1 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

113–663 

House Calendar No. 151 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS 

RELATING TO 

REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

DECEMBER 11, 2014.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

91–778 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–663 

House Calendar No. 151 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS 

RELATING TO 

REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

DECEMBER 11, 2014.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

Chairman 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

Ranking Member 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

REPORT STAFF 

THOMAS A. RUST, Chief Counsel/Staff Director 

DEBORAH SUE MAYER, Director of Investigations 

JACKIE M. BARBER, Counsel to the Chairman 

DANIEL J. TAYLOR, Counsel to the Ranking Member 

CHRISTOPHER R. TATE, Counsel 

C. TUCKER CARR, Investigative Clerk 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS, 

Washington, DC, December 11, 2014. 

Hon. KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. HAAS: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of rule XI 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith transmit 

the attached report, ‘‘In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Alcee L. Hastings.’’ 

Sincerely, 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, 

Chairman. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, 

Ranking Member. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 

II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER STANDARDS OF 

CONDUCT ..................................................................................................... 2 

III. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3 

IV. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 5 

A. EVIDENCE ........................................................................................... 5 

B. TESTIMONY ......................................................................................... 10 

C. REPRESENTATIVE HASTINGS’ TESTIMONY ............................... 12 

D. THE CAA AND HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 9 ........................... 13 

E. HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 1 AND 2 .......................................... 14 

V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 16 

VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C) ........................ 16 

APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS (Review No. 11–6736) ........................................................... 17 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
1The Helsinki Commission is an independent agency of the federal government charged with 

monitoring compliance with the Helsinki Final Act; the Commission consists of nine Members 

of the House, nine Senators, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense, and 

Commerce. 2The Committee published OCE’s Referral on January 11, 2012. 

House Calendar No. 151 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–663 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO 

REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS 

DECEMBER 11, 2014 

Mr. CONAWAY, from the Committee on Ethics, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), the 

Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the following Report to the House of Representatives: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On October 13, 2011, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) 

referred to the Committee on Ethics (Committee) a Report and 

Findings (OCE’s Referral) concerning allegations that Representative Alcee L. Hastings had sexually harassed an employee (Complainant) of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission),1 and that Complainant 

faced retaliatory employment action in response to reporting these 

allegations.2 OCE’s referral in this matter was unique, insofar as 

it recommended that the Committee further review the allegations, 

even though OCE was unable to conclude that there was ‘‘substantial reason to believe’’ the alleged violations had occurred, which is 

its typical standard for recommending that the Committee further 

review an allegation. In this case, OCE referred the matter to the 

Committee upon concluding that its investigation had revealed 

‘‘probable cause’’ to believe that a violation had occurred, a lower 

standard which only suffices in cases where, such as here, OCE 

concluded that it was ‘‘unable to obtain information necessary to 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

3OCE Rule 9(A). 

4OCE Rules 8(A), 9(A) (commentary). 

reach’’ the ‘‘substantial reason to believe’’ standard.3 OCE notes 

that either a finding of ‘‘probable cause’’ or a finding of ‘‘substantial 

reason to believe’’ that an alleged violation occurred ‘‘does not constitute a finding that a violation has actually occurred.’’ 4

The Committee did conduct further review of the allegations in 

the OCE Referral. Its independent inquiry involved reviewing not 

only the OCE Referral, but more than one thousand pages of documents and interviewing eight witnesses, some more than once. 

These interviews included both the Complainant and Representative Hastings. In addition, OCE identified four witnesses as noncooperative during its own review. The Committee interviewed all 

four of those witnesses, who fully cooperated with the Committee. 

Further, during the entirety of OCE’s review and much of the Committee’s review, the allegations in this matter were also the subject 

of ongoing litigation initiated by Complainant. 

At the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee found no 

additional evidence supporting Complainant’s allegations. In fact, a 

significant amount of evidence reviewed by the Committee cast further doubt on Complainant’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concurred in OCE’s determination that there was not ‘‘substantial reason to believe’’ the allegations, much less the standard 

of ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ necessary to recommend a sanction to the House. For this reason, the Committee unanimously 

voted to release this Report and take no further action in this matter.5

Importantly, while the most serious allegations in this case were 

not supported by the evidence, Representative Hastings has admitted to certain conduct that is less than professional. That conduct, 

as well as the Committee’s explanation for concluding that it does 

not rise to the level of a violation of House Rules, laws, regulations, 

or other standards of conduct, is described below. We hope that this 

description serves as a necessary corrective for Representative Hastings in the future, and a reminder to all Members of the importance of these issues. Sexual harassment in the workplace is an extremely serious problem, in part because it is often perpetrated by 

very powerful people—supervisors, managers, owners, etc.—against 

people with significantly less power, such as subordinate employees. This power imbalance surely could exist in the relationship between a Member and his employees, and Members must be held to 

account if they abuse that imbalance of power, especially in a fashion that discriminates on the basis of gender. In cases where such 

discrimination can be proven, this Committee will hold those who 

engage in such misconduct accountable. 

In this case, there is simply not sufficient proof of such discrimination. Accordingly, upon publication of this Report, the Committee 

will take no further action on this matter, and considers it closed. 

II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER 

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 

Sexual harassment and, other forms of employment discrimination are prohibited in the House both by statute and by House 

Rule. The CAA, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1311 et seq., prohibits discrimination 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

6Office of Compliance, CAA Handbook at 44 (2010), available at http://www.compliance.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CAA-Handbook.pdf. 

based on sex, and it also prohibits intimidation, reprisal, or other 

discrimination against a person in relation to their opposition to 

sexual harassment. House Rule XXIII, clause 9 states that ‘‘[a] 

Member . . . may not discharge and may not refuse to hire an individual, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or 

parental status), disability, age, or national origin of such individual, but may take into consideration the domicile or political affiliation of such individual.’’ 

The CAA created the Office of Compliance as a forum for resolving claims of discrimination. The Office of Compliance’s guidance 

defines sexual harassment as ‘‘[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a 

sexual nature if the implication is that submission to such conduct 

is expected as part of the job.’’ 6

Sexual harassment, if proven, would also likely violate the basic 

parameters of House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, which state that 

‘‘[a] Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 

of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,’’ and that ‘‘[a] Member, Delegate, 

Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House. . . .’’ 

III. BACKGROUND 

Complainant worked as a policy advisor for the Helsinki Commission from May 2007 until approximately June 2014. Representative Hastings was instrumental in Complainant’s hiring. After he 

learned that Complainant, who had previously been employed by 

the House Committee on Homeland Security, was looking for work, 

Representative Hastings arranged for the Complainant to apply for 

a position with the Helsinki Commission. She was subsequently 

hired after going through the typical hiring process. Eventually, in 

2008, Complainant moved to Vienna, Austria, where she handled 

duties for the Helsinki Commission and the State Department. She 

returned to Washington, D.C., permanently in July 2010. 

In August 2010, Complainant filed a request for counseling with 

the Office of Compliance, asserting claims of sexual harassment 

and retaliation against the Helsinki Commission. The Office of 

Compliance’s dispute resolution processes established by the CAA 

begin with mandatory counseling and mediation phases, both of 

which are confidential. If the parties are unable to resolve their 

disagreement through counseling or mediation, an employee may 

then either pursue a non-judicial administrative hearing or file suit 

in federal district court. In this matter, after the mandatory counseling and mediation phases did not resolve the dispute, on or 

about March 7, 2011, Complainant filed a complaint in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia based on the 

same allegations. Complainant named the Helsinki Commission, 

Representative Hastings, and the Helsinki Commission Chief of 

Staff (Chief of Staff) as defendants. Complainant also announced 

the filing of her lawsuit at a public news conference on March 7. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

OCE began its preliminary review of the matter on May 3, 2011. 

Complainant provided information about her allegations to OCE on 

or about May 26, 2011. The OCE Board voted to refer the matter 

to the Committee and adopted its Findings on September 27, 2011. 

The OCE Referral was transmitted to the Committee on October 

13, 2011. 

Representative Hastings and the Helsinki Commission Chief of 

Staff were dismissed as parties to Complainant’s suit on February 

14, 2012. However, the litigation against the Helsinki Commission 

continued until that lawsuit was ultimately dismissed on June 5, 

2014, following a confidential settlement between the Complainant 

and the Commission. Thus, throughout OCE’s review and until 

June 2014, civil litigation regarding these issues was ongoing in 

federal court. 

Throughout this time period, Complainant’s allegations have 

taken slightly different forms when stated in various forums, but 

the basic narrative is consistent between her statements to OCE, 

the Committee, and in her lawsuit. In essence, her allegations can 

be separated into four distinct categories. 

First, Complainant alleged that, on a number of occasions beginning shortly after she was hired until approximately January 2010, 

Representative Hastings made a number of unwelcome sexual or 

intimate advances towards her, at times connecting those advances 

to her career. Specifically, Complainant alleged that Representative 

Hastings asked to visit her personal residence in the Washington, 

D.C., area and her apartment in Vienna, which Complainant interpreted as a request for a sexual liaison. Complainant also alleged 

that, on a trip to Kazakhstan in July 2008, Representative Hastings told Complainant that he wanted to help advance her career, 

and told her that nobody would treat her less than professionally 

if she had a relationship with him. Complainant also alleged that, 

on a trip to Lisbon, Portugal, in 2009, Representative Hastings met 

Complainant in the lobby of their hotel, stated that he was coming 

to Complainant ‘‘as a man comes to a woman,’’ and asked Complainant to accompany him to his hotel room, or, alternatively, 

asked for her room number. Finally, Complainant alleged that a 

number of senior members of the Helsinki Commission staff conspired with Representative Hastings to place Complainant and 

Representative Hastings in proximity to one another. Specifically, 

Complainant alleged that the Chief of Staff engineered the encounter between Complainant and Representative Hastings in Portugal 

in 2009, and she also alleged that a Helsinki Commission staffer 

cancelled her trip from Kiev, Ukraine, to Odessa, Ukraine, so that 

she would be in Kiev when Representative Hastings arrived there. 

Second, Complainant alleged that, on at least three occasions 

during this period, Representative Hastings touched her in an inappropriately sexual way. Specifically, Complainant alleged that on 

at least two occasions, Representative Hastings hugged her and 

pressed his body against her. Complainant also alleged that, in 

February 2010, Representative Hastings greeted her with the European ‘‘air-kiss,’’ and asked her to pose for a photo with him. 

Third, Complainant alleged that, on a number of occasions during this period, Representative Hastings made inappropriate comments of a suggestive or sexual nature. While not propositions for 

sexual activity like those discussed above, Complainant nevertheVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:26 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091778 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR663P1.XXX HR663P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

7OCE Referral at 3. 

less alleged that these comments contributed to a hostile work environment. Specifically, Complainant alleged that, while they were 

in a car together in Vienna in 2008, Representative Hastings told 

her that he was unable to sleep after having sex. Complainant also 

alleged that, while in a hotel bar with a number of other Helsinki 

Commission staffers, Representative Hastings stated that he does 

not understand how male and female Members of Congress, but especially female Members, can wear the same underwear all day; 

Complainant further alleged that Representative Hastings followed 

that comment by asking Complainant what kind of underwear she 

was wearing. 

Fourth, Complainant alleged that Representative Hastings and 

senior members of the Helsinki Commission staff retaliated against 

her in response to her complaints about the above mentioned allegations. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Chief of Staff reassigned work in her portfolio to other employees, failed to keep 

Complainant informed of information necessary to do her job, and 

delayed approval of her requests to travel. 

As noted above, the Committee began its inquiry after OCE referred the matter to the Committee on October 13, 2011. The Committee recognized the importance of not interfering with parallel 

proceedings, including the civil lawsuit, and consequently its inquiry took somewhat longer than other investigations, but it was 

still thorough and complete. The Committee interviewed eight witnesses, including the Complainant, Representative Hastings, and 

other witnesses—both those witnesses previously identified by 

OCE, and others. The Committee reviewed over 1,000 pages of 

written evidence, including emails and internal memoranda. 

IV. FINDINGS 

Complainant’s allegations are quite serious. If proven, those allegations would almost certainly constitute a series of violations of 

House Rules, federal statutes, and other standards of conduct, and 

the Committee would not hesitate to take action against such violations. 

Accordingly, the Committee conducted a thorough investigation 

into these allegations. That investigation yielded no additional 

credible evidence supporting Complainant’s claims. In fact, much of 

the evidence reviewed cast further doubt on many of the most serious allegations. Because the Committee was unable to substantiate 

the claims, it concurred with OCE’s determination that there was 

not a substantial reason to believe the allegations in question. This 

section of the Report details the evidence that the Committee reviewed in its inquiry, and analyzes it in light of existing law and 

precedent. 

A. EVIDENCE 

OCE noted in its Report and Findings that ‘‘most of the information obtained by the OCE was testimonial evidence from Representative Hastings and [Complainant.]’’ 7 The Committee found a 

similar paucity of independent corroborating evidence, although it, 

unlike OCE, was able to obtain information from other Helsinki 

Commission staffers. Put simply, there is very little non-testiVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:26 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091778 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR663P1.XXX HR663P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

monial evidence that corroborates the Complainant’s allegations at 

all, and a significant number of materials that call at least some 

of Complainant’s allegations into question. In fact, the Committee 

identified only two documents in which it can be said definitively 

that Complainant (a) was at the time alleging sexual harassment, 

and (b) was at the time reporting that sexual harassment to others 

at the Helsinki Commission. Both of these documents were created 

in February 2010, after the bulk of the allegations are purported 

to have occurred. First, on February 5, 2010, the General Counsel 

of the Helsinki Commission (General Counsel) emailed Complainant to memorialize a meeting with the Chief of Staff, General 

Counsel, and Complainant, held a few days prior to the email. The 

General Counsel stated: 

[The Chief of Staff] described his conversation with Mr. 

Hastings regarding the issues you had raised and indicated that, while Mr. Hastings said he had a different assessment of the situation, Mr. Hastings is sensitive to your 

concerns and will proceed accordingly. [The Chief of Staff] 

also indicated that both he and Mr. Hastings are satisfied 

with your job performance and support your decision to 

leave Vienna and resume your work full-time in Washington before the end of the year—most likely in July. 

It is our hope and expectation that if you have any further 

concerns regarding the matters we discussed, or any other 

issues, you will contact us immediately. 

In interviews with the Committee, both the Chief of Staff and 

General Counsel stated that the meeting discussed in the February 

5, 2010, email above was the first such meeting either of them had 

with Complainant regarding her allegations, and both stated that 

they learned of Complainant’s allegations, at most, a few weeks 

prior to the meeting. The Chief of Staff confirmed that, prior to this 

meeting, he met with Representative Hastings to discuss (for the 

first time) Complainant’s allegations; at that time, Representative 

Hastings vehemently denied having sexually harassed the Complainant. Regardless, however, the Chief of Staff advised Representative Hastings to refrain from any behavior that the Complainant might perceive as harassment. 

Complainant responded the same day to the General Counsel’s 

email: 

Most of what you say below has my concurrence, but I 

completely disagree with the statement that Mr. Hastings 

‘‘had a different assessment of the situation.’’ What [the 

Chief of Staff] said was that he had a different assessment 

of some of the issues, which [the Chief of Staff] did not 

elaborate on. I completely stand by the fact that Mr. Hastings has sexually harassed me since December 2007, after 

I was offered the position in Vienna, and I have no intention of sugar-coating what has happened to me. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

8 Complainant provided OCE with handwritten notes that Complainant contends to have written during her service in Vienna, purportedly memorializing her allegations contemporaneously. 

But the document bears no evidence of the date of its creation, and no witness can attest to 

having seen it. Similarly, the Complainant sent the Committee text that purported to be an 

email she sent to friends in 2009, detailing her allegations. The Committee contacted the supposed recipients of the email, who testified that they were not in possession of a copy of the 

email. When the Committee asked the Complainant to authenticate the email’s date by providing it in a native form, she failed to respond. Accordingly, the Committee could not conclude 

that either of these materials were truly contemporaneously dated with the allegations. And in 

any event, neither document was ever shared with anyone at the Helsinki Commission. 9 Representative Hastings and a variety of other witnesses indicated that the pose in the photograph was one that Representative Hastings commonly performs, stretching his arms to represent ‘‘having the world in his hands.’’ He did not actually touch Complainant in the photograph. 

This email, again, is the first instance the Committee could definitively conclude that Complainant explicitly alleged sexual harassment in writing.8

A second email from Complainant to the General Counsel and 

the Chief of Staff dated February 19, 2010, detailed Complainant’s 

interactions with Representative Hastings earlier that week, accusing Representative Hastings of acting in apparent contravention of 

the conversation between him and the Chief of Staff a few weeks 

earlier: 

First of all, even though I specifically asked you and [General Counsel] to advise Mr. Hastings that I do not want 

him to hug me in greeting me or saying good bye, when 

he entered the control room . . . on Wednesday, he came 

over to where I was seated at the table and briefly placed 

his cheek against mine. [OSCE Staffer] was sitting there 

with me and can attest to it. As I stressed to you and 

[General Counsel], I do not want Mr. Hastings to hug me 

because I am uncomfortable with it and I insist at this 

point that it is not repeated. 

Second, this evening, [a military officer] and I had just discussed tomorrow’s itinerary and I was walking toward the 

control room to look it over when [a Helsinki Commission 

staffer] called out that I was needed. I paused, and he said 

that Mr. Hastings wanted to take a photograph with me. 

Mr. Hastings walked over to where I was standing, stood 

extremely close to me, and held out both of his arms in a 

pose while I kept mine at my side. He looked at me and 

said, ‘‘We have to do our favorite pose,’’ 9 indicated that I 

too should hold out my arms. I did and [the Helsinki Commission staffer] took the picture. The situation made me 

feel extremely uncomfortable and I am suspicious as to 

why I was placed in this awkward and ridiculous circumstance. 

Other than these two emails in which Complainant made her position clear, the rest of the written record contained no mention of 

the allegations as they were happening. 

Complainant contended in her testimony before the Committee 

that a number of emails should be read to imply her allegations. 

However, the Committee reviewed additional evidence alongside 

those emails, which cast doubt on an interpretation that would constitute evidence of sexual harassment. For example, one of Complainant’s more troubling allegations pertained to a trip to Ukraine 

to monitor elections in January 2010. Complainant was originally 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 

scheduled to observe the elections in Odessa, but Representative 

Hastings, through a staffer (Helsinki Commission Staffer 1), requested that she (and other observers) stay in Kiev, where Representative Hastings was scheduled to observe the election. Complainant alleges that she believed Representative Hastings was, 

through this request, attempting to keep Complainant close to him, 

where he could continue to harass her. 

As evidence of her concerns, Complainant pointed to an email 

she sent the Chief of Staff, stating, ‘‘I wanted to ask your advice 

on what to do because at this point I think if I went to Odessa Mr. 

Hastings will be upset.’’ The Chief of Staff responded, ‘‘for reasons 

previously discussed, I think you should still go to Odessa. I’m not 

on the ground with you and don’t really understand what’s going 

on, but that would still be my suggestion. I will help explain the 

issue to [Representative Hastings] if he is upset.’’ Complainant alleged in her testimony that the ‘‘reasons previously discussed’’ were 

her allegations of sexual harassment, which she claimed to have repeatedly reported to the Chief of Staff by this time. 

If an observer were to pick these statements out of context and 

rely solely on Complainant’s characterization of them, one might 

conclude that the statements are evidence of the truth of Complainant’s allegations. But when read in context, and when coupled with 

the testimony of multiple witnesses, a different, more innocuous 

picture emerged. In fact, while Complainant asserted in her interviews with OCE and with the Committee that the prospect of staying in Kiev, so close to Representative Hastings, caused her to 

‘‘hyperventilate,’’ her own words in emails around the same time 

suggest that Complainant was at least indifferent about the change 

in plans, if not outright pleased. When notified that she might be 

staying in Kiev, Complainant emailed Helskinki Commission Staffer 1 saying ‘‘I really prefer to observe in Kiev but [Chief of Staff] 

suggested the staff spread out. I also was not looking forward to 

flying on a tiny Ukrainian plane to Odessa.’’ So Complainant’s allegations about this trip to Ukraine simply do not conform with her 

own contemporaneous statements on the matter. 

Additionally, many other witnesses and documents in the record 

show that the justification for changing Complainant’s travel plans 

in Ukraine was wholly unrelated to Representative Hastings’ alleged interest in her. Representative Hastings did ask that election 

observers (including Complainant) remain in Kiev, as opposed to 

fanning out across Ukraine. But the evidence suggests that this request may not have been motivated by a desire to be close to Complainant; rather, Representative Hastings knew that a winter 

storm was expected across much of the country and was concerned 

about his staff traveling on Ukrainian flights through the snow. 

And the ‘‘reasons previously discussed’’ between Complainant and 

the Chief of Staff were not Complainant’s allegations, but instead 

the Chief of Staff’s belief that, inclement weather notwithstanding, 

the task of monitoring Ukraine’s elections required staff to travel 

to a variety of voting stations around the country. 

Many of the documents that Complainant proffered as support 

for her claims followed this pattern: Complainant wrote or said 

something vague that, in hindsight, could be tied to her allegations, 

but only by ignoring other written and testimonial evidence to the 

contrary. Indeed, there are a number of alternative explanations 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
9 

10OCE did not ask Complainant about either of these emails, although they are discussed in 

the OCE Referral. For each email, OCE indicated that it was ‘‘unable to interview [Complainant] about this statement because the production containing this email came to the OCE well 

after the OCE had interviewed [Complainant].’’ OCE Referral, at 10, 24. 11While the Committee did not believe it directly relevant to the allegations, Representative 

Hastings—in his testimony before the Committee and elsewhere—has repeatedly referred to the 

fact that Complainant authored a novel in 2006, and that novel contains themes and storylines 

Continued 

for the correspondence between Complainant and others that do 

not imply sexual harassment. For example, as discussed above, 

Complainant claimed that her cancelled trip from Kiev to Odessa 

in 2010 was an instance of sexual harassment, and she relied on 

her email to the Chief of Staff to support that claim, but that email 

is equally open to the interpretation that both parties were discussing the bad weather in Ukraine, as opposed to Representative 

Hastings’ alleged sexual interest. Furthermore, in many cases, the 

alternative reading of these vague emails was supported by the evidence, for at least two reasons. 

First, in most other situations, Complainant was not vague when 

writing emails. Complainant regularly updated other Helsinki 

Commission staffers on her work in Vienna via email. Complainant 

repeatedly wrote paragraphs of prose to the Chief of Staff regarding difficulties she was having with colleagues. One such email detailed Complainant’s struggle to locate ‘‘personal hygiene items’’ as 

an explanation for a report of poor performance. And, like her 

email expressing a desire to stay in Kiev, many of Complainant’s 

contemporaneous writings directly or implicitly contradict her allegations. 

Once, around the time that Complainant’s allegations were supposed to have occurred, Complainant emailed, ‘‘I don’t know what 

I would do without [Chief of Staff]. I cannot believe what a comfort 

you are to me and the sense of security and calm you provide every 

time I come to you in anxiety about something.’’ Complainant also 

wrote, at other times when the sexual harassment was purportedly 

occurring, that having spoken with Representative Hastings, she 

felt ‘‘100 percent better than she began the week,’’ and that Representative Hastings was ‘‘truly amazing.’’ And, in another email, 

she told the Chief of Staff that she ‘‘had a crush on [Representative 

Hastings] since I first met him . . .’’ Complainant’s own communications at the time these events allegedly took place, therefore, 

call into question the claims Complainant made thereafter.10

Second, while Complainant alleges that she was constantly reporting her allegations to the Chief of Staff and the General Counsel for years prior, the response of both the Chief of Staff and General Counsel as reflected in the written record changed dramatically after their meeting in January 2010. Before the meeting, the 

Committee found no evidence that either the Chief of Staff or the 

General Counsel had ever discussed the allegations in writing, but 

after the meeting, both the Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

openly acknowledged having heard the allegations from Complainant and reflected their attempts to develop an action plan in response. To believe Complainant’s version of events, one must also 

believe that both the Chief of Staff and General Counsel avoided 

discussion of these allegations for years, only to meticulously and 

professionally respond to them, as if hearing them for the first 

time, in February 2010.11


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
10 

with remarkable similarities to the allegations that Complainant made. The Committee found 

no evidence that Complainant’s allegations were manufactured to generate publicity for her 

book, but it did note the similarities between characters and events in the book and persons 

and events in her allegations, and believes those similarities cast additional doubt on Complainant’s credibility. 

B. TESTIMONY 

OCE’s referral to the Committee was rooted in a lower standard 

for referral than is usually the case, in large part because OCE was 

unable to speak with a number of witnesses identified by Complainant. As discussed above, civil litigation regarding this matter 

was pending in federal court before OCE began its review and continued throughout the entirety of its review. The Committee spoke 

with all such witnesses, all of whom cooperated with the Committee’s review, but those witnesses (as well as others interviewed by 

the Committee) did not provide any additional evidence supporting 

the Complainant’s allegations. 

No witness could testify to having directly observed a single specific allegation made by Complainant. Those witnesses who were 

purportedly in the same room when the misconduct occurred denied having seen anything of the sort. Some witnesses testified 

that they had heard rumors related to the allegations, but when 

pressed, every single such witness admitted that the sole source of 

those rumors was Complainant herself. Credible witnesses described Representative Hastings as a genial and familiar, but ultimately professional, supervisor, and noted that they observed nothing at all untoward about his relationship with Complainant. 

Similar to the issues described above regarding the written 

record in proper context, witness testimony provided perspective 

that cast additional doubt on Complainant’s allegations. For example, on a trip to Portugal in 2009, Complainant attended a dinner 

for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, along with Representative 

Hastings and the Chief of Staff. Complainant alleged that, after 

the dinner, in the hotel, Representative Hastings expressed a sexual interest in her, told her she was not a ‘‘sport,’’ told her that he 

had come to her ‘‘as a man comes to a woman,’’ and asked her to 

come to his hotel room. These are among the most explicit and 

troubling allegations made by Complainant. But while no third 

parties witnessed this interaction, the Chief of Staff provided context regarding the evening that brought Complainant’s story into 

doubt. The Chief of Staff testified that, as is Representative Hastings’ custom, he left the Parliamentary Assembly dinner very 

early—before most of the courses had been served. When he left, 

Complainant came to Chief of Staff and insisted that they should 

accompany Representative Hastings back to the hotel. The Chief of 

Staff disagreed: 

And I said . . . you know, you don’t know this because you 

haven’t traveled with him a whole lot, but our job is to 

stay here and make sure that people aren’t saying, oh, the 

Americans left. He’s leaving because he hates, you know, 

these 3-hour dinners, you know. So we’re going to sit right 

here and eat our dinner and socialize with the other parliamentary staff and all these kind of, and sort of show the 

flag, you know. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
11 

And she said to me, she’s like, I really don’t think it’s responsible for both of us to be here when he’s leaving or 

he’s left. And she says, I really think one of us ought to 

go back to the hotel and make sure, you know, if he needs 

us to work on remarks or whatever. And I said, I disagree. 

I said, I’ve staffed him long enough to know I’m not skipping dinner just to go back to the hotel and do nothing. 

I think it’s important for you to understand how, you 

know, how we got to that point and why I wasn’t there. 

Now, why somebody who is alleging all this crazy stuff solicited the trip to Lisbon and then, when there’s no requirement for her to actually be alone with the Congressman, she gets up from a dinner when I’m sitting there, 

telling her stay put, and goes back to the hotel and puts 

herself in a position to be alone with the Congressman and 

then allegedly all this stuff happens. 

When the Committee asked Complainant about leaving the dinner early, Complainant admitted that Representative Hastings left 

the dinner early, but characterized such a departure as highly irregular, and stated that the Chief of Staff’s decision to stay at the 

dinner was a conspiracy between the Chief of Staff and Representative Hastings to ensure additional harassment: 

I just didn’t know what was going on. I really didn’t. But 

in retrospect, I believe it was contrived. I believe that [the 

Chief of Staff] and Mr. Hastings had agreed to this scenario and that is why [the Chief of Staff] didn’t blink when 

Mr. Hastings said he was leaving. I think it was all engineered. 

Q: To do what? 

A: That he would leave and that I would probably feel 

like—because one of the things I noticed with Mr. Hastings is that he did, he created these situations under the 

guise of some other justification to lead a conversation or 

to get a—to prompt a reaction. 

To believe Complainant’s interpretation, therefore, one must believe not only that the Chief of Staff ignored or marginalized Complainant’s allegations for years, but that he actively aided Representative Hastings in a ploy to sexually harass Complainant. 

This leap in logic is simply not credible when viewed next to the 

Chief of Staff’s more cogent and reasonable explanation. 

Other witnesses interviewed by the Committee provided a similar perspective, stating that while Complainant’s allegations arose 

from circumstances rooted in fact, the operative parts of Complainant’s allegations simply did not accord with the witnesses’ understanding of events. Put another way, the Committee, despite interviewing witnesses in a position to observe the events related to the 

allegations, obtained no additional direct testimony corroborating 

Complainant’s allegations, and was left in much the same position 

as OCE—evaluating the testimony of the Complainant and Representative Hastings against one another. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
12 

C. REPRESENTATIVE HASTINGS’ TESTIMONY 

Representative Hastings appeared before OCE during its inquiry, 

and Committee staff interviewed him with the Chairman and 

Ranking Member present. Representative Hastings’ statements in 

both forums were consistent. Specifically, Representative Hastings 

stated that he has never had a physical or personal relationship 

with Complainant, and has never expressed a sexual or physical interest in Complainant. He stated that the events Complainant described in which he allegedly propositioned Complainant, or asked 

to visit her living quarters, or invited her to his hotel room, simply 

never happened. He stated that, far from taking action to retaliate 

against Complainant after she made her allegations, he urged the 

Chief of Staff to approve every travel request she made, and was 

careful to make clear to Complainant that he was satisfied with 

her performance. He admitted that he hugged Complainant ‘‘every 

time she said I did,’’ but stated that these hugs were not intimate 

or sexual in nature; rather, Representative Hastings noted that 

hugs are his preferred form of greeting for everyone male or female, and that he did not press his body against Complainant or 

touch her sexually during any of those hugs. Other than Complainant, none of the witnesses that the Committee interviewed contradicted Representative Hastings’ testimony on these matters, and a 

number of witnesses confirmed his statements in their own recollection. 

Representative Hastings did admit that he made two comments 

that the Committee found to be less than professional. First, Representative Hastings admitted that while in a car with Complainant and a driver on the way to the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) in Vienna in 2008, he stated that he had difficulty 

sleeping after sex. Representative Hastings noted that this comment was part of a nearly 45-minute conversation between himself 

and Complainant, and that the topic came up because he was tired. 

Representative Hastings noted that Complainant went on in the 

conversation, talking about how she danced in her apartment when 

she was unable to sleep. Representative Hastings noted that he did 

not at this time, nor at any other time, ask Complainant to have 

sex, but was talking to Complainant casually because he considered her a friend. 

Representative Hastings also admitted that, on the same 2008 

trip to Vienna, while in the bar at the Marriott hotel, he stated 

that he could not understand how male and female Members of 

Congress, but especially female Members, can stay in their own 

clothing, specifically their underwear, for 16 hours at a time. Representative Hastings noted that this conversation was part of a 

three to four hour social gathering with a number of other Helsinki 

Commission staffers, including Complainant, as well as other 

American and foreign officials. He explained that he had drank at 

least two double Courvoisier cocktails over this period. Representative Hastings stated that he had moved into a home in the Capitol 

Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C., away from his previous 

home in Alexandria, Virginia, and was explaining to the group that 

his move was motivated in part by a desire to be able to shower 

and change in the middle of a long congressional session. He noted 

that he has made this observation on a number of other occasions 

to other individuals. However, he stated that, contrary to ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:26 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091778 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR663P1.XXX HR663P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
13 

12 Representative Hastings also admitted telling Complainant that she ‘‘looked nice’’ while on 

a trip to Kazakhstan in 2008. He explained that he made this comment upon seeing Complainant in the CODEL room, and that it was a pleasantry, not accompanied by any other comments 

about Complainant’s appearance or comments of a sexual or intimate nature. 13 House Ethics Manual (Ethics Manual) at 268–69 (2008) (citing House Rule XXIII, cl. 9). 14 Id. at 269–70. 15 In the Matter of Representative Jim Bates, H. Rep. 101–293, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. 8–10 

(1989). 16Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1395 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Bates, H. Rep. 

101–293 at 10 (defining sexual harassment, by reference to Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission regulation, as ‘‘when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such 

conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, 

or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s 

work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment’’). 17Gary, 59 F.3d at 1395 (citation omitted). 18 Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); see also Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 

F.3d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 19McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

plainant’s allegations, he did not follow that observation by asking 

Complainant what kind of underwear she was wearing. He admitted that, looking back on the conversation, he regretted making the 

comment.12

D. THE CAA AND HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 9 

Sexual harassment is strictly prohibited by the Code of Official 

Conduct 13 as well as the CAA, which made Congress subject to a 

number of federal laws governing employee rights in the workplace—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.14 Furthermore, several years prior to enactment of the CAA, the Committee found that a member who had sexually harassed two employees on his personal staff had violated House Rule XXIII, clause 

9, under which a Member ‘‘. . . may not discharge and may not 

refuse to hire an individual, or otherwise discriminate against an 

individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or parental status), disability, age, or national origin of such individual . . . .’’.15

Under current applicable law and precedent, a claimant may 

demonstrate harassment ‘‘in either of two circumstances: the grant 

or denial of an economic quid pro quo in exchange for sexual favors, or discrimination that has created a hostile or abusive work 

environment.’’ 16 ‘‘The gravamen of a quid pro quo claim is that a 

tangible job benefit or privilege is conditioned on an employee’s 

submission to sexual black-mail and that adverse consequences follow from the employee’s refusal.’’ 17 Where the actions of an employer do not rise to an explicit quid pro quo, sexual acts by a supervisor may nevertheless be actionable where the ‘‘workplace is 

permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’’ 

and these behaviors are ‘‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter 

the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive 

working environment.’’ 18 In addition to a direct claim of sexual 

harassment on either of these two grounds, a claimant may have 

a claim for retaliation where she can demonstrate ‘‘(1) that [s]he 

opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII; (2) that the employer took a materially adverse action against [her]; and (3) that 

the employer took the action ‘because’ the employee opposed the 

practice.’’ 19

The facts in the record in this case do not support a finding that 

sexual harassment occurred under any of these definitions. While 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
14 

20 No. 11–cv–485, Docket # 60 at 9 (June 7, 2013) (order granting, in part, Defendant’s motion 

for judgment on the pleadings) (citations omitted). 21 114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of Representative Price). 22 Ethics Manual at 16. 23 114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of Representative Price). 24 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Gus Savage, 

H. Rept. 101–397, 101st Cong. 2d Sess (1990). 

Complainant alleged that Representative Hastings sexually propositioned her, and alleged that those propositions carried the implication that her acceptance or refusal would have consequences professional consequences for Complainant, the Committee found no 

evidence of these alleged propositions or quid pro quos save Complainant’s own testimony. Moreover, to the extent that the written 

materials and the testimony of third parties illuminated the circumstances surrounding Complainant’s allegations at all, it mostly 

served to exonerate Representative Hastings of these charges. In 

short, the evidence does not support these allegations, much less 

prove them. 

Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment face 

similar weaknesses. While it is true that Representative Hastings 

admitted to making two comments that troubled the Committee 

(and which this Report analyzes below), the allegations supported 

by the evidence, without more, do not constitute sufficiently pervasive or severe conduct to render the work environment discriminatory. And the evidence tended to show that the occasions on which 

Representative Hastings touched Complainant were not sexual or 

intimate in nature. 

Finally, Complainant’s claims of retaliation also fail. Not only are 

her allegations in this regard not supported by the evidence (insofar as there is no evidence that Complainant reported her allegations to her superiors before January 2010), the Committee cannot 

find even a theoretical basis for concluding that they would constitute actionable retaliation. Many of Complainant’s retaliation 

claims revolve around the delay in her return to Washington from 

Vienna in 2010, and requests to travel while she remained in Vienna, for which she alleged that the Chief of Staff delayed approval. As the United States District Court stated in an opinion 

dismissing part of Complainant’s suit, ‘‘Reluctance to approve travel requests that are subsequently approved is not the type of action 

that ‘could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’ ’’ 20

E. HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 1 AND 2 

As stated in previous reports, the Committee observes two basic 

principles when applying the first two clauses of the Code of Conduct. First, Members must at all times act in a manner that reflects creditably upon the House. This standard was created to provide the Committee ‘‘the ability to deal with any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of the [C]ommittee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the Congress.’’ 21 Clause 1 

‘‘encompass[es] violations of law and abuses of one’s official position.’’ 22 It is a ‘‘purposefully . . . subjective’’ standard.23 In fact, 

misconduct of the sort alleged in this case could violate clauses 1 

or 2 without forming the basis for a more formal violation of clause 

9 or the CAA. The Committee has previously found that a Member 

who committed sexual harassment violated Clause 1.24


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
15 

25 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report under the Authority of H. Res. 418, 

H. Rept. 90–1176, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 17 (1968). 26 114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of Representative Price). 27 Ethics Manual at 17 (citing House Select Comm. on Ethics, Advisory Opinion No. 4, H. 

Rept. 95–1837, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. app. 61 (1979)). 

Second, the Committee notes the proposition that the Code of 

Conduct and other standards of conduct governing the ethical behavior of the House community are not criminal statutes to be construed strictly, but rather—under clause 2 of House Rule XXIII— 

must be read to prohibit violations not only of the letter of the 

rules, but of the spirit of the rules. Ethical rules governing the conduct of Members were created to assure the public of ‘‘the importance of the precedents of decorum and consideration that have 

evolved in the House over the years.’’ 25 The standard ‘‘provide[s] 

the House with the means to deal with infractions that rise to trouble it without burdening it with defining specific charges that 

would be difficult to state with precision.’’ 26 The practical effect of 

Clause 2 is to allow the Committee to construe ethical rules broadly, and prohibit Members, officers and employees of the House from 

doing indirectly what they would be barred from doing directly. 

The Ethics Manual states that ‘‘a narrow technical reading of a 

House Rule should not overcome its ‘spirit’ and the intent of the 

House in adopting that and other rules of conduct.’’ 27

Applying these principles to this case is difficult. If the Committee had found a substantial reason to believe that Representative Hastings had engaged in the more egregious allegations leveled by Complainant, it would be an easier matter. If proven, those 

allegations would almost certainly constitute a series of violations 

of House Rules, federal statutes, and other standards of conduct, 

and the Committee would not hesitate to take action against such 

violations. 

But that is not this case, based on the record before the Committee following a lengthy and thorough investigation of the allegations. Indeed, Complainant’s credibility is strained by the incongruity of her own statements when placed in context. Without 

more, the Committee cannot believe Complainant’s version of 

events, and so not only is there not sufficient proof of sexual harassment, there is also not sufficient proof of violations of clauses 

1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct. Nor is there sufficient proof of retaliation against Complainant. 

Despite the fact that the conduct in this case does not rise to the 

level of actionable violations of the rules, the Committee does not 

want to leave the impression that Representative Hastings’ behavior was at all times appropriate. He admitted to some conduct that, 

while not wrongful per se, certainly could be misunderstood. For example, Representative Hastings admitted that he hugged Complainant on a number of occasions. It is true that a hug, on its own, 

is not sexual harassment, and that a number of witnesses testified 

that (1) Representative Hastings hugs many people frequently; (2) 

when hugging others (including Complainant), Representative Hastings did not place his hands or body in such a fashion that indicated the hug was sexual or intimate in nature; and (3) given Representative Hastings’ work with Complainant often occurred in Europe, such contact was within the customary forms of greeting for 

the relevant locale. Nevertheless, hugging is not the most profesVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:26 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091778 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR663P1.XXX HR663P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
16 

sional way to greet coworkers, and different individuals have different comfort levels for touching others. 

Similarly, Representative Hastings admitted to making two comments in the presence of Complainant: one about not being able to 

sleep after sex, and another about female Members of Congress 

wearing the same underwear all day. It is true that Complainant 

attempted to make more of these comments than appears to be 

supported by the evidence, and that on their own, they do not constitute sexual harassment. Nevertheless, the Committee finds it 

concerning that in the year 2014 it has to remind a Member that 

such comments show poor judgment. 

So long as the office environment complies with House Rules, 

laws, and other standards of conduct, the Committee is not in the 

business of regulating that office environment for each of the nearly 500 separate employers in the House. At the same time, the 

Committee fervently hopes that those employers, charged as they 

are with the duty of upholding the honor of this august institution, 

would be an example for how workplaces should function professionally in the modern world. While the conduct proven in this case 

does not constitute misconduct violating the standards under the 

Committee’s jurisdiction, it is far from perfectly professional. The 

Committee advises Members and others in a supervisory role to 

scrupulously avoid even the impression of a workplace tainted by 

sexism. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The OCE Referral that began this investigation did not find ‘‘substantial reason to believe’’ the allegations in question. Instead, because OCE was unable to obtain certain information—specifically, 

statements from four witnesses that it identified as non-cooperative—OCE referred the matter to the Committee based on a lower 

‘‘probable cause’’ standard. The Committee interviewed all four of 

those witnesses, who fully cooperated with the Committee as part 

of its own thorough investigation, and did not find any proof of the 

allegations beyond what OCE had already discovered. In fact, the 

Committee’s investigation revealed additional evidence that cast 

further doubt on Complainant’s claims. The Committee’s review 

took time, given that the allegations were so serious and that litigation was ongoing in federal court. But it could not find evidence 

of the critical facts underlying Complainant’s contentions. Without 

such evidence, the Committee cannot conclude that further action 

is warranted, and so upon the issuance of this Report, considers 

the matter closed. 

VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C) 

The Committee made no special oversight findings in this Report. 

No budget statement is submitted. No funding is authorized by any 

measure in this Report. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE