Attendance 0 0 0 1 0 0 Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. Job Classified 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Denied Housing at post 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Selected out of Foreign Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 4. Non-EEO Issue 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 5. Adverse Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Denied Information 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO o CM in in o O 6 z o 0 Q o CM CO 00 CM CM T— o CM 1 LI. 6 z o (0 (0 ro CO «4— 0 •*-1 c <D E •c (0 01 <D a CO z> o UJ CO CO o z Z) 100 %

T— O 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(k) Comparative Data Previous Fiscal Year Data T- 29 C.F.R. S 1614.705 T— CNJ O Complaints Pending from Previous <1) Fiscal Years by Status (0 Q T— CD O CM ID ID 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Complaints from previous fiscal years 145 118 93 101* 77 Total Complainants 141 117 90 97 72 3 2 11 40 37 43 54 18 9 26 7 10 8 13 10 17 9 12 1 21 Investigation . Hearing o O O z o o Final Agency Action Appeal with EEOC Office of Federal Operations * Total number includes two complaints against the Office of Civil Rights Q O CO 00 CM Comparative Data 29 C.F.R. § 1614.704(1) Previous Fiscal Year Data 1 29 C.F.R. § 1614.705 CM O CM Complaint Investigations 2009 2Q08 2007 2006 Number Pending Completion of Investigation 60 58 81 40 55. . Pending Investigations Over Required Timeframes 12 16 39 25 25 7 7 18 13 13 2005 1 U. d z 0) (0 (0 O (U CO CO <*- o c (D E •c (0 Q. 0) Q CO Z) o yy u. CO CO 5 o I Amendments or authorized extensions

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress and ...

Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress and ... willing to speak without fear of ... Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), Pub. L. No ...
Read more

Annual Report on International Religious Freedom - state.gov

No FEAR Act; Inspector General ... The annual Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom ... 2009; 2008; 2007; 2006; 2005; 2004; 2003; 2002 ...
Read more

Reports - State

No FEAR Act; Inspector General ... 09/05/12 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: Senator Paul Simon ... Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act Congressional Report June 2009
Read more

SEC.gov | About the SEC

About the SEC. Commissioners; Contact; ... Agency Financial Report; Budget & Performance; Careers; Contact; FOIA; No FEAR Act & EEO Data; Whistleblower ...
Read more

U.S. Department of Justice

Stay Connected with Justice: ... Report & Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing. ... No FEAR Act; Information Quality;
Read more

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Defense ... Story | Special Report. More . Broadcast Events. ... No FEAR Act ; Resources; FOIA ;
Read more

Calendar Year Reports | Department of Energy

... (FOIA) and Privacy Act. ... Calendar Year 2009; Calendar Year 2008; ... No Fear Act; Whistleblower Protection; Information Quality;
Read more

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

The US Department of Veterans Affairs provides patient care and federal benefits to veterans ... Agency Financial Report (AFR) Budget ... No FEAR Act ...
Read more

U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)

GAO's new report on areas where the federal government could reduce duplication and achieve cost savings. ... No Fear Act Data; FraudNet ... For Congress ...
Read more

SIGAR | Special Inspector General for Afghanistan ...

NEW: INTERACTIVE REPORT ... Whistleblower No FEAR Act ...
Read more