SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 17, 1997 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 

40-881 CC 

Serial No. 105-5 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1997 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-055671-6 
COMMITrEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

BOB STUMP, Arizona, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey LANE EVANS, Illinois 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II, Massachusetts 

FLOYD SPENCE, South Carolina BOB FILNER, California 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina 

JACK QUINN, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania 

DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

RAY LAHOOD, ILLINOIS 

CARL D. COMMENATOR, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama, Chairman 

BOB STUMP, Arizona 

FLOYD SPENCE, South Carolina 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Everett ................. ..... ............... ....... ......................................... ........ ....... 1 

Hon. Lane Evans, ranking democratic member, Full Committee on Veterans' 

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Evans .................................................. 105 

Hon. Michael Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .......................................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of Congressman Bilirakis .............................................. 111 

Hon. Vic Snyder ........................ ... .... ........................................................................ 5 

Hon. Steve Buyer ..................... ......... .... ...................................... ............................. 5 

Hon. James E. Clyburn ........................................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES 

Barefoot, Lovia B., Department of Veterans Affairs employee (ret.) ................... 15 

Prepared statement of Ms. Barefoot ............................................................... 178 

Blumenthal, Ronnie, Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ........................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement of Ms. Blumenthal, with attachment ........................... 189 

Caruana, Susan, Department of Veterans Affairs employee ............................... 11 

Prepared statement of Ms. Caruana ................................................. ........... ... 164 

Dawkins, Judy, Department of Veterans Affairs employee ................................. 13 

Prepared statement of Ms. Dawkins, with attachment. ...... ............. ...... ....... 170 

Force, Cynthia A., Department of Veterans Affairs emllloyee ............................. 8 

Prepared statement of Ms. Force ... ....................................... .......................... 158 

Gober, Hon. Hershel, Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs ac- companied by Gerald K. Hinch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity; Hon. Mary Lou Keener, General Counsel; Jule D. Moravec, 

Ph.D., Chief Network Officer, Veterans Health Administrator; Leroy P. 

Gross, M.D., Director, Veterans Integrated Service Network No.6................ 49 

Prepared statement of Deputy Secretary Gober, with attachment .............. 197 

Inzeo, N~c~olas M., Deputy Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission ............. ............... ..... .......................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement of Mr. Inzeo ................................... ............... .................. 194 

Jordan, Berry D., National President, Federal Managers Association ............... 98 

Prepared statement of Mr. Jordan .................................................................. 238 

Merriman, William T., Deputy Inspector General, Department of Veterans 

Affairs accompanied by Jack Kroll, Assistant Inspector General; Maureen 

Regan, Counsel; Michael Bennett, Office of Counsel; and Judy Shelly, Office 

of the Assistant Inspector General.............................. ...... ......... ...... .................. 79 

Prepared statement of Mr. Merriman ................. ............... ...... .... .................. 208 

Miller, Maura Farrell, Ph.D., ARNP, CS, President, Nurses Organization 

of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................................... 95 

Prepared statement of Dr. Miller ..... .................................... ........... ................ 227 

Moore-Russell, Doris A., M.S.W., Department of Veterans Affairs employee .... 18 

Prepared statement of Ms. Moore-Russel... ...... ........... ...... ......... ...... ..... ...... ... 183 

Nelms, Dorothy, President, Federally Employed Women, Inc. ............................ 93 

Prepared statement of Ms. Nelms ................................................................... 218 

Peddicord, Kitty, Women's Director, American Federation of Government Employees ................................................................................................................... 96 

Prepared statement of Ms. Peddicord, with attachments ............................. 231 

(III) 
IV 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Article: "VA's 'Zero Tolerance' Questioned," by David Dahl, St. Petersburg Times, 

April 14, 1997 ............................................................................................... . Chart: 

"Complaints Filed-FY 1991-FY 1996, Veterans Affairs Compared to 

Government Wide," submitted by Ms. Blumenthal .................................. . Chronology: 

"Actions of Secretary Brown to Eliminate Sexual Harassment in the 

~i::~.~~~.~~.~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~~:::. ~~~~~~~.~~.~~:.~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~~ Memorandum: From David Whatley, Medical Center Director to Leroy P. Gross, M.D., Director, VISN 6 re Network 6 Special Inquiry Report, September 

26, 1996 .................................. ........................................... ............................ . Report: Special InQ,uiry-"Alleged Improper Conduct By A Senior Official, VAMC, 

FayettevIlle, NC," November 8, 1996 ........................................................ .. Statements: 

~~~~Gr~;;~:::~ .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Written committee questions and their responses: 

Chairman Everett to Department of Veterans Affairs ................................ .. Congressman Bilirakis to Department of Veterans Affairs ........................ .. Congressman Evans to Department of Veterans Affairs ............................ .. Congressman Evans to Inspector General, DVA .......................................... . 

Page 

153 

193 

203 

143 

116 

188 

110 

244 

250 

253 

393 
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA 

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m. in room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Terry Everett (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Everett, Stump, Buyer, Bilirakis, 

Clyburn, Evans and Snyder. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN EVERETT 

Mr. EVERETT. The hearing will come to order. Please cease all 

conversations. 

Good morning. Today's hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will examine sexual harassment issues in 

Department of Veterans Affairs. This is the first hearing of the 

105th Congress for this subcommittee sitting alone. 

Only yesterday we had a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 

Health on another very important topic, the illness being suffered 

by Persian Gulf veterans. 

Our hea:.-ing is at the request of Mr. Bilirakis of Florida, one of 

the most senior and active members of the full committee. He specifically requested a hearing on sexual harassment after learning 

of the demotion and transfer of a former VA medical center director 

of a Fayetteville VA Medical Center in North Carolina to the Bay 

Pines VA Medical Center in Florida. 

Without objection, his letter of March 5, 1997, will be made a 

part of the record. 

His district is served by the medical center, and he has asked to 

participate in this hearing, although he is not assigned to this subcommittee. We are happy to have him here, and I commend him 

for taking this serious action. 

Unfortunately, this is not the first time sexual harassment issues 

have been before this committee. Over 4 years ago when our 

present full committee Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Evans, 

was chairman of this subcommittee, similar hearings occurred. I 

believe our Ranking Member, Mr. Clyburn, who will join us shortly, took an active in the second one back when he and I were relatively new to the committee. 

We are not new anymore, and we are disappointed in what we 

have seen. 

(1) 
2 

During the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing in September 1992, Ms. Donna Grabarczyk, a VA employee who 

still is on leave without pay status, stated in testimony, and I 

quote, "Since when is a transfer a disciplinary action? Transfers 

are not the solution for habitual harassers, and by transferring 

these people the VA merely enables them in their illegal behavior 

and avoids disciplinary action." 

As a result of these hearings 4 years ago, the committee unanimously reported and the House passed a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1032, 

in April 1993 to provide for improved and expedited procedures for 

resolving complaints of unlawful employment discrimination arising within the VA. That, of course, includes sexual harassment. 

However, Secretary Brown took the position that such a bill was 

unnecessary and that administrative actions combined with proposed legislation to cover the entire government would address the 

problems. 

The Senate did not take up the House bill. The government-wide 

legislation was not enacted. Given what has happened, Mr. Evans 

and I intend to pick up where the previous legislation effort left off, 

and there will be more action soon. 

I do not question Secretary Brown's sincerity or his commitment 

to the zero tolerance policy he has implemented in the VA. Quite 

the contrary, it was a positive and necessary step. 

However, nothing has been done to effectively remedy the problem the House legislation would have addressed. While the VA has 

a zero tolerance policy, it still has a long way to go in reaching zero 

tolerance and needs some help. 

Back in 1993, Bob Stump, our now full committee Chairman, 

said the oversight hearings revealed a lack of employee confidence 

in fairness and timeliness of VA's EEO system, as well as fears of 

reprisal. Based on my review of the statements by today's witnesses, I believe the same lack of confidence and fears still exist. 

Until the EEO's process in the VA becomes essentially independent of local management, I do not see how the trust of rank and 

file employees in the VA EEO system can be improved. I will be 

most interested in exploring this with our VA witnesses. 

During this hearing we will have witnesses from the Fayetteville 

Medical Center, the EEOC, the VA, the VA Inspector General's Office, and from federal employee unions and associations. 

Because the first panel of witnesses will testify about specific 

sexual harassment and abusive treatment which allegedly occurred 

at Fayetteville, I wish to advise any parents with children here 

today to exercise discretion in allowing them to stay. 

The subcommittee's distinguished Ranking Democratic Member, 

Mr. Clyburn, prior to coming to Congress, was South Carolina's 

Human Affairs Commissioner and so his interest and expertise in 

EEO and sexual harassment are particularly welcome, and we will 

hear from him later today. 

At this particular time, I would like to recognize the chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Stump, for any statement he would like 

to make. 

Mr. STUMP. I do not have an opening statement. Thank you. 

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Evans, our Ranking Member on the full 

committee. 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, RANKING 

MEMBER, FULL COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

and Jim Clyburn for holding this hearing. 

Obviously this is a great issue for us, and we are pursuing it on 

a bipartisan basis, and I look forward to working with you in terms 

of following up on those hearings in 1992. 

Some of you may recall the compelling testimony we heard during the 1992 hearing from Donna Grabarczyk. She testified that 

she had been sexually assaulted by the Chief of Fiscal Service at 

the Lyons, New Jersey Veterans Hospital where she worked. It 

took the VA 7 months to investigate her allegations, and in the 

meantime, she was forced to live in the constant fear of another 

confrontation with her assailant. 

Once the VA completed its investigation, the proposed resolution 

was to encourage her to transfer to another facility. Her harasser 

was allowed to take disability retirement. 

In the meantime, Ms. Grabarczyk was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of harassment by the Director of an 

institution that is supposed to be helping veterans deal with their 

post-traumatic stress disorder problems. 

Two months after her 1992 testimony, Ms. Grabarczyk was 

placed on leave without pay from the VA because of her harassment-related illness. She has been receiving regular medical care 

and therapy since December 1992. Her doctor has diagnosed her 

with a temporary total disability, and she is currently receiving 

worker's compensation because of her illness. 

She tells us she presently takes three different medications each 

day to treat her PTSD. 

Mr. Chairman, Donna Grabarczyk's story is not a happy one. 

When we heard her testimony in 1992, most of us may have reasonably concluded that the worst was behind her and that there 

would be only minimal long-term effects from her harassment. 

Obviously her troubles have not gone away since 1992. It is a 

tribute to the leadership of this subcommittee that the interest in 

this issue has not subsided since that time. 

Until the VA truly addresses sexual harassment at the regional 

and facility levels, stories like the ones we have heard from Donna 

Grabarczyk, and stories like the ones we will be hearing today, will 

continue to be played throughout the halls of the Department of 

Veterans Mfairs. 

I believe it is our responsibility to do all we can as members of 

the committee to see to it that there is no need for this type of 

hearing 5 years from now. 

In closing, I want to make it clear that I do not question Secretary Brown's personal commitment to eradicate the festering 

problem of sexual harassment in the VA. The Secretary's zero tolerance policy instituted in 1993 was a strong step in the right 

direction. 

But until the VA can show that its policy has teeth, we will continue to keep the heat on the VA on this issue in the months and 

years to come. Our veterans and our employees of the VA who 

served us well should expect and deserve no less. 
4 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and at this point I would like to enter 

into the record a statement from Donna Grabarczyk, dated April 

17, 1997. Unfortunately, because of a very serious illness in her 

family, she is not able to join us today, despite her willingness to 

do so, and I would ask that this statement be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. EVERETT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The attachment appears on p. 110.1 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Lane. Mr. Bilirakis. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and my thanks to 

Chairman Stump for responding to the request for scheduling today's hearing and also for giving me the opportunity to be a part 

of it. 

During the 102nd Congress, as mentioned by both you and Mr. 

Evans, when the sexual harassment hearing was held, I served as 

the Ranking Minority Member of this same committee with Mr. 

Evans. At that time we heard from several VA employees who had 

been the victims of sexual harassment. It took a great deal of courage for ' these women to come forward and sharp, their experiences 

with our committee, and many of these women were also subjected 

to acts of retaliation by their abusers and other VA employees. 

Their perception, and I believe you mentioned this, which was 

shared by many other employees was that the VA did not take sexual harassment complaints seriously. There is a great deal of sus- picion and distrust caused by too many years of apparent toleration 

of unacceptable behavior. 

Without question, that hearing revealed that the process in place 

at the VA for investigating sexual harassment complaints was seriously flawed, and consequently, Mr. Chairman, this committee 

unanimously approved legislation which was later passed by the 

House to address the problems at the VA, and that was H.R. 1032, 

which would have provided for improved and expedited procedures 

for resolving complaints of employment discrimination, including 

sexual harassment complaints. 

When we considered H.R. 1032, Secretary Brown opposed the 

passage because he preferred to take administrative action instead. 

The Senate did not act on the bill, and it was never enacted into 

law. 

To his credit, as mentioned by both you and Mr. Evans, and I 

certainly endorse your remarks in that regard, Secretary Brown 

did establish a policy of zero tolerance within the department early 

in his tenure as Secretary, and I guess the question facing us today 

is whether or not that policy is sufficient. 

Almost 5 years after our first hearing, we're faced with a similar 

situation at the VA. Mr. Evans certainly set this out very, very 

clearly. Of course, this has been brought to our attention, I suppose, principally because of the Director of the Fayetteville Medical 

Center who was found to have sexually harassed one female employee, et cetera, et cetera. 
5 

The Director, as we know, was transferred to the Bay Pines VA 

Medical Center in St. Petersburg, which serves many of! the 'l'~terans of my congressional district. He was allowed to retain a salary 

of more than $100,000 in a position created specifically for him. 

I have, and I am sure all of us have heard from many of our ,constituents who are outraged by the department's actions on ithis 

matter. They do not believe that the VA took any punitive action 

against a senior VA employee. 

I, too, have reviewed the testimony of today's witnesses. Sadly 

their stories do mirror those that we first heard in 1992, and despite the Secretary's zero tolerance policy, it appears that the VA 

has failed to adequately implement sufficient administrative procedures that deal with such complaints. 

I know from their testimony that our witnesses believe that their 

harasser was not properly or adequately punished. In fact, they feel 

he was rewarded, and that is certainly the feeling that I had when 

I found out about it. He was clearly rewarded for his actions, not 

that that was the intent, but it would seem that way. Being sent 

to St. Petersburg, FL, certainly does not seem to me to be a very 

punitive type of thing. 

He got to be there with a raise in salary. This certainly appears 

to be the case. I am concerned that the VA's policy of zero tolerance 

has, at best, not been implemented uniformly and, at worst, has 

been ignored, and, Mr. Chairman, that is the reason you are holding this hearing. 

The rest of my statement I would ask unanimous consent to be 

made a part of the report, and thank you so very much, sir, for 

being so diligent. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Bilirakis appears on p. 

111.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Snyder. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BON. VIC SNYDER 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say briefly I am real interested as a new member. 

Coming in the middle of the movie, the issues that are going to 

concern me are: do we have the right policy? Do we have the right 

people enforcing the policy? And then the third issue: are there 

other legal obstructions to the enforcement of that policy that we 

may need to look at and make changes to help the VA fulfill its 

goal of having zero tolerance? 

And I appreciate the participation of everyone today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Buyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BON. STEVE BUYER 

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have to you an inquiry before I 

make a statement. I was under the understanding with you in a 

conversation at least 3 weeks ago that you were going to be sending out an invitation to Secretary Brown for him to appear here 

today, and I would like for you to explain to me whether or not 

that invitation ever went to the Secretary, and if so, did he respond, and what was that response? 
6 

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Buyer, the Secretary was invited. We invited 

the Secretary himself to this hearing today. 

M.r. BuYER. Do you knew what the date of that letter is that 

went out? , " 

Mr. EVERETT. 1 have the staff now looking it up. 

A ri12.' 

M}. BUYER. On April 2. All right, and what kind of response did 

you get from the Secretary? 

Mr. EVERETT. The Secretary said he would be unable to attend, 

but he did designate the ,Assistant Secretary or Deputy. 

Mr. BUYER. Did the Secretary say why he was unable to attend 

here today? 

Mr. EVERETT. No, I have no knowledge why. 

Mr. BUYER. Do you know what the date of his response was to 

us? 

Mr. EVERETT. Can we have a copy of that letter? 

Mr. BUYER. This is it, his response? April 14? 

Mr. EVERETT. Right. 

Mr. BUYER. I had a conversation with someone from the Sec~ 

retary's staff in the hall yesterday after our meeting in which I 

asked. I had heard that the Secretary may not appear, and she 

said the Secretary was in California at a ceremony for the opening 

of a homeless shelter, but they never informed you of that? 

Mr. EVERETT. No, I was not informed. 

Mr. BUYER. I also was informed that the Secretary is back in 

town today and arrived perhaps about 2 hours before this hearing. 

I only want to bring that to your attention because it concerns 

me. Several of you are colleagues of mine on the National Security 

Committee, and you are well aware that I have been tasked by the 

chairman, Floyd Spence, to conduct the inquiry into sexual harass~ 

ment, misconduct, fraternization in the U.S. military. 

We also know about the zero tolerance policy we have in the U.S. 

military, and it appears that as we do this all~Service review with 

Tillie Fowler and Jane Harmon that a policy is great on paper, and 

that while the military is under many different attacks with regard 

to culture, I have a clear understanding that it is the leadership 

that sets the tone of the environment. 

And I just wanted to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am disappointed the Secretary is not here, and that I will be a good listener throughout this, but I will ask of you whether or not there 

will be a follow-up hearing and if so, request the Secretary be here. 

I have read the documents that you submitted to us last night, 

and I was left with a very strong sense that it appears that the 

VA has a "Club Med" level of punishment for sexual harassment 

that is unacceptable, and I want to have follow-on conversations 

with you in private. 

Mr. EVERETT. I would be glad to. I would tell the gentleman that 

this is not the last hearing that we will have. I will also tell the 

gentleman that we will probably have continuous hearings on this 

matter until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of this 

committee. 

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, in the National Security Committee, 

the Secretaries of the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, all come and 

respond to us. The Secretary of Defense responds to us on this 
7 

issue, and for the Secretary of the VA not to come here and respond and to be publicly accountable is unacceptable. Mr. EVERETT. thank the gentleman. 

The chair will now recognize Mr. Clyburn, our Ranking Member 

of the subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BON. JAMES E. CLYBURN 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to be here and join with you today, and I thank you 

for calling this important hearing, and I apologize for trying to get 

too much crowded into the morning. 

There have been numerous and disturbing reports of the VA fostering a work environment in which women are discouraged from 

filing charges of sexual harassment and which insulated the most 

senior level officials from disciplinary action, even in light of substantiated allegations of harassment. 

My close association with the Department of Veterans Affairs 

goes back many years, long before my joining this committee. My 

wife retired in 1993 from the Dorn Veterans' Hospital in Columbia 

after almost 30 years of service. I know this department very well. 

I am particularly concerned with the serious allegations involving some of the Department's most senior career managers. I am 

even more concerned about the Department's handling of these 

cases, and what has been reported as insufficient disciplinary actions with regard to the perpetrators of these abuses. 

Subsequent to this committee's hearings on this issue, in the 

103rd Congress Secretary Brown announced and implemented a 

zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. As mentioned by 

Chairman Everett, prior to coming to the Congress I spent 18 years 

as the South Carolina Commissioner of Human Affairs, heading an 

agency whose mission and authority include insuring fairness and 

equality in the work place. 

I am interested in finding out how the Department of Veterans 

Affairs insures the same fairness in its work place and protects its 

employees from sexual harassment, how it investigates charges, 

and disciplines those who violate its policies. 

I look forward to this testimony this morning, and I am hopeful 

when it is all said and done we will, in fact, have a zero tolerance 

policy. 

Mr. EVERETT. I thank the gentleman, and I state again that the 

gentleman's expertise in this field is welcomed not only by this 

committee, but by this Congress. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. EVERETT. I would like to welcome all of the witnesses testifying today. I realize some of our witnesses have taken time from 

their daily lives and have had to travel some distance to testify. I 

want to thank all of you in advance for being here today. 

For those witnesses who are essentially private citizens and happen to be VA employees, it takes real courage to make public statements about difficult experiences and highly personal matters, and 

I understand that and appreciate it. 

Because of the nature of some of today's testimony, I am taking 

an unusual step for this subcommittee hearing and have decided 

to have the witness panels who have direct knowledge of events 
8 

testify under oath. All of these witnesses have involvement with 

Fayetteville or decisions made about this case. 

Prior to seating the first panel of witnesses and in order to facilitate questioning, I ask unanimous consent to place the following 

documents in the hearing record. 

Number one, the VA OIG report Number 7PR-G02-007, dated 

November 8, 1996, alleged improper conduct by senior official, VA 

Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC, redacted. 

Number two, VA Network 6 special inquiry report, subject, 

management effectiveness at VA Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC, 

dated September 26, 1996. The VA refers to this as the Whatley 

report. David Whatley, the author, is the V AMC Director in Augusta, GA. 

Number three, VA letter of proposed removal from Dr. Leroy 

Gross to Jerome Calhoun, dated October 23, 1993. 

Number four, VA letter of rescission of proposed adverse action 

from Dr. Leroy Gross to Jerome Calhoun, dated September 6, 1996. 

Number five, VA agreement of informal resolution, Jerome Calhoun, executed by Jerome Calhoun and Dr. Leroy Gross on January 14, 1997, and by Dr. Jule Moravec on January 16, 1997. 

I ask that each witness limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, 

and I so order that those documents be put in the record. 

(See. p. 116.) 

Mr. EVERE'IT. I ask each witness to limit your oral testimony to 

5 minutes. Your complete written statements will be made part of 

the official hearing record. 

I ask that we hold our questions until the entire panel has 

testified. 

Will the first panel please rise and raise your right hands and re~Elat after me? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Please be seated. 

The committee will now recognize our first witness, Ms. Cynthia 

Force. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA A. FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEE 

Ms. FORCE. Good morning. Thank you for convening this hearing 

and inviting me. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Ms. Force, would you please pull that mic just a 

little bit closer to you, ma'am. Ms. FORCE. Okay. I~ that better? 

Mr. EVERE'IT. That IS better. 

Ms. FORCE. Prior to being forced to relocate to my current position, I had been assigned to work at the VA Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC. I worked as a budget analyst after being forced to 

ask for reassignment from my position as Chief, Medical Care Cost 

Recovery. 

For the relevant period of time which I was employed at the VA 

Medical Center, Fayetteville, Jerome Calhoun served as Director. I, 

however, worked under the direct supervision of the Chief, Fiscal 

Service. It was Jerome Calhoun's unlawful behavior that forced me 

to leave the Fayetteville Medical Center where I had worked for 23 

years. 
9 

Beginning in the fall of 1994, Jerome Calhoun asked me to have 

a personal relationship with him on two different occasions and 

once made an inappropriate comment about my body. These statements made me feel uncomfortable. I had a fear of reprisal for refusal to accept his offer. I felt demeaned and demoralized. 

The working relationship started to fall apart shortly after the 

first two comments were made. On one occasion he became so furious that I was afraid he was actually going to strike me. He started to scream and curse at me, and he left the office, came back and 

started to scream again. 

He later apologized to me and stated that he really missed the 

days when if a woman got out of line, you could just slap her 

around. 

On May 8, I was informed by my supervisor that I was being 

removed from my position at Calhoun's request. My position description had been rewritten from a GS-9 to an 11-12, but I was 

not to be promoted to the new grade. No reason was given to me 

for my removal, except that Calhoun was not happy with my 

performance. 

I asked to meet with Calhoun for an explanation of my removal, 

and on May 9, a meeting was held including me, Calhoun, the 

Chief Fiscal Officer, the EEO manager, health systems specialist, 

Acting Chief of Human Resources, and the Associate Director. 

I remarked that the only comment he had ever made to me regarding my performance was that you have a lot to learn, but you 

are doing a good job, and that did not equate to poor performance 

to me. 

He responded that if he did not make himself clear, that that 

was something that he had to work on as a Director. He informed 

me that I could remain as MCCR Coordinator and be put on a performance improvement plan and he'd get rid of me in 90 days, or 

I could accept the position that was being offered by my supervisor 

as budget analyst. 

From his remark it was clear to me that no matter what I did, 

in 90 days he would get rid of me. Even though I knew I was not 

qualified for the position of budget analyst, on May 24, 1995, as directed, I signed a memorandum requesting reassignment to the 

budget analyst position. Effective June 11, I was reassigned. 

In June 1995, Calhoun had barred me from going into the main 

VA building at the Fayetteville facility. My supervisor was instructed to inform me of this decision. My duties were changed in 

order to accommodate this mandate. To the best of my knowledge 

and belief, this was never done to anyone else. 

In July 1995, Calhoun and his wife encountered me at a roadside 

clean-up. My shoelace was untied, and Calhoun and got on bended 

knee to tie the shoe. He stated while doing this, ''When you're 

going to murder someone, you tie their shoes backwards so that it 

looks like they tied them themselves." 

I saw this as yet another threat not to my personal safety, but 

to my employment. Everywhere that I went for help I heard things 

like, "Don't try to fight him. He's the Director, an African American 

Director. He was appointed by Jesse Brown. You may win the battle, but you will lose the war." I honestly felt like I had nowhere 

to turn. 
10 

I tried to find other positions within MCCR at VA facilities because of the hostile work environment and the fact that I felt sure 

he had plans to get rid of me altogether. All the positions for which 

I applied were canceled. 

I did secure a lateral position at another North Carolina VA and 

transferred there in October of 1995. This position was not in my 

career field and has no promotion potential. After 3 months of commuting several hours, I moved with my children and household 

goods at great expense, emotional, physical, and financial. 

Since this time I have also been diagnosed as suffering from 

post-traumatic stress disorder, and I am currently on medication. 

I was relieved that Calhoun had been removed from SES when 

I read the IG report. I just would like to feel more confident that 

he will not have the opportunity to return to any type of supervisory position. 

I was a bit surprised when his punishment was announced. I 

never thought that he would be rewarded by being sent to the 

place he wanted to be with a raise in salary. 

Additionally, all his moving expenses, as I understand, were 

paid, and if his house does not sell, the VA will purchase it. U nfortunately, I was not that fortunate. 

It concerns me that at no time have the victims been contacted 

by anyone in headquarters. The only information I have received 

has been in the IG report and what I read in the newspapers. I 

read in the newspapers that headquarters had empathy for me, but 

I was not sure how that was possible since they had never had any 

contact with me. 

Additionally, I read that the settlement with Calhoun was made 

in the best interest of all concerned. I guess I was of no concern. 

There seems to have been much concern about how Calhoun 

could finish out his career, but no concern for what happens to 

mine. I never began this fight for what I could get out of it. However, when the accuser is so obviously rewarded, where is the justice for the victims? 

A representative of this committee explained the reason for the 

settlement, which I much appreciated. Had this been explained to 

me earlier, I might not have felt so patronized, insulted and, frankly, victimized once again. 

What has been of greatest concern to me has been the implication that I filed sexual harassment charges because of inappropriate comments of a sexual nature. These have been the statements 

that have been made by the headquarters offices. I would have 

never gone through the hell of the past 2 years for comments made 

to me. Calhoun is not the first man who ever made inappropriate 

comments of a sexual nature. He is, however, the first man who 

tried to destroy my life when I rebuffed those comments. 

The findings of the IG were quid pro quo sexual harassment and 

sexual harassment for a hostile work environment. Those are the 

reasons that I filed the charges, and those are the allegations that 

were proven by the Inspector General. I resent the implications 

made to the contrary. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Force appears on p. 158.1 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. You may proceed. 
11 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN CARUANA, DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEE 

Ms. CARUANA. My name is Susan Caruana. I am pleased and 

honored to have been invited to present my testimony before such 

a distinguished audience. 

I have worked for the Federal Government for 31 years. All but 

1112 years have been in the VA system. 

I feel betrayed by the very system by which I am employed. I 

worked for Jerome Calhoun at the Buffalo VA Medical Center from 

June 9, 1985, until March 1994. He was appointed as Director of 

the Fayetteville, North Carolina, VA Medical Center in April 1994 

by Secretary Jesse Brown. 

Shortly after his transfer to Fayetteville, he informed me that 

the Secretary to the Director position would soon be vacant and 

asked if I would be interested in applying. After much thought and 

contemplation, I decided to apply as it was a GS-8, Target 9 in one 

year, and I was a GS-7 with no promotion potentiaL 

I was selected, excited about this promotion and career oppor- tunity, and looked forward to the impending challenge. 

Calhoun repeatedly promised me that I would eventually retire 

as a GS-ll or 12. Since I had worked with him for several years, 

considered him a friend and respected his position, I felt comfortable, though nervous of the move to a new area of the country 

alone. 

I was performing the job to the best of my ability. However, the 

hostile work environment, repeated threats, verbal abuse, intimidation, and stressful conditions he created resulted in an atmosphere 

not conducive to my best performance. For example, he told me if 

I did not request a reassignment, he would make my life miserable 

and I would be a GS-3 by the time he was finished with me. 

On another occasion I was threatened to be placed on a performance improvement plan and have 90 days to prove myself, but 

there is no documentation in my personnel records to substantiate 

less than satisfactory performance. 

In fact, at his initiation, I received a $1,200 special award in 

1995 for my superior performance. 

Mter my coerced reassignment, I felt mortified, rather like a little girl made to stand in the comer. To add insult to injury, after 

this reassignment, he had the audacity to tell me he had a dream 

that he slept with me. I told him that I would never do that. He 

said it could be worth my while. 

I transferred to Fayetteville as the Administrative Assistant to 

the Director, was illegally coerced by Calhoun into eventually requesting a reassignment in September 1995 after several months 

of hell, and then replaced by an individual who was hired without 

following established merit promotion procedures. I was under the 

impression that there were rules and regulations prohibiting such 

incidents from occurring. Under the EEO system in July 1996, I filed a formal sexual harassment complaint against Calhoun. Filing any EEO complaint is 

futile. The system never finds in the complainant's favor. 

Prior to the actual EEO investigation, I was presented with a 

formal written statement in which I would receive my promotion 

to a GS-9 if I dropped my EEO charges. I emphatically refused to 
12 

sign this agreement, noting I would not consent to this compromise 

under any circumstances and was insulted at the proposal. 

As a victim, I lost my self-respect, felt worthless, powerless, frustrated, embarrassed, humiliated, and after experiencing total emotional distress, it was necessary to seek medical treatment over 1 

year ago, which is still ongoing. I was diagnosed with severe depression and placed on medication, which I am still taking. To date 

the cost of this care is my responsibility. 

I have been punished for acts beyond my control. I feel I have 

lost everything, and he has not suffered at all. The emotional ordeal and upheaval to the victims deserve appropriate corrective action, not a selective forgetfulness by the VA. 

The IG investigation concluded that Calhoun's behavior was abusive, threatening, inappropriate, and that he had sexually harassed 

one woman employee and mistreated two others. I was sexually 

harassed. The fact the IG did not find in my favor does not mean 

it did not happen. 

So what is his punishment? He is rewarded for his misconduct, 

transferred at taxpayers' expense to Florida, where has repeatedly 

stated he wanted to live and retire, with no state tax, maintaining 

his hefty $106,OOO-plus salary, to a non-management, non-supervisory position, tailor-made for him, with decreased responsibilities. 

I find nothing fair about this. It is apparent to me that the Department of Veterans Affairs condones misbehavior and illegal actions for persons in high authority and solves personnel problems 

by merely transferring perpetrators to another facility at government expense. 

I find VA's response to this matter totally unacceptable and firmly believe they should be held accountable for their actions. To my 

knowledge, no VA officials have contacted us, inquired about any 

of the victims' welfare except for one, or provided any assistance in 

coping with the damage we experienced. 

A system should be established to assist victims of sexual harassment and/or mistreatment by VA managers. This entire scenario 

certainly does not exemplify zero tolerance for sexual harassment, 

Secretary Brown's mandated policy. 

A settlement agreement ·was reached with VA officials and Calhoun. The fact that the VA reportedly has no authority to change 

this settlement is a travesty, and I vehemently question the legality of such a negotiated settlement. 

In my estimation, removal from Director status is not punishment when he saves salary, which is what his retirement is based 

on, the high 3 years. Has the VA considered those other employees 

that Calhoun had removed or demoted from their position, or those 

who found it necessary to retire early because of the intolerable 

working conditions under his directorship? Where is the justice for 

those persons? What about those employees that were promoted or 

received special favors as reward for complicity? 

SES officials should not be protected against appropriate disciplinary actions. As such, it is in their realm of responsibility to lead 

by example and not use their position or power to emotionally bully 

and sexually harass subordinates. 
13 

The VA must apply the same standards and treatment to Directors and top management as it does to lower grade employees. The 

VA could truly learn from the Department of Defense. 

These past 2% years have been a continuous nightmare with no 

apparent resolution for me, and I look forward to the day it is all 

behind me, though I seriously wonder if it will ever happen. 

Thank you for your concern and for this opportunity to speak 

with you. If I am able to help just one person from going through 

an ordeal such as what I experienced, that will give me a great 

deal of pleasure. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Caruana appears on p. 164.1 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. Ms. Judy Dawkins. 

STATEMENT OF JUDy DAWKINS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS EMPLOYEE 

Ms. DAWKINS. Hi. From the time I began working for Mr. Jerome 

Calhoun--

Mr. EVERETT. Ms. Dawkins, will you please pull the mic up 

close? 

Ms. DAWKINS. I thought I spoke rather loudly, but I am sorry. 

From the time I began working for Mr. Jerome Calhoun in September 1995 through May 1996, I was subjected to verbal abuse, 

profanity, outbursts of temper, and his fury and his wrath. I never 

said anything to him about his profanity because I was afraid of 

him. There were almost daily incidents of his cursing, yelling, and 

screaming at me or other medical center employees. 

Even when I was not the one to whom he was angry with, it was 

depressing and discouraging to hear these conversations. His actions and his words were so brutal and heartless with employees 

that a destructive and harmful atmosphere existed. 

At first I tried to ignore the conversations. However, I was unable to do this when his abusive behavior began in the morning 

and continued throughout the day. Each time he used profanity toward me and threatened to fire me, it became increasingly demoralizing for me to work under those conditions. 

My work performance was greatly affected by Mr. Calhoun's 

moves and actions. He set the tone for the office and for the entire 

medical center every day, whim was unusually unsatisfactory, with 

harmful and injurious results to my health and well-being, to the 

health and well-being of other employees, and I believe that the atmosphere that existed in the Fayetteville VA Medical Center was 

harmful to our patients. In all the years I have worked for the Federal Government at 

Fort Bragg and Fayetteville VA Medical Center, I have never been 

spoken to or treated in the manner in which Mr. Calhoun treated 

me. He created a very hostile work environment. He demoralized 

me to the point that he broke my spirit. 

I went to work around 7:30 a.m. and continued until 5:30 p.mb 

and sometimes much later without even a break for lunch. I became exhausted, weary, and began experiencing physical problems, and then realized that I was becoming depressed. I had no energy 

at all, began to decline social invitations and other activities in 

which I had always participated. I experienced anxiety, sleeplessness and loss of appetite. 
14 

For the first time in my life I was scared. I was scared all of the 

time. It affected every area of my life. I never knew when Mr. Cal- houn was going to erupt and if I was going to be the target of his 

explosion. It was and has been the most frightening experience of 

my life because I have led and lived a very good life. 

On May 3, 1996, I told my husband because he kept asking me 

what was wrong with me. I finally realized that I could not handle 

the situation at work anymore, and that I did need help. 

I did receive assistance from VISN 6 in Durham staff members 

when my husband contacted Dr. Gross personally regarding my 

condition and the circumstances leading to my physical and emotional problems. However, I have never received any support or 

backing from VHA headquarters. 

I believe that Mr. Calhoun received a special deal, as our Fayetteville paper said, when he was reassigned to the Bay Pines VA 

Medical Center in January 1997. Only his requests were taken into 

consideration. 

No one from headquarters has ever contacted me to inquire or 

determine to see if I needed anything, any support or any 

assistance. 

I was a victim. I never did anything to deserve the treatment 

that I received. My emotional stress and physical problems and 

those of other employees have never been addressed by the top 

management within the VA. It appears that they did not care 

about what happened to me or any of the other employees. They 

were only concerned with assisting Mr. Calhoun. During the period that I worked for Mr. Calhoun, I became tense 

and nervous because I was so afraid of his temper and threats. I 

had personally seen four letters of proposed removal, two for service chiefs and two for assistant service chiefs, come across my desk. 

I had witnessed numerous abusive conversations and mismanagement actions by Mr. Calhoun. Therefore, I was afraid he would fire 

me, embarrass me, and humiliate me, especially since all I was was 

a secretary. 

His abusive treatment was very demeaning to me as a human 

being, very disrespectful to me as a lady, and very painful for me 

to endure. Mr. Calhoun also made inappropriate remarks about part of my 

anatomy. I chose not to include them here. However, details can be 

provided. 

I have attached to my statement an outline of events giving specific dates and times of the treatment I received from Mr. Calhoun. 

In addition to what I have given you that will be part of the permanent record, I have personal knowledge of numerous mismanagement practices by Mr. Jerome Calhoun. I chose not to include these 

handwritten notes to outline the specific dates of his misuse of his 

position as Director and his total disregard for VA regulations and 

guidelines. I will furnish this information to the Office of the Inspector General if I need to. In closing I do want to say something positive about the VA. I 

have worked for this agency for over 21 years. The new VISN concept is going to be excellent for our veteran patients and our employees, too. Medical centers will now begin to work as teams and 

not individually. The benefits should be outstanding. 
15 

There should be more accountability of Directors since they will 

be working together as a team, and their authority will not be autonomous as in the past. 

I want to say publicly that I appreciate the assistance which I 

received from Dr. Gross, Dr. Alexander, Ms. Ann Patterson, and 

Ms. Loretta Sauls. Their support was and continues to be outstanding for me, and this is not said to make them feel better. It is what 

I truly believe. 

One of the best things to happen to the Fayetteville Medical Center-and Fayetteville is my home; I have lived there 40 years-is 

being under the leadership of the VISN 6 staff in Durham, NC. I 

believe that by each medical center working together, and especially at Fayetteville, we can care for our patients, which truly is 

what we are all about. 

However, as employees, we must demonstrate our willingness to 

go beyond that which is necessary and support our patients. Without veterans, I do not even have a job, and a lot of the people in 

this room do not have a job either. We need them, and they need 

us, and I know that they are what the VA stands for. 

I want that medical center on Ramsey Street to be there whenI am dead and gone and buried across the street. I want my grandchildren and my great grandchildren to say, "Mima worked there." 

I want it to continue as a medical center to serve the veterans of 

Eastern North Carolina. 

We do care. We are good people there. We are not stupid hicks, 

as we were referred to. We might not have had all of the top rated 

things that Durham has because of Duke University Medical Center, but we care about those people because that is what we are 

all about and the VA is all about. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dawkins, with attachment, appears on p. 170.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Ms. Dawkins. 

Ms. Barefoot. 

STATEMENT OF LOVIA B. BAREFOOT, DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEE (RET.) 

Ms. BAREFOOT. To all committee members, I appreciate this opportunity. Can you hear me? 

Mr. EVERETT. If you could move the mic a little closer or we will 

set up two mics. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I do not know if! need two, but I appreciate this 

opportunity to address the atrocities to which I was subjected while 

secretary to Jerome Calhoun from April of 1994--

Mr. EVERETT. Ms. Barefoot, excuse me. I believe you are going 

to have to move that mic just a little bit closer if you can. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. Which one or does it matter? 

Mr. EVERETT. The staff, give her some assistance there. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. This one? This one. Is that better? 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I appreciate the opportunity to address the atrocities to which I was subjected while secretary to Jerome Calhoun 

from April 1994 through June 1994. 
16 

Very soon after his arrival to the Fayetteville VA Medical Center 

it was quite apparent that he intended to make changes not only 

in the management of the medical center, but changes in personnel 

as well. Within the first week of his arrival, he advised me that I 

had 90 days to prove myself. I thought that a rather strange remark. I had 23 years of federal service in and had held similar positions at Pope Air Force Base, NC, for 6 years prior to going back 

to the VA. ,~ 

During the transition briefing, I was assigned to take minutes. 

On the morning of the briefing, James Crocker, then Chief, Fiscal 

Service, offered to go and bring Mr. Billy Hightower, Tr~sition Coordinator, from the motel to the hospital. Rather than ~ccepting 

Mr. Crocker's officer, Mr. Calhoun accused Mr. Crocker of challenging his authority as the new Director. After Mr. Hightower had presented the briefing, Jerome Calhoun 

stood before the group composed of service chiefs and some key 

staff personnel. He walked to the front of the semi-circle in which 

we were seated. He immediately held his arms away from his 

sides, slowly walked a 360 degree turn, fully exposing his wrists 

and hands. 

When he had completed his turn, he rubbed the tops of his hands 

and referenced the color of his skin. 

Mr. Calhoun's management style, if you could call it that, was 

one of threats, intimidation, and constant filthy language. I am not 

comfortable using these words, but the "F" word was frequently 

used in my presence, as well as other curse words. 

In those 3 months, and which in some ways seemed like an eternity, he constantly inferred that my work was substandard, was 

not what he wanted, and I had better clean up my act or I would 

be out of a job. This was done in the form of yellow sticky notes, 

verbally, and written in the margin of finished products, such as, 

"How much longer do I have to endure this?" 

I found these rejections of my work and threats for dismissal totally foreign to anything I had ever endured before in my federal 

career. I have always taken pride in my work, tried to do my best 

for my supervisors, and was recognized for this by receiving only 

highly satisfactory and outstanding appraisals and incentive and 

suggestion awards. Isn't it interesting to note that my performance 

appraisal in March 31, 1994, just prior to Jerome Calhoun's arrival, was highly satisfactory. 

I soon began to live in such fear of being reprimanded and 

threatened, both actions never having been necessary by prior supervisors, that my fears did affect my performance. I felt I had no 

one to turn to. Who would believe my word against that of a medical center Director? I was a small fish in a very large pond. 

I am the type of administrative employee who likes to organize 

her next day's work prior to leaving the office. On this particular 

afternoon, it was around five, and he called me into his office and 

gave me explicit instructions to call the regional office in WinstonSalem about some matter. 

I went to the office, made a note on the calendar, said my "good 

nights" and went home. The next morning as soon as I walked in, 

he yelled at me to come in his office that very instant. He exhibited 
17 

so much anger that I was terrified and yet had absolutely no idea 

what I had done wrong. 

He began to yell at me for my insubordination and not taking my 

job seriously enough. I lived with threats the entire 3 months I 

worked for him, but he used his authority inappropriately. He had 

no need to scream at me as I have no hearing deficit, but I asked 

him what he was talking about. He responded he expected me to 

take care of the regional office matter at that moment and not wait 

until the next day. When I explained the late hour of his assignment, after office hours, his only response was something like, "Oh, 

was it that late?" Never once did he apologize. 

After he told me I appeared to not take my job seriously, I began 

to cry. He then asked me to step over beside his desk, and he 

opened one of the drawers on the left side. Inside that drawer was 

a large box of beige colored tissues. He told me they reminded him 

of me, soft and beige, and that whenever he upset me to the point 

of tears just to feel free to get a tissue from his desk, as they had 

been bought especially with me in mind. 

In May of 1994, the medical center Director was visited by Mr. 

Hershel Gober, Deputy Secretary to Jesse Brown. Early in the day, 

prior to the reception for Mr. Gober and unknown to Jerome Calhoun, Tomi MacDonough, a vet center leader, had a moment to 

chat with Mr. Gober about some concerns he had for the vet center. 

Later in the reception Mr. Gober asked Mr. Calhoun about these 

issues and apparently took Mr. Calhoun totally by surprise. 

After Mr. Gober had departed the station, while seated at my 

desk, Mr. Calhoun came bursting through the main office doorway 

past my desk, jerking his tie off, cursing and screaming, "That G.D. 

M.F. S.O.B. MacDonough" was going to hear from him. 

Tom Arnold, then Associate Director, was right on his heels trying to calm him down. Mr. Calhoun slammed his office door. I just 

stared in disbelief. 

In a short while, he came out of his office, stepped up to my desk, 

and announced that he was going jogging to de-stress. No, he did 

not record his absence or other like absences. Further, I never observed him using his office computer during my 3-month tenure 

there. 

Soon after his arrival, Jerome Calhoun called me into his office 

to take dictation in response to a sexual harassment matter which 

had followed him from one of the New York medical centers. All 

of the criteria listed on the document, I think, were listed in an A, 

B, C type of format, and each was emphatically denied by Mr. 

Calhoun. 

When I had taken the dictation, I was told to typewrite the response, make no record of the female's name, and keep no copy of 

that document. I was then told to give the document back to him 

for mailing. 

As time went by, I could see a change in me from a woman who 

used to come to work thankful that she had reached the grade of 

GS-8, a grade at which she would one day retire; a woman who 

had excelled in facets of her personal life as wife and mother; a 

woman who had successfully worked with medical professionals, 

Air Force colonels, congressional liaisons, and foreign military officers for more than 20 years; to a woman who had become a timid, 
18 

nervous wreck as a result of the harassing, hostile and intimidating work environment created by Mr. Calhoun; a woman who 

began to dread reporting to work because that office had become 

a living hell; a woman who suffered loss of appetite, insomnia, 

sought medical treatment for stress related chest pain and shortness of breath, and would mentally replay the day's events. 

After admitting to myself that all those years of devoted work for 

the Federal Government was not something I could just throw 

away, I requested an option to transfer to another job, which meant 

an obvious downgrade as I was the highest ranking secretary in 

the medical center. 

The decision was not made on a whim. It was a matter of survival: mine. I had often discussed the work environment with my 

husband and daughters, and each supported me in my decision to 

transfer. 

When I approached Mr. Calhoun requesting a transfer, he acted 

surprised. He agreed to my request for a transfer only if I signed 

an agreement to accept the position at a lower grade and pay level, 

and that I was not coerced in doing so. This resulted in a pay reduction of greater than $3,000 per year. 

I ask you members of this committee: do not the above statements qualify as coercion, intimidation, harassment, hostile working environment, and abuse of power? 

Incidentally, 1 was still within my 90-day period as this had 

hung over my head like a dark cloud. I should never have had to 

endure the pressure of sitting on the fence with my career at stake. 

Members of this committee, I implore you to thoroughly investigate such atrocities that these other witnesses and I endured at 

the Fayetteville V AMC. Investigate from the top level of the Department of Affairs down. 

Investigate why the Jerome Calhouns in this administration are 

punished by merely transferring them from one facility to another. 

Mr. Calhoun was not punished. He was removed from SES status, 

but he is still drawing a $106,000-plus annual salary and living in 

-the State of Florida, where he had always intended to retire. 

Did the Department of Veterans Affairs officials really punish 

him or merely slap the faces of his subordinates? I would like to 

see this problem rectified and you, members of this committee, are 

the ones to do it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barefoot appears on p. 178.1 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Ms. Barefoot. 

Ms. Moore-Russell. 

STATEMENT OF DORIS A. MOORE-RUSSELL, M.S.W., 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEE 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. I am a service connected veteran, and I receive all of my care at the VA Medical Center. I am also a psychiatric social worker that specializes in PTSD, combat and sexual 

assault PTSD, and other mental health issues. 

I am alleging that I was subjected to undue stress in a hostile 

environment because I did not welcome any sexual advances from 

the previous Director, Mr. Jerome Calhoun. I was forced to leave 

my position for 1 year, taking leave without pay, from August 1, 
19 

1995, to July 31, 1996. I experienced malicious retaliation as a direct result of Mr. Calhoun's actions. He used insulting, abusive and 

intimidating language toward me in the presence of others. I was 

consistently harassed and subjected to racial and gender remarks. 

I met Mr. Calhoun for the first time on May 9 at 10:15. I met 

with him to discuss the Women Veterans Program, which was my 

collateral duty. Mr. Calhoun, at that time, seemed very supportive. 

I thought I had developed a rapport with him. My next personnel 

contact with him was on June 8th of 1994. I was admitted to the 

VA Hospital because I was having a lot of medical difficulties. 

Mr. Calhoun called me at home. He was at an EEOC conference 

in Orlando, FL. He wanted to see how I was doing. I felt that was 

odd because I had never had my supervisors call me at home, let 

alone the Director. 

I had served on several committees that Mr. Calhoun chaired or 

visited and witnessed him making demeaning remarks to many 

employees. I began to feel uncomfortable with his abusive behavior. 

I was requested on July 28 to come to his office. He wanted to 

see how things were going. During that meeting I told him I wanted to . apply for the SWALT Program (Social Work Administration 

Leadership Training Program). He said, "Consider it done." 

I am not going to read all of my testimony because you do have 

a copy. I'm going to skip around and try to finish this up within 

the allotted time. 

There were several times when I met with Mr. Calhoun and we 

discussed a lot of things that concerned me, the Women Veterans 

Program, the overwhelming amount of responsibility that I was 

completing due to my other duties. 

When an announcement came in for the Regional Veterans 

Women Coordinator position, I met with Mr. Calhoun that afternoon about 4 p.m. to tell him that I wanted to apply for that position. During our conversation, I informed him that I was given the 

Women Veterans Coordinator position as a reprisal from the previous administration. He told me he was aware of the situation, 

and he specifically added to me, "Doris, you were 'F'ed' by the previous administration. At least if I would have 'F'ed' you, you would 

have got something out of it." 

I was very shocked to hear Mr. Calhoun say that. I was very 

shocked and agitated. I didn't know who I could tum to in order 

to discuss what Mr. Calhoun said. I felt no one would believe me. During this period of Mr. Calhoun's tenure, there was a lot of 

people that were afraid of him. He had a lot of people that were 

his supporters. I began to question myself. The things that he had 

accommodated me with, for example, he had given me in one of our 

meetings a cabinet from his executive suite. He also gave me as the 

Women Veterans Coordinator and two of our other Women Veter- ans Advisory Team members a trip to San Diego, CA, to attend a 

Women Veterans Committee conference that was not sponsored by 

the VA. 

Previously he had written me several appreciation memos and 

letters of recommendation. I have a copy of all the memos and letters of recommendation. I felt I had his support and backing. I 

began to feel hurt and confused. 
20 

During the second week of December 1994, the medical center 

gavG a Christmas party at the Pope Air Force Base Officers Club. 

I arrived late. I was greeted by Mr. Calhoun. He gave me a hug. 

His hand slid down to my chest, and he squeezed my breast with 

ooth of his hands. I pulled back in shock. 

He had a smirk on his face and said, "Merry Christmas, Doris." 

I wanted to slap his face, but instead I mumbled something. I 

rushed to the bathroom. I felt sick, and the rest of my night was 

ruined. I kept wondering who could I tell. Who would believe me? 

The next morning I did tell the Assistant Chief of Social Work, 

Mr. Canteen. He asked me what I was going to do, I told him I 

did not know. Later that day Mr. Calhoun requested me to meet 

with him. I was hesitant. I was frightened because I was afraid 

that Mr. Canteen told Mr. Calhoun what I had said. 

But instead he did not talk about the incident at the Christmas 

party. He spoke about my health issues, job stress, and my filing 

for workmen's compensation. You see, I filed for workmen's compensation because I was having too many medical difficulties. I 

could not afford to pay for my treatment on the outside. 

He became very angry, and stated, ''You shouldn't have said 

what I said about Mr. Arnold. That was between you and I." He 

was very belittling. He asked me to leave his office. 

My worst fear happened. I received a memo from Mr. Calhoun 

on January 19 detailing me from my position as the Coordinator 

of the Aftercare/Outpatient Program, effective the 5th. I was confused and upset. I could not understand why he wanted to take my 

job. I tried to meet with him. He was demeaning, and what he was 

saying did not make sense. 

He kept saying, "If you would have been nice, Doris, this 

wouldn't have happened to you," or something to that effect, "and 

now," he said, "I don't give a damn about you." 

I was very baffled and angry. I filed a grievance against Mr. Calhoun on the 2nd of February 1995. I wanted to know specifically 

why he was detailing me. 

Mr. Calhoun met with me a week later with my supervisor, Ms. 

King, and the Chief of Personnel. I asked the union president to 

attend with me, Mr. Paul Reid. That was a very heated meeting. 

During that meeting Mr. Calhoun gave me my job back. 

However, I was continually harassed. I had to sign in every 

morning on the computer. I was being harassed also by my supervisor because she was a lieutenant of Mr. Calhoun. 

I wanted to know why I was being treated that way. I asked Mr. 

Calhoun if I could meet with him again. He told me that if it was 

of a personal nature, he would have to have a witness, and if it was 

about work, I needed to see my supervisor. 

Finally he did allow me to come in and talk with him. He jumped 

on me about being late. He called me personally at 8 a.m. to set 

up an appointment. I was not in my office. I called him back at 

8:01. 

I told him I wanted to make peace. He did not let me fmish my 

statement. He asked me, ''Well, what else?" I discussed having to 

pull weekend calls without compensation, also signing in on the Email every morning, and also my supervisor briefed and assigned 

duties to my supervisees without discussing the issues with me. 
21 

He acknowledged that all of the above concerns were valid. He 

said he would speak to my supervisor. He asked me did I understand why he had a witness in his office, the EEO manager, Eugene Paul. I answered no. He stated, "Because the last time we 

talked, you misrepresented what I said to you about Mr. Arnold to 

worker's compensation as if I supported you." 

I told him I did not mind Mr. Paul being there. 

When 1 met with my supervisor that afternoon at 1 o'clock, 1 told 

her, "I no longer had to sign in because 1 just spoke with Mr. Calhoun." I was assuming that my supervisor had met with Mr. Calhoun. They typically meet at least three and four times daily. 

She became upset and ran out of the office. She left me with Mr. Canteen, another supervisor. When she returned a second later; 

she brought the EEO manager, Mr. Eugene Paul. Mr. Canteen 

asked if he should leave. She nodded. 

Mr. Paul proceeded to demean me. He stated, he could understand why 1 had to sign in. I informed him that the regulatipn read 

that you call in if you did not plan to come to work. He stated, "That's your interpretation." 1 asked him what was his. 

Mr. Paul became very upset and ran out of Ms. King's office. He 

returned a few seconds later with Mr. Calhoun. 1 thought this was 

strange because all of this happened within a matter of seconds. I 

felt as if the three of them were conniving to further cause me 

harm. 

Mr. Calhoun came in. He stood in front of the door. Eugene Paul 

also stood in front of the door. My supervisor was sitting behind 

her desk. I was sitting opposite of her. Mr. Calhoun kept screaming and pointing his finger m my face. He used insensitive and demeaning terms. 1 lost track of what he was saying. I was trying 

to keep my emotions intact. I tried to say something, and he told me, "Shut the fuck up." I 

became speechless. I just felt so hurt, trapped and I just could not 

understand why they were harassing me. 

Mr. EVERETT. Ms. Moore-Russell, if you need a moment, please 

take one. 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. 1 could not understand why this was happening. I looked at my supervisor for support. She did not say anything. 1 felt trapped and threaten. Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Paul were 

blocking the doorway. So I could not leave. 1 felt intimidated and 

helpless. Finally Mr. Calhoun realized that he had lost control with 

me. He and Mr. Paul left. 

I asked my supervisor Ms. King could 1 leave her office. She 

nodded. A staff social worker, Dick Droney, asked me, "What's 

wrong?" He added, ''You seem upset," "Who was Mr. Calhoun 

screaming at?" He further stated, "I heard him say, 'Shut the fuck 

up.'" I told Mr. Droney Mr. Calhoun was yelling at me. 

Later that afternoon I had three patients scheduled in my clinic. 

1 was too upset, tearful and shaky to see my patients. Did Mr. Calhoun's, Mr. Paul's or Ms. King's behaviors exhibit concern for patient care at the VA? 

1 had to ask my staff to see my patients. 1 left and went to see 

my psychiatrist, Dr. Cusi. 

Mr. Calhoun had made explicit and implicit sexual comments to 

me on several occasions. He created a hostile working environment 
22 

for me because I would not meet his conditions. By touching my 

breast, I feel that he has sexually assaulted me, and my rejection 

of his sexual advances was used to ridicule and belittle me. He has 

ruined my life. I had to leave my job for 1 year without pay. I was 

denied worker's compensation. I was also denied a medical retirement. I applied for medical retirement through OPM. I was denied 

the above options due to deceptive information provided by the Director and my supervisor, Ms. King. 

I received no support from anyone at that particular time because I was the first one that was subject to his harassment. On 

behalf of my other African American co-workers and supervisors at 

the VA Medical Center, we want to let the committee know that 

we were informed that we could not file an EEO complaint against 

Mr. Calhoun because he is of the same race. We were told that 

there was nothing that we could do, and they all want you to know 

that they complained initially about his abusive behavior and nothing was done. No one would listen. 

I also wrote Mr. Calhoun's supervisor, Dr. Moravec, as he asked 

me. I sent the letter to Mississippi. Their written response to me 

was neither supportive or encouraging. 

I also called the Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, 

during the time I was on leave without pay to inquire about assistance. However, I got the run-around. Every telephone number that 

I called referred me to another office. All the numbers called were 

recorded on my telephone bill. Exact dates can be produced. The 

VA furlough went into effect allowing me no other attempts. 

So now I implore you to continue to look into this situation because it is definitely unfair, and no one should be treated the way myself treated and the other ladies of this panel were treated. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moore-Russel appears on p. 183.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Ms. Moore-Russell, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

I thank all of you ladies. We unfortunately have a vote on. Excuse me one moment. 

Hopefully it will not be long, although it is a procedural type of 

vote that could take a little time. We hope that will not happen. 

I would ask the panel to remain because we will have questions 

when we get back, and at this time I will recess until we--

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Yes. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Just before we adjourn, I neglected when I made 

my statement to ask unanimous consent for a statement from Eva 

Clayton, who represents this area here in this body. She has a 

statement she would like entered into the record, and I ask unanimous consent that this be entered into the record. As I speak, Eva 

Clayton is entering this room. 

Mr. EVERETT. Without objection, our colleague Ms. Clayton's 

statement will be included in the record, and we welcome her to 

these hearings. 

[The statement of Hon. Eva M. Clayton appears on p. 188.] 

Mr. EVERETT. We will recess though for the vote, and we will be 

back here in just a few minutes. 

[Recess.] 
23 

Mr. EVERETT. We will reconvene the hearing, and I apologize for 

the delay. I can tell you that the floor schedule at best today is unpredictable, but we will try to move as quickly as we can. 

I am going to enter into a round of questioning now, and we are 

going to ask all members to adhere to the 5-minute rule. If there 

is need for a second round, we would be more than happy to do 

that. 

I will begin the questioning, and I would like for each of you on 

the panel to respond to this. Would each member of the panel respond to this question? 

Do you have trust and confidence in the EEO process at Fayetteville? Why or why not? 

And if you could, we have your written testimony. Please keep 

your responses as brief as possible. We will start with Ms. Force. 

Ms. FORCE. Thank you. 

No, I cannot say that I have confidence in the EEO process at 

Fayetteville. I made my initial complaint to the EEO not manager, 

but the EEO counselor in July, the end of July. In December we still had not received any kind of response. At 

that time I did not feel as though I could go to the Fayetteville VA. 

So I had given instructions that my attorney would be handling my 

case. 

In December she sent another letter that I have a copy of here 

to the Secretary of the VA and the Associate Director of EEO, saying that we seem to be having problems with lost paper work, because as I understand, mine was not the only paper work that was 

lost, and to my knowledge, there has been no answer to that letter 

either. 

So my confidence, I was not there during all of the meetings that 

they have had with the EEO investigators. I was already gone, but 

I had no confidence in the EEO manager because the day that I 

requested the meeting with Jerome Calhoun to ask why I was 

being removed from my position since I had never been given any 

kind of counseling or nothing had been said to me about poor performance, they were in the process of processing our award for 

achieving our maximum goal for the first time. We were one of 15 

facilities recognized for consistently increasing collections by double 

digits. Mr. EVERETT. Ms. Force, excuse me, but rather than go into detail, if you would just make your answer brief. I am sorry. I apologize for not having the time, but we simply do not have it. Ms. FORCE. The EEO manager was in that meeting, and never 

at any time made any comments in my defense. He was very obviously there for Jerome Calhoun and not there for me. 

Mr. EVERETT. Just briefly, did your program receive a national 

ranking from the MCCR Program in terms of his collection? 

Ms. FORCE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. And it was one of the top ten in the Nation? 

Ms. FORCE. Well, no, it was not one of the top ten in the Nation. 

We had consistently increased our collections by double digits. 

Mr. EVERETT. I remember your testimony. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Caruana. 

Ms. CARUANA. I have no confidence with the EEO process at Fayetteville. I believe the manager to be biased. Mr. Calhoun was in 
24 

his office for hours at a time during proceedings. I believe that he 

knew what the witnesses said before he even got into the actual 

investigation, so that he was able to respond to any questions he 

may be asked. 

During my investigation, the EEO investigator told me oft' the 

record that she had never heard stories like those of my witnesses. 

She said she was appalled, and I really thought I was going to win 

my case. 

He made a statement. He called together all black supervisors 

and managers and said, "We all have to stick together," and more 

or less said, "If you think I'm kidding, you saw what I did to my 

secretary that I spent 10 >:ears with. She got to be too white and 

I had to remove her, and If you don't think I'll do it to you, you're 

wrong." 

I have three black witnesses that testified that to this fact, and 

the results of my EEO: she did not find in my favor. She found that 

he treated everybody the same way. Therefore, I did not have a 

case. 

Mr. EVERETT. In other words, he was abusive of everybody. So 

you do not have a case. 

Ms. CARUANA. That is right. So you can abuse anybody, and because you treat everybody this way, it is fine. So why have a 

system? 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. Ms. Moore-Russell. 

Ms. MOORE-RuSSELL. Mr. Chairman and committee, I do not 

have any faith in the EEO process. The EEO manager from Fayetteville VA Medical Center, Eugene Paul, was in the room when 

Mr. Calhoun proceeded to demean me and belittle me 

Also it has been noted by many of my African American colleagues, that as soon as a person filed an EEO complaint, my supervisor who, Ms. King, is informed of it. 

I filed an EEO complaint on September 6, 1996, after I returned 

to work. Since then that complaint has been said to be lost. They 

have no recollection of it. 

Now in order to file a complaint, you have to have a counselor. 

In other words, where is the EEO counselor's copy of my complaint. 

Mr. EVERETT. You were not advised you needed one? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. No, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. Ms. Barefoot. 

Thank you, Ms. Moore-Russell. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I am afraid I have to reflect the same statements 

in that I have no confidence in the EEO in Fayetteville. Mr. Calhoun, as I observed, to be on a power trip. So what was the point? 

Here I am one secretary against a medical center Director. There 

would be no need to do it. It would not go anywhere. Those were 

my feelings. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Ms. Dawkins. 

Ms. DAWKINS. I have never filed a grievance or a complaint. 

Mr. EVERETT. I am sorry. Would you pull that mic up? I apologize, but if you would pull it closer. 

Ms. DAWKINS. Thank you. 

I have never filed a grievance or complaint in all the years of federal employment, and at the Fayetteville VA I definitely would not 

have. I honestly believe, well, I honestly know for a fact that after 
25 

working hours, because I had to work so late, that the investigators 

came to the office. They did not bother to close the door. They did 

not care that I heard them. They would laugh and discuss the 

cases with Mr. Calhoun. They would laugh about the complainants 

behind their back. 

I really wanted to go and tell the people, ''You poor saps. You're 

filing all these things. Nothing's going to happen, but I could not. 

I never spoke about Mr. Jerome Calhoun until after I was placed 

on medical leave by my doctor. I was loyal to him and to his position until my doctor took me out and convinced me to speak up. It took a husband and a doctor to do it. I wanted to leave. I honestly believe in the VA system that the 

EEO managers should not be at the local stations and the Director 

be their supervisor. I find that a big conflict of interest because 

how are you going to go against someone that is writing your appraisal at the end of the year, determines whether you get another 

promotion? I did not even go against him, and I am normally a 

very aggressive, normal woman. 

But his intimidation and his grip was so fierce that I found myself scared to death and did nothing, and I am ashamed of what 

I became. I am literally ashamed of the woman that I became after 

working with him for 8 months. My children are not proud of me. I would not stand up. Dr. Gross 

was the only one. I would not do anything because I said, ''What's 

the use? They're going to laugh. They're going to say, 'These stupid 

women here.'" 

He laughed at everybody there. I can assure you that if I knew 

where Mr. Calhoun was right now, somewhere in Florida I assume, 

that he is looking at this on CNN and laughing. ''You can sax all you want, you hillbillies and you hicks." That 

is what he called us. "I've still got mine." He does not care, and 

I think until the VA realizes that EEO managers cannot come 

under the supervision of a Medical Center Director or an Associate 

Director or a Chief of Staff, who have the right to write their appraisals; until they move it out of the local hospital, then I do not 

think the EEO system is worth anything. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. 

I will now turn to our ranking member, Mr. Clyburn for any 

questions he may have. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that most of my questions, of course, will probably be 

reserved for managers here. I am a bit disturbed though that all 

of you seem not to have any confidence in the EEO process. 

It seems to me, unless something has changed, that there was 

a very simple procedure to move outside of the in-house EEO process to a process outside of the agency. None of you made the attempt to go outside of the internal process to the external process? 

Yes, ma'am. Ms. DAWKINS. When I was placed on medical leave, the only vehicle I could determine that I could document what had happened 

to me was to file OWCP. It was the only place that I could think 

of in the government that I could--

Mr. CLYBURN. Can you tell me what the OWCP is? 

Ms. DAWKINS. OWCP, Occupational Workman's Compensation. 
26 

I filed it there and put all of the attachments, my chronological 

attachment of what he had done only to me, not other things I had 

seen him doing because to me a grievance in the EEO was worthless. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I understand that, but we only have 5 minutes here. Nobody else attempted to go outside the process? 

Ms. MOORE-RusSELL. Okay. Mr. Clyburn, I was informed that as 

being an African American and Mr. Calhoun an African American, 

I could not file an EEO complaint, but, yes, I did make an attempt 

to go outside for help. I wrote his supervisor a letter, Dr. Moravec. 

He was not helpful. 

Mr. CLYBURN. For sexual harassment? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. For sexual harassment or anything else. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Who informed you of that? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. We were informed by some of the counselors, and I do not know all of the names, but I was informed by 

some of the counselors and the EEO manager, Mr. Paul. 

I did go outside of the system. I wrote a letter to Mr. Calhoun's 

supervisor, Dr. Moravec at the regional office. 

Mr. CLYBURN. That is still within the system. Outside of the system, outside of the agency to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and there is a process now by which federal 

employees can go to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but none of you made an attempt to do that? 

Ms. CARUANA. I do not think any of us knew about it. 

Mr . CLYBURN. Well, I think that is why I want to talk to some 

management people because I do not understand why you would 

not know what the procedures are to file these kinds of complaints. Ms. FORCE. I was instructed that you had to go through that 

process at the hospital, and if you did not get any results, then you 

could go to this outside process. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Absolutely correct, and you all said you did not get 

any results. If you do not have faith in this process, you still have 

got to go through it. 

You know, I can understand your feeling that someone who is 

being supervised by the perpetrator will not be forthcoming. I can 

understand that, but when you go through that process and you 

are not satisfied with it, there is a step that takes you outside of 

the system, but you are telling me that none of you made any attempt to go outside of the system, outside of your agency, I should 

say. I am sorry. 

Ms. FORCE. I was instructed that you had to have 180 days, and 

it has not been 180 days since my attorney's letter went to 

Washington. 

Mr. CLYBURN. The 180 days is from the infraction. You have to 

have 180 days from the time it happened to you, unless, as all of 

you testified, it is an ongoing process. If it is a continuing process, 

180 days do not matter because your 180 days could be from the 

first time. It could be 180 hours from the last time it happened, 

and from what you all are telling me, this is a continuous thing. 

Ms. CARUANA. I filed my EEO case, and I am waiting for a court 

date, which my attorney told me it will probably be around Christmas time. It seems like it takes forever and a day. 
27 

Mr. CLYBURN. I know of a case right now in the VA that is 11 

years old. Th~t is not unusual. 

Ms. CARUANA. So I am just waiting for the next step. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Right. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I would just like to say this. I have been retired 

now a little over 2 years, took an early out, but I think it is interesting that we spent all of those hours in sexual harassment training, but we have not had the proper EEO procedure training. I 

think that is something that should be looked into. 

Mr. CLYBURN. You said you have not had that? 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I do not recall attending it. I do not recall it 

being available to me, but we did spend a number of hours in sexual harassment training. 

Ms. CARUANA. We have to attend 4-hour mandatory sexual harassment classes. It seems like we should not have to go to those. 

Every year we have to attend. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, why shouldn't you have to go to them? I 

mean that is why they are there, so that you would know how to 

step outside of the process. 

Ms. CARUANA. Well, we have been sexually harassed, and the 

perpetrator got away with it. So why do we have to continue to go 

to these classes? 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, Ms. Caruana, I do not think anyone has gotten away with anything yet. We are all still around. He is still 

around. Just because someone was transferred from one station to 

another does not mean they have gotten away with anything yet. 

I mean, how long has the Texaco case been going on? They may 

have thought they had gotten away, but they have suddenly found 

out they did not get away, and we can still remedy this. So just 

because it did not happen at the time you wanted it to happen does 

not mean he got away. 

Maybe we will have another round of questions, but let me say 

this. My interest in these is really to find the facts. For instance, 

we are here to discuss sexual harassment, and at least two of you 

have got some real good, emotional cases for bad management, but 

there is a big difference between bad management and sexual harassment, and what we want to do is really differentiate between 

those two things. 

Now, I can understand when people tell you that you have a 

problem, but it may not be a sexual harassment problem or may 

not be a discrimination problem. I came face to face with that very 

early in my career when a lady came to me, and I asked her. I said, 

''Well, tell me. Are there any white employees in your section?" 

She said, "Yes, he treats us all like dogs." 

I said, "Well, where is the discrimination?" 

And there is a difference, and so just because it is bad and it is 

bad management really does not mean it is illegal discrimination 

because it has got to be based on race or gender or age or religion, 

and that is where we have the difference here. 

So what we want to do in this committee is really zero in on exactly what the illegal behavior is, based upon what our Constitution and what our laws are. So I am really interested in trying to 

find out why you all did not see fit to go outside of the agency, and 
28 

I really want to know the answer t<5 that because that to me is 

what the real problem is here. 

Ms. MOORE-RusSELL. Well, Mr. Clyburn, when I returned to 

work in September, I was told at that time that, yes, you can file 

an EEO complaint, and that is when I filed, on September 6, but 

I also obtained an attorney and once you obtain an attorney, you 

no longer take the active process of seeing your EEO complaint 

through. You turn that over to your attorney. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So you do have an attorney? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Who has filed paper work for you? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So your process is ongoing? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. According to her, when I met with her on 

Saturday before coming here. The EEO manager, Mr. Paul, at the 

VA hospital told her that they cannot find my complaint. This is 

what my attorney said they told her. That is what she told us on 

Saturday when we met with her, and this is the EEO that I filed. 

It is my copy. This is the copy that was given to them. 

Mr. CLYBURN. And so the VA people told your attorney that they 

have lost the complaint? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. That your attorney filed on your behalf? 

Ms. MOORE-RusSELL. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Did somebody else say something was lost, too? 

Ms. FORCE. Yes. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So you filed a complaint by an attorney? 

Ms. FORCE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. And it was lost? 

Ms. FORCE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I hope that person is on the witness list who lost all of these things. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Is the individual on the witness list or by name 

can you tell us who told your attorney? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. Well, sir, the only thing I know is that Eugene Paul is our EEO manager. So any correspondence would come 

from his office with the endorsement of the Director. My attorney 

received a correspondence, and she probably could tell you exactly 

who she spoke with, but they do not discuss these issues with me 

anymore. 

Ms. FORCE. Mine would have also gone through Mr. Paul. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Yours went through Mr. Paul also? 

Ms. FORCE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. And Mr. Paul is not on the witness list. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. No, he is not. We can arrange that though. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I think so. We need to. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn. 

Mr. Buyer. 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was being a very good listener to the Ranking Member, and I 

think in his experience he also uses the word "illegal." I do not 

know if you are referring specifically to allegations in order to 

prove sexual harassment as a violation under the Civil Rights Act, 
29 

but what I defmitely have heard from testimony was some evidence 

of abusive behavior that should never be tolerated by any of the 

employees in the VA or anywhere. 

The one thing that I am curious about is from some of the newspaper articles and some of your testimony, we have a Director here 

who was boastful about his relationship with Jesse Brown. I would 

like the witnesses to share with the committee about the relationship between the Director and the Secretary of the VA based on 

your knowledge. 

Go right down the row. Ms. Force. 

Ms. FORCE. I did not have any direct knowledge of Mr. Calhoun's 

relationship with the Secretary of the VA. I have been told that he 

was a secretarial appointment, but I never had any direct knowledge of any kind of relationship. 

Mr. BUYER. Ma'am? 

Ms. CARUANA. I do not know of any relationship with Secretary 

Brown. I had heard stories that prior to his appointment at Fayetteville, Mr. Calhoun had gone to see Jesse Brown, and that is 

how he got that appointment, but it could just be a rumor. I do not 

know of any relationship that he had with him. 

Mr. BUYER. All right. Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. I can say the same thing they are saying. 

I have no direct knowledge, just rumors. 

Mr. BUYER. Ms. Barefoot. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I have been away from the VA now for a good 

while and from that front office since 1994. However, I think I recall seeing an autographed photo of Jesse Brown in Mr. Calhoun's 

office; is that correct? 

Okay. I recall making the comment about Mr. Brown's photo in 

Mr. Calhoun's office, and to that Mr. Calhoun said, "Jesse Brown 

and I are just like this," and held his two fingers together. 

Mr. BUYER. Ms. Dawkins. 

Ms. DAWKINS. I, too, recall the photos, and he did not do this to 

me, but he said, ''We're tight," and he also alluded to the fact that 

he was tight with Senator Helms, which shocked me because I 

thought, gosh, I voted for him every time. I might not ought to say 

that here, and I just could not believe that the Senator would support someone of Mr. Calhoun's character, and then I remembered 

that he had two sides to his character. He had the charm side, and 

he had the other side, and I just assumed that the Senator did not 

see it. But he had two photos, one with Senator Helms and then another photo with the Secretary, and they were on view, and he did 

allude to them at different times. He would say, "They are my 

friends." 

And, you know, it is intimidating when you are a GS-8 secretary. 

You just sit there and think, well, nobody would believe anything 

I ever said. 

I would like to clarify one thing that one of you two said. Okay? 

I will not take but a minute. 

Mr. BUYER. All right. 

Ms. DAWKINS. I am not that long-winded. 

Mr. BUYER. I only have 5 minutes to ask my questions. 

Ms. DAWKINS. Okay. 

40-88197·2 
30 

Mr. BUYER. If at the end of my questions you time it just rightMs. DAWKINS. I can butt in. 

Mr. BUYER. I think members of Congress would cringe if there 

was any implication with regard to relationships for photos that we 

have had taken with individuals in the past. (Laughter.) 

I do not want that to be a new standard. 

One thing I would like you to do, Ms. Dawkins, for the record, 

you were very hesitant to speak publicly about remarks that were 

made about your body. If you would please provide that to the committee in writing, I would appreciate that. 

One other question I have. Someone brought up something about 

the New York Medical Center and a sexual harassment complaint, 

and they had to do some typing on that. Which one was it? 

Will you tell the committee, this New York Medical Center, this 

was also part of the VA system? 

Ms. BAREFOOT. Yes. 

Mr. BUYER. And was there a pending sexual harassment complaint against--

Ms. BAREFOOT. That is what is so difficult for me to remember 

exactly. I do not recall the person's name, but I do recall, as I stated, that it appeared to be like three items perhaps that this person 

from one of the two hospitals, and I do not recall which hospital, 

had against Mr. Calhoun's behavior, and all that he dictated to me 

were the responses to those, I think, three allegations. 

But as I said, my instructions were to typewrite those, make no 

record of it, make no photocopy of it, give it back to him for mailing. So I am sorry I am not more helpful, but it is 3 years. 

Mr. BUYER. That is all right. 

Ms. Dawkins, you can time this. Go ahead. 

Ms. DAWKINS. Okay. The orange button is alreadyon. 

I did not ever in any statement to the Office of the Inspector 

General when I was interviewed in my home while I was on medical leave, I never said Mr. Jerome Calhoun sexually harassed me. 

He made an inappropriate remark about my body. 

I do not mind stating it if somebody wants to hear it, but I did 

not want to put it in writing now, and I do not mind putting it in 

writing. Now I never, never inferred; I have never filed; I have not 

contacted a lawyer because I do not believe that I was sexually 

harassed. However, I was abused as a human being. It was a hostile environment for our employees and patients. 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. 

Mr. Buyer, for the record, the incident you referred to about prior 

sexual harassment, we have asked the VA for any documentation 

they can find on that, and, again, they seem to have no record of 

it, but they are looking for it. Mr. Snyder. 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Force, if I understood your statement, you had said that one 

of the staff members had explained the settlement between Mr. 

Calhoun and the VA to you and that once you had that explanation 

you felt better about it. 

Ms. FORCE. Yes. 
31 

Mr. SNYDER. Could you briefly state, please, how your attitude 

about the settlement changed after getting the explanation? What 

was it about the explanation that was new information for you? 

Ms. FORCE. Well, I do not think that it was my attitude toward 

the settlement. Maybe I misrepresented what I was thinking. Just 

the fact that someone had taken the time to explain why they did 

the things that they did. 

You know, the only thing I had read was the IG report and the 

statements that were in the Florida and Fayetteville newspapers, 

which from those accountings was presented as though he was rewarded with where he wanted to be in Florida. 

Mr. SNYDER. And what is your understanding now that why 

what was done was done? 

Ms. FORCE. It was explained to me that all of the attorneys that 

reviewed the sexual harassment case felt that it was a strong case, 

but when it went before Personnel, they were afraid; some of them 

were afraid that it was not strong enough because the Merit Promotion Standards Board had overturned another case from another 

agency that was even stronger than this case. They wanted Jerome 

Calhoun removed as Director, and they did not want to take a 

chance that he would just be given a suspension and go back as 

Director. 

Mr. SNYDER. So the fear was--

Ms. FORCE. Made this deal. 

Mr. SNYDER. I have got you. So if they had run with your complaint and lost, he would have still been Director of the VA. Okay. 

Ms. FORCE. And everybody would have lost. 

Mr. SNYDER. And, Ms. Caruana-am I saying your name right? 

Ms. CARUANA. Caruana. 

Mr. SNYDER. Caruana. Did I understand you in your testimony 

to say you had worked for Mr. Calhoun for several years, like 8 or 

9 years? 9 years? 

Ms. CARUANA. Nine years. 

Mr. SNYDER. Was there a difference in his management style for 

those first 9 years versus the period of time that we are talking 

about now? 

And I guess what I am getting to: should the VA have been on 

notice during that period of time that perhaps this is not a fellow 

that ought to be promoted up through the system? 

Ms. CARUANA. I will explain this as best I can. When I worked 

for him in Buffalo, he was the Associate Director. He had a supervisor physically over him. 

When he went to Fayetteville, he was the Director. He did not 

have anybody physically over him right there in the same building. 

His supervisor initially was in Jackson, MS. 

So, therefore, he had all of this power. This was his kingdom 

now. 

Mr. SNYDER. So were you surprised to see--

Ms. CARUANA. Yes. 

Mr. SNYDER (continuing). Mr. Calhoun acting the way he did in 

his new kingdom? 

Ms. CARUANA. I mean, you know, he got a little crazy in Buffalo 

at times. 
32 

Mr. SNYDER. But nothing that you apparently were fearful of because you made the move to come to work for him. 

Ms. CARUANA. I did not see that side of him. 

Mr. SNYDER. I understand. 

Ms. CARUANA. And with the directorship, like I said, came this 

power and I think that that is what happened. It just went to his 

head. 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think those are all of the 

questions that I have at this time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Snyder. 

The chair recognizes our Ranking Member, Mr. Evans. 

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my absence, but I really appreciate this panel's testimony. You have been on for quite 

some time, so I will try to keep it short. 

Can each you describe to the members of the subcommittee what 

you knew about the complaint process, the EEO process, during the 

time that you were exposed to Mr. Calhoun's conduct? 

And have you or any other employees that you know ever participated in sexual harassment sensitivity training within the VA? 

Ms. FORCE. I do not know about sexual harassment sensitivity 

training. We have had 4 hours of mandatory sexual harassment 

training, and we were in the process of doing that when Jerome 

Calhoun was appointed to the Fayetteville VA. 

I was so afraid of what would happen to me when I was actually 

at the Fayetteville VA that I never seriously considered going 

through the EEO process. I knew Eugene Paul was Mr. Calhoun's 

right-hand man. You could not do much with EEO unless you went 

through that office, even if you went to the counselors, as far as 

I knew. Everywhere I went people said, "Don't even attempt it. You 

know, it's ridiculous. Don't even think about doing it." 

So until I got away and realized that I was still a victim and the 

victimization was not going to end until I took some steps and I 

obtained an attorney also, and the attorney made the initiative to 

contact the EEO because I was still too fearful to do anything at 

that point in time. 

Mr. EVANS. All right. 

Ms. CARUANA. I was petrified to file an EEO complaint. I knew 

that once I did it, it was going to be over for me. 

I went to see an attorney. We all have the same attorney, and 

I told her about what I was experiencing, and she told me that I 

should file an EEO complaint, but I waited a few months to do so 

because I just knew that he was going to go off and become a lunatic, and I was petrified. 

I came down here to work with this man, and I did not know 

what he was going to do. So I went ahead and filed the complaint, 

and I am waiting to go on to the next step. They did not find in 

my favor, and we all have to attend 4 hours of mandatory sexual 

harassment training each year. 

Mr. EVANS. All right. Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE-RuSSELL. First of all, I am part of management. I ti.n 

a supervisory social worker, and, yes, I have had some training or 

the EEO process, but, no, I did not file an EEO complaint earlier 

because I was told that I could not because of our ethnicity. 
33 

But once I returned to the VA, yes, I did file an EEO complaint. 

One of the things I have to tell you is that I was very embarrassed and ashamed by the fact that I had to undergo such an ordeal with Mr. Calhoun because I am a clinician, and like I said, 

I counsel people who have to go through sexual assault and sexual 

trauma, but for me to have to go through the same thing myself 

and being a manager that supervised others and deal with patients 

on a regular basis, it was very embarrassing, and so, no, I did not 

pursue it through the proper channels. 

Mr. EVANS. Can I ask you a direct question about what you do? 

You are a veteran, too; is that correct? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. Yes, I am. Mr. EVANS. So just what do you think is the likelihood if we have 

people such as Mr. Calhoun within the VA that women veterans 

returning from the Persian Gulf or from other duty assignments, 

coming back and making claims of sexual harassment while they 

were in the military; what kind of faith or credibility would they 

have within the VA if we have these kinds of problems among the 

people that are supposed to be treating veterans? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. They will not have a lot of faith in the VA. 

At our Fayetteville VA in reference to sexual harassment, one of 

the things that happened since I have returned to work is that I 

am not allowed to assist with women veterans who are experiencing sexual trauma because I was told that my training as a sexual 

trauma therapist is outdated. 

It does not make sense. I have a Master's degree in social work, 

but because of the hostile environment, I am not allowed to utilize 

my skills as a sexual trauma counselor. A lot of the women veterans that I had seen previously asked that I continue to counsel 

with them, but I am not allowed to do so. 

Mr. EVANS. If your training is outdated, what year did you get 

your Master's in social work? 

Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. 1986. 

Mr. EVANS. 1986. I am running out of time. I am sorry, but I 

would like to maybe explore that with you. It just seems to me that 

it would be very difficult for us to get women veterans to come into 

the VA if, in fact, the VA is having widespread problems with sexual harassment itself. So I maybe could talk to you before you leave. I would like to. 

I would just like to ask the last two if they could make their comments brief about the previous question. 

Mr. EVERETT. Absolutely. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. I do not recall the EEO training of the proper 

procedure to do things, but I will have to say that I was absolutely 

scared to death of this man and fully aware that he was the Director. He made that perfectly clear. Because of my retirement, my early retirement, I did speak with 

the same lawyer that these ladies have talked about, and she said 

because I was retired I had to go through this in a different manner, and she referred to it as an Office of Special Counsel, and to 

day nothing has been done for me. Mr. EVANS. Okay. Ms. Dawkins. 

Ms. DAWKINS. I have attended the mandatory sexual harassment 

training. In the last year I have worked in the Director's office, and 
34 

there was not time to attend other training that is mandated, but 

I have never attended any EEO. 

I am going to say something that you might not like to hear. I 

thought it was all for the counselors and supervisors, and I am a 

26 year-plus federal employee, and I did not know that EEO training was offered to someone who was not a supervisor. 

Mr. EVANS. Okay. Thank you. 

I assume that none of you were contacted or consulted by the VA 

when they were deciding what action to take against Mr. Calhoun. 

[Chorus of nays.] 

Mr. EVANS. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Lane. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to truly commend you for giving the oath 

to these witnesses because, you know, some of these things that we 

have heard from them, they knew that they were under oath, and 

they are certainly all very responsible people with a great deal of 

experience and education, and I think it is even more impacting, 

their testimony, as a result of that. 

And insofar as EEO is concerned, the process, Mr. Clyburn spent 

a lot of time on that. He obviously knows more about that process 

than any of us do, I think, and obviously more than any of the witnesses, and I just wonder. We are talking about what is it, the fox 

counseling the henhouse or whatever the proper term there is? 

We make the laws, and maybe with Mr. Clyburn's help we can 

take a look at that area. Putting ourselves in the shoes of these 

witnesses, as well as others who are not here, they would be scared 

to death. I think even I would be scared to death to bring a complaint when I know dam well that my boss or bosses are part of 

the counseling system and that all of those counselors work conceivably for the person who they are complaining against. 

So there is really something wrong there, and I think, Mr. 

Clyburn, you certainly would recognize that, and I think we ought 

to work on it. 

Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. By all means. 

Mr. EVERETT. There is not only that situation of them counseling, as you put it, the fox counseling the henhouse. There is sworn 

testimony that they laughed and joked about this. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Yes, that certainly is true, and again, under oath. 

That is sworn testimony. 

Ms. Caruana, regarding the dream that the gentleman had and 

the question that it could be worth your while if you actually did 

sleep with him, did you tell the IG about that? 

Ms. CARUANA. Yes, I did. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. You did, and the IG found against you, did he? 

Ms. CARUANA. The IG found that I may have been a biased witness because he had told them that I was just making my complaint as retaliatory because I was reassigned. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. As retaliatory. 

Ms. CARUANA. And I was upset that the IG did not fmd in my 

favor because there were no witnesses. I said to them afterwards 
35 

that I do not think too many people are sexually harassed in front 

of anybody. 

What he said to everybody was there were no witnesses. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Yes. 

Ms. CARUANA. But I do not think too many people are going to 

say that somebody said or did this, knowing that they have got to 

go through all of this. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Who is Susan Odom, Ms. Caruana, and what happened to her? 

Ms. CARUANA. Susan Odom was the Associate Director's secretary in the Director's office when I was there. She has since 

resigned. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. And that is it? 

Ms. CARUANA. I believe she is living in Florida. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Where in Florida? Do you know? 

Ms. CARUANA. I do not know. I originally heard she was in Jacksonville, and then I have heard she is in the West Palm Beach 

area. Mr. BILlRAKIS. Okay. Do you have any personal knowledge of 

anything that might have happened to her or involved her that 

might be pertinent to this hearing? 

Ms. CARUANA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Share that with us. 

Ms. CARUANA. After I was in the office for about a month, it became clear to me that there was something going on between Mr. 

Calhoun and Susan Odom. I was not allowed to take a lunch. I had 

to be at my desk all the time. I was not allowed to take leave when 

he was not there, yet Susan was allowed to leave the office every 

day, go and pick up his cleaning, go to his post office box and get 

his mail, and pick up lunch for him. There were several incidents that happened, and I went into Mr. 

Calhoun's office, and I said, "Something has got to be done. What's 

going on with you and Susan has to stop. You've worked 25 years 

to get where you are, and you're going to lose it all, and I don't 

think she's worth it." 

And said to me, ''You've come to the brilliant deduction that I'm 

'F-ing' her. So what?" 

As a friend, I was concerned. I just said, ''You've brought this 

into the office, and it is disrupting the office, and the entire medical center." 

And after that he seemed to make my life more miserable. I 

guess that was none of my business, and I should have not said 

anything. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. So you were basically concerned about him? 

Ms. CARUANA. Yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. When you made these comments? 

Ms. CARUANA. Yes, I was. After that, she eventually got a promotion, and then she resigned, I believe, 2 days before the announcement was made that he was being reassigned to Florida. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Let me ask very quickly here. I know 

that Ms. Barefoot is no longer a VA employee. She took retirement 

a couple of years ago. Have any of you experienced any type of retaliatory action since you agreement to testify before this subcommittee? 
36 

Ms. Force? Very quickly, if you would all maybe respond. 

Ms. FORCE. No, sir. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. No. Ms. Caruana. 

Ms. CARUANA. No, I am just looked at like I am from another 

planet, but I cannot consider that retaliatory. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Moore-Russell. 

Ms. MOORE-RuSSELL. Well, I was told I could not take advanced 

payment for this trip and everyone else was informed that they 

could. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. And in your opinion that is retaliatory? 

Ms. MOORE-RusSELL. Yes, because the employee travel clerk is 

one of Mr. Calhoun's lieutenants. I met my supervisor in the hall 

the morning that I was leaving, and she said, ''Well, I would ask 

Ms. Moore a question, but perhaps she don't have time to give me 

a testimony." 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Dawkins. 

Ms. DAWKINS. No, I have not. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Barefoot, I know you have been gone a couple 

of years. Do you have anything you wanted to say in that regard? 

Ms. BAREFOOT. In regard to what, Susan Odom or--

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Retaliatory action. 

Ms. BAREFOOT. Oh, no, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you. 

Ladies, we know from 4 years ago, to continue this line Mr. Bilirakis brought up, that witnesses such as yourself have had concerns about reprisals. If you believe that you are experiencing reprisals because of your testimony, this subcommittee wants to 

know. 

I would consider included, but not limited to that, any isolation 

you experience, any comments made toward you, and as I said, I 

do not limit it to that. That would also, for instance, include any 

non-communication from VA to any correspondence that you have 

given to your supervisors. 

I can assure you that this subcommittee takes this dead serious, 

and I want to put VA on notice now that I will use the subpoena 

powers of this subcommittee to subpoena anyone that VA has not 

taken appropriate action against if these complaints are filed. 

I want to again thank you very much. I thank you for your courage. I thank you that you have taken the time to be up here, and 

hopefully this committee meeting, unlike the one 4 years ago, will 

lead to a different set of circumstances for the handling of these 

type cases, where hospital directors and senior supervisors are not 

simply either retired or given a plush assignment somewhere else. 

Thank you very much. 

The chair will now recognize Ms. Ronnie Blumenthal, Director, 

Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and ask her to introduce her counsel. 
37 

STATEMENT OF RONNIE BLUMENTHAL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

FEDERAL OPERATIONS, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACCOMPANIED BY NICHOLAS M. 

INZEO, DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL 

STATEMENT OF RONNIE BLUMENTHAL 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With me today are my colleagues, Nicholas Inzeo, the Deputy 

Legal Counsel for the EEOC, and several staff members from the 

Commission: Elaine Hirschkowitz of the Legal Counsel's Office, and 

two other senior officials with the Office of Federal Operations, 

Robert Walker and Ed Elkins. 

Shall I? 

Mr. EVERETT. Yes. Ms. BLUMENTHAL. 1 will excerpt my statement. 

Mr. EVERETT. 1 beg your pardon? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Do you wish me to excerpt my statement? 

Mr. EVERETT. Yes. Thank you. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

While the statutes the EEOC enforces require Federal Government agencies to comply with our decision, EEOC has no coercive 

authority in the federal sector. Although we can issue orders at the 

appellate level and most are followed, unlike the private sector, we 

cannot take a federal employer to court to resolve a complaint of 

discrimination. 

However, within the framework established by the statutes, regulations and directives governing the federal EEO process, each individual agency has great flexibility in the structure of its EEO 

program. Some agencies have independent offices reporting directly 

to the head of the agency. The EEO program at the Department 

of Veterans Affairs is under the direction of a Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Equal Opportunity, who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration. Agencies operate their field installations, again, in a very flexible 

manner. It varies very widely from department to department. 

What 1 would like to do is give you a brief overview of the EEOC 

complaints process and the basic aspects of that process. 

The process begins, as the previous witnesses have testified, 

when a federal employee or applicant contacts a counselor, and 

counseling is a requirement as the first step, and it permits informal resolution. Many government agencies are using alternative 

dispute resolution techniques at this stage. 

The counselor is supposed to provide the complainant with information on the process, including the time limitations involved. The 

counselor also contacts management and attempts to assist the 

parties in achieving resolution. 

The role of the counselor is to facilitate early resolution, not to 

advocate either party or recommend specific terms of a resolution 

agreement. Many agencies use full-time or collateral duty counselors. According to the reports filed with us by DVA, they use collateral duty counselors. They have regular jobs and then do counseling as a collateral duty. 
38 

At th~ ehd of counseling unless the matter is resolved, the aggrieved person must be given written notice of the right to file a 

formal EEO complaint and instructions on how to file it. 

The aggrieved person can go formal and file a complaint with the 

f':ceral agency against which the complaint is directed, and as Congressman Clyburn said, after 180 days of filing a formal complaint, 

any Federal Government employee in any government agency has 

the right to come to an EEOC office and ask for a hearing. 

The parties may extend various time limits, but basically after 

180 days of going forward, of filing a formal complaint, a federal 

employee can request a hearing at the EEOC. 

If the complaint is not dismissed and they do not ask for a hearing, an agency must conduct an investigation and develop a complete record. Many agencies have full-time investigative staff, while 

other federal agencies contract with outside organization. 

In fiscal year 1996, the Department of Veterans Affairs contracted for 59 percent of its investigations. The remainder were 

conducted by collateral duty investigators. 

After the investigation or if it hasn't been completed and the 

complainant requests it, the agency must supply the complainant 

a copy of the notice and of the file information, informing them of 

the right to ask EEOC for a hearing. 

If the complainant does not want to go the hearing route and 

asks for a final agency decision, the agency must issue it within 60 

days. 

I should also inform you that the complaint also has Ii completely 

independent right to file a civil action in U.S. district court within 

90 days of receipt of the agency's final decision, if they have not 

filed an appeal. If they file an appeal with the EEOC, they still 

have the right to go to U.S. district court. 

They can also file a civil action, again, 180 days from the filing 

of an EEO formal complaint. They can come to the EEOC for a 

hearing or they can go right to U.S. district court. 

If the complainant requests a hearing and the case is assigned 

to one of EEOC's administrative judges who are located in 40 offices around the country, the judge has the option of assisting the 

parties in considering settlement, but the judge also has the authority to order discovery or the production of documents and em- ployee witnesses and can issue findings of fact and conclusions of 

law either from the bench or can issue it in writing. And after the AJ's final decision, the agency has to issue a final 

decision. An agency may reject or modify the Administrative 

Judge's ruling, but they have to issue a conclusion. At that point the complainant can come to the EEOC in Washington and file an appeal. Both parties are allowed to file briefs on 

the appeal. 

When it is issued, both parties are notified that they have a right 

to request full review by the entire membership of the EEOC, the 

five presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate. If an appellate decision orders compliance action or a finding of discrimination 

is made, the EEOC monitors that action. 

I just wanted to give you a few statistics, some with regard to 

DVA and some with government-wide statistics. In 1995, 10,000 
39 

people, 10,000 federal employees requested hearings from the 

EEOC. 

With regard to OVA, for 1995 you will note that I submitted a 

chart for the record. The department had 8.36 percent of total federal workers, 8.01 percent of total complaints, and 14.10 percent of 

the sexual harassment complaints, the formal complaints. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions following 

Mr. Inzeo's testimony about sexual harassment. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blumenthal, with attachment, 

appears on p. 189.] 

Mr. EVERETT. All of that testimony will be entered into the 

record. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, sir. Mr. EVERETT. Let me ask you what is the legal definition of sexual harassment, including what is-oh, I am sorry. Excuse me. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS INZEO 

Mr. INZEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

My name is Nicholas Inzeo. I am the Deputy Legal Counsel for 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the legal 

issue of sexual harassment in the work place. 

Sexual harassment in employment is a form of unlawful sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

In 1980, the EEOC issued its guidelines on sexual harassment at 

29 CFR Section 1604.11, which made clear that unwelcome sexual 

conduct in the work place is unlawful when, one, submission to 

such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; two, submission to or rejection 

of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or, three, such conduct 

has the purpose of effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or 

offensive working environment. Conduct can be of a physical or 

verbal nature. 

Sexual harassment is unlawful only if it is unwelcome to the person claiming harassment. Unlawful though means that the person 

complaining of harassment did not solicit or incite the conduct and 

regarded it as undesirable or offensive. 

There are two primary categories of sexual harassment: quid pro 

quo and hostile environment. Although these claims are theoretically distinct, the lines between them are often not clear, and they 

may occur together. 

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes submission to sexual conduct a condition for job retention, promotion, 

or any tangible job benefits. Quid pro quo harassment can be explicit, as when a supervisor says to a subordinate that he will fire 

her if she does not engage in sexual conduct. 

Alternatively, sexual harassment can be implicit, as when a supervisor makes sexual advances to a subordinate, is rejected, and 

shortly thereafter fires her or takes other adverse action. In the 

latter example the subordinate can establish a violation of Title VII 
40 

if she proves that her rejection of the supervisor's advances was a 

motive for her termination or other adverse action. 

An employer is automatically liable for quid pro quo harassment 

by a supervisor. This is because the employer is responsible for the 

supervisor's use or abuse of the powers delegated to them. 

In 1986, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, affirming the EEOC's definition of sexual harassment in its guidelines. The Court recognized that sexual harassment violates Title VII when it creates a hostile work environment 

even if no tangible harm is threatened. 

This type of harassment can occur when anyone in the work 

place, the supervisor, the co-worker, or even a non-employee, subjects an individual to unwelcome sexual conduct that is sufficiently 

severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive work environment. 

In 1993, the Supreme Court elaborated on the legal standard for 

establishing a hostile environment in Harris v. Fork Lift Systems, 

Inc. The Court there held that a complainant need not prove that 

she suffered psychological harm as a result of the harassment. 

Rather, she must establish that a reasonable person would have 

found the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment. 

Justice Ginsberg put it even more simply. "It is sufficient to 

prove that the harassment altered the working conditions so as to 

make it more difficult to do the job." 

Courts are split as to when an employer is liable for hostile environment harassment by a supervisor. Most courts recognize that 

companies are always liable for misconduct by a high level official, 

such as a company president. This is because the actions of such 

individuals are considered to be tantamount to the actions of the 

employer. 

The legal standard though is less clear with regard to sexual harassment by other managers and supervisors. In the Meritor case, 

the Supreme Court held that normal agency principles should 

apply. 

Some courts have then held that under those principles, an employer is not responsible for hostile environment harassment by a 

supervisor if it had an explicit policy, it took action against offending employees, and the complainant did not notify higher management of the harassment. 

Other courts and the EEOC have held that the employer is liable 

under agency principles wherever its supervisors used or were 

aided in its powers delegated to them by the employer. In such circumstances, preventive and corrective action by the employer 

would not eliminate liability, but could reduce the amount of damages awarded against it. 

One issue that has arisen in some recent hostile environment 

cases is whether Title VII is violated when an individual in a work 

place is abusive and sexually harasses both men and women. Such 

an individual might be called an equal opportunity harasser. 

Since sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, a female 

complainant must prove that she would not have been subjected to 

the harassment had she been a man. Many courts have found 

where an allegation has been raised that abuse is directed at both 
41 

men and women, that sexual harassment still occurs where it is 

more pervasive, more severe, or where it is sexual in nature towards the women, but not sexual in nature towards the men. 

I hope that this testimony has provided the committee a fuller 

understanding, and I will be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inzeo appears on p. 194.] 

Mr. EVERETT. It has, and thank you very much. You have coopted some of my questions already, but I do have a couple more 

that I would like to ask. 

Setting sexual harassment aside for a moment, and you have 

heard sworn testimony this morning of the abusive cursing, threatening behavior of this particular Director, is that in itself, when as 

I said we have sworn testimony that there are witnesses to it; is 

that in itself reason for dismissal? 

Mr. INZEO. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to comment on the 

particular instances here since there are matters that have been 

filed, since there have been EEO complaints filed that may come 

before EEOC. 

Mr. EVERETT. Well, let me ask it another way. What constitutes 

a reason for dismissal when the Director threatens and verbally 

abuses an employee? 

Mr. INZEO. And answering generally and hypothetically, Mr. 

Chairman, misconduct by a federal employee can occur where that 

federal employee or manager is abusive of employees. Such abusive 

behavior can also constitute sexual harassment if it is aimed at employees of one sex more than another or where it is sexual in nature towards women and not towards men. 

If that sexual harassment were to occur, then that would be a 

violation of Title VII and would be actionable. 

Mr. EVERETT. The 180 days that you have mentioned and that 

our colleague, Mr. Clyburn, had mentioned earlier, how do we assume that the employee knows that they have 180 days? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Throughout the process, from the moment 

they walk into counseling, employees are supposed to be given verbally and in writing, by their employing agencies, documents which 

in lay language explain what the time limits are and what their 

rights are. 

EEOC has made documents available to federal agencies to distribute to their employees. We try and do as much outreach within 

our resources as possible, but by regulation, employees are to be 

notified of all of these time limits by their employing agency. 

Mr. EVERETT. Okay. To make sure I understand your answer correctly, when these ladies and if these ladies filed an EEO complaint, they should have been given by the local EEO officer a written and oral statement of what their options were in reference to 

the 180 days? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Well, with regard to the process, asking EEOC 

for a hearing after 180 days after they go formal, is supposed to 

be explained to them in the counseling process. The counseling 

process is not the formal part. It is supposed to be an informal resolution technique, and after a certain number of days, usually 30, 

if the complainant is unhappy, they do what in the Federal Government is called "going formal," and at that point the 180 days kicks 
42 

in. They are to be notified that they can come to the EEOC after 

180 days. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. These folks responsible for giving that advice, is 

there a report on each individual incident that they are required 

to file with EEO or with VA? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Yes. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. And is there a checklist for what they have done? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. There is no checklist, but each agency is mandated to report to the EEOC annually the number of counseling 

contacts. It is not broken down, and it is frequently not broken 

down even between headquarters and field installations, but the 

number of contacts with the counselor, certainly the number of people who have gone formal and then once they come to the EEOC. 

We keep very precise records of how many people have asked for 

hearings--

Mr. EVERE'IT. In other words, if a person contacted an EEOC officer, you would have no way of knowing whether a report was made 

or not? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Whether they were informed, no, but we 

would have a knowledge that the counselor was contacted. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. By name? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. By name of the counselor, no. By agency. An 

agency would report on a report that they must file. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Help me understand this a minute. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Surely. 

Mr. EVERETT. Are we talking about a total number here or are 

we talking about some sort of checklist so that we know the counselor performed the duties by regulation they were required to 

perform? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. There is no checklist. It is the total number, 

your first statement. 

Mr. EVERETT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. I yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Evans. 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Does the EEOC keep records of the number of sexual harassment 

complaints that are found to have merit compared to those that 

found that there is no cause? 

And if you do, do you have a breakdown that compares substantiated allegations against VA employees compared to other federal 

agencies? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. We keep some records, sir, but not in the 

exact format that you described. Because of the way federal employee cases drop out in the system, we would have no way of 

knowing settlement by issue. Sexual harassment is viewed as an 

issue, as opposed to the basis, which is race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and age. Sexual harassment is a 

subset of sex discrimination. 

We do not have it by issue, and we do not have settlements by 

issue. So you cannot tell if it falls out of the system. It is frequently 

a meritorious case that has been settled. 

We can, for the record later, send information up as to the data 

we do keep. 
43 

Mr. EVANS. Do you have any way of trac~g when an individual 

makes a complaint whether the person they are complaining about 

has had previous settlements or penalties assessed against them? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. The EEOC government-wide does not with regard to individuals. The whole scheme of Title VII in the private 

sector and in the Federal Government is not geared to an individual. It is not like tort suits. It is geared towards the agencies. 

Mr. EVANS. I see. All right. Now, the statistics you provided seem 

to indicate that in 1995 VA employees constituted about eight percent of the federal work force. Yet 14 percent of the total sexual 

harassment allegations against federal agencies were directed at 

the DVA. 

Does this seem like a particularly high percentage of sexual harassment claims against the VA? 

And if so, how would you account for such a figure? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Again, I do not know. It is higher than their 

number of complaints in general. You are absolutely right, but I 

have no specific knowledge of exactly where they were filed or 

when. 

We put this data together for this hearing. So I have no specific 

knowledge, but it clearly is just numerically out of proportion because they have 14 percent of the government-wide complaints. Mr. EVANS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Ms. Bilirakis. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I particularly appreciate the information that both of you 

have imparted to us. Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You have answered, again, some questions on 

definitions, if you will, and that sort of thing. 

Fourteen point one percent of sexual harassment complaints that 

have been filed, that is total sexual harassment complaints that 

have been filed, were attributable to the DV A, to the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, right? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. That's correct. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right, and that is filed outside of the agency 

and outside of the department? Is that what we are referring to 

here? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. The filing is the formal complaint process that 

kicks off the lBO-day period that the Chairman was talking about. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. Ms. BLUMENTHAL. It is not counseling. The women who testified 

before we testified were basically talking about the counseling 

process. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Right. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. The 14.10 percent were people who have filed 

formal complaints of discrimination. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Now, your job is a very important one, 

and I commend you. You have oversight of the equal employment 

opportunity complaint process in the federal sector, and it says including the hearings and appellate processes. Do you have some responsibility for the counseling portion? 
44 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. The counseling portion is done exclusively in 

federal agencies themselves. 

I should mention one other aspect. It is publicized, but we are 

not sure every government employee knows this. When there is a 

cross-cutting complaint against a high official, there are a small 

group of EEOC employees in my office, in the Office of Federal Operations, who can, on request, investigate and counsel people, but 

only on request. It is a very small group of people, and it has to 

be a crosscutting complaint. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Requests on the part of whom? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Generally of the complainant and of the agency. They frequently feel that there is nobody in their own agency 

or they pull people from other parts of the agency, and sometimes 

it can start as early as the counseling process. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. But that happens perhaps 20 times a year. So 

the vast majority, sir, are counseled within their own agency. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right, but that is basically what I am trying 

to get to, and I appreciate your answer. In other words, you do not 

know how many EEOC cases have taken place in each individual 

agency or department? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. How many? 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. That have not been, so to speak, appealed to the 

upper level? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. We know how many counseling contacts have 

been made, how many people walk into a counselor's office, but we 

do not know if somebody comes in or we cannot tell if it is more 

than one contact and we know how many people have gone formal. 

You can extrapolate some numbers and determine these cases. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, but the young ladies who testified-I do not 

know-I guess it looks like three of them have an attorney, and so 

apparently they are bringing their cases higher, to the higher level. 

You would not know that their cases were heard by the VA EEO, 

at that particular level, and whether or not those cases were 

brought forward to the higher level? You would not know that? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. If they went formal, we would know that, but 

specifically--

Mr. BILlRAKIS. So you cannot tell this committee, then, what percentage of total EEC complaints took place in the VA that ended 

at that point and that were not appealed? I am going to use the 

word "appealed." I am not sure if it is appropriate. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. We can tell how many cases went to counseling and how many cases went formal, and from some math we can 

extrapolate. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Oh, you can tell how many went to counseling? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Yes, yes, but we cannot tell if they went to 

counseling more than once. Sometimes we cannot tell if it was settled or if the person just decided it wasn't-many people come to 

counseling with work place disputes that have nothing to do with 

discrimination, and they are settled then and there on the spot. It 

is a work place dispute that may involve a compensation issue that 

has nothing to do with any kind of discrimination. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. 
45 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. And a lot of people go to counseling and find 

out that they really need to go to their personnel officer. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Yes, all right. Of course, I am talking about counseling at the level that these women talked about. 

How much leeway does Title VII give the departments and agencies in establishing the EEO process? And does each department 

and agency have exactly the same process? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. The process of counseling, going formal, having an investigation or a hearing and going to appellate is exactly 

the same. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. All right. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. But how they structure it, no. Because of the 

vast variety of government agencies, there is a great amount of 

flexibility built in for agencies as a result of their own structure. 

Some have many offices offshore. Some are all in the continental 

United States. It varies a lot. A lot of it has to do with geography, 

but there are many other variables that agencies--

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Well, Ms. Blumenthal, you were in the room, I 

guess, when they testified, were you not? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. And you heard their testimony. You also heard 

them say that they were not advised that they could appeal it to 

another level, and I am sure that their testimony was truthful because they were under oath. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Certainly. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Don't you find because you care-you are in a job 

because you care; otherwise you cannot do your job. 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. For 27 years. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Twenty-seven years. Well, don't you find something wrong with the process when you hear that kind of testimony, the fact that these people would, I think, reasonably be concerned and be frightened and not expect and they alioeady told us 

they did not expect any good results from the EEO process; don't 

you find something wrong with all of that? 

And if you do, are you in a position to make any recommendations to the Congress in terms of changes maybe that should take 

place? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. I am not in a position to make any recommendations to the Congress as an operational staff person, but 

I do think that we will be in contact with a variety of people to 

make sure that people know, particularly at DV A, what their procedural rights are and are given to every employee at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Operationally we can do that without a 

great deal of difficulty. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if I may, how 

about this fox guarding the henhouse concept at that level? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. There has been a lot of dispute in the federal 

community and up in Congress for the past 10 years about that 

issue, and as I said, I am an operational office director, and my job 

is to implement whatever the Congress and the executive branch 

does. There has been a long series of hearings and disputes on this 

issue as to whether a~encies should investigate themselves with regard to EEO complamts, and Congress has received a variety of 

pieces of legislation that have been introduced on that issue. 
46 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. But you cannot make any recommendations? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Personally. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You can personally, right? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. No. Personally I am an operational office director, and I implement whatever the Congress decides. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Come on now. I want a better answer than that. 

(Laughter.) 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. There has been a debate--

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And I am sure you can give me a better answer. 

What keeps you from doing so? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. There has been a debate about this for many 

years with regard to whether or not agencies should do the preliminary investigation themselves, and the Commission recognized that 

in 1992 when they passed regulations giving that lBO-day right. 

That only came to the fore in 1992 because they felt that agencies 

should not have their own timetables. They should operate on a 

government-wide timetable. 

And so since 1992, there has been a seachange in the number of 

hearings requested, and that has given a lot of employees the ability to go outside their agency and come to us. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Well, my time is long up. Thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. EVERETT. Before I go to the long suffering and patient Mr. 

Snyder, I would remark that I should have mentioned earlier that 

all panels will be expected to respond to written questions that 

members may have and may submit to them at a later date. 

And, secondly, any reference to the fox guarding the henhouse 

should be considered as a reference to the fox guarding the hen 

and/or rooster house. (Laughter.) 

Mr. Snyder. 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to pick up where Mr. Bilirakis left off there because, I 

mean, I think what we are about here is to do some air clearing, but also to look for lessons learned. I mean it does not do any good 

to sit here for what, I think, is going to tum out to be about B 

hours if we do not look to what we can do to make some changes 

so that these kinds of events do not happen again. 

The issue of the directors and the manager, the henhouse issue 

here. Mr. Inzeo, do you have any comments about that? 

I mean there are agencies, I think, where you can set up some 

controls. For example, should there not be perhaps some special 

rules with regard to when the alleged harasser is the director of 

the agency? I mean, Mr. Gober is a smart man. He is sitting there 

in the back. Are there some lessons learned from your experience 

from other agencies that the VA might adopt in order to keep this 

situation from happening again? 

Mr. INZEO. I am not sure that I can tell you that there are other 

experiences that I am aware of. I can tell you though that we are 

concerned with the issue of what would appear to be--

Mr. SNYDER. Home cooking. 

Mr. INZEO (continuing). Called sometimes conflict of interest. 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. 
47 

Mr. INZEO. Or conflict of position, where an individual who is alleged to have discriminated has some control over the process. Mr. SNYDER. Right. Mr. INZEO. The peculiar set-up at the VA center that the witnesses discussed would appear to make that situation worse, where 

the EEO manager on site reports to in this instance the individual 

who was alleged to have discriminated. 

Mr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. INZEO. We have within general guidelines in our regulations, 

and we have a management directive that is applicable to all agencies, attempted to warn agencies that they should not allow those 

types of conflicts to exist. 

We do not have the ability to know when they do exist. However, 

we would certainly counsel agencies against that. Mr. SNYDER. So, Mr. Brown and his staff, if they choose, by tomorrow they could change their policy in some way so as to make 

this problem go away. There does not need to be legislation. Is that 

what you are saying? 

Mr. INZEO. I mean, they could, for instance, delegate differentlythe EEO responsibilities for the agency. There are some agencies 

that have a central EEO office in Washington, and that office is responsible for all of the EEO offices around the country. Mr. SNYDER. I see. 

Mr. INZEO. And that way the EEO manager would not be under 

the supervision of a local director. Mr. SNYDER. All right. So there are some things that they can 

do without statutory change. Okay. 

Mr. INZEO. Yes. 

Mr. SNYDER. I have got the Inspector General's report here, and 

just the conclusions. Our review determined Mr. Calhoun sexually 

harassed one of the three females. We conclude his behavior towards the other two was abusive, threatening, and inappropriate, 

and also that Mr. Calhoun was less than truthful, which raises 

doubt about his credibility. Now, does this not look like a guy, if those are the conclusions, 

and I do not know Mr. Calhoun, that ought to be kept as a Director? 

Is it your experience that Mr. Gober's and Mr. Brown's hands are 

tied? I mean there is some information out there that the goal was 

to somehow work out a way to remove him as Director. Have our 

Civil Service laws got to the point where I have got evidence I have 

got a lying, harassing, abusive, threatening-well, I will not come 

up with my own conclusions-but somehow all we can do is to come 

up with a settlement? I mean is that where the employment laws, 

the protections for federal employees have got us, that we now are 

protecting lying abusers? 

What I am leading up to: do we all need to do some work in that 

area? 

Mr. INZEO. I would not want to make any comments about the 

particular allegations raised today. Mr. SNYDER. Right. Let me put it this way. If you are in a top 

level management position working for the Federal Government, 

you know, even if you are a lying abuser, it is going to be pretty 

hard and you have got pretty good job security? 
48 

Mr. INZEO. I can tell you from my experience, and I believe that 

Ms. Blumenthal would say the same thing, that in our experience 

upper level managers should and are held to a higher standard. We 

would expect that, and I think we would expect it of others. Mr. SNYDER. Okay. All right. Let me go on to another one, if I 

can. 

The issue, and I asked Ms. Force, I believe it was, about when 

the settlement was explained to her, as a general matter when you 

have a complaint-and I do not want to talk about this case-but 

when you have a complaint that has been made and apparently the 

agency at some level has decided that there is some confirmation 

for the story, but they get into this problem of it is going to be a 

tough case and it is going to be overturned; as a general matter of 

course, should that agency-you know, basically it is a plea bargain-should they be sitting down as a matter of policy with the 

complainants and layout the facts? You know, we could go for 

murder I, but we are going to take murder II because of a proof 

problem. 

Or do you think that that is not something-do you understand 

what I am getting at here? I do not mean set in rules, but more 

as a matter of policy? 

Ms. BLUMENTHAL. That is just what you said. It is very hard to 

set rules in this area. Mr. SNYDER. Right. Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Because personnel policy and human resources policy, private sector or federal sector, it tends to vary case 

by case. As Mr. Inzeo said, there are cases where senior level officials have been very harshly disciplined. There are others where 

settlements are reached with all parties. 

It is like litigation. Each case, particularly if it involves a group 

of people as this one seems to, is handled differently. Unless there 

is a confidentiality agreement, usually the relief is explained to all 

parties if you are talking about government-wide. It usually is explained. People who have complained generally know what 

happened. 

Mr. SNYDER. But it apparently was not in this issue. I have some other questions. Mr. Chairman, if you decide there 

is a second round, I will be armed and ready. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Snyder. 

I would say to this panel, and if you would not mind, we could 

submit those questions for the record, and I am sure that they 

would respond. 

Much of what we have heard so far today is kind of deja vu. Four 

years ago we went through a lot of this. The VA had an opportunity to correct some of the situations that exist today, and I 

think that is one reason that Mr. Evans and I are considering legislation, statute changes, if you will, that would address these 

problems. 

I do thank this panel for appearing before us today and for your testimony. Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. INZEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Yes. I think it is only fair that since I swore in the 

first panel, that I swear in your panel. Mr. Gober, would you all 
49 

please approach the table and raise your right hands and repeat 

after me? 

[Witnesses sworn.J 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Mr. Deputy Secretary, thank you. I welcome you, and I thank 

you very much for coming today, and I would ask you to introduce 

your panel. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my 

pleasure to do so. 

I have with me on my left here the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration, Eugene Brickhouse. Next to 

him is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, Mr. 

Gerald Hinch. The Honorable Mary Lou Keener, the General Coun- sel of the Department. Dr. Jule Moravec, who is the Chief Network 

Officer for the Veterans Health Administration, and Dr. Leroy P. 

Gross, who is the Director of the Veterans Integrated Service Network No.6, in which Fayetteville, NC, falls. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. 

We will receive your testimony. If you could summarize it, we 

will make sure that your complete testimony is put in the record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HERSHEL GOBER, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOMPANIED BY 

GERALD K. HINCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; HON. MARY LOU KEENER, GENERAL 

COUNSEL; JULE D. MORAVEC, Ph.D., CHIEF NETWORK OFFICER, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR; LEROY P. GROSS, 

M.D., DmECTOR, VETERANS INTEGRATED SERVICE NETWORK NO. 6 

STATEMENT OF HON. HERSHEL GOBER 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. Thank you, sir. 

I have submitted a written statement that I ask be included in 

the record, and I will summarize my statement as quickly as possible. 

Mr. EVERETT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee, I appear before you today on behalf of Secretary Jesse 

Brown and the Department of Veterans Affairs to testify about 

VA's policies and practices regarding sexual harassment and other 

forms of discrimination in the work place. 

This has been a matter of utmost importance to Secretary Brown 

and myself from the very beginning, as I know it has for this subcommittee. 

I was sworn in as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs on February 4, 1993. One week later I was in Atlanta, 

GA, at the VA Medical Center there dealing with a terrible sexual 

harassment case that we had inherited and which has been referenced here today. 

While I was there, I promised our employees-or my associates, 

as I like to call them-that this administration would not tolerate 

anything that would keep them from devoting their full attention 

to what we are supposed to be doing: serving veterans. 
50 

Secretary Brown and I have worked very hard ever since to fulfill that promise, and I will assure you. I know this committee is 

upset, but no one is more upset than Secretary Brown and I and 

all of those employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who 

are loyal workers and who do not like to see the department's 

name drug through the mud because it sticks to all of us. 

These people are wonderful. They have done a good job, and we 

are very proud of them. 

Very early on, Secretary Brown established the policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination 

within the department. I cannot overstate how strongly I support 

this policy. Secretary Brown made the policy, and it is my duty as 

the chief operating officer to enforce it. 

No level of harassment will be tolerated or condoned. Any and 

every allegation of sexual harassment or discrimination will be 

thoroughly investigated, and when evidence supports the allegation, the VA will take actions to protect victims and discipline offenders within the range of options allowed by law. 

In saying this, however, it is relevant to clarify that zero tolerance does not mean that all offenders will, in every instance, be removed from federal service. Sexual harassment and discrimination 

can encompass such a broad range of conduct that removal from 

federal service may not always be the most appropriate or legal 

remedy. Secretary Brown and I have done everything that we know to 

support the zero tolerance policy regarding sexual harassment. He 

has issued letters to all VA employees expressing his strong commitment to diversity, equal employment opportunity, and the prevention of sexual harassment. 

The Secretary has asked every one of our employees to join him 

in making the effort needed to uphold this commitment. In countless speeches to our VA associates, he and I both have both emphasized and reemphasized this policy. Every speech I have made 

where I speak with our VA employees, I talk to them about the fact 

we want them to be able to come to work in the morning, be treated with dignity and respect, and be free from any kind of fear that 

distracts them from doing their job. 

Consistent with these efforts, the department has developed a 

program designed to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination 

by all employees, not just by senior executives. The program takes 

a three-pronged approach: communication, training, and policy 

development. 

The Secretary issued his first all employee letter in 1993 and has 

issued numerous ones since then. Every employee has gone 

through 4 hours of training, and then we have 2 hours remedial 

training every 2 years. Secretary Brown and I have been through 

all of those trainings. 

We have an ongoing training program for managers and supervisors concerning VA's equal employment programs and responsibilities. We have significantly improved the training for our EEO 

professionals to include counselors, investigators, and program 

managers. 

In the area of policy development, we have established formal requirements that all allegations of sexual harassment be elevated 
51 

above the field level facility for a high level review to determine 

whether intervention is necessary to protect an employee from 

harm, pending a full investigation and resolution of the allegations. 

In order to encourage the employees to bring forward their allegations and protect them when they do this, in May of 1993 we established a requirement for a high level review of all complaints of 

reprisal and retaliation. For those employees who wish to remain 

anonymous, we established a sexual harassment and discrimination hotline. 

Other relevant policy developments include, but are not limited 

to, streamlining of the formal EEO complaint processing procedures; development of performance standards for senior executives 

to improve work force diversity and meet timeliness requirements; 

clarification of penalties for misconduct so there can be no question 

that sexual harassment and discrimination are actionable offenses, 

punishable by anything from reprimand to removal for a first 

offense. -

Attached to my written testimony which I submitted to you, Mr. 

Chairman, is a comprehensive chronological list of the actions Secretary Brown has taken to deal with the issue of sexual harassment. The list is long and far-reaching because, as I have said before, the Secretary and I firmly believe in the institution and enforcement of a zero tolerance policy throughout VA. 

Over the past 4 years we have had nine cases involving senior 

management officials in which we have taken action based on allegations of sexual harassment or related matters. In seven the executives resigned or retired. The other two instances the executives 

were taken out of the Senior Executive Service and placed in a 

lower grade position. _ I would like to address briefly the case that precipitated this 

hearing, that of the former Director of the Fayetteville VA Medical 

Center, who was alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment. 

Following an investigation, VA management seriously considered 

proposing his removal from federal service, but a review of the 

facts in the case created significant doubt that the evidence could 

sustain a removal action on appeal to the Merit System Protection 

Board or in the courts. 

As a result, a negotiated settlement was reached with the Director. To date the former Director steadfastly denies the allegations. 

The agreement insured the Director's removal from the medical 

center, from the directorship of any VA facility, from the Senior Executive Service, and from any supervisory position, but it permitted 

him to continue as a government employee without loss of pay. 

I fully understand and appreciate that some view VA's decision 

to reach that agreement as indicative of a lack of management's 

concern about sexual harassment, or possibly as a VA practice of 

protecting senior managers from the consequences of improper actions. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members in the 

strongest possible terms that it does not. 

If the verifiable evidence had been such that management was 

reasonably confident that the Merit System Protection Board or the 

courts would have sustained removal from federal service, then 

that action would have been pursued to its conclusion. 
52 

It is important to reiterate that management felt it was extremely important from the standpoint of both the provisions of 

health care services to our veterans and the work environment for 

our associates at this facility that the former Director be removed 

from his management position and relieved of all supervisory rel!ponsibilities as rapidly as possible. 

Accordingly, VA entered into a settlement with him under which 

he was transferred out of the Fayetteville VA Medical Center. He 

also resigned, as I said earlier, from the Senior Executive Service 

and was reduced in grade and rank to a nonsupervisory GS-14 

position. 

By these actions, management achieved what was considered to 

be the most critical objectives. I fully understand that this decision 

will be second-guessed by some. However, we believe that, given 

the facts and the circumstances of this case, it was the best option 

available to us. 

One of the problems that emerged from the case in Atlanta, that 

I mentioned earlier at the beginning of my statement, was the fact 

that responsibility for investigating allegations of harassment rested with the facility Director. If the Director was the subject of the 

complaint, you can see that we had the classic situation of, as we 

say in Arkansas, "the fox guarding the chicken house." 

That situation no longer exists. Now if there is a complaint about 

sexual harassment at any level, I dispatch an investigative team, 

completely independent of the Director or division or even the 

Under Secretary, to check out the allegations. As the chief operating officer of the department, I have the authority to do this, and 

I will make sure that when we send in these teams, and there is 

sexual harassment involved, there will always be high-ranking 

women on the team. 

What concerns us most about the Fayetteville matter is that it 

has damaged VA's standing with some of our women employees 

and the women veterans that we serve, and this is most regrettable. As I have stated earlier, we have taken serious actions over 

the past 4 years to try to insure that all of our employees have a 

work place where they feel secure and safe from discrimination and 

harassment of any kind. 

We believe it is very important not only for their well-being, but 

for our ability to provide veterans with the health care and other 

benefits and services they deserve. 

To strengthen our employee protections further in light of this 

case, the Secretary has recently established the following new requirement. In any matter of allegations of sexual harassment or 

other misconduct against senior VA executives, the Secretary now 

requires that the allegations and recommendations for dealing with 

these situations be brought to the attention of a committee drawn 

from the senior staff in our VA headquarters here before action is 

taken to resolve this matter, and I will be heavily involved in the 

review of these cases, and then the recommendation will be made 

on the settlement. 

Our position is that matters of sexual harassment and other 

forms of discrimination are considered most serious and will receive the highest level of scrutiny. 
53 

We have recently, Mr. Chairman, conducted a survey of all of our 

employees throughout the VA to find out their perception on how 

the VA handles sexual harassment. That report is due by June, 

and at that time we will be mote than glad to share that with you. 

To insure this survey was conducted in an objective manner, we 

went to an outside contractor, a professional contractor. 

In addition, Secretary Brown is in the process of composing and 

writing another letter to all of our employees to make sure that 

they understand that they are free to come forward. The letter will 

remind our employee of the means available to them to deal with 

any problems they may encounter in these areas. We are optimistic 

that these new measures will help us in our efforts. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in closing here before we 

begin the questioning that when I sat her this morning and listened to these ladies talk about they felt they were abandoned, I 

was appalled. I was upset. They are a member of our family, and 

for them to be out on a limb and feel like they were by themselves 

is wrong. Without even arguing the merits of the case or talking 

about any subsequent litigation, the fact is we have worked very, 

very hard to make everyone feel like they are a member of the VA 

family, and today I spoke to each of these ladies and told them that 

we will make sure that they receive the assistance that we can give 

within the law at their locations. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are ready to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Deputy Secretary Gober, with attachment, appears on p. 197.J 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Brown was invited to the hearing today, and I am really disappointed he was unable to make it, but I do appreciate you 

coming. I have great respect for Secretary Brown and I respect the 

candor and frankness of the discussions that you and I have been 

able to have on other matters, and I have great confidence that you 

will try to do exactly what you say you will do. 

I have concern, though, that there is a "good 01' boy" network out 

there, and that there is a culture at VA which very much needs 

changing. I am not sure whether you share that same belief about 

the culture. 

I would say that I am pleased that Secretary Brown initiated and 

has been highly visible in promoting the V Ns zero tolerance policy 

on sexual harassment. It appears, however, that some of VA's most 

senior career officials did not get the message. You are the department's chief operating officer, and your willingness to appear and give an official explanation of Fayetteville 

and sexual harassment issues in the VA is appreciated, and I appreciate your comments that you closed with. 

You know that we are going to ask some hard questions, but I 

do want to keep it constructive with the good government objective 

of identifying, addressing, and solving problems. 

Mr. Secretary, many VA employees and members of the public 

believe that the VA has a culture, as I mentioned, of tolerance for 

misconduct and mismanagement by senior officials. Just read the 

newspapers from Florida, North Carolina, and New York. The only 

way to overcome this is to meet it head on and do something about 

it. 
54 

In the case that we are hearing about today, Mr. Calhoun, a VA 

Medical Center Director, had a pattern of abusive behavior apparently even before becoming a Director. Yet VA seems to be much 

more concerned, and that is the testimony that we have heard here 

today and it is the feeling, I think, of the majority of this committee, that VA is much more concerned about Mr. Calhoun than the 

rank and file employees who are on the receiving end. 

The VA's solution was to arrange a transfer to Florida and to create a new position for Mr. Calhoun where he would be paid more 

money than when he was a medical center Director, over $106,000, 

and also to a location where he already owned a home. The "Club 

Med" treatment has literally been met with derision by VA employees, as well as by editorial writers who, as you are aware, have 

mighty sharp pens. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you how much did you personally know about the Calhoun case as it was pending in VISN 6 and 

in VA Washington's headquarters. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes, sir. I will be glad to answer that, 

Mr. Chairman. 

We were concerned about the management there because there 

had been complaints coming out of there before these sexual-and 

everybody stop me if I misspeak here-before the sexual harassment came to the forefront. 

Let me back up a little bit. We have no record of any, or we have 

been unable to find any record about any, misconduct in Baetavia. 

When Mr. Calhoun left Batavia, he was promoted to an SES and 

moved to Fayetteville. We have from the IG file a form that says 

they had no complaints pending against him. 

So if there is something out there, we did not know about it. We 

have searched back through our files. That is not to say there is 

not something there in Buffalo. I am sorry, but we did not have 

any information. 

When the investigation started in Fayetteville, Dr. Moravec came 

in to brief me on the situation down there and told me what they 

were doing and wanted the delegation of authority to deal with the 

disciplinary situation there. That is not unusual. As you know, in 

government also not only have we been trying to push for the 

elimination of sexual harassment and discrimination. We have also 

been trying to let people make decisions at the lowest level 

possible. 

We are now moving back in the other dh-ection in this area, but 

anyway, I signed over the delegation of authority to Dr. Moravec, 

and I was aware that the case was going on and that it was getting 

to be pretty serious. 

When it came to me, they told me what the settlement was. My 

reaction to it was: is that the best deal you can get? Could we have 

gone to court? And it was explained to me that the people who 

looked at the case thought that the chances of prevailing might not 

be as good as they should be, and the last thing I wanted was to 

go before the MSPB, have it reversed, have to pay all kinds of attorney fees, maybe have to pay some other kind of monetary 

award, and put a person anywhere they wanted to go. 

So, based on the merits, the decision was made to do this. 
55 

Mr. EVERETT. At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent 

that all members have 10 minutes to question this panel and that 

we possibly have a second round. 

In checking his previous employment record, did you check both 

locations or just Buffalo? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. I am informed both locations. 

Mr. EVERETT. Both? 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. I would say this though. Really I do 

not think there was really a requirement to check both. Only when 

you promote someone to an SES is it required to check this, but 

we are going to close that gap also. We are going to shut the barn 

after the mule got out, but another mule will not get out. Mr. EVERETT. I surely hope you are right. 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. Well, we are going to do the best we 

can, sir. You know, we are a huge agency, 240,000 people, a huge 

agency, and I saw the figures here about how many more complaints we are having. Well, I take a different sfin on that. I hope that indicates that our people are starting to fee like that they can 

come forward without fear of retaliation. 

I think we are making some progress. We will never be perfect, 

but we will try our best. 

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary, you are welcome to look at it that 

way, but I would observe that other people would look at it in another fashion and would have perhaps the same right to do so. 

The problem seems to be if I told you, "Mr. Secretary, look out 

the window there. It is snowing," and you looked out the window 

and you did not see any snow, and I suggested that you would not 

see any snow, then you would not believe it was snowing, and I do 

not know that VA has demonstrated in any way that they have the 

concern they are telling me about today for the employees, and it 

is pretty apparent to me that the concern is more in alignment 

with these senior officials and department heads. 

Now, you said that you felt like the settlement that you got was 

the best deal you could make. Who made that decision, and did 

they have benefit of counsel? And did counsel agree with that 

decision? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. I am going to ask Dr. Moravec and Dr. 

Gross, who were intimate in the details of this, to comment on 

that, if it is okay with you, sir. Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir. 

Dr. MORAVEC. I would like to respond to that and then ask Dr. 

Gross to deal with more specific details. 

In this kind of a situation and in this situation, Dr. Gross, who 

is our highest level field executive, has responsibility for making 

decisions about what it was we were dealing with, and he was very 

thorough, in my view, in trying to track the information coming ultimately out of the IG report and what he could glean from discussions with some on the EEO activities and processes, and would 

frequently call me to share with me what he was experiencing, 

what he was feeling and seeing. He was, of course, the contact to the various principals, the medical center Director at that time, Mr. Calhoun, and the regional 

counsel, the personnel experts, and so forth, as is the way it generally works in the field where we use that counsel very closely. 
56 

And as it evolved, it became apparent that we were ultimately 

not certain and felt that we would very easily or very possibly, perhaps not easily, be overturned, and the objective that we--

Mr. EVERETT. Excuse me. When you say "we," do you mean counsel advised you might be overturned? 

Dr. MORAVEC. No, I mean the VA. When I say "we," I mean 

VHA, the Veterans Health Administration as--

Mr. EVERETT. Why would you not seek counsel's opinion on that? 

Dr. MORAVEC. We did. 

Mr. EVERETT. And counsel confirmed that the case might be 

overturned? 

Dr. MORAVEC. No. Let me see if! can be more clear. 

Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate that. What I am interested in is knowing did you seek counsel and did counsel say that this case would 

be overturned. Be as specific and short as you can, please. 

Dr. MORAVEC. Yes. I will defer to Dr. Gross since he was the one 

that was on the scene making those contacts. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. GROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to say, first of all, that I am a newcomer to the VA. 

I joined the VA in 1995, in November from the private sector and 

look forward to the opportunity of serving the VA and the veterans, 

many of whom are my colleagues in the military. 

But to answer your question, when the IG report was consummated and I reviewed the IG report with my regional counsel, 

they reviewed the testimony. We consulted about what the next 

step is, and this is obviously a learning process for me. I have 

never been through this process in the VA before. 

Mr. EVERETT. Dr. Gross, excuse me. We will come back to this 

a little bit later, but what I really would like is a yes or no answer. 

Did you seek counsel on this and did counsel advise you that this 

case could not be made? 

Dr. GROSS. I sought counsel on it. Counsel presented to me a 

wide range of choices based on the table of penalties, and the deci- sion was ultimately left up to me in consultation with other VA 

specialists. 

Mr. EVERETT. Did they make any recommendation at all? 

Dr. GROSS. They did not make a recommendation one way or the 

other. 

Mr. EVERETT. Okay. Thank you. I will have additional questions. If the committee will allow me, Secretary Gober, from a previous 

statement by Secretary Brown we understand there have been 

cases with 12 senior VA officials. I think you referred to nine. I assume the difference is the Atlanta situation. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes, sir. Since we came in 1993, there 

has been nine. 

Mr. EVERETT. Nine who have been demoted or have retired to 

avoid disciplinary action in the past 5 years for sexual harassment 

offenses. 

Please inform the subcommittee of the general circumstances of 

each case, including whether it involved VHA or DVA officials, the 

type of offense, when it occurred, and the disposition. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Would you like that in writing, sir, or 

would you want--
57 

Mr. EVERETT. If you have got it now, I would like it now. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. I think we have that. 

Mr. EVERETT. Let me ask you some questions. How many of 

these people were allowed just to retire? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Seven out of nine, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. Okay. What was the nature of the complaints against these seven? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, some 

of these people were told to retire because if they did not retire, 

charges were going to be filed against them, and they chose to 

retire. 

Mr. EVERETT. Did anybody receive a $25,000 buyout? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes. 

Mr. EVERETT. Let me get this straight. You told somebody to retire or they were going to have disciplinary action taken against 

them, and then you gave them a $25,000 buyout? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. I am not sure that this individual was 

one of the ones we told to retire. 

Mr. Hinch will answer this question while I am--

Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HINCH. Mr. Chairman, what happened was this particular 

individual you are talking about was aware that an allegation had 

been made against him and that we were beginning to investigate 

the actions and everything. At that time we had the window open 

for buyouts. So he decided it was in his best interest to jump out 

and take hold of a buyout before the matter was concluded. 

Mr. EVERETT. And there was nothing that we could do to preclude or keep a person who had a disciplinary action of this nature 

pending against him from getting a buyout? 

Mr. HINCH. We had not gotten that far with it. 

Mr. EVERETT. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. HINCH. We had not gotten that far with it. 

Mr. EVERETT. All right. 

Mr. HINCH. It means he was aware that there was an allegation 

against him that has begun to be investigated. It means that he 

was aware of what he had done and what he felt the outcome 

would probably be. 

Mr. EVERETT. I will yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. HINCH. Excuse me? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. The investigations. 

Mr. HINCH. Investigations. 

Mr. EVERETT. But you do not have to give it. That is a discretionary thing. You do not have to give somebody a buyout. 

Mr. HINCH. I did not give him a buyout, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. Somebody did. 

Mr. HINCH. I am saying the buyout offer window was open at the 

time that he decided to leave. I have nothing to do with buyouts 

or personnel matters in that regard. 

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. He was not under formal investigation 

at the time. He just knew what he had done, and the buyout window was open. So he jumped in the life boat. . Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary, my time has run out for this round, 

and I do appreciate the patience of the members of the panel, but 
58 

let me just say that we have got a situation here where somebody 

had an obvious charge made against him and somebody gave him, 

and, by the way, this is discretionary. They did not have to do itgave him a $25,000 buyout. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. But if the person did not know that the 

investigation was going on, if it had not--

Mr. EVERETT. Well, why didn't the person? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. If it had not reached that point sir. I 

mean, if it had not reached that point and he was one of those hundreds or whatever people that wanted a buyout and his position 

was targeted for a buyout, he got in there, and he got lost in the 

crowd. 

Mr. EVERETT. It would not have been flagged? 

Ms. KEENER. If I might make a comment, Mr. Chairman. If an 

individual seeks a buyout and because there is an investigation 

going on that has not been concluded at the time, everyone is fortunately considered to be innocent until proven guilty. 

If the individual asks for a buyout and that buyout was then denied, that person could come back and sue us for retaliation because of the ongoing investigation. So there are a lot of--

Mr. EVERETT. Even though a buyout is discretionary and it does 

not have to be given? 

Ms. KEENER. If we chose not to give him the buyout, he could 

and, most likely, would allege that the reason we used to exercise 

our discretion not to give him the buyout was because of incidents 

that were alleged in the ongoing investigation. 

Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate your answer. As I said, my time is 

out, but I would suggest to you that there are those who could use 

the same law to their advantage, and in this case obviously did. 

I recognize the Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Clyburn. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I tend to agree. I was a little bit hesitant to break in, but I think 

we have to be very, very careful with these. The allegations are 

just that. They are allegations, and you have to be very, very careful going to conclusions. 

I think it was said earlier that, a lot of times you can take a case 

to its conclusion and still lose it, and in the instances such as this 

if you deny someone the opportunity to buyout, I suspect they 

have got some pretty serious legal claims to be made against the 

VA. So you have to be very, very careful about it. 

I would like to know, and let me preface my question by saying 

this. I was in Fayetteville a few weeks ago to do a banquet, and 

the morning afterwards some friends were having something for 

me. It did not occur to me until today, Mr. Chairman, that this 

gentleman, if I might call him that, Mr. Calhoun, was discussed 

pretty extensively. He is held in very low regard among the people 

that I heard talking about him. I did not know who he was and 

did not have any idea that I would be sitting here today in some 

assessment of him. 

So this gentleman's actions were known throughout that community. People in that community abhor his actions. They are very 

disturbed by what they feel has been an unjust resolution of this 

matter. 
59 

If we do, in fact, have a zero tolerance for these kinds of issues 

in the VA, it would seem to me that those who are responsible for 

redressing these kinds of grievances have taken the real easy way 

out here, and I am wondering whether or not this, is the final resolution of this particular case. 

What would happen at this point if one of these ladies who we 

heard from earlier today were to bring legal action outside of the 

complaint process, were to file a lawsuit? They could very well file 

a tort action, especially the lady who said her breasts were massaged or something. That is a tort action. 

What would the VA's position be if a tort action were filed? 

Ms. KEENER. At this point, Mr. Clyburn, the VA settlement 

agreement is final. The VA can take no more action against Mr. 

Calhoun. 

The individual complainants always have the right to sue him for 

a variety of legal actions in a federal court. They can sue him for, 

from what I heard this morning, a variety of actions if they choose 

to do that. 

The VA, because at the time that the alleged actions were committed Mr. Calhoun was a VA employee, we would be in the position of having to defend him against the complainant unless the allegations occurred outside the scope of his professional duties. 

So if an allegation occurred when he was not in the position of 

the VA Medical Center facility Director, then we would not have 

to defend, but any actions alleged in a federal suit that occurred 

during the scope of his responsibilities as a Director, we, the VA 

and the Department of Justice, would have to defend. 

Mr. CLYBURN. That is my problem here. If you have got to defend-I cannot remember which young lady who indicated that she 

was really verbally abused in the presence of the EEO officer and 

some other person by Mr. Calhoun-are you telling me now that 

if her attorney, and I understand that she has an attorney, were 

to file appropriate legal action, that the VA would, in fact, defend 

him because he made his decisions? This whole discussion was 

within the scope of his employment. 

Ms. KEENER. We have a responsibility to defend actions of employees that are committed within the scope of their--

Mr. CLYBURN. No, ma'am. 

Ms. KEENER (continuing). Position. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I do not believe that is the law. You are telling me 

that you have to defend and condone? I mean . you are really defending that. You would be condoning those actions. 

Ms. KEENER. Well, Mr. Clyburn, there are a lot of attorneys that 

defend people that are accused of very serious crimes, too. Everyone is entitled to a lawyer, and fortunately or unfortunately the 

way the law is the VA is charged with defending VA employees 

when they are accused of violations of the law. 

We would not actually provide the litigation. The Department of 

Justice would, but we would work with the Department of Justice, 

and we would have to defend this case. 

As in any case that is litigated, a determination is always made 

on the merits of the case as, you know, how far you want to proceed with the litigation, but those are decisions that are made on 

each case based on the merits. I certainly cannot make any com-
60 

ments as to what might happen if any of these particular cases 

that we heard this morning were to be litigated, but the VA would, 

in fact, except for the exceptions that I noted, have to defend Mr. 

Calhoun. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So these ladies are accurate in their emotions expressed here this morning that this guy, as far as the VA is concerned, has gotten away with all of this. 

Ms. KEENER. I am not sure if he really got away that Scot free. 

He was transferred out of the facility. Those individuals at that facility no longer have to deal with Mr. Calhoun. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I understand. 

Ms. KEENER. He was stripped of his SES status. He is no longer 

in a supervisory position. He is not in a position that allows him 

to have any authority to supervise women in his current job in 

Florida. 

So I do not think that he got away Scot free in this situation. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, let me ask. I have a question. How many 

EEO officers within the VA are women? 

Mr. HINCH. Each medical center Director is also designated as an 

EEO officer. I do not know how many women medical center directors we have or regional directors in Veterans' Benefits, but the 

head of each office or medical center is the EEO officer. 

The reason for that originally was that they wanted to designate 

the EEO officer as someone with authority to take whatever necessary corrective action was needed in settlement of a discrimination complaint or sexual harassment complaint and so forth. 

In the military, frequently it is the base commander. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, let me ask you this. Am I to understand that 

Mr. Calhoun was the EEO officer in Fayetteville? 

Mr. HINCH. Right. 

Mr. CLYBURN. If he were the EEO officer in Fayetteville, then 

the very first complaint should have immediately gone outside the 

agency. So they would not have to complain to him about him. 

Mr. HINCH. Let me say from what I heard this morning the system did not work. When you were listening to Ms. Blumenthal, she 

described how the system should work. That is the way that we 

train and require that the system works in VA also. 

Something did not happen. Many things obviously did not happen there that should have happened. They should have, when 

they first contacted a counselor, been given a written notice as to 

how long counseling would last, what the next step was, and how 

to secure that step in writing. 

Mr . CLYBURN. So nothing happened, and so then you were saying 

that these people from this morning really should have gone directly to EEOC? 

Mr. HINCH. No, what I am saying is at Fayetteville if the system 

had worked properly, they would have gotten all of the administrative remedies available to them without going to EEOC, but EEOC 

was built into it. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, from whom? 

Mr. HINCH. Well, let me explain how the system works. You go 

to a counselor. The counselor really serves as the mediator to see 

if it can be resolved informally. The counselor has 30 days to do 

that in. At the end of 30 days unless the counselor has written per-
61 

mission from the complainant to extend the counseling process, the 

counselor must give the complainant a notice of the right to file. 

It says you have the right now to file a formal complaint, and it 

tells them how to file it and who to file it with. 

They can file it at my office in Washington. They can file it with 

the National Director of Women's Programs. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, that is my point. The complaint could have 

been filed to you after the EEO counselor, and they would not have 

to go to Mr. Calhoun. 

Mr. HINCH. Right. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Let me ask. I believe it was in 1993 when I first 

became aware of the situation in Atlanta. 

Mr. HINCH. Yes. 

Mr. CLYBURN. We talked about that in this very room, and we 

talked about some things, Mr. Bilirakis, that we needed to do in 

order to insure that people had these direct lines outside the 

agency. 

If my memory serves me well, there was some resistance within 

the VA to doing that. I think Sanford Bishop joined me in that, and 

you all told us at that time that no Atlantas would happen again. 

Now we are hearing that no Fayettevilles will happen again. 

Mr. HINCH. Let me respond if I may. At that particular time I 

was one of the people testifying at that time, and Mr. Evans was, 

I think, chairing that committee. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Right. 

Mr. HINCH. What the Secretary said at the time was he supported the intent of the legislation, H.R. 1032, but he really did not 

feel it was necessary for legislation; that he could accomplish all of 

those things administratively, and he was going to do so. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Right. 

Mr. HINCH. Shortly thereafter, Senate bill 404 also was being 

considered in the Senate, and the Secretary was advised at that 

time that it was only a matter of months before EEOC takes on 

the whole government-wide EEO program. 

So the Secretary wrote to Chairman Montgomery at the time and 

said, "In lieu of that, I do not want to go through a major reorganization in the Department of Veterans Affairs only in a few weeks 

later to have to hand the program over to EEOC." 

That is why we did not do it administratively at that particular 

time, but we were fully supportive of the intent of H.R. 1032, Senate bill 404, and we had developed a very specific administrative 

proposal that would have accomplished everything that was intended in H.R. 1032. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So you are telling me then that all of this has 

been accomplished? 

Mr. HINCH. I am tell you that it was--

Mr. CLYBURN. No, your position, not your procedure. I am saying 

S. 404 and H.R. 1032, everything that was in S. 404 and H.R. 

1032--

Mr. HINCH. Never got off the drawing board. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Because you all anticipated that a law was going 

to pass the Congress? 

40-881 97 - 3 
62 

Mr. HINCH. Yes. The EEOC was going to take over the whole 

program. I did not anticipate it, sir. Let me tell you because I have 

been in this business a long time. 

Mr. CLYBURN. That is what I would think. 

Mr. HINCH. And I have seen similar efforts go nowhere. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Absolutely. 

Mr. HINCH. But there were others who thought it would happen. 

Mr. CLYBURN. And so the Secretary decided not to move because 

he was advised that this was going to become law. Mr. HINCH. That this was imminent. 

Mr. CLYBURN. And then in 1996, 3 years later, it still had not 

been done. Mr. HINCH. That is the case. Deputy Secretary GOBER. Mr. Clyburn, if I may, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Yes, sir. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. One of the reasons for the--

Mr. CLYBURN. It is Clyburn. Let me get my name right here. 

There is no A in this name, sir. C-I-y. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, I saw that. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Y gets the sound of I. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. When I saw that earlier, I saw that, 

but someone called you--

Mr. EVERETT. Did I do that? 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, Everett is my good friend. So I let him call 

me anything he wants to. (Laughter.) 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. And like you said, I understand what 

you are saying. I just saw some of that snow out of the window 

here, too. 

Mr. EVERETT. My sincere apologizes. Mr. CLYBURN. That is all right. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. But one of the reasons there, was a 

price tag attached to what the Secretary was going to do administratively, and it was about $3.5 million a year. I think. the Secretary very wisely, at that point in time, thought if this law does 

pass that we would just be throwing $3.5 million out the window 

basically, and so he held off on it, and of course, the law did not 

pass. Mr. CLYBURN. Well, if I remember H.R. 1032 correctly, if I may, 

Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Lerner is he and he really can correct me 

if I am wrong, I thought that what the Secretary was saying to us 

was that we did not need to do H.R. 1032 because he was going 

to do it administratively. He was going to accomplish administratively what H.R. 1032 would ask him to do. 

We did not have a budget on H.R. 1032. Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CLYBURN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. I have it underlined here in the record there where 

the Secretary says the department does not support H.R. 1032. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Right. Yes, that is what I am saying. He did not 

support it. Deputy Secretary GoBER. But that was only because he felt we 

would be doing it administratively. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I am going to close with this, Mr. Chairman. 
63 

You know, out of deference to what I said in my opening statement, I have a great deal of experience with the VA, experiences 

I have slept with for 35 years, but I will tell you. I think that we 

are here today because no one followed up on what we talked about 

in 1993, and I do not see any indication that anything is being 

done at this point to keep us from being here next year with the 

same kind of allegation. 

Now, I say this because I think Ms. Blumenthal indicated a figure, and I hesitate to bring this up because I was out of the room, 

and I apologize for that, but if you have got B.-something percent 

of employees in federal agencies sitting at the VA, but you have got 

14 percent of the sexual harassment complaints at the VA, something is wrong. 

Mr. HINCH. I do not want to defend that, but I would like to offer 

a comment, please. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Please. 

Mr. HINCH. The VA is a distinctly different department than 

some of the others that we are talking about. We have over 57 percent of our work force is female. They are located throughout the 

whole Nation, large towns, small towns, medium size towns, isolated locations, medical centers where men and women work together very closely in very unsupervised atmospheres. So I think 

there are some factors that may contribute to that. 

Now, I do not want to present to you that that is why those numbers are there, but I would also say to you that, overall, our figures 

for sexual harassment as compared to the total complaint work 

load we have has been f0ing down. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, would suggest, and this is my final statement on this, someone testified earlier that X number of the VA 

complaints had been contracted out. 

Mr. HINCH. About 59 percent. 

Mr. CLYBURN. About 59 percent. I would suggest that one of the 

quickest ways to get to this is to contract out 100 percent of the 

complaints involving sexual harassment. 

If you took these sexual harassment complaints right out of the 

system as soon as you got them, that would go a long way towards 

keeping us from being here with these kinds of things in the 

future. 

Would you agree that that would be a good way to deal with sexual harassment complaints? Contract them out, every single one of 

them. That is zero tolerance. 

Mr. HINCH. I would like to resolve them before you get to the investigative stage. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, we all would like to do that, sir, but you and 

I both know, and you just gave a real good reason why you cannot 

do that. If you have got people in isolated situations, and you are 

talking to the father of three daughters, and so I would like to see 

that happen also. 

But the fact of the matter is when the complaints are broughtyou see, you are not going to bring the complaints while they are 

being counseled-but when the complaints are brought, I am saying at that point every sexual harassment complaint ought to be 

contracted out, especially since the Secretary did not support H.R. 

1032. 
64 

Mr. HINCH. We do not have a problem with that, and as you describe it, it is quite possible to do that. We can do that without a 

great deal of difficulty. It just means assigning a contractor to it 

rather than a collateral duty investigator. 

I guess I did not understand you at first. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Yes. 

I am through, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. (Laughter.) 

Mr. EVERETT. The chair now recognizes Mr. Buyer. 

Mr. BUYER. Actually, you know, a few weeks ago I extended 

great compliment to my colleague from South Carolina for being 

the new Ranking Member, and on this line of questioning, I compliment it, and it reinforces my compliment to you. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. BUYER. Part of what he is sharing with you is no different. 

I am going to have to go back because I am doing what Mr. Everett 

is doing on the sexual misconduct in the U.S. Military. This one is 

huge, and there are many of whom are saying, you know, there is 

such a problem that you need an ombudsman. You need independent commissions, and everybody is trying to do all kinds of 

outreach. 

That is no different than Mr. Clyburn here asking for the same 

thing. One thing though that concerns me about that request for 

going outside is that we are not changing behavior. We are leaving 

the same bad players in the same positions taking six figure salaries, and that concerns me. 

When we are talking about those employers are setting the tone 

of the environment for the work place, I am not so apt to leave 

them in the work place, and I have said publicly and I will stress 

it also to the VA. It is entirely acceptable for the American people 

to demand of the VA, the military or the federal agencies' authorities a higher standard. 

You say, "Steve, a higher standard than what you would find in 

Monticello, Indiana?" Absolutely, absolutely. So I think the gentleman's line of questioning was entirely appropriate. One thing that does concern me, and he was getting mto 

this agreement, let me share a perspective here. I'm a country guy 

from the com fields of Indiana, a country lawyer, and I try not to 

get lost in the high weeds, you know, that kind of thing. So I just 

read a document only by the four comers of the document. So as I read the document, I look at this and say, you know, 

there is something here that had to have occurred, and I learn that 

there were three allegations, I guess, Dr. Gross, at the time that 

this was drafted, and if the a~eement is based upon the three allegations at the time and this IS then signed, if there are other allegations that occur that are outside your knowledge that were 

made, that being now that the testimony of Ms. Barefoot or-who 

else do we have?-well, there were other individuals. You can take 

action. 

The VA can go after this gentleman, if I can call him a gentleman. He is innocent until proven guilty, but the document, if h 

only refers to specific cases-as a matter of fact, this is not a very 

well drafted document. 
65 

Who drafted this thing? Dr. Gross, who drafted this? 

Dr. GROSS. Well, the draft was a joint effort, but the personnel 

specialist was the primary author. 

Mr. BUYER. Did the lawyers for Mr. Calhoun draft this document? 

Dr. GROSS. The lawyers for Mr. Calhoun? 

Mr. BUYER. Yes. 

Dr. GROSS. No, they did not. They advised him in the process of 

negotiation, but the document itself was drafted by the human resources specialists in the VA. 

Mr. BUYER. The Whatley report, what is that? Whatley? 

Dr. GROSS. The Whatley report. 

Mr. BUYER. Did you draft that? 

Dr. GROSS. No, Mr. Whatley drafted it. 

Mr. BUYER. Do you agree with that report? Are you comfortable 

with it? 

Dr. GROSS. I do not really understand what you mean. Am I com- fortable with it? 

Mr. BUYER. Well, I listen to testimony. I read some statements. 

I think that the report itself is awfully understated and almost benign. What is your opinion of the report? 

Dr. GROSS. I think the report was benign. I agree with that. Mr. BUYER. Well, that is my opinion. What is your opinion? It is 

benign? 

Dr. GROSS. It is benign. 

Mr. BUYER. What does it mean when you say a report is benign? 

My interpretation from Indiana may be different from yours. 

Dr. GROSS. When I say it is benign, the report itself does not, in 

fact, address the issue specifically enough. It is too general. It is 

broad. 

Mr. BUYER. All right. What then did you have to do to go beyond 

the report to satisfy you at a level of accountability to take action? 

What did you find? 

Dr. GROSS. I think the report met my purposes, especially my 

oral outreach from Mr. Whatley, and that was he confirmed as an 

independent assessment that, indeed, there were hostile conditions 

at Fayetteville, and after the report and verbal outreach, I elected 

to notify Mr. Calhoun that I wanted him removed as soon as possible and started to negotiate with my superiors and headquarters 

to remove him as the medical center director on the basis of the 

hostile work environment-his management by threats and intimidations. 

Mr. BUYER. You made a decision based upon what you feel was 

a benign report in generalities, unwilling to go into the detail, but 

you were satisfied that based on the report that he should be removed. All right? 

Dr. GROSS. That is a combination of that report plus my own 

visit to the facility and talking to individuals. Mr. BUYER. How did you feel when lawyers then told you-you 

are in a position of authority now, had the taxpayers' interests also 

at heart-and somebody tells you you cannot remove a bad actor? 

How did you feel about that? 
66 

Dr. GROSS. Well, no one told me I could not remove a bad actor. 

I could not remove a bad actor without going through the legal 

process and due process, et cetera. 

Mr. BUYER. Right, and for some reason you were unwilling to 

take the case through the chain of legal events. Even though you 

did not know about the details, you were unwilling to take it 

through a chain of events, and you relied upon someone else telling 

you that, well, perhaps this is a case that we cannot win. 

I just share this with you. This is Hoosier perspective again. You 

see when I come out here to Washington, DC, I get upset because 

when I look out two blocks from here, I look at homes and I look 

at businesses that have bars on the windows, and my perspective 

says, you know what? The wrong people are behind bars. 

Now I look at the bureaucracy, and I share the same perspective 

and say, you know what? There must be a real problem with the 

bureaucratic culture in this country if we have people of authority 

that are afraid to go after bad actors. 

Dr. GROSS. Well, quite to the contrary, I am not afraid to go after 

bad actors. In fact, I was very aggressive--

Mr. BUYER. Then please explain to us why you did not aggressively go through the legal process because now the taxpayer, because this Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that permits women 

to file claims under the tort law, whereby if the government, the 

VA, loses a case, the taxpayer has to pay. So please share with me. 

Dr. GROSS. I am not sure if you-perhaps let me clarify the chronology here. At the time Mr. Whatley conducted his investigation 

at my request, I had already visited the Fayetteville facility and 

come to the conclusion that it was a very hostile work environment, 

but I needed an independent assessment of the management climate there. 

The sexual harassment issue was not an issue at that time. This 

was in the summer of 1996. It was after the Whatley report, and 

my conversation with him and my conversation with my superiors 

that I elected to seek action to remove Mr. Calhoun. I was very aggressive in that regard. 

He reluctantly agreed to step down as Director, and it was at 

that time that the OIG, who was working in collaboration with me, 

providing me some additional information related to the hostile 

work environment, that the OIG decided that they would then go 

in to investigate two cases of sexual harassment which they did not 

identify what they were to me. 

So rather than let Mr. Calhoun remain in the Director position, 

I sought permission from my superiors, to detail Mr. Calhoun out 

of the facility. My main objective was to aggressively pursue removing Mr. Calhoun at all costs, to make whole the people in that facility so that we could start to go about the business of taking care 

of our patients. 

So there were two efforts there. 

Mr. BUYER. You know, we heard some testimony here from five 

ladies that are very uncomfortable about the VA and their handling of these cases. Can you imagine that with all the scrutiny 

upon the U.S. military at the moment, that if you had a Navy captain who did something on a destroyer and they said, "Well, let's 

get him off that destroyer and we'll give him a job and he's now 
67 

going to command an aircraft carrier"? Do you think that would 

happen in the Navy? 

No, it would not. So now let's shift over and say what? Are we 

going to treat-now they are out of the military, but now they are 

in the VA-we are going to treat them by different standards? 

No, no, no. I think that-let me compliment the Ranking Member and Chairman for bringing this hearing, and Mr. Bilirakis. 

There is a real problem here with the VA. If we have got 12 senior 

level positions that have all now been discharged from their duties 

because of these allegations, that is like-is it 12? You are shaking 

your head. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Nine. 

Mr. BUYER. Nine? Oh, all right. Nine. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Only two of them--

Mr. BUYER. That's like saying nine generals. Don't go West. 

Pardon? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Only two are still on active duty. The 

rest are retired. 

Mr. BUYER. What about the others? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. We drove them out. Some of them were 

driven out and retired early. Some of them took buyout. One of 

them took a buyout earlier. They are no longer in the service. We 

have two senior executives that are no longer senior executives. 

They were, to use your military analogy, they received a captain's mass and not a court martiaL They are still serving in the 

VA, but they are no longer in leadership positions. 

Mr. BUYER. And you have created a position for them to protect 

that individual is my assessment. Deputy Secretary GOBER. Not to protect the individual. The fact 

is that there was a legal process we have to go through. Our people 

made a judgment. 

Mr. BUYER. A legal process which you chose not to go through. 

You gave this guy a good salary--

Deputy Secretary GoBER. We made--

Mr. BUYER (continuing). And a wonderful climate that I do not 

have in Indiana. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, you know, I want to address a 

couple of things. There is no way that I am going to sit here, Mr. 

Clyburn, and promise anything like this will not happen, the reason being is that I am not a fooL Things like this happen. This is 

a huge organization. Things happen, and you and I both know it, 

that should not happen. We understand that. It should not happen, 

and our policy is we do not want it to happen, and we are doing 

everything possible. 

Now, let me tell you what I think we should do from now on. 

When we have a situation like this happen, let's just say we have 

a Director in Indiana or anyplace you want to take. When we get 

allegations that this is happening. What we will do is we will 

transfer; we will detail that Director totally away, maybe into 

Washington, DC, and we will send a team in that will investigate, 

and we will get to the bottom of it so that we do not have a few 

allegations come forward and we fmd out about then and then later 

on you find more. 
68 

We will do a complete investigation, do like you are talking about 

so that when we go forward we have got a complete package. If 

that individual is innocent, you know, the Constitution is a heck 

of an impediment, but it is a nice thing that individual has rights. If he or she is innocent we will protect them. If they are not, then 

we will throw the full weight of the VA against it. 

But I do not want anybody to think that the VA has not made 

progress because that is patently untrue. 

Mr. BUYER. And, Mr. Chairman, I guess my understanding is 

that the Secretary will be dispatching one of these teams to investigate the new allegations against Mr. Calhoun. Deputy Secretary GOBER. What I will have to do is-again, I am 

not an attorney-but I will consult with my attorneys. If there is 

a way that we can do that, we will but I do not know if there is 

a double jeopardy problem. My folks are very capable of advising 

me, and we will do whatever the law says we can do. We will also 

respect the rights of individuals. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Evans. 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, Hershel, I know you have worked hard on this, and 

as we said in our introductory statements, we have no personal 

problem with the attempts of you and Jesse Brown to move ahead 

with zero tolerance, but 5 years ago our former colleague, Jill Long, 

Congresswoman from Indiana, concluded after the hearing was 

done that the VA sexual harassment policy essentially boiled down 

to this: 

"If you are sexually harassed, you get demoted, but if you are the 

harasser, you get transferred, and the taxpayers support your defense as well as your salary." 

Now, one of these women carne forward today saying that it was 

very uncomfortable for her to sit in this committee room and talk 

about these issues. Obviously it was tough for all of these women, 

but if they could help one woman deal with the problems that she 

is facing in the VA, it would have been worthwhile. 

Our duty, and I know you will never get 100 percent, is to do 

99 to 100 percent if at all possible, and I guess the message we are 

sending out listening to Ms. Keener for a second, is that he did not 

get off Scot free in the case of Mr. Calhoun because he was demoted from the senior management status, and it was good to 

know that women in Buffalo and Fayetteville are now off the hook, 

but I guess women in Bay Pines had better be on guard. 

And my question is you have failed to mention that the provision 

that allows Mr. Calhoun in this settlement to be considered for reentry in the SES in 3 years. How could you explain that, given his 

past record? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. He is barred for 3 years for reentry. 

Mr. EVANS. Okay. But so do we--

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Why would we consider letting him 

reenter? 

Mr. EVANS. Right. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, you know, and again, I am not 

an attorney, but I would say in layman terms, he has not been convicted of anything. You would hope that a person-you know, part 
69 

of the VA is rehab. I would say this. This gentleman, Mr. Calhoun, lives in a fish bowl. His SES status, leaving the SES status, he has 

not gotten off Scot free, and contrary to what we have heard about 

him receiving an increase, a pay raise, he did not do that. He got 

a cost-of-living adjustment like every other employee in the government gets. We did not give him an increase of pay. 

But the point is I guess your question, Congressman Evans, is 

how could you ever reconsider this person. Well, you know, hopefully-should I say anything more? 

Mr. HINCH. Hershel, could I say something to that? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Very little. 

Mr. HINCH. Okay. Mr. Evans, actually if we had not put that provision in there, he could have reapplied to readmission to SES at 

any time. 

Mr. EVANS. You cannot bar that? 

Mr. HINCH. That is what this does. This means that he cannot 

really apply for readmission for 3 years. Without that he would 

have been able to. 

Now, understand we do not determine his readmission to SES. 

That is controlled by the Office of Personnel Management. That is 

who he would apply to. That provision in the agreement really bars 

him from applying before 3 years. Deputy Secretary GOBER. So really this is a plus for us. It is 

something that we got. 

Mr. EVANS. But you know, I do not see it as a permanent punishment. I do not understand all of the parts of the SES. Basically if 

he can reapply, he can regain that status after 3 years is the way 

I read it. Deputy Secretary GOBER. He can reapply. He has no automatic 

reinstatement, and he has to go through the whole procedure 

again. ~ Mr. Hinch said, if we had not had that in there, he could 

have reapplied the next day. 

Mr. EVANS. Is the standard now in these kinds of agreements, something to that effect at least? And why couldn't we have barred 

him for 10 years or for the rest of his career? 

Mr. HINCH. It may have been possible. I do not know if that 

would have been a break point on the settlement negotiations. I 

was not there. 

You know, again, I understand your concern, Mr. Evans. I would 

just make the observation that with all that has transpired unless 

his rehabilitation is really stellar and so apparent, his reapplying 

is going to be a very difficult task. 

Dr. MORAVEC. May I make an effort to add to that, please? 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. 

Dr. MORAVEC. It seems that we have a common understanding 

here that it was important to get Mr. Calhoun out of that environment so that these ladies and others would not have to deal with 

that on a day-to-day basis. What we were concerned about as we 

talked about this is to get the greatest amount of assurance that 

we would be successful in getting him out of that environment, and 

as we went through it and as information evolved and discussions 

occurred, there was some question about whether we could prevail in sustaining removal. 
70 

That precipitated the need for some dialogue with him and his 

attorneys in trying to move towards a settlement. The settlement 

maybe could have been better. It seemed to us that he was very 

adamant, as I understand it, about the dollars apparently due to 

his circumstance, whatever it was. We were looking for a way to 

free the environment of what we have heard about as a person who 

had behavior that was certainly destructive or counterproductive, and we succeeded in that. 

Maybe if we could do it all over, maybe we could do it better, but 

we did succeed in that one single mission, if you will, that everyone 

seems to agree was the right thing to do: get him out of that 

environment. 

Mr. EVANS. Well, I do not think we are going to stop this conduct 

until it is punished and viewed as a punishment by women who 

have been abused, and somehow they have got to have some input 

into this process because I understand not a single one of them has 

been consulted by the VA when this agreement was drafted for any 

kind of consultation or any kind of input; is that correct? 

Dr. MORAVEC. Yes, I am certain it is correct. It would be a very 

unusual process to involve people who were in process, in some 

kind of a legal or a procedure such as EEO, and I do not believe 

that happens in any case that I am aware of, whether it is a grievance or an EEO, or sexual harassment complaint. I do not believe 

it does. 

Mr. EVANS. All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, no one has to convince me of the concern for veterans or 

veterans' rights that Secretary Gober holds and certainly Secretary 

Brown. He was what, Executive Director, I guess it was, of the 

DAV for many years. That is how we knew him, and Hershel goes 

way back as far as veterans' rights are concerned. And I will tell you I really misjudge you if you are not sitting 

there damned uncomfortable, Hershel. You have got to be uncomfortable. 

You know, we have got to look at this overall picture. We are 

concerned about the rights of these ladies, the rights of others who 

have been taken advantage of, but we also have to take a look at 

this from the eyes of the veteran, the grassroots veteran out there. 

I mean the people that I have heard from. You have an awful 

lot of friends out there in the veterans community. You are bound 

to have heard from them, and I doubt very much that any explanation that we have heard here today from you or any of the others 

in this panel is something that would be anywhere near acceptable 

to those veterans. 

Golly, you said things happen. You are right. It is an agency with 

240,000 people. It is just like, you know, some may ask us, "Hey, 

you guys are the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Why didn't you 

know this was going on?" 

Well, one might unfairly ask you the same thing, I suppose, because how in the world can you possibly know everything that is 

going on. So, yes, things happen, and you refused to, rightly so, refused to commit to the fact it will not happen again. 
71 

But I will tell you something. If I were a bad actor or a potential 

bad actor and I wanted for whatever reason to get out of my job 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs, a high position with the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, and I had something else in line 

or wanted to retire and go fishing or whatever the case may be, depending, of course, on my character, I might decide I am going to 

do something like this because I know damned well that I am going 

to be able to sit down and negotiate something out. I am going to 

probably get a buyout. I am going to be moved to a place that I 

want to go to all along anyhow, Florida or whatever the case may 

be. 

And the trouble is that we are not just talking about one instance here. One of our local newspapers, the St. Petersburg Times, 

which has done a fantastic job on this issue, reported, and I would 

ask unanimous consent to admit this into the record. 

Mr. EVERETT. Without objection. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It is an April 14 article by David Dahl. 

Mr. EVERETT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The attachment appears on p. 153.] 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. And I might just paraphrase that. He reported 

that a VA doctor in a VA medical center in Maine made advances 

towards a VA nurse while on a business trip. A federal jury said 

the doctor's behavior had created a hostile work place and recommended a $375,000 award. I am assuming that $375,000, Mr. Clyburn and Dr. Snyder, is 

probably going to come out of the VA out of the taxpayers because 

it is a $375,000 award. 

Despite the department's zero tolerance policy, and again, I do 

not fault that; I said that in my opening statements. I gave credit 

to Secretary Brown because I really believe he intends zero 

tolerance. 

But in any case, despite it, the doctor received a I-week suspension, a I-week suspension, and was allowed to keep his $123,161 

a year salary. The doctor appears to have received a very lenient 

punishment. 

Is there any veteran out there, Mr. Secretary, who would not 

consider that a much too lenient punishment? The nurse has been 

transferred to another VA job and awaits a judge's ruling and the 

jury recommendation, and the comments from the nurse was, ''The 

way they handled it was to punish the victim," and I am just leaving her name out for the moment. "I was a dialysis nurse for 20 

years, and because of something he did, I was forced to leave a 

profession." 

So you have the Clyburn situation. You have this situation. 

Another report in the same newspaper, another highly paid 

former VA medical center Director was transferred to Bay Pines 

previously. It seems as though Florida is the dumping ground for 

all of the VA's management problems. I would like to think without 

any reflection on Minnesota or North Dakota that if we are going 

to be dumping somebody, for crying out loud, it ought to be in those 

areas in the winter rather than St. Petersburg, FL. (Laughter.) 

And so you can see now. I cannot believe that this does not really 

bug you all, and it is not just what happened. It is not just that 

you did not put into place the administrative procedures that you 
72 

had indicated to us you were going to put into place in 1993, but 

it is these punishments. 

Where are our guts? Whatever happened? I mean a lot of you 

guys are veterans. Maybe all of you are, and where are our guts 

that we are going to allow ourselves to create this type of a precedent which would encourage this kind of conduct. It certainly does 

not discourage it. It encourages it. 

GS-14, you indicated for Mr. Clyburn. I understand the top level 

of a GS-14 salary is $81,000 a year, and he is making $106,000 

a year. So I mean he certainly has not been hurt as far as that is 

concerned. 

So, comments: First of all, I think it is important that maybe you 

might provide us with more information regarding the case that I 

just mentioned to you. Axe you familiar with the case that I am referring to with the Maine doctor? I can give you the name if you 

want. 

Ms. KEENER. I am very familiar with that case, Mr. Bilirakis. 

That case is currently on appeal, and there is extensive information 

on that case that I think you would be interested in looking at in 

some detail. I would be happy to share that with you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So it is being appealed by the doctor; is that 

correct? 

Ms. KEENER. Yes, sir, and we would be happy to share the details on that case with you. Mr. EVERE'IT. If you would make that available to the committee, 

I would appreciate it. 

Ms. KEENER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there any reason why Florida is the recipient 

of so many of these personnel transfers? 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. No, sir, that is not planned, even 

though Florida is a beautiful state. That is not planned at all. 

And let me say this, and you are right, Congressman. I sit here. 

I am glad to be here, sitting here because I am as outraged as you 

are. Secretary Brown is as outraged as you are. So believe it or not, 

I am very comfortable sitting here because I know I am talking to 

people that really care. We all care about the same thing. We are 

not playing who shot John. We are wanting to get to the bottom 

and try to find a way to improve it. I hate to hear people say that we punish the victim, and I know 

in all too many cases it has appeared to be that. It has looked like 

that. It looks like that we have just transferred the "good 01' boys" 

from here to there. One of the things, we have had a discussion here this week, and 

we have talked many, many hours about transferring problems. 

When we first got here, I said I do not like transferring problems. If a person is a bad actor in one place, he or she will be a bad actor 

in another place. Let's take care of our problems. Let's bite the 

bullet. 

And of course, I was new to the Federal Government. I did not 

realize you had all of these laws that keep you from doing certain 

things, but that is not an excuse. There has got to be a way we 

can do it. 

We will work with the committee on any way we can, and I will 

assure you that if I had one thing that I could do today, it would 
73 

be to reassure all of the women, the women that work for the VA 

out there and all of the women veterans, everybody, this policy is 

still in effect, and when we go out and do our investigation with 

the teams we will send out from now on, you know, we will go right 

to the very bottom of the barrel and find out what is going on, and 

then a decision will be made on discipline. 

We have got to stop it. Secretary Brown is committed to it. I am 

committed to it, and we will continue to work to make this zero tolerance work. 

Will we ever solve it? Negative, but we will make a positive step. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Well, I appreciate that. I think you know that I 

do, but as long as we do not try to not reward, and I am going to 

use that term because it is a "dad-blasted" reward. I do not care. Dr. Moravec, and I appreciate your response to my inquiry, and 

I introduced that letter dated April 9, 1997, as part of the record, 

but Dr. Moravec responded to me in a very nice manner, but you 

know, he basically refers and accents as you did the key facts remain, and Mr. Calhoun has been removed from a leadership position, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, trying to make it seem like the 

punishments fit the crime, if you will, and when I say the crime, 

I mean in this sense. 

And as long as we continue to do that and do not take one of 

these particular cases, with all due respect to your General Counsel, and take them up all the way through the process to see 

whether the Civil Service law actually prevents this sort of thing 

taking place. I mean, I realize what it says and you came aboard 

and you were not aware of all these laws that we in our stupidity 

maybe passed and made that tough where you cannot really transfer a person. I cannot believe you cannot transfer a person from 

one VA medical center to another. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Oh'les sir, we can. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, you can. know you can. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes sir, we can. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. I was not sure why you could not transfer him, 

but you would have had to transfer him as a Medical Director; is 

that right? 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. Without an agreement, without an 

agreement or going to court. Mr. BILlRAKIS. In other words, if he does a bad job, let's say it 

was not sexual harassment. 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. We have to prove a case. He has his 

rights, but absolutely you could do it. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, sure, he has his rights. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. My fear was, and the fear of VHA was, 

that if they-as with any case-you have to look at it because if 

you lose that case at MSPB, then they come back on you. He could 

have gotten almost any job he wanted, certainly reinstated, maybe 

all attorney fees paid and maybe even a cash settlement. 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. Yes, but in a case like this, it seems to be not at 

all a marginal situation. 

Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BILlRAKIS. It seems to me that you could have used this as 

a pretty darn good test case. 

Yes, sir. 
74 

Mr. EVERETT. Will you yield, please? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. My time is up anyway, sir. Mr. EVERETT. Well, then since we are on this subject, before I got 

to Vic let me just ask you directly. Is it not the situation that under 

the terms of the settlement Mr. Calhoun can reenter at a senior 

level, at a management level, in 3 years? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. No, sir, not automatically. He can 

apply to reenter. 

Mr. EVERETT. He can apply. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. But, sir, I would like to point out, as 

was pointed out here earlier, that without that stipulation in the 

agreement-and that is something he gave up-the very next day 

he could have applied for reentry. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you for that clarification. Vic, again. Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Several questions here. I guess, again, I think our intent is to 

look for things that we need to be doing. You all are looking for 

things you need to be doing, and we are looking for things that we 

need to be doing through statute. 

In terms of some of the administrative things, if I could ask Dr. 

Gross a question, I have got your letter here of December 6th of 

1996, and it is to Mr. Calhoun, in which you say, "The letter of proposed adverse action issued to you, dated October 24, 1996, is hereby rescinded. The letter was issued prior to the completion of the 

evidence file," and then you send out this letter December 6 encouraging an informal settlement. 

What happened between October 24 and December 6? Did you 

get different legal advice? 

Dr. GROSS. I was collaborating with legal counsel throughout the 

process, but the advice that I had erred procedural-wise was in issuing the original letter of removal which prompted me to write the 

letter of rescission. 

Mr. SNYDER. So the first letter was a procedural problem? 

Dr. GROSS. A procedural problem that I was--

Mr. SNYDER. But it seems that early on you made the decision 

to terminate apparently and informed him of that. 

Dr. GROSS. I made two decisions. There were three phases. The 

first phase was in the summer before the investigation. I wanted 

to remove Mr. Calhoun, abated until the IG report was finished. When it was finished, I then proceeded to undertake removal action because, quite frankly, from the report I was livid. 

Mr. SNYDER. Right. 

Dr. GROSS. The sexual harassment component was new. After I issued the letter of removal, the attorney for Mr. Calhoun 

requested an evidence file, which was not available and which, subsequently, I understand should have been attached as a part of 

that removal letter. That was one procedural error. 

The second procedural error brought to my attention was that I 

did not have the delegation of authority to--

Mr. SNYDER. Let me interrupt you if you do not mind. I think 

you have answered that part of the question. 
75 

The other part of the letter that concerned me, and I just bring 

it up because in terms of what things that we all ought to have in 

mind when we are going through these kinds of messy situations. 

In your letter in there, I guess you are encouraging Mr. Calhoun 

to cut a deal, and you say, "Formal action will bring further embarrassment to you, the Fayetteville Medical Center, and to the Department of Veterans Affairs," and I hope that embarrassment is 

not going to be a criteria within the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

I mean Hershel knows where I live. I live a few blocks from the 

VA over there in Little Rock, and you know, it does not have blood 

vessels. It does not flush red when something goes wrong. 

I mean these women have certainly been embarrassed. I do not 

think they would have been embarrassed to have him terminated. 

I suspect all of the people who have worked with him, if I believe 

everything I have seen here today, would not have been embarrassed in Fayetteville to have him fired. 

The people that Mr. Clyburn met with at the social event would 

not have been embarrassed. They probably would have been relieved to have him terminated, figuring he would move on down 

the road. 

So I hope embarrassment is not a criteria that we have there, 

and maybe it was just something you put in the letter to encourage 

him to make the move. 

I want to ask in terms, Mr. Gober, of the fox in the henhouse. 

Now, as I understand it, you have made two changes; is that correct? One of them is if there is sexual harassment charges or bad 

conduct charges regarding a senior level, that there will be a panel 

that comes out from Washington. Is that accurate? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. That is correct. When we have allegations from a medical center against a Director, Associate Director, 

Chief of Staff-high level people-we will send out a team to investigate. Then when the report comes in recommending disciplinary 

action, after this report is done, it goes to the VHA, and they will 

make a recommendation which comes to the Secretary's office and 

will be reviewed by senior officials to make sure it is appropriate. 

Mr. SNYDER. What was the date of that new policy? Are we talking a month ago or 6 months ago? 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. Well, actually we--

Mr. SNYDER. Or this is going to be next month? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. No, we have already implemented the 

policy back in March. 

Mr. SNYDER. Okay. A month ago. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. And another thing, if I could very 

quickly. I think that procedurally, you know, we could sit here and 

argue there were a few things procedurally done wrong on this investigation. 

Mr. SNYDER. If we could move on, I understand. 

Ms. KEENER. Mr. Snyder, we have already sent a team out in one 

situation. 

Mr. SNYDER. It is underway. 

Ms. KEENER. So not only has the policy been implemented, but 

we already have had a team out on a recent situation. 

Mr. SNYDER. I have got you. 
76 

And again, the issue that you have already alluded to, the constraints that you have, maybe that is something that we all need 

to look at. You had, by your Inspector General, you had a lying, 

abusing sexual harasser that you thought created a very hostile 

work environment, so much so that Dr. Gross was livid about it, 

and yet you are telling us that the laws are such that he cannot 

be reassigned. 

I mean I do not want any response today, but that to me is a 

problem. Deputy Secretary GOBER. Oh, no. Mr. SNYDER. If the President does not like you, Mr. Gober, you 

are back to Arkansas, and we all know it. They will not send you 

back to Florida. They will send you to Arkansas with me. So we 

may need to work on this. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Maybe there is one more slot down 

there, but the point is we can move. We can move directors. You 

know, we can transfer all the time. However, you get into a real 

situation if you start doing it for a disciplinary reason. If we have a situation where we may have a director that we 

want to move somewhere else, we can do that. Mr. SNYDER. But that is the problem, isn't it? At some level of 

management, at some level of senior management, I would think 

that you would just say, "Hey, we want to move Joe, and, Joe, I 

am not going to tell you why. You are moved." 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Oh, we can do that, but we did not 

want to move this individual to a management position. If he is a 

hospital director and we do not have disciplinary action against 

that person and we move him, you assume you are going to move 

him into a hospital director position or a higher level position. 

Mr. SNYDER. I have got you. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Otherwise you are disciplining him. 

Mr. SNYDER. And the issue of the fact that nobody sat down with 

the complainants and discussed the plea bargain arrangement, for 

want of a better term, I guess, Ms. Keener, maybe there would 

have been a lot less uproar over this if each of the people that had 

complained would have heard the outline of the settlement. 

Ms. Force seemed to think that she understood where you were 

coming from on that. I am not sure I see the problem. Is that one 

of the lessons learned from this, that maybe that would be helpful 

or not? 

Ms. KEENER. It is not that I do not agree with you, Mr. Snyder, 

but I am really not the appropriate person to discuss this question 

because the role that the General Counsel's office plays in these 

kinds of complaints is really minimal. We only provide counsel. We 

have no real authority or responsibility in these cases. Mr. SNYDER. I thought I heard somebody--

Ms. KEENER. That would probably come under the auspices of 

the personnel folks, not General Counsel. 

Mr. SNYDER. All right. 

Ms. KEENER. So I will refer that to--

Mr. SNYDER. I heard some expression of some legal concerns 

about that. Maybe Dr. Moravec said that would be some legal concerns to sit down, but at some point I would think that you would 

be giving the complainant a little bit of say over what would your 
77 

recommendation be, Ms. Complainant. Would you want us to go 

ahead and push this case knowing it may be overturned and we 

could terminate him, or if you could substantiate it? 

I do not mean an unsubstantiated, but you are shaking your 

head, Hershel. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. I think that is something that would 

have to be dealt with very carefully because, you know, 240,000 

people cannot manage this organization. 

Mr. SNYDER. I am not saying get a sign-off. 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Your concern is a good one. When we 

get to the point, and this is something we can look at. We can discuss if it is appropriate, if we should involve them more, and on 

what situations. When we have a clear-cut case, obviously it would 

be, you know, something that we would consider. Of course, we have a clear-cut case, and I assure you we will not 

back off. 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. Ms. Keener, or whoever, the issue, again, looking for lessons learned, you are talking about the VA's responsibility to defend any future legal action which I guess would be a peculiar situation since you all may be defending Mr. Calhoun against 

our first bank of witnesses next month. Is that something that is affected by the failure to seek termination? If you had gone through the process and fired Mr. Calhoun, 

do you still have to defend him or do you lose your obligation to 

defend him in the future if you fired him because he was a lying, 

abusing sexual harasser? 

Ms. KEENER. It is my understanding, and I will stand corrected 

by my staff, but if he is found guilty of sexual harassment, we do 

not have to defend him. 

Mr. SNYDER. If he had been terminated for those charges. 

Ms. KEENER. That is correct. 

Mr. SNYDER. So that is something that needs to be balanced in 

the equation, doesn't it, because you are now obligated to defend 

by your own count nine people, retirees and reassignments? 

Mr. Gober, and this is my last question, are there other things 

that you have learned from this, I mean, other things that have not 

come up here today that we need to be thinking about? 

Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, I think I have learned I am going 

to stay a heck of a lot more involved in it at the high level, and 

I think it is important because we have to send a message. Secretary Brown and I have been very, very involved. 

Mr. SNYDER. But in terms of how Congress may need to respond 

in terms of statutory change or things that we need to do to help 

you all, either help or obligate you all to do things differently. Deputy Secretary GOBER. We are going to do some of the new 

things that I mentioned earlier, and we are totally open to advice 

and will be pleased to work with anybody that has an idea and 

we'll explore if we have to do something. We have got to make sure 

that our people know that the zero tolerance is not just a buzz 

word. It is not something we are just sitting here mouthing about. 

It is something we really believe. And, again, I am going to go back. I am going to disagree with 

the figures. I think that the fact that we have 14.1 percent people 
78 

coming forward shows, I hope, that our people understand they do 

not have to be afraid anymore. 

We have these cases. I know there still are not many of them, 

but I want them to come forward. I want them to come forward 

and bring these cases. Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Vic. 

I understand, again, that we may have a vote in about 20 minutes. I am going to close out this panel with the remark that I 

know the committee members have additional questions for the 

panel, and we will submit those to you. 

And let me say, Mr. Secretary, that I do not really believe that 

this matter has been adequately investigated and addressed by VA 

to this date. Ms. Barefoot was not interviewed by the IG. Ms. 

Moore-Russell has not been interviewed by anybody in VA management or IG. We have to ask how many other Ms. Moores are out 

there. Nobody knows. 

I have been told though there are a number of EEO complaints 

in Fayetteville still pending against Mr. Calhoun, and reading over 

the terms of the agreement and on advice from staff counsel, I am 

advised that nothing would preclude the VA from pressing additional or bringing additional charges against Mr. Calhoun if the results of those EEO investigations determine that those charges 

ought to be brought. 

And I would ask you to report back to this committee on all 

charges, and I understand that there may be well more than 20 

pending against Mr. Calhoun and what action has been taken. I think that we need to get to the bottom of what happened at 

Fayetteville quickly. I think it is to the benefit of the Congress and 

the VA, the people at Fayetteville, and the taxpayers. I do not believe and I know you do not believe that those five ladies up here 

were lying or have an overactive imagination. We cannot make the 

final determinations at this hearing, but the VA has a process to 

do that and should use them. 

I also believe that VA should begin to voluntarily take steps to 

identify and help anyone, including these five ladies here today, 

who has been injured or hurt by the situation at Fayetteville. You 

heard them say that they had not been contacted by VA at all, and 

I appreciate your remarks and the fact that you said that pained 

you. 

These ladies need to be contacted and made as whole as possible, 

these and any other that have been injured by this former Director 

at VA. . 

As I say, what I am talking about goes far beyond just advising 

them to get a good lawyer, and I see you nodding in agreement, 

and I hope you understand what I am talking about. 

Finally, Mr. Secretary, please give the subcommittee a comprehensive report 45 days from now on what the VA has done to 

further investigate and address those matters at Fayetteville 

raised by this hearing. I hope you will do that. 

The subcommittee will hold a follow-up hearing after it has your 

report and the results of the VA sexual harassment survey. 

I want to again thank you for coming. I appreciate your candor. As I said, we have had other discussions, and I have always en-
79 

joyed meeting with you. I know that sometimes we have to discuss 

very hard and frank issues, but I do appreciate you always being 

there when I call for you to come. 

We will dismiss this panel at this time. 

Deputy Secretary GoBER. Thank you, sir. On behalf of the VA 

staff here, I appreciate the candor that we shared, and I want to 

just reemphasize that we want everyone to know, particularly our 

employees out there that we are still on their side. 

Mr. EVERETI'. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would 

ask some of my staff to join me today. 

Mr. EVERETI'. Absolutely, and, Mr. Merriman, you are Deputy Inspector General. If you would introduce your staff, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir. 

On my left I have Mr. Jack Kroll, Assistant Inspector General. 

On my right I have Ms. Maureen Regan, my counsel. Mr. Bennett 

is part of her staff, and Ms. Shelly, Judy Shelly, is staff to Mr. Jack 

Kroll. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. 

And if you will at this time, please, I would like to swear the 

panel in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. EVERETI'. Thank you. 

I would ask that we confme the statements to yours, Mr. 

Merriman. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EVERETI'. And that you be as brief as possible, and we will 

submit the entire statement or other statements for the record. 

STATEMENT OF Wll..LIAM T. MERRIMAN, DEPUTY INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOMPANIED BY JACK KROLL, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL; 

MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSEL; MICHAEL BENNETT, OFFICE 

OF COUNSEL; AND JUDy SHELLY, OFFICE OF THE ASSIST· 

ANT INSPECTOR GENERAL 

STATEMENT OF Wll..LIAM T. MERRIMAN 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today. 

With your permission, I would like to enter my prepared statement for the record and use this opportunity to summarize some 

of the work my office has done with respect to sexual harassment 

in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Mr. EVERETI'. So ordered. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. I would like to start by saying that the Office of 

the Inspector General takes the issue of sexual harassment very seriously, and allegations involving sexual harassment brought to our 

attention are pursued vigorously. 

Our first major investigation of sexual harassment complaints 

against senior VA managers was in 1992 at the VA Medical Center 

in Atlanta. We found sexual harassment by top managers and systemic problems that deterred female employees from reporting allegations of sexual harassment. 
80 

VA took swift corrective action on the systemic problems and replaced the medical center's top three managers. 

In March of 1993, we completed a comprehensive audit of VA's 

EEO Program, with emphasis on sexual harassment and made several recommendations for improving the overall program. While 

there have been delays in implementing some of the recommendations, full implementation is anticipated in the near future. 

It is important to point out that because there are other channels 

for reviewing allegations of sexual harassment, such as VA's formal 

EEO process, the number of cases reviewed by the IG is low. For 

example, of the 3,029 hotline cases opened by my office during the 

past 5 years, only 29 were related to sexual harassment. 

An analysis of the 29 cases indicates that senior managers were 

involved in five of the cases. The most publicized of the five cases 

involved the former Director of the VA Medical Center, Fayetteville. OlIr review determined that the former Director sexually harassed one of the three women who made allegations against him. 

While we determined there was insufficient evidence to support 

a finding that he sexually harassed the other two female employees, we did conclude that the former Director's behavior towards 

them was abusive, threatening, and inappropriate. 

A November 1996 report recommended that appropriate administrative action be taken against the Director for sexual harassment 

and for his pattern of inappropriate behavior. We wer.e\ informed 

that the former Fayetteville Director was downgraded ~ transferred to a GS-14 nonsupervisory position at the VA Medic~Center in Bay Pines, FL, and that he was allowed to retain his SES 

pay. 

Questions have been raised as to whether the punishment was 

appropriate. The IG was not involved in the decision relating to the 

penalty imposed on the former Director. In accordance with standard practice in the Inspector General community, we do not recommend specific punishments. 

The deCIsion whether to take administrative action and the action to be taken is vested in the deciding management official. Disciplinary action is a management responsibility. Because the IG is 

independent of VA management, it is important that the line between management and oversight be respected. 

Another important reason why the IG does not recommend specific disciplinary actions is that management officials making such 

decisions must consider the Douglas factors, which are beyond the 

scope of our review. 

These factors include such things as the employee's length of 

service, past disciplinary record, severity of misconduct, grade 

level, penalties imposed for similar behavior, and other potential 

mitigating circumstances. 

The IG function is to determine whether the allegations are true 

or not. Consideration of the Douglas factors is part of the analysis 

that management officials are required to undertake when presented with proof of misconduct. The recommendation of specific 

penalty of misconduct needs to be the result of this two-part 

process. 

Recently Secretary Brown testified that he will review all administrative actions involving senior VA officials. This will help insure 
81 

consistency and fairness in deciding appropriate administrative 

actions. 

Secretary Brown has also made it clear that the department's 

policy on sexual harassment is zero tolerance and that it is the responsibility of every employee to establish a work environment that 

is free from sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination. 

To heighten employee awareness, VA has taken a number of important steps in recent years, including requiring every VA employee to complete EEO training. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on 

the work of the IG in this important area. I would be pleased to 

respond to your questions and those of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Merriman appears on p. 208.] 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you very much, and we appreciate you 

being here today. 

In regards to Fayetteville, what were you asked to investigate and by whom? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. We received allegations from Senator Faircloth, 

I believe it was, from a complainant that talked in terms of an abusive atmosphere at Fayetteville. We called the VISN Director and 

found that they were aware of some of these complaints and had 

planned a visit to Fayetteville. In talking to some of the staff provided by the complainant, we 

came across a sexual harassment complaint by one of the individuals. 

Subsequently problems of a sexual nature were provided to the 

VISN Director that he gave us. We agreed to go and iook at the 

sexual harassment allegations at Fayetteville. The VISN would 

take a look at the other areas of alleged misconduct. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Did you make any recommendations regarding any 

need for additional investigations at Fayetteville? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No, we did not. Mr. Whatley, of course, was 

going to look into that. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Were you asked to investigate whether additional 

instances of sexual harassment or misconduct had occurred, other 

than the three cases you discussed in your report? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No. No, sir. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Does the IG have information about any other instances of sexual harassment or other conduct by Mr. Calhoun? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No. No, sir, not today. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. If you are made aware of that, you can investigate 

further? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Sure, we could look at it further. Mr. EVERE'IT. Did you interview Susan Odom, who also worked 

in the Director's executive suite? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Did you interview Susan Odom who also workedMr. KROLL. No, we did not. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Any particular reason you did not interview her? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. She was not directly involved in the sexual harassment allegations that we were reviewing. She was not brought 

up as a witness in any of the statements. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. In Case No.3, you indicated that it was her word 

against his. Isn't that commonplace in sexual harassment cases be-
82 

cause harassers do not typically do it in front of witnesses? And 

does that mean you cannot substantiate a sexual harassment case 

based on the word of a woman? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Go ahead. 

Ms. REGAN. That is often true that it is one person's word 

against the other, and what we had looked at in the evidence was 

whether or not there was any corroborating testimony, not necessarily from somebody who observed it, but from somebody who 

they complained to at or about the same time. 

I believe in the case where we did find sexual harassment, one 

of the things we looked at was who this person had complained to, 

and those people corroborated that this person had complained to 

them, but otherwise you are left with something happened, and it 

is just one person's word against another, and there is nothing to 

substantiate it or corroborate it. 

What we did find, which we thought was just as egregious, was 

the abusive conduct. Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you. 

Did you interview Clint Norton, Rosanna Morris, Wilson Canteen, or Corine Cook? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No, sir. Mr. EVERE'IT. And the reason would be? 

Ms. SHELLY. I did talk to Rosanna Morris by telephone briefly, 

and it was just after I had gone through her documentation of her 

EEO complaint. I had a question on one small section of it. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. I am sorry. Who? 

Ms. SHELLY. Rosanna Morris. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Rosanna Morris. Okay, and the others, I assume 

no one asked you to interview them or you did not determine that 

they had anything directly to do with the case? 

Ms. SHELLY. That is correct. 

Mr. EVERETT. Okay, and you did not pursue anything with Ms. 

Morris? 

Ms. SHELLY. No, I did not. 

Mr. KROLL. No, sir, but she had an EEO complaint, and normally 

we would defer to the EEO process. The IG would not jump in the 

middle of that process. 

Mr. EVERE'IT. Those are all of my questions. I am going to turn 

it over to our Ranking Member, Mr. Clyburn. Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Susan Odom, didn't that name come up earlier? You said you did 

not have any allegations about her directly. Her name did not come 

to you from one of the complainants? 

Mr. KROLL. There was no allegation of sexual harassment. She 

was involved in some of the other allegations that were being reviewed. These allegations were really more in the area that Mr. 

Whatley was reviewing, the misconduct, mismanagement. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, maybe this has changed. My understanding 

of the sexual harassment guidelines that were handed down some 

years ago, that if a party is benefitting in the work place from giving or providing sexual favors, another party who feels that he or 

she is not being allowed to participate similarly can, in fact, bring 

a sexual harassment complaint. Am I correct? 

Mr. KROLL. Yes. 
Ms. REGAN. Yes. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I am correct? 

Mr. KROLL. Yes, sir. 

Ms. REGAN. Yes, sir. 

83 

Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. So if I am correct then, and one of the parties who brought this complaint, I think, testified earlier that she 

spoke with Mr. Calhoun about his involvement with Ms. Odom, you 

do not think that would have given you some basis to go talk to 

her? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. From what I have heard today, I wish we would 

have talked to Ms. Odom. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I wish you had, too, sir. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Undoubtedly we were focused on the three individuals and what happened to them and what could be corroborated with respect to their circumstances. Given it to do allover 

again, I would have filled in that gap. I regret that we did not. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I am sorry you did not also, but I think, if 

my memory serves me well, that is a part of sexual harassment 

that has been around for ten or 15 years, and it would seem to me 

that that is something you should look at pretty quickly, especially 

in circumstances such as what we have heard here today. 

I am interested in what is going to happen with these other complaints. Now, I am hearing that there are some complaints still 

r

ending in Fayetteville regarding Mr. Calhoun. Now, that is what 

have heard. Is that correct? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. EEO. 

Mr. CLYBURN. There are some EEO complaints in Fayetteville? 

Ms. SHELLY. Yes. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. This settlement agreement, which I am having some real problems with, I do not understand how you entered 

into a settlement agreement without involving the people on whose 

behalf the settlements are being reached, and I am told that this 

was done without their input at all, but that has been done. 

But that is a settlement regarding those people who have gone 

on before these people who are still sitting in Fayetteville. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So then if the complaints still in Fayetteville were 

to move to some official investigation, then irrespective of what this 

agreement is, the instrument that we have all seen here today that 

is in the record, irrespective of that, we are talking about a new 

ball game, are we not? 

Ms. REGAN. You mayor may not be talking about a new ball 

game. One of the problems is that action was taken, and the individual was taken out of the Senior Executive Service. Now, whether or not you would go back and have new conduct charges based 

on conduct a while ago, you might be facing the same problem before the Merit System Protection Board on whether or not they 

would sustain a removal. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Oh, you might be, and you might not be. 

Ms. REGAN. And you mayor may not be depending on what happens with it. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Absolutely. 

Ms. REGAN. But I do think that you do have a problem with the 

time element if this person is not misperforming after being taken 
84 

out of the SES, whether or not, having read a lot of MSPB cases 

on this issue, they would actually remove him from service because 

of that. 

I mean it is a risk, and until all of the cases are in and the evidence is looked at, I do not think anybody can make a decision 

whether or not there is enough there to go forward with a removal 

action. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I did not say remove him. 

Ms. REGAN. Well, one of the problems you have with the Senior 

Executive Service position, which is what he was in when these 

events occurred, I think one of the things Mr. Snyder said a couple 

of times is whether or not there are legal impediments. You only 

really have two choices for a disciplinary action against a member 

of the Senior Executive Service. One is a suspension greater than 

14 days, and the other is removal. You do not have a lot in 

between. 

The only way you can get a person out of the Senior Executive 

Service is for a performance based action, and even then there are 

some save pay provisions included in that. There is nothing in between to get this person out of a management position. Having read a lot of the cases on sexual harassment and misconduct, you have to go back to the Douglas factors, and part of the 

testimony today, I think, from Ms. Caruana was that some of this 

behavior did not occur when Mr. Calhoun had a supervisor. That 

testimony would be considered by MSPB under the Douglas factors. 

There are a lot of things that have to play into this, but I honestly think that if MSPB was faced with removal in this circumstance, they may not sustain it. You could end up with a 90-

day suspension, which seems to be what they give out most of the 

time. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I understand. I think I understand all of 

that, but let me go to the policy. Do all of you believe that the people throughout the VA hospital system are aware of the zero tolerance policy and understand it? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. I suspect that they are aware that there is a zero 

tolerance policy. At least there must be a high percentage of them 

who would be. The Secretary has made it a major issue. And quite early on, just having everybody go through the training, they should be aware that that is his policy. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Now, we heard testimony here today from one 

lady who said she had no understanding that the so-called training 

was available to anybody other than supervisors. So it was obvious 

she did not go through the training. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. That is true, but I would think the majority of 

the individuals have been through the training. 

Mr. CLYBURN. It seems to me it would be up to the VA's management to make sure that everybody is exposed to the training, right? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. CLYBURN. And do you think that is being done? That is being 

done? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. I think they take it very seriously. In our organization, we have gone through great pains to make sure our people 

are participating in the training, and from what I have observed, 
85 

I would be surprised if there were facilities out there that did not 

comply with the Secretary's directive on that. 

Mr. CLYBURN. How many witnesses did you all talk to? 

Mr. KROLL. At least 20. 

Mr. CLYBURN. At least 20. Now, these witnesses, tell me a little 

bit about how you came to these witnesses. Just one thing led to 

another? How did you get to these witnesses? 

Mr. KROLL. That was part of it, sir. Part of it came from the 

original complainant. The original allegations that came in from 

Senator Faircloth from this complainant were very general. There 

was allegations of misconduct and abuse with no specifics. 

We were able to go back through the Senator's office to the original complainant, and that person was able to provide us some 

names of individuals that we could talk to, and then one thing just 

led to another from there. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So the complaints that you were acting on had 

nothing to do with the EEO complaints that were being acted on 

separate and apart which were filed and may have been going 

through the administrative process? 

Mr. KROLL. Right, and in fact, if there is an active, ongoing EEO 

investigation, we would generally shy away from that case because 

we would let the EEO process handle the complaint. 

Mr. CLYBURN. So then you focus on what we would call bad management kinds of procedures rather than the sexual harassment? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No. The VISN was supposed to focus on the bad 

management. The reason we really got involved was we saw three 

individuals who had not filed EEO cases, may had missed their 

time frames, and we might be the only ones who could bring some 

reconciliation to it. So we went after it because it was sexual harassment and complaints had not been filed through the formal 

process. 

Mr. CLYBURN. May I ask you before my time is up are there any 

other sexual harassment complaints being looked into right now by 

the IG's Office separate and apart from this Fayetteville? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes. 

Mr. CLYBURN. You do have others? 

Mr. KROLL. Outside Fayetteville. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KROLL. Yes, sir. We have reported in our testimony that we 

had two ongoing cases. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Two ongoing cases. Now, have these cases been 

subjected to that so-called team-what was it we heard earlier? 

Has a team been sent in? 

Mr. KROLL. The process that Deputy Secretary Gober described 

was an agency process, one that he would establish for the complaints that came through the management chain. On complaints 

that come through the IG chain, we would send our own team in 

to investigate. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, why would a sexual harassment come to the 

IG? 

Mr. KROLL. We have an IG hotline, and we get thousands of calls 

on that hotline. 
86 

Mr. CLYBURN. So if you get a sexual harassment complaint on 

the hotline, you would not go to the agency and see that they go 

through the regular procedure? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. The first place we would check is if it is in the 

EEO chain, and if it is already being investigated by the EEO process, we would shy away from that. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, suppose it is not. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, there is a second process. It could be one 

of the administrative review teams that Deputy Secretary Gober 

described. If it is being reviewed, we also would shy away from it. 

We would open an oversight case just to oversee the results of it, 

but we would not investigate it. 

But if there was no other ongoing investigation, then we would 

do it, particularly where it involves a senior official. Here, in this 

case, the Director is the EEO officer also for that facility. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I guess what I am trying to get to here, Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that especially in this Fayetteville case 

where the perpetrator was, in fact, the EEO officer who was, in 

fact, the head of the agency, it would seem to me that the IG Office, if I understand, and maybe I do not know what the IG Office's 

duties and responsibilities are, would be there to preserve the integrity of the VA irrespective of who is in charge of what. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, then if that is true, it would seem to me that 

you would be looking at whether or not a proper response was 

made by management to the allegation in the first place. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. To Fayetteville? 

Mr. CLYBURN. No, no, no. Whether or not management makes 

the proper response to the allegations of sexual harassment in the 

first place. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. For all sexual harassment? 

Mr. CLYBURN. For all sexual harassment no matter where it 

comes from. The Inspector General, it seems to me, ought to be seeing whether or not all of this stuff happens the way it should happen and will not be guided by whether or not the person has to be 

the manager or not. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. That is, in fact, what we did in terms of Atlanta. 

Now, when we went down to Atlanta and we found a major problem there, we felt the whole process was broken. That is why we 

did a VA-wide audit of the EEO process, which led to the zero tolerance policy. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Right. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Okay. Now, I have seen that the Secretary seems 

to be serious about it. He has got a lot of pronouncements out. 

They are going through this training. We are not getting a lot of 

spillover sexual harassment complaints on our hotline. I have not 

seen the need to go out and look at the whole process again. I do not think that we can put ourselves into the management 

chain and review each EEO complaint that is looked at by management to look at it ourselves. 

Mr. CLYBURN. No, sir, I am not asking you to review all of them. 

I am asking you whether or not you will review those. You were 

in here this morning earlier when the five ladies talked? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir. 
87 

Mr. CLYBURN. All five of them said that they have no faith in the 

process. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Correct. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Now, some kind of way we have got to put some 

faith in this process on behalf of our employees. So I guess I am 

asking you what steps then do you take from the IG's Office to let 

people know that there is, in fact, a hotline and that you can, in 

fact, dial up this hotline and what kind of a response you can expect to get from it. 

It would seem to me that some of these people here today would 

have used the hotline knowing full well that the guy that is causing this problem is the EEO officer. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. He is the Director, pght. 

Mr. CLYBURN. He is Director of the agency and the EEO officer. 

Did any of them use the hotline? 

Mr. EVERETT. Let me conclude. Mr. Clyburn'S time is out. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Oh, yes. 

Mr. EVERETT. And I ask unanimous consent that he be given additional time. (Laughter.) 

Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. The hotline is well publicized, for starters. Now, 

certainly where you have the problem is where the head of the facility is the EEO officer and he has corrupted the system. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Okay. Now, I am aware of two instances of that. 

One was Atlanta; the other was Fayetteville, and one way or another we have gotten into them. 

I cannot disprove a negative. I cannot say there is not some other 

one out there that is like that. I guess perhaps a protection would 

be when the Secretary goes out with additional information on this, 

he can say that if your problem is with the head of the facility, you 

can, in fact, go to the OIG hotline. More publicity along those lines 

could help with that. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, in pursuing these kinds of investigations, 

would it not be a proper act of the IG's Office to make recommendations to the Secretary as to what ought to be done to prevent anymore Atlantas and anymore Fayettevilles? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Certainly, yes, and Deputy Secretary Gober has 

asked us to provide him with input based upon the problems with 

Fayetteville as to how we think the process can work. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Let me ask you what you think about this practice 

that the VA has, a practice, I might add, that I have a real problem 

with, that we spoke of back in 1993 when we were trying to get 

H.R. 1032 passed, a practice of making the head of the agency the 

EEO officer. 

What do you think about that? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, it has the advantage of having a person in 

the position to take some action. That is a plus, I suppose. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, tell us about the disadvantages and the 

minuses. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. The disadvantage is if that person goes sour. 

Then your whole process at the facility is damaged. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, would it not also be the same case if that 

person is standing there with a sword over everybody's neck? 
88 

Ms. REGAN. That is the problem, is when the individual who is 

the discriminator or the alleged discriminating official is, in fact, 

the head of the group that you are in, the Director of a Regional 

Office. 

But one of the things that maybe they need to look at is the process because the informal process within the hospital is mandatory 

under the EEO laws. Maybe there needs to be a way that the VA, 

and probably other agencies, have a route to go if that person is 

the problem. In other words, somebody at headquarters that will 

take those complaints, something to that effect. We can probably 

look into that. 

Mr . CLYBURN . Would you be willing to say to the Secretary that 

he ought to take another look at H.R. 1032? It is not too late for 

us. It may not have the same number, but we certainly can have 

the same law. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. He certainly could take another look at it. I do 

not have a position on it one way or another myself. I am not that 

familiar with it, sir. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Would you say that something needs to be done 

to set up a process, a formal process, that people will have some 

faith and confidence in? 

It doesn't bother you that all of these people say they have got 

no faith in the process? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, certainly it bothers me. I would hope that 

when you see the results of their survey that they have put out, 

based upon a GAO report where they went out to 30,000 people, 

you will have a better idea of across the board in the department 

what the faith in the system is. 

If that is giving you indications like you have heard today, then 

obviously there is a major problem. If it is giving you a high level 

of confidence in the EEO process, maybe it would give you--

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, let me ask you about that process. When 

those come in, you get the results by center? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. The department contracted with a private contractor to get that information. Is it by center? 

Mr. KROLL. We do not really know. The agency has not released 

the final report. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I am going to end here, Mr. Chairman, but I think 

we ought to ask the Secretary to make sure that we get those results by center. I do not want them to come up and give us-you 

said 20,000? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. They went out 30,000 individuals. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thirty. You have 30,000 individuals in one lump 

sum. You could still have two very rotten centers out there that 

may get smothered by all the good centers in that report. 

I will want to see that report center by center if it is going to 

do us any good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. 

One of the things that my colleague is pointing here to is the fact 

that even with a new situation that is described by the Secretary 

to us, we see a disconnect, and we do not know how you overcome 

that disconnect. We see ways around or ways for the department 
89 

heads or Directors to halt the situation, stop the situation from 

going any further. 

Sb I appreciate the line of questions there, and I will go to our 

ever patient Mr. Snyder. Thank you. 

Mr. CLYBURN. I am sorry. 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have been here since 9:30. We all get rewards for patience, correct? (Laughter.) 

I just have a few questions. Now, I assume that this is your report, the Office of the Inspector General, and your language, this 

paragraph that you heard me read earlier in which you concluded 

that he was abusive, threatening, inappropriate, and less than 

truthful, a specific question I had. I mean basically what you are 

saying is he lied to you. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SNYDER. Does that not put him in a new category somewhere? I mean it is one thing for me to come to you and you investigate me and I say, ''Yeah, I really did grab her breast at the 

Christmas party. I am sorry. It was stupid. I had been drinking." 

It is another when a lies, looks you directly in the eye, and you 

know it is factually correct that he lied to you. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, it never comes out quite like that. He does 

not remember something that has happened. You talk to somebody 

else. You go back to him, and that triggers his memory, and now 

he recalls the results of it. 

It enters into the credibility determination that we go through as 

to whether we are going to believe his testimony or not, and that 

was a major part in the report. 

Mr. SNYDER. You had a fairly strong statement here, I thought. 

I mean less than truthful. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SNYDER. I mean, I suspect you think. he lied to you. 

Ms. BENNETT. I think. the key example of that was when Ms. 

Force testified that she had been banned from the building. The Director denied making that statement, and other people corroborated her version that she was, in fact, denied from the building, 

and that is a pretty strange order to come from the Director. 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, yes. 

Ms. REGAN. Sir, are you suggesting that there should be additional charges? 

Mr. SNYDER. In answer to your question, if someone lies to you, 

does that put it in a different category? 

Ms. REGAN. Axe you suggesting there would be additional 

charges for lying? 

Mr. SNYDER. Potentially. I mean we talked about a rehab. program. I mean Mr. Gober. Part of the rehab. is, I think, fessing up, 

and so we now have reassigned a person that you all in your hearts 

believe lied to you. 

Ms. REGAN. One of the problems, I think, and there are some recent federal court cases, is that you cannot take disciplinary action 

for lying if you are lying about the charges against you. There are 

a couple of federal court cases on that, and they are somewhat recent. One is a VA case. 
90 

There used to be a policy in the VA that you could be charged for lying during an investigation, but if you are the one being 

charged, you are allowed to lie basically, and you cannot be 

charged with it. 

Mr. SNYDER. Well, maybe that is something we need to look at. 

Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Clyburn, help me out. Oh, help me, help me. 

Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield a moment? 

Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. I am interested in this line of questioning. 

Mr. SNYDER. I am, too. 

Mr. EVERETT. I mean, it is a federal offense to make false statements; is that correct? 

Ms. REGAN. That is what we think. 

Mr. EVERETT. False official statements. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. That is right. 

Mr. EVERETT. And are you saying that you can make a civil 

agreement that would not allow those statements to be prosecuted? 

Ms. REGAN. I am saying that in those cases where they have 

charged an employee who lied during an official investigation about 

charges against that employee, they are not allowed to bring those 

charges. The court has said it is unconstitutional. 

Basically, just to summarize, you are allowed to lie about charges 

against yourself. That is what they have said. 

Mr. EVERETT. Let me ask you to respond directly to what I am 

asking. Can you make a civil agreement, such as this document 

that was made with Mr. Calhoun, that precludes charging him 

with the crime of making false official statements? 

Ms. REGAN. I do not know the answer to that. I am not sure it 

would be an agreement. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. 

Mr. SNYDER. He means in the agreement that we have here that 

allows him to be transferred to Florida and wait for 3 years before 

coming back into the system. He is saying can you put that into 

this kind of a document. 

Mr. EVERETT. This is a civil document. 

Ms. REGAN. You mean a settlement agreement? You could put it 

in a settlement agreement, yes. 

Mr. EVERETT. Would that preclude him from being prosecuted 

from making false official statements? You said he lied. 

Ms. REGAN. Well, I guess I have a problem because I do not 

think you can prosecute him for making those statements. You 

could put it in the agreement or not put it in the agreement. I just 

do not think the agency can charge him with it or anybody could 

prosecute him. 

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Snyder, I appreciate you allowing me to interrupt. 

Mr. SNYDER. No, that is fine. 

On that line, Mr. Merriman, I think it would be helpful to us if 

you all would have your legal folks do an analysis for us as to why 

because that impacts on the work you do. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir, certainly. 

Mr. SNYDER. I mean wouldn't you much rather go in and say, 

"Mr. Snyder, you have been accused of outrageous behavior at the 
91 

Christmas party, and I need to inform you that if you do not tell 

me the truth you can be prosecuted as a felony under federal law 

for giving false statements to a federal employee or federal investigative office"? I mean I think that would be helpful to you. It 

would certainly be helpful, I would think, with these things. 

With regard to the Douglas factors, which I thought that was an 

old actor, but I guess that is Douglas Fairbanks, and I guess this 

is not your bailiwick since you are the inspection angle of it, but 

you did the only discussion of it today. 

But I notice that one of the factors is previous penalties for similar offenses. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SNYDER. So we now have by the statement of the vets folks, 

we have nine, I think, that have retired or resigned. So I guess 

number ten comes along, and we actually try to terminate him. 

Part of that argument is going to be: wait. The previous nine, they 

got the buyout and retire. They were reassigned to Florida. They 

only tried to terminate one. 

I mean am I understanding? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. I think they said they retired or resigned. 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. As opposed to reassigned. 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. I do not see why that would affect it. 

Mr. SNYDER. Since they did not actually--

Mr. MERRIMAN. They were not penalized per se. So I do not think 

that would set a precedent. 

Mr. SNYDER. Okay. That may be something to look at. 

The incident with the woman at the Christmas party where she 

was actually grabbed, I think, Mr. Clyburn, you might help me out. 

That is pretty close to a misdemeanor crime. How do you all respond when you run across incidents, and I do not think that was 

a woman that you talked to. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. SNYDER. But when you hit things that are, let's say, clearly 

criminal, even maybe at the misdemeanor level, how do you respond to that? Do you call attention? Do you flag that this may 

well have been a violation of federal law? 

Help me with that. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes. We have criminal investigators ourselves, 

but even on the administrative side if we come across the criminal 

issue, we can take it to the U.S. Attorney's Office ourselves, and 

we probably have examples where we have done that. 

Ms. REGAN. Yes. We would get the criminal matter resolved, 

whether or not it was going to be prosecuted or whether there was 

enough evidence to prosecute it before we issue a report. We have 

done that in other reports. 

Mr. SNYDER. So if you run across and you say, ''Wait. This is not 

sexual harassment. This was sexual battery or a rape," you would 

feel comfortable taking it on yourself to give one report to the VA 

and a separate, different report? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. To the U.S. Attorney. 
92 

Mr. SNYDER. To the U.S. Attorney. You would not pass that on 

to the VA and say, "You all need to make a decision about whether 

you pass to the U.S. Attorney"? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No. 

Mr. SNYDER. You do that totally separate. Mr. MERRIMAN. That would be us, yes, sir. 

Ms. REGAN. The IG Act gives us that responsibility. 

Mr. SNYDER. You are kind of the ombudsman for that. 

Mr. BENNETT. The Inspector General Act requires that if we have 

reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, we have to inform the Attorney General or the local U.S. Attorney's Office. 

Mr. SNYDER. Okay, and then I guess my last question, Mr. 

Merriman, to you or to everyone is more just kind of we are real 

big on morale in the military and morale at the VA. I mean just 

reading your Paragraph 2 there where you have concluded that he 

was abusive, threatening, inappropriate, and lied to you, I mean, 

how is your morale to find out that somebody like that is now making IOO-and some thousand dollars in Florida? Is that what you all 

thought was going to happen? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Well--

Mr. SNYDER. I mean, do you feel good about that with all the 

work you did? 

Mr. MERRIMAN. No, I do not feel good about it. 

Mr. SNYDER. You thought you had a pretty strong case, I think. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. I know we had a strong case. What we would 

have liked to have seen done was our work, along with the work 

of Whatley or if that was too shallow they could have gone out with 

another administrative group, put together the strongest charge 

they had and make a decision as to whether or not they could get 

removal. 

Now, there is a risk involved. If they tried for it and they failed, 

then perhaps it would be mitigated to a 90-day suspension, and you 

heard what their concerns were. 

Mr. SNYDER. That is why I come back to talking to the women 

about making a run at it because I think that like Ms. Force 

seemed like she was comfortable with, okay, that was good; get him 

out of administration. I would think there would be occasions when 

you get the women together and say, ''We are willing to take that 

chance." 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Sometimes. 

Mr. SNYDER. ''We have got to terminate this son-of-a-gun." But 

you do not ask them. I mean, I think that gives you as the administrator a sense of kind of the outrage, which will kind of help you 

weigh. 

I mean I am just rambling on now. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, sometimes it is better to take the shot even 

if you do not succeed. Having taken the shot might be more conducive to the department than the loss. 

Mr. SNYDER. At least you know that your administrator or whoever it is came to you, sought your opinion, and when you said, 

''Yeah, let's go for it," they stood with you and said, ''You know, we 

may not make this one," but they stood with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
93 

Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate that line of questioning, and I would 

like to associate myself with it. Any time you go to court there is 

a chance, and I think at Fayetteville, we missed a great opportunity to rid the system of somebody who should not be in the 

system. 

Mr. MERRIMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EVERETT. I thank this panel for its appearance here today, 

and I will now at this time dismiss you. 

We are going to take a 2 or 3-minute break, and we will come 

back to this panel in just a second. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you for appearing here today. I would like 

to recognize Dr. Miller, President of the Nurses Organization of 

Veterans Affairs; Mr. Berry Jordan, National President of the Federal Managers Association; Ms. Kitty Peddicord, Women's Director 

of AFGE; and Ms. Nelms, President of the Federally Employed 

Women, Inc. 

Thank you, and if you would proceed with your statements, and 

I would urge you to please be brief, and that we will submit your 

entire statements into the record. 

Thank you, ladies and gentleman, and Ms. Nelms, if you would 

please start. 

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY NELMS, PRESIDENT, FEDERALLY 

EMPLOYED WOMEN, INC. 

Ms. NELMS. Good afternoon, Chairman Everett and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. 

First, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. We have our written statement submitted, and having listened to all of the previous panels, I will probably just give you an 

overview and not go into all that is in our written statement today 

in the interest of time. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you so much. 

Ms. NELMS. Federally Employed Women is a national organization of workers of the Federal Government and designed specifically to eliminate sex discrimination. Of all the areas of sex discrimination, we think sexual harassment is probably the most pervasive and the one that does most to set back the careers and aspi- rations of women in the Federal Government. 

As an organization, we have done a lot to fight against sex discrimination. When Chairman Everett mentioned a while ago deja 

VU, I had an even deeper sense of deja vu because I testified as 

President of FEW back in 1979, when Congressman Hanley of New 

York had the first subcommittee hearing on sexual harassment, 

and so I find it astounding that I am here almost 20 years later, 

and some of the same issues are surfacing around an issue like sexual harassment. So it is really amazing how things happen like 

that. 

When you think about all of the things that have hap:pened in 

terms of sexual harassment; that we finally have a law m place, 

(it has been determined that it is illegal under Title VII of the civil 

rights law); we have got policies written by most agencies; and almost all agencies have engaged in training about sexual harassment. It is really unbelievable that sexual harassment continues. 
94 

Even according to the latest survey by the Merit Systems Protection Board, the amount of sexual harassment of women is about 45 

percent, and it is about 20-some percent of men in the Federal Government. 

You look at an organization like the Department of Veterans Mfairs that has done all of these things. They know the law. They 

have a zero tolerance policy. They had mandatory training of 4 

hours for everybody in the VA, and yet you continue to hear from 

GAO, the IG, and from others about the level of sexual harassment 

in the VA. What is it going to take to change this situation? 

There are a couple of things that I would like to talk about: first, 

the impact on women. When you look at the women that spoke this 

morning, I do not think anybody in here could not help feeling a 

pang in their hearts about what they had been through in terms 

of the agonies of sexual harassment and abusive treatment on the 

job. The detrimental effect on their careers, on their personal lives, 

probably on their spouses or significant others, if they even had 

them, is unimaginable in terms of looking at the effects of sexual 

harassment. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs has an additional responsibility because they administer to the needs of veterans. There are 

almost 400,000 women veterans, and with the amount of sexual 

harassment and assault in the military, there are a number of 

those women veterans who are women who will be seeking help 

from the VA. With stories like this about the sexual harassment in 

the VA, could they possibly have a level of satisfaction that their 

needs would be ministered to satisfactorily? 

I heard one of the officials from the VA say that they knew how 

this would appear to people; that is, the handling of Mr. Calhoun's 

case. It would give the appearance that perhaps they, the VA did 

not really care about sexual harassment, and that perhaps the policy was not significant. The officials said it almost like an afterthought. But that is one of the most important things about a policy in an organization: that people have faith that the policy is 

meant; that people have faith that the organization will carry out 

what they say in the policy. 

And when employees in an or~anization see what looks like a 

distinct action that is so contradictory to the policy, they lose all 

faith in the system, and when you talk about the number of complaints in an organization, it is directly related to how free people 

feel to file a complaint and whether or not they feel their complaint 

will be handled in a responsive manner. 

When you also hear comments by GAO about some of the reasons the VA disallowed complaints, included many that were disallowed on technical grounds. That means they have lost all 

thought of what the intent of the law was on equal opportunity, 

and the courts went to great effort to make sure that there were 

very few technical disallowances of discrimination cases. The intent 

was to get to the substance of the cases, and so when you have 

these technical disallowances, people never have a chance on the 

substance of the cases. 

There are specific guidelines on how long it should take you to 

process a case, and it looks like they were overlooked. Again, another message is sent out to employees. 
95 

So our concern is for the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who probably feel as lost and lonely as the women that 

testified here this morning that they are in an organization that 

just does not seem to honor its own policy, does not seem to care 

about the impact on their own employees about sexual harassment. 

We are sincerely hoping that this subcommittee hearing will 

bring some of these thin~s more closely to the forefront and that 

some definitive action will be taken about those employees and 

those women veterans who look to the Department of Veterans Affairs for their services. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelms appears on p. 218.] 

Mr. EVERETl'. Thank you very much for those words. Dr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF MAURA FARRELL MILLER, Ph.D., ARNP, CS, 

PRESIDENT, NURSES ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Dr. MILLER. Thank you for inviting me, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

I am proud to say I am from Florida, and I am an advanced practice nurse from that statel a state that holds in high esteem the 

profession of nursing and tne veteran patients that we care for. 

As President of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs, I 

am pleased to present this testimony on behalf of all professional 

nurses involved with the veteran patient. I speak for our membership and for the more than 40,000 VA nurses. I also speak as a 

woman representing thousands of other professional women employed by the DV A. 

My sympathies to the women who have testified here. 

To date NOVA has not received any official reports of cases of 

alleged sexual harassment of subordinates by senior managements 

within DVA, including the one discussed today, Mr. Calhoun. 

NOVA is a professional organization, not a labor union or a collective bargaining group, and we do not handle day-to-day cases of alleged sexual harassment or any other issues that need to be referred to the local level. 

In the event that a registered nurse reported such an incident, 

NOVA would refer that nurse back to her medical center to report 

the incident at the local level. 

NOVA applauds Secretary Jesse Brown for his zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment in the work place, and we support the 

DV A policy that prevention and reporting of sexual harassment is 

every employee's responsibility. 

In my preparation for this testimony I called Dr. Nancy Valentine, the chief consultant of the Nursing Strategic Health Group at 

DVA headquarters. Dr. Valentine has also informed me that to 

date there have been no reported incidents of sexual harassment 

regarding DVA professional nurses. 

Now, this might be explained in several ways. The lack of reported incidents of sexual harassment at VA headquarters could be 

due to the fact that EEO counselors have informed me that they 

try to make every attempt to resolve such issues at the local level, 

and therefore, such reports do not make it to the headquarters 

level. 

Another explanation could be that incidents of sexual harassment involving registered professional nurses are not being re-
96 

ported at all and also not being reported to VA headquarters due 

to the sensitive nature and fear of the personal or professional consequences resulting from nurses reporting such incidents. 

Experts acknowledge that only a fraction of those who are sexually abused ever report it. However, the total absence of reported 

instances of sexual harassment involving VA professional nurses is 

contrary to data that has been cited in the literature. I will not go 

into it at length. It is included in my testimony. 

Preventing and reporting sexual harassment is every DVA 

nurse's responsibility. The total absence of reported incidences involving DVA nurses could be a symptom of other problems and 

maybe reflective of what is going on in the agency as a result of 

health care reorganization. For its very survival, the downsizing 

and subsequent health care reorganization has forced professional 

men and women to compete for a shrinking pool of health care resources and positions of power and authority at an intensity never 

before seen in the history of DV A. 

As a female professional nurse working in a historically male, 

physician dominated, paternalistic health care system, NOVA suggests that incidences such as these be used as catalysts for positive 

change. Further dialogue is needed on this and other perceived 

problems to make the DVA a healthier work place and the employer of choice for registered professional nurses. As the DVA health care system evolves and reorganizes, NOVA 

encourages the DVA to use opportunities, such as these, to bring 

attention to women's issues in the work place, to use more women 

in solving problems within the agency, and open up executive 

health care management positions to all genders and disciplines. 

I would like to thank my legislative co-chairs Barbara Zicafoose 

and Dr. Sara Myers for their assistance in writing this testimony, 

and I would like all of my oral statements included as part of the 

official record, if you would please. 

Mr. EVERETT. Without objection. 

Dr. MILLER. And I am open for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller appears on p. 227.] 

Mr. EVERETT. We are going to continue down the panel at this 

time. 

Ms. Peddicord, if you will give your statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF KITTY PEDDICORD, WOMEN'S DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Ms. PEDDICORD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. I also would like to thank you for this opportunity 

to testify before you today on this very important subject. 

As has been discussed today, the VA has announced a zero tolerance regarding sexual harassment. Secretary Brown has repeatedly 

acted to tum around the previously accepted view that allegations 

of sexual harassment will merely meet the "good 01' boy" system of 

cover-up, denial and frustration. 

For instance, the VA now requires all employees to be trained regarding sexual harassment, although what we have missed today 

is that in sexual harassment training is merely training identifying 

what is and is not sexual harassment. It does not include training 

on the EEO process. or what avenues are available to employees 
97 

who are victims of sexual harassment. I think that is a very important point. We are talking about everybody being trained. That is 

true to an extent. 

And this kind of training of all employees is not routine within 

the Federal Government or in the private sector, and we do believe 

that this is a good way to start. 

However, incidents of sexual harassment have continued, and it 

may even be true that the nature of the VA itself, the culture contributes to the problem of sexual harassment. 

What I am referring to is the fact that VA facilities operate independently. It is a very important point. Each Director has control 

of that facility and the EEO process, and it provides a work place 

where the ready mixture of a male dominated management over a 

female dominated work force primarily in the nursing section and 

around-the-clock staffing may, in fact, contribute to the problem. 

However, when we called a number of our locals in the VA to 

find out about how sexual harassment has been dealt with, what 

we are finding is when it comes to bargaining unit employees, employees covered by a union, that are non-managers and non-confidential employees, that reports of sexual harassment are being 

dealt with immediately. There are reassignments by the harasser, 

and we are not finding the same problem with bargaining unit employees that we have seen described today. 

There seems to be a difference the way lower management officials are being dealt with compared to higher level management. 

This is of particular concern to us, that high level managers seem 

to benefit from some sort of favorable treatment in the agency's response to sexual harassment. 

We know for a fact that with a typical worker, there would not 

be all of this discussion about whether or not you should or should 

not do something. They would be fired immediately. Fire them 

now; we will litigate later. And what would happen is if the agency 

lost, if that case went to arbitration or to the EEOC, the remedy 

would be back pay. The person is going to get paid either way if 

they lose. 

You know, send the message that it is not tolerated. Then find 

out whether or not the case will hold up in court. At least that is 

how it is treated at the lower level, obviously not at the higher 

level. 

So there really does not seem to be any valid reason why Directors or high level officials are treated any differently than those at 

the lower level. It is for this reason that we will remain vigilant 

on the issue of sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination in the VA, even under the present more concerned VA 

administration. 

Two other observations from today's witnesses should be noted. 

First, it is often the fact that the most abused cases of ongoing, festering, unresolved sexual harassment occur between managers and 

other managers or non-bargaining unit employees. Why? Simply 

because union members have a process available to them for a 

quick remedy, namely, the grievance-arbitration process. 

Under the AFGE contract, union employees, members of the 

union, can go through the grievance process and get a remedy 

within months rather than years under the current EEO process. 
98 

This is a sharp contradiction, a sharp contrast between the two 

processes. 

In the agency EEO process, they investigate themselves. This is 

not just a problem within the VA. It is federal sector-wide. I want 

to be very clear on that. It is not just a problem that we see within 

the VA. We see this everywhere. 

And having someone investigate themselves is not actually the 

best way to get the most accurate assessment, and while they are 

investigating themselves, the employee is the victim or can be the 

victim of additional harassment and reprisal, which continues to 

deplete their ability to work, be productive, and continue. 

The second observation, and before I end there, while these 

abuses occur, it is important for us to emphasize the value of union 

representation in this adversarial process is equal to the union's 

value in ourlartnership process, which are two different processes. 

The secon observation is our firm belief that the series of sexual 

harassment practices attributed to senior level management is 

merely reflective of other serious failings in management capabilities. The Director's total arrogance of power that affects many 

other employment related decisions, the VA's total lack of checks 

and balances are serious, serious problems. 

I will conclude by saying we intend to remain vigilant. It is our 

intent, and attached to our testimony we plan on studying the VA 

internal EEO process, sexual harassment, and discrimination 

charges based upon race and gender within the VA. AFGE will be 

more than happy once this study is concluded to share our results 

with the committee. 

I would just su~gest that when the VA is surveying itself, employees may be a httle reluctant to be quite as honest. 

Thank you very much for your time. [The prepared statement of Ms. Peddicord, with attachments, appears on p. 231.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Ms. Peddicord. Mr. Jordan. 

STATEMENT OF BERRY D. JORDAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JORDAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. 

I am President of the Federal Managers Association, FMA, Zone 

4, Southeastern United States, and also chair of the Professional 

Development Committee and the Federal Management Institute, 

which is the educational arm of the association. 

On behalf of the 200,000 managers and supervisors in the Federal Government whose interests are represented by FMA, I would 

like to thank you for holding this important hearing and for allowing us to present our views on this very important subject. 

Today we heard extensive testimony about sexual harassment. 

We believe sexual harassment to be costly in time, effort, morale, 

disruptive to the work force, the family, and the American public 

cannot afford the negative consequences of it. 

FMA believes our existing anti-discrimination laws provide a 

good framework, but enforcement efforts are not what they should 

be. We believe in order to stamp out or eliminate discrimination of 

any kind, the efforts must start at the top of the organization. 
99 

FMA believes that when discrimination is taken seriously at the 

top, every level of the organization follows suit. FMA believes that 

each manager must be held accountable. The commitment must be 

demonstrated by the head of the organization. 

FMA believes that sexual harassment is wrong, that if the employer finds that sexual harassment did occur, that corrective action should be taken with the aim or purpose to deter any future 

acts of harassment. 

We believe that zero tolerance should not just be an empty 

phrase. Failure to act by an agency after evidence shows harassment did occur subordinates the spirit and intent of the law. FMA 

supports making sure that every employee from file clerk to political appointee knows the law on sexual harassment in very clear 

terms and the disciplinary measures that may be used for those 

who violate the agency's anti-discrimination or harassment laws. 

In FMA's view, the experiences, we believe, that are hallmarks 

in promises and practices of successful EEO operations can be 

summed up thusly. A sound EEO Program's mission should be to 

resolve EEO complaints at the lowest possible level and in a timely 

manner. Program ownership should rest under the agency's head. 

A properly trained chief EEO counselor should be given authority 

to manage the program and then be accountable. EEO counselors should be selected and trained to advise employees and managers on EEO matters, to conduct limited fact finding, 

and be neutral in attempts to resolve employee concerns. 

EEO programs should be structured to identify problem areas in 

the agency and report to senior leadership for review and action 

the results of those problems identified. Implementation of an aggressive EEO education program should 

include some type of alternative dispute resolution method. An 

automated tracking system of EEO complaints should be established. Key managers should be briefed on EEO complaints quarterly. We believe pamphlets and a brochure should be developed 

and distributed to the work force outlining the steps in the EEO 

process, including the pre-complaint and complaint stages. We believe that specific information, such as how to file a complaint and who to file that complaint with, should be on official bulletin boards throughout the agency. 

Periodic complainant surveys should be developed and distributed to the work force to let the agency know how the complainants' needs are being met. Monthly reports to directors highlight 

departmental EEO activities should be provided for review and action. Quarterly EEO meetings chaired by senior management officials and attended by agency heads should be implemented for an 

agency-wide perspective of the EEO activity. Chief EEO counselors should analyze report data and provide results to senior level management for review and action. As is currently the practice in DOD, agencies should establish partnerships 

between themselves and an independent investigative body to pre- vent even the perception of a conflict of interest. 

FMA believes agencies implementing these practices enjoy, number one, a higher resolution rate of EEO complaints, lowered numbers of formal complaints, stability of their EEO counseling pro-
100 

gram, and a proactive approach to complaint resolution which instills employee faith in the Frocess. 

FMA makes a number 0 conclusions, recommendations. That is 

the concept of a hostile environment and sexual harassment should 

be institutionalized through education and training to both supervisors and to employees, and when sexual harassment has occurred, immediate corrective action should be taken. 

Agencies should be encouraged to expand the use of alternative 

dispute resolutions to supplement the current EEO process. Supervisors and managers should be made aware of their rights when 

identified as principal agency witnesses in sexual harassment complaints, and agencies should incorporate clear criteria into their 

personnel performance evaluations requiring adherence to EEO 

principles. 

In conclusion, I want to thank you again for inviting FMA to give 

our views. We look forward to working with you, and we hope that 

we can continue to take corrective action to stop discrimination and 

insure that there is no reprisal against those who exercise their 

rights. 

We thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan appears on p. 238.] 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you all for your testimony. It has been a long day, and 

you have been very patient, and this committee very much appreciates that. 

I appreciate and associate myself with almost all of your remarks. They were right on target. 

Ms. Peddicord, the committee would be most appreciative if you 

could make the results of your survey available to the committee. 

Ms. PEDDICORD. It will be our pleasure. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. 

I am not going to prolong this hearing by subjecting you to a lot 

of questions, many of which have already been asked, but I would 

ask that my colleague, Mr. Clyburn, if he has questions to please 

to ahead. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I gather, Mr. Chairman, that all of the members of this panel were present throughout all of the testimony 

here today, and I would just ask that anything that you know, especially you, Dr. Miller, about the VA system. 

There seems to be as I think the Chairman called it a disconnect 

here, and we have been wrestling with this now for 4 years, tried 

to codify some procedure, met with resistance, and now we are 

back here with Fayetteville seeming to be more egregious than 

even Atlanta was. 

What would you recommend? Do you have any ideas about what 

we ought to do here, that this subcommittee ought to be recommending to the full committee and hopefully to the House as to 

how we would address some of these matters? 

Dr. MILLER. Well, I do believe that the VA has a culture of its 

own and historically that has been proven by the last several years 

of testimony. However, Mr. Spence, I do believe, is the one who testified that he is involved with the military sexual harassment process, and the VA and the DOD are now intimately involved with 

sharing agreements whe:r;e professional nurses, physicians, other 
101 

types of federal employees are now going to be working more closely with the military on a regular basis via sharing agreements that 

the federal agencies are exploring as ways to cut the federal budget 

and to reduce costs and improve quality of care. 

Now, I would think that with this merging of facilities and staff, 

that we should be held to the same standards and process of reporting that is going to be held with the military, and I know from 

the media the military is now on the hot seat, and it is going to 

be probably for quite a while. 

But I think that we should all be held to the high standard of 

excellences when reporting such instances because we are all 

human beings and having to work in similar situations and with 

similar types of patients and responsibilities, and wherever there 

are instances where women and men have to work together, professional women and men anyway, I think we must be held to a high 

standard, and I think it should be the same. That my personal 

view. 

Mr . CLYBURN. Well, let me ask you specifically about the EEO 

designation or the practice that the VA has of designating the center Director as the EEO officer. Do you have any feelings about 

that? 

Dr. MILLER. Well, I do say I like your suggestion earlier today 

about having an independent reporting process, and that would 

kind of eliminate the conflict of interest or rooster and henhouse 

situation, as you referred to earlier. I think that was a very good 

suggestion, and I support that. 

Ms. PEDDICORD. There are several things that can be done. I 

agree with her suggestion. Having the Director of the medical facility also be the chief EEO officer does have benefits and it does 

have drawbacks. So that can be addressed, and a number of these 

things can be addressed. 

The entire handling of EEO process within the VA can be 

changed today without a law because the way it is set up in the 

Federal Government is each agency has the authority to set up 

their own procedures. So Secretary Brown tomorrow can come out 

and say, "Okay. None of the Directors are the chief EEO officers 

anymore." 

What would probably be the most beneficial is to use the suggestions from the IG. Where there are problems go to the Secretary 

and ask that they devise a new system that takes in the problems 

that have been identified over the past couple of years and come 

up with a different system. 

The EEO counselors, I was involved in a joint training of manager and union representatives down in Nashville, Tennessee, a 

couple of years ago. The counselors themselves, you have to realize, 

this is not a full-time job for them. They do this part time. They 

receive some training. They are called on occasionally. 

So the advice that they give to potential victims could change. 

They may not be up to date. Maybe we need to have full-time EEO 

personnel. That does not require legislation. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Right. 

Ms. PEDDICORD. So there is a quicker fix than legislation. 

Ms. NELMS. There is one other glitch I would like to comment on 

sort of in this same area. In my other life outside of FEW, I am 
102 

also an attorney on civil rights, and I do a lot of training for the 

managers on EEO, civil rights, prevention of sexual harassment, 

and a lot of my training has taken me to the scientific communities 

where people have scientific degrees, and I think this same glitch 

I have seen in the VA exists in a lot of scientific communities, and 

I hate to generalize. However, I will because I think there is a way 

that a lot of people in the scientific profession, from my experience, 

do not really look at laws as applying to them, do not really look 

upon themselves as managers who have to listen to the rules and 

regulations that normal managers have to listen to, and it makes 

a kind of culture that says we are either above that or outside of 

that or not really involved in that. 

And I think when you get that kind of perspective, you get problems like NIH has had with discrimination issues, like the VA is 

having on this, like the Indian Health Service has had on other 

things, and I think there is a certain mentality in those scientific 

communities which I have observed too often in training situations 

that says they need to be convinced that these laws apply to them, 

that they are real managers, and as real managers, they have real 

responsibilities, and they need to understand their job is to enforce 

those policies and laws and regulations. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Well, Ms. Nelms, this may be a surprise to you, but I agree with you. (Laughter.) 

Ms. NELMS. Thank you. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Snyder. 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just one or two questions for Dr. Miller and Ms. Peddicord. I am 

a family practice doctor and went to medical school, signed with 

VA, and then did part of my residency in a VA, a different VA over 

a 20-year period, and the issue I think you mentioned, Ms. 

Peddicord, as did Mr. Hinch earlier on today, about the 24-hour nature of veterans' facilities, and I guess I would add on a few other 

possible components there. 

Maybe it is just the line of work, I guess, doctors and nurses. It 

is kind of an earthy business when you start ripping people's 

clothes off and doing all of the kinds of things we do. You kind of 

start talking about tatoo locations or something on patients. 

But I think we also have the factor, too, do we not, the issue that 

a lot of VAs are teaching hospitals? So you end up with a fair number of people between the age of 22 and 26, and unfortunately for 

a lot of us that was our social life. I mean that is how you met your 

circle of friends, and it would be 3 a.m., and you know what I am 

talking about with on-call schedules and that. 

My question is having said all that, and I think those may be 

factors in this 14 percent business, but of course, the cases we are 

talking about do not have anything to do with that. They were 

eight-to-five employees, totally removed from medicine. They were, 

I think, clerical people and did not have anything to do with doctors and nurses. 

Would you just comment on that if you would, please? 

Ms. PEDDICORD. Well, I agree with you. The difference is that all 

of the women that spoke earlier today, all of the victims, were not 

members of a bargaining unit. They were personal secretaries, con-
103 

fidential secretaries and supervisory positions. So it is very limited 

what resources they have available to them. 

Another problem that can occur is as teaching hospitals have, is 

a number of people from different cultural backgrounds where behavior in one culture may be acceptable whereas in this culture it 

is not acceptable. So that may contribute to the problems with the 

24 hours, and if you are a resident you are working 48 hours 

straight, and maybe people are not quite thinking the way they 

normally would if they had 8 hours' sleep. 

But as I stated earlier, those incidences that we are getting that 

involve bargaining unit employees are being dealt with immediately. There is action being taken right away, and so although incidents still occur from our perspective they are being addressed 

appropriate, and not that they're not a problem, but we do see a 

change in the culture in the people that we deal with from ignoring 

the situation and, oh, you know, "Your dress was a little too short. 

What do you expect?" to one that respects each other as workers 

irregardless of our gender. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, and again, I want to thank the members of this panel, and, Ms. Nelms, I really hope this is not deja 

vu allover again, as Yogi might say. 

This committee, I can assure you, is dead serious, and we will 

have follow-up hearings. 

I would point out to the panel and others that this committee 

consists of the full VA Chairman, Mr. Stump, also the full National 

Security Chairman, Mr. Spence, and the Personnel Subcommittee 

Chairman on National Security, Mr. Buyer, who will have this 

similar situation in the military. 

In addition to that, on my right here, I am very pleased to have 

as my ranking member Mr. Clyburn, who has extensive knowledge 

in this particular field and is one of the brightest members of the 

class of 1992. 

In addition to that, we have--

Mr. CLYBURN. With one exception, right? 

Mr. EVERETT. With one exception. (Laughter.) 

In addition to that, we have the full Ranking Member of the VA 

Committee, Lane Evans, and Lane has already had to leave, and 

a medical doctor, Dr. Vic Snyder. 

So this is, frankly, a hard working committee. These people are 

dedicated to get the information out and, frankly, to accomplish 

something so that in 20 more years you will not have to be back 

here again. As a matter of fact, we hope in a year you will not have 

to be back here again, and this committee will have follow-up hearings. We intend to stay on top of this. 

I believe if a solution is possible, we will get it, and I think, 

frankly, a solution is possible. I think we can all work together and 

take a lot of the recommendations you have made. I know Secretary Brown is fully behind this. He wants to see it accomplished. 

I think that we can get there and that we should get there. 

Again, it has been a long day. I appreciate your patience in remaining to testify. We have heard some compelling testimony 

today. As I have stated earlier, the subcommittee will closely monitor the VA's follow-up to this hearing. 
104 

All members have 5 legislative days to submit questions for the 

record to each of the witnesses. 

Again, thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the chair.] 
APPENDIX 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LANE EVANS 

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS 

HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA 

APRIL 17.1997 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND RANKING DEMOCRAT 

CLYBURN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 

INTEREST IN HOLDING TODAY'S HEARING. AS SOME 

OF YOU MAY REMEMBER, WHEN I SERVED AS 

CHAIRMAN OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IN 19921 HELD 

A SIMILAR HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT AT THE VA. UNFORTUNATELY, 

TODAY'S TESTIMONY WILL SHOW THAT MANY OF 

THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE INITIALLY BROUGHT TO 

THIS SUBCOMMITTEE'S ATTENTION BACK IN 1992 

CONTINUE TO PERSIST AT THE VA TODAY. 

SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL THE COMPELLING 

TESTIMONY WE HEARD DURING THE 1992 HEARING 

FROM DONNA GRABARCZYK (GRA-BAR-SIK). 

(105) 
106 

MS. GRABARCZYK (GRA-BAR-SIK) TESTIFIED THAT 

SHE HAD BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY THE 

CHIEF OF FISCAL SERVICE AT THE LYONS, NEW 

JERSEY VA HOSPITAL WHERE SHE WORKED. IT 

TOOK THE VA SEVEN MONTHS TO INVESTIGATE HER 

ALLEGATIONS, AND IN THE MEANTIME SHE WAS 

FORCED TO LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR OF ANOTHER 

CONFRONTATION WITH HER ASSAILANT. ONCE THE 

VA COMPETED ITS INVESTIGATION, THE PROPOSED 

RESOLUTION WAS TO ENCOURAGE 

MS. GRABARCZYK (GRA-BAR-SIK) TO TRANSFER 

FROM THE FACILITY. 

MS. GRABARCZYK'S (GRA-BAR-SIK'S) HARRASER 

WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE DISABILITY RETIRMENT 

FROM THE VA. IN THE MEANTIME, MS. 

GRABARCZYK (GRA-BAR-SIK) WAS DIAGNOSED 

WITH POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD) 

BECAUSE OF THE HARASSMENT. TWO MONTHS 

AFTER HER 1992 TESTIMONY, SHE WAS PLACED ON 
107 

LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FROM THE VA BECAUSE OF 

HER HARASSMENT-RELATED ILLNESS. 

MS. GRABARCZYK (GRA-BAR-SIK) HAS BEEN 

RECEIVING REGULAR MEDICAL CARE AND THERAPY 

SINCE DECEMBER 1992. HER DOCTOR HAS 

DIAGNOSED HER WITH A TEMPORARY TOTAL 

DISABILITY, AND SHE IS CURRENTLY RECEIVING 

WORKER'S COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF HER 

ILLNESS. SHE TELLS US SHE PRESENTLY TAKES 

THREE DIFFERENT MEDICATIONS EACH DAY TO 

TREAT HER PTSD. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, DONNA GRABARCZYK'S 

(GRA-BAR-SIK'S) STORY IS NOT A HAPPY ONE. 

WHEN WE HEARD HER TESTIFY IN 1992, MOST OF 

US MAY HAVE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THE 

WORST WAS BEHIND HER AND THAT THERE WOULD 

BE ONLY MINIMAL LONG TERM EFFECTS FROM HER 

HARASSMENT. OBVIOUSLY MS. GRABARCZYK'S 

(GRA-BAR-SIK'S) TROUBLES HAVE NOT GONE AWAY 
108 

SINCE 1992. IT IS A TRIBUTE TO THE LEADERSHIP 

OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE THAT THE INTEREST IN 

THIS ISSUE HAS NOT SUBSIDED EITHER SINCE THAT 

TIME. 

UNTIL THE VA TRULY ADDRESSES THE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT PROBLEM AT THE REGIONAL AND 

FACILITY LEVELS, STORIES LIKE THE ONE WE 

HEARD FROM DONNA GRABARCZYK (GRA-BAR-SIK) 

- AND STORIES LIKE THE ONES WE WILL BE 

HEARING TODAY - WILL CONTINUE TO BE PLAYED 

OUT THROUGHOUT THE HALLS OF THE VA. I 

BELIEVE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO ALL WE 

CAN AS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO SEE TO 

IT THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF 

HEARING FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. 

IN CLOSING, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I 

DO NOT QUESTION SECRETARY BROWN'S 

PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO ERADICATING THE 
109 

FESTERING PROBLEM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN 

THE VA. THE SECRETARY'S "ZERO TOLERANCE" 

POLICY INSTITUTED IN 1993 WAS A STRONG STEP IN 

THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT UNTIL THE VA CAN 

SHOW THAT ITS POLICY HAS TEETH, WE WILL 

CONTINUE TO KEEP THE HEAT ON THE VA ON THIS 

ISSUE IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS TO COME. OUR 

VETERANS AND THE EMPLOYEES WHO SERVE 

THEM SHOULD EXPECT, AND DESERVE, NO LESS. 

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
110 

Statement of Donna Grabarczyk 

Thank you for your inquiry about by status since the September 17, 

1992 hearing. I regret that serious personal family health problems 

preclude my attendance. 

I have been on Leave Without Pay status from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (OVA) since December 1992 for my work-related 

condition resulting from experiences while at the OVA. My treating 

physicians determined that I have a temporary total disability. 

I have received regular medical care including medication requiring 

blood test monitoring and therapy since October 1990. I presently see 

a psychiatrist and therapist and take three different medications 

daily for a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder . 

In March 1994, I was notified by a newspaper reporter of the six 

month jail sentence received by my harasser who violated his 

probationary terms in March and April, 1994 . I was referred and 

treated for functional gastro-intestinal tract complaints related to 

post traumatic stress disorder. 

I filed and won a civil suite against my harasser, but the judgment 

awarded has not been obtained due to his retirement status. 

I recently read quotes from Secretary Brown referring to 

demotion/ dismissal of hospital officials as " devastating" and in 

speaking of training programs, there would always be "10 percent 

unable to make that adjustment" following training . 

I ask the Committee members and Secretary Brown to consider the 

devastating, incapacitating impact of sexual harassment on the health , 

family, career and financial security of the dedicated, productive and 

loyal OVA employees no longer able to proudly serve veterans because 

they were subject to this behavior. 

The costs of each case for legal expenses, decreased morale and 

productivity, loss of highly motivated employees and hiring/ retraining 

replacements must be exorbitant. 

How is it possible for OVA officials exhibiting sexually harassing 

behavior to attain, maintain and progress in their positions? 

I don't know what side effects and long term damages I may suffer 

from medications taken the past six and a half years to help control 

symptoms . I don ' t know if, despite the help of caring professionals, 

I'll ever be able to stop treatment . 

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide this statement . My 

thanks to all the Committee members for their concerned efforts to 

achieve the "zero tolerance " advocated by the OVA . 

I remain respectfully yours. 
111 

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL BILIRAKIS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

APRIL 17, 1997 

HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT ISSUES 

AT THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 

FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING TO MY REQUEST 

BY SCHEDULING TODA V'S HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

ISSUES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS. I ALSO 

APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING 

, 

EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT A MEMBER OF YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE. 

DURING THE 102ND CONGRESS, I SERVED AS THE RANKING 

MINORITY MEMBER OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION 

SUBCOMMITTEE. AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER MR. CHAIRMAN, 

WE CONDUCTED A HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA 

WORKPLACE IN 1992. 

AT THAT TIME, WE HEARD FROM SEVERAL VA EMPLOYEES WHO 

HAD BEEN THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. IT TOOK A 

GREAT DEAL OF COURAGE FOR THESE WOMEN TO COME FORWARD 

AND SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH OUR COMMITTEE. MANY OF 

THESE WOMEN WERE ALSO SUBJECTED TO ACTS OF RETALIATION 

BY THEIR ABUSERS AND OTHER VA EMPLOYEES. 
112 

THEIR PERCEPTION, WHICH WAS SHARED BY MANY OTHER 

EMPLOYEES, WAS THAT THE VA DID NOT TAKE SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY. THERE WAS A GREAT 

DEAL OF SUSPICION AND DISTRUST CAUSED BY TOO MANY YEARS 

OF APPARENT TOLERATION OF UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. 

WITHOUT QUESTION, OUR 1992 HEARING REVEALED THAT THE 

PROCESS IN PLACE AT THE VA FOR INVESTIGATING SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS WAS SERIOUSLY FLAWED. 

CONSEQUENTLY, THIS COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 

LEGISLATION, WHICH WAS LATER PASSED BY THE HOUSE, TO 

ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AT THE VA. H.R. 1032 WOULD HAVE 

PROVIDED FOR IMPROVED AND EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR 

RESOLVING COMPLAINTS OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, 

INCLUDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS. 

WHEN WE CONSIDERED H.R. 1032, SECRETARY BROWN 

OPPOSED THE PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE HE 

PREFERRED TO TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION INSTEAD. THE 

SENATE DID NOT ACT ON H.R. 1032, AND THE BILL WAS NEVER 

ENACTED INTO LAW. 

TO HIS CREDIT, SECRETARY BROWN ESTABLISHED A POLICY OF 

"ZERO TOLERANCE" OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND OTHER FORMS 

OF DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' 
113 

AFFAIRS EARLY IN HIS TENURE AS SECRETARY. I GUESS THE 

QUESTION FACING US TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS POLICY IS 

SUFFICIENT. 

ALMOST FIVE YEARS AFTER OUR FIRST HEARING, WE ARE FACED 

WITH A SIMILAR SITUATION AT THE VA. THIS MATTER WAS 

BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION AGAIN WHEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE 

FAYETTEVILLE VA MEDICAL CENTER WAS FOUND TO HAVE 

SEXUALLY HARASSED ONE FEMALE EMPLOYEE. HE ALSO ENGAGED 

IN "ABUSIVE, THREATENING AND INAPPROPRIATE" BEHAVIOR 

TOWARDS OTHER FEMALE EMPLOYEES. THIS DIRECTOR WAS 

TRANSFERRED TO THE BAY PINES VA MEDICAL CENTER WHICH 

SERVES MANY OF THE VETERANS IN MY CONGRESSIONAL 

DISTRICT. HE WAS ALLOWED TO RETAIN A SALARY OF MORE 

THAN $100,000 IN A POSITION CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR HIM . 

I HAVE HEARD FROM MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS, PARTICULARLY 

FEMALE VETERANS AND VA EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE OUTRAGED BY 

THE DEPARTMENT'S ACTIONS ON THIS MATTER. THEY DO NOT 

BELIEVE THAT THE VA TOOK ANY PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST THIS 

SENIOR VA EMPLOYEE. 

I HAVE REVIEWED THE TESTIMONY OF TODAY'S WITNESSES WHO 

WERE SUBJECTED TO ABUSIVE TREATMENT WHILE WORKING IN 

THE FAYETTEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER. SADLY, THEIR STORIES 
114 

MIRROR THOSE THAT WE FIRST HEARD IN 1992. DESPITE THE 

SECRETARY'S ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY, IT APPEARS THAT THE VA 

HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENT SUFFICIENT 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS. 

I KNOW FROM THEIR TESTIMONY THAT OUR WITNESSES BELIEVE 

THAT THEIR ~. , "IASSER WAS NOT PROPERLY OR ADEQUATELY 

PUNISHED. IN FACT, THEY FEEL HE WAS REWARDED FOR HIS 

ACTIONS "BY BEING SENT TO THE PLACE HE WANTED TO BE WITH 

A RAISE IN SALARY." 

THIS CERTAINLY APPEARS TO BE THE CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, I AM 

GREATLY CONCERNED THAT THE VA'S POLICY OF "ZERO 

TOLERANCE" HAS, AT BEST, NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED UNIFORMLY, 

AND AT WORST, HAS BEEN IGNORED. THIS IS WHY I REQUESTED 

TODAY'S HEARING. 

IN 1992, I SAID THAT "EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE AND TO 

GO TO WORK WITHOUT FEAR OF HARASSMENT OF ANY SORT .. . WE 

OWE ALL FEMALE VETERANS AND ALL FEMALE VA EMPLOYEES THE 

ASSURANCE THAT WE WILL NOT TOLERATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

AT ANY LEVEL." THIS STATEMENT IS JUST AS RELEVANT TODAY 

AS IT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO. 
115 

I HOPE THIS HEARING WILL GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO 

REFORM THE COMPLAINT PROCESS AND HOPEFULLY WILL BE A 

STEP TOWARDS ASSURING THAT SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

ANYWHERE IN OUR SOCIETY, BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY IN OUR 

VETERANS' HOSPITALS, WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST. 

ONCE AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR SCHEDULING THIS 

HEARING. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU, 

REPRESENTATIVE CLYBURN, AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE 

OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. 
116 

~ Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Office of inspector General 

SPECIAL INQUIRY 

ALLEGED IMPROPER CONDUCT 

BY A SENIOR OFFICIAL 

VA MEDICAL CENTER FAYETTEVILLE, NC 

Date: November 8,J996 

Report No. 7PR-G02-007 

WARNING 

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT 

This report contains information subj~cr 10 the pro\'isions of the Priv:u:y Act of 19'" (5 l'.S.C. Seclion 5521). Such 

information may be disclosrd only 85 . urhorized by this 5latute. Questions concerning rticltsc of this report thereof should be 

('Go rdinated with the Department of Vcttrans Affain. Office of Inspeclor General. The co ntents of this I'"('porl must bc 

safeguarded from unauthol'"ized disclosure and may b( shar-ed within the Department of Velrr:1ns ,Hr"irs on l!. n(('d·lo· know 

basi ~o nl)·. 

Office of Inspector General 

Washington DC 20420 
117 

TO: Veterans Health Administration, Network Director (ION6) 

SUBJECT: Special Inquiry, Alleged Improper Conduct by a Senior Official, VA 

Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC, Report No. 7PR-G02-007 

I. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) reviewed allegations that Mr. Jerome Calhoun, Director, VA Medical 

Center, Fayetteville, North Carolina, sexually harassed three women. Two of 

these allegations surfaced during a review of a Hotline complaint sent to our 

office. The third sexual harassment complaint was referred to us by your office. 

We also received allegations from Senator Lauch Faircloth concerning misconduct 

and unprofessional behavior by Mr. Calhoun. These allegations were referred to 

your office for appropriate action. Based on your review, you concluded 

Mr. Calhoun was not effective as a Medical Center Director. 

2. Our review determined that Mr. Calhoun sexually harassed one of the three 

female employees. While we could not conclusively determine whether he 

sexually harassed the other two employees, we did conclude that Mr. Calhoun's 

behavior toward them was abusive, threatening, and inappropriate. We also 

concluded that Mr. Calhoun was less than truthful about certain matters in 

responding to the allegations, which raised some doubt concerning his credibility. 

3. Regarding the first complainant, Mr. Calhoun made inappropriate 

comments of a sexual nature. Some of the comments Mr. Calhoun made to her 

were witnessed by others, and Mr. Calhoun himself, at least partially, 

acknowledged having made the comments. However, given the speech and 

behavior of the first complainant, we are concerned that a sexual harassment 

charge would be difficult to uphold because it could be found that such comments 

were neither uninvited nor offensive. We did conclude that Mr. Calhoun's 

treatment of the first complainant was inappropriate and abusive. Mr. Calhoun 

admitted to being loud, emotional, and profane. Due to stress that resulted from 

the overall abuse by Mr. Calhoun the complainant removed herself from the 

workplace. Eventually, she filed a claim with the Office of Workers' 

Compensation due to her stress, and that claim was approved. 

4. The second complainant testified that Mr. Calhoun made unwelcome sexual 

advances toward her and retaliated against her when she rejected his suggestions 

i 
118 

that they have a personal relationship. Our review substantiated quid pro quo 

sexual harassment and sexual harassment for creating a hostile work env '1TT' nt . 

The quid pro quo sexual harassment was a result of Mr. Calhoun 's ["o.a •• . · .. on 

against the complainant by reassigning her to a position that she was not qualified 

for. because she rejected his proposals. The creation of a hostile and offensive 

work environment resulted because Mr. Calhoun continued to make unwelcome 

and inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the complainant after she had 

clearly indicated her discomfort with such comments. We found the testimony of 

the complainant to be credible in that it was corroborated over and over again by 

the views of other medical center employees and the complainant's psychologist. 

Due to the sexual harassment, this complainant transferred to another medical 

center. 

5. The third complainant testified that Mr. Calhoun made unsolicited verbal 

comments of a sexual nature to her on more than one occasion. The complainant 

told us there were no witnesses to the remarks on either occasion. Y1r. Calhoun 

denied making comments of a sexual nature to the complainant. He suggested that 

the complainant was angry at him because he transferred her out of her previous 

position, and that she had falsely made the accusation of sexual harassment out of 

revenge. While we could not determine if the allegations of sexual harassment 

were substantiated because it was essentially her word against his, we did conclude 

that Mr. Calhoun's treatment of the third complainant continued to demonstrate a 

pattern of inappropriate and abusive behavior. 

6. We recommended that you take appropriate administrative action against 

Mr. Calhoun for sexually harassing at least one female employee and for his 

pattern of abusive and inappropriate behavior toward all three complainants. You 

concurred with our findings and recommendation, and informed us you were 

finalizing a plan of action to implement the recommendation. We will review that 

plan to ensure it is responsive to our recommendation. and will follow up on its 

implementation until the issue is resolved. 

~a.tJ~G 

~ .JCK H. KROLL 

" Assistant Inspector General for 

Depanmental Reviews and Management Suppan 

Enciosure 
119 

CONTENTS 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public Availability To Be 

Determined Under S USC SS2 

Memorandum to the Network Director, VISN 6 ............................................. . 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ . 

Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1 

Background................................................................................................ 1 

Scope ......................................................................................................... 3 

Results and Recommendation ........................................................................... 4 

ISSUE: Did Mr. Jerome Calhoun, Director of the Fayetteville, NC 

Medical Center, sexually harass three Medical Center employees? ......... 4 

Complainant No. 1.......................................................................... 4 

Complainant No. 2............................................................................ 9 

Complainant No. 3.......................................................................... 17 

Credibility Determination......................... ...... ................................ 18 

Conclusion ..................................................................................•.............. 21 

Recommendation ............................................ ...... ... ...... ..... ... ........... ...... ... 22 

Appendix 

VlSN 6, Network Director Comments ..................... ................................. 23 
Purpose 

120 

ALLEGED IMPROPER CONDUCT 

BY A SENIOR OFFICIAL 

VA MEDICAL CENTER FAYETTEVILLE, NC 

Report No. 7PR-G02-007 

INTRODUCTION 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Inspector Oeneral (orO) reviewed 

allegations that Mr. Jerome Calhoun, Director, VA Medical Center, Fayetteville, North 

Carolina, sexually harassed three women. At the time of the alleged harassment, the three 

women were employed at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center. Two of the allegations 

surfaced during a review of a Hotline complaint sent to the oro's Hotline and Special 

Inquiries Division. The oro initiated a review of the third allegation in response to a 

request for assistance from the Director, Veterans Integrated Service Network in Durham, 

North Carolina (VISN 6). We also agreed to conduct this review because the allegations 

were serious in nature and involved possible misconduct by a high ranking V A official, and 

the statute of limitations for filing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, based 

on charges of sexual harassment, had expired. 

We also received allegations from Senator Lauch Faircloth regarding misconduct and 

unprofessional behavior by Mr. Calhoun. These allegations were referred to VISN 6 for 

appropriate action. The Director, VISN 6, initiated a review to determine the validity of the 

allegations. Based on that review, he concluded that Mr. Calhoun was not effective as a 

medical center director. We have respond to Senator Faircloth regarding the results of that 

review. 

Background. 

Mr. Calhoun became the Director of the Fayetteville Medical Center in April 1994. His 

previous assignment was as Associate Director at the V A Medical Center in Buffalo. New 

York. 

Sexual harassment is recognized in the law as a type of sex discrimination prohibited by 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to 29 C.F.R. Section 1604.11. sexual 

harassment is defined as follows: 
121 

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or 

physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: 

(I) 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. 

Sexual harassment that occurs when a supervisor bases an employment decision about an 

individual on that individual's submission to or rejection of the supervisor's unwelcome 

sexual conduct is known as "quid pro quo" sexual harassment. The other major type of 

sexual harassment involves inappropriate behavior or speech which creates a hostile work 

environment. 

While a single isolated incident, such as a threat to take a negative personnel action, may be 

sufficient to establish quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment claims can be more 

complicated. Generally, there must be a series or pattern of events which are sufficiently 

offensive that the work environment has been altered to the extent that a reasonable person 

would be uncomfortable or that person's productivity would be negatively affected. 

However, even one instance of egregious misconduct, e.g., indecent touching, may be 

sufficient to create a hostile environment. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines hold supervisory personnel to a 

higher standard than co-workers. The employer can be held liable for the improper acts of a 

management official even if the official's superiors were not aware of the_misconduct. A 

Director of a V A medical center, given that person's overall supervisory and leadership 

responsibilities, and that person's position in the EEO process, would be expected to 

establish a standard of proper behavior and intolerance of sexual harassment. 

VA policy (MP-7, Part I. Change I) also prohibits sexual harassment. According to that 

policy. "sexual harassment is unacceptable conduct in the workplace and will not be 

condoned." The policy defines sexual harassment as "deliberate or repeated unsolicited 

2 
122 

verbal comments, gestures, or physical contacts of a sexual nature which are unwelcomed. 

It is a form of employee misconduct which may create an unproductive or an offensive 

working atmosphere and which undermines the integrity ofihe employment relationship." 

Scope 

To evaluate whether Mr. Calhoun sexually harassed three Medical Center employees, we 

interviewed the three women, witnesses who heard or were told of the alleged harassment, 

and Mr. Calhoun. All interviews conducted in person, including those with the three 

complainants and Mr. Calhoun, were tape recorded and the interviewees were placed under 

oath. We also reviewed the personnel records of the three women and obtained available 

documentation of the alleged harassment. 

3 
123 

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION 

(<l1J'f" liit;, i·"-r,"'-t~Ir~;"':1J.rr"ni}"H,,:;,q7 ,I: iQ?IR.i'~~~~@''l~1 ':PT(I.;l.; 

1:8.It_1J..t·;'j~ I "' .... ·iq,·.r;. t,?d:::;'tt-=J. ~ ~'Ii-t~ "I!1!.~'.\ ,_-:-:1 .. ~ f, '. {~,: ,' .... ' ,I 

We substantiated the allegations of sexual harassment with respect to one of the three 

employees. We found that Mr. Calhoun sexually harassed Complainant No.2. 

Regarding Complainant No. I, we determined that Mr. Calhoun did make inappropriate 

comments of a sexual nature to her, but we are concerned that a sexual harassment charge 

might be difficult to uphold. Given the speech and behavior of Complainant No. I, it could 

be found that such comments were not uninvited or offensive to her. With regard to 

Complainant No.3, it was her word against Mr. Calhoun's with regard to the sexual 

harassment allegation. Therefore, we could not substantiate that allegation, given that 

management would have the burden of proof on the issue. 

While we could not conclusively determine that he sexually harassed Complainants No. 1 

and No.3, we did conclude that Mr. Calhoun's behavior toward them was abusive, 

threatening, and inappropriate. We also concluded that Mr. Calhoun was less than truthful 

about certain matters in responding to the allegations, which raised some doubt concerning 

his credibility. 

Complainapt No, 1 

The complainant, a secretary to Mr. Calhoun, alleged that on three occasions Mr. Calhoun 

made an unsolicited; offensive verbal comment of a sexual nature to her, or threatened to 

repeat the comment in the presence of others. The complainant (hereafter referred to as 

Complainant No.1, or Ms. A) testified that in February or March 1996, she came into 

Mr. Calhoun's office to place some papers on his desk and, as she was leaving, he told her 

he had just talked on the telephone to a friend of his and told the friend,that his secretary 

does "the strangest thing." He then asked her, "Did you know that every time you get upset 

your nipples get hard?" Ms. A told us that her first thought was to slap Mr. Calhoun on the 

face, but that she just stared at him and then responded, "No." She said Mr. Calhoun then 

told her, "Well, they really do. It's not bad to see you get upset." She testified that she then 

left Mr. Calhoun's office without further comment. She said there were no witnesses to this 

remark. 

4 
124 

Ms. A testified that, on a second occasion when she was in Mr. Calhoun's office, he 

remarked to another person present in the room, "Do you know what happens when [the 

complainant] gets excited?" The complainant told us she did not recall if Mr. Calhoun 

followed up that remark with a conunent about her nipples. However,the third person in 

the room (Complainant No.3, Ms. C) testified that, while Ms. C was talking to 

Mr. Calhoun, Ms. A walked in and, after a brief conversation, Mr. Calhoun remarked that 

there was something very interesting about Ms. A. According to Ms. C, 1\.1£. Calhoun then 

remarked that Ms. A's nipples got hard when she was anxious. [Ms. C could not recall if 

Mr. Calhoun used the word anxious, nervous, or excited.] Ms. C told us this occurred 

around March 1996. According to Ms. C, Ms. A reacted to the remark with a shocked look 

on her face, and crossed her arms in front of her. 

Ms. A's actions indicate that she was offended and embarrassed by the Director's 

statements. Her facial expression, in response to the offensive statements, was described by 

Ms. C as "shocked." The crossing of her arms in front of her was clearly an attempt to 

cover the part of the body the Director was inappropriately bringing attention to through his 

remarks. 

Ms. A testified that, several weeks after the first incident, Mr. Calhoun threatened to repeat 

the conunent about her nipples in the presence of the Associate Director and the Chief of 

Staff. Ms. A told us that after her official duty hours on a Friday afternoon, she delivered a 

document to Mr. Calhoun, who was in his conference room with the Associate Director and 

Chief of Staff. Upon entering the conference room, Ms. A testified that she told the 

Director, Associate Director, and Chief of Staff that she was working late again, was 

"drowning" in work and urgently needed additional clerical help to accomplish what 

needed to be done. According to Ms. A, Mr. Calhoun responded to her, "You know what 

happens to you when you get upset. Do you want me to tell [the Chief of Staff and the 

Associate Director] what happens to you when you get upset?" Ms. A testified that she 

crossed her arms in front of her, trying to hide her breasts, and responded, "No sir, I don't." 

She said she then walked out of the conference room, turned off her computer, and went 

home. Ms. A's actions and words again indicate that she found the Dir~ctor's statements 

embarrassing and uncomfortable. 

Ms. A testified that she told no one about the above remarks for several months. She said 

she did not file a sexual harassment charge against Mr. Calhoun because she was afraid of 

him and afraid of what her husband would do when he found out. She also testified that she 

did not think anyone would believe her allegations. 

5 
125 

In some respects, the Associate Director corroborated Ms. A's testimony with regard to the 

third incident. She told us that, while she did not think that Ms. A was shocked, Ms. A did 

have "some kind of reaction" to Mr. Calhoun's remark. She testified that after the 

complainant 1eft the conference room, Mr. Calhoun told her [the Associate Director], 

"You'd have to be a man to appreciate this, so we're not going to even talk about it." The 

Associate Director told us that, although Mr. Calhoun did not explain his comment, she 

believed she knew what he meant by it. She said that Mr. Calhoun had told her, some time 

prior to the above incident, that Ms. A previously had breast surgery and that Ms. A 

voluntarily told him that, as a result of the surgery, her nipples got hard when she was upset. 

When we asked Mr. Calhoun ifhe had ever made a remark to Ms. A about her breasts, he 

knew what we were referring to without us having to tell him the specific comment. He 

repeatedly denied that he ever made a remark to or about the complainant in which he used 

the word "nipples" or "breasts." He testified that, to the contrary, Ms. A had told him she 

had breast surgery and that, as a result of the surgery, her nipples got hard when she was 

upset. Mr. Calhoun admitted that, on more than one occasion, he reminded Ms. A, without 

specifically saying the word "nipples," about what happens to her when she is upset or 

excited. He testified that, on the occasion he was meeting with the Chief of Staff and 

Associate Director, he made the comment as a way of telling the complainant to "get out of 

here." 

Mr. Calhoun initially testified that he did not recall threatening to tell the Associate Director 

and Chief of Staff about what happened to the complainant when she got "upset," nor did 

he recall telling the Associate Director, "You'd have to be a man to appreciate this .... " 

However, when we confronted him with the Associate Director's testimony that she recalled 

that he did in fact make those remarks, he stated that he would not argue otherwise. In 

short, he did not challenge or in any way rebut the Associate Director's testimony. 

The Director's statements to the Associate Director essentially admit that he was well aware 

that his statements were offensive and unwelcome to the average woman.· The fact that he 

would not discuss the subject with the Associate Director, a woman, demonstrates that he 

knew the subject was inappropriate and, perhaps inherently, offensive. His statement that 

the comment was the equivalent of telling Ms. A to "get out of here" is conclusive evidence 

that he was aware that the comments were sufficiently embarrassing to Ms. A that they 

would result in her being so uncomfortable that she would leave the room. 

Mr. Calhoun, however, also testified that Ms. A made frequent comments about her own 

body to the effect that she had a good body for a woman her age and that she was still 

6 
126 

attractive mid desirable. He testified that Ms. A discussed, in fairly explicit teims, her 

sexual activities with her husband. According to Mr. Calhoun, Ms. A frequently wore 

"inappropriate" clothing of a sexy, provocative nature and would turn every conversation 

around to a sexual cOMotation. 

Two other witnesses, including the female Associate Director, each o( whom had direct 

knowledge about Ms. A, corroborated the Director's testimony with regard to Ms. A's 

clothing and speech. The Associate Director testified that Mr. Calhoun told her that Ms. A 

said, with regard to the effects of her breast surgery, my husband "likes them better this 

way." The Associate Director, in discussing Ms. A's inappropriate clothing, stated that 

she believed Ms. A wanted attention. She told us that prior to Ms. A being hired as the 

Director's secretary, a staff person who worked with her previously discussed her 

inappropriate clothing and behavior. However, the Associate Director stated that Ms. A had 

~ever rnad~ an inappropriate remark in her presence. 

Ms. A told us that she ·did tell Mr. Calhoun about her breast surgery because he had asked 

her what prompted her active participation in the American Cancer Society. She stated that, 

although she did not have breast cancer, she did have breast tissue removed as a preventive 

measure and replaced with implants. She indicated that she has spoken to many groups 

about breast cancer and her surgery and she is not embarrassed by it or ashamed to discuss 

it. However, she denied that she ever told Mr. Calhoun that her nipples got hard when she 

was upset or excited. 

In analyzing the allegations of sexual harassment, we note that there was no corroborating 

witness for the first alleged instance. The corroborating witness for the second alleged 

instance is Ms. C, who is the third complainant alleging sexual harassment against 

Mr. Calhoun. As we will discuss in more detail in the Complainant No.3 section of this 

report, Ms. C, like Ms. A, is a victim of abusive behavior by Mr. Calhoun. Ms. C is not an 

unbiased witness. In addition to her allegations, which would be enhanced if sexual 

harassment by Mr. Calhoun against Ms. A was substantiated, she is bitter toward 

Mr. Calhoun. Given her bitterness toward Mr. Calhoun, she may not be a particularly 

independent and objective witness. 

Finally, as to the third alleged instance, while the basic facts were confirmed and 

corroborated by the Associate Director, Ms. A's testimony was not corroborated with 

respect to the offense Ms. A took to the rernark. The Associate Director's testimony was 

that Ms. A was upset and fluttery before the Director made the remark and that the remark 

itself did not have a major noticeable negative effect on Ms. A. Although, it could be 

7 
127 

argued that it did have the effect intended by Mr. Calhoun, which was to get Ms. A to leave 

the room. 

We determined that Mr. Calhoun did make inappropriate statements of a sexual nature to 

Ms. A about her body. While we consider his statements to and about Ms. A's body 

improper and evidence of misconduct, especially for the Director of a V A Medical Center, 

we cannot conclude that these remarks constitute a provable case of sexual harassment. 

While we do not in any way wish to minimize or condone Mr. Calhoun's remarks, we 

believe that his remarks may not have created a hostile and offensive work environment in 

terms of sexual harassment. 

Given the reportedly sexually oriented speech of Ms. A, i.e., her comments about her 

husband's reaction to her breast implants, her comments about her own attractiveness, and 

her open comments about her sexual activity with her husband, it is possible that Ms. A 

would not prevail in a claim that the Director's comments were offensive or that they 

created a hostile work environment, in the context of a sexual harassment case. In fact, it 

could be argued that Ms. A, through her own clothing and conversation, inadvertently 

created an environment where sexually oriented speech was openly discussed and tolerated. 

Irrespective of whether the remarks constitute sexual harassment in a legal sense, such 

remarks are nonetheless indecent and totally inappropriate. 

In her testimony regarding the allegations of sexual harassment, Ms. A also . alleged that 

Mr. Calhoun's behavior toward her was inappropriate in a variety of other ways. For 

example, she alleged that Mr. Calhoun shouted at her, used profane language toward her, 

refused to speak to her on certain business-related matters, falsely accused her of stealing 

from him, and constantly and frequently threatened to fire her (while at the same time 

refusing to reassign her). Ms. A testified that the Director'S constant and prolonged abusive 

behavior, which persisted for the better part of a year, had been degrading and diminished 

her self esteem. She stated that the stress caused by Mr. Calhoun had such a significant 

negative effect on her physical and mental health she began routine visits to her family 

physician. 

Ms. A testified that she initially spent 3 hours talking to her physician about the effects of 

Mr. Calhoun's inappropriate behavior towards her. Her physician diagnosed her as 

suffering from situational depression, gave her medication and recommended that she stay 

away from the workplace. Ms. A eventually filed a claim with ihe Office of Workers' 

Compensation due to her stress and that claim was approved. 

8 
128 

We believe that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Director's overall behavior 

toward Ms. A created a work environment that was stressful, threatening, and 

uncomfortable for Ms. A. She was subjected to terrible stress due the Director's repeated 

threats that she would be frred and lose her job. The fact that the Director threatened to 

embarrass Ms. A in front of two other people by commenting on her body is indicative of 

his abusive treatment toward her. The Director's assertion that he never used the words 

"breast" or "nipples" completely misses the point. The point is that he essentially admitted 

that his threatened comment, of a sexual nature, was intended to result in Ms. A leaving the 

room. If he wanted Ms. A to leave the room, he should have just asked her to do so. 

Intentionally abusive comments made by a supervisor to a subordinate are inappropriate, 

offensive, indefensible, and an abuse of power. Mr. Calhoun'S behavior toward Ms. A 

created an atmosphere that was uncomfortable, stressful, tense, abusive, and nonproductive. 

The pattern of behavior exhibited does not seem out of character for Mr. Calhoun. Other 

medical center employees interviewed also testified that they found the Director to be 

abusive, profane, and threatening. Additional examples of this behavior are discussed in the 

following sections. 

Complaipapt No.2 

The complainant (hereafter referred to as Complainant No. 2 or Ms. B), the Chief of the 

Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCR) Section at the time the alleged harassment occurred, 

alleged that Mr. Calhoun transferred her from her position because she refused his 

suggestion that the two of them have a personal relationship. 

Ms. B alleged that quid pro quo sexual harassment occurred because Mr. Calhoun retaliated 

against her by implementing an employment decision negatively affecting the complainant 

without sufficient justification for the personnel action. Specifically, she alleged that the 

Director'! actions concerning her reassignment from her position as the Chief, MCCR 

Section to a position she was not qualified for, was caused by her rejection of the Director's 

unwelcome sexual advances toward her. 

In addition to the unjustified personnel action taken against her, Ms. B also alleged that the 

Director's behavior toward her involved threatening behavior and additional unwelcome 

and inappropriate corrunents of a sexual nature, which created a hostile and offensive work 

environment. 

9 
129 

The evolution of the Director's treatment of Ms. B changed dramatically over time. to 

fully appreciate the change, it is necessary to present the full context of their interactions. 

Both Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B testified that during the first few months after Mr. Calhoun 

arrived at the Fayetteville Medical Center, the two of them met frequently to discuss MCCR 

matters. They testified that Mr. Calhoun had a high interest in the MCCR program and 

communicated directly with Ms. B to keep abreast of the program's status. Ms. B testified 

that during their many meetings, they often had conversations on non-MCCR topics and 

joked with one another. She testified that she felt comfortable enough with Mr. Calhoun 

that on one occasion shortly after he arrived in Fayetteville she invited him to have dinner 

with her and a co-worker, and he accepted the invitation. 

Ms. B testified that around September 1994, while she .was in Mr. Calhoun's office 

discussing MCCR issues, he told her that now that she was divorced [Ms. B's divorce was 

fmal in August 1994], he had something to say to her. Ms. B testified that Mr. Calhoun 

asked her who her best friend was and told her that she could not tell her best friend what he 

was about to say. Ms. B testified that Mr. Calhoun then told her that he was " interested" in 

her. She said she took that comment to mean he had an interest in her that was personal, not 

work related. Ms. B said she was surprised by the comment and told Mr. Calhoun that she 

was already in a relationship with someone and did not want to jeopardize it. According to 

Ms. B, Mr. Calhoun persisted by asking her to "think about it." 

A friend of Complainant No. 2 corroborated her testimony about this incident when she 

testified that Ms. B told her that Mr; Calhoun had expressed an interest in having a personal 

relationship with Complainant No. 2 and that she rejected his proposal. The friend could 

not remember exactly when the incident occurred, but said Ms. B told her about it 

immediately after it occurred. Ms. B also discussed the incident with her psychologist, 

whom she was initially seeing on a non-work related matter, shortly after the incident 

occurred. The psychologist also corroborated Ms. B's testimony. 

In the weeks that followed the incident, Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B continued to have meetings 

to discuss the MCCR program. Ms. B testified that at one of these meetings Mr. Calhoun 

told her that he "got sick when he was rejected." Ms. B said that this remark upset her. At 

this point, she said that she decided that if Mr. Calhoun made any further unwelcome 

remarks to her, she would tell him that she did not appreciate them. She said that she knew, 

based on her sexual harassment training, that this was what she was supposed to do. The 

psychologist again corroborated Ms. B's statement concerning how the Director reacted to 

rejection, based on Ms. B's contemporaneous reporting ofthis event to the psychologist. 

10 
130 

According to Ms. B, during a meeting with Mr. Calhoun in his office in mid-October 1994, 

Mr. Calhoun brought up his interest in having a relationship with her once again. Ms. B 

testified that Mr. Calhoun said, "You haven't given me an answer yet." She stated that she 

asked Mr. Calhoun what he was talking about, and he said, "About my being interested in 

you." Ms. B testified she told Mr. Calhoun that she thought she had given him an answer, 

and again told him she was not interested because she was already in a relationship that she 

did not want to jeopardize. She also said that she told Mr. Calhoun, "Please don't do this to 

me." After Ms. B left Mr. Calhoun's office, she remembers feeling intimidated. She 

testified that she thought about charging Mr. Calhoun with sexual harassment, but did not 

have the nerve to do it. 

At this point in time, i.e., after the second incident, Ms. B clearly let the Director know that 

she was not interested in a personal relationship with him. By saying, "Please don't do this 

to me," she conununicated that his advances were unwelcome and made her uncomfortable. 

Ms. B's testimony about this incident was once again corroborated by her psychologist, to 

whom she made a contemporaneous report of these events. Ms. B's contemporaneous 

reporting of these events were detailed in a written statement that was prepared by the 

psychologist. After Ms. B provided the written statement to us, we confirmed with the 

psychologist that he had, in fact, written it. 

The relationship between Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B began to deteriorate during the next 

several weeks. According to Ms. B, by December 1994, Mr. Calhoun's interactions with 

her changed. She said their meetings to discuss the MCCR program became less frequent, 

and he would often not talk to her when he saw her. Ms. B's psychologist stated that she 

told him in January 1995 that "she sensed that rapport had broken down between herself 

and Mr. CalhoUn." The psychologist stated that, according to Ms. B, Mr. Calhoun seemed 

to be withdrawing from her, and that on passing in halls and on other occasions he appeared 

to be glaring at her and unresponsive to her greetings. Ms. B said she believes that the 

change in their working relationship occurred because she rejected his -offer to have a 

personal relationship. 

We talked to four current and former Medical Center employees who had knowledge of the 

relationship between Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B. All four told us that they were aware of a 

change in that relationship. For example, one employee noted that "all of a sudden ... 

nothing [Ms. B] did was right." Another employee told us that Mr. Calhoun seemed to 

"tum" on Ms. B. These witnesses corroborated Ms. B's testimony that her working 

relationship with Mr. Calhoun noticeably changed for the worse. 

11 
131 

Mr. Calhoun denied that he ever had anything except a strictly professional relationship 

with the complainant. He testified that they discussed only ~CCR business during their 

frequent meetings. He did acknowledge that he once went out for drinks with Ms. B. He 

testified that the reason he began to meet less frequently with Ms. B to discuss the MCCR 

program was that he was not pleased with her performance and "just backed off." 

By January 1995, Ms. B sensed that the rapport between herself and Mr. Calhoun had 

broken down completely. She described an incident in which Mr. Calhoun became furious 

with her and shouted and cursed at her in front of other employees. Mr. Calhoun admitted 

to us that he does have a problem in that he does curse too much at work in front of staff. 

He testified that in recent months he tried to improve in this area by being less emotional 

and cursing less. 

Ms. B said that she felt threatened by Mr. Calhoun's belligerence toward her and feared that 

he might actually strike her. She stated that Mr. Calhoun later apologized to her for his 

outburst, and then said to her, "I really miss the days when if a woman was out of line you 

could just slap her around." 

In his written statement, the psychologist corroborated that Ms. B related to him a pattern of 

inappropriate behavior towards her on the part of Mr. Calhoun, to include verbal abuse, 

physical intimidation, and sexual harassment. The psychologist stated that Ms. B told him 

the Director's behavior created a work environment that made her feel frustrated and 

intimidated. 

Ms. B said the situation became more than she could tolerate when, in February 1995, while 

discussing her work with Mr. Calhoun in his office, Mr. Calhoun made a sexual remark, 

"You have beautiful tits." She stated that she responded, "That's not what we are here to 

talk about." She said they completed their discussion and she left. Ms. B reported this 

sexual abuse to her psychologist immediately after it occurred. The psychologist's written 

statement to us conftnned that Ms. B contemporaneously reporte~ the unwelcome, 

offensive sexual comment. Mr. Calhoun denied making the statement. 

Ms. B testified that at about the time the above incident occurred, she heard from others that 

Mr. Calhoun was spreading rumors that she had made advances toward him. Ms. B stated. 

"This is clearly untrue and is nothing more than an unlawful power move on his part to 

humiliate and embarrass me." 

12 
132 

Ms. B stated to her psychologist that these accumulated events were increasingly distressing 

to her and were placing her in a quandary. She stated that she was disillusioned by 

Mr. Calhoun's behavior in that he was the Director who, rather than harassing her, should 

have been protecting her from harassment. She stated that her concentration, anent ion and 

feelings of being imposed on, and feelings of helplessness in this situation, were impacting 

on her mood. She noted sleep problems, bad dreams, and flashbacks to the occasions 

discussed above. 

Ms. B stated that sometime in early 1995, Mr. Calhoun referred to a report of a recent 

inspection of the MCCR Section as a "piece of shit," even though the inspection report 

found no problems with the Section. She said that he described the team that inspected the 

MCCR Section as "useless." 

In early May 1995, Mr. Calhoun directed that Ms. B be removed as Chief of the MCCR 

Section and be reassigned to another position. The reassignment was effective June 11 , 

1995. TIle complainant said that she was assigned to a budget analyst position even though 

she had no experience or training for that position. Ms. B testified that she believed 

Mr. Calhoun directed that she be put in this position because he was "sening her up" to fail. 

The former Acting Chief of Human Resources corroborated the complainant's testimony by 

advising us that, in his opinion, she probably lacked the necessary skills to be a budget 

analyst. In fairness, however, according to Ms. B, the former Fiscal Chief told her that he 

thought she could handle the budget analyst position. 

Mr. Calhoun's explanation for reassigning the complainant 

to a new position was her poor performance. 

Mr. Calhoun testified that he wanted to reassign Ms. B from her MCCR position because, 

under her direction, the program was not generating as much income as it could, because 

Ms. B was not being effective as a supervisor, and because she was not trying to improve 

her performance. 

We found no evidence that Ms. B's performance, or the performance of the MCCR Section, 

was unsatisfactory. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. For example, on her 

performance appraisals covering the periods April 1993 to March 1994 and April 1994 to 

March 1995, Ms. B received an "exceptional" rating in the critical element of "MCCR 

operations." This critical element includes the standard, " insures that all phases of the 

MCCR Unit capture all billable cases to anain maximum reimbursement." In addition, on 

performance appraisals for the two rating periods, Ms. B was rated "fully successful" in the 

13 
133 

critical element of "persoMel management/supervision." Overall, for both rating periods, 

the complainant received a " fully successful" evaluation. 

Furthermore, for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the MCCR Section exceeded its maximum 

collection goal established by V A Central Office. In fact, in her April 1995 management 

briefing on the MCCR program, Ms. B noted that the Fayetteville VA Medical Center was 

one of 15 Medical Centers nationwide that was recognized at the national MCCR 

conference for obtaining IO-percent or more growth in collections for three consecutive 

years. Having met or exceeded the fmancial collection goals for the MCCR program, the 

Director's complaints about her performance appear without merit and pretextual. 

With regard to the Director's allegations about Ms. B's problems as a supervisor, we talked 

to the employee who was executive vice president of the union at the Fayetteville VA 

Medical Center when Ms. B was reassigned. He told us two employees supervised by 

Ms. B discussed with him that they were dissatisfied with Ms. B's management style. The 

union official told us the two employees did not file a formal grievance against Ms. B. 

Despite our three requests to the union official to provide us documentation he testified he 

had regarding the employees' complaints, we never received it. According to the current 

Chief, Human Resources Management Service, no grievances were ever filed by any 

employee against Ms. B. While Mr. Calhoun personally met with Ms. B's two disgruntled 

subordinate employees, his testimony that there were "near riots down there" in Ms. B's 

section seems an exaggeration given that no formal grievance was ever filed. In addition, it 

appears that Ms. B was pressing her employees to produce more, just as Mr. Calhoun was 

pressing her. 

Mr. Calhoun did not carefully consider a new position for the complainant. 

According to the former Chief of Fiscal Service, who was in that position and was Ms. B's 

immediate supervisor at the time of her reassignment, Mr. Calhoun directed him to transfer 

Ms. B from her MCCR position. The former Chief of Fiscal Service told us that 

Mr. Calhoun was adamant that Ms. B be transferred and told him she could be reassigned to 

any other position either in Fiscal Service or elsewhere in the Medical Center. The former 

Chief of Fiscal Service said he was in need of a Budget Analyst so he offered her that 

position. 

Ms. B testified that she did not believe she was qualified for the Budget Analyst position. 

As stated, she said she believed Mr. Calhoun was "setting her up" to fail in that position. 

The former Acting Chief of Human Resources Management Service. who was in that 

14 
134 

position atl the time Ms .. B w~ reassigned to the Budget Analyst position, told us he 

believed Ms. B probably did not have the skills necessary for that position. He also said, 

\lowever, that, as a "company man," he offered no objection to the reassignment. 

Our assessment of Ms. B's work experience indicates that she was not qualified for the 

Budget Analyst position. Her work experience beginning in 1972 was primarily in the 

secretarial and clerical field. Prior to being selected as the Chief, MCCR in 1993, she 

participated in the Medical Center's "upward mobility" program and supervised the release 

of information under the Freedom ofinformation Act and supervised the billing clerks. We 

do not believe this experience provided her the knowledge required for the Budget Analyst 

position. As described in the position description, the Budget Analyst incumbent requires a 

comprehensive and detailed knowledge of budgetary policy, pertinent legislation and 

regulations, principles and concepts of budgeting for appropriated and revolving fund 

accounts, knowledge of salary forecasting and budgeting programs, and knowledge of the 

Medical Center's mUltiple and complex programs to plan, analyze, and forecast aspects of 

the budget. Ms. B had no experience whatsoever related to these budgetary matters. 

Mr. Calhoun testified that he had directed many reassignments in the medical center when 

those occupying the positions were not performing satisfactorily. Here, however, it appears 

that his actions revealed no consideration for Ms. B as an employee or for the medical 

center's need to have qualified employees in all positions. At best, assuming the 

reassignment of Ms. B out of the MCCR was valid (and we are not persuaded it was), 

solving one personnel problem while simultaneously creating a new personnel problem 

demonstrates a lack of managerial judgment and insight. 

Mr. Calhoun continued to display behavior indicating 

he wanted to retaliate against the complainant. 

Ms. B testified that her reassignment involved a move from the main Medical Center 

building, where Mr. Calhoun's office was located, to another building on the grounds of the 

facility. She testified that one morning, several weeks after her reassignment, she 

encountered Mr. Calhoun as she was coming up the front steps to the main building. Ms. B 

said she was on her way to the canteen, which is located in that building. She testified that 

when she returned to her office, the former Chief of Fiscal Service told her that 

Mr. Calhoun had called him to ask why she was in the building and instructed him to tell 

her she was no longer allowed to be there. As a result, Ms. B said her work duties were 

changed because she was required to go to the main building on a daily basis to the agent 

cashier's office. About 2 weeks later, according to Ms. B. Mr. Calhoun retracted his 

15 
135 

directive. The former Chief of Fiscal Service corroborated this incident. Mr. Calhoun, 

however, in yet another instance where his credibility is called into question, denied that he 

ever restricted Ms. 8 from the main bUilding. 

Mr. Calhoun's asserted problems with Ms. 8's MCCR performance do not explain or justify 

the order to keep Ms. 8 out of the building. On the other hand, Ms. 8's rejection of the 

Director's advances could serve as an explanation, although not a justification, of his order 

barring Ms. 8 from the building. 

In October 1995, Ms. 8 accepted a position as a Medical Administrative Specialist at 

another VA facility. Her psychologist said she moved her family and household "at much 

time, expense, emotional and physical stress. Following this move she reported increased 

feelings of frustration, disillusionment, and victimization at the events which precipitated 

her move." The psychologist noted that Ms. 8 meets the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorder "directly related to reported sexual and other harassment received on her job." At 

the time we interviewed Ms. 8, she planned to file a lawsuit against Mr. Calhoun for sexual 

harassment. 

We believe Ms. 8's allegations of sexual harassment are substantiated, both for the quid pro 

quo sexual harassment and for creating a hostile work environment. The quid pro quo 

sexual harassment was as a result of Mr. Calhoun's retaliation against Ms. B by reassigning 

her to a position that she was not qualified for because she rejected his suggestions for a 

personal relationship. Creating a hostile and offensive work environment resulted because, 

in addition to his unwelcomed advances to have a personal relationship, Mr. Calhoun 

continued to make unwelcome and inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to Ms. 8 

after she had clearly indicated her discomfort with such comments. We found the 

testimony of Ms. 8 to be credible in that her testimony was corroborated over and over 

again by the testimony of other medical center employees and her psychologist. 

The actions of the Director are also troubling in that they continue to reveal a pattern of a 

profane, intimidating, and threatening manager. The incident with Ms. B. for which Ms. B 

said that Mr. Calhoun apologized, involved both profanity and anger to the point that Ms. B 

was concerned for her physical well being. This incident provides further support that 

Mr. Calhoun was inexcusably abusive toward medical center employees. 

16 
136 

Complaigagt No.3 

The complainant (hereafter referred to as Complainant No. 3 or Ms. C), a staff assistant, 

alleged that Mr. Calhoun made unsolicited verbal C0mments of a sexual nature to her. 

Ms. C testified that, in March or April 1996, she was in Mr. Calhoun's office discussing a 

business related matter, when he told her he had a dream about her the previous night. 

According to Ms. C, Mr.-Calhoun told her, "I dreamt that I went to bed with you." Ms. C 

told us she tried to take the remark as a joke, but that after she laughed, Mr. Calhoun told 

her, "It could be worth your while." Ms. C testified that she told Mr. Calhoun she was not 

at all interested and would never do that. However, according to the complainant, 

Mr. Calhoun brought up the subject of his "dream" again on a subsequent occasion. She 

said there were no witnesses to the remarks on either occasion. 

Ms. C also testified that around the end of April 1996, just prior to a visit she made to see 

her boyfriend, Mr. Calhoun made a derogatory remark to her about the boyfriend and then 

told her that he {Mr. Calhoun] "could take care" of her. Ms. C said Mr. Calhoun again told 

her, "It could be worth your while." She said that, again, there were no witnesses to this 

remark. Ms. C did not file sexual harassment charges against Mr. Calhoun at the time he 

made the remarks to her, but told us she was planning to file a sexual harassment lawsuit 

against him. 

Mr. Calhoun denied that he made any of the above comments to Ms. C. He said he knew 

Ms. C for over 10 years (she was his secretary when he was Associate Director at the 

Buffalo Medical Center), and he would not have waited that long to make a sexual advance 

towards her. He suggested that Ms. C was angry at him because he transferred her out of 

her previous position, and that she had falsely made the accusations in revenge. 

We were not able to substantiate the allegations of sexual harassment against Complainant 

No.3 because, in this case, it was her word against his. Unlike Complainant No.2, there 

was no independent corroboration. On the other hand, the allegations fit a pattern of 

behavior alleged against the Director by both of the other complainants.- In addition, as 

discussed in the next section, Mr. Calhoun's credibility is lacking. Finally, it is worth noting 

that Mr. Calhoun's own statement indicates he does not consider sexual advances toward 

subordinate females inappropriate. He never said that such a sexual advance was in any 

way inappropriate; rather, he indicated that he would not have waited so long to make such 

an advance. 

17 
137 

Like Ms. A and Ms. B, Ms. C alleged that Mr. Calhoun behaved inappropriately towards 

her in addition to allegedly making sexual remarks. Ms. C related to us instances in which 

Mr. Calhoun shouted and cursed at her, threatened her position and pay, and made 

unreasonable demands of her. For example, Ms. C stated that when Mr. Calhoun wanted to 

reassign her from her position as his GS-8 secretary to a GS-7 position, he told her that if 

she did not sign the statement voluntarily requesting the reassignment, she would be a GS-3 

by the time he was fmished with her. On another occasion, after her reassignment, Ms. C 

stated that Mr. Calhoun called her into his office and angrily accused her of being a bigot, 

lying to him, and stabbing him in the back. She said he told her he never wanted her to 

speak to him again and then demanded that she leave his office. Ms. C told us that she 

feared he was going to hit her. 

Ms. C said she believed that the root of most of her problems with Mr. Calhoun was that he 

was having an affair with another secretary who worked in the Director's office, and that 

secretary would use her relationship with Mr. Calhoun to undermine Ms. C. As a result, 

Ms. C and the other secretary openly argued on a frequent basis, to the point of disrupting 

the office. The Associate Director said that the arguing, would at times, get loud and out of 

control. On one occasion, she said she closed her door and just let them fight it out. 

Ms. C told us that Mr. Calhoun acknowledged to her that he was having the affair. When 

we interviewed Mr. Calhoun, he denied having such an affair. 

Credibility Determination 

As in virtually all cases involving sexual harassment, the testimony of the complainants and 

the alleged harasser are conflicting on most of the significant events. In this case, 

Mr. Calhoun denied making certain statements. Therefore, in order to make a 

determination about the truth or falsity of the statements made, we are sometimes required 

to make determinations about the credibility of the parties involved. For the reasons that 

follow, we gave credence to the testimony of Complainant No. 2 regarding events 

described, rather than to the Director's denials. 

For example, several factors were critical in our determination that Ms. B's testimony was 

credible and the Director's was not. First, Ms. B's testimony and her allegations were 

consistently buttressed and supported by independent corroboration from numerous 

sources. On the other hand, the Director's credibility was severely damaged because his 

version of several events was contradicted by a variety of sources. Finally, our inquiry 

18 
138 

reveals that there is a pattern to the allegations of sexual harassment by the Director (as well 

as a pattern of abusive, hostile behavior toward employees at the V A Medical Center). The 

behavior patterns demonstrated by the Director provide considerable support for the 

complainant's assertions. 

With regard to the corroborating testimony of other witnesses, we recognize that in some 

cases, such as the friend in whom Ms. B confided and the psychologist to whom Ms. B 

relayed the events as they occurred, the corroborating witnesses do not have first hand 

knowledge of the events in question, but instead are repeating what Ms. B told them about 

the events. Nonetheless, the corroborating evidence is persuasive. Both the friend and the 

psychologist advised us that Ms. B's statements to them about the Director's remarks and 

behavior were immediate, or contemporaneous, with the actual events. It strains credulity 

to believe that Ms. B falsified all of the information that she provided to other individuals 

with an eye toward eventually bringing wholly fabricated accusations against the Director. 

Ms. B's credibility is especially enhanced by the testimony of the other witnesses with direct 

knowledge of events. For example, four witnesses testified that, after the Director'S 

expressions of interest in Ms. B, the professional relationship between the two deteriorated, 

just as Ms. B said it did. Three of the four witnesses indicated that they personally observed 

a change in the behavior of the Director as compared to his prior behavior toward her. In 

addition, the former Acting Chief of Human Resources independently confirmed Ms. B's 

assertion that she did not have certain skills that were necessary for a budget analyst. 

The Director's credibility, on the other hand, is damaged by evidence supplied by witnesses 

with direct knowledge of events that completely contradicts his statements. For example, 

the former Fiscal Chief testified that the Director banned Ms. B from the building in which 

the Director worked. While the Director denied this, the resulting actions taken by the 

Fiscal Chief, i.e., immediately telling Ms. B about the order and having her restructure her 

duties to comply with the Director's order shortly after it was made, all support the 

credibility of Ms. B at the expense of the credibility of the Director. - As discussed 

previously in the section dealing with Complainant No. I, the Director denied a particular 

statement when an independent witness testified that she heard the remark. 

In addition, the Director's testimony about his reasons for reassigning the complainant, i.e., 

for her poor performance, are directly contradicted by substantial documentary evidence, 

including her performance appraisals, the external review of the MCCR program and, most 

notably, the recognition of the accomplishments of the MCCR program under her 

leadership. 

19 
139 

With regard to Complainant No.1, the Director initially told us he could not recall that he 

threatened to tell the Associate Director and Chief of Staff about what happened to the 

complainant when she got "upset." When told that the Associate Director corroborated 

Ms. A's statements, the Director did not challenge the Associate Director's recollection. 

While Mr. Calhoun acknowledged to making some sort of statement along the lines of the 

allegation, he denied ever using the words "breasts" or "nipple." He did, however, admit to 

making the threat with the intent of getting Ms. A to leave the room. 

In short, the pattern of denials by the Director, in the face of credible, contrary testimony, 

makes the Director's credibility suspect. Just as important, Ms. B's credibility was enhanced 

and supported by both independent witnesses with direct knowledge of events as well as by 

her own contemporaneous statements to several witnesses over many months, all of which 

support her independent testimony. To believe the Director, one would have to conclude 

that there was widespread conspiracy of many individuals, all of whom were lying, under 

oath, in their testimony to us. There is evidence that tends to disprove the Director's denials 

with respect to the first and second complainants. 

With respect to Complainant No.3 and Mr. Calhoun, a credibility determination was more 

difficult. For example, Mr. Calhoun said that, when Ms. C worked for him at the Buffalo 

Medical Center, he did not want to keep her as his secretary because he considered her 

incompetent, but the Director would not agree to a change. Yet, Mr. Calhoun then hired 

Ms. C to be his secretary at the Fayetteville Medical Center and paid permanent change of 

station money to move her to North Carolina. Mr. Calhoun's actions and statements 

concerning Ms. C appear inconsistent. 

Ms. C, on the other hand, was extremely bitter about the way her life worked out after she 

left Buffalo to go to Fayetteville. She said she felt betrayed and she was very upset toward 

Mr. Calhoun for the favoritism that he had shown the Associate Director's secretary over 

her. The depth of her emotions toward Mr. Calhoun suggests that it may have been a 

personal, and not just a professional relationship, that did not work out. This was partially 

supported by the fact that Mr. Calhoun admitted that he did household repairs for Ms. C at 

her home and gave her a key to his house. Ms. C said that Mr. Calhoun was like a brother 

to her when they worked together in Buffalo. 

20 
140 

Conclusion 

Mr. Calhoun's statements to Ms. A constitute inappropriate, abusive language on his part. 

Mr. Calhoun made deliberate, offensive comments of a sexual nature to Ms. A. However, 

because Ms. A may have opened the door to such language, we were unable to conclude 

that the remarks contributed to an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment. 

He was aware that Ms. A found the comments unwelcome. Due to the stress that resulted 

from the overall abuse by Mr. Calhoun, Ms. A removed herself from the workplace. Some 

of the comments Mr. Calhoun made to her were witnessed by others, and Mr. Calhoun 

acknowledged that he said some of the offensive remarks. He also admitted to being loud, 

emotional, and profane. 

Regarding Complainant No.2, Mr. Calhoun made an unwelcome sexual advance towards 

her, even after she refused his initial advance. After Ms. B refused his advances, 

Mr. Calhoun changed the conditions of their working relationship and reassigned her from 

her position. We found no persuasive work-related reason for Mr. Calhoun to have 

reassigned Ms. B. His explanation, that she was not performing well, is not supported by 

her annual appraisals or by statistical evidence of her program's performance. 

Mr. Calhoun's directive that Ms. B not enter the main Medical Center building, where his 

office was located, further suggests that his motive in reassigning her was personal, not 

professional. We concluded that Mr. Calhoun's actions constituted "quid pro quo" sexual 

harassment. We also concluded that Mr. Calhoun created a hostile work environment for 

Ms. B through continued intimidating, inappropriate and unwelcome comments of a sexual 

nature. We believe that Mr. Calhoun's harassment of Ms. B effectively ended her career at 

the Fayetteville Medical Center and resulted in her having to move at her own expense to 

another VA facility. 

In addition to the sexual harassment, the Director's actions with respect to Ms. B evidence 

poor judgment, deficient management actions, and abuse of authority. It seems that 

Mr. Calhoun created an intimidating atmosphere and made decisions contrary to the best 

interests of Ms. B and the medical center. 

While we were unable to substantiate the allegations of sexual harassment with regard to 

Mr. Calhoun and Ms. C, we cannot dismiss Ms. C's allegations as false. Given the 

Director's lack of credibility with regard to the other allegations of sexual harassment, we 

believe that there is a possibility that this complainant may have been sexually harassed, but 

we could not make a defmitive determination based on the lack of independent. 

corroborative evidence. We did find that Mr. Calhoun was abusive in his treatment of 

21 
141 

Ms. C, and he often displayed loud, emotional, and intimidating behavior. Further, he 

allowed a tense and disruptive office environment involving Ms. C and another secretary 

that he allegedly favored, to continue unabated. 

Recommendation: 

The VISN 6 Network Director should take appropriate administrative action against 

Mr. Calhoun for the misconduct and abuse of authority, as detailed in this report. 

VISN 6 Network Director's Comments 

The Network Director concurred with our fmdings and recommendation. He told us he met 

with his Regional Counsel and with the Chief Network Officer, and was in the process of 

fmalizing a plan of action to implement the recommendation. The Network Director's 

comments are in the appendix to this report. 

Office ofInspector General Comments 

We will review the Network Director's plan of action to ensure it is responsive to our 

recommendation and follow up on that plan until the issue is resolved. 

22 
142 

VISN 6, NETWORK DIRECTOR COMMENTS 

.... 

APPENDIX 

10fl 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs Memorandum 

'~ci~l :::c:r~!.-:;y. :'ll~Ad t:!'I'X"J"l ha:-MJ~!\t hy r;.t-.e r:·irect'Ol' , 'n. ,....dir..) ·::fU'.r..ft':"' . ... ·.y.~'t .... ·ill~. H=rt~ l;ltro':'i.nA. lJra~t ll.pn:-r. ·:I\l".-

:.!~.:"I; 

D!..=_c::.:::r. l!.:1t.:!.!l. an:S ~~cili.L [~=i •• D:'vi.i:r~ 

1. 1 blvw rwviuwud l~ 1!.bo·.·C ·~l:. l!.Ll..;.·":' d.=tt.L1.. l'<:"'-POC","- i,u:c. <.::m,et=.r 

'd.cto t:r..e !lndin.g:o od re::Qm'.er.c.At.1or:.:.. I hAV~. L'ece:r:.tly Y.CI.: 

""ith r.t:.fIIo <;:"l .. e fII.ttIc.wo=:c. <:ffie.r iIIIa.d ,.y R";;i~:' c:cam" ..... ·• to 

r.rlew U:. doc\IX..t:DL .;.u~ 1·J.:1toU.104Lw ;.;. p_u:1 :,;L U<..'"t.hm.. : :'1&". ~ther ~t'1n3 QCe~ul.~ .... t.:b Ro!9'icr.a:' C".¢UUHt:' ~e.x.t. iI'~e '" ',:oJ 

:"tn .. :"!z<et O..,~· r.1.1n And F'E'ft!"rfl: t!'''''':\'''''I'!!r.f"_~ ~~r E" .. dttU1Tr: ... ~·~. "'T 

rill b.- n.t:t:.r ab1. , !c:·l1'7Ving t::'.~ neetin.;J, to s:.r.:::vi.d._ ',"C'U 

.,.12 rrF p~ t.eo .i:z:p ... ~':.. l..:JC c·_-cO%.'%.cn~t...i.CQ" "'''U:l t.~L"(1. !...:l 

t':llC reporT.. 

::i. , ':,ruJlc:. c:.J:&t: 1d'Y 'P"'J'~o"'w ~WpCJIII1dan.:. to ycc vi!! IoI.l':'ow ymI 

to ~t..1Y ~ ... L=- u • ..a. •• :n.l.-..1 ~ SCDUtu= LLr..uob. 

Paire.1ot:..b.. "1 ... ~oct:ac~ ao O~ A:W. ~C.t:o.:9OQ~ ~w.1l.::1 yo\; :le.::t 

4ctcU':.ionuJ. :"'='£O:Dlc...Lcx. 

1. i: bePfl C.O PTovtde ym; ~\.~ a t=1-.r. r.t llct!.on t:y o:~ot: .. r l~ 

: ~.6. 'rhar.k you and your .C'c~ to:, y=ur =rvi.v of tJrl.. oatt.r. 

23 
-

-

Department-of 

Veterans Affairs 

Seplem&wr28. 1_ 

fJl8dic:aI CentBrDiA!dor (6OaIQo) 

~ s"eciaf lnqullyRepoIt 

LaQy-P.~M.D. 

Cirec:I«, vlSN 5 

Oepa~nt of'VeteransAtrah'$ 

300 Motgan Street. SUite 1402 

Durham. N.C. 2n01 

143 

Memoranaum 

1. The attachet1.N~ork 8 Special Inquiry R~Oftle9arding management 

ef'I'ec:IIvel'Je$$ at VA. MedIcal Center. FayetteVille. N.C., Is submitted per ~ur 

re<tuest 

2. 1ft maybe of any filrtfle( assialance. please c:ontact me at (706) 823-2201. 

=;re~~ ~''' Miidrc:el Center Oit~f <:s 

VA. Med'1C8I Cen1et 

~ Fteedom.Way 

AugUsta, GeQrgla 30904-6285 

Attachrnet\t 
144 

NEtWORK 6 SPECIAL INQUIRY 

MANAGEMENT EFFeCTIVENESS, VArde FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. 

JUNE 17·20, 1996 

WAlWJIJG· Ptfvaey-Act $tItoment 17l/s filial report contBlns information 

$ubjec! to the pfO..t$ions 01 the Privsey Act (J/1974 (5 u.S.C. SS2a). Such 

Infctma60n may be disdosed only as authorized by this statute. Questions 

conceming release of infctmation t:Cl/tained in fhi$ re(JOtt o/the invesligation or 

any patt lhet80f $hould be ~ r.ith the Department ofVelenlils Affairs. 

Vetenlll' Health AdministratkJn, Networi< 6. The contents 01 this report must be 

safeguarded from unauthorized diwOSlJfe and may be shared within the 

0epsttmefIt cI Veter.ws Affairs on a neecf..to.know basis only. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. The. D;rmor 

Jetcme Calhoun was assigned as Direaorof1he FayetteVIlle. N.C. VA Medical 

Center !n AprtI1994. His appointment followed assignments as Associate 

DireCtor, VAMC. Buffalo. N.Y .. Health Systems Speci:;!i<it. VA Headquarters and 

Associate DirectOr, VAMC, La!:e City. FL. 

B. Ibo Mgdfeal Cl:ntpr 

The VA Medleaf Cente:". Fayetteville, N.C •• operates 171 hospital beds and a 39 

bed Nunsjng Home Can! Unit. Operating beds include a 25 bed substance abuse 

treatment unit (tempomnly d~ atld a sateIite hemoctalysis unit Se!\lit:a$ 

inc:iude ambuiatnty surgery, a mental health unit., and a me<flC3Vsurgic:aJ Intensive 

can;: unit A c:ommuruty nursing home prcglam facililatesthe outplacement of 

long-term care patients. Extended care programs include residential care. respite 

care. a geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) unit, hospice care and a 

preventive health progtam. There are apprCldmately 163.905 veterans In 

Fa.yet1e\lHle's primarysetlli<:e area. Approximately SS% gf the veterans who 

receive care frcm this faCiIlty have Getvice<Qnnedec! disabirrties. Outj:latient-visits 

totaled 111.555 In FY 1995. The ambulatory care prc9(arT1S were enhanced by 

the activation of an 87,000 SF clinical addltlQn in late 1981. 

The VA Medica! Cel'\ter has a sharing agreement with Womack Army Medical 

Centerwtaid1 provides Fa)'13Ueville V/W.C with ambulance servi=es. backup CT 

scanning. backup mammography examinations, major surgical gynecology 

pnx:edures, backup blood supply. aural rehabilitation therapy. ambulatory 

rehabilitation medic:al seNic:es. backlJP VClscufar tadiology $E!lVk:es and \/3Scular 

surgecy ccnsuf!::aOOn and procgdures. This medical center provides nudear 

medicine studies. blood support lab testing. speech·lang~e tes1ing. EKG. EEG. 

mecflC3l and surgical consultation. psy--hii:!tric SeM~. alcohol rehabilibtion and 
2. Neiwotk S Special Inquity. VAMC, FayeaeYilte. N.C. 

~nf1!il1ogy Services. An onhopedlc and surgery sharfng ~reement exiSts With 

Womack Atm'/ Medieaf Center Ulat allows the military to use VAAtc opet:Iting 

toOtnS anclsuppor\ 5'C!Il Also. Womad< Arrrtt MedkaI Cel'\fer shares tha jointfy 

0Wf\8d M~ study Elqtlipment Ioc:Jted at Ft. Bragg. 

Fay~ VA Medical Center Qlso has chatfng ~naetnents with Pope AFB 

Medical crlnk:. under which VA provides physIcal therapy. endoscopy 

e.w:amlnatlons. treadmM testing. halter n'IOnltotlng. and sulgical consultants_ 

The dental sc:hool affiliation is welkleveloped. providing ~ for dental 

aJdents and resic:ier.t iraining in general dentistry and oral surgery_ The school at 

pharmacy I'Otte$ students fer clinical derlcships. 

In addition. there i$ a Type B affiliation a9~ment with Cuke UI\i'ven;ity 

Department Gf Oplfthalmology. There is also ~n aftifl3tion With Fayetteville Area 

Health Edw:ation Center for the ratation at family practice resiclent$ for surgery 

and c:ardiology traitlir.g_ Additional affiliations exist in various allied health areas 

Including nursing and speech pathology. 

II. BACI(GROU"O 

A recent series CIf allegations and ~pfajnts by several present and former 

emp\Qyee$ to 1he NetltCrK Oiredor. NetHor\( Clinical Manager and Network Staff 

resulted in thIS visit to the Fayetteville VA Medical Center on June 17..20. 1996_ 

These al~atiQ(\5 ~ around leadetShlp effe<:tiveness of the Oi~r. 

inapprcpcfate remalts to various staff. use of abusive and vUlgar language in 

~U$ forums and Its resultant impact upon man~enal and supervisQry 

relatio~lps. 

ut. ME'TMODOLOGY 

'The reviewer ccndu<:b1 inteMews wi'J1 selectEd etJmmt and former senlct 

management official!: and other elTlployees and fonner emplayea-s at all levels 

within the Med"acal Center. An inteMew was also held with the Superintendent. 

Board of Educ::afian. Fayetteville. The tevje~r contacted the offia:!s of the Mayor 

of Fayetteville and the Chan<:ellor, Fayetteville State University, In an effcrt to 

soIic:it their input Hcmever. these efforts ~ unsu~fut Interviews were also 

held with Veteran SeMQe Officers (VSO). voltmteer5. cls VIeR as, Netwotl( 6 strlf. 

The DiredOi was provided an opportlJnity during thGl re'vieN tg prviide names:ot 

indhliduals whom he wished to have inteNievved: No discussions/conversations 

were tape ream:led.. 
146 

3. Hetwortt Ii SpacQllnquiry; VAM.,C. FlIyetllWUle, N.C. 

rI. FlNOINGS 

'Based upon a tour·cftne Mecfal Center with Mr. Calhoun, my Interactions and 

con~tior.s wdf'l senior management staIVstaff in.genefBI, VSOs. volunteers and 

ccmm~.auakehok:ef3., it was clear that many improvements have been made at 

ctle f:a,eueviUe VA MecflC8l Center since Mr. calhoun's appointment as Oiteetcr. 

FQt ~pIe. the Implementation at primary care. renovationlupd~ patient care 

areas. ~ ~l'IShips with Womack Army Haspifal and estabIisrung an 

e1fedMl relationship witf11he local middle and senior High Schools whereby 

PaJ1ner&hips have been ee1abflShed with stuCents. Another example. of positive 

changas that have occurred during Mr. Calhoun's tenure, Is SI'I internal 

reQl'ganizatiOl1a1 effot't that is consistent with changes that are occumng nationally 

inVHA. 

it was aear during ttle visit that there an! three "Camps' within the Medical Center; 

thoSe that are staund1 supporters CJf Mr. Calhoun. those that are adamantly 

against him and th~; 1hat try to be neutral and cbjec:tiw. 

The allegations and o:IOcems that had previously been brought to the attention of 

the Networir: Director ~bout Mr. Calhoun resutfaced during this visit These 

inc:iuded: consistenUy usit\g profanity in forums Which inQuded key staff. openly 

embarrassing key staff in the presence cf peer.!. using radaJ epitaphs. threatening 

staff C'tD fire- or "shoot tf1emj, ~ various remale employees. including his 

present and previous seaetarIGs, and showing fayaritism toward certain staff by 

pramoting them. OYer 62% of the indIviduals inteMewed expressed a lack ofrespect. ~ or confidence in Mr. Calhol.ln as Diredcr and do not feel comfortable 

In his presence. This 910UP felt his management styie has adversely impacted 

morale and dMded staff. 

Mr. caJhoun admitted that he. in the past. had used pl'Qfane language, but had 

improved his behavior in this respect He also indiQ2d that he had made 

comments to staff that he would "shoot" them but it was not meant as a threat; it 

was just a "metaphcr". 

V. CONCLUSIONS 

As discussed in the findings sedion of this report. Mr. Calhoun initiated several 

pn:ISratnS and changes tIlatw11l add value to the Medical Center as ;( whole thus 

ad~1tIg valUe to ~ent :::are . . Also discussed were the concems/allegations raised 

by the staff, some admitted by Mr. Calhoun. 
147 

ENCLOSURE 2 AGREEMENT Of INFORMAL RESO!.UTION 

(Jerome CaIloun) 

1. This is 10 document the agreement reached ~ allegations of sexual harassment and hoslie -rc 

environmenl, and the subsequent inYestigalion by the Oftice of the Inspector General, agains( Mr. Jerome CahJun, 

Oireclor, VAMC Fayelteville, North Carolina. By reference 10 the rescinded leiter of proposed removal, daIecl-OcIober 24, 

1996, Mr. Calhoun Is aware 0( the general nalure 0( the a!legations agalns( hlm. As an Informal resolution 10 1hIs maller, 

the parties agree to the following: 

a Mr. Calhoun resigns from the SenIor Executive Service to be appointed 10 the position 01 Special 

Assistant 10 the Oireclor, VA Me<f1Ca! Center, Bay Pines, Florida, in the grade of GS-14 with save pay (salary retention). As 

a managemenl action delermlned 10 be In the best Interest of the govemmen~ Mr. Calhoun wiD receive salary retention 

approval under the Seaelary's cfoscretionary authority in acconlance with 5 CFR 536.104(b), delegated 10 VA 

Administration Heads for positions GS-14 and below by memorandum delegation authority (#1) dated Apnll995. 

b. The effective date of the resignation and appointment is January 19 1997. Mr. Calhoun will remain in 

ejetaff status whUe relocation is being ananged. 

C. Mr. Calhoun may be considered for re-enlty into the Senior Executive Service after three years of 

satisfactory performance and documentation of positive efforts, tJaining, counsefing, and growth towards relating to the 

treatment of women. 

d. Mr. Calhoun win receive the customary relocation expenses. 

e. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6308, and 5 U.S.C. 6304, Mr. Calhoun's leave balance as of January 19, 

1997, not in excess of nil hours, wintJansfer to his new position and will become his personal leave ceiling. The personal 

leave ceiling will be reduced in any leave year in which more leave is used than eamed. The reduced end of year leave 

balance will constitute the new personal leave ceiling. 

2. Mr. Calhoun is aware of his due prOcess rights as specified in FPM Supplement 920-1,SI0-5(d), including, but not 

limited 10, a 30 day advanced notice of charges (leiter or proposed adverse action), at least 7 days to reply 10 charges, a 

right to be represented by an attomey or other representative and a right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Mr. Calhoun waives all due process rights with regards to this matter. 

Mr. Calhoun waives aU admiilis!Jative appeal, grievance, and EEO rights regarding this matter. 

Mr. Calhoun waives any claims 10 attorney fees or any other monetary claims nol specifically agreed to herein. 

This agreement may not be revoked or amended In any part by Mr. Calhoun. 

By entering inlo this agreement, Mr. Calhoun does no( admit guilt 10 the aforementioned allegations of misconduct 

This agreement shall not serve as a precedent for resoMng other matters. 

The undersigned agree that this agreement is entered into voIuntanly~n n ~ /, { ~f'7 

~~&w~~~~=L4~~~~p?1 ~~ /I'~ (~~,/ 

9. 

Jule Moravec, Ph.D. 

Chief Network Officer 

Date Date 
"lO'"'~ 

Octnber 25. 1996 

Jerome Calhoun 

148 

DEPARtMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

VETERANS /NTEGRA7FD SERVTCE NETWORJ( SIX 

Outttam Centre 

300 West Morgan Street. Suite 1402 

Dumam. N.C. 27701 

In Re!>ly /\of ... To: 

Durham Education Center 

311 W. Main Sl 

Dm:bam, NC 27701 

SUBS: Proposed Removal 

ION6 

1. This is to notify you that it is proposed to remove you from the Senior E.x.ecutlvc Semce 

and the Federal Servi= This action is based on misconduct ~ charges for which this action is 

proposed are as follOWll: 

1. While talking to Judy Dawkins, your secretmy. and Susan CaIuana, Medical 

Service Staff Assistant (and your former secrctmy), around March 1996. you rema:rked that "th= 

was something Verj iJ;J.t=ting about Ms. Dawkins - Her nipples got hard when sbo was anxious." 

or words to that effect Ms. Dawkins was offended by the disrespectful comment You knew or 

should have known that this act could he interpreted as harassment, disrespectful and/or 

unprofessional conduct Your actions in this matter constitute a violation of 5 CFR Section 

735.203. which proluOiU IIIl employee from engaging in "criminal, infiunoU!!. dishonest, immoral, 

or notorioU!!ly disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to the Government." 

II. Around April 1996. Judy Dawkins. your sec::retaIy. entered a conference room 

where you were meetiJ;J.g with the Associate Director and Chief of Staff. Ms. Dawkins cotim1entcd 

that she was drowning in work and urgently needed additional clerical help. You responded to 

Ms. Dawkins, "you know what happens to you when you get upset. Do you WIIIIl me to tell [the 

Chief of staff and the Associate Director] what happens when you get upset, n or words to that 

effect Ms. Dawkins felt that you were referring to her bteast:7 (sec Charge I li=in). and sbo was 

offended by the di=spc>ctful remarlc. In the testimony that you gave to the Inspector O=al's 

Office, you admitted tnaIcin& the oommenU.! a way of telling Ms. Dawkins to,"gCt out ofbe::e" 

(1.0. Trans. B.p p.103). You knew or should have known that tbis comment could have been 

interpreted as h.arassmeut, disrespectful andlor unprofessional conduct. Your actions in this matter 

constitute a 'lio1a1ion or 5 CFR Section 735.203, which prohibits an employe~ from engaging in 

"c;rimina1, infamous, dishonest, immoral, Or nDtonously disgraceful conduct or other conduct 

prejudicial to tho Oovernment." 
149 

INTROOUCllON: AIouDd 8qlItimber 1994,),ou ~ mttl'C3fiil baviDg a pcrrona! 

~onship with CyuIbia Force, 'loUr foI::J=r McdiC8l Colt Care ~ ("MCCR") 

Coordinator. Ma. Force rc$pCIIIded 1bat she .... aheldy in a relstioasbip with SOIDOOI1C 8IId did Dot 

want to jeopanlim it. A few weeks 1atcr you commeuted to Ms. Foo:c tim you "got sick when 

[you wcn:J rejec:tbi," or words to that cffcct. In mid-Octobc:r 1994, you stated to Ms. Faroe that 

"you haven't given me an answer ye~ ... about my being iDterestM in you," or words to that effect. 

Ms. Force again explained that she was IIOt intmest<ld. and she 8ddaI, "p1cue don't do thb to mc.~ 

or words to that e1fect. By Deoembet 1994, your working rc1aIionsbip with Ms. Force began to 

deterioralle. Charges m-VI are incozpomtod herein by~ 

m. In J~ 1995. you shouIzld and c:msed at CymbIa Forte in frout of other 

empliJ)'ee!. Later, you stated toMs. Force, "I really miss the cIayI wben if a woman was out of 

linc you coul.djast~1ap her around," arVw1)rCs to that effi:ci. Youlmew orshould~e IaJown that 

your conduct had tho effect of ClaIling an Intimidating. hostile, or otrCllSive warldng enviromnent, 

which is a form of sexual harassment i<kntified 8t29 CFRSection 1604.ll(aX3). 

N. In Febtuary 1995, while discussing Cynthia ForCe', WOlkin your office you 

mnarlced, "you have beautiful tits, " or words to that effect. Ms. Forc:e, again, rejected your 

advance. You knew or 5hDuld have known that your conduct bad the effect of'tmI!ing an 

jntjmjdBtjng, hostile, or offcwive wodcing environment, which is a form of sexuaI harassment, 

identified at 29 eFR Section 1604. I 1 (a)(3). 

V. In May 1995. you dirCcted Iha1 Cyulhia. Force be reassigDedout of the MCCR 

Olordlnator position. Ms. F= was assigned into a Budget AnaIy$t po-sitiOIl, even though she 

1acked the necessary tIaining and experience for tlmtjob. Ms. Farte's prior rejoctions of your 

sexuaI rc:marlc3Iadvance:s were used by you as a basis for your decision to remove Ms. Force from 

her MCCR position; your conduct constituted sc:xual harassmeat identified at 29 CFR Section 

1604.1 1 (a){2). 

Vi Tho reaS<!ignment of Cynthia Force intO the BudgetAnllyst position involved a 

move from the main Medical Center building whac your office Is Ioc:ated to aIIO~ buildin&. 

SeverJ.! weeks a&rthe rewigamcnt, you encOimtetcd Ms. Farc:o comiDg up the from stair.! to the 

main building. Upon retuming to Iier office, Ms. Force was told by the aDcfFw:al Savice, that 

you had called him and stated that Ms. Force was DOt Ionga allowed in the main building. Ms. 

Force's prior rejections of your sexual rernarlclladvaoces were used by you as a basilder your 

decision to ban Ms. Force from the main Medical Center Building; your conduci constitutes sexual 

haras!.llJ.cnt identified at 29 eFR Section 1604.1 I (a)(2). 

\r 11. In Septcml-or 1995, Susan Caruana, your formec socre'.2!j·. accepted a change to a 

lower graded position out of fcar of being rued. In October 1995. you and Ms. Caruana discussed 
150 

tho possibility oCher retumiog as your scorctary, and you specifically discussc:d a listllfrequcsts 

made by Ms. Ca:uana. In expIainii1g to the Inspector Gcac:ral', OfIice your bmldwriueu: IIOtc3 00 

the list of requcst3, you admi1ted to "hollering" at Ms. Caruana for pcrlormance-rc1atcd matter.! 

(lG. T[8Q. 8.0 p. 38). You blew or sho-.1ld have known that bo\lc:riog 111 ~ COnstitutes 

disrcspcctful c.>oduct, which u particularly unbecoming of a VA McdkaI CcuIcr Dimctor. 

2. You haV!! the right to reply to this notice orally, or in writing, or both orally and in writing, 

:md to submit affidsvilS in SUpport of your reply, showing why this ootice is inaocuraIIc aod any 

other reasons 'Why your mnoval should not be effected. You will be allowed eight (8) hollr.l of 

official duty time Cor reviewing the evidence relied on to sappan 1hc reasons in thIa DOtioe, 

preparing a written rePly, securing affidavits, and making a pcnouaI ttply. Amuacmems for the 

use of official time or requests fur additional time should be DJBde with me. Yau h&ve the right to 

be n:pre$CIItcd by an attorney or other rcprc3eDllIIive 

3. You ..... ill be given UDlil close of business on November 8, 1996, to reply to these reasom 

orally, in writing, or both orally and in writing. The evidence au which this notice of proposed 

action is based is atrached. Your written reply should be submitted through me to the Chief 

Network Officer. The OUefNetworlc Officer will receive your oral reply or will dcIigoate Ell 

official or officials ro reocivc< it If you wish to make an onIl response, you may contact Caren 

EUkson, Executive PersoDllc!, at (202) 273-4937, to make arrangements fur an appainrment with 

the ChiefNetwodc OfIica or his desigoaml official. If you do net understand the above reasons 

";'hy your removal is proposed, you truly contact Caren Eirkson or me for a further explanation. 

4. The final decision to effect the action proposed has not been made. The OUcfNctwork 

Officer, who will make the final decision, will give full and impartial consideration to your reply. 

if a reply·is submitted. 

5. Senior Executive Service (SES) members, beause of their greater respoIl!ibilitics. have a 

significant impact on agency programs and public image. Consequently, offenses by them are 

considered more serious and would norma1ly warrant the imposition of a more sevm: peiIalty. 

Regulation.!! for ad~ actionS in 1hc SES proride for only twQ acdons. removal B1ld mspension 

for more than fuurt=l (14) days. Removal means removal from the federal service. A SES 

appointee removed for disciplinary n:asons lw DO entitlement to placement in a position outside 

the SES, and an agency bas no authority to move the "PPOintec directly to a pon-SES position. 

Following the action.removing the appointed form the feden! service, however a scp8l81o action 

to reappoint the individual to a position outside the SES may be ulo:n. r consider the gnwity of 

your misconduct as very serious, warranting adverse action. It is importarit to me that you 

undern-.znd th~ limitatioru regarding adverse actions under SES so that you can make a fully 

informod respODS~ 
151 

6. lfit is Ibe docisioJ1 ofthc auefNetwon: Offia:r that yOll be n:movcd. your rauoval will be 

eff.ectivc net less than thirty (30) c::aImdar days from he dzy attathedate of~ofthis nouce.. 

7. Y OIl will be given a written decision II! 1I0OI1 as pouible afu:r your reply hu bad 1UU 

coasidendioD, or after tile close ofbusiuess November 8. if you do not cqUy. 

8. Y OIl will be reIlIined in an at:tive duty stalUs duri!Ig the adwnce DOUce period. 

LEROY P. GROSS, MD. MPH 

Nctworlt Dindor. V1SN 6 

I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF 1HE ORGINAL 

AND ONE COPY OF TInS LETIER 

d~ SI ATURE 
152 

ENCLOSURE 4 

OEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

VETERANS INTEGRATED SERVICE NETWORK SIX 

Durham C ... tre 

December 6, 1996 

Mr. Jerome Calhoun 

VA Medical Center 

2300 Ramsey Street 

Fayetteville, NC 28301 

300 West Morgan Street. Suite 1402 

Durham. N.C. 27701 

Sullj: Rescission of Proposed Adverse Action 

In Reply Rof.r To; ION6 

The letter of proposed adverse action issued to you, dated October 24, 1996, is hereby rescinded. 

The ~etter was issued to you prior to the completion of the evidence file_ I apologize for any 

inconvenience. 

A new letter of proposed adverse action and charges is being prepared, and willlle issued to you in 

the near future_ You will have 15 calendar days from receipt of the proposed action to provide an 

oral andlor written reply to the charges against you. 

I have no desire to pursue a more lengthy formal action_ If possible, I would rather resolve this 

matter informally_ Thus, in the interim, While the letter of proposed adverse action and evidence 

file are being finalized, you may present me with any offer you may have to resolve this matter 

informally. Formal action will bring further embarrassment to you, the Fayetteville Medical 

Center, and to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I will delay the issuance of the new letter of proposed adverse action for a period not to exceed 14 

calendar days from the day you receive this letter to allow you an opportunity to submit a 

proposed infonnal resolution of this matter. If no reasonable offer is submitted by you within the 

specified time period, I will have no alternative but to initiate formal aerion against you. 

Leroy 

~~- P. Gross, MD. MPH 

I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY OF THIS 

LETTER. 

Date 
The Front 

Page 

153 

VA's "zero tolerance' questioned 

Metro & State By OA VID OAI-ll.. 

Business 

Editorials & 

Letters 

Local Editions 

Floridian 

Sections 

Classified 

Jobs 

To Serve 

Weather 

Area Guide 

Email 

Connections 

Guest Books 

:CSt. Petersburg Times, published April 14, 1997 

WASHINGTON - The doctor from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs hospital in Maine had more than 

medicine on his mind. 

When he went on a business trip with a VA nurse to 

Chicago, he insisted he get a hotel room next to hers. 

That night, he asked her to visit the Sears Tower and 

then asked her to visit his room. He later said her 

husband should be t1~ttered he had some c~mpetition. 

"[ really love you and have felt awful but haven't been 

able to stop myself from acting this way," he told the 

nurse. 

She rebuffed him. He responded by denigrating her 

publicly and complaining about her to higher-ups. 

Sexual harassment" A federal jury in January said the 

doctor's behavior had created a hostile workplace and 

recommended a $375,000 award. 

The punishment? Despite the VA's "zero tolerance" 

policy against sexual harassment, the doctot, Nikhil 

Pathak, received a one-week suspension and was 

allowed to keep his job and $123, 161-a-year salary, 

according to records and a VA spokesman. The nurse 

has been transferred to another VA job and awaits a 

judge's ruling on the jury recommendation. 

"The way they handled it was to punish the victim," 

said Kathy Lyons, the nurse who filed suit. "[ was a 

dialysis nurse for 20 years and because of something 

he did ... [ was forced to leave a profession." 

The Pathak jury decision is one of three sexual 

harassment cases to surface in the V A in recent weeks 

as members of Congress, women inside the department 

and their attorneys begin to critique Veterans 
154 

Secretary Jesse Brown's assurances that he will not 

tolerate harassment. 

On Thursday. a House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee 

is to hold the first of two congressional hearings into 

Brown's "zero tolerance" policy. A Senate hearing set 

for April 9 has been postponed because of scheduling 

conflicts. 

To prove his tough stance. Brown has stated that 12 

VA managers have been fired or demoted for 

harassment since 1992. In practice. though, the policy 

is not nearly as clear-cut. 

One of those 12 punished managers cited by Brown 

was Jerome Calhoun, who harassed a woman at a 

North Carolina V A hospital and spoke offensively to 

rwo others. Calhoun lost his job as the Fayetteville, 

N.C., hospital director but he was allowed to keep a 

Sl06,000-a-year salary and landed a specially created 

job at Bay Pines VA Medical Center. 

The Calhoun case generated considerable controversy 

in the V A, and the department is searching for ways to 

strengthen its harassment and personnel policies. VA 

officials would like to strengthen their hand in dealing 

with problem employees so they can fire them more 

promptly. The department also wants to keep better 

track of harassment cases that otherwise are handled 

quietly in the VA's sprawling bureaucracy. 

"We are reviewing ways to improve it," said VA 

spokeswoman Linda Stalvey. "Obviously, we're aware 

of the fact that it needs strengthening." 

As the hearings approach. the Times has uncovered 

new details about the Calhoun case. and learned that 

investigations are ongoing into still other harassment . 

accusations among the 200.000 or so VA employees: 

The director and associate director at the V A Medical 

Center in Salem. Va., have been reassigned 

temporarily after trading accusations. An internal 

memo says a review was under way into "allegations 

of sexual harassment and other improper behavior." 

The V A report and its conclusions have not been made 

pUblic. 

The dispute began this year after the Salem hospital's 
155 

associate director, William Delamater, began fielding 

employees' complaints about the hospital's director, 

John Presley, according to VA memos. 

Presley got wind of Delamater's inquiries and put him 

on leave in Febmary, according to a VA account. 

Within a few weeks, Presley's boss - the head of the 

V A's regional network office - put both the director 

and the associate director on leave and later 

transferred them to other po stings for a month. 

Presley, a 27-year federal employee. has been director 

of Salem's hospital fur five years and earns $ 117,282 a 

year. Delamater, also a 27-year employee, is paid 

$89, 164. 

[n Togus, Maine, Dr. Pathak remains in charge of the 

V A hospital's dialysis program after receiving a 

one-week suspension for harassing Lyons. 

A federal jury found in her favor in January, ruling the 

V A was responsible for "creation of a hostile or 

abusive work environment" and recommended a 

$375,000 award to Lyons. The award is still tied up in 

legal wrangling. 

Pathak's lawyer, Alton Stevens of Waterville, Maine, 

said he's not convinced that sexual harassment even 

occurred in the first place. The VA hospital's 

spokesman, Jim Simpson, said the punishment fit the 

offense. 

"We took what we believe to be appropriate and 

reasonable action in the case." Simpson said, action 

that was" supported by the circumstances of the case." 

Lyons' lawyers complain that the VA is now using a 

legal strategy to protect Dr. Pathak from a pending 

lawsuit she has filed against him. 

At Bay Pines VA Medical Center. new details have 

emerged in two sexual harassment cases that have 

drawn negative publicity to the hospital on Boca Ciega 

Bay. 

Calhoun, the former Fayetteville, N.C., hospital 

director, was re-assigned in September and transferred 

to Bay Pines in January. The VA has released an 

inspector general investigative report that found he had 

harassed one woman and verbally abused two others at 
156 

Fayetteville. 

Now, another investigative report, released to the 

Times under the Freedom ofInformation Act, shows 

that Calhoun's use of profanity and other offensive 

behavior was more widespread than previously 

thought. More than 60 percent of the V A employees 

interviewed in June "expressed a lack of respect, trust 

or confidence" in Calhoun and "do not feel 

comfortable in his presence." 

"The allegations and concerns that had previously been 

brought to the attention of the network director about 

Mr. Calhoun resurfaced during this visit," reviewer 

David Whatley wrote after visiting the Fayetteville 

hospital in June. "These included: consistently using 

profanity in forums which included key staff, openly 

embarrassing key staff in the presence of peers, using 

racial epithets threatening present and previous 

secretaries, and showing favoritism toward. certain 

staff by promoting them." 

Calhoun now works as a health systems specialist at 

Bay Pines. 

In a second incident involving Bay Pines, a lawsuit was 

filed last month by Pinellas County resident Carla Croft 

in U. S. District Court in Tampa, alleging that Dr. F arid 

Karam kissed her and pinched her breast while she was 

a patient at Bay Pines in 1994. 

Karam has denied the charges. The V A investigated 

the claim twice, in both cases finding insufficient 

evidence to support it. 

From documents obtained recently under the Freedom 

of Information Act, the Times learned that Karam was 

investigated again later that year, this time for 

allegations brought by two Bay Pines nurses. 

One claimed Karam approached her from behind, 

kissed her neck and touched her breast. Although told 

to stop, the doctor did the same thing the next day, she 

charged. 

The second nurse reported a similar episode, and also 

said Karam repeated his actions despite her objections. 

In his sworn testimony, Karam denied the allegations. 
157 

About one of the cases, he testified: " . .. if I did this I 

really don't remember it. but I question really that I 

have done anything like this as far as kissing her or 

grabbing her. maybe putting my hand on her back or 

something, on her shoulder or something. could be. I 

mean. [ tell you [ don't remember kissing ... I mean r never really tried to grab her or kiss her or do 

something like this. [ don't remember. [ honestly do 

not remember." 

Carla Croft's lawsuit does not target Dr. Karam 

personally. but accuses the V A of negligently hiring, 

supervising and retaining him. 

On March 30, 1994, the suit alleges. Croft went to Bay 

Pines to be examined by Karam. When the examination 

was complete. the suit says, "he (Karam) bent forward, 

kissed her on the mouth, and told her she was doing 

well." 

Croft did not respond, the suit states, but as she began 

to leave the room "Dr. Karam walked next to her, 

turned to her. pinched the left nipple of her breast, and 

then said he wanted to see her." 

Karam, an ear, nose and throat surgeon at the medical 

center, called the allegations lies. - Times staff' writer 

David Ballingrud contributed to this report. 

©Copvright 1997 St. Petersburg Times. All rights 

reserved. 
158 

STATEMENT OF CYNnnA A. FORCE 

I, Cynthia A. Force, do hereby under the penalty of perjury state as follows: 

1. I am currently employed at the V A Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Prior to 

being forced to relocate/transfer to my current position, I had been assigned to work at the 

V A Medical Center, Fayetteville, North Carolina (FV AMC). I worked as a Budget 

Analyst after being forced to ask for reassignment from my position as Chief of the 

Medical Care Cost Recovery Program (MCCR). For the relevant time period which I 

was employed at the V A Medical Center, Fayetteville, Mr. Jerome Calhoun served as 

Director of this Medical Center. I, however, worked under the direct supervision of the 

Chief, Fiscal Service, Mr. James Crocker. It was Jerome Calhoun's unlawful behavior 

that forced me to leave the Fayetteville V A Medical Center where I had worked for 23 

years. 

2. My position as Chief, MCCR was very important to the financial viability of the 

Fayetteville facility. The MCCR program was also of great interest to the Director. I 

took my job very seriously, gave 100% of my efforts towards that job and would not put 

up with any kind of behavior that would jeopardize the smooth workings of the program. 

3. Shortly after his arrival at the FV AMC, Mr. Calhoun began meeting with me to 

discuss the MCCR Program. He made it clear that he held me entirely responsible for the 

program and planned to meet with me often. Almost immediately he began interrogating 

me about the behavior of other employees at the facility, most notably Mr. Crocker. 

During meetings in his office he would make statements that were very uncomfortable, 

Le., "Jim Crocker has to go ... .! don't like him ...... He is fighting me ...... He knew how 

important MCCR is to me and he has done nothing to improve the program." This 

demonstrated to me that he singled out an employee and was trying to secure information 

on that employee solely for the purpose of terminating him. I had confidence in Mr. 

Crocker's abilities as the Fiscal Officer and admired the professional way he treated Mr. 

Calhoun in the face of Mr. Calhoun's irrational and tyrannical behavior towards Mr. 

Crocker. 

4. Shortly after my divorce in August, 1994, Mr. Calhoun stated to me that "was 

interested in me". I took this to mean a personal interest and not just an interest in my 

work. Mr. Calhoun and I had an easy going relationship; we would laugh and joke, as he 

often did with those that he liked. I can't say that his behavior with staffwas ever 

professional; either you were his buddy or his enemy, few fell in the middle. He had a 

reputation for being a womanizer and would often drape his arm around a woman's 

shoulder as they talked. For these reasons, I took this to mean a personal interest. I 

responded that I was in a relationship and did not want to jeopardize the relationship. I 

would have assumed that had he not meant a personal relationship, he would have 

illlIJl.ediately corrected this misassumption. He did not and replied, "well think about it". 

I left his office. 
159 

5. During our conversations he would often talk with me about the problems he was 

having at that facility. He felt as though everyone was fighting him because he was 

Black. At one such meeting he stated that he becomes sick when he gets rejected. This 

made me very nervous but 1 tried hard to deny that this applied to me and my rejection of 

his advances. 1 just did not want to believe that my trust in this person was inappropriate. 

At that time, 1 did trust him. He had great insight and vision for the Medical Center and 1 

was one of his "few" 'staunch supporters. 

6. A few weeks later, we were again meeting about the program. As 1 was leaving the 

office, he stated, "you haven't answered my question". 1 asked, "what question" and he 

stated, "about my interest in you". 1 answered, "I thought I did answer you. 1 told you 

that I was in a relationship and I did not want to jeopardize it. ... please don't do this to 

me". I left the office and prayed that would be the end of it. 

7. The professional, working relationship started to fall apart shortly thereafter. He 

began his rampage against me, designed to break me down and put me out on the street. 

He was successful in that I had to transfer to another facility in order to get away from 

him. On one occasion he became so furious that 1 was afraid that he might strike me. He 

screamed and cursed at me, left the office, came back and started again. This incident 

was witnessed by my supervisor, Mr. Crocker, and his secretary, Mrs. Caruana. The 

Associate Director, Mr. Thomas Arnold, was also in his office at the time, 1 believe. He 

later apologized to me and stated that he really missed the days when if a woman got out 

of line, you could just slap her around. I believe that he could have struck me without 

any notice whatsoever. 

8. On or about the 23rd of February, 1995, Mr. Calhoun and I were meeting to discuss a 

project that he had assigned to me. In the midst of my presentation he interrupted me by 

saying "you have beautiful tits". I was dumbfounded. It had been a few months since the 

last remarks and our relationship was no longer friendly so this just came out of the blue. 

I responded, ''that's not what we are here to discuss", finished my presentation and left 

the office. After this incident and because of the deterioration of our working 

relationship, 1 was really uneasy. In addition, 1 heard from others that Mr. Calhoun was 

indicating that 1 had made advances toward him. This was clearly untrue and 1 felt as 

though he were just trying to humiliate me. 

9. The MCCR Program had been reviewed by the MCCR Fiscal Integrity Team. They 

had found no significant problems with the program. Mr. Calhoun was angry with the 

results and referred to the report as "a piece of shit". He also stated that the report had 

given him nothing to use. He wrote letters to the Director of the Review Team and the 

Director of the MCCR Program requesting another review. I will add that prior to 

beginning the review, the team had asked me exactly what it was that he was looking for 

as they felt uneasy after their initial meeting. I stated, "as much as you can give me to 

hang those he wants to hang" or something to that effect. The team members responded, 

"that's what we thought". 
160 

10. At the end of March, 1995 I returned from a site visit to the V AMC, Hampton, 

Virginia. I had wondered why, when I was obviously not in his good graces, he had 

decided I should go with the Quality Assurance Coordinator to Hampton. When I 

returned I learned that two of my employees were meeting with the AFGE Vice 

President, planning a meeting with Mr. Calhoun at his home after hours to discuss 

problems they had with me. At no time was I notified of a problem, no grievances were 

filed. Prior to this planned meeting there had apparently been numerous meetings 

between the AFGE VP and the two MCCR employees. These employees had been asked 

to provide documentation against me to Mr. Calhoun to affect my removal as Chief, 

MCCR. This caused me great anxiety. I will add that I had been documenting poor 

performance by these two employees. I had made Mr. Crocker and Mr. Calhoun aware of 

the poor performance. Additionally, I stated to Mr. Calhoun at one such meeting that I 

understood that he had been meeting with these two employees or had plans to do so. He 

stated, "what have I told you about listening to gossip". 

11. On May 8, 1995, I was informed by Mr. Crocker that I was being removed from my 

position at Mr. Calhoun's request. My position description had been rewritten from a GS 

9 to a GS 11112, but I was not to be promoted to the new grade. He wanted a new Chief, 

MCCR. No reason was given to me for my removal, except that Mr. Calhoun was not 

happy with my performance. I asked to meet with Mr. Calhoun for an explanation of my 

removal. On May 9, a meeting was held including me, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Crocker, the 

EEO Manager, Health Systems Specialist, Acting Chief, Human Resources, and the 

Associate Director (her first day). Mr. Calhoun started the meeting by saying that he and 

I had met often regarding the program and I knew that he was not pleased with my 

performance. He wanted me removed and Mr. Crocker needed a budget analyst and was 

willing to place me in that position. I remarked that the only comment that he had ever 

made regarding my performance had been "you have a lot to learn, but you are doing a 

good job" and that did not equate to poor performance to me. He responded that if he did 

not make himself clear that was something that as a Director he would have to work on. I 

again asked this question and received the same response. He informed me that I could 

remain as MCCR Coordinator and he would put me on performance improvement plan 

and get rid of me in 90 days or I could take the Budget Analyst position being offered by 

Mr. Crocker. From his remark it was clear to me that no matter what I did, in 90 days he 

would get rid of me. I also knew that he had enlisted the assistance of the two MCCR 

employees and, additionally, the AFGE VP was the computer specialist assigned to assist 

MCCR. Mr. Crocker and I had already found that Mr. Calhoun had copies of information 

that was only available to Mr. Crocker and I, therefore, we assumed this was provided by 

the AFGE VP. On May 24, 1995, as directed, I signed a memorandum requesting 

reassignment to the Budget Analyst position. Effective June 11 , 1995, I was reassigned. 

12. I was aware of my limited management background. Mr. Calhoun had come from 

Buffalo, New York, whose MCCR Program was number one in the nation. On more than 

one,occasion, I had stated to Mr. Calhoun that I was not sure that I had the knowledge 

and expertise to make the Fayetteville program into what he expected. His response was 

always the same, "you have a lot to learn but you are doing a good job" . For this reason, 
161 

I felt as though this removal was personal retaliation on his part. He wanted to humiliate 

me. If not, he and I would have had a discussion and I would have been moved to a 

mutually agreed position, certainly not one for which I was not qualified. 

13. On June 28, 1995, Mr. Calhoun had barred me from going to the main VA building 

at the Fayetteville facility. Mr. Crocker was instructed to inform me of this decision. My 

duties were changed in order to accommodate this mandate. To the best of my 

knowledge and belief this was never done to anyone else. I did nothing to provoke this 

action and it is a clear demonstration of a power move against me. 

14. On July 8, 1995, Mr. Calhoun and his wife encountered me at the roadside clean-up. 

Mrs. Calhoun noticed that my shoe lace was untied and Mr. Calhoun got on bended knee 

to tie my shoe. He stated while he was doing this, "when you are going to murder 

someone, you tie their shoes backward so that it looks like they tied them themselves." 

This incident my witriessed by another V A employee. I was struck dumbfounded and 

saw it as yet another threat, not to my personal safety, but to my employment. 

15. I tried to find other positions within MCCR at other VA facilities because of the 

hostile work environment and the fact that I felt sure he would find a way to get rid of me 

altogether. After all, I was in a position for which I was not qualified. Part of the duties 

were to advise the Service Chiefs on management of their budgets. I was not allowed in 

the hospital, how was I to meet with the Chiefs on a regular basis. All of the positions for 

which I applied were canceled; two reannounced with change in grade and one, to my 

knowledge, not reannounced until last ~eek. I did secure a lateral position at the VA 

Medical Center in Durham and transferred there on October 16, 1995. This position was 

not in my career field and has no promotion potential. After three months of commuting 

2 hours each way, I moved with my children and household goods at great expense; 

emotional, physical and financial. 

16. I had hoped that the move from the Fayetteville V AMC would lessen the fear and 

anxiety that I had. However, I still felt an uneasiness in the pit of my stomach each 

morning as I entered the Durham V AMC. Occasionally, Mr. Calhoun would be present 

at the Durham V AMC for meetings. When I would become aware of his presence, I 

would have to leave for the day or for as long as he would be in the vicinity. I found that 

all that had changed was my geographic location; the fear, paranoia and anxiety were still 

with me. Because of these reasons, when I was notified that the IG had been contacted, I 

knew that in order to ever hope to end the victimization I would have to tell my story. 

11. I was amazed when I read the IG report. I had hoped to prove my case, but I had 

never thought that a government agency would have been so negative against a 

government official. I was relieved that Mr. Calhoun had been removed from SES. I just 

would like to feel more confident that he will never have the opportunity to return to any 

typ<;, of supervisory position. I was a bit surprised when the "punishment" was 

announced. I, of course, had never thought that he would be fired, even though I had 

wished for that. However, I also never thought that he would be rewarded by being/sent 
162 

to the place he wanted to be with a raise in salary. Additionally, all his moving expenses 

were paid and, ifhis house doesn't sell, the VA will purchase it. Unfortunately, I was not 

that fortunate. 

18. It concerns me that at no time have the victims been contacted by anyone in 

Headquarters. The only information I have received has been in the IG report and what I 

have read in the Florida and Fayetteville newspapers. I read in the newspaper and, I 

believe it was a Florida paper, that Headquarters had empathy for me but I was not sure 

how that was possible since they had never had any contact with me. Additionally, I read 

that the settlement with Mr. Calhoun was made in the best interest of all concerned; I 

guess I was of no concern. Since that time, Mr. Kingston Smith has explained the reason 

for the settlement, which I much appreciated. Had this been explained to me earlier, I 

might not have felt so patronized, insulted and, frankly, victimized once again, this time 

by V A Headquarters. 

19. As a result of these incidents, I have been diagnosed as suffering from Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder and am still under treatment for this condition. It has been a 

struggle to get some emotional stablility back into my life. I have tried hard to put this all 

behind me and was surprised when this weekend I finally pulled out all of my 

documentation and found that many of these things that happened to me had been pushed 

back into my memory. I am thankful for that. There was a long period of time when the 

thoughts of what were happening to me and what did happen to me consumed my life. I 

am glad that I have found the courage to move past all of that 

20. I have spent the past year and one half trying to get my life back together. I have 

spent lots of time, energy and money trying to get some emotional stability back into my 

life and put this whole incident behind me. I have done fairly well. The only time that I 

have a problem is at work. I am a bit paranoid because I do not know if! am seen as a 

political enemy. I am still a bit anxious at times and am very distrustful. I worry that my 

career is over and I will remain in this dead-end job unless I can manage to move on to 

another facility. Unfortunately, I still have a black mark in my OPF because I left the 

MCCR position and went to Budget Analyst for four months, then went to Administrative 

Assistant in Durham. Without explaining my sexual harassment case, how do I explain 

these changes honestly? There seems to have been much concern about how Mr. 

Calhoun could finish out his career, but no concern for what happens to mine. Have I 

received the upgrade of an 11/12 for which I was denied while in my MCCR position? I 

have heard no concern for the expenses that I incurred in moving my family, selling my 

house, etc. I never began this fight for what I could get out of it, however, when the 

accuser is so obviously rewarded, where is the justice for the victims? 

21. What has been of greatest concern to me has been the implication that I filed sexual 

harassment charges because of inappropriate comments of a sexual nature. I would 

never have gone through the hell of the past two years for comments made to me. Mr. 

Calhoun is not the first man who has ever made inappropriate comments of a sexual 

nature to me; he is, however, the first man who ever tried to destroy my life when I 
163 

rebuffed his comments. The findings of the IG were quid pro quo sexual harassment and 

sexual harassment for a hostile work environment. Those are the reasons that I filed these 

charges and those are the allegations that were proven by the Inspector General. I resent 

the implications made to the contrary. 

22. I understand that sexual harassment is the headline complaint. However, what about 

all the other complaints voiced by employees of the Fayetteville VA Medical Center. 

There were many victims of this man's tyrannical behavior. There has never been an 

announcement as to the findings of Dr. Gross' review that was conducted by Mr. David 

Whatley. There were many more problems identified that just the three that you are 

hearing about today. If you want a true picture of the "harassment" that went on at the 

FV AMC, maybe you should convene a hearing at the facility. I certainly feel that the 

voices of those other people should also be heard. 

(' ~.~ ·CR~~. ~CE 4/7/97 
164 

STATEImNT OF SUSAN Il. CARUANA 

VA MEDICAL CENTER, FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 

I AM PLEASED TO HAVE BEEN INVITED TO PRESENT MY TESTIMONY BEFORE 

SUCH A DISTINGUISHED AUDIENCE . I AM UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING THE 

CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, HONORED TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO 

RELATE MY SIDE OF THE STORY. 

I HAVE WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR 31 YEARS, ALL BUT 

1-1/ 2 YEARS HAVE BEEN IN THE VA SYSTEM. I FEEL BETRAYED BY THE 

VERY SYSTEM BY WHICH I AM EMPLOYED. I WORKED FOR JEROME CALHOUN 

AT THE BUFFALO VA MEDICAL CENTER FROM 6/9/85 UNTIL MARCH, 1994. 

HE WAS APPOINTED AS DIRECTOR OF THE FAYETTEVILLE, NC VAMC IN 

APRIL, 1994 BY SECRETARY JESSE BROWN. SHORTLY AFTER HIS TRANSFER 

TO FAYETTEVILLE, HE INFORMED ME THAT THE SECRETARY TO THE 

DIRECTOR POSITION WOULD SOON BE VACANT AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD BE 

INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR THIS POSITION. AFTER MUCH THOUGHT AND 

CONTEMPLATION, I DECIDED TO APPLY FOR THE POSITION, AS IT WAS 

CLASSIFIED AS A GS-8 WITH A (TARGET GS-9) IN ONE YEAR, AND I WAS 

A GS-7 WITH NO PROMOTION POTENTIAL. I WAS SELECTED, EXCITED 

ABOUT THIS POSITIVE CAREER PROMOTION AND OPPORTUNITY , AND LOOKED 

FORWARD TO THE IMPENDING CHALLENGE. THERE WERE REPEATED PROMISES 

BY CALHOUN THAT I WOULD EVENTUALLY RETIRE AT A GS-11 OR GS-12 . 

SINCE I HAD WORKED WITH HIM FOR SEVERAL YEARS , CONSIDERED HIM A 

FRIEND, AND RESPECTED HIS POSITION, I FELT COMFORTABLE, THOUGH 

NERVOUS, OF THE MOVE TO A NEW AREA OF THE COUNTRY BY MYSELF AND 

WITHOUT MY FAMILY. I WAS WELL AWARE THAT CALHOUN WAS DIFFICULT 

TO WORK WITH AT TIMES IN BUFFALO, AND OCCASIONALLY HIS· BEHAVIOR 
165 

BORDERED ON ABUSE, BUT I ALWAYS GAVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE 

DOUBT, ' THINKING THAT A DIRECTORSHIP WOULD BE A POSITIVE STEP FOR 

HIM. 

I WAS PERFORMING MY JOB TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, HOWEVER, THE 

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, REPEATED THREATS, INTIMIDATION AND 

STRESSFUL CONDITIONS HE CREATED RESULTED IN AN ATMOSPHERE NOT 

CONDUCIVE TO MY BEST PERFORMANCE. FOR EXAMPLE, HE TOLD ME IF I 

DID NOT REQUEST A REASSIGNMENT, OR DO WHAT HE WANTED, I WOULD BE 

A GS-3 BY THE TIME HE WAS FINISHED WITH ME . ON ANOTHER OCCASION, 

I WAS THREATENED I WOULD BE PLACED ON A PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT 

PLAN, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION IN MY PERSONNEL RECORDS 

TO SUBSTANTIATE LESS THAN SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. IN FACT, AT 

HIS INITIATION, I RECEIVED A $1,200 AWARD IN 1995 FOR A SPECIAL 

ACT OR SERVICE AWARD FOR MY SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE. AFTER MY 

COERCED REASSIGNMENT, I FELT MORTIFIED--RATHER LIKE A LITTLE GIRL 

MADE TO STAND IN THE CORNER. TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, HE HAD THE 

AUDACITY TO TELL ME HE HAD A DREAM THAT HE SLEPT WITH ME AND IT 

COULD BE WORTH MY WHILE IF I SLEPT WITH HIM. 

IN JULY, 1996, I FILED FORMAL E.E.O CHARGES, HOWEVER, ON 

SEPTEMBER 9, 1996, PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION, THE ACTING 

DIRECTOR PRESENTED ME WITH A FORMAL WRITTEN SETTLEMENT IN WHICH I 

WOULD RECEIVE MY PROMOTION TO A GS-9 IF I DROPPED THE E.E.O. 

CHARGES. I EMPHATICALLY REFUSED TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT NOTING 

THAT I WOULD NOT CONSENT TO THIS COMPROMISE UNDER ANY 

CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WAS INSULTED AT THE OFFER. 
166 

AS A VICTIM, I LOST MY SELF-RESPECT, FELT WORnILESS, POWERLESS, 

FRUSTRATED, EMBARRASSED, HUMILIATED AND AFTBREXPERIBNCING TOTAL 

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO SEEK MEDICAL TREATMENT 

OVER ONE YEAR AGO, WHICH IS STILL ONGOING . I WAS DIAGNOSED AS 

SUFFERING FROM SEVERE DEPRESSION AND PLACED ON MEDICATION, WHICH 

I AM STILL TAKING. TO DATE, nIE COST OF nIlS CARE IS MY 

RESPONSIBILITY. AS A VICTIM, I HAVE BEEN PWISHED FOR ACTS 

BEYOND MY CONTROL--I FEEL I HAVE LOST EVERYnIING AND HE HAS NOT 

SUFFERED AT ALL . nIE EMOTIONAL ORDEAL AND UPHEAVAL TO nIE 

VICTIMS DESERVE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION, NOT A SELECTIVE 

FORGETFULNESS BY nIE V.A. 

SECRETARY BROWN HAS STATED THAT REP . TIM HUTCHINSON DOES NOT HAVE 

ALL THE FACTS ABOUT CALHOUN'S TRANSER, WHEN IN FACT, IT APPEARS 

THAT SECRETARY BROWN IS UNAWARE OF ALL nIEFACTS . nIE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL INVESTIGATION (HOTLINE CASE #6HL-225) CONCLUDED THAT 

CALHOUN'S BEHAVIOR WAS "ABUSIVE, nIREATENING AND INAPPROPRIATE" 

AND THAT HE HAD SEXUALLY HARASSED ONE WOMAN EMPLOYEE AND 

MISTREATED TWO OnIERS . I WAS SEXUALLY HARASSED AND BECAUSE THEY 

DID NOT FIND IN MY FAVOR DOES NOT MEAN IT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO, 

WHAT IS nIE PUNISHMENT?? HE IS REWARDED FOR HIS MISCONDUCT AND 

TRANSFERRED AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE TO nIE VERY STATE WHERE HE HAS 

REPEATEDLY STATED HE WANTED TO LIVE AND RETIRE--PLORXDA, WHERE 

nIERE IS NO STATE TAX, MAINTAINING HIS $106,487 SALARY, TO A NONMANAGEMENT, NON-SUPERVISORY POSITION TAILOR-MADE FOR HIM WInI 

DECREASED RESPONSIBILITIES . I FIND NOnIING FAIR ABOUT THIS SO 

CALLED PUNISHMENT . IT IS APPARENT TO ME . THAT nIE DEPARTMENT OF 
167 

VETERANS AFFAIRS CONDONES MISBEHAVIOR AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS FOR 

THOSE PERSONS IN HIGH AUTHORITY AND MERELY TRANSFERS THEM TO 

ANOTHER FACILITY AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. THE AGENCY CANNOT SOLVE 

PERSONNEL PROBLEMS BY TRANSFERRING A PERPETRATOR TO ANOTHER 

LOCATION. I FIND THE VA'S RESPONSE TO THIS ENTIRE MATTER 

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND FIRMLY BELIEVE THE AGENCY SHOULD BE HELD 

ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS. THE FACT THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE 

TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE V.A. AND THAT THEY REPORTEDLY HAVE NO 

AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IS A TRAVESTY. THE 

I.G. INVESTIGATION CLEARLY CONFIRMED OUR COMPLAINTS, YET, TO MY 

KNOWLEDGE, NO V.A. OFFICIALS HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT THE WELFARE OF 

ANY OF THE VICTIMS, CONTACTED US, OR PROVIDED ANY ASSISTANCE IN 

COPING WITH THE DAMAGE WE EXPERIENCED. I FURTHER CONTEND THAT A 

SYSTEM SHOULD BE IN PLACE TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT/MISTREATMENT BY VA MANAGERS. 

THIS ENTIRE SCENARIO CERTAINLY DOES NOT EXEMPLIFY "ZERO 

TOLERANCE" FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT--SECRETARY BROWN'S MANDATED 

POLICY. A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS REACHED WITH V.A. OFFICIALS 

AND CALHOUN; HOWEVER, I VEHEMENTLY QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF SUCH 

A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. IN MY ESTIMATION, REMOVAL FROM DIRECTOR 

STATUS IS NOT PUNISHMENT, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT HE SAVED SALARY-

-WHICH IS WHAT HIS RETIREMENT IS BASED ON--THE HIGH 3 YEARS. HAS 

THE V.A. CONSIDERED THOSE OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT CALHOUN HAD 

REMOVED OR DEMOTED FROM THEIR POSITION, OR THOSE WHO FOUND IT 

NECESSARY TO RETIRE EARLY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULT WORKING 

CONDITIONS UNDER HIS DIRECTORSHIP? WHERE IS THE JUSTICE FOR 
168 

THOSE PERSONS?? WHAT ABOUT THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT WERE PROMOTED OR 

RECEIVED SPECIAL FAVORS AS A REWARD FOR COMPLICITY . 

SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES) OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED 

AGAINST APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS. AS SENIOR EXECUTIVES, 

IT IS IN THEIR REALM OF RESPONSIBILITY TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND NO! 

TO USE THEIR POSITION OF POWER TO EMOTIONALLY BULLY AND SEXUALLY 

HARASS SUBORDINATES . THE V.A. NEEDS TO APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS 

AND TREATMENT TO THE DIRECTORS AND TOP MANAGEMENT AS IT DOES TO 

THE LOWER-GRADE EMPLOYEES. THE V.A. COULD TRULY LEARN FROM THE 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, A WRONG IS A 

WRONG . 

AS A VICTIM, I HAVE GAINED NOTHING BUT STARES, BEING SINGLED OUT 

AS A TROUBLEMAKER OR WHISTLEBLOWER, ETC. PRESENTLY, I AM NOT IN 

A WELL DEFINED POSITION AND AM UTILIZED WHEREVER NEEDED. I 

TRANSFERRED TO FAYETTEVILLE VAMC TO BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE 

ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, WAS ILLEGALLY COERCED BY CALHOUN INTO 

EVENTUALLY REQUESTING A REASSIGNMENT IN SEPTEMBER, 1995, AFTER 

SEVERAL MONTHS OF THREATS, INTIMIDATIONS, HARASSMENT AND STRESS 

BY HIM, AND THEN REPLACED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS HIRED WITHOUT 

FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED MERIT PROMOTION PROCEDURES . I WAS UNDER 

THE IMPRESSION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT p~ RULES AND 

REGULATIONS PROHIBITING SUCH INCIDENTS FROM OCCURRING. 
169 

THESE PAST 2-1/2 YEARS HAVE BEEN A CONTINUOUS NIGHTMARE WITH NO 

APPARENT RESOLUTION FOR ME AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY IT IS 

ALL BEHIND ME--THOUGH I SERIOUSLY WONDER IF THAT WILL EVER 

HAPPEN. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN AND FOR THE INVITATION TO SPEAK WITH 

YOU TODAY. IF I AM ABLE TO HELP JUST ONE PERSON FROM GOING 

THROUGH AN ORDEAL SUCH AS WHAT I EXPERIENCED, THAT WILL GIVE ME A 

GREAT DEAL OF SATISFACTION. 

THANK YOU. 

- . /J,.~ 

) ./> 

USAN M. CAR~ANA 
170 

STA'RIIIDIT 

From the time I began working for Mr. Jerome Calhoun in S.pember 1995 

through May 1996.1 wa •• ubjected. to verbal abu •• (profanity). ·outbur.t. of 

t_er. and Mr. Calhoun'. fury and wrath. 

Th.r. wer. alDo.t daily incident. of hi. cur.ing. y.lling and .cr.aming 

at .... or oth.r _dical cent.r _loy..... liven when I wa_ not the on .. whom h .. 

was angry with. it was discouraging to h.ar th.s. conv.rsations. Bi. actions 

and worda w.r •• 0 brutal and h.artle •• with _loy ...... that a d .. structiv .. and 

harmful atmospher ... xi.t .. d. At fir.t I tri.d to ignor .. the conv.r.ationa, 

h~ver. I wa. unabl .. to do this when hi. abusive behavior began in th .. 

morning and continu.d throughout the day. Bach time h .. used profanity toward 

me and thr.atened to fir.. .... it b.came increasingly demoralizing for me to 

work under tho •• conditions. 

My ·work p.rformance was gr .. atly affected by Mr. Calhoun's mood and 

actions. Be •• t the tone for the office and medical center each day, which 

va. usuallyunsatiafactory. with harmful and injurioua r .. sults to my h.alth 

and well-being. to the h .. alth and well-being of oth .. r _loyee.. and I 

believe the atmo.phere which exi.ted in the medical center was bar.mful to our 

patienta. 

In all the year. that I hav .. worked for the f .. d .. ral gov .. rnment at Fort 

Bragg and th .. Fayettevill. VA Medical Center. I hav .. never b .. en spoken to or 

treated in the maDDer in which Mr4 Calhoun treated ae. Be created a very 

hostile work enviroDlllent. B. d.moralized .. e to th .. point that my spirit waa 
171 

broken . l: vent to work. 7:30 a.a. and CODtinUed until 5 : 30 p ••. <and 

• ooaetUutB later), without even a break for lunch. 

l: became exhau.ted and weary and began experieacing phy.ical probl ... , 

and then realized that l: wa. al.o becOllling depre •• ed. l: had nO ... ergy at all 

and began to decline .ocial invitations and other activities which I had 

alway. participated. l: experienced lUlXiety, .leeple._e.. and 10.. of 

appetite. Por the fir.t tilut in my life l: wa •• cared - .cared all of the 

tiae. l: never knew when Mr. Calhoun wa. going to erupt and if l: was going to 

be the target of hiB explo.ion. l:t we_ and has been the _.t frightening 

experience of my life. on _y 3, 1!J!J6, l: told.., huebend becaus8 ha kept 

askinga. what was wrong . l: finally rea1i.ed tha~ l: we. unable to handle 

this situation and that l: needed help . 

l: did receive as.i.tance from VISIf 6 staff "-er. when .., hu.band 

contacted Dr. Gro •• regarding my condition and the circuaetance. leading to 

my phy.ica1 and eIIIOtiona1 probl.... Bowever, l: have not received any eupport 

or backing from VBA BOB. l: believe that Mr. Calhoun received a "epecia1 

deal" when he was rea •• igned to the Bay Pines VA Iledica1 Center in January 

1!J!J7. Only hi. reque.t. were takan into con.ideration. No on. frca VilA BO. 

ha. ever contacted .e to inquire or deteraine if l: needed any type of support 

or ••• iatance. 
172 

I waa the victim. I nevar did anything to desarve the traatment I 

received. My emotional atrellll and phYllical problema and tholle of othar 

-.ployaell have nevar been addressed by the top manag .... ent within the VA 

systea. It appears that they did not care about what happened to .. or any 

of the other employeea. thay wara only concernad with asai.ting Mr . Calhoun. 

During the pariod I ·worked for Mr. ·Calhoun. I beCUle tan.e and nervous 

becau.a I waa .0 afraid of hi. temper and threats. I had parllonally lIeen 

four latter. of propo.ed raaoval (two for chiefll and two for allBilltant 

chiefa) came aero •• my desk. X had witne.sed numerous abusive conver •• tions 

and miamanageaent actions by Mr. Calhoun; th.r.for.~ X wa. afraid h. would 

fire •• and mabarra •• .. ,. . • specially since :r was just ••• cretary. Hia 

abusive treatment was very d_eaniJlg to me •• • human being, very 

disr •• pectful to me .a a lady, and a180 very painful to endure. 

:I have attached a chronological outline of event. to my written 

atatement. giving the spacific date. and time. of tha traatment I received 

fram Mr. Calhoun. 

In addition. I have par.onal knowledge of numarou. mismanagement 

practice. by Mr. Calhoun . I have cho.en not to includa thase hand-written 

nota. outlining IIpecific data. of hill milluse of hi. position and disregarding 

VA regulationll and guidelina.. I will furniah this information to the Office 

of tha Inspector General if needad. 
173 

·I want to clo.e on a positive note about the agency I have worked for 

over the past 21 year.. The new vrSN-CODcept is excellent for our patients 

and OU1· employee. too. With medical center. working a. -te ... - and not 

individually, the benefits should be outstanding. There should be more 

accountability of Directors since they will be working together and their 

authority will not be autonomous a. in the paat. 

I greatly appreciate the as.istance which I received from Dr. Groas, Dr. 

Alexander, Ms. Patterson and M8. Saula. Their 8upport was and continue. to 

be outstanding. 

One of the beat thinga to happen to the Fayetteville VA Medical Center 

in a long time ia being under the leader.hip of the VISN 6 ataff. 

r believe that by working together we can care for our patient.. which 

ia really what we are all about. w. must demonstrate our willingness to go 

-beyond that which i. nece.sary- and 8upport our patient •• 

Without veteran. - I would not have a job and neither would many of the 

people in this room. Thank you for doing your job and looking into thia 

matter. I am grateful for the opportunity to apeak to you. 
174 

CHRONOLOGICAL OVTLINI OP IMRITS 

Juanit. W. (Judy) D.wkins 

VANe, Fayetteville, He 

1. September 5. 1995: I enter.d on duty .t ¥VANC - Dir.ctor·. Offic •. 

2. I work.d for Mr. Calhoun for two days before h. 1.ft for • trip to 

Atlanta and onto re.erve duty in Bawaii for three we.k •. 

3. . L •• t W.ek in S.pt!!!b.r 1995: Mr. C.1houn r.turned frOlll r.s.rv. duty and 

was v.ry upset with "'" a. to why I had not info:noed hila about nursing 

per.onnel receiving cash awarda. X knew nothing about thea. award. and told 

him that I did not. This was the first time he used profanity toward ID •• 

4. October 19, 1995: Received a 3-pag. improper l.tt.r frOlll Mr. Calhoun 

.tt.cking and insulting .e about hi. Bo •••• • D.y gift. 

5. L •• t .w.ek in October 1995: I contacted BRMS to ••• if I was .ligible 

for early retirement (over 20 ye.r. · •• rvice/over .g. 50). I wa. told that I 

was, but .ince I had • -break in .ervice-, X was not eligible to keep the 

insurance, which requred five consecutive year. of federal .ervice to retain. 

6. October 1995: A •• ociate Dir.ctor·. S.cret.ry u •• d profanity toward "'" 

and thre.tened me phy.ic.lly. Chief of St.ff spok. with me briefly 

concerning this incident. I •• ked him to apeak to 1Ir. Calhoun about 
175 

tr .... f.rring ... to ... other .ervice in the ... 11cal center. Thi. incident ... s 

never di.cu •• ed with by the Director or A •• ociat. Director and no action .... 

taken to a •• iat .. with transferring to another •• rvice . 

7. NQVember 1995. Mr. Calhoun ... a y.lling and .creaming at the A •• ociate 

Director' ... ecretary, and called the a.ociate Director and _ into his 

office . B. u .. ed prof ... ity and threatened to fir .... 

8 . December 4, 1995: Mr. Calhoun thre.tened to .fire me •• ying that .cae 

aoney and IG docuaenta were ai •• ing frOD hi. d.ak. Be accused •• of at •• ling 

the IIIOney and the document.. I told hilll I had not b.en in hi. desk nor had 

I taken hi. money or doc_t.. Be •• id that he did not beli.ve .e, .t.ting 

that the docUlUllt. _r. 1n • "treated" envelope and i f my fingerprint. _re 

found on the env.lop., he would per.onally ae. that I was fir.d. Be al.o 

.aid that he would •• e that .v.ryone in Payett.vill. would know that I was 

fired becau.e of the theft. Be ordered .. e not to di.cusa this with anyo .. e or 

I would b. in more trouble. That .... week, Mr . Calhoun .eked Ms. Tanya 

Burton, Regional Counael, VARO, Win.ton-Salem, and Mr. Sam Bvans, Chief, 

BRJIS, to queation me about the misaing ""'ney and documents . I was never 

adviaed that I could have had l.gal counsel pre.ent, and they .lso told .. e 

Dot to discuss thia with anyone. I have never found out really happened to 

the alledge mis.ing IIIOney and dOCUJlleDt •• 

9. December 11. 1995: When I enter.d the Director'. Offic. in September 

1995, th.r. were two other cl.rical employees .... igned to this office. On 

12/11/95, Mr. C.lhoun det.iled both of theae employees to other .ervice. 

within the medic.l center. Be put a piece of paper in front of me reque .. ting 

~~~ ~~~ 
176 

that J: sign it at.ting that J: would p.rform .11 of the duti.s for & p.riod of 

90 days. J: signed it bec.u.e J: waa .fr.id not to. 

10. January 1996: J: .g.in .sk.d Mr. Calhoun to r •••• ign .. e to anoth.r 

position. B. us.d profanity and •• id the only way J: could l · •• ve. my po.ition 

.a his secretary was to re.i9ll or h. would fire ... 

11. February 5. 1996 : Mandatory 7: 00 •• m. _.ting. Mr. C.lhoun u •• d 

profanity and thre.tened to fir...... Mr. C.lhoun •• id that no matter what 

the Associate Director' ••• cretary .aid or did to ~, X was not to say or do 

anything to her. 

i2 . Saturday. February 10. 1996. 1 : 30 p .... : J: met with Mr. Calhoun. Ma . 

Brown and Dr . Pruet •• king again to be reaaaign.d. Mr. C.lhoun •• id y •• and 

did ~ u.e profanity. At th.t time he told me to forg.t about hi. previous 

threats to fire me. No action was ever taken toward my r •••• ignment. 

13. March 1996: Mr. Calhoun _de an inappropri.te r .... rk about my anatomy. 

(Detail a can be provided.) 

14. March 1996: Mr. Calhoun thre.tened to repe.t the r .... rk in the pre.ence 

of the Chief of St.ff and A •• ociate Director. J: l.ft the room. 

15. May 1. 1996: 8:55 ..... : Mr. C.lhoun thre.tened to fire _ and verb.lly 

ebused .. e .g.in by using profani ty. 
177 

16. IIay 3. 1996. 6;00 p.... I broke down end told ray hu.bend what I bad 

been enduring for the last few months. 

17. May 6. 1996: 4.35 p ••• ; My hu.bend c ... to the office to .peak with Mr. 

Calhoun asking him not to u.e profanity when speaking to .e and a.king Mr. 

Calhoun to reassign me to another service. Mr. Calhoun .aid no. 

18. May 9. 1996. 2100 p ••• ; Appointment with my physician at which time I 

told him everything 1 I was placed on medical leave from 5/9/96 - 8/26/96. 

19. May 17. 1996; My husband contacted Dr. Gro •• , Network Director, Vln 6, 

and provided him with inforaation of events and incidence. involviD9 the 

above stated ho.tile work environment, elong with documentation of 

aismanagement ~ractices by Mr. Calhoun (nearly 30 faxed page.). I never 

filed an BBO grievance or contacted the OIG because I believed that the.e 

processes are biased toward management. During tba period that I worked for 

Mr. Calhoun, there were numerous BBO'. and OIG complaint. filed again.t him. 

I do not recall of any instance in which Mr. Calhoun wa. found to be at 

fault. In f.ct~ there were •• veral occa.ioDa when investigator. c ... to hie 

office after working hours, discussing and laughing about the complainants. 

20. June 1996; I filed OWCP paperwork stating that Mr. Calhoun's constant 

threats, ho.tile and abusive treatment -toward .e were the direct cause of my 

.edical condition and my placement on .edical leave, which are documented by 

ray phy.ician. lUI of this date, I bave not heard fraa OWCP. I returned to 

work on 8/26/96, one week after Mr. Calhoun was detailed to Durham. 
178 

STATEMENT TO THE VETERANS' AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

To Committee Members: 

Lovia B. Bareloot 

April 17, 1997 

I appreciate Ihls opportunity to address the atrocities to which I was lIubJeoted while 

Seoretary to Jerome C.lhoun trom April 1~1i4 through Jun. 1~1i4 , 

Very soon after his arrival to the Fayetteville VA Medical Center, it was quite 

apparent that he intended to make changes not only in. the management 01 the 

medical center but changes in personnel as well. 

Within the first week ot his arrival, he advised me that I had 90 days to prove myself. 

I thought that to be a strange statement in that I had held the position as Secretary to 

the Director since November 1992 and had held a similar position as Secretary to the 

Commander 01 the USAF Airlift Center, Pope Air Force Base as well as Secretary to 

the Director of the Medical Clinic, also at Pope Air Force Base lor six years prior to 

returning to the Fayetteville VAMC in November 1990. 

During the transition briefing, I was assigned to take minutes. On the morning 01 the 

brieling, James Crocker, then Chiel, Fiscal Service, oltered to go and bring Mr. Billy 

Hightower, Transition Coordinator, from the motel to the hospital. Rather than 

accepting Mr. Crocker's alter, Mr. Calhoun accused Mr. Crocker at challenging his 

authority as the new Director. Aller Mr. Hightower had presented the brieling, 

Jerome Calhoun stood belore the group composed 01 service chiefs and some key 

stall personnel. He walked to the Iront 01 the semicircle in which we seated. He 

immediately held his arms away Irom his sides, slowly walked in a 360· turn, lully 

exposing his hands and wrists. When he had completed his turn, he rubbed the tops 

01 his hands and relerenced the color 01 his skin. 

Mr. Calhoun's managerial style, it you could call it that, was one 01 threats, 

intimidation and constant lilthy language. The 'luck' word was Irequently used in my 

presence, as well as a lew other curse words . In those three months, which in some ways seemed like an eternity, he constantly inlerred that my work was substandard, was not what he wanted, and I had better clean t.:p my act or I'd be out 01 a job. This was done in the lorm 01 yellow sticky notes, verbally, or written in margins 01 a 

finished product. I found these rejections of my work and threats for dismissal totally 

foreign to anything I had ever endured before in my Federal Career. I have always 

taken pride in my work, triad to do my best for my supervisors and was recognized 

for this by receiving only highly satisfactory and outstanding perlormance appraisals 

as well as incentive and suggestion awards. Isn't it interesting to note my 

performance appraisal ending March 31, 1994, just prior to Jerome Calhoun's 

arrival, was Highly Satisfactory I 

I soon began to live in such fear of being reprimanded and threatened, both actions 

never having been necessary by prior supervisors, that my fears altected my 

perlormance. I was exposed to other employees being reprimanded, sometimes 

overheard yelling and screaming through a closed door, and would see an employee come out of Mr. Calhoun's office with their face 'beet red'. Always cognizant that I 

was now in a '90-day trial period' initiated by Jerome Calhoun, I began to lear lor 

my emotional survival as well as my job survival. I felt I had no one to turn to - -

who would believe my word against that of the Medical Center Director. I was a 

small fish in a very large pond. 

I am the type of administrative employee who likes to have her next day's work 

organized before leaving the office. One afternoon around 5:00 p.m. Mr. Calhoun 

called me into his ollice and told me to call the regional office at Winston Salem 
179 

- 2 -

about some matter. I made a note of his request on my calendar, said goodnight 

and walked out of the ollice. As soon as I reported to work the next morning, he 

yelled at me to come into his ollice that instant. He exhibited so much anger that I was terrified and, yet, had absolutely no idea what I had done wrong. He began to 

berate me lor my insubordination and not taking my job seriously. I lived with 

threats the entire 3 months I worked for him as Jerome Calhoun used his authority 

inappropriately. He had no need to sCl'eam at me as I have no hearing deficit. When 

I asked him what he was talking about, he responded he expected me to take care of 

the regional ollice matter at that moment and not wait until the next day. When I 

explained the late hour of his assignment, after office hours, his only response was 

something like Oh, was it that late? Never once did he apologize. After he told me I 

appeared to not take my job seriously, I began to Cl'y. He then asked me to step over beside his desk and he opened one of the drawers on the left side. Inside that 

drawer was a large box of beige-colored tissues. He told me they reminded him 01 me, soft and beige, and that whenever he upset me to the point of tears, to feal free 

to get a tissue from his desk as they had been bought espeCially with me in mind. I 

recall asking him if his former secretary in Bullalo was ever upset to the point 01 

tears and he said Yeah, frequently, especially during her marital problem days. 

In May 1994, the medical center was visited by Mr. Herschel Gober, Deputy 

S8CI'etary to Jesse Brown. Earlier in the day, prior to the reception for Mr. Gober and 

unknown to Jerome Calhoun, Tomi MacDonough, Vet Center Leader, had a moment 

to chat with Mr. Gober about some concerns he had for the Vet Center. Later, at the 

reception, Mr. Gober asked Mr. Calhoun about those issues and apparently took Mr. 

Calhoun totally by surprise. Alter Mr. Gober had departed the station, while seated 

at my desk, Mr. Calhoun came bursting though the main ollice doorway, past my 

desk, jerking his tie 011, cursing and screaming ·that God damn mother luckin' son 01 

a bitch MacDonough was going to hear from him. Tom Arnold, then Associate 

Director, was right on his heels trying to calm him down. Mr. Calhoun slammed his 

ollice door. Mr. Arnold's secretary and I stared at each other in disbelief at what had 

just taken place. (Please keep in mind that Mr. Calhoun was stil/fairly new on the 

scene and every day presented a new horrendous adventure.) In a short while, he 

came out of his ollice, stepped up to my desk, and announced he was going jogging 

to de-stress. No, he did not record this absence or other like absences. Further, I 

never observed him using his ollice computer during my tenure there. 

Soon alter his arrival, Jerome Calhoun called me into his ollice to take dictation in a response to a sexual harassment matter which had lollowed him from one 01 the 

New York medical centers. All the Cl'iteria listed on the document, I think, were listed 

in an a. b. c. type of format and each was emphatically denied by Mr. Calhoun. 

When I had taken the dictation, I was told to typewrite the response, make no record 

of the female's name, and keep no copy of the document. I was then told to give the 

document back to him for mailing. 

Jerome Calhoun was a member of the Bullalo Bills Club. During my tenure, I spent 

the better part of one day making reservations for Mr. Calhoun to attend the next 

season's games. I personally thought that to be a waste of government time, but I 

did as I was told while existing in a vacuum of fear and reprisal from this man. As 

part of my duties, I frequently made lodging reservations which he made explicitly 

clear were to be only the Hilton, Marriott, and, I believe, the Sheraton, in that order. 

It should be obvious that this caused per diem conflicts with Fiscal Service's travel 

allowances. Here again, Mr. Calhoun used his position to get what he wanted. 

Mr. Calhoun would refer to stall members in a derogatory manner. Appointments 

were seldom kept on time by Mr. Calhoun. I was instructed to make those 
180 

- 3-

appointments in 15 minute increments as he told me no one at the medical center was important enough or had anything important enough to say, that would require 

more than 16 minutes 01 his time. One day, in particular, as many appointees waited 

in the hallway adjacent to my office well past their appointed times, I exprassed my concern about the delay. There was no doubt I had angered him 8S his response 

to me was something like "those bastards in the hallway are drawing the same pay 

while waiting to see me as they would be at their desks and to let them wail.' He 

kept his ollice door oloaed, the IItaff members were dlamlssed. Thla wall a rep.ated problem. 

From the moment he arrived, I never received instructions on his preference 

regarding telephone messages. He had a private line installed in his office and I had 

no way of determining if he was using his private line Initially, I delivered wrillen 

messages when his door was opened. However, on this particular day, he became 

irate by the numerous messages and with sarcasm and anger, he informed me, at 

that time, it was not my place to decide who he spoke with. 

As time went by, I could sea a change in me 

from: 

- a woman who used to come to work, thankful that she had reached the grade of 

GS 8, a grade at which she would one day retire, - a woman who had excelled in facets of her personal life, 

- a woman who had successfully worked with medical professionals, Air Force 

Colonels, Congressional liaisons, and foreign military officers for more than twenty 

years 

to: 

- a woman who had become a timid, nervous wreck as the result of the harassing, 

hostile and intimidating work environment created by Mr. Calhoun. - a woman who began to dread reporting to work because that office had become a living hell 

- a woman who suffered loss of appetite, insomnia, sought medical allention for 

stress-related chest pain and shortness of breath and would mentally replay the day's 

events. 

Mr. Calhoun had, on numerous occasions, told me how inferior my work was, how I 

would have to do beller or look for another job. Any perceived transcription errors were my word against his. I could not prove he had or had not dictated as I had 

transcribed but he would yell at me about something being all wrong in the finished 

document. In fact, I even offered to use a micro casselle recorder to ensure there 

would be no errors in a finished product. This suggestion was not received well by 

him as he told me, emphatically, there would never be a recorder used in his office. 

I recall one day in which he was scheduled to leave, later in the morning, to speak to an organization out of town. That particular morning had been extremely hectic and I 

didn't seem to be doing anything that pleased him. At lunch period, I requested a 

friend to take me for a drive as a reprieve from the morning's hostility. Because of 

my emotional state, I fell it was unsafe for me to drive. I was distraught, crying 

uncontrollably, and vomiting. My friend insisted that I go .to her apartment, rest a 

while, call her at the office and she would bring me back to work. Two hours later. I 

reported to work and signed 2 hours sick leave. She and I both agreed that for my 

own physical and emotional well being a change was due. Obviously Mr. Calhoun 

wasn't going anywhere (or so I thought) and I must try to bring some sanity back into 

my life. 
181 

- 4 -

After admitting to myself that all those years 01 devoted work for the Federal 

Government was not something I could just throwaway, I opted to request a transfer 

to another job even if that meant an obvious downgrade as I was the highest ranking 

secretary in that medical center. This decision was not made on a whim. it was a 

matter of survival - MINE. I had ollen discussed the work environment with my 

husband and daughters and each supported me in my decision to transfer. When I 

approached Mr. Calhoun requesting a transfer, he "acted" surprised. He agreed to 

my request for transfer only if I signed an agreament to accept the position at a lower 

grade, pay level, and that I was not coerced into doing so. This resulted in a pay reduction of greater than $3,000 per year. 

I ask you, Members of this Committee, do not the above stated facts qualify as 

coercion, intimidation, harassment, hostile working environment and abuse of power 

by Mr. Calhoun? Incidentally, I was still within my "90-day trial period" and this had 

hung over my head like a dark cloud. I thought all my years of highly satisfactory and 

outstanding ratings would have sufficed as proof of my abilities and I should never have had to endure the pressure of sitting on the fence with my career at stake. 

On my last day in the director's office, after signing that coerced statement, I 

learned that Sue Caruana, Mr. Calhoun's former secretary from the Buffalo VAMC 

would be reporting (at Government expense) to replace me. I found this out from 

Susan Odom who later was to become known as Mr. Calhoun's "girlfriend". The 

afternoon of my last day, Mr. Calhoun called Susan, who had been interim Associate 

Director secretary, into his office. She went into Mr. Calhoun's office and the door was then closed. About an hour later, Susan came out of the office and had a flushed look and smile on her face. She whispered that she could not talk to me then but wanted to share her secret with me on the phone that evening. It was 

during this phone conversation that Susan stated Mr. Calhoun had promised her if 

she played her cards right, that he would make it worth her while. Susan would 

serve as interim Director's Secretary (GS 8) until Ms. Caruana's arrival, and would 

then hold the position of Secretary to the Associate Director (GS 7). At the time of 

this arrangement, Susan Odom held the position of Education Department Secretary 

(GS 5). Well, it's obvious that Susan Odom did play her cards right as she eventually 

became Secretary to the Associate Director in the fa" of 1994. This exemplifies pre 

selection in its boldest form. Susan Odom was later promoted to a newly established 

GS 8 position as the second staff member in the Public Affairs office. 

End of June 1994,1 was reassigned to the Fiscal Service as an Office Automation 

Assistant, GS 5, step 10. My new job required frequent visits to the Director's office 

always with the possibility of seeing Jerome Calhoun. I was hurt and felt a terrible 

loss of self esteem. To add insult to injury, I also had to face Sue Caruana, my 

replacement from Buffalo. I tried to approach her with professionalism, dignity and 

poise .. . inside, however, I was dying. 

Had the circumstances been different, had someone with a professional management 

style become the Director, then in a" probability, I would have remained at least until 

January 6, 2000 at which time I would have completed 30 years of service and been 

55 years of age. On September 19, 1994 I completed 25 years 01 service. The 

lo"owing January, I became 50. Early out was an option which I chose; I had had 

enough. I lelt betrayed by the System. I could not understand why a man 01 this 

vicious, filthy-mouthed, morally corrupt persona could have ever risen to the rank of 

Medical Center Director. 

The Fayetteville VA Medical Center is a good hospital with some long time, hard 

working, and devoted employees who never, never deserved the likes of Jerome 

Calhoun. It should be apparent that the Veteran petient (the main reason ·for the 

hospital's existence) eventually suffers when the employees are under such stress. 

Medical Center employees should be able to feel respect and admiration for their 
182 

- 5 -

superiors, not fear, anxiety, and utter disgust. Mr. Calhoun quickly built the 

reputation of a director wilh absolutely no respect for others by his frequent verbal 

abuse of staff members using gross profanity in professional meetings. Many 

respected the position Mr. Calhoun held but not the person Mr. Calhoun is. 

I am sure the Members of this Committee question why I did not file an EEO 

complaint. I have seen the ' workings of the EEO at the Fayetteville VA Medical 

Center and have yet to' ... a grlevenoe re.olved 10 the .ell.f.otlon of the 

complainant. 

Members ot Ihis Committee, I implore you to thoroughly investigate such atrocities 

that these other witnesses and I endured at Fayetteville VAMC, Investigate from the 

top level of the Department of Veterans' Affairs down. Investigate why the 'Jerome 

Calhouns' in this administration are punished by merely transferring them from one facility to another. Mr. Calhoun was not punished. Yes, he was removed from SES 

status, but he is still drawing a $106,000+ annual salary and living in the State of 

Florida where he had always intended to retire. Did the Department of Veterans' 

Affairs officials really punish him or merely slap the faces of his subOf'dinates. I am 

so thankful that, hopefully, the truth is to be made known. 

I would like to see this problem rectified and those of us who suffered such great 

losses compensated. You, Members of this Committee, are the ones to do it. In a computer programming class that I attended in college, as we were writing our 

programs, my instructor would always say " now, remember class - 'garbage in, 

garbage out'". To you, I say iI's time to takeout the garbage! 

Thank you for your time and allention. 

~0:4A kr- ~~JIA B. BAREFOOT -7 . - - Former Secretary to the Director and 

Premature Retiree 
183 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

DORIS MOORE-RUSSELL, MSW 

FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA VA MEDICAL CENTER 

I arrived at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center on 3/23/93 to assume the position of Coordinato r 

Aftercare/Outpatient Substance Abuse Program . I was 

responsible for the planning, developing, implementing, 

directing and evaluation the activity of the new 

substance abuse program . I am alleging that I was 

subject to undue stress and a hostile environment 

because I did not welcome any sexual advances from the 

previous director, Mr . Jerome Calhoun . I was f o r c ed to 

leave my position for one year, taking leave without 

pay, 8/1/95 to 7/31/96 . I experienced malicious 

retaliation as the direct result of Mr. Jerome 

Calhoun's actions . He used insolent, abusive and 

intimidating language to me in the presence of others . 

I was consistently harassed. He has made disparaging 

racial and gender remarks toward me and in my presence 

when referring to others. 

I met with Mr. Calhoun for the first time on 5 /9/ 94 at 

10:15 a.m . to discuss the women veteran's program per 

his request. He wanted to be briefed on the women veteran's program. After briefing Mr. Calhoun, I 

discussed my other duties and responsibilities . 

Initially, I thought that we had developed rapport . My 

next contact with Mr. Calhoun occurred on 6/8/94 . Mr . 

Calhoun called me at home. He stated that he had heard 

that I had been in the hospital and that he was just 

checking on me. I thought that was odd and definitely 

unexpected. When I returned to work , 6/13/94, I 

informed my supervisor, Mr. Wilson Canteen, that the 

director had called me at home. He said that he knew 

because they were at the same EEOC Conference in 

Orlando, Florida. I asked him what did he think that was all about. My supervisor just laughed and said 

maybe he likes you . Later that day Mr . Calhoun 

requested to meet with me at 4:00 p.m. We discussed my 

health, the women v eteran's program and problems within 

the substance abuse program. He appeared supportiv e 

and said that he would assist me in anyway that he 

could. 

I served on several committees that Mr. Calhoun visited 

and witnessed him making demeaning remarks to many 

employees . I began to feel uncomfortable with his 

abusive behavior . On 7/28/94, he requested that I come to his office, he just wanted to see how things were going . I told him that I was applying to the SWALT 

(Social Work Administration Leadership Training) and 

asked him for a letter of recommendation. He said 

consider it done. I received my letter of 

recommendation from him on 8/16/94 (copy available) . When I asked the Acting Chief of Social Work, Mr. 

Canteen, for a letter of recommendation, he told me, 
184 

"Yes I had better write you a recommendation because 

Mr. Calhoun told me not to mess with you." I asked 

him, "What did he mean?" Mr. Canteen answered, "He 

told me to leave ·you alone." I became uncomfortable 

with what was implied. Later on that day I received a 

memorandum of appreciation from Mr. Calhoun (8/17/94, 

copy available) . 

On the next day, (8/18/94), Mr. Calhoun's secretary 

called me to meet with him at 4:00 p.m. He was late 

for our appointment, but we met at 4:25 p.m . He gave 

me an executive cabinet that was located in the 

Director's Suite hallway for the Women Veteran's 

Program. He also reported that he was considering a budget for the Women Veteran's Program. I felt an 

uncomfortable feeling in the bottom of my stomach . I 

said thanks and left. 

We met again on 8/23/94 at 3:00 p.m. to confirm the 

budget for the Women Veteran's Program. The meeting 

was brief. He could tell that I was uncomfortable. I 

had experienced several meetings where he has stated 

that if we didn't do things his way, he would get ev en. 

A last minute request from Central Office for 

participants to attend a conference on women veteran's 

issues in San Diego, California prompted Mr. Calhoun to 

exercise his power. He funded travel for me and two 

other women veteran's advisory members attendance to 

the conference. He pointed out to me that the money 

was being made available from his budget. That morning 

on 9/27/94, Mr. Calhoun told us to leave immediately 

for the airport. It was a last minute decision, we 

almost missed our flight. 

I received an announcement for the regional women 

veteran's coordinator position from Mr. Calhoun on 10/24/94 (copy available) . I met with him at 4:00 p .m. and told him that I would like to apply . I discussed 

with him how I had been appointed as the Women 

Veteran's Coordinator. I told him that it was an act 

of reprisal. He told me that he was aware of my 

situation with the previous administration. He 

specifically added, "Doris, you were fucked by the 

previous administration . At least if I had fucked you, 

you would have gotten something out of it." I didn't 

respond. I couldn't respond. We just sat there in 

silence for what seemed like forever. He finally said, 

"You need to seek medical attention. Go and see the 

EAP Counselor . " I left his office very much shocked 

and agitated due to his remarks. Perhaps, I should 

have said something to him. I began to question myself. 

Did I lead him on? The things that he had accommodated 

me with, Were they suppose to be favors? The cabinet, 

the trip to San Diego, the memo's and letters of 

recommendation/appreciation or the implied protection were they favors. I was hurt and confused. 

On 10/26/94 at 3:30, I met with Dr Toye, EAP counsel or 

to discuss my distress. He was supportive but told me 
185 

because of our professional relationship he would have 

to refer me to an outside therapist. He initially 

suggest that I see one of the therapist here at the VA 

since I'll am a service connected veteran . We both 

agreed that suggestion was not feasible because I 

worked under the department of psychiatry. I left his 

office feeling angry. I thought, I am a professional 

psychiatric social worker, actively working in the 

field why do I need to see a shrink. I was already 

taking psychotropic medication prescribed when I was 

admitted to the hospital in June of this year . I begin 

to feel sorry for myself. I just couldn't make an 

appointment to see a therapist. My anxiety, stress and 

depression became worst as did my situation at work . 

My current supervisor Ms Yvonne King started to work on 

11/1/94. She became one of Mr. Calhoun's lieutenant . 

She immediately began to treat me differently after I 

filed for workers' compensation for stress. 

During the second week of 12/94, the Medical Center 

gave a Christmas party at Pope Air Force Officers' 

Club. I arrived late and was greeted by Mr . Calhoun. He 

apparently saw me coming in. He gave me a hug, his hand 

slid down to my chest . He squeezed my breasts with both 

of his hands. I pulled back in shock. he had a smir.k on 

his face and said merry Christmas, Doris. I want ed to 

slap his face instead, I mumble something . I rushed to 

find the bathroom. I felt sick. The rest of my night 

was ruin. I kept wondering who could I tell . Who would 

believe me? 

When I arrived at work the next morning, I told the 

Assistant Chief, SWS, Mr. Canteen. He asked me what was 

I going to do? I told him I did not know . Later that 

day Mr Calhoun requested that I meet with him . I was 

hesitant and frighten. I was afraid that Mr. Canteen 

had told him about squeezing my breasts. 

Instead he talked about my health issues, job stress 

and my filing for workers' compensation. He was angry. 

He stated, .. you shouldn't have said what I said about 

Mr. Arnold. That was between you and I . " He was 

belittling. Then he told me to leave . 

My worst fear happened. I received a memo from Mr. 

Calhoun on 1/19/95 detailing from my position from the 

coordination of aftercare/outpatient effective 2/5/95 

(copy available). I was confused and upset, I was able 

to regain my composure and requested a meeting with Mr. 

Calhoun on 1/30/95. I saw him at 1:15 pm . He was 

demeaning. He didn't make any sense. He stated all 

you had to do was to be nice. Now, I don't give a damn 

about you, Doris . I left baffled and angry. I filed a 

grievance against Mr. Calhoun on 2/2/95. I wanted to 

know the specifics of why he detailed me . I was 

becoming depressed. I couldn't sleep at night and 

couldn't stop from being tearful. I felt helpless and 

trapped. I met with my psychiatrist, Dr . CUsi and he 

placed me on sick leave for 7 days . I returned to work 

on 2/15/95, I received a call from Mr . Calhoun's 

office. This time I asked Paul Reid, AFGE president 
186 

to go with me. I was afraid to go alone. Mr. Calhoun, 

Ms . King and the Chief of Personnel were there. After 

heated discussion between Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Reid, Mr . 

Calhoun, stated to me, "You're the only one that has 

something to loose here Doris, not Mr. Reid." He gave 

me an informal resolution memo that returned me to my 

position (copy available). I specifically requested 

that I not experience any reprisal as the result Jf 

these proceedings. 

However, I was continually harassed. I had to start 

signing-in in the morning. My staff reported that they 

felt they were being harassed because of my 

relationship with Mr. Calhoun and Ms. King. I wanted 

this madness to stop. I requested an appointment with 

Mr. Calhoun. His new secretary, Susan called me back 

and told me that Mr . Calhoun said if it was work 

related for me to talk with my supervisor and if it was personal he would have to have a witness present. I 

said fine (3/29/95). My secretary told me that Mr . Calhoun called me at 8:00 a.m. (3/30/95). I called 

him back at 8:01, his secretary gave me an appointment 

for 9:30 a.m. I went to his office alone (my mistake) . 

He harped on the fact that I was not in my office when 

he called. I told him I wanted peace . he didn't let 

me finish and asked what else. So, I discussed having 

to pull weekend calls without compensation, signing-in 

on the e-mail every morning and Ms. King briefing and 

assigning duties to my supervisee without discussing 

the issues with me. He acknowledged that all the above concerns were incorrect. He said he would speak with 

Ms. King . He then asked me did r know why Eugene 

Paul, EEO manager was in us. r said no . He said 

because the last time we talk you misrepresented what r 

said to workers' compensation, as if r supported you. 

r said fine, r don't mind him being here. 

(1:00 p.m.) Regular scheduled SWS meeting with Ms. King 

and Mr. Canteen . r told her and Alma, as r walked in 

not to look for my e-mail in the A.M. , because Mr. 

Calhoun said I didn't have to sign in. This was a harmless statement, r thought, because she normally 

speaks with him frequently and r didn't want any 

trouble for not signing in . 

She jumped up and ran out of the office, leaving me and 

Mr. Canteen in there . A few seconds later, Mr. Eugene 

Paul came back with her, and Mr. Canteen asked if he 

should leave. She nodded . Mr . Paul proceeded to 

demean me, telling me he could understand why I had to 

sign in. I told him the regulation stated that you 

call in if you don't plan to be here. He stated, 

that's your interpreting . r asked him what was his 

interpretation? I also asked him what role was he 

playing in this? He became upset, ran out and returned 

in seconds with the director, Mr . Calhoun. Mr. Canteen 

had come back in the office with a puzzled look on his 

fac·e. Mr. Calhoun asked him to leave, leaving me alone 

with him, Ms. King, and Eugene Paul . Mr. Calhoun and 

Mr. Paul were standing in front of the closed door as 

if they were "keepers of the gate" . Ms . King was 
187 

watching with a smirk on her face. Mr . Calhoun was pointing his finger in my face and was screaming. He was using insensitive and demeaning terms. I lost 

track of what he was saying. I was trying to keep my 

emotions intact. I tried to say something, but he told me to, "shut the fuck up and to never to say anything 

to him again." He added that if I needed to talk with 

someone, talk with my chief , my assistant chief or his 

boss. I looked helplessly at Ms. King for support. 

She didn't say anything . I just wanted to leave, but 

couldn't because they had me trapped in her office. 

Finally, Mr. Calhoun realized that he had lost control 

with me. He and Mr. Paul left. I looked at Ms . King, 

I said to her, see, you still couldn't support me . I 

became tearful and asked to leave . She nodded her head 

in acknowledgement. As I left her office, Dick Droney, 

a staff social worker, asked me what was wrong. He 

could see that I was upset. He asked me, who was Mr . 

Calhoun screaming at? I said me and he said, "I heard 

him say shut the fuck up." I felt torn apart and was 

clearly demoralized and devastated. 

Summary: Mr. Calhoun made explicit and implicit sexual 

comments to me on several occasions. He created a hostile working environment for me because I would not 

meet his conditions. By touching my breasts, I feel 

that he has sexually assaulted me. My rejection of his 

sexual advances was used to ridicule and belittle me . He has ruined my life. I had to leave my job for one 

year without pay, from 8/1/95 to 7 / 31/96. I will never 

be the same again . I am now psychologically fragile 

and filled with insecurities. This injustice , 

malicious, and belittling behavior of Mr. Calhoun is 

characteristic of his nature. Mr. Eugene Paul, EEO 

Program Manager, and my Chief, Mrs. Yvonne King aided 

and abetted Mr. Calhoun's irrational and abusive 

behavior displayed in their presence. I was so 

distraught and filled with distress, that I had to be 

admitted to a psychiatric unit at Cumberland County 

Mental Health for one week . With all the media 

surrounding the VA sexual harassment and mismanagement 

sanctions have caused me to relive this agonizing 

experience once again . Mr . Calhoun has inappropriately 

abused his power as medical center director at the 

Fayetteville, North Carolina VAMC. 
188 

Statement of 

Representative BYa M. Clayton 

Veterans Affairs Subcommittee 

Oversight & Investigations Bearing 

Allegations of Sexual Barassment in the VA 

April 17, 1997 

I'd like to thank Chairman Everette and Ranking Minority Member 

James Clyburn for allowing me to make a statement this morning. 

Like you, I have been greatly disturbed and very concerned about 

the recent allegations of sexual harassment at Veterans 

facilities. I am especially concerned about the findings 

disclosed by the Inspector General's report on the Fayetteville 

VA Medical Center which is in my congressional district . Let me 

assure you that the majority of the Fayetteville staff, like the 

majority of all VA employees, are highly capable dedicated 

professionals who deserve the highest degree of respect and 

admiration for the job they do day in and day out to serve our 

nations veterans. 

Sexual misconduct and abuses of power, on any scale, are 

unacceptable I 

The employees who work for the Department of Veterans Affairs are 

entitled to be treated with respect and dignity in a work 

environment that is free from misconduct, sexual harassment and 

abusive behavior. 

As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to gain a complete 

understanding of the problems by seeing and hearing what people 

have to tell us. We must follow up with appropriate steps to 

deal with the complex and serious matters. 

I am pleased that the subcommittee is conducting hearings to ensure that these allegations are fully investigated and all 

appropriate actions to prevent future abuse are taken. 
189 

STATEMENT OF 

RONNIE BLUMENTHAL. DIRECTOR 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

BEFORE TIlE 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17. 1997 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. I am Ronnie Blumenthal, Director of the Office of 

Federal Operations (OFO) at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You 

have asked that I discuss the federal sector complaints process and, in particular, sexual 

harassment complaints filed against the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). 

The EEOC Office of Federal Operations has oversight of the equal employment 

opportunity (EEO) complaint process in the federal sector, including the hearings and appellate 

processes. The office provides guidance and assistance to the EEOC Administrative Judges 

who conduct hearings on discrimination complaints filed against agencies. OFO adjudicates 

appeals of federal agency decisions on discrimination complaints and ensures agency 

compliance with decisions issued on those appeals. While the statutes we enforce require 

agencies to comply with our decisions, EEOC has no coercive authority in the federal sector. 

Although we can issue orders at the appellate level·· and most are followed .- unlike the 

private sector, we cannot take a federal employer to court to resolve a complaint of 

discrimination. 

The federal EEO complaints process is governed by 29 CPR Part 1614. In addition, 

the Commission has issued specific implementation guidance to agencies through EEO 

Management Directive 110. Within the framework established by the regulations and 

management directive, each agency has great flexibility in structuring its EEO program. Some 

agencies have independent EEO offices reporting directly to the head of the agency. The EEO 

program at DVA is under the direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal 

Opportunity who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration. 

Other programs have different structures. 

Each agency is responsible for investigating EEO complaints filed against it and issuing 

a decision on the merits or taking other action to resolve or dismiss the complaint. Final 

agency actions on complaints can be appealed to the EEOC. The following is an overview of 

the process for EEO complaints and the basic aspects of that process -- EEO counseling, 

investigation, hearings, appellate review and compliance. 

40-881 97 - 7 
190 

EEQ CQunseliDI 

The complaint process begins when a federal employee or applicant contacts an EEO 

counselor at the agency where the alleged discrimination occurred. The time limit for 

initiating counseling is 45 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory event. 

EEO counseling is required as the first step and is an essential part of the federal 

complaint process. EEO counseling allows the opportunity for informal resolution and many 

agencies are utilizing alternative dispute resolution during the counseling stage. The counselor 

provides the complainant with information on the 1614 complaint process including the time 

limits involved in the process. The EEO counselor also contacts management and attempts to 

assist the parties in achieving resolution. During the counseling period, the complainant is 

assisted in deflning the issues and bases of the complaint. The role of the counselor is to 

facilitate early resolution, not to advocate for either party or recommend specific terms of a 

resolution agreement. 

Counseling must conclude within 30 days of the date of the initial contact. If 

counseling continues beyond 30 days, the counselor must inform the aggrieved person that he 

or she has a right to me a formal complaint after 30 days in counseling, regardless of whether 

counseling has been completed. This time limit for counseling can be extended with the 

written agreement of the person seeking counseling. If an agency has an established ADR 

procedure and the aggrieved person agrees to participate, counseling may take up to 90 days. 

Many agencies use collateral duty counselors while others have full time counselors. 

According to reports flied with the EEOC by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, OVA uses 

collateral duty counselors. 

At the conclusion of counseling, the aggrieved person must be given written notice of 

the right to me a formal EEO complaint within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice. The 

notice also provides instructions on how to me the complaint. 

Complaint Inyestjlation 

Foilowing counseling. the aggrieved person can me a formal EEO complaint with the 

federal agency against which the complaint is directed. Upon receiving the complaint, the 

agency must acknowledge its receipt in writing. The acknowledgement notice must also 

adviS\) the complainant that the agency is required to conduct a complete and fair investigation 

within 180 days of the flIing of the complaint unless the parties agree in writing to extend the 

period. The notice must also advise the complainant of the right to appeal the fmal decision or 

dismissal. 

If a complaint is not dismissed, the agency must conduct the investigation and must 

develop a complete and impartial factual record. Many agencies have full time investigative 

staff, while others contract with outside organizations for investigation of complaints. In FY 

2 
191 

1996, the Department of Veterans' Affairs contracted for 59% of its investigations, with the 

remainder being conducted by collateral duty investigators. 

The agency has 180 calendar days to complete the investigation. Following the 

investigation, or if the investigation has not been completed within 180 days, the agency must 

provide the complainant a copy of the investigative file and notice informing the complainant 

of the right to request a hearing or a final decision by the agency. If the complainant requests 

a final decision, the agency has 60 days within which to issue its fmal decision on the merits of 

the complaint. The complainant may file a civil action in United States District Court within 

90 days of receiPt of the agency's fmal decision if no appeal has been filed . The complainant 

also has the option to file a civil action in United States District Court after 180 days from the 

date of the filing of the EEO complaint if no fmal decision has been issued. 

If the complainant requests a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge in one of 

EEOC's field offices will conduct the hearing on the merits of the complaint. The 

Administrative Judge has the option of assisting the parties in considering settlement of the 

complaint. The Administrative Judge has the authority to order discovery or the production of 

documents and employee witnesses and direct supplemental investigations when discovery is 

inadequate in developing the record. 

The Administrative Judge may issue findings of fact and conclusions of law from the 

bench after the conclusion of the hearing, in lieu of issuing written findings and conclusions. 

The Administrative Judge also may issue findings and conclusions without a hearing where the 

material facts are not in genuine dispute and there is no genuine issue as to credibility. 

Within 60 days ofreceipt of the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions, the 

agency must issue its fmal decision. In its decision, the agency may reject or modify the 

findings and conclusions. If the agency fails to act on the Administrative Judge's fmdings and 

conclusions within 60 days, they become the fmal agency decision. 

Appellate Review 

A complainant may appeal an agency's decision to EEOC. The agency's decision may 

be a dismissal of the complaint based on procedural grounds, such as untimely contact with an 

EEO counselor, untimely filed EEO complaint, failure to state a claim, mootness, or failure to 

accept an offer of full relief. In addition to procedural decisions, an agency may issue a 

decision addressing the merits of the EEO complaint, finding or not finding discrimination. 

Once an appeal is docketed, the parties are provided an opportunity to submit briefs on 

the appeal. When the initial appellate decision on an EEO complaint is issued, the parties are 

notified of their right to request reconsideration of the initial decision by the Commission. 

3 
192 

A complainant may file a civil action, either within 90 days after receipt of the 

Commission's final decision on appeal or after 180 days from the date of filing an appeal if 

there has been no final decision by the Commission. Filing a civil action terminates 

Commission processing of an appeal. 

If an appellate decision orders compliance action, such as remanding the complaint for 

further investigation or, if a fmding of discrimination is made, awarding relief, the matter is 

assigned to a compliance officer. The compliance officer monitors for compliance with the 

order in the decision. 

That in sum is the process for handling federal EEO complaints. 

With that as background, then, and pursuant to the Committee's request, in an 

attachment to my written statement, we have provided you with complete data on federal 

sector sexual harassment complaints for fiscal years 1991 through 1995 and with the data that 

we currently have available for FY 1996. 

1be statistics provided to you are taken from reports filed annually with EEOC by 

other federal agencies. 

The government-wide information is a compilation of data submitted by all agencies 

under our purview. Government-wide figures for fiscal year 1996 are in the process of being 

reconciled and are not available at this time. 

For 1995, the last year for which we have complete data, you will note that the DVA 

had 8.36% of total federal workers, 8.01 % of total EEO complaints filed, and 14.10% of 

sexual harassment complaints filed. 

Again, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

4 
COMPLAINTS FILED - FY 1991 - FY 199

VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) COMPARED TO GOVERNME

TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF OW· 

EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS HARA

GW VA VA/GW YEAR GW VA VA/GW COM

2,726,865 215,426 7.9O'J' 1991 17,696 1,125 6.36% 

2,742,491 219,742 01~ 1992 19,106 1,220 6.39% 

2,643,391 224,952 6.51~ 1993 22,327 2,131 9.54% 

2,630,755 222,215 6.45~ 1994 24,592 2,216 9.01% 

2,563,193 219,995 5~ 1995 27,472 2,201 8.01% 

2,532,507 211,761 36~ 1996 NA 2,191 NA 

AVERAGE 

~91_- 95~_22,239_ 1,779 !,.OO%,_ 

SOURCE - COMPLAINTS - EEOC FORM 462 FILED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES 

COMPILED BY THE COMPLAINTS ADJUDICATION DIVISION. OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPE

NA - NOT AVAILABLE· GOVERNMENT WIDE DATA CURRENTLY BEING RECONCILED 
194 

STATEMENT OF 

NICHOLAS M. INZEO, DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITrEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 1997 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I am Nicholas M. Inzeo, Deputy Legal Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

legal issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Sexual harassment in employment is a form of unlawful sex discrimination that violates 

Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1980 the EEOC issued its Guidelines on Sexual 

Harassment, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11, which made clear that unwelcome sexual conduct in the 

workplace is unlawful when: 

(l) 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. 

Sexual harassment is unlawful only if it is unwelcome to the person claiming 

harassment. "Unwelcome" means that the person complaining of harassment did not solicit or 

incite the conduct, and regarded it as undesirable or offensive. Voluntary submission to sexual 

conduct does not necessarily mean that the conduct was welcome. Rather, the critical inquiry 

where there is an issue of conduct being unwelcome is whether the complainant behaved in a 

manner that communicated that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. 

There are two primary categories of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile 

environment. Although these claims are theoretically distinct, the line between the two is not 

always clear, and they may occur together. 

Quid Pro 000 llapsgnmt 

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes submission to sexual conduct 

a condition for job retention, promotion, or any tangible job benefits. Quid pro quo 

harassment can be explicit, as when a supervisor says to a subordinate that he will fire her if 

she does not engage in sexual conduct. Alternatively, such harassment can be implicit, as 
195 

when a supervisor makes sexual advances to a subordinate, is rejected, and shortly thereafter 

fU"es her. In the latter example, the subordinate can establish a violation of Title VII if she 

proves that her rejection of the supervisor's advances was a motive for her termination. 

Some courts have held that quid pro quo harassment occurs only if the subordinate 

rejects the supervisor's sexual advances and consequently suffers tangible job harm. 

However, it is the position of the EEOC and of other courts that quid pro quo harassment 

occurs whenever a supervisor makes sex a condition for job retention or job benefits, even if 

the subordinate submits to the unwelcome advances and thereby avoids the threatened harm, or 

resists but the supervisor never carries out the threatened job harm. 

An employer is automatically liable for quid pro quo harassment by a supervisor. This 

is because the employer is responsible for its supervisors' use or abuse of powers delegated to 

them. 

Bqstjle Enyjronment Harassment 

In 1986 the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mentor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 

U.S. 57 (1986), affirming the EEOC's definition of sexual harassment in its Guidelines. The 

Court recognized that sexual harassment violates Title VO when it creates a hostile work 

environment, even if no tangible harm is threatened. This type of harassment can occur when 

arryone in the workplace -- a supervisor, a co-worker, or even a non-employee -- subjects an 

individual to unwelcome sexual conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a 

hostile or abusive work environment. 

In 1993 the Supreme Court elaborated on the legal standards for establishing a hostile 

environment. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993), the Court held that a 

complainant need not prove that she suffered psychological harm as a result of the harassment. 

Rather. she must establish that a reasonable person would have found the conduct sufficiently 

severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. and that she perceived it as such. 

Justice Ginsburg put it more simply:c it is sufficient to prove that the harassment altered the 

working conditions so as to "make it more difficult to do the job." Harris, 114 S. Ct. at 372 

(Ginsburg, J., concurring). 

An employer's liability for hostile environment harassment is not automatic. When the 

harasser is a co-worker, the employer is liable only if it knew or should have known of the 

misconduct and failed to take inunediate and appropriate corrective action. When the harasser 

is a non-employee, such as a customer, the same standard applies, except that consideration is 

given to the employer's ability to control the actions of the non-employee. 

Courts are split as to when an employer is liable for hostile environment harassment by 

a supervisor. Most courts recognize that a company is always liable for misconduct by a high 

level official, such as the company president. This is because the actions of such individuals 

2 
196 

are considered to be the actions of the employer. The legal standard is less clear with regard 

to sexual harassment by other managers and supervisors. The Supreme Court in Meritor 

stated that agency principles apply. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 72. Some courts have held that 

under those principles, an employer is not responsible for hostile environment harassment by a 

supervisor if it had an explicit policy against sexual harassment and effective complaint 

procedures, and if the complainant did not notify higher management of the harassment. 

Other courts and the EEOC have taken the position that an employer is liable under agency 

principles whenever its supervisor used or was aided by powers delegated by the employer in 

accomplishing the harassment. In such circumstances, preventive and corrective actions by the 

employer would not eliminate liability, but could reduce the amount of damages that are 

awarded against it. 

Harassment of Both Sexes 

One issue that has arisen in some recent hostile environment cases is whether Title VII 

is violated when an individual in a workplace sexually harasses both men and women. Such 

an individual might be called an "equal opportunity harasser." Since sexual harassment is a 

form of sex discrimination, a female complainant must prove that she would not have been 

subjected to the harassment had she been a man, and a male complainant must prove that he 

would not have been subjected to the harassment had he been a woman. 

At first blush, it might seem that there is no sex discrimination when men and women 

are both subjected to hostile environment harassment. However, investigation into the facts of 

these types of cases often reveals that the harassment is more severe or pervasive with regard 

to employees of one gender. For example, in Kopp v. Samaritan Health Systems. Inc., 13 

F.3d 264 (8th Cir. 1993), the district court had issued summary judgment against a plaintiff 

who alleged hostile environment harassment because the harasser was abusive to both female 

and male employees. The Eighth Circuit reversed because the alleged incidents were more 

frequent and severe with regard to the female employees. 

Finally, even if a harasser's behavior towards male and female employees is equally 

severe or pervasive, sex discrimination might still be found. For example, in Chiapuzio v. 

BLT Operating Corp., 826 F. Supp. 1334 (D. Wyoming 1993), male and female plaintiffs 

challenged a supervisor's sexually abusive remarks to them. The employer argued that there 

was no sex discrimination because its supervisor harassed both male and female employees 

alike. The court rejected this argument, finding that the supervisor's conduct could constitute 

unlawful sexual harassment as to each plaintiff, because his behavior was designed to demean 

and harass each of them based on their genders. 

I hope that my testimony has provided the Committee a fuller understanding of the 

issue of sexual harassment in employment. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

3 
197 

STATEMENT OF 

HERSHEL W. GOBER 

DEPUTY SECRETARY 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

COMMITIEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 1997 

***** 

Mr. Chainuan and members of the Committee, I appear before you today on 

behalf of Secretary Jesse Brown to testify about VA's policies and practices regarding 

sexual harassment and other fonus of discrimination in the workplace. 

This has been a matter of utmost importance to Secretary Brown and myself from 

the very beginning. I was sworn in as Deputy Secretary on February 3, 1993. One week 

later I was at the Atlanta V A Medical Center dealing with a terrible sexual harassment 

case that we had inherited. While I was there. I promised our employees that this 

Administration would not tolerate anything that would keep them from devoting their full 

attention to serving veterans. Secretary Brown and I have worked hard ever since to 

fulfill that promise. 

Very early on. Secretary Brown established a policy of "zero tolerance" of sexual 

harassment and other fonus of discrimination within the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I strongly support this policy. Any and every allegation of sexual harassment 01 

discrimination is thoroughly investigated, and when evidence supports the allegation, VA 

takes action to protect victims, and offenders are disciplined within the range of options 

allowed by law and supported by the evidence. 

In saying this. however, it is relevant to clarify that "zero tolerance" does not 

mean that all offenders will. in every instance, he removed from federal service.' Sexual 

harassment and discrimination can encompass such a broad range of conduct that removal 

from federal service may not always be the most appropriate or legal remedy. 
198 

Secretary Brown and I have done everything we know of to support a "zero 

tolerance" policy regarding sexual harassment. He has issued letters to all V A employees 

expressing his strong commitment to diversity, equal employment opportunity, and the 

prevention of sexual harassment. The Secretary has asked everyone to join him in 

making the effort needed to uphold this commitment. 

In countless speeches to VA employees, we have emphasized and reemphasized 

this policy. Consistent with these efforts, the Department has developed a program 

designed to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination by all employees, not just by 

senior executives. The program takes a three-pronged approach: communication, 

training, and policy development. 

The Secretary issued his rtrst all-VA employee letter on sexual harassment in 

1993. That letter has been followed by four others dealing with EEO and sexual 

harassment issues. In each. there has been an articulation of VA's policy, along with 

specific guidance on how to implement that policy. 

V A has developed an extensive employee training program on prevention of 

sexual harassment and discrimination. We understand this is one of the most 

comprehensive programs of its type in the federal government. 

In 1993. Secretary Brown established a requirement that all employees receive 

four hours of training about the prevention of sexual harassment and discrimination, 

followed by refresher training every two years. Every employee in V A was directed to 

receive four hours of training in 1993 and early 1994, and every employee was directed to 

receive two hours of refresher training in 1995 and 1996. By the end of 1996. every V A 

employee also had received training in valuing diversity. Both Secretary Brown and I 

participated in these training sessions. 

In addition, V A has an on-going training program for managers and supervisors 

concerning V A's equal employment opportunity programs, and their responsibilities 

under those programs. V A has also significantly improved its training for EEO 

professionals. to include counselors. investigators, and program managers. 

In the area of policy development. in V A Circular 00-94-2, dated February 25. 

1993. V A established a requirement that all allegations of sexual harassment be elevated 
199 

above the field facility level, to the Veterans Health Administration Network or Veterans 

Benefits Administration area directors, for a higher level review to determine whether 

intervention is necessary to protect an employee or V A from harm, pending a full 

investigation and resolution of the allegations. That Circular has expired, but its 

requirements are being incorporated in V A Directives 5975 and 5977. In order to 

encourage employees to bring forward their allegations, and protect them when they do 

so, on May 26, 1993, VA established a requirement for a higher level review of all 

complaints of reprisal and retaliation. For those employees who wish to remain 

anonymous, V A has established a sexual harassment and discrimination hotline, where 

employees can report misconduct and find out what to do about it. The hotline number is 

1-800-767-0184. 

Other relevant policy developments include: 

In 1994, VA Circular 00-94-2 and VHA Directive 10-04-093, dated August I, 

1994, and VHA Directive 10-94-097, dated September 29, 1994, formal'EEO 

complaint processing procedures were improved to speed up the investigation of 

complaints. 

V A has developed performance standards for senior executives, to improve 

workforce diversity and meet timeliness requirements for processing complaints. 

In October 1994, V A clarified its table of penalties for misconduct, so there could 

be no question that sexual harassment and discrimination were actionable offenses, 

(offense # 37) punishable by anything from reprimand to removal for a first 

offense. 

In practice, over the past four years, we have had nine cases involving senior 

management officials in which we have taken action based on allegations of sexual 

harassment or related matters. In seven cases, the executives resigned or retired. In the 

other two instances, the executives were taken out of the Sertior Executive Service and 

placed in a lower-graded positions . 

. I would like to address briefly the one case that precipitated this hearing, that of 

the Director of the Fayetteville V A Medical Center who was alleged to have engaged in 

sexual harassment. Following an investigation, V A management seriously considered 
200 

proposing his removal from federal service. but had significant doubts that the evidence 

would sustain removal action on appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board or in the 

courts. As a result. a negotiated settlement was reached with the Director. To date, the 

former Director steadfastly denies the allegations. 

That agreement insured the Director's removal from the station. from the 

directorship of any V A facility, from the Senior Executive Service, and from any 

supervisory position. but it permitted him to continue as a government employee without 

loss of pay. I understand that some view VA's decision to reach that agreement as 

indicative of a lack of management's concern about sexual harassment. or possibly as a 

V A practice of protecting senior managers from the consequences of improper actions. 

want to assure you in the strongest possible terms that it does not. 

IT the verifiable evidence had been such that management was reasonably 

confident that the Merit Systems Protection Board. or the courts. would have sustained 

removal from federal service, then that action would have been pursued to its conclusion. 

It is important to reiterate that management felt it was extremely important -- from the 

standpoint of both the provision of health-care services to veterans and the work 

environment for our employees at this facility -- that the Director be removed from his 

management position and relieved of all supervisory responsibilities. Accordingly. VA 

entered into a settlement with him under which he was transferred out of the Fayetteville 

VA Medical Center. He also resigned from the Senior Executive Service and was 

reduced in grade and rank to a non-supervisory, GS-14 position. By these actions, 

management achieved what were considered to be the nIOst critical objectives. 

What concerns us most about this matter is that it has damaged VA's standing 

with some of our women en;Jployees and women veterans, and that is most regrettable. 

As I have indicated. we have taken many serious actions over the past four years to try to 

ensure that all of our employees have a workplace where they feel secure and safe from 

discrimination and harassment of any kind. We believe that this is very important for 

their well-being and for our ability to provide veterans with the health care and other 

benefits and services they deserve. 
201 

To strengthen our employees' protections further in light of the Fayetteville case, 

the Secretary has taken two additional recent actions: 

In order to ensure a consistent approach in treating allegations of sexual 

harassment and for that matter, other misconduct against senior V A executives, the 

Secretary has required that all such allegations and recommendations for dealing 

with them be brought to the attention of a committee drawn from senior staff in 

V A Headquarters before action is taken to resolve the matter. 

In order to ensure that the Department has a more comprehensive understanding of 

sexual harassment complaints in V A and that effective oversight is conducted at 

the policy level, he has also charged the Office of Equal Opportunity with 

developing aggregate information on all sexual harassment cases in V A, regardless 

of whether they are being handled through the formal EEO complaint process, 

Inspector General hotline or investigative reviews, union grievances procedures, or 

Administrative Boards of Investigations. 

V A recently conducted a Department-wide survey to determine employee 

perceptions of how V A handles sexual harassment. To ensure the survey was conducted 

objectively and professionally, an outside contractor was chosen. The results of this 

survey will be available by the end of June. 

In addition, Secretary Brown has decided to write a letter to all V A employees 

reassuring them of VA's continuing commitment to ensuring that VA employees are free 

of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. This letter will remind our 

employees of the means available to them to deal with any problems they may encounter 

in these areas. 

We are optimistic that these measures together with all of our efforts over the past 

four years are serving to reduce -- and, we hope, to move toward the elimination of --

sexual harassment and discrimination in VA. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, if there were one thing that I wish 

I could accomplish at this hearing today, it would be to reassure all of our employees that 

V A continues to support its policy of "zero tolerance" of discrimination and sexual 

harassment. We want them to know that this is our policy, and we would ask them to 
202 

judge us on the strength of our entire record of actions in tbis area and our expressed 

commitment to address this difficult problem. 

We will be doing all we can to get this message across to our employees and 

managers, and we would welcome any suggestions you may have to help us accomplish 

this. 

I am available to answer your questions, as are the V A staff members who have 

accomoanied me. 
203 

AcrlONS OF SECRETARY BROWN 

TO ELIMINATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF VtTERANS AFFAmS 

January 26, 1993 Met with the Deputy Assistant SeCretary for Equal Opportunity to 

discuss his concern about sexual harassment, and to direct that actions 

be taken to eliminate it. 

February 2, 1993 Notified the White House of his review of the Department's EEO 

program, with special attention to sexual harassment. 

February 10, 1993 Sent Deputy Secretary Gober to Atlanta, GA, for an on-site review of 

sexual harassment issues and the employment situation in general. 

February 16, 1993 Issued an "All Employee Letter," which: 

February 25, 1993 

March 9, 1993 

• Declared that sexual harassment was unacceptable conduct and 

would not be tolerated. 

Stated his strong personal commitment to prevent and eliminate 

sexual harassment within VA. 

Required that impartial reviews be conducted, and that prompt 

action be taken on all allegations of sexual harassment. 

Issued a Circular which suspended the decentralization of discrimination 

and sexual harassment complaint processing; delegated centralized 

responsibilities to the Office of Equal Opportunity; and established a 

requirement for higher-level reviews of all sexual harassment complaints, 

by a level above that of the field facility in which the complaint arose, in 

order to determine whether intervention is required .. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which: 

• Required that all current employees receive a minimum of 4 hours 

of training on the prevention of sexual harassment and the 

discrimination complaint process, with refresher training every 2 

years. 

Required that new employees receive 4 hours of sexual harassment 

and discrimination complaint training within 60 days of their 

employment. 
March 10, 1993 

March II, 1993 

April 6, 1993 

April 22, 1993 

May 18,1993 

204 

• Required that all EEO Counselors receive training certified by the 

Office of Equal Opportunity before perfonning EEO Counselor 

duties. 

• Provided that employees be allowed to select an EEO Counselor of 

their choice. 

• Transmitted a copy of the EEO complaint procedures to all 

employees. 

Authorized the establishment of an EEO Information Line (Hotline), to 

provide employees and others a means of obtaining information and advice 

about sexual harassment and discrimination, and how to report it. 

Established the Secretary's Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment, to 

address sexual harassment and other gender-related issues. The group is 

composed of headquarters and field personnel, arid is representative of 

VA's diverse workforce. 

Met with Harriet Woods, President of the National Womcns' Political 

Caucus, to discuss their legislative agenda for women and to discuss the 

Department's plans for-ensuring non-discrimination and advancement of 

women in VA. 

Met with his Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment to share his 

concerns and ask for fonnal recommendations. The Secretary directed that 

the following recommendations of the Ad Hoc Work Group be 

implemented: 

• Field facilities be pennitted to add field-specific information to the 

mandated 4-hours training on the prevention of sexual harassment 

and discrimination complaints. 

• Field facilities be given credit toward the 4-hour training 

requirement for training on sexual harassment and discrimination 

complaints given after September of 1992. 

• An employee survey be conducted to detennine the extent of 

problems related to sexual harassment in the Department. 

• Conduct a study into problems related to the "glass ceiling" which 

serves to limit the upward mobility of women_ 

Met with Carolyn Kroon, President, and Brigadier General Pat Foote 

(Ret.), Military Advisor, from Federally Employed Women (FEW), to 

2 
May 21, 1993 

May 26, 1993 

June I, 1993 

July 30, 1993 

205 

discuss issues of concern to women employed in the Federal Government 

arid VA. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which: 

• Discussed the role employees played in preventing and eliminating 

sexual harassment. 

• Provided a 3-page attachment containing guidelines on sexual 

harassment and what to do about it. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which: 

• Expressed his concern about retaliation and reprisal for reporting 

allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination. 

• Established a requirement for a higher-level review of all 

investigative reports on EEO complaints of retaliation and.reprisal, 

by a level above that of the field facility in which the complaint 

arose, in order to determine whether intervention is required. 

Issued a Circular which reported on problem areas related to sexual 

harassment and discrimination complaints, as reported by the General 

Accounting Office, and which required field facilities to review those 

problem areas and report on what procedures were either in place or would 

be put in place to correct those problems. 

Issued an Interim Issue which: 

• Established an enhanced evaluation program for internal reviews of 

EEO policies and procedures, and on-site evaluations of field 

facility EEO programs. . 

• Established· due dates for the 4-hour training on sexual harassment 

and discrimination complaints, and for the 2-hour refresher courses 

to be taught every 2 years. 

• Established selection and appointment criteria for EEO Counselors, 

as well as training and continuing education requirements. 

• Emphasized an employee's right to choose an EEO Counselor of 

his or her choice. 

• Provided specific requirements for recording and reporting EEO 

counseling activities. 

3 
August 2, 1994 

May 27,1994 

June 13, 1994 

October 18, 1994 

August 16, 1995 

206 

Issued a Circular which: 

• Established incremental time limits for processing EEO complaints 

by field, as well as headquarters personnel. 

• Established performance standards for EEO Officers (Field Facility 

Directors), related to meeting the time limits imposed on them. 

• Established a requirement that every field facility appoint an EEO 

Program Manager who would be responsible for EEO complaint 

processing, and who would not be employed by the Human 

Resources Management Service. 

• Provided guidance on the acceptance and processing of complaints. 

• Provided appointment criteria for EEO Investigators, and 

procedural guidance concerning their operations and control. 

Provided guidance concerning higher-level reviews of sexual 

harassment and reprisal complaints, as well as concerning the use of 

administrative boards in connection with those higher-level reviews. 

Provided guidance on compliance and reporting requirements for 

EEO complaint processing. 

Issued EEO performance standards for senior executives, which required 

specific and measurable achievements in meeting affirmative employment 

goals and in preventing discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Circulated the Secretary's Performance Agreement with the President, 

which included, as a major goal, becoming an employer of choice by 

ensuring a work environment free from discrimination. Also established a 

requirement that all managers and employees receive 4 hours of training on 

managing and recognizing diversity. 

Issued new VA regulations on Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, which 

specified that sexual harassment and discrimination was actionable 

misconduct, and provided for reprimand to removal fora first offense, 

depending on the seriousness of the misconduct. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which reaffirmed the Department's Equal 

Employment Opportunity policy, to include "zero tolerance" for sexual 

harassment and discrimination. 

4 
1995 to 1997 

March 27, 1997 

April, 1997 

and continuing 

207 

VA continued to build upon the Secretary's initiatives, by improving 

training, complaint processing,~d program oversight. 

Established a committee of senior staff in V A Central Office to review all 

allegations of misconduct against senior managers and executives, to 

ensure that all of them are treated consistently and in accordance with the 

Secretary's "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment and 

discrimination, before any action is negotiated or finalized. 

VA has several initiatives underway in the area of sexual harassment and 

discrimination complaints processing. These initiatives include: 

• Development of a centralized reporting procedure for all allegations 

of sexual harassment, whether initiated through the EEO 

discrimination complaints process, or in other forums. 

• Development of a new on-site EEO inspection program, to oversee 

and evaluate the effectiveness of field facility EEO programs. 

• . Development of new EEO regulations and handbooks, so as to 

improve the timeliness and quality ofEEO complaint processing. 

5 
208 

STATJ:ICEN'l' 01' MIl. Wl:LLIAM T. ICIIIUlIHAH 

DEPtlTY INSPECTOR GZlUItAL 

UI'ORJ: TO BOUSE VE'l'EJlANS' AJ'I'AIJlS COMMJ:TTZE 

IIBAJlING ON SEXtJAL HARASSMENT IN TO VA 

APRIL 17, 1997 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) takes the issue of 

sexual harassment very seriously. Allegations of sexual 

harassment against senior VA managers or allegations of 

senior managers creating a hostile work environment by 

failing to respond to sexual harassment allegations against 

their staff are pursued vigorously by my office. 

secretary Brown has made it clear that the Department's 

policy on sexual harassment is "zero tolerance." It is the 

responsibility of senior managers to implement the 

Secretary's policy by establishing a work place environment 

that is free from sexual harassment. Effective 

implementation of this policy requires senior headquarters 

and field facility managers to set a proper example for 

their staff by communicating, both verbally and by their 

actions, their zero tolerance of sexual harassment. 

Medical center directors and regional office directors serve 

as the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Officers for their 

facilities. When a senior manager, particularly one who is 

also the EEO Officer, is personally involved in sexual 

harassment or creates a hostile work environment by 

tolerating sexual harassment by his managers or staff, VA 

has a failure that could affect the integrity of the entire 

system at that facility. When these failures occur, the 

Department must be willing to acknowledge the situation and 

respond appropriately. 

Surfacing and Investigating Allegations of Sexual Barassment 

Allegations of sexual harassment against VA senior managers 

may surface through the EEO system, through the negotiated 

grievance process, 

the OIG's Hotline 

through management channels, or through 

and Special Inquiry function. The 

investigations of allegations of sexual harassment may be 

conducted by EEO investigators designated by the VA Central 

Office (VACO) Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) staff, by an 
209 

Administrative Review Board established by one of the major 

operating elements of VA, or by the OIG. 

Allegations of sexual harassment investigated by the OIG are 

those reported to us through the OIG's Hotline which 

includes those received in Congressional or other 

correspondence . In the OIG, investigations of sexual 

harassment are conducted by my Special Inquiries staff, who 

specialize in administrative investigati ons of misconduct 

and mismanagement, primarily by senior VA officials. Also, 

the results of our investigations of sexual harassment are 

closely reviewed by the OIG's legal staff. 

When we receive a complaint of sexual harassment against a 

senior manager, we conduct an initial review of the facts 

relating to the complaint. This review includes a 

determination of whether the complaint is currently under or 

scheduled for an investigation by an investigator designated 

by the VACO OEO staff or by an Administrative Review Board. 

In a number of cases, employees not only report the 

allegation to the OIG, but also to EEO and/or management. 

If the sexual harassment complaint reported to the OIG is 

determined to be under investigation as a part of the EEO 

process, we will defer to that process since it affords the 

employee broader relief than the OIG can offer. The 

statutory EEO process offers the employee the chance to seek 

compensatory damages and to appeal outside the VA to the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and ultimately to 

the Federal court system. It is a process with multiple 

levels of increasingly more formal review that, once 

started, can only be stopped by the employee. 

If the sexual harassment complaint reported to the OIG is 

determined to be under investigation by an Administrative 

Review Board, we will normally defer to the Board and open a 

case for tracking and oversight purposes. As a part of this 

oversight process, we will review the Board's final report 

and supporting evidence file, if necessary, to make certain 

a thorough review of the allegation was accomplished. 

Our first major investigation of sexual harassment 

complaints against senior VA managers was a 1992 review at 

2 
210 

VAHC Atlanta. In that review, we found (1) the management 

style, the structure of the EEO process and the high level 

posi tions of the harassers deterred female employees from 

reporting allegations of sexual harassment, and (2) sexual 

harassment, including harassment by top managers and the 

failure of top management to deal with allegations of sexual 

harassment, created a hostile work environment for female 

employees. 

We issued our report on VAHC Atlanta on January 14, 1993. 

The Department took swift and effective corrective action on 

the systemic problems we identified in the EEO process at 

VAHC Atlanta and replaced the top three managers at VAMC 

Atlanta. These 3 managers were included in the list of 12 

senior managers recently reported by the Department to the 

Committee as retired, demoted, or dismissed as a result of 

sexual harassment. 

OIG Task Force and Audit on EEO Process 

While our work at VAHC Atlanta was in-process, the former 

Inspector General established an OIG Task Force to review 

VA's entire EEO process, to include allegations of sexual 

harassment. The Task Force effort evolved into a 

comprehensive OIG audit of VA's EEO Program with emphasis on 

sexual harassment complaints. The audit report was issued 

on March 31, 1993, and made recommendations to develop and 

issue a VA-wide policy directive that, at a minimum, 

includes specific procedural instructions in eight areas of 

VA's EEO program where guidance was missing or not well 

defined. This audit also recommended that the Department 

conduct evaluations of the EEO Program's organization, 

performance and policy guidance. 

Implementation of these recommendations are tracked through 

the Department's audi t follow-up system. Information in 

that system indicates there have been delays in implementing 

some of these recommendations. However, the implementation 

of the full audit recommendations appears to be back on 

track. A draft version of the new Department-wide EEO 

Program policy and handbook is currently being circulated 

for concurrence prior to issuance. Also, the Department's 

OEO staff, beginning in May 1997, will perform evaluations 

of the EEO program at three field facilities and self 

evaluations of the EEO program will be conducted at six 

3 
211 

other field facilities using a guide developed by the VACO 

OEO staff. These actions will finalize the recommendations 

in our March 1993 audit report. 

S!!!ple Impro~nt. Made by VA to the EEO Proqr_ 

Since we issued our March 1993 program audit report, the 

Department has reported a number of improvements to the EEO 

program to include the following: 

- Required every VA employee to complete 4 hours of EEO 

training in 1993 and 2 hours of refresher EEO training in 

1995 and 1996; 

- Redefined EEO Program Managers' duties, required EEO 

Program Managers to be appointed at every facility, and 

removed EEO Program Managers from Human Resources Management 

oversight; 

Established a training program for EEO counselors, 

provided initial training in 1994, and refresher training in 

1996 for the counselors; 

Reemphasized record keeping requirements for EEO 

counseling with semiannual reporting of the number of 

counseling contacts and remedies obtained during EEO 

counseling; 

Required EEO Officer/Senior Executive Service 

performance standards to contain specific measurable goals 

including the timeliness of complaint processing. 

General Accounting O~~ice (GAO) Report on Sexual Bara .... nt 

In June 1993, GAO issued a report on sexual harassment 

issues at selected VA medical centers. GAO concluded there 

was a need to comprehensively assess the environment and 

procedures for dealing with sexual harassment at medical 

centers. GAO recommended an agencywide survey of sexual 

harassment issues be taken. The VA agreed with the GAO 

recommendation. The survey of about 30,000 VA employees was 

taken during the first 6 months of 1996 by a consulting firm 

and we understand the final survey results will be available 

soon. This comprehensive survey should give the VA a good 
212 

idea of the significance, if any, of sexual harassment 

issues in the Department. 

Sexual Bara .... nt Complaint. Received by the OIG 

The OIG closely monitors complaints of sexual harassment 

received by our Hotline or in Congressional and other 

correspondence with our o ffice . The volume of cases opened 

stemming from allegations of sexual harassment is quite low 

relative to the overall number of Hot l ine cases opened. 

Details follow: 

~ 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

FY 1995 

FY 1996 

FY 1997 to date 

Total 

TOTAL HOTLINE 

CASES OPENED 

855 

681 

637 

549 

307 

3,029 

SEltOAL IIA1IASSMENT 

CASES OPENED 

18 

6 

1 

3 

l 

29 

While these raw numbers do not seem to indicate a widespread 

problem of sexual harassment in a Department of over 220,000 

employees, we take each and every allegation seriousl y . An 

analysis of the 29 cases of alleged sexual harassment, 

indicates that senior managers were involved in 5 cases. In 

4 cases, senior managers were named as harassers and in the 

fifth case, a senior manager was alleged to have failed to 

act on founded allegations of sexual harassment by an 

employee of the medical center. 

VANe Fayetteville Revie. 

The most publicized of these 5 cases involved allegations of 

sexual harassment and other misconduct and mismanagement by 

the former director at VAMC Fayetteville. By mutual 

agreement with the Director, Veterans Integrated Service 

Network (VISN) 6, the orG reviewed the allegations of sexual 

harassment and the VISN 6 Director asked the Director of 

VAMC Augusta to review the other misconduct and 

mismanagement charges. 

The former Director was also the EEO Officer for VAMC 

Fayetteville. None of the three women, who made allegations 

of sexual harassment against the former Director to the OIG, 

had filed an EEO complaint . 

5 
213 

Our review of the sexual harassment allegations made to the 

OIG determined that the former Director sexually harassed 

one of the three female employees of VAMC Fayetteville . 

While we determined there was insufficient evidence to 

support a finding he sexually harassed the other two female 

employees, we did conclude that the former Director's 

behavior toward them was abusive, threatening and 

inappropriate. 

Regarding the first complainant, we found the former 

Director made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, 

some of which were witnessed by other employees. However, 

the facts of the case were such that we concluded a sexual 

harassment charge would be difficult to uphold because there 

was evidence which might support a finding that such . 

comments were neither uninvited nor offensive to the 

complainant, an element required to support a hostile 

environment case. 

We did conclude the former Director's treatment of the first 

complainant was inappropriate and abusive particularly by 

someone in a senior management position. This complainant 

advised us that the former Director's verbal abuse caused 

her such stress that she filed a claim for workers' 

compensation. It should be noted that the charges we did 

substantiate carry equal or greater penalties to that of 

sexual harassment, as described by the Department's table of 

penalties. 

The second complainant testified that the former Directo r 

made unwelcome sexual advances toward her and retaliated 

against her when she rejected his suggestions that they have 

a personal relationship. Our review substantiated quid pro 

quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment for creating a 

hostile work environment. We found the testimony of the 

complainant to be credible in that it was corroborated by 

the views of other medical center employees and another 

credible witness. Due primarily to stress caused by the 

sexual harassment, the complainant transferred at her own 

expense to another VA medical center. 

The third complainant testified that the former Director 

made unsolicited verbal comments of a sexual nature to her 

on more than one occasion. Because we were unable to 

6 
214 

corroborate her testimony, we 

allegation of sexual harassment. 

that the Director's treatment 

did not substantiate the 

However, we did conclude 

of the third complainant 

continued to demonstrate a pattern of inappropriate and 

abusi ve behavior by a senior manager. The complainant is 

still an employee of the medical center. 

On September 12, 1996, we provided our draft report to the 

Director, VISN 6 for his review and comment. We also 

provided the VISN Director with a copy of all of the witness 

statements and documentary evidence we compiled in order to 

provide him with the factual basis for our findings. Our 

draft report recommended, 

by the former Director, 

action be taken. 

given our findings of misconduct 

that appropriate administrative 

In accordance with standard practice in the Inspector 

General community, our report did 

specific penalty be imposed on the 

not recommend that a 

former Director. The 

decision whether to take administrative action, and the 

specific action that is appropriate, is vested in the 

management officials who supervise the employee in question. 

Because the OIG is independent of Department management, 

Offices of Inspector General do not recommend a specific 

penalty or disciplinary action. The OIG's function of 

objective oversight of Department management makes it 

especially important that the line between management and 

oversight be respected. 

In addition, it is well established that, before a Federal 

employee can be disciplined for misconduct, the management 

official making such a decision must consider the 12 factors 

known as the "Douglas factors." The Merit Systems 

Protection Board has held that various factors must be 

considered before disciplinary action can properly be 

imposed. These factors include such things as the 

employee's length of service, past disciplinary record, the 

severity of the misconduct, whether the misconduct was 

intentional or inadvertent, the grade level of the employee, 

the range of penalties previously imposed for similar 

behavior and other potential mitigating or aggravating 

factors. 

The facts to be considered in addressing the relevant 

Douglas factors for each individual employee are outside the 

7 
215 

scope of the OIG review. The OIG function is to determine 

the facts with respect to the alleged mil!lconduct and to 

conclude whether misconduct either did or did not occur. 

Consideration of the Douglas factors is a part of the 

analysis that the Department's deciding management officiall!l 

are required to undertake when presented with proof of 

misconduct. The recommendation of a specific penalty for 

misconduct needs to result from this two part process. 

By the time we issued our draft report on September 12, 

1996, substantiating an allegation of sexual harassment as 

well as other misconduct, the VISN 6 Director had already 

detailed the former Director for 120 days to VAHC Durham 

because of the management problems he had created at VAHC 

Fayetteville . 

On September 26, 1996, the Director, VAHC Augusta issued his 

report to the VISN 6 Director on the allegations of 

mismanagement and other misconduct by the former Director of 

VAHC Fayetteville. The report concluded that over 62 

percent of the 76 individuals interviewed at VAHC 

Fayetteville expressed "a lack of respect, trust or 

confidence" in the former Director. The VHA management 

report also stated that employees "do not feel comfortable 

in his presence" and "felt his management style has 

adversely impacted morale and divided staff." 

On October 18, 1996, we received the VISN 6 Director's 

response to our draft report and he concurred with our 

findings and recommendations. 

1996, disciplinary action was 

By letter dated October 25, 

proposed by the VISN 6 

Director against the former Director. The proposed action 

was based solely on the OIG's investigation and our findings 

of sexual harassment and disrespectful, abusive conduct by 

the former Director. No charges were based on the findings 

contained in the VHA review, which we believe evidenced 

further misconduct by the former Director. 

We issued our final report on November 8, 1996, to the VISN 

Director with copies provided to VHA top management, the 

Office of the Secretary, and the Chairmen of the Senate and 

House Veterans' Affairs Committees. A copy of the final 

report along with the OIG file (witness statements and 

related documents) was also provided to the VACO Office of 

Human Resources for their review and preparation of an 
216 

evidence file that would support the seven charges of 

misconduct proposed by the VISN Director against the former 

Director. 

On December 6, 1996, the VISN 6 Director rescinded the 

proposed adverse action referring to the lack of an evidence 

file which should have been included with the letter 

proposing the disciplinary action. The former Director was 

informed that a new letter o f proposed adverse action and 

charges is being prepared and will be issued in the near 

future with an evidence file prepared by the Department. 

We were informed on February 3, 1997 that effective January 

19,1997, the former Director, an SES employee, was 

downgraded and transferred to a GS-14 non-supervisory 

position at VAMC Bay Pines, Florida. We later learned that 

the former Director was allowed to permanently retain his 

SES pay and would be transferred at Government expense to 

Florida. The OIG was not involved in the decision relating 

to the penalty imposed on the former Director. 

Other OIG Review. of Alleg.tion. of Sexu.l Bar ..... nt 

Of the 4 remaining cases of sexual harassment opened by the 

OIG against senior managers since October 1992, one case was 

investigated by the OIG and the allegations of sexual 

harassment were unfounded. Two cases are still under active 

review by the OIG. The fifth and final case was opened by 

the OIG as an oversight case and the allegation of sexual 

harassment was substantiated by a VHA review. 

The individual in this case is one of the 12 senior managers 

whose names were recently provided to the Committee by the 

Department as employees who retired, were demoted, or were 

dismissed as a result of sexual harassment. In this 

instance, our preliminary work indicated that the allegation 

of sexual harassment was under review by a VHA 

Administrative Review Board. We reviewed the results of the 

Board's investigation and found that VHA had done a thorough 

job of investigating the case and, as a result of the 

investigation, the individual retired. There was no need 

for further OIG involvement and we closed our oversight 

case. 

9 
217 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to comment on the 

work of the OrG in this important area. 

10 
218 

TESTIMONY OF DOROTHY NELMS, PRESIDENT 

FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN, INC. 

APRIL 17, 1997 

HOUSE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Chairman Everett, distinguished members of the Subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

loday. I am Dorothy E. Nelms, Presidenl of Federally Employed Women (FEW). FEW is a non-profit non-partisan 

membership organization representing over one million women employed by or retired from the Federal Government 

throughout the world. Founded in 1968, FEW actively works to eliminate sex discrimination and enhance the career 

potential of civilian and military women working in the Federal sector. FEW is finnly commined to the principle that 

every employee has the right to work in an environment that allows individuals to perform at their best and that is 

free from discrimination and harassment. 

In lighl oflhe hislory of severe harassment at the VA. past scrutiny by this Subeommittee. and the VA's official zero 

tolerance policy against sexual harassment, it is appalling that we must be here today to address what appears to be an 

undiminished environment of tolerance for sexual harassment and tacit endorsement for manage rs who have 

perpetrated it. 

Recognizing that sexual harassment is a major barrier to women's career advancement. FEW conducts widelyrecognized national, regional, and local trainings for workers and management on sexual harassment. EEO 

compliance. and diversity in the workforce, among other topics. 

In 1977, FEW established the independent FEW Legal and Education Fund. Inc (LEF). and in 1996, FEW 

established the FEW Legal Awareness Program. The Legal Awareness Program provides our member.; with a short 

legal advisory session to evaluate their individual situations, detennine if legal representation is needed in order to 

remedy it, and, if so, to help them contact qualified attorneys. The LEF provides legal and joh-relaled counselling, a 

nationwide lawyer referral service, and, for certain cases, legal defense funds. 

In 1993, the LEF gave its Mary D. Pinkard Leader in Federal Equity Award to the founding members of Women 

Against Sexual Harassment (WASH), a group helping Veterans Affair.; (VA) employees to fighl discrimination and 

abuse. Several of those women testified before this Subeommittee in 1992. Despite their valiant support and 

advocacy work, the VA continues to undemtine its own official zero tolerance policy by failing to take appropriate 

action to discipline harassers. 

Today, I will provide an overview of the effects of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. the effects of sexual 

harassment on the women the V A serves, an overview of some of the barriers to adequately addressing sexual 

harassment, and some concrete suggestions for measures to improve the Department's policy against sexual 

harassment and its implementation. 

In addition, I want to otTer any assistance that FEW can provide to the brave women who have testified here today, to 

the Subcommittee in its ongoing oversight efforts. and to the Department of Veterans Affairs as it works to prevent 

and eliminate sexual harassment. 

THE EFFECTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE 

Overview 

In 1994,44 percent of women and 19 percent afmen working in the Federal Government who responded to a survey 

by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reported that they had experienced some form of unwanled sexual 

Dorothy Nelms. Federally Employed Women. Jm:, 41' 7/97 
219 

attention during the preceding two years. Among women in the VA, the percentage was roughly the ~ame as the 

1994 government-wide average. at 41 percent. However. the incidence among men was 27 percent. eight percentage 

points higher than the government average of 19 percent (15. MSPB. 1995). 

The incidence of sexual harassment has not decreased significantly since the MSPB's 1987 study. despite widespread 

employee awareness programs on what constitutes sexual harassment and official efforts by Federal agencies to 

institute anti-harassment programs (viii. MSPB. 1995). 

Sexual harassment affects both the direct targets of harassment and their coworkers. It creates a chilling climate of 

intimidation. fear. and mistrust. Women and men who know that an employee has harassed others will often go to 

extraordinary lengths to avoid working with the harasse'r. transferring out of a department. turning down new 

projects, or missing other important opportunities to participate in workplace teams. 

When workers face retaliation for filing complaints. it exacerbates the hostility of the workplace environment and 

tacitly supports sexual harassment and the attitudes that perpetuate it. Workers who support colleagues who file 

complaints are often subject to retaliation as well. In 1992. for example. Mary Cavanaugh testified before this 

Subcommittee that she was transferred to a lesser position in retaliation for supporting Donna Grabarczyk. who had 

filed a sexual harassment complaint. 

The cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government continues to be significant. The MSPB estimates that 

between April 1992 and April 1994. sexual harassment cost an estimated $327 million in sick leave. job turnover. and 

productivity losses (ix, MSPB. 1995). 

Dispelling SOIo.1 U ... ssment Myths 

All too often. individuals and organizations attempt to deny or diminish the egregious incidence and impact of sexual 

harassment by claiming that the majority of occurrences are "trivia'" or "minor." However. although sexual remarks. 

jokes, and teasing do occur far more frequently than incidents of sexual touching and assault. they are not. as some 

might suggest, less traumatic or detrimental in their effects on victims and their coworkers. Like low intensity 

warfare. this type of harassment can be most damaging to victims over the long run. because it tends to happen 

repeatedly over a period of one to six months (16. MSPB, 1995). 

In the "grey areas," the burden of proof on victims is more difficult to bear. Victims often doubt themselves and fear 

that coworkers or supervisors will not support them and that they will not be able to establish adequate proof of 

harassment until they have endured long weeks or months of abuse and intimidation. 

According to the MSPB. "data suggest that the percentages of employees who reported experiencing sexual 

harassment are not due primarily to the inclusion of isolated incidents of bad management or poor judgement in ... 

calculations of the extent of sexual harassment" (21. MSPB. 1995). Even when the MSPB excluded incidents of 

sexual harassment defined as "less serious" -- looks/gestures, pressure for dates. letters. cans. and jokes and remarks -

-from its calculations of incidence rates, it still found that 38 percent of women and 15 percent of men reported 

experiencing sexual harassment. 

It is also common to dismiss many sexual harassment complaints as retaliatory gestures by disgruntled Federal 

employees. However. according to the American Psychological Association (APA). research shows that less than 

one percent of sexual harassment complaints are false. In fact. victims of sexual harassment rarely file complaints 

even when they are justified in doing so because of the continuing stigma. time. and threat of reprisal involved (APA 

fact sheet). 

Federal workers, in particular, do not seem to make anegations of sexual harassment lightly. Government-wide, 17 

percent of victims chose not to take formal action because they did not want to hurt the perpetrator of the harassment. 

and 29 percent thought it would make their work situations unpleasant (35. MSPB. 1995). Only 6 percent of victims 

reported taking formal action (33, MSPB, I99S). 

Dorothy Nelms. Federally Employed Women, Inc .. 4/17/97 
220 

THE EFFECT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON WOMEN YETERANS 

Lack of appropriate treatment of sexual harassment and abuse at the V A not only undermines the confidence. health. 

safely, and productivily of the women and men who work at the VA. but it also undoubtedly undermines the 

confidence of the women the VA serves. 

Over the years. the V A has been charged with providing inadequate service to women veterans and. in response. the 

V A has made a public effort to improve the quality and scope of services it provides. Secretary Brown recently sent 

a letter to more than 400.000 women veterans explaining the services offered by the V A and assuring them that the 

V A has the "resources and the commitment to provide the counseling and care needed hy those !mffering the effects 

of sexual assault. battery. or harassment while in military service" (SI. Petersburg (FL) Times. 2/5/97). 

Unfortunately, this latest sexual harassment debacle sends a stark contradictory message to all women who deal with 

the VA: "You are not safe here. We will not take your concerns seriously." Women patients. who are in the 

vulnerable position of needing to discuss the intimacies of their health with V A doctors. the majority of whom are 

men. may exacerbate their conditions by delaying or avoiding seeking care because they fear harassment or abuse 

from V A staff. 

The hostile environment at the VA and the Department's apparent unwillingness to deal with it are of even graver 

concern to the huge numbers of women veterans have endured sexual harassment or domestic abuse while serving in 

the military and who are now seeking care for the ongoing physical and psychological effects of the abuse. A 1993 

study of women using the Minneapolis V A Medical Center concludes that women serving in the armed services may 

be at higher risk of sexual assault than other government employees and. thus. are even more likely to need sensitive. 

comprehensive services to address their concerns. 90 percent of women under age 50 and 37 percent of women over 

age 50 reported having been sexually harassed while serving in the military. and 25 percent reported that a partner 

had physically abused them within the last year (Family Violence Prevention Fund). 

How can an agency that has a history of tolerating or even. it seems. rewarding. sexual harassment within its own 

ranks reasonably instill confidence that it is ready. Willing. and able to help heal the effects of sexual harassment and 

assault among the veterans it serves? 

BABBlERS TO ADEOUATELY ELIMINATING AND ADDRESSING SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

FEW feels strongly that the best indicators of a successful sexual harassment policy are a low incidence of sexual 

harassment and employees' confidence that their agencies will deal with it effectively if it does occur. 

Unfortunately, there seems to be a government-wide disparity between employee and employer perceptions 

both of agencies' willingness to confront seJ:ual harassment and of their effectivenes~ in doing so. 

Although 100 percent ofagencies reported taking swift action to investigate complaints. only 32 percent of 

employees shared this perception (34, MSPB. 1988). 

Although 82 percent of agencies reported enforcing penalties against harassers. only 27 percent of workers 

thought harassers were punished (34. MSPB. 1988). 

Although 59 percent of agencies reported enforcing penalties against managers who perpetrated or tolerated 

harassment, only 18 percent of employees (34. MSPB. 1988). 

Although 85 percent of agencies reported that their disciplinary actions against managers were effective. 

only 65 percent of employees shared that perception (37. MSPB. 1988). 

The most recent incidents at the V A underscore how important it is to narrow the gap between agencies' official 

stance and the daily reality that employees confront in their work environments. 

Dorothy Nelms. Federally Employed Women. Inc .. 4111191 
221 

If employees Ire not ~onndent that their .gen~ln .re ~ommltted to or efTectlve .t ~onrrontlng, punllhlna, Ind 

elimin.ling.na.1 h ..... m.nl, Ih.y will be r.lad.nllo com. forward wilh complainl. and vidim. will 

endur., .. Ib.r Ihon report bo .... m.nl. H ...... n will feel emboldened 10 initiale or continu. Ih.ir behavior 

becauselh.y know Ih.y eon "g.law.y wilh il." 

Govemment·wide. a significant percentage of victims who decided not to "take formal action did not do so because 

they lacked confidence in their agencies' willingness to support them or to follow-up appropriately on their 

complaints: 

20 percent thought nothing would be done; 

17 percent feared reprisal; 

8 percent feared they would not be believed and 9 percent feared they would be blamed for the incidents (35. 

MSPB,1995). 

Based on the distressing testimony we have just heard and the publicity surrounding these incidents. it is clear that 

workers at the VA must suffer high levels of mistrust and fear. No matter how effective agencies think their policies 

are, if employees do not perceive them to work. the policies will not have the deterrent or remedial effects they are 

intended to have. 

Agencies use low numben of formal complaints to justify their confidence in and reliance on their official 

polici... . 

The VA. for example. points to its written condemnation of sexual harassment and its mandatory trainings as 

evidence of its zero tolerance program. However, all employee letters and four-hour trainings are not enough. By 

failing to take complaints of sexual harassment seriously or to adequately discipline perpetrators. the V A has further 

undermined employee confidence and allowed both sexual harassment and the attitudes that support it to flourish. 

Government-wide. the MSPB found that 

managers were reluctant to confront harassers: 

supervisors and managers took inappropriate or inadequate actions against harassers: and 

managers failed to investigate complaints or made errors in pursuing investigations of alleged harassment 

(37, MSPB, 1995). 

The .pecific probl.m. Ihll exi.1 allh. V A go beyond Iho.e Ii.led above. FEW question. Ih. exlenllo which 

Ih. crilicism.levied in a 1993 GAO r.view ohnu.1 hara •• menl.llhe V A hlv. been adequalely addr ••• ed. 

The review found that 

certain medical center directors and supervisors "actively sought to discourage complaints from being filed" 

(3, GAO. 1993); 

one-third of complaints at Ihe V A were rejected on procedural grounds. suggesting both that complainants 

may not have been given sufficient infonnation to file complaints in a timely basis and that EEO counselors 

and investigators needed further training (3. GAO. 1993); 

consistent evaluation of training for handling sexual harassment "was difficult to ensure" given that the VA's 

EEO system is decentralized to 171 medical centers (3. GAO. 1993); 

complaints were not investigated promptly -- an average of over 5 months elapsed before cases were 

Dorothy Nelms. Federally Employed Women. Inc .• 4/17/97 

40-881 97 - 8 
222 

investigated (4, GAO, 1993); one! 

50 percent of victims felt that they .uffem! reprisal or threats of reprisal in response to their complainls. 

Despite specific identificalion of barriers 10 deal wilh sexual harassmenl effectively. evolu81ion of Ihe V A 's lrealmenl 

ofsexual harassmenl. and the V A's official efforts 10 implemenl a zero lolerance policy. il is clear Ihal mosl of Ihese 

obslacles persist. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING TUE VA'S TREATMENT OF SEXUAL UARASSMENT 

Following are FEW's recommendations for improving the VA's treatment of sexual harassment. 

WId.ly publicize the range of pen.ltl ... ad dlsciplln.ry octlon. for ... 801 h ..... m.nt. 

The VA's manual~ "The Prevention of Sexual Harassment in the Department ofVelerans Affairs." which 

describes Ihe Departmenl's zero lolerance policy. slops short of describing Ihe range of possible disciplinary 

aclions againsl sexual harassment. However. according 10 Ihe MSPB. 

Employees should be made aware of how lhe agency inlends 10 discipline proven harassers. 

Viclims should always be infonned aboul whal happened 10 lheir harassers. and penallies 

should be public enough to serve a~ exnmple!\ to potential harassers thallTlanng.erncnt's 

prohibilion of sexual harassmenl is more Ihan lip service (xi. MSPB. 1995). 

72 percenl of employees surveyed felt Ihal publicizing Ihe range of penalties Ihal can be imposed on 

perpelralors would be among Ihe mosl effective aClion an agency could take 10 address and deler sexual 

harassment (41. MSPB. 1995). 

Co.duct. periodic review of both (ormal and Inform.1 compl.lab .nd their outcome. and publicize 

,e.e .. 1 descriptloll' oftl ........ 

Str"Rlh.n .mrmotlv •• ctloll .ITort. to cr .. t •• nd RI.lntoln a dlv ..... workforc. of talented, dedic.ted 

Indlvld .. is. 

In t992, 56 percent ofthe VA's slaffwere women. yel only 7 oflhe 171 VA hospilals had women .. ,

directors. The vast majority ofthe EEO slafT were men. The V A should learn from olher agencies' 

experiences: 8 GAO review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's handling of sexual harassment and 

discrimination found that women workers expressed little confidence in the internal investigative process 

because the vast majority of investigators were men. many of whom had shown lack of sensitivity in the past 

(GAO, 1994). 

Seeking oul qualified women for supervisory and leadership roles would go • long way loward alleviating 

Ihe mislrust Ihal employees feelloward managemenl and increasing confidence Ihal coworkers and 

supervisors alike would be sensitive in dealing wilh complainls. 

InlUot. m.morandam. of and.ntondln& with oth.r Fed ... 1 o,.acles that would olio", V A .mploy ... 

to seek coua." from a limited num""r of EEO .taIT o.tsld. or the VA. 

This will bolh diversify lhe group of available EEO officers from which employ .. s can choose and help 10 

avoid real or perceived connicts of interest. 

Empower full-tlm. EEO Invaticoton w~o can roc ........ lvely OBd Ind.pe.deoUy on EEO 

comp .. ints. 

Dorothy Nelms. Federally Employed Women. Inc .. 4/17197 
223 

The current system with part-time EEO counselors may not allow EEO starr enough time tn adequately 

investigate complaints. counsel complainants. or resolve cases in a timely manner. It also may fail to provide 

sumcient freedom from potential reprisal when making inquiries (22.IU. 1993 and testimony llfUllnna 

Grabarczyk, 1992). 

Improve .y.tematic ovenight of entire complaint proc •••. 

A periodic summary report of the nature. extent. and form of resolution of ronnal and informal complaints at 

each facility would help keep the Secretary informed of EEO activity. To quote the 1993 Inspector General's 

report, "continuing deficiencies in the same V A program areas may result from merely issuing new policies 

without the aHendant requisite to ensure that they are effective" (27.IG. 1993). 

Take action against perpetrators of sexual harassment based on the seriousness of the offense rather 

thon on tbe rank of tbe offender. 

FEW supports the MSBP's recommendation that 

managers and supervisors should not give undue weight to the harasser's performance and 

value to the agency .... [T)he value of a harasser's contributions to the organization is likely 

to be diminished by behavior that hurts morale. demonstrates a lack of ethics. or exhibits a 

double standard. Further. the example that management sets in following through with 

appropriate penalties can be more effective as a preventative measure than the policies it 

promulgates (p.xi. MSPB, 1995). 

Similarly. lack of action to discipline managers adequately undermines stated official policy and sends an 

unwritten message that zero tolerance is a sham. 

Work barder to prevent reprisal and tak. strong action against those who do r.taliat. against 

complainants. 

The MSPB's 1994 survey shows that. for almost half of those employees who filed a grievance or adverse 

action appeal. taking action made their situations worse. The Secretary's own letter. dated May 6. 1993 

continns that "a considerable number of the discrimination complaints" filed at the V A are reprisal cases. 

If the VA is going to maintain its largely internal complaint and investigation process. it must find a way to 

guarantee workers that they can come forward without being victimized a second time. 

67 percent of employees felt that protecting victims from reprisal is critical to effectively dealing with sexual 

harassment (41, MSPB, 1995). 

Specific steps to take should include: 

expanding treatment of reprisal in V A training materials on sexual harassment: 

including in the pending survey of workers' experiences with sexual harassment additional questions 

regarding both retaliation and employees' perceptions of management and supervisory response to 

allegations of sexual harassment: 

Clearly, it is established that sexual harassment is a problem at the VA; thus. doing additional 

surveys on the type and extent of harassment need not be the primary focus of the survey. Instead. 

the V A should concentrate on dealing with the consequences of sexual harassment. 

referring all complaints against top management to the region-level to avoid contlict of interest: and 

Dorothy Nelms. Federally Employed Women. Inc .. 4/17197 
224 

including the results of EEO reviews Bnd the prc!>cnce or "b~ence or reprisals against workers who 

file complaints of sexual harassment in performance ratings for managers and supervisors (24. IG. 

1993). 

Coillborat. with other Ig.ncl .. Ind the private-'Ktor to Improv. anti-.nul h.r .... m.nllr.ining and 

10 upand Ihe b ••• of EEO .ompUan •• Ir.ln.rs and ..... rI •. 

FEW has a cadre of qualified trainers who have excellent experience dealing with sexual harassment. 

Improve evalultion of the efJediveness of the antl·:.elull harassment trAining the Department 

provides for .mploy ... , manog.n, and EEO conn •• lon and inv .. llg.lon (d, MSPB. 1995) by 

establishing melsunble standards for succeufullnining outcomes. 

FinallYt FEW would strongly support I measure like the 1993 proposed VA Emplo~'ment Di~crimin.Uon Act. 

H.R. 1032 would have created a central Office of Employment Discrimination Complaints Resolution within the VA. 

empowered full-time investigators who would have reported to the Office of Complaints Resolution instead of to 

local managers. and appointed administrative law judges who would have been the final arbiters of employee 

complaints. eliminating potential conflicts of interest between management and alleged perpetrators. 

Dorothy Nelms., federally Employed Women. Inc .. 4/17/97 
225 

SourcelJ Cited 

American Psychological Association. "Sexual Harassment: Myths and Realities." 

http://www.apa.orgIpubinfolharass.html. 

Ballingrud, David. "VA to be harassment-free, official told." St. Petersburg (FL) Times. 2/5197. 

Department of Veterans Affairs. Remarks for the Secretary on Sexual Harassment and his Zero Tcilerance Policy 

with attachments, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Budget Hearing. 2/26/97. 

Family Violence Prevention Fund. "Women Veterans' Experiences With Domestic Violence and With Sexual 

Assault While in the Military: A New Study. " Fact Sheet. 

http://www.igc.ap<:.orglfundlthe_factslveteran.html. 

General Accounting Office. Federal Employment: Sexual Harassment at the Department of Veterans' AfTairs. 

Testimony of Nancy Kingsbury, Director. Federal Human Resource management Issues. before the House 

Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 3130193. GAOIT·GGD·93·1 2. 

General Accounting Office. Sex Discrimination: Agencies' Handling of Sexuall-larassment and Related Complaints. 

Testimony of Richard Stiener. Director. Office of Special Investigations. before the HOllse Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 3/8/94. GAOIT·OSI-94-22. 

Grabarczyk. Donna and Mary O'Connor. Testimony before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations hearing on sexual harassment in the VA. 9117/92. FEW tilecopy. 

Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Trends. Progress. Continuing 

Challenges. October 1995. 

Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update. June 1988. 

Office of Inspector General. Department of Veterans A ffairs. Review of the Department of Veterans' A ffairs Equal 

Employment Oppot1unity Program (with Emphasis on Sexual Harassment Complaints). J/J 1193 . 

3AB-UOI-092. 

Dorothy Nelms., Federally Employed Women. Inc., 4/17197 
226 

Dorothy E. Nelms 

Dorothy E. Nelms. National President of Federally Employed Women. Inc. (FEW). a former federal employee. took 

early retirement after 28 years of service to complete law school. A graduate of George Washington University National 

Law Center. Washington, DC, Ms. Nelms specializes in civil rights. criminal. and domestic law. This experience has 

greatly enhanced her training programs. Most recently, as an attorney. she has conducted agency-wide training on sexual 

harassment with Mitsubishi, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Indian Health Bureau. 

Ms. Nelms has been a professional public speaker and trainer for many years. As an internationally renowned speaker. 

she has spoken and conducted trainings in all 50 states: Gennany. Japan. Belgium. and Canada. Although most of her 

work has been with the public sector, she also has worked extensively with the private sector. 

Highlight. of ProfH.ional Experience 

National President, Federally Employed Women, Inc. (FEW). 1996 to present: Leading a national organization of 

over 200 chapters in the U.S .• Germany. Japan, and Korea engaged in legislative and policy issues to help end sex 

discrimination in the federal government. 

President, Nelms and Associates, Washington. DC. 1981 to present: Attorney-at-Law and Consultant to Management 

on human resources, equal employment opportunity. and affirmative employment planning. 

Director. Organizational Development and Training. Hubbard and Revo-Cohen. Inc .. a human resources consulting 

firm, Reston, V A: Consulted on issues such as team-building, conflict management. executive and staff 

development, managing cultural diversity, and equal employment opportunity laws. 

Director of Executive Resources. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1975-1978: Managed a staff 

responsible for personnel functions of all executives. consultants. and political appointees in the Department. 

Director of Training. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1971 - 1975 : Directed a staff responsible 

for the training of 17.000 employees of the Department and managing two national training centers. 

International Auignmeats 

Germany: Frankrurt. Heidelberg. Wiesbaden. Wurms. Augsburg. Kaiserslautern. Graerenwoehr. and Munich in 

1990, 1991 , and 1992. 

Japan: Tokyo in 1990 and 1991. 

Canada: Toronto in 1992. 

OrglnlZlltiona' Affiliation. 

American, National. and D.C. Bar Associations 

American Society for Training and Development 

National Capital Speakers Association 

Federally Employed Women 

Business and Professional Women 

Special Awards and Recognition 

Distinguished Service Award. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Distinguished Service Award. FEW 

Education 

J.D., George Washington University National Law Center, Washington. DC. 

M.B.A. George Washington University. Washington. DC. 

B.S .• Howard University, Washington. DC. 
227 

NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 1101 Washington, D.C. 20036 

Phone (202) 296-0888 

=;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;:::. Fax (202) 833-1577 

Statement of 

the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs 

(NOVA) 

Maura Farrell Miller, Ph.D., ARNP, CS 

President 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

on 

The Effectiveness of the DVA's Sexual Harassment Awareness Programs 

and 

Enforcement of the DVA's Zero Tolerance Policy 

April 17, 1997 
228 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Maura Farrell Miller, a 

Gerontological Nurse Practitioner at the West Palm Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. As President of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs 

(NOV A), I am pleased to present the testimony on behalf of NOV A. I speak for our 

membership and for the more than 40,000 professional nurses employed by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (OVA). I also speak as a woman, representing thousands of other 

professional women, employed in a male, physician-dominated, paternalistic, Federal agency. 

Sexual Harassment of Subordinates 

NOV A is a professional organization whose mission is: Shaping and influencing 

professional nursing practice within the DVA healthcare system. To date, NOVA has not 

received any official reports of cases of alleged sexual harassment of subordinates by senior 

managers within OVA. This includes the specific case of the demotion and transfer to the 

Bay Pines, Florida OVA Medical Center of the former medical director of the Fayetteville, 

North Carolina V A Medical Center for alleged sexual harassment. NOV A is a professional 

organization, not a labor union or collective bargaining group; we do not handle day-to-day 

issues at the local level. In the event that a registered nurse reported an incident of alleged 

sexual harassment to NOVA, NOV A would refer that nurse back to his/her medical center to 

report the incident to hisfher immediate supervisor and to the Office of Equal Opportunity 

(EEO) in accordance with VHA Policy for Prevention of Sexual Harassment (10-25-055). 

NOVA applauds Secretary Jesse Brown for his "Zero Tolerance" policy on sexual 

harassment in the V A workplace. NOVA supports the OVA policy that prevention and 

reporting of sexual harassment is every employee's responsibility. My preparation for this 

testimony included inquiries with Dr. Nancy Valentine, Chief Consultant, Nursing Strategic 

Healthcare Group, OVA Headquarters. Dr. Valentine has informed me that to date, there 

have been no reported incidents of sexual harassment regarding OVA professional nurses. 

Enforcement of DVA 's Zero Tolerance Policy 

Experts acknowledge that "only a fraction of those who are sexually abused ever report 

it" (Lippman, 1993). However, the total absence of reported incidents of sexual harassment 

of V A professional nurses is contrary to data that has been cited in the literature. No one 
229 

really knows just how pervasive a problem sexual harassment is for nurses. Dianna Johnston, 

RN, JD, Assistant Legal Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) has stated: "Sexual harassment has little to do with sex and a lot to do with power." 

One reason why nurses are volnerable for harassments by doctors or administrators, who are 

higher up in the hospital hierarchy. In one recent study, more than half the nurses surveyed 

said they had been "sexually abused" [suggestively touched, sexually insulted or 

propositioned] at least once. Three of 10 nurses reported they are subject to sexual 

harassment at least once every two or three months (Diaz & McMillan, 1991). A recent RN 

Magazine survey of readers confirmed that common forms of abuse, including verbal, sexual 

harassment, and threats of being fired, were still commonplace in the healthcare workplace 

(Begany, 1995). The typical respondent in this survey was a 39 year old female registered 

nurse with 13 years in nursing, not unlike the profile of the career V A professional nurse. 

Preventing and reporting sexual harassment is every DV A professional nurses' 

responsibility. The total absence of reported incidents of sexual harassment involving DV A 

professional nurses could be a symptom of other problems and may be reflective of what is 

going on in the agency as a result of healthcare reorganization. For its very survival, the 

downsizing and subsequent healthcare reorganization has forced men and women to compete 

for a shrinking pool of healthcare resources and positions of power and authority at an 

intensity never before seen in the DV A. As a female, professional nurse working in a 

historically male, physician-dominated, paternalistic healthcare system, NOV A suggests that 

incidents such as this be used as catalysts for change. Further dialogue is needed on this and 

other perceived problems, to make the DV A a healthier workplace and the "employer of 

choice" for registered professional nurses. As the DV A healthcare system evolves, NOV A 

encourages the DVA to: use opportunities such as these to bring attention to women's issues 

in the workplace; use more women in solving problems within the agency; and open up 

executive healthcare management positions to all genders and disciplines. 

I would like to thank NOVA's Legislative Co-Chairpersons, Dr. Sarah V. Myers, 

Ph.D., MSN, RNC, and Barbara Zicafoose, RN, MSN, ANP, for their assistance in the 

preparation of this testimony. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this written 

testimony on behalf of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs (NOVA). 
230 

References: 

I. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Policy for Prevention of Sexual Harassment. 

VHA Directive 10-95-055. 

2. Lippman, H. (1993). Sexual harassment: an updated picture. Eli. 56,2,61. 

3. Johnston, D., as cited in Lippman, H. (1993). Sexual harassment: an updated picture. 

Eli. 56, 2, 61. 

4. Diaz, A. L. and McMillan, J. D. (in press). Medical alert: Sexual harassment in the 

health care industry. International Journal o(public Administration. 
GE 

231 

American Federation of 

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

STATEMENT BY 

KITTY PEDDICORD 

80 F Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

(202) 737-8700 

WOMEN'S DIRECTOR 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

BEFORE 

TH~ SUBCOMM~~ ON OVl!RSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

ON 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

APRIL 17, 1997 
232 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is KItty Peddicord. I am the Women's Director of the American 

Federation of Govemment Employees, AFL-CIO. AFGE represents over 700,000 

federal employees in some 42 federal agenCies, and approximately 100,000 

employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

AFGE has a long history of leadership in the fight against workplace sexual 

harassment. As early as 1978, AFGE established the elected office of Women's 

Director, and ever since then, we have been In the forefront of the battle against 

sexual harassment. Our activities include the sponsorship of the amendment to the 

Civil Rights Act of 1991 that brought compensatory damages for the first time to 

victims of sexual harassment In the federal government; numerous national training 

conferences on this Issue; AFGE workbooks, pamphlets, posters and even a video on 

sexual harassment in the federal government; and constant litigation and 

representation of sexual harassment victims In arbitrations, EEO complaints, court cMI 

actions, and elsewhere. 

As you know, sexual harassment is an unfortunate reality In the nation's 

workplaces, whether it be in the private sector or the public sector. Comprehensive 

studies by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board have revealed that approximately 

42% of all women (and 14% of all men) in the federal government, have experienced 

sexual harassment. Additional studies In the private sector show numbers consistent 

with the federal sector experience. Unions and women's groups, naturally, find these 

results Intolerable. Employers too are beginning to take this problem seriously, not 

only because of the Increased damages now available to victims of sexual 

harassment, but also because sexual harassment costs employers, daily, millions of 

dollars in lost productivity, job turnover, and sick leave. 

Under the present Administration, the VA has announced a 'zero tolerance' 

policy against sexual harassment. Secretary Jesse Brown has repeatedly acted to 
233 

turn around any previously-accepted view that allegations of sexual harassment will 

merely meet the "good old boy" system of cover-up, denial, and frustration. For 

instance, the VA now requires agency-wide training in sexual harassment, and AFGE 

applauds Secretary Brown for his decision to train all employees, not just managers, in 

sexual harassment. This is something that is not routine in the federal government or 

the private sector. For instance, the employees of Mitsubishi are only now receMng 

such training, and while employees of the Department of the Navy have had such 

training, most other employers do not now provide such training to all their employees. 

The VA has also established a toll-free phone number for allegations of sexual 

harassment, and it is our experience that employees in the VA are now aware that 

such gestures reflect a sincere effort to address the problem from the Secretary's 

Office. 

Nonetheless, incidents of sexual harassment continue. It may even be true th8t 

the nature of the VA's service itself contributes to a culture that permits some forms of 

sexual harassment. I am referring here to the fact that the VA facilities operate 

Independently, under the control of separate directors, and that the workplace provides 

a ready mixture of a male supervisory force, women nurses, and round-the-clock 

staffing. However, anecdotal evidence from AFGE Local officials confirms the general 

observation that the VA Is moving away from a culture that overlooks allegations of 

sexual harassment and toward a culture that responds quickly to such allegations. 

Therefore, AFGE is particularly concerned about the several incidents identified 

today, and known to AFGE, In which high level managers benefit from some sort of 

favored treatment in the agency's response to sexual harassment allegations. We 

know for a fact that the typical worker at the VA would be unable to hold onto his or 

her job under such circumstances, and obviously, we can see no reason why VA 

Directors or managers should be granted exemptions from the new get-tough policy at 

the VA. For this reason, we have remained vigilant on the issue of sexual harassment 

and other forms of unlawful discrimination at the VA, even under the present, more 

concerned, VA administration. 
234 

Two other observations from today's witnesses should be noted. Arst, It Is 

often the fact that the most abusive cases of on-going, festering, unresolved sexual 

harassment occur by managers against other managers. Why? Simply because 

union members have access to an expeditious and Inexpensive remedial process for . 

such violations of federal law; namely the grievance/arbitration process. Under the 

AFGE contract with the VA, union representatives can address and remedy sexual 

harassment before an independent arbitrator within just a few months, and there is 

nothing a recalcitrant VA Director can do to thwart the process. This compares 

sharply with the agency EEO process (known as Part 1614), where managers must go 

If they want a hearing on allegations of sexual harassment. As you know, in the 

agency EEO complaint process, the VA is in charge of investigating Itself, and can 

easily extend numerous deadlines. drag out the case for years prior to a hearing, and 

even reject findings of discrimination for no good reason whatsoever (thereby assuring 

years more of delay), while ali along continuing harassment and reprisal against the 

complainant. When such abuses occur, as they often do, to a union member, the 

AFGE representative can take the next incident of discrimination or reprisal to an 

independent arbitrator quickly, thereby putting an immediate end to the practice and 

controlling the overall cost to the agency and to the employee as well. The value of 

union representation in this adversarial process is equal to its value in today's 

partnership process, and clearly demonstrates why the long-term outrageous cases 

often involve non-bargaining unit employees. 

The second observation from today's witnesses is our firm belief that the series 

of sexual harassment practices attributed to senior-level management is merely 

reflective of other serious failings in management capabilities, the managers' total 

anrogance of power that affects many other employment related deCisions, and the 

VA's total lack of checks and balances on the various facility Directors. Long before 

these managers committed the outrageous acts of sexual harassment, they learned 

that they could ignore their obligations in the labor relations area, sabotage the EEO 

process (as I stated before), and otherwise behave indiscriminately with impunity. 
235 

While we are certainly grateful that the agency hotline telephone number will help to 

remedy Mure cases of sexual harassment, the union would like the same kind of 

attention to earlier signs of other blatant mismanagement. In some of the egregious 

cases detailed today, AFGE's early warnings about the irresponsible conduct of the 

Directors in question went unheeded. 

As I stated earlier, AFGE will remain vigilant on the progress recently taken by 

the VA in response to sexual harassment and other civil rights violations. As an 

example, I would like to show the Committee the attached flyer which announces our 

campaign at selective VA sites across the country to survey the workforce on sexual 

harassment, racial discrimination, and abuses of the agency EEO process. As you 

may know, two recent studies of the federal government have shown large disparities 

in the diSCipline of federal employees by race, and the VA was identified as one of the 

more serious offenders. We would hope that attention to demonstrated racial 

discrimination would equal that of sexual harassment cases. AFGE's union survey, 

which kicks off next week and continues throughout the summer, will explore this 

problem by establishing a toll-free phone number for employees to call with their civil 

rights concerns. I will be glad to share the results of the survey with the Committee 

when we conclude this AFGE-VA civil rights project. Again, I thank you for your 

attention, and I would be glad to answer any questions. 
236 

GRANT DISCLOSURE 

AFGE has no grants or contracts to declare. 

BIOGRAPHY OF KITTY PEDDICORD 

Kitty Peddicord brings a lifetime of government and union experience to her position 

with AFGE. She was elected to her post at AFGE's National Convention August 17. 

1994. after an unprecedented grassroots campaign. Never afraid to stand up for 

workers' rights, Peddicord appeared before Congress in 1987 as a whistleblower while 

still employed by the Social Security Administration (SSA). In 1970, Peddicord joined 

the federal service as a G8-2 file clerk at SSA's Division of Personnel where she 

soon became an AFGE steward with Local 1923. After several years at home and in 

the private sector, Peddicord returned to the SSA Office of Disability Operations as a 

part-time GS-3 typist in the typing pool. She moved up to Benefit Authorizer and 

resumed her post as a steward with the Local. She also served as a member of the 

Local's Health and safety Committee, and later as Chief Negotiator fighting for 

improved working conditions for clerical employees. 

In 1987, Peddicord joined AFGE's National Office as an organizer in the Membership 

and Organization Department. In an eight-year span, Peddicord racked up an 

impressive string of organizing victories, never once losing a campaign that she led. 

Along with her AFGE responsibilities, Peddicord also serves as a board member of the 

Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW). the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), the 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the White 

House Conference on Aging and the Democratic National Committee. She and her 

sons, Ryan and Gary, live in Sykesville, Maryland. 
237 

PROILIM. WITII 

IIICRIMI .7 

Have you experienced: 

.. sex discrimination? 

.. race discrimination? 

.. sexual harassment? 

• 

• 0 ~4~1 .. abuse or frustration with the EEO process? 

IFGE wants to hear from you 

Please call this toll-free number 

for confidential survey: 

1·_·VAVAVAI (828·2821) .R'~ Sponsored by the AmerICan FederatIOn 01 Government Employees AH CIO 
238 

FMA""'---___ _ Federal ManagersAssodation STATEMENT OF 

BERRY D. JORDAN 

PRESIDENT, ZONE 4 

FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

u.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE 

APRIL 17, 1997 

1641 Prince S" .. t • Alexandria VA 21314·2818 • (703) 683-8700 • FAX (703) 683·8707 
239 

® Statement ofFMA PRsidcnt, Zone 4 Berry D. Jordan befo", the Oversight 11 Investigations Subconunlttee 4117197 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Beny D. Jordan and I am the President of the Federal Managers Association (FMA) Zone 4 

(Southeastern United States) and Chair of the Association's Professional Development Committee and 

Federal Management Institute. On behalf of the 200,000 managers and supervisors in the Federal 

Government whose interests are represented by FMA, I would like to thank you for holding this 

important hearing and for allowing us to present our views to the Veterans Affairs Oversight 

Subcommittee on sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. I applaud the Subcommittee's concern 

and leadership in dealing with the very sensitive subject of sexual harassment. 

BACKGROUND 

In opening, I would like to briefly highlight some facts about sexual harassment. In the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national 

origin, and sex. There is no mention of sexual harassment in the statute or its legislative history. 

Additionally, the 1964 act did not, at the outset, apply to the Federal Government. In 1972, the act was 

amended by P.L. 92-261, marking the first time that discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex. 

religion, and national origin in the Federal Government was prohibited by statute. It was not until 1980 

that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidelines interpreting the law to 

forbid sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination (29 CFR 1604.11), and in 1981 a Federal 

appeals court endorsed the EEOC's position that Title VII liability can exist for sexual insults and 

propositions that create a sexually hostile environment. 

According to the Merit Systems Protection Board, nearly half the women (44%) and one-fifth (19"10) of 

the men surveyed in 1994, reported that they had experienced some form of unwanted sexual attention in 

the Federal workplace. The October 1995 MSPB study, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: 

Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, reports that Federal agencies have been successful in their 

efforts to increase awareness and educate Government workers about sexual harassment. Over 87% of 

Federal supervisors and 77% of nonsupervisory personnel have received training in the area of sexual 

harassment. Somewhat ironically, MSPB cites the success of education efforts as a factor contributing to 

the slight increase in reported incidence in sexual harassment since the Board's last survey in 1987. This 

page -1-
240 

® Statement ofFMA PRsidcnt, Zone 4 Beny D. Jordan before the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee 4117/97 

is mainly due to an evolving definition of sexual harassment that is becoming progressively more 

inclusive. 

MSPB also estimates that sexua1 harassment cost the Federal Government $327 million between 1992 

and 1994 in increased use of sick leave and an increase in employee turnover. At a time when the civil 

service has eliminated a quarter million positions and agency budgets are being strained to the limit, 

Federal workers, agencies and the American public cannot afford the negative costs of sexual harassment. 

ZERO TOLERANCE 

FMA's position on sexual harassment, is unequivocal. Harassment on the basis of sex is clearly If 

violation of Section 703 of Title VII. 

Zero tolerance should not just be an empty phrase. It should mean that Federal agencies will take 

immediate corrective action after being put on notice that an employee is being subjected to sexual 

harasSment on its premises. Failure to take corrective measures is unacceptable and subordinates the 

spirit and intent of the law. FMA supports EEOC's position that employers are required to take prompt 

remedial action when sexual harassment occurs and is supported by the evidence. 

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW 

In the MSPB survey previously mentioned,both men and women employees concluded that managers 

were not consistent in punishing harassers, sometimes basing discipline on the harassers rank, instead of 

the seriousness of the offense. While agencies may be tempted to weigh the influence of an individual in 

deciding what actions are appropriate, punishment should be based solely on the offense and not on rank. 

Strong leadership in this area will pay dividends in the form of a professional and motivated workforce 

secure in the knowledge that no one in the agency is above the law. 

In addition to the importance of effectively addressing acute cases of sexual harassment, FMA is 

concerned that more education and training should be available for managers and supervisors on 

understanding their roles in identifYing, preventing, and responding to sexual harassment. Upper levels of 

management must understand what sexual harassment is and set the example for others to follow. 

page-2-
241 

® SIaIement ofFMA Pmidcol, Zone 4 Berry D. Jordan bcfo", the Oversighl.t.lnvestigations Subcommittee 4117/97 

FMA SUpports the EEOC definition that sexual harassment at work occurs whenever unwelcome conduct 

on the basis of gender affects a person's job. This definition is not strictly limited to a traditional notion 

of sexual harassment, i.e., "if you don't sleep with me you won't get that promotion you want." It is 

defined as any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical 

conduct of a sexual nature. Managers must enforce the law that says any unwelcome sexual conduct or 

attention is sexual harassment ifit affects an employee's ability to perform their job. 

It is equally important that, just as managers understand their roles in responding to sexual harassment 

matters, employees need to receive training focused on: what constitutes sexual harassment; the agencies 

position; and, the complaint system procedure for processing allegations of sexual harassment. 

FMA supports making sure that everyone from file clerk to political appointee knows: the law on sexual 

harassment in clear terms; that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in any form; that agencies will treat 

every incident seriously by developing and implementing guidelines; that each employee in the work place 

knows prompt corrective action will be taken; and, that supervisors and managers will follow up on 

decisions and be alert to possible future problems. 

SUCCESSFUL EEO OPERA nON PROMISING PRACTICES 

There are 1. 9 million employees in the Executive Branch in numerous departments, agencies and bureaus 

serving in professions as varied as military upgrade and repair work, controlling air traffic, processing 

Social Security benefits, collecting taxes, caring for our veterans and enforcing our Nation's labor laws. 

The people who are Government's greatest resource are as diverse as the countless occupations in which 

they serve. The marvelous diversity of America's workforce is a tremendous asset that when managed 

properly produces remarkable results. In FMA' s view and experience the following are hallmarks and 

promising practices of successful EEO operations: 

• A sound EEO program's mission should be to resolve EEO complaints of discrimination at the lowest 

possible level within the organization; 

• Program ownership should rest under the agency's head; 

pice -3-
242 

® SIaICmCDt oCFMA PrcsidenI. Zooc 41lcny D. Jordan before the OYenigbt cllmesliplioos Subcommittee 4/17197 

• A full-time properly trained chiefEEO counselor should be given authority to manage the program; 

• EEO counselors should be selected and trained to advise employees and managers, conduct limited 

fact finding, and be neutral in attempts to resolve employee concems; 

• EEO program should be structured to identifY problem areas in the agency; 

• EEO programs should process and resolve complaints in a timely manner in accordance with EEOC 

guidelines; 

• EEO chief counselors should keep senior leaders of the agency informed about EEO issues; 

• Implementation of an aggressive EEO education program should include some type of Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) initiative; 

• An automated tracking system of EEO complaints should be established; 

• Key managers should be briefed on EEO complaint data quarterly; 

• Pamphlets and/or brochures should be developed and distributed to the workforce outlining the steps 

in the EEO process including the pre-complaint and complaint stages; 

• Periodic complainant surveys should be developed and distributed to the workforce to let the agency 

know how well complainant's needs are being met; 

• Monthly reports to directors highlighting departmental EEO activity should be provided for review 

and action; 

• Quarterly EEO meetings chaired by a senior management official and attended by agency heads 

should be implemented for an agency-wide prospective ofEEO activity; 

• ChiefEEO counselors should analyze report data and provide results to senior level management for 

review and action; 

• Chief EEO counselors should develop workshops on conflict resolution; 

• As is currently the practice in DOD, agencies should establish partnerships between themselves and 

an independent investigative body to prevent the perception of conflict of interest. 

Agencies implementing these practices enjoy: I) higher resolution rates ofEEO complaints; 2) lower 

numbers offormaJ complaints; 3) stability of the EEO counseling program; and, 4) a proactive approach 

to complaint resolution. 

pace + 
243 

® Stalemelll ofFMA ~ Zone <4 Deny D. Jordan before the Oversight &: Investigations Subcommittee 4117197 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In conclusion, FMA recommends: 

I. The concept of hostile environment and sexual harassment should be institutionalized through 

education and training of both supervisors and employees. 

2. When a preponderance of evidence reveals sexual harassment has occurred, immediate corrective 

action should be taken. 

3. Public agencies should be encouraged to expand the use of alternative dispute resolution to 

supplement the current EEO complaint process. 

4. Supervisors and managers should be made aware of their rights when identified as principle agency 

witnesses in sexual harassment complaints. ' 

S. That the above listed elements of a successful EEO operation should be implemented 

6. Agencies should incorporate clear criteria into their personnel performance evaluations requiring 

adherence to EEO principles. 

CONCLUSION 

I want to thank you again for inviting FMA to present our views to the Subcommittee on sexual 

harassment. FMA looks forward to working with you this year to improve the ability ofFederaI 

managers and supervisors to take responsibility by acting promptly and taking corrective action to stop 

discrimination and ensuring there is not reprisal against the victims. 

This concludes my prepared remarks I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

*** 

FEDERAL GRANTS: FMA has not received any Federal grants or contracts within the last two years. 
244 

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES 

CHAIRMAN EVERETT TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS 

CONCERNING THE APRIL 17, 1997 

HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA 

FROM THE HONORABLE TERRY EVERETT 

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

COMMITIEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

U.s_ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

1. Is the Department satlslled with the way th~ Calhoun rase was handled with respect to 

the IG Investigation, the VISN site visit, management actions and dedslons, and human 

resources and legal support? 

Answer: Overall, the Deparunent accomplished its goal of removing Mr. Jerome Calho'ln as 

Director, V A Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC. In retrospect, we believe if the evidence was 

further developed with enhanced coordination between the Office of Inspector General, VISN 

management, human resources and regional counsel, a removal from Federal service may have 

been pUlllued. V A has now established a policy that requires d11 proposed actions against senior 

officials be reviewed by the Office of Human Resources Management, Office of General 

Counsel, and the Office of the Secretary prior to the action being taken. 

2. Why does VA beHeve Mr. Calhoun shoald be considered for re-entry into the SES? 

Answer: At this time, V A does not believe Mr. Calhoun should be accepted back into the SES. 

However, under existing law, VA does not have the ability to prevent any citizen from applying 

for any position in the Senior Executive Service, even if the applicant's lack of qualifications or 

negative past employment record make it clear that the applicant is not a credible candidate for 

selection. If Mr. Calhoun does apply for re-entry into the SES with the Deparunent of Veterans 

Affailll, V A would consider his past performance as a medical center Dire,'tor, iilId whether he 

met the rehabilitation terms of his settlement agreement, before making any determination on his 

re-entry. 

3. waS Dr. Gross receiving confticting advice and case evaluations from VA's attorneys, 

personnel advisors and the IG's oMce. 

Answer: VA's attorneys, personnel advisors, and the !G's of'ice gave Dr. Gross appropriate 

advice and case evaluations on the Calhoun case. However, there were weaknesses in 

communication between managers, lawyers and personnel advisors. V A is taking action to 

strengthen the communications among all of these parties involved in disciplinary cases, 

particularly those concerning senior management employees. On March 28, 1997, the Assistant 

Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, issued a memorandum requiring that all 

proposed actions related to conduct or performance involving occupants of positions centralized 

to the Secretary (which include all SES and GS-IS positions) be reviewed in V A Central Office 

by an appropriate high-level official, who is required to coordinate his or her review with the 

Office of Human Resources Management, the Office of General Counsel, and the Secretary's 

Office. 

4. Do you beHeve that the Whatiey Report was an adequate and accurate portrayal of the 

situation at Fayetteville? 

Answer: Based on the limited charge that the VISN Director gave to Mr. Whatley. we believe 

the report was adequate and accurate. 

S. The Committee has Infonnation that Mr. Whatiey was Informed of Ms. Doris MooreRussell'. poasIhle concerns about Mr. CalhOWL Why was she not interviewed? 

Answer: She was not interviewed because Mr. Whatley's charge was to review the effectiveness 

of top management at the Medical Center;'specifically, the effectiveness of the Director. In this 

case, individual allegations of sexual harassment were the responsibility of the Inspector General 

to investigate. 
245 

6. Wby was the proposed removal not based on anything other than wbat was In the 

Inspector General's report on the three cases 0( alleged sexual bara.sment and abusive 

treatment at FayettevlUe? 

Answer: At the time, it was VA management's primary goal to remove the fonner Director as 

quickly as possible, based on the 10's fmdings and on the personal assessment of the VISN 

Director, as continned by the Whatley repon. In retrospect, we believe that the sexual 

harassment and the abusive atmosphere, coupled with perfonnance issues, may have made the 

case against Mr. Calhoun stronger. 

7. Was there ever an "evidence file" to accompany the proposed removal in the Calboun 

case? 

Answer: No. 

8. Did you consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances In Mr. Calhoun's case? If 

so, please describe the circumstances. 

Answer: There are no mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would serve to excuse 

sexual harassment or discrimination, or abusive treatment of employees. 

9. Please describe the authority of a network director to issue a letter of proposed removal 

for a hospital director. 

Answer: The Under Secretary for Health had been delegated authority to effect disciplinary and 

adverse action for Senior Executive Service employees. He may further delegate this authority to 

propose and decide disciplinary and adverse action to other officials in the supervisory chain. A 

Network Director would not have authorily to independently issue a letter of proposed removal 

for a hospital director unless this were expressly delegated by the Under Secretary for Health. 

10. Did Dr. Gross have the proper authority to issue the letter of proposed removal to Mr. 

Calboun? 

Answer: No. The Under Secretary for Health had not delegated authority to Dr. Oross to issue 

the October 25 letter of proposed removal. 

11. If the proposed removal had gone forward, wbo would bave been the deciding official 

for the case? 

Answer: As noted, no fonnal delegation of authority had been made. However, the most likely 

decision would have been to designate the Chief Network Officer as the deciding official, acting 

on a proposal from the Network Director. 

12. How many other VHA employees with a similar position or responsibillties as Mr. 

Calhoun make over $100,000? 

Answer: Two. 

13. Does Mr. Calhoun make more than bis Immediate supervisor? H so, what Is his 

immediate supervisor's salary? 

Answer: Yes, Mr. Calhoun does make more than his immediate supervisor. whose annual salary 

is $81,429. 

14. How many EEO complaints or grievances are pending against Mr. Calhoun at 

Fayetteville, and what Is their status and general nature? 

Answer: A recent review showed that the EEO complaint files at the V AMC Fayetteville are in 

disarray. VA is sending an experienced EEO manager in to Fayetteville to organize these mes 

and to put the EEO program back on track. At this time, we know of 11 fonnal EEO complaints, 

flied by 9 different complainants. that are currently pending against Mr. Calhoun. There are no 

2 
246 

grievances currently pending. The EEO complaints allege a variety of different things, but are 

primarily concerned with general barassment and sexual barassment They are pending at 

various stages in the complaint process. 

15. How does the "save pay" provision operate, and how did it specifically apply to Mr. 

Calhoun's situation? 

Answer: In accordance with 5 U.S.c. 5363 and 5 CFR 536.I04(b), an agency may grant pay 

retention to an individual whose pay would otherwise be reduced as a result of a management 

action. Individuals granted this "saved pay" protection may retain the rate of basic pay they were 

earning immediately before the management action, up to 150 percent of the maximum of the 

grade of their new position. 

In Mr. Calhoun's case, he was earning $101,600 basic pay as an ES-2 immediately before his 

reassignment to Bay Pines, Florida. V A granted pay retention to Mr. Calhoun, enabling him to 

retain his rate of basic pay at $101,600. He is entitled under the law to one half of any future 

increases in the maximum rate of pay for GS-14. 

Mr. Calhoun was receiving locality comparability pay (LCP) at Fayetteville, NC, of $4,888, for a 

total pay of $106,488. He continues to receive the same amount of LCP in Bay Pines. The LCP 

for Bay Pines is the same as for Fayetteville, so there was no change in Mr. Calhoun's pay upon 

his reassignment 

16. Is "save pay" possible If a member of the Senior Executive Service has been formally 

disciplined? 

Answer: Although saved pay is not guaranteed in formal disciplinary actions, it may be 

appropriate in situations where formal charges are resolved by settlement Saved pay is provided 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3594 and 5 CFR Part 359, Subpart G when a "career" Senior 

Executive Service (SES) employee is placed in a position outside the SES at a GS-15 or 

equivalent. or higher, as a result of (I) removal during probationary period for performance, (2) 

removal for less than a fully successful performance rating, (3) removal for failure to be 

recertified, or (4) reduction in force. 

In addition, all SES employees are also entitled to saved pay (in accordance with 5 U.S.c. 5363 

and 5 CFR 536.104(b), if they are placed in a GS position at any grade level if (I) the placement 

is based on a management action and would otherwise result in a reduction in basic pay, (2) the 

placement is not for personal cause or at the employee's request. and (3) pay saving under 5 

U.S.C. 3594 is not applicable. The saved pay may not exceed 150% of the pay rate of the grade 

to which the former executive is assigned. 

17. Was Mr. Calhoun ever formally disciplined? 

Answer: No, and a review of Mr. Calhoun's official personnel folder indicates no incidents of 

prior disciplinary action. 

18. The VA provided the Subcommittee with a chart called "Saved Pay for Former SES 

employees." It lists the reasons for which saved pay can be granted. Please state which 

reasons VA used In agreeing to Mr. Calhoun's saved pay In the settlement. 

Answer: VA retained Mr. Calhoun's pay in accordance with 5 U.S.c. 5363 and 5 CFR 

536.104(b), because the placement was based on a management action that would otherwise 

result in a reduction in basic pay. 

19. Please Identify the Indivldual(s) who actually drafted the settlement agreement In the 

Calhoun case. 

Answer: Dr. Leroy Gross, Director, VISN 6, dictated the points to be included in the settlement 

agreement to Mr. Larry Sullins, Employee Relations Specialist. V A Headquarters. Mr. Sullins 

typed the settlement agreement based on the information provided by Dr. Gross. The agreement 

was faxed to Kathleen Oddo, a Regional Counsel staff attorney, who provided technical 

comments on the agreement Some of those comments were incorporated into the agreement 

3 
247 

20. The lnspector General prepared a three volume case file whldt ronsisIs or traJwaipts 

and other related doc:uments complied during the IG Investigation at Fayetteville. A copy 

of the ftle was provided by VA to the Subcommittee. At the very beginning of the ftrst 

volume, there Is a type written note with the title "CALHOUN CASE". In bold print, It 

says, "No quid pro quo sexual harassment", the VA OlG erred". Please describe the 

purpose or this doc:ument, identify Its author and the reason for Its presence In the IG case 

file. 

Answer: The document was prepared for internal discussion purposes only. The document 

sbould have been removed prior to being reviewed by external sources. The document was 

prepared by Mr. Larry Sullins, Employee Relations Specialist. for the pUJ1lOse of discussing 

potential problems/weak points in the IG investigation. 

21. There is another statement In the same document which says, "VA Central Office 

MCCK omdal encouraged Ms. Force to fabricate sexual harassment charge". Please 

explain the basis or this statement. 

Answer: This statement was listed as a potential argument that could be made by Mr. Calhoun's 

attorney that could possibly weaken VA's case upon a third party review. If the statement was 

found to have merit. Ibis could seriously damage any case against Mr. Calhoun. 

22. Whose responsibility was II to prepare the "evidence file" for the proposed removal? 

Was one prepared? If not, why not? 

Answer: Evidence mes are routinely prepared by human resources management staff, regional 

counsel, and supervisors/managers. The evidence me should have been prepared prior to 

issuance of the proposed removal letter. Generally, the individual(s) who prepare the proposed 

action would also prepare the evidence me. In this particular case, the proposed removal letter 

was prepared by the office of the VISN 6 Director and the office of Regional Counsel. The 

proposed removal letter was erroneously issued prior to the development of the evidence me and 

fmali1ing of the. charges. 

23. \\-bat remedJai or other training will Mr. Calhoun undergo as a result of his behavior 

at Fayetteville? 

Answer: Mr. Calhoun will participate in the established training in cultural diversity and the 

prevention of sexual harassment required of all employees at the Bay Pines facility. Bay Pines' 

management is also identifying other appropriate training in these areas. Mr. Calhoun is also 

responsible for identifying and participating in additional training as part of his own efforts at 

rehabilitation. Local V A Medical Center management will be monitoring activity and results in 

both aspects of Ibis training endeavor. 

24. In one of the 12 sexual harassment cases about which V A provided Information to tile 

Subcommittee, VA entered a settlement where the alleged harasser received a $25,000 

retirement buyout. Please provide the Subcommittee the details and tile chronology of tile 

buyout and tile related sexual harassment or hostile environment allegations, Including 

when any persons In the EEO or grievance process, and in management first became aware 

of tile sexual harassment or hostile environment allegations. 

Answer: In March 1995, VHA ,received approval from the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to offer buyouts to selected categories of employees to help restructure and redesign the 

organization, while reducing the numbers of managers and supervisors. VHA offered the buyout 

to all Medical Center DireclOrS as a class, and did not impose any other criteria for eligibility. 

The chart following Ibis answer shows a chronology of the buyout and the related sexual 

harassment or hostile environment allegations. 

VHA offered buyouts 10 each of the 16 directors who had expressed interest including 

one direcoor who had sexual harassment allegations against him. At the time the buyouts were 

offered, VHA had no formal basis on which to deny this director the buyout. Based upon the 

advice provided by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), these allegations were not a 

basis for which to withhold the buyout unless there was an evidence me, a letter of formal 

4 
248 

charges issued to the employee, receipt and consideration of the employee's response, if 

provided, and a formal decision letter issued imposing disciplinary or adverse action. VHA had 

not reached any of these stages in its review of this case. 

The statutory authority to provide buyouts to employees expired on March 31, 1995. If VHA 

declined to offer the buyout to the director pending adjudication of the charges, it would not have 

had the authority to subsequently offer the buyout to him. If the charges had been found to be 

without merit, he would have been unjustly penalized, wirh no provision to make him whole. 

On May 17, 1995, rhe Offiee of rhe General Counsel dismissed rhe EEO complaint med against 

this director. 

00 ... EEOc... • ... .,r.AcIIoft 

_ut __ 1Y 

September 1. 1993 IMiaI Contact will Counaetor 

Novctmber 30 1993 FlnAl lnt.M.tw with Counnlor 

March 22 1994 FiMd FoRnal ComPieinl 

April 29. 1994 Nob of Receipt Sent hm EEO 

OIfi<»r 

April 29, 1994 

ltr. from EEO Officer ~ 

~~":tlnfonnelon for 

Complainant Nceiv.:t .. ner 

May 3, 1994 NqUeatinq additionaJ Information, 

notwaPOff .. 

Cotnpiainanl ...... Ited that an atttmpt be maca. 10 informally 

Ci~ May 16. 1994 

~ 

,.soNe iuuea. Too many 

ahgationa in fonnal " <om 

Ruignodhorn Janu&rY6 ,_ 

~ruary 16. 1995 lor"-pLoblity 

Determination 

o.taMd from Oirec1Onship due \0 

Htbruary 23. 19Q5 ~ _"'nt ... oed by on 

om ....... , ........ ." 

March 10. 1995 ANociate CMO kif Opefa.tiona 

~~ a Boam of InY8dgalion 

to mv."altaelion. 

March 25, 1995 VHA_IIuyooI' 

Authority 

March $1, 1$95 Buyout approved and director 

retired 

March31 1995 utAu1ho E 'nod 

,"",yl7,I995 Complaint OierniNed by OGC 

25. Please describe the Involvement or each or the Department's lawyers both In the 

regional rounse!'s oI'ftce and the omce 01 General Counsel In the disciplinary ease 

Involving Mr, Calhoun, Including the drafting or the proposed removal, the nqotlatlon 01 

the settlement agreement, the drafting of the setUement agreement and the review or the 

settlement agreement. 

Answer: Materials 'previously furnished to the Committee address the involvement of rhe 

attorneys in the Regional Counsel's office in the Calhoun disciplinary case, and specifically 

address rhe proeess rhat was followed in connection with the draft removal charges. The 

Regional Counsel anorneys consulted an anomey in rhe Offiee of General Counsel, who 

reviewed the draft charges and made some suggestions. No V A attorneys were involved in 

negotiating the settlement agreemenl An attorney in the Regional Counsel's Office made some 

technical and lIubstantive suggestions to a draft of the settlemenl As pan of this process, an 

attorney in rhe Offiee of General Counsel infonnally reviewed rhe proposed settlement, but 

advised VHA staff rhat it needed additional waiver language and orher modifICations. These 

changes were not incorporated in the fmal document, nor was the final document seDt to the 

Office of General Counsel for concurrence. 

5 
249 

26. Wbat allegations or charges against Mr. Calhoun did the settlement cover? 

Answer: The settlement covers the charges of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and 

abusive treatment of subordinates by Mr. Calhoun involved in the rescinded proposed removal 

letter and Inspector General investigation. 

27. Does the settlement agreement preclude V A from bringing other disciplinary actions 

against Mr. Calhoun, If other dlsdpllnary matters are found relating to his conduct In VA 

Medical Centers at Fayetteville, NC; Batavia, NY; or elsewhere? 

Answer: The settlement agreement would not preclude V A from bringing disciplinary action for 

other substantiated offenses at V AMC Fayetteville or other V AMC's. The settlement agreement 

would preclude V A from bringing disciplinary action only for offenses related to the charges of 

sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and abusive treatment of subordinates by Mr. 

Calhoun involved in the rescinded proposed removal letter and Inspector General investigation. 

28. Is It correct that a staff attorney In the VA OfIIce of General Counsel In Washington, 

DC, only Informally looked at the settlement of the Calhoun case to ascertain whether It 

was an enforceable agreement and that your office did not formally review or concur In 

this legally binding resolution of cases Involving serious charges against a very senior VA 

official? Please clarify the drcumstances of the Involvement of the OfIIce of General 

Counsel In the Calhoun case. 

Answer: See response to question 25. 

29. What Is VA policy regarding General Counsel review and concurrence In Important 

VA legal matters? 

Answer: V A policy is, and has been, to require General Counsel review and concurrence in all 

matters which involve substantive legal issues. Steps have been taken to better identify such 

matters, and to ensure appropriate General Counsel participation in all future matters requiring 

such review. 

6 
250 

POST·HEARING QUESTIONS 

CONCERNING TIlE APRIL 17,1997 

HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN TIlE VA 

FROM THE HONORABLE MICHAEL BILIRAKIS 

MEMBER, SUBCOMMlTI'EE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

COMMl1TEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

1. In 1993, GAO reported that the Secretary had approved Its recommendation to do an 

agencywlde survey to ....... employee concerns about sexual harassment, discrimination 

and the handHng of complaints. In your written testimony you stated that a survey was 

ronducted In 1996. Why did It take three years to ronduct this stody? 

Answer: Initially, there was debate over whether the survey should inclode all VA employees, 

or just a scientifically selected representative sample. That required consultations with a 

contractor and evaluations of costs and sources of funding. Once that was resolved, the contract 

had to he arranged, which took several months, and was concluded on Septem ber 30, 1994. 

Thereafter, the contractor had to be given sufficient time to propose questions, test those 

questions on focus groups (1/95), conduct pretests (8/95), revise the questions as needed, and 

then mail them out (1/96). All surveys were received by the end of April, 1996, and a 

preliminary report was prepared at the end of July 1996. That preliminary report was returned 

with comments and suggestions for improvement in January of 1997 and the penultimate product 

was presented by the contractor for review and approval on March 3 I, 1997. It is now being 

reviewed by the Secretary's Ad Hoc Working Group on Sexual Harassment, which was the body 

that commissioned the survey. We expect a fmal report in the very near future. 

2. Concern has been expressed about the apparent lenient actions taken In cases of 

substantiated harassment by senior VA ollldals. How does the VA Co about detennlnlng 

the severity of actions It will take In sudt Instan<es? What factors enter Into the decision· 

maklng process and who has the llnal dedsIon-making authority? 

Answer: V A uses a "Table of Examples of Offenses and Penalties" for determining the severity 

of actions to be taken against senior offICials. The table is listed in VA's policy, Mp·5, Part I, 

Chapter 752, dated October 18, 1994, and identifies a range of penalties for specified offenses. 

Among other things, the decision official considers the severity of the offense, the individual's 

response and past disciplinary record, and the Douglas Factors. The decision· making authority 

for disciplinary actions against senior officials has been delegated to Assistant Secretaries, 

Administration Heads, and Other Key Officials with the Department. 

3. V A recently organized Into 22 veterans Integrated service networks. What role do the 

directors of networks play In overseeing the processing of complaints of sexual harassment, 

particularly complaints that Involve the medical centers' management triad • the director, 

chief of starr, and the 8SIIOdate and or assistant directors? 

Answer: Network Directors are responsible for fulfilling the role and responsibilities of the EEO 

Officer by providing a "Higher Level Review" of all formal complaints of sexual harassment. to 

include those involving Medical Center Directors, Chiefs of Staff, and Associate/Assistant 

Directors. The Network Directors are required to review the complaints to determine whether 

their intervention is appropriate and to monitor the processing until they have received the formal 

complaint of investigation from the Office of Equal Opportunity. 

4. We have been dealing with executive misconduct. For comparative pu~, can you 

provide the Subcommittee with information on the frequency of similar misconduct by 

non-executlve personnel and the actions taken in these cases? 

A ..... er: This information is not readily available, as our personnel database does not distinguish 

those disciplinary actions taken for acts of sexual harassment from disciplinary actions taken for 

other types of misconduct V A is presently developing a reporting system for allegations of 

sexual harassment which will. among other things. report on disciplinary actions. The directive 

7 
251 

is presently in the concurrence process, after which it must be coordinated with V A's emplOyee 

unions. VA expects to have it issued by the end of the summer. 

S. We have been talking about sexual harassment cases. What has been the VA's 

experience with executives found to have been Involved with other forms of mIsronduct 

such as the misuse of govenunent property, etc.? 

Answer: When allegations of misconduct are sustained, V A has taken corrective action, which 

ranges from counseling to demotion. Some individuals have retired before disciplinary action 

was taken. Administrative disciplinary proceedings do not survive a resignation and are not a 

basis for withholding voluntary retirement, under present law. 

6. Did Mr. Calhoun receive any &exuaI harassment training? 

Answer: Yes. Mr. Calhoun received training on the prevention of sexual harassment at the 

V AMC Buffalo, New York, while serving as the Associate Director. Just prior to, and in 

anticipation of his appointment as Director of the VA Medical Center in Fayetteville, he also 

received 3 days training at VHA's national BOO conference in Orlando, Florida. As part of his 

participation in the training conference, be received training on the recognition and prevention of 

sexual harassmenL 

7. WID Mr. Calhoun receive any remedial training as a result of his behavior at 

FayettevlUe? 

Answer: Mr. Calhoun will participate in the established training in cultoral diversity and the 

prevention of sexual harassment required of all employees at the Bay Pines facility. Bay Pines' 

management is also identifying other appropriate training in these areas. Mr. Calhoun is also 

responsible for identifying and participating in additional training as part of his own efforts at 

rehabilitation. Local V A Medical Center management will be monitoring activity and results in 

both aspects of this training endeavor. 

8. Is Mr. Calhoun's current salary being paid out of the Bay Pines medical center budget? 

Answer: The Bay Pines facility was allocated funds from VHA Headquarters, so it did not have 

to absorb Mr. Calhoun's salary from its bodgeL 

9. How many employees who have been found guilty of sexual harassment stili work for 

VA. What are their current positions? 

Answer: At present, V A has only surveyed actions against senior management officials. Nine 

have resigned or retired after having been informed of the allegations against them. Two have 

been demoted and reassigned. We cannot report on all disciplinary actions taken as a result of 

the zero tolerance policy, with respect to all other employees, unless the employee has been 

found guilty of sexual harassment in a fmal agency decision issued on an EEO complainL There 

have been 6 fmdings of sexual harassment discrintination, involving 4 different VA employees (3 

supervisors who were not senior managers and I co-worker). Only the co-worker still wodes for 

VA That co-worker's case involved a sign which another co-worker found offensive. The 

employee was required to take the sign down and was counseled. 

10. How much money has the VA spent on &exuaI harassment settiements? 

Answer: There is no centralized repository in VA for reporting this information. 

11. At our 1m hearing, the Inspector General's omce testlfted that an IG task force 

survey of the EEO processes at both Central 0IIIce and at 11 VA fadlltles to review and 

resolve &exuaI harassment and other EEO complaints found that: 

1. The training requirements for EEO counselors appeared non-spedftc and there 

was a Iadt of training plans and documentation that the training had In fact taken 

pIIa. 

8 
252 

2. The documentation requirements for informal complaints as well as Ute 

reporting requirements for such complaints need strengUteuing. 

3. There Is Ute potential for under reporting of formal complaints of sexual 

harassment because Utere was no such category specified on Ute EEO complaint 

form. 

What steps has Ute Department taken to correct Utese deficiencies? 

Answer: All EEO Counselors, by regulation, must now be trained at an approved course before 

they assume their counseling responsibilities. A new training course was developed to ensure 

that the training was appropriate. Reporting requirements were strengthened in an interim 

regulatory issuance, and more changes are pending. In addition, V A revised its EEO complaint 

form to include, among other things, a separate category for sexual harassment. 

12. As I understand It, under Ute terms of Ute settiement, Mr. Calhoun may be considered 

for re-entry Into Ute Seuior Executive Service (SES) nfter Utree years. Is Utls correct? 

Answer: Any individual may apply for appointment to the SES at any time in response to a 

notice of potential vacancy. This includes individuals previously removed from the SES. Mr. 

Calhoun can re·apply to the SES after 3 years of the date of the settlement agreement Without 

this provision, Mr. Calhoun could have re-applied to the SES immediately. Additionally Mr. 

Calhoun would also have to be recertified for the SES by the Office of Personnel Management, 

which would also consider his past record. 

13. Under Ute terms of Ute settiement, Mr. Calhoun was not admitting guilt to any of Ute 

allegations of sexual harassment, Isn't Utat correct? 

Answer: Yes, that is correct. 

14. Based on Ute Inspector General's Investigation into Ute sexual harassment complaints 

and Ute oUter management Issues at Ute Fayettevme Medical Center, It seems to me Utat Ute 

Department should have been taklng steps to remove Mr. Calhoun from Federal service. 

Why did Ute Department negotiate a setUement wlUt him Instead? 

Answer: V A reviewed the evidence against Mr. Calhoun which was developed by the Inspector 

General. V A was not convinced it would have prevailed in either the Merit System Protection 

Board or the courts upon appeal. V A determined that its overwhelming priority was to remove 

Mr. Calhoun from his role as medical center Director, and place him in a setting where he had no 

supervisory or managerial duties. The settlement achieved those objectives. 

15. What are Mr. Calhoun's current responsibilities? 

Answer: A copy of Mr. Calhoun's position description is attached. 

16. What b his current grade? 

Answer: Mr. Calhoun is a GS-14. 

17. How Is It Utat a GS-14 can make $106,000 a year? 

Answer: Mr. Calhoun retained his Senior Executive rate of pay under the provisions of 5 CPR 

536.104(b) as provided in the settlement agreement 

18. What Is Ute maximum a GS-14 normally makes? 

Answer: The maximum rate for a GS-14 employee in the Bay Pines locality would be $82,120 

per annum. 

9 
253 

POST ·HEARING QUESTIONS 

CONCERNING THE APRIL 17, 1997 

HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA 

FROM THE HONORABLE LANE EVANS 

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER 

COMMITIEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

1. What obstacles have prevented the Department from fully implementing the EEO 

program recommendations made by the Omce of Inspector General in March, 1993? 

Answer: All recommendations have been implemented, with the exception of issuance of 

revised Departmental directives and handbooks, which are presently in the concurrence process 

in VA Central Office. However, those may be delayed or significantly revised, as a result of a 

comprehensive review of the Depanment's EEO complaint processing program, which is 

currently underway and which wiU be completed in the near future. 

2. What changes are needed in the structore of the EEO process in V A? 

Answer: A task force has been convened to review the current EEO process. The members of 

the task force are Eugene Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and 

Administration; Linda Belton, Network Director, VlSN II; Art Goff, Civil Rights Advisor to the 

Under Secretary for Health; Patricia Grysavage, Director, External Management and 

Communications, Office of the Under Secretary for Benefits; C. Faye Norred, Director, VA 

Regional Office, Washington, DC; Caren Eirkson, Chief, Personnel Division, National Cemetery 

System; Patricia Novak, Director, Quantico National Cemetery; Neal Lawson, Assist General 

Counsel; Beatrice Pacheco, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel; Shirley Carozza. Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Budget; Joe Schumacher, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Information Resources Management; Patricia O'Neil, Special Assistant to the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning; Gerald K. Hinch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Equal Opponunity; Joyce Felder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources 

Management; Alma Lee , President, National V A Council, AFGE; and Lorraine Payton, 

President, V A Council, NFFE. 

The task force will review all aspects of VA's EEO complaint process and prepare 

recommendations for the Secretary. The first task force meeting was May 28,1997. Their repon 

will be submitted to the Secretary witltin 60 days. 

3. Regarding the December 6, 1996 rescission by the VISN 6 director of proposed adverse 

action, have you determined why the evidence file was not included with the letter 

proposing disciplinary action? What disclpUnary action was proposed in the letter 

resdnded by the VlSN 6 director on December 6, 1996? 

Answer: The evidence file was not included because the VISN Director did not know that an 

evidence file must be prepared and included with a notice of proposed adverse action. That was 

one of the reasons why the notice of proposed adverse action was rescinded. The notice 

proposed Mr. Calhoun's removal from Federal service. 

4. Why are V A employees who are victims of sexual harassment, a hostile work 

environment and/or discrimination not filing EEO complaints? What changes would 

encourage more employees to file a complaint? 

Answer: We are not sure. It has been noted by the MSPB, in several of their surveys on sexual 

harassment, as well as in statistics reponed by the EEOC, that formal complaints of sexual 

harassment are significantly lower than the incidence of sexual harassment reponed in surveys. 

Anecdotal evidence from some of the victims of sexual harassment suggests that removing the 

local field facility Director from his or her role as the facility's EEO Officer would encourage 

more employees to come forward with sexual harassment claims. 

40·881 97 - 9 
254 

5. How and wben did Mr. Calhoun's superiors Drst become aware of his Inappropriate 

and unacceptable behavior? 

Answer: Mr. Calhoun was appointed Direclor of the Fayelteville, NC, VA Medical Center on 

April 3, 1994. AI thaI time, his immediate supervisor was the Regional Director, Southern 

Region. Subsequently, the Fayelleville V A Medical Center was incorporated into the new VISN 

struClure and, as a resull, formal managemenl supervisory control was transferred 10 the DireClor, 

VISN 6, Durham, NC, on February 11, 1996. 

During the time thaI Mr. Calhoun reported to the Southern Region, the Regional Director 

intervened on one occasion in the Spring of 199510 review strained relations between the local 

union, AFGE Local 2080, and V AMC managemenl officials. Through collaborative efforts, 

suggestions were made on ways 10 improve the labor-managemenl relationship resulting in Ibe 

establishment of a partnership agreement. 

There were no other allegations about Mr. Calhoun's inappropriate or unacceptable behavior 

(excepting the complaints about his "excessively aggressive management demands and slyle" 

made by the V AMC's MCCR Coordinators 10 the Regional MCCR Office) which surfaced to the 

Regional Director, Southern Region, during this period. 

The Direclor, VISN 6 became aware of allegations that there were problems shortly after his 

appoinunent in March of 1996. 

6. How I'requently, and by whom, are senior VA managers evaluated and does this 

evaluation include the manager's behavior and treatment of employee's? 

Ans .. er: V A employees in the Senior Executive Service receive annual performance 

evaluations. The initial rating is recommended by the official, usually the immediate supervisor, 

who is responsible for the development of the executive's performance plan and approved by an 

official at a higher level. Each performance plan requires the executive to playa leadership role 

in promoting equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and the elimination of 

diScrimination and sexual harassment. 

Physician, Nurse and Dentist senior managers are evaluated annually under Ibe Proficiency 

Rating System covering individuals employed under the provisions of Title 38. The initial rating 

is recommended by Ibe manager's immediate supervisor and approved by an official al a higber 

level. The proficiency rating elements for these individuals take into consideration their 

management assignments, and provide for evaluation of such aspects of their performance as 

administrative competence and personal qualities. In addition, the performance standards for 

Chiefs of Staff specifically require a demonstrated commitment to achieving EEO goals and 

objectives. 

All other senior managers (nol covered by SES or Title 38) are rated under VA's Performance 

Managemenl Syslem on an annual basis. The initial rating is recommended by Ibe manager's 

immediate supervisor and approved by an official al a higher level. The manager's performance 

plan must have standards IlIat relate to equal employment opportunity and affmnative action. 

If the manager's behavior becomes a conducl issue, corrective action would be processed through 

disciplinary channels. 

7. Ho .. many dlsdpUnary actions have been taken by VA as a result 01 the zero toIenmce 

policy? 

Answer: At present, V A has only surveyed actions against senior management officials. Nine 

have resigned or retired after having been informed of the allegations againsl them. Two have 

been demoted and reassigned. We do nOl have a report of all disciplinary actions taken as a 

result of the zero tolerance policy, with respect 10 all other employees. We are developing a 

semi-annual report IlIaI will allow V A to capture Ibis information. 

8. What actions can VA take to dIange employee perceptions that tile EEO process Is 

biased toward l1l8IUIgement? What actions will V A take and when will these actions be 

taken? 

2 
255 

Answer: VA is currently studying reform of the EEO complaint process. We expect to have our 

review completed and reforms proposed in the near future. 

9. How many EEO Investigators are employed by V A and how many are full-time EEO 

investigators? How long does it take an EEO investigator to complete an investigation and 

wbat is the duration of the longest ongoing current Investigation? 

Answer: V A employs 480 collateral-duty EEO investigators. V A has no full-time EEO 

investigators. V A also contracts with 129 EEO investigators, who are retired V A employees. 

EEO Investigators average 45 days from assignment to completion of the investigation. 

Investigations are not assigned on the date the complaint is filed. On average, in FY 1996, 181 

days elapsed from Ihe filing of a complaint to the completion of the investigation. This is very 

close to the ISO day time limit afforded by the Equal Employment Opponunity Commission in 

its regulations. As to the longest ongoing current investigation, it has been pending for 154 days. 

10. Have Secretary Brown's policies to reduce, If not eliminate, sexual harassment and 

other forms of discrimination in the V A workplace been implemented fully and effectively? 

As a result, is the VA workplace safer, less hostile and less discriminatory? 

Answer: In our view, the policies and the awareness campaign that were implemented to reduce 

sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination in the V A workplace have been successful. 

There are indications that V A employees and managers are receiving the message that these types 

of behaviors will not be tolerated. For example, the three Merit Systems Protection Board 

surveys of sexual harassment show a decrease in incidents of sexual harassment in V A between 

1981 and 1995. 

Sexual harassment and discrimination are very difficult topics to deal with and we hope change 

in the culture will continue. The results of the V A sexual harassment survey will assist us in 

determining how weD we are doing and where our focus should be to continue zero tolerance. 

11. According to testimony by the office of the V A Inspector General, the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) recommended in 1993 that an agency-wide sexual harassment 

survey be conducted at the VA. The testimony further indicates that the V A did not 

conduct the survey until the nrst six months of 1996. Is this information correct, and if so, 

why did the VA take SO long to conduct the survey, and why don't you have the nual 

results and analysis almost a year after the data was collected? 

Answer: Initially, there was debate over whether the survey should include aU VA employees, 

or just a scientifically selected representative sample. That required consultations with a 

contractor and evaluations of costs and sources of funding. Once that was resolved, the contract 

had to be arranged, which took several months, and was concluded on September 30, 1994. 

Thereafter, the contractor had to be given sufficient time to propose questions, test those 

questions on focus groups (1/95), conduct pretests (8/95), revise the questions as needed, and 

then mail them out (1/96) . AU surveys were received by the end of April, 1996, and a 

preliminary repon was prepared at the end of July 1996. That preliminary repon was returned 

with comments and suggestions for improvement in January of 1997 and the penultimate product 

was presented by the contractor for review and approval on March 31 , 1997. It is now being 

reviewed by the Secretary's Ad Hoc Working Group on Sexual Harassmen~ which was the body 

that commissioned the survey. We expect a final repon in the very near future. 

12. During hearings on this identical issue live years ago, former representative Jill Long 

(D-IN), concluded that the VA's sexual harassment policy essentially boiled down to this: 

"If you are sexually harassed, you get demoted, but if you harass, you get transferred, and 

the taxpayers support your defense as well as your salary." Given the recent incident 

Involving Director Calhoun, how has your zero tolerance policy changed since Ms. Long 

made such observations? What steps is the Department taking presently to toughen Its 

policy and keep, as )\Ir. Clyburn stated during the hearing, another Fayetteville from 

occurring? 

Answer: VA did not have a zero tolerance policy five years ago. It does now. Where an 

individual is proven guilty, be or she is disciplined appropriately, if he or she does not resign or 

3 
256 

retire first. In every proven incident of sexual harassment, that is exactly what happened. Mr. 

Calhoun is still under investigation for other allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct If 

evidence warrants additional charges, he will be disciplined. In addition, as mentioned before, 

V A is currently studying reform of its EEO complaint process, in order, among oth~ r things, to 

keep another Fayetteville from occurring. 

13. As you know, the Committee staff has had the opportunity to review the case nle 

regarding the charges against Mr. Calhoun. In her statement alleging harassment by Mr. 

Calhoun, Ms. Force Indicated that she contacted the VA's Regional MCCR Coordinator 

concerning Mr. Calhoun's attempt to relieve her of her MCCR duties, as well as her sexual 

harassment complaints against Mr. Calhoun. According to Ms. Force, the regional 

coordinator told her she should accept a lateral transfer because there was "no way [you] 

could fight a Director." The regional coordinator allegedly went on to say that the "only 

way to win against someone like [Mr. Calhoun) was If 5-6 people went to the medta and 

caused a sUr." To your knowledge, did anyone at the V A or the Inspector General's omce 

investigate these claims? 

Answer: No. 

Has anyone attempted to determine whether the (southern MCCK) regional coordinator 

expressed such views? 

Answer: Yes, but only very recently (5/13/97). 

In summary, the then-Regional MCCR Coordinator (Mr. Andy Enos) states that to his 

recollection of events occurring on this issue during the time period in question, Ms. Force's first 

quote in the above question is essentially correct However, the second quote is not something 

he recalls ever making. In fact, he distinctly remembers no discussion at all by Ms. Force with 

him concerning her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Calhoun; all conversations 

revolved around Mr. Calhoun's attempts to coerce her to work surreptitiously against Mr. Jim 

Crocker (one of her bosses). Apparently. when she told Mr. Calboun that she couldlwould not do 

that, he then began to make her work life miserable. 

Background Information: Mr. Enos and the Assistant Regional Coordinator at that time (Ms. Pat 

Barker) both recall telephonic andlor in-person conversations with Ms. Force and her V AMC 

replacement (in April 1996), both of whom recounted tales of Mr. Calhoun's "excessive and 

profane management style" toward their individual administration of the V AMC's MCCR 

program and their alleged failure to cooperate with him in various aspects of its overall 

management. At one point during the period that Ms. Force was beginning to recount her initial 

difficulties with Mr. Calhoun, Ms. Barker received a call from Mr. Calhoun asking her to 

conduct an on-site review of the V AMC's MCCR program, so that he could supposedly verify all 

the bad things going on within its administration and get the Region's help in making changes. 

Upon completion of her review---during which she found no real indications of any significant 

problems with the local MCCR program---she so informed Mr. Calhoun. who Was reportedly not 

pleased with her report. 

14. During the course of the VA's Investigation, did the Department take a look at Mr. 

Calhoun's previous employment record to see .... hether any similar harassment claims had 

heen made against Mr. Calhoun In the past? U so, what did the Department lind out? U 

not, .... hat has the V A found out since that time concerning prior complaints against Mr. 

Calhoun? 

Ans .... er: The Inspector General conducted the VA's investigation at the time. The Inspector 

General investigated Mr. Calhoun's previous employment record. We have since doublechecked his record, and have found no report of previous complaints of sexual harassment 

against Mr. Calhoun. 

15. In 1\193, Senator Barbara Mlkulsld, expressed concern with the VA's bandIIng of 

sexual harassment compllllnu against a hospital director In Atlanta. In Senator Mlkulsld's 

view, the VA Ipored complaints against the Atlanta Director that had beeD festerl"l for 

years at that fadUty. III responoe to Senator MIIwIsId's c:rItIcIsm, the VA IIIIIIOIl1Ieed an 

overhaul oflts sexual ~t poIIdes. SpedJIcaIly, the Secretary announced his "zero 

4 
257 

tolerimce" policy against sexual harassment; called for the institution of mandatory 

training on the Issue for all V A employees; created a Departmental Task Force on 

Harassment; and called for simultaneous review of sexual harassment complaints by the 

individual hospital and by regional omclals. Please explain in detail how such changes 

have been implemented and the status of these poUcies. Has V A Implemented these 

changes? How has the V A measured the success or failure of its "zero tolerance" policy? 

Answer: V A has implemented all of these changes. The following chronology explains the 

actions taken by the Secretary in detail: 

February 2. 1993 

February 10, 1993 

February 16, 1993 

February 25, 1993 

March 9, 1993 

March 10, 1993 

March II, 1993 

The Secretary notified the White House of his review of the 

Department's EEO program, with special atter.tion to sexual 

harassment. 

Sent Depury Secretary Gober to Atlanta, GA, for an on-site review of 

sexual harassment issues and the employment situation in general. 

Issued an "All Employee Leuer," which: 

• Declared that sexual harassment was unacceptable conduct and 

would not be tolerated. 

• Stated his strong personal commitment to prevent and eliminate 

sexual harassment within VA. 

• Required that impartial reviews be conducted, and that, rompt 

action be taken on all allegations of sexual harassment. 

Issued a Circular which suspended the decentralization of discrimination 

and sexual harassment complaint processing; delegated centralized 

responsibilities to the Office of Equal Opportunity; and established a 

requirement for higher-level reviews of all sexual harassment complaints, 

by a level ahove that of the field facility in which the complaint arose, in 

order to determine whether intervention is required. 

Issued an "AU Employee Leller," which: 

• Required that all current employees receive a minimum of 4 hours 

of training on the prevention of sexual harassment and the 

discrimination complaint process, with refresher training every 2 

years. 

• Required that new employees receive 4 houn; of sexual harassment 

and discrimination complaint training within 60 days of their 

employment. 

• Required that all EEO Counselon; receive training certified by the 

Office of Equal Opportunity before performing EEO Counselor 

duties. 

• Provided that employees be allowed to select an EEO Counselor of 

their choice. 

• Transmiued a copy of the EEO complaint procedures to all 

employees. 

Authorized the establishment of an EEO Information Line (Hotline), to 

provide employees and others a means of obtaining information and 

advice ahout sexual harassment and discrimination, and how to report it 

Established the Secretary's Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment, to 

5 
April 6, 1993 

April 22, 1993 

May 18,1993 

May21,l993 

May 26,1993 

June I, 1993 

July 30, 1993 

258 

address sexual harassment and other gender-related issues. The group is 

composed of headquarters and field personnel, and is representative of 

VA's diverse workforce. 

Met with Harriet Woods, President of the National Womens' Political 

Caucus, to discuss their legislative agenda for women and to discuss the 

Department's plans for ensuring non-discrimination and advancement of 

women in VA. 

Met with his Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment to share his 

concerns and ask for formal recommendations. The Secretary directed that 

the following recommendations of the Ad Hoc Work Group be 

implemented: 

• Field facilities be permitted to add field-specific information to the 

mandated 4-hours training on the prevention of sexual harassment 

and discrimination complaints. 

• Field facilities be given credit toward the 4-hour training 

requirement for training on sexual harassment and discrimination 

complaints given after September of 1992. 

• An employee survey be conducted to determine the extent of 

problems related to sexual harassment in the Department. 

• Conduct a study into problems related to the "glass ceiling" which 

serves to limit the upward mobility of women. 

Met with Carolyn Kroon, President, and Brigadier General Pat Foote 

(Ret.), Military Advisor, from Federally Employed Women (FEW), to 

discuss issues of concern to women employed in the Federal Government 

and VA. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which: 

• Discussed the role employees played in preventing and eliminating 

sexual harassment. 

• Provided a 3-page attachment containing guidelines on sexual 

harassment and what to do about it. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which: 

• Expressed his concern about retaliation and reprisal for reporting 

allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination. 

• Established a requirement for a higher-level review of all 

investigative reports on EEO complaints of retaliation and reprisal, 

by a level above that of the field facility in which the complaint 

arose, in order to determine whether intervention is required. 

Issued a Circular which reported on problem areas related to sexual 

harassment and discrimination complaints, as reported by the General 

Accounting Office, and which required field facilities to review those 

problem areas and report on what procedures were either in place or would 

be put in place to correct those problems. 

Issued an Interim Issue which: 

6 
August 2, 1994 

May 27, 1994 

June 13, 1994 

October 18, 1994 

August 16, 1995 

259 

• Established an enhanced evaluation program for internal reviews of 

EEO policies and procedures, and on-site evaluations of field 

facility EEO programs. 

• Established due dates for the 4-hour training on sexual harassment 

and discrimination complaints, and for the 2-hour refresher courses 

to be taught every 2 years. 

• Established selection and appointment criteria for EEO 

Counselors, as well as training and continuing education 

requirements. 

• Emphasized an employee's right to choose an EEO Counselor of 

his or her choice. 

• Provided specific requirements for recording and reporting EEO 

counseling activities. 

Issued a Circular which: 

• Established incremental time limits for processing EEO complaints 

by field, as well as headquarters personnel. 

• Established performance standards for EEO Officers (Field Facility 

Directors), related to meeting the time limits imposed on them. 

• Established a requirement that every field facility appoint an EEO 

Program Manager who would be responsible for EEO complaint 

processing, and who would not be employed by the Human 

Resources Management Service. 

• Provided guidance on the acceptance and processing of complaints. 

• Provided appointment criteria for EEO Investigators, and 

procedural guidance concerning their operations and control. 

• Provided guidance concerning higher-level reviews of sexual 

harassment and reprisal complaints, as well as concerning the use 

of administrative boards in connection with those higher-level 

reviews. 

• Provided guidance on compliance and reporting requirements for 

EEO complaint processing. 

Issued EEO performance standards for senior executives, which required 

specific and measurable achievements in meeting affirmative employment 

goals and in preventing discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Circulated the Secretary's Performance Agreement with the President, 

which included, as a major goal, becoming an employer of choice by 

ensuring a work environment free from discrimination. Also established a 

requirement that all managers and employees receive 4 hours of training 

on managing and recognizing diversity. 

Issued new V A policy on Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, which 

specified that sexual harassment and discrimination was actionable 

misconduct, and provided for reprimand to removal for a first offense, 

depending on the seriousness of the misconduct. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which reaffirmed the Department's 

7 
1995 to 1997 

March 27,1997 

May 9, 1997 

May 13, 1997 

Ongoing 

260 

Equal Employment Opportunity policy, to include "zero tolerance" for 

sexual harassment and discrimination. 

VA continued to build upon the Secretary's initiatives, by improving 

training, complaint processing, and program oversight. 

Established a committee of senior staff in V A Central Office to review all 

allegations of misconduct against senior managers and executives, to 

ensure that all of them are treated consistently and in accordance with the 

Secretary's "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment and 

discrimination, before any action is negotiated or finalized. 

Issued an "All Employee Letter," which re-emphasized the 

Department's zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment, discrimination, 

and reprisal. 

Established a Task Force to conduct a thorough review of V A' s sexual 

harassment and discrimination complaints system. 

V A has several initiatives underway in the area of sexual harassment and 

discrimination complaints processing. These initiatives include: 

• Development of a centralized reporting procedure for all 

allegations of sexual harassment, whether initiated through the 

EEO discrimination complaints process, or in other forums. 

• Development of a new on-site EEO inspection program, to oversee 

and evaluate the effectiveness of field facility EEO programs. 

• Development of new EEO directive and handbooks, which will 

improve the timeliness and quality of EEO complaint processing. 

16. Have all VA employees been trained on sexual harassment Issues? Can you describe 

for us the nature of the training that has been provided? Does the VA feel such training 

has been useful in curbing harassment? What has been employee reaction to the training? 

Answer: Almost all V A employees have received the mandatory 4 hours initial, and mandatory 

2 hours of refresber training since 1993. Due to unusual circumstances, a few employees may 

not have attended one training module or the other. The attached training module describes the 

training in detail, and was used with the vast majority of V A employees. V A believes that this 

training!tas been useful in curbing sexual harassment. Employee reaction to the training has 

generally been positive. 

17. Can you summarize for us the work of the Departmental Task Force on Harassment? 

How many members are on the Task Force? Who are the members of the Task Force? 

Have rank and file employees been Included in the Task Force and what is the gender 

breakdown of the Task Force? 

Was the Task Force consulted with regard to the allegations against Mr. Calhoun? Is the 

Task Force generally consulted when allegations are made against high level V A officials? 

Has the Task Force made any formal recommendations concerning VA's sexual 

harassment poIicles and procedures? 

Answer: The Task Force is officially called the Secretary's Ad Hoc Working Group on Sexual 

Harassment. They have met on several occasions since 1993, to discuss sexual harassment and 

the Department's survey on sexual harassment. Their focus has been on issues related to that 

survey. Rank and file members were not included on the Working Group. 

The Working Group consists of 14 members; 8 women and 6 men. The Chairperson is Patricia 

McKlem, Director VA Medical Center, Prescott, AZ, and the members are Diana Bloss, Staff 

8 
261 

Attorney. Office of General Counsel. Pittsburgh. PA; Patticia Carrington. Special Assistant to the 

Secretary. V A Central Office; Jose Coronado. Director. V A Medical Center. San Antonio. TX; 

Harold Gracey. Chief of Staff. Office of the Secretary. VA Central Office; Gerald K. Hinch. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity. VA Central Office; R. LaMont Johnson. 

Associate Director. Discrimination Complaint Service. Office of Equal Opportunity. V A Central 

Office; Dorothy MacKay. Veterans Benefits Administration. VA Central Office; AIline Norman. 

Director. V A Medical Center. Lake City. FL; Robert Perreault. Director. V A Medical Center. 

Decatur. GA; Catherine Smith. Director. V A Regional Office. Denver. CO; Eloise Tamez. Chief. 

Nursing Service. V A Medical Center. Brecksville. OH; Julius Williams. Assistant Director. VA 

Regional Office. Washington. DC; Patticia Grysavage. Director. Office of Executive 

Management and Communication. Veterans Benefits Administration. VA Central Office; Ellis 

Jones-Hodges. Director. Affirmative Employment Service. Office of Equal Opportunity. VA 

Central Office; and Fred L. Watson. Director. Field Programs Service. National Cemetery 

System. V A Central Office. 

The Worlting Group was not consulted about the Calhoun matter. nor is it routinely consulted 

about individual cases. The Working Group's made recommendations concerning sexual 

harassment policies and procedures. and they are included in the response to question 15 (see 

April 22). 

18. How ha'l the V A Implemented Its dual processing system for handling complaints? Are 

all complaints investigated at both the fadlity and the regional level? 

Answer: The "dual processing system" does not require any investigations. VA's policy is that 

all complaints of sexual harassment are to be referred for higher-level review above the facility 

level. to determine whether or not intervention is required to protect the complainant or V A until 

such time as an investigation is completed. There is usually only one investigation; either by an 

Administrative Board. or by an EEO investigator. depending on wbether the complainant has 

chosen to file a formal EEO complaint. 

19. Ha'l the V A had a policy in place that sets forth the criteria used to appoint EEO 

Officers at the individual facilities? U so, what criteria is used to decide the EEO Oflkers? 

Answer: By current internal regulations. the EEO Officer is always the field facility Director. 

20. In cases where a senior manager has heen accused of harassment, please explain how 

the V A will conduct Its Initial Investigation Into the allegations? Will these allegations 

always be pa'lSed on to EEO or Human Resources personnel outside the facility, or will 

some investigations stili be conducted by individuals employed at the facility? 

Answer: Where a senior manager has been accused of harassment. it will always be repotted to 

the next higher level of supervision (VISN Directors for VHA or Area Managers for VBA and 

NCS). If a formal EEO complaint has been filed. an outside investigator will always be 

appointed by the Office of Equal Opportunity in V A Central Office. The complainant 

determines whether or not a formal complaint will be filed. If one is not filed, an Administrative 

Board. composed of outside employees will be convened. if the Director is involved. If the 

Associate Director or the Chief of Staff is involved. there may be some local members appointed 

to the Administrative Board who do not work under the supervision of the alleged harasser. 

21. The EEOC ha'l testified that Its gnidelines require the VA to complete its Investigation 

of a sexual harassment complaint within 180 days. What has been the VA's record with 

regard to this l8O-day reqnirement? Has the V A typically completed its investigation at 

the conclusion of the l8O-day period? 

Answer: For the 12-month period ending April 30. 1997. the VA-wide average for all reports of 

investigations containing allegations of sexual harassment was 199 days. 

22. Secretary Gober, ha'l indicated in hioi testimony that the VA seriously considered 

removal of Director Calhoun from the federal service, but decided not to pursue this course 

because of concerns that the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Courts would not 

uphold the removal. What message does that send to V A employees regarding VA's zero 

tolerance" policy? Does "zero tolerance" truly mean that the V A will tolerate 

9 
262 

substantiated allegations of harassment unless it is confident its disciplinary action will be 

upheld by the courts? 

Answer: No. However, in this case, V A determined that the risk of not prevailing made it 

necessary to negotiate a settlement which assured Mr. Calhoun's removal from the Director's 

position in Fayetteville, and from the SES. In every substantiated case of sexual harassment, V A 

will pursue the most appropriate discipline. In retrospect, considering all of the evidence of 

misconduct, including the sexual harassment charges, V A may have been incorrect in its 

assessment that disciplinary action could not have been sustained on appeal. 

23. In spite of the fact that she transferred to the Durham V A Medical Center and was 

unhappy with her Job responsibilities at Durham, Mr. Calhoun stated in an interview with 

the OIG that Ms. Force had not suffered because her pay had not been reduced. Does the 

Department agree with Mr. Calhoun's stated opinlon that Ms. Force did not suffer? (As a 

result of her transfer and assumption of new Job responsibilities she didn't enjoy?) 

In view of Mr. Calhoun's views, does the Department believe the reassignment of Mr. 

Calhoun with no reduction in pay was a disciplinary measure? Based on hls attitude 

expressed to the OIG, do you believe Mr. Calhoun considered his reassignment at the same 

pay a disciplinary measure? 

Answer: VA does not believe that the retention of existing salary levels is the sole criterion for 

determining an employee's level of satisfaction in their employment VA recognize:; that Ms. 

Force's transfer to Durham and assumption of new duties may have significantly reduced her job 

satisfaction and caused dislocation in her personal life. Therefore, V A does not agree with 

Mr. Calhoun's opinion that she did not suffer. 

V A believes that the fact that Mr. Calhoun had to resign from the Senior Executive Service, and 

give up the prestige, influence, authority and autonomy associated with being a medical center 

Director was a severe degradation of his employment situation, even though he did not suffer an 

immediate reduction in his pay. 

10 
----263 

Attachment to Answer to Question #16 

from Hon . Lane Evans . (Training Module) 

THf ppr-VC['JTlON 0, SI XUAI IIAIiASSMI ~IT A~JD THE 

DISCRIMINATION COMPLAIWS PROCESS 

Congratulations! 

You have been selected to assist in a very important training 

initiative - entitled "The Secretary's Initiative on The Prevention of 

Sexual Harassment and The Discrimination Complaints ProcesS.· 

The Secretary o(Veterans Affairs has required 4 hours of training for 

every VA employee In these two EEO program areas by December 31, 

1993. In addition he has required that all employees receive a 

minimum o( two hours refresher training every two years, and new 

employees must receive training within 60 days of employment. This 

training module has been designed to assist you in providing two 

hours of training at your facility. It may be used in total, in part, or be 

tailored to meet any specl~c requirements that your factltty may have. 

This module Is also a supplement to a two-hour videoconference to 

be broadcast on August 24, 1993, that will provide the latest J 

in(onnation on Identifying and dealing with sexual harassment as wel~ 

as detailed steps (or processing EEO complaints of discrimination. ' 

This videoconference and the presentation o( the in(onnation 

contained In this module will complete the Secretary's Initial 

reqUirement (or trainIng. Detailed in(onnatlon has also been provided 

to help you prepare for the broadcast. 

1 am very appreciative o( your efforts to assist the Veterans Health 

Administration In this malor training program. 

Sincerely, 

T.J. Hogan, Director 

Management Support O((tce 
264 

CREDITS 

This instructional course was designed by the Management Support 

Office, EEO/Civil Rights Staff in co-operation with Regional EEO Offices 

and the Office of Academic Affairs. 

This Instructional course 

book was produced by 

Learning Resources Center, 

Washington, D.C. 

Klmluama 

Director 

Morgan Bantly 

Associate Director 

Jon Hirschfeld 

Producer 

Stephen Czalka 

Graphic Artist 

Planning Committee 

Ronald Bryon 

Regional EEO Monager 

Western Region 

Arthur Goff 

CIvI Right. Advisor. Management Support Offlce 

VACO. Washington. DC 

RICardo G~alva 

Regional EEO Manager 

Eastern Region 

T.J. Hogan 

Director. Management Support Ottlce 

VACO. Washington. DC 

CMstlne Nieman 

Regional EEO Manager 

Central Region 

Robert Nooner 

Regional EEO Manager 

Southern Region 

Rita lowe Reese 

Program Analyst. Management Support Office 

VACO. Washington. DC 

Douglas Stewart 

Human Resources Manager 

Western Region 

Mary Ann Totman 

Chief. Program Design 8t Development Division 

learning Resources Service 

VACO. Washington. DC 

Janet Thompson 

EEO Speclanst. Management Support Office 

VACO. Washington. DC 
265 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

• Facilitator's Instructions 

• Background Letters and MSPB Study Summary 

• Part 1 Background, Policy, and 

Definition of Sexual Harassment 

Numbers 1 thru 13 

Activity One (# 13) 

• Part 2 Identifying Sexual Harassment: Its 

Effects and Consequences 

Numbers 14 thru 25 

Activity Two (#25) 

• Part 3 The Discrimination Complaints 

Process: Steps In the Informal Process 

Numbers 26 thru 42 

Activity Three (#27) 

• Part 4 Discrimination Complaints: Steps 

In the Formal Process 

How to Prevent Sexual 

Harassment 

Numbers 43 thru 47 

Activity Four (#47) 

• Additions 
266 

on 

}> 

(') 

r---f 

}> 

-f 

o 

::c 

(f) 

z 

(f) 

-f 

::c 

c: 

(') 

-f 

o 

Z 

(f) 
267 

TIlE PI!rVENTION OF Sr-XUI\L HI\RI\SS~[~IT AriD THE 

DISCRIMINATIO~I COMPLAI~JTS PROCESS 

Please read the notes below 

before using this course. 

This training course has been designed to assist 

you In providing two hours of training In 'The 

Secretory's Initiative on the Prevention of Sexual 

Harassment and the Discrimination Complaints 

Process' at your health care facility. The course 

may be used to provide two of the four hours of 

mandated training and/or may be used In 

total, In port, or may be tailored to meet any 

specific needs for training. We strongly suggest 

that you do a 'dry run' With your colleagues 

before your first session. ThIS will allow you to 

become familiar with the manual, the different 

materials, and the length of time required to 

complete the session. 

The cour.e I. organized Into 4 pari.: 

-Part 1: Background, Policy, and Definition of 

Sexual Harassment (1-13) 

-Port 2: Identltylng Sexual Harassment: lis 

Effects and Consequences (14-25) 

-Pori 3: The Discrimination Complaints 

Process: Steps In the Informal Process 

(26-42) 

-Part 4: Discrimination Complaints: Steps In 

the Formal Process, and How to 

Prevent Sexual Harassment (43-47). 

Within each .ecllon there are: 

1. Transparency Masters 

These Illustrate the facilitator's notes and 

statement.. To use them, they must be 

removed from this book and photocopied onto 

transparency film suitable for overhead 

prolectors. If you need assistance to produce 

the transparencies, you should be able to get 

help from your VAMC Medical Media. We have 

Included In this section 2 blank transparency 

master. to use at your discretion. 

2. Accompanying Facilitator's Notes 

These notes accompany each transparency 

master and reference them by number. They 

Include supportive background Information to 

Instructions 

clarity and explain the pOints being mode. All 

or some of the supportive Information may be 

used at the facilitatar's discretion: the faCilitator 

should feel free to odd additional studies, 

illustrations, or anecdotes to help get these 

pOints across. 

3. Four Reproducible Handouts 

These are activities designed to stimulate 

discussion and participation In your training. 

The four acllvltles should be photocopied for 

distribution to attendees at the beginning or 

end of each section. An annotated facilitator's 

copy remains In the book, for your reference 

during the discussion. 

Before each training leilion. do the following: 

1. Reserve a room and an overhead projector 

for the training. You will need 2 1/2 hours, 

Including set up time. 

2. Make the transparencies. There Is a large 

number of them (almost half the bOOk), so be 

sure they are mode In advance. You need to 

do thIS only before the very first session because 

they can be reused for each successive 

training. After the transparencies are mode, 

replace the masters In their positions In the 

book (they are numbered; place them before 

the corresponding facilitator's notes), for 

reference durtng the sessions. 

3. Set up an overhead projector to show the 

transparencies. 

4. Photocopy the sign-up sheet from this 

section. Make enough caples to lISt all the 

attendees' names. Put It on a clip board so It Is 

easily seen and doesn't get lost. 

5. Photocopy the activity pages. Make 

enough for each trainee to receive one of 

each. 
How to structure the ,e"lon 

Before the trainees enter, place the nrll 

transparency on the overhead proJector so It 

can be viewed as they come In. 

Have each trainee sign In as he or she enters. 

Note that employees will be given credit on 

their official training record for attending the 

course, and that the sign-up sheet will be used 

by Medical Center directors to certify that 

employees have attended the training. 

Greet the tralneel and begin the session with 

facilitator's note 111. 

Continue with subsequent transparencies and 

notes, following any Instructions. You can 

control the presentation of Information by 

covering a transparency with paper, exposing 

data when you are ready to discuss each 

point. In the Instances where there are lengthy 

illustrative notes, you may summarize the 

contents as long as the Important points are 

mode. You are encouraged to supplement 

Ihe materials with relevant anecdoles and 

Information of your choice. 

As Ihe session progresses, show each 

transparency and follow corresponding 

facl«lalor'. nolea. 

Break up Into sma. group. for exercise. (see 

following note on larger groups). 

During the session, allow time for general 

comments and questions from partiCipants. 

Sugge.tlon. for large groupo: 

We suggesl Ihal when training a large group, 

you break II down Inlo amaller groups 10 

faclillale discussion. Ask Ihe smaller groups 10 

discuss Ihe handouts among Ihemselves for 

aclMties 1-4, at Ihe approp~ale lime. Exercises 

toke about 4 mtnules 10 read, wllh additional 

lime needed lor discussion. Then you may lead 

Ihe larger group In dfscusslon, asking each 

smaller group 10 represent their collecllve 

Ideas. 

268 

Remember Ihat this Is a lIexlble course and you 

may wont 10 tanor your presentation 10 your 

particular audience. 

If you have more questions. contact your 

Regional EEO Manager. Keep Ihls book. As 

changes are mode In policy, revisions will be 

senl oullo lacililalors to keep Ihe course as 

current as possible. 8e alerllo events In the 

news; Ihese can help you lIIuslrate pOints 

presenled In Ihe book. 

Thank you for laking Ihe lime 10 be a tacilitalor. 

Good lUCk. 

FaCilitator'. Nol. aboul Ihe naltonal 

vld.oconfer.nc. ·The Secrelary'. 

tnillatlve; Th. Pr.ventlon 01 S."ual 

Haraum.nl and Ihe Dt.crlmlnatlon 

Complalnl. Proc ••• ·; 

On Augusl 24, 1993, from 1 :30-3:30 pm 

ET. The Velerans Heallh Admlnlslrallon will 

hold a Iwo hour vldeoconference, 

lealurlng Secretory Jesse 8rown. II will 

locus on Ihe Prevenllon of Sexual 

Harassmenl and Ihe Dlscrlmlnallon 

Complolnl. Process. 

This broodcaslls required viewing lor on 

VHA employees. Please ensure thai all 

partlclpanls sign Ihe sheel provided when 

Iheyenler. Employees will be given credit 

on Ihelr ol"Clallralnlng record lar 

attending the course. The sheel will be 

used by Medical Cenler dlreclors 10 

cerllfy Ihal employees have attended Ihe 

Iralnlng. 

For Ihose employees unable 10 attend Ihe 

lralnlng. VHA will provide a recording of 

Ihe evenllo each Medical Cenler. EEO 

Iralnlng laclllialors ore requesled 10 

ensure and cerllfy Ihal all employees In 

your laclilly view fhls Vldeolape. using Ihe 

sign-up sheel provided In Ihls book. 
269 

11 ' f (I /r r ;ll( (r' L ,/ ), \ I II; " \ ( "r '/1. ' J f) 11 

lJl' C;(:;': 'I!\ - I=: CU' "f'[ ,\: 'i I I)()( I ~~ 

Sign-up Sheet PAGE __ Of __ 

MEDICAL FACilITY LOCATlON DATE OF TRAtNlNG FACllnATOR'S NAME 

All ATTENDEES WILL RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ATTENDING THIS TRAINING. PLEASE 

SIGN IN TO ENSURE YOU GET THIS CREDII 

NAMI ISN , (OmONAl) IECnON ROII11NG IYMIOl 
270 
271 

07 

» 

o 

" G) 

::c 

o 

c: 

Z 

C 

I"'" 

m 

:::I 

m 

;0 

en 

» 

z 

c 

s: 

en 

-a 

07 

en 

-t 

c: 

C 

-< 

en 

c: 

s: 

s: 

» 

;0 

-< 
TO ALL EMPLOYEES 

272 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFfAIRS 

WASHINGTON 

FEB 16 1991 

I am proud to work with you to serve our Nation's veterans and am 

strongly committed to prav1dmg a work envIroament that Mlects the diversity 

of those who have aened our CountJy. 1brougb an ef[~ Equal Employment Opportwdty CEEO) Program. I belIevoe we can make this happen at every 

level of our crgan1zat1on. 

My goal IS to eliminate dIScrtadnatoIy pra.cUces in delivery of aerv1ces 

and in the workpJace. I am BtroDg\y CDDmItted to providing equal opportunity 

to all and to eJimlnattng dJaC:r1mInat1on 111 employment based on race. color. 

religion. sex. age. national adgtn. and dISabIlI17 - wherew:r It ma;y ocx:ur. All 

employees will be expected to gtve the highest IeveI of respect. courtesy. and 

support to one another and to those we serve. I am also strongly committed to 

the prevenUon and e1lm!natfon of eemal baraasment 111 the Department. 

Sexual harassment IS tnappropdate and UJUU:Ce.Pf8b1e conduct that will not be 

tolerated. AllegaUons of eemal baraasment must be addressed ImmedIately 

and all employees raISIng complaInts of dIscrtm!nat1on must be prav1ded 

prompt. f'aIr. and ImparUal review and handllng of thelr compJaJnls. 

To acbfevoe ai.y goal. It IS necessary Cor aD managers and BUperVISorB to 

carry out an efl'ecuve afJlrmaUye employment program that will brtng about 

fwther diversity in the workplal::e and belp employees reach thelr career goals. 

I will bold aD managers and supervSaors ac:countable Cor taking an act1ve role in 

ensuring that employees under their supervISIon are treated faJrly. 1 also 

charge managers and superYlSor8 to reach out and n=u1t the very best 

indiViduals from all sources for employment; and 1 call upon them to belp 

advance employees to thelr highest potential. These pract1ces not only promote 

the EEO Program but are good management pract1ces. 

1 am committed to expanding the Department's Em tralnlng and 

awareness act1vtUes and to taklng whatever other act10ns are required to 

achlevoe a VA workplace free from dlscr1mlnaUon and sexual barassment. 1 ask 

you to Join me In thls Important efi'ort. Working together. I am confident we will succeed. 

Dlst: RPC 6006 
273 

THE SECRETA flY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON 

MAR 91993 

TO ALL EMPLOYEES 

On Februmy 16. 1993. I Issued an ·All Employee Letter" 8taung my strong 

eommftment to prevention and elimination of d1scrUnInation and sexual barusment 

In the Department ofVetenIns Affairs. 1b1a Is a fonow-up to share With you the initial 

steps being taken to achleve. this goal. . 

Several slgnlftcant cbsnges bave been proposed In the pollciles wblch govern 

VA's discrlmlnatlon complsInt program. Subject to approprtate unlon negotiations 

these changes wtn be Incorporated In VA polley. 'lbe key propoSals are descrtbed 

below: 

• The Office of Equal OpportunlfJ wtll monitor the aufBclency of EEO 

complalnt processing operations and aftIrmatIve employment 

accompUsbments at field facilities through comprehensive program and 

on-slte ewluatlons. 

• All current VA employees must receive a minimum of 4 hours training on 

the prevention of sexual harassment and the discrimination complaint 

process as early as pracUeaJ and before December SI. 1993. and thereafter 

must ncelve a minimum of2 hours refresher tmlnlng every 2 years. 

Employees new to VA must receive training Withln 60 days of employment. 

• Part-time EEO counse1D111 sball be appolnted for a apedflc term not to 

exceed 2 yean; and may be reappointed for additional terms at the 

discretion of the EEO Officer. 

• All EEO counselors must receive training certIfted as adequate by the Office 

of Equal Opponunll¥ berore counseling an;y employees. Both full-time and 

part-time EEO counselors must receive cerUfled refresher training at least 

once every 2 years. 

• Employees must be allowed to select an EEO counselor of choice from 

among the EEO counselors seMng the faclllfJ where the event In dispute 

arose. 

Attached for your information Is the revised discrimination/sexual harassment 

complalnt procedures which became effective October 1. 1992. They were Issued by 

the Equal Employment OpPortunll¥ Commlsslon to Improve and speedup the 

processing of EEO complalnts. 

As we take other steps to Improve the VA work environment. I wtIl report what 

Is being done. Agaln. I ask for your support and active part1c1patlon In thls Important 

effort. 

Attaclunent 

DIst: RPC 6006 
274 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

DEl'InY AssIsTANT SEcllETAIIY FOR 

EQUAL EMPl.oYMENT 0f0I00ImINITY 

WASHINGTON DC 20420 

DISCRIMINA110N COMPlAINT PROCIIDURIlS 

A. Autbority for the Comp1aiIIII'Iocea 

'!be admIDIsIntIve complalDt process Is aadaorIzaI by the QvD RJabII Act of 1964, as UIeIIIIed; the Ale . DiscrImIDadoa III Employmeat Act of 1967, as llllellded; IIId the ItebabDItIdoa Act of 1973, as llllellded. 

AD 

replatioas 

Ac:cs delepte 

.midlld 

respoaslbllity 

forth the panIca1m 

110 the Eqaa1 

of 

EaIpIo,meat 

the CDIIIpIaiDt 

()pporIaDIty 

process. '!be 

ConnnJssion 

EEOC repllItioas 

(EEOC) 

Ire 

110 ~ 

pubUshed III 

Tille 29, Code of Federal RepJadoas, Part 1614. 

The bases for filing compbiDIs Ire oadlDed In those replatioas. They provide for the KCqICaDce of 

complliDls from uy empIcIyee. or Ippllclllt for ~ wbo belie¥eldml he or she has beeD 

discriminated apiDst on the basis of nee. color, n1JpJa, MIt, IIIIioaII oricID. lie, disability or III nprisaI 

for baviJII opposed sudl discrimiDadoD. 

B. Processing Stages 

I. InfonnaJ StaR The aur\e¥ed perma mast first leek --iDa rz-ID EEO CoauseIor moat the _ c:aasID& him or her 110 believe dml he or IIIe his beeD diIcrImIIIIted ..... wIthID G aIeacIar u,s of 

the dille of oc:curreaee. '!be EEO CoaDseIor wDI thea make 1IIIIlever1DqalrJ Is ~ II1II wDJ IIIeIIIpt to 

leelc a lOIutiOD 110 the DIllIei' on ID IDformI1 basis. The CIOIIIIIeIor Is required 110 keep a record of bIs or her 

activities IDd to complete counseling withID 30 c:aleadar da,. of IDIdaJ 00IIIaCt with the aurieYed pezma. If 

counseling c:annoI be completed withlll 30 cslendar daJl, the CIOIIIIIeIor amst obtaID the wrIUeo pennIssIoa of 

the aggrieved person for an extensiOD. The requested extension may DO( uceed 60 calendar .,. (for a toW 

of!lO calendar days after inltill c:omact) under allY cin:u1llSWlCes. Additionally, the wriuen permission of 

the aggrieved person regarding an ext_Ion mast be obcaIDed prior to the ea4 of the 30th c:aIenclIr da,. If 

the written permission of the aggrieved penoa to exteDcI this period Is DO( obtaIDed before the ea4 of the 30th 

cslendar da, after Initill contact. the counselor mast Issue a Notice of FIDIIlDterview to ebe complalnmc on 

the 30th calendar da,. Should counsel ill, acdvItIes be completed prior to eKplratlon of the 30 cslendar da, 

time limit, the counselor Ihlllissue Ihe Notice of FiDIIlnterview to the complainant at that time. 

2. fonnll Complaint $taR, The complaint mast be reduced 110 writlDa, liped by the complalaant and 

submitted to either the EEO Officer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for EquII ()pporbmIty or the Secnwy 

of Veterans Aftain, w1thill15 calendar da,. of receipt ofebe wrIaea Notice ofFmallalervlew. Complaints 

are usually IUbmitted on VA Form 4939, but any written document CODtaiDID& ebe lame lDformation Is 

acceptable. Authority to accept a complaint Is delegated to EEO Officen at VA field instaIllItioas. 

However, in ebe VA, only the Office of Gena Counsel Is autborlz.ed to dlsmlss or reject a complaint. 

3. Investigative SIIR If a complaint Is accepted, ID IDvestiptor will be asslped to ebe ease. The 

penon assigned may not be ID employee of the instillation .mere ebe complaint UOIe. The IIIvesti,lIOr Is 

authorized to talce llatemeDlS from witnesses, under oath and without • pled,e of confidence, ,ather pertineDl 

documents and records and conduct whatever other illquiry may be Decessary. An investigation of • 

complaint must be completed within ISO cslmdar da,. of Its filing. unless the parties agree In wrItillg to 

extend this period. The investigator must wemble the file aOC prepare ID investigative report, which 

summarizes the evidence gathered. 
275 

IIon& 

4. 

widllII 

Myjumcm 

acMsement 

o(RlrJus 

of rtpts 

Tbe 

.... 

£EO Ofticu 

10 tile ~ 

wUl am I ClIJIIIIIIete 

., 10th. 

CXJP7 

COIIIpIoIoant·S.....-m 

Of 11M npon of ~ 

(If Illy). 

Pununt 10 29 CPR 1614.IOI(f), tile IIIMIaa of rIPIs ... wIIIda Is ......-s 10 tile COIIIpI ....... bla 

III' ber representative upoD c:oatpIedoa of dlelllvadpdoD IIaII1 DOtIf71hc compIaiaaDItbat, wlthla 30 

calendU' da" of receipt of the IDwsdaadve file, die CIOIIIpIoloant lias the rIIbt 10 request either I beariDa 

before 1ft EEOC ,ldmlnisUative Judp followed by I FIlIal A&ertr:7 DecIsion ~ die VA Oftiee of <>-raJ 

Counsel, or III Immediate FilIal ApDcy Deelslon from the VA 0ftIce of a-aI CouDIeI. widIout • JaeariD&. 

5. Hearing Slue. 'If the eomplailllllt eIecIs I""'. the comptaillt wflllIe tnIISIIIlued 10 die __ 

office of Ibe EEOC for asslJlll1leat 10111 ~ Judp. 'DIe AdmiDIs1ndYe Jud,e wUl nv\ew the file 

ID derermine If furIber investigation Is~. If DOlle Is -, (USUIIly _ wDl DOt lie), the 

AdministntiYe Jud,e will schedule !he beMiIt& for a -.leal time and place. 

A1tbouab more Informal. die beMiIt& wDllIe CIDDIIucced .. I _1imIIar 101 COUft trail. WiIDeae5 will 

be called to testify and -r lie _«IIIIiDed by die comptl" II1II I npnIeIIJlIYe of the VA. 'I1Ie 

bearing will be recorded and trIIISaibed -wm. All ~ aabmIaed by the paniellIIIIlCCIipIed by 

the AdministnliYe Jud,e will be eaund InIO the ncord. Upon compIedoa Of the 1tearIn&. the AdmIaistrativel 

Jud,e will prepare III anaJysls. findlnp. and l6COIiUiiended clec:ision "ludina !he eompIaiat, wbida will be i 

forwarded to \be VA OffICe of GenenI Couasel foI' I fiaallleaey decision. ' 

6. Flnll Agency Dec!s!op Stue 'DIe VA 0IIIce of a-aI CouDIeI wDl prepue die fIIIa\ aaeacr 

decision on the complaint. If there bas II.- a bearlaa. the Office of a-aI CoUIIseIlllly epee or dlsapee 

wllb Ibe recoaunencled decision of the AdmiJIlstraIm Jud,e. The fiaaI cleclslon of the Aacaey wUl acldnss 

all Issues in the complaint; find diserimllladoo or find 110 dlscrillllllllion; and IIIvIse the CIOIIIpIoIoant Ofbis or 

~~~ c':u~ \be decision to the 0IIIce of Federal ()penlIons. EEOC. or to file a dvIJ ICIIoa In Federal 

7. Appeal Stage. If the complainant dlslar- wltb the fiaallleaey cleclslon, be or abe l1li)' filelD appeal 

lib the 0IIIee of Federal OperatIons. EEOC within 30 alendU' da" of receipt of 11M fiaaI apacy 

declsion. If !he appalls timel,. the EEOC wUl llljuclicae the -.plaint. The appetiate decision Of the 

IEEOC Is (mal and bindine on both panieI, ualesa ellber put)' limeIy requests reopeIIIne ud rec:oasIderaIio 

by the members of lIIe Commission (i.e:. the Presidattillly appoinIed Conunisslooal Of the EEOC). 

8. Reopening and Recaosjdmt!og Slue If eitIter die complainant or VA disaar- wlda the appellate 

clecision of the OffICe of Federal Operadoas. OPe or boch -r request reopenin& II1II reCIOIIIIderado by the 

Commissioners of lIIe EEOC wllhiD 30 alendU' da,. of receipt of III appellate decision by 11M EEOC. or 

wllhin 20 alendU' da" of receipt of III OPPOSIa& party', request for reopenln& II1II _1deraI.ioa. The 

pany requesting reopenine must clemomtrale IbaIlbere is _II1II material evJcIeece wbic:h _ DOt reIIIlly 

IVIlIabie II Ibe time of lIIe appellate cleclsioa; or lite appelille decision involved III erroneous lnIerprerllion 

of llw or reaul'lions or misapplication of established policy; or lIIe appelille decision Is of sudI u~ional 

nature IS to have etrect beyond the case at band. 

The decision of the Commissioners compleres the IIIministnlive process. The complalnam, however, -r 

file a civil action I. US. DistJic:t Court. Also, civil aclioa ripu accrue IIIII)' time lfIer 110 alendU' da)'S 

from \be dIIe lIIe c:omplaint _ flied, If there bu II.- DO finalllcaey decision or 110 alendU' da,. efler 

filin,M appal wIIb EEOC, If lIIere bu bet~ DO appeliate decisioo. A dvIJ aclloft my IIso be filed withiD 

90 calend.r dl1l of receipl of III appelille decision from EEOC (or from the Coaunissionen of EEOC afIa 

a rC4Ut51 to reopen). 
276 

VIlA. DIREC11VE 10-93-056 

MayU,1993 

1'0: Rest-l DlrectCll'l; Direc:tCll'l, VA MedicIl Ceater Ac:thltia. Domiciliary, 

OatpaUnt CIbliCl, md Reaianal Offices with Oatpatieat ClbliCi 

SUB,: VHA (Vet_ Health AdmInistration) PoUcy far i'nIYeRtion of Sexual 

~t 

1. PURPOSE: The JIUl1IOH of this VHA (Vet_ Health AdmIDIstration) directive is to 

re-1SSUe policy for implemeotiDg the Program for the l'nIventlGa of Sexual Harassment 

In VHA. This directive replaces VHA Directive 10-93-02&, md will DOt be iIIcorporated 

into a manual at this time. 

2. POUCY: It is the policy of VHA to maintain a work eavironment free from sexual 

harallmeot md intimidation. Sexual harallmeot iI uaacc:eptable cooduct in the 

workplace and will DOt be tolerated. ThiI policy applies to all employees UId covers employees outside of the workplace while ClOIIIluctiDa lOYemment busiDea, and 

nonemployees while concIucting business in the VA workplace. 

&. Sexual harassment is a foan of employee misconduct wbich seriously undermines 

the integrity of the empJo,ment relationship. Specifically, sexual harassment is 

uilwelcomed sexual aplDCes, requests for aexue1 favors, and other verbal or physical 

conduct of a sexual uature when: 

(1) SulmUssicm to sucb cooduct is made either explicitly or impljcitiy a term or condition of employment; 

(2) Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for 

employment decisions affecting such individual; 

(3) Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual' 5 work performance or creatina an Intimidating. hostile. or offensive work 

environment. 

b. Jokes. remarks. teasin8. or questions that contain sexual overtures can also be a form of sexual harassmllllt and are not acceptable in a professional work enviroMient 

and will not be condoned. 

c. Managers. supervisors. and employees should become thoroushly knowleqeable of 

what constitutes sexual harassment and responsive to l1li)' form of improper behavior 

that could lead to such allegatioas. 

3. ACTION: It is imperative that VHA officials at the field and Central Office levels 

be iiiliiIiCOmpliance with both the spirit and intent of Agency and Department policy as wen as all other applicable federal regulations. All employees are expected to refrain 

from all forms of sexual harassment. Any employee en.aling in sexually harassin. 

activities may be subject to disciplinary action. Managers and sUpervisors who tolerate 

such behavior by failin. to take appropriate aclion, or who retaliate against employees 

who report incidents or file formal complaints of sexual harassment may aIao be subject 

to disciplinary action. Persons who believe they are victims of sexual harassment should 

THIS VHA DIRECTIVE EXPIRES MAY 12. 1994 
VIlA DIREC11VE 10-11-056 

Mayt2.11113 

277 

addrea the iDcicleat tluoush the ApacJ'. Em (EquIl Emp\oyment Opportllllity) 

DiJcrimination Compllintl PlOCess or the Ualoa'. aeaotiated pievance plOCeciure. 

Alle,ations of such conduct will be responded to Immediateq, appropriately, and with 

the seriousness they desene. 

4. REFERENCES 

L MP-7. part [, chapter 2. sectioa F. 

b. Sectioo 703 of Title vn of the ClvIl RiBhta Act of 1984. 

c. Reorsauization Plao No. 1 of 11178, issued JIIIl'IWIIIt to 6 U.S.C. (United States 

Code), 9Ot, et seq. 

d. Executive Order 1%106 (44 F.R. 1063, J.-rr 3, 11179). 

6. JlQUOW-UPRESl'ONSIBIUTY': DIrector, Naapmeat SUpport Office (t63A). 

6. RESCISSIONS: VHA Direc:tlve 10-13..(126 ill rescinded.. 1bis VHA directive mcp1res on May 12. 1994. 

11~f· 

DISTRlBU110N: CO: E-mailed 6112/13 

FLO: RD. MA, DO. ae, aeRO IIIId 200 - FAX &/t2/113 

EX: Boxes 104, 88, 83, 80, 64, 52, 47 and 44 - FAX &/12/93 
October 23, 1992 

278 

DEPARTMENT OFVE1!RAN8 AflllAiRS 

V_H .. Ith~ 

Washington DC 20420 

11.10-12-030 

","'-lIeforTo: 163 

CHIEF MEDICAL D~CTOR'S INPORMAmN LETTER 

TO: Regional Directors; Directors. VA Mec1lcal Center Actl"'tfes. Domiciliary. 

Outpatient Clinics. and Regional Offices with Outpatient Clinics 

SUBI: Sexual Harassment in the WorIcpIace 

1. The purpose of this letter Is to lIIIIJ.lIwI.ze that IMIJCIIIl harusment Is a deme8IIIDg 

form of behavior that 1$ IIOt acceptable 8IId wlllllOt be tolerated in lIIIJ VIlA (Veterans 

Health Administration) facll1ty. 

2. VHA management off'lClals sbould lead the effort to eliminate all vestllt_ of sexual 

harassment. and the attltude and culture that promote it. f_ the workplace. Each of 

you needs to take personal charge of the effort to prevent mil eUmlnate sexual 

harassment at JOUr facUity and __ that every employee mil manaaement official 

underst8llds the VHA polley and my expectations 011 this import8llt issue. 

3. VHA bas already taken a proactive role in this direction. A wrlttenpolley. contained 

in VHA Circular 10-91-141 dated December 9, 1991. has been established. 1bls polley 

includes: 

.. Sexual harassment f$ a key module in tha £EO (Equal Employment Opportunity) 

training for managers and supervisors with tome 19.000 supervisors and manaaers 

having already received this training over the past 3 J1lars. 

b. To aid oversight on this matter, £EO staffing in eech of the Regional Directors 

offices will be enhanced in FY (Fiscal J1lar) 93. 

c. A sexual harassment training module will be presented at the 1992 SenIor Manaaers 

Conference. 

4. Now Is the tlme. if it bas not already heen done. to __ the cUmate within your 

facUity to detennlne where you are and what needs to be done to nurture an envirorunent free of sexual harassment. 1bIs Is the right thing to do for O'or emploJees 

and our veteran patients and I mow that t can depend on each of you to act with vigor 

M"_tl~~. 4--.J.~D. 

({c~~~~iCaI Director 

DISTRIBUTION: CO; &-mailed 10123/92 

FLO: RO, MA, 00. OC, aeRO and 200 - FAX 10/23/92 

EX: Boxes 104, 88. 63, 60, 54. 52, 41 and 44 - FAX 10/23/92 
279 
280 

Exe~utive Summary 

This report discusses the results q{ a moJur 1987 survey and study 

dealing with sexual harassment in the 1'lIderal workplace. It 

marks the second time the U.S Merit Systems Protection Board 

hasfocused on this important topic. As an u~ the n1J)OTt pr0-

vides some contrasts and comparisons with data gtJ/JIsmd in the 

Boards first landmark study q{ sexual harassment in 1980. It details findings on employee attitudes toward and experiences 

with uninvited behavior q{ a sexual natu .... It also describes the 

actions FI1deml agencies have taken in their tdJurts to reduce sex· ual harassment, and the finaru:ial as weU as human costs when 

those tdJorts fatt shurt. The n1J)OTt reviews relevant case law that 

has developed. over the last 7 yean; as the Board and the courts have SOU!Jht to dlifine the legal rights and redress for victims of sexual harassment. It concludes with recommendations fur future 

action within the Government. 

Background 

In late 1979, the Subcommittee on 

Investigations of the U.S. House of 

Representatives' Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service requested that the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 

conduct a thorough and 

authoritative study of sexual 

harassment in the Federal 

workplace. The Board was asked 

to carry out the study since it is 

an independent, quasi-judicial 

agency that decides appeals from 

pel'9Onnel actions taken against 

Federal employees and conducts studies of the civil service and 

other merit systems. It is responsible for protecting the integrity of 

the Federal civil service system 

from abuse. 

The initial study of sexual 

harassment conducted by MSPB in 

1980, with a final report issued in 

early 1981, was a "first of its 

kind" broad-scale survey of the at· 

titudes and experiences of a 

representative cross-section of 

both self·identified victims and 

nonvictims within the Federal 

Government. 

In 1986, on its own initiative, 

the Board decided to conduct a 

followup study on sexual harassment to detennine what changes, 

if any. had occurred in the Federal 

Government since the time of the first study. As part of this 

followup study, which was conducted in 1987, a Questionnaire 

that replicated much of the 

original survey was used so 

responses for 1987 could be com· 

pared with the 1980 data. The 

Questionnaire was sent to a 

representative cross-section of approximately 13,000 Federal 

employees, and 8,623 employees 

responded. 
Research Design 

The data in' this report are based 

primarily on employee questionnaires distributed Governmentwide 

in 1980 and 1987. Th obtain trend 

data, the Board'. 1987 questionnaire repllalted many of the ques- tions from the 1980 survey_ The 

1987 survey was sent to approx· 

Imately 13,000 full·time perma· 

nent F\!deral employees duri ... 

March 1987, and 8,523 employees 

responded. The respondents form 

a representative c:ross-section of 

Federal employees. In addition, in 

December 1986, a formal information request was sent to the heads 

of the 22 largest F\!deral depart· 

ments and agencies to obtain relevant data on their institutional 

efforts to reduce sexual harassment.-

The incidence data on sexual 

harassment contained in this 

report ~ based upon the number of respondents who indlalted they 

had received uninvited and unwanted sexual attention. Thus the 

method of identifying victims was 

one of selHdentirlC8.tion on the 

part of the respondents. 

It should also be noted that the 

term "sexual harassment"' is defined differently by different 

people. OPM defined sexual 

harassment as 4'deliberate or 

repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures., or physical contact of a sexual nature . which are unwelcome:' EEOC expanded 

upon this definition by outlining 

the conditions under which such· 

conduct would constitute sexual 

harassment. EEOC also noted that a detennination of the legality of 

alleged sexually harassing conduct 

would be made from the facts, on 

a case-by-ease basis.. Since the 

EEOC guidelines were issued. the 

Board and the courts have developed a body of case law that 

provides further clarifICation as to what constitutes sexual harass~ 

ment within a legal context. 

It should not be presumed that 

each reported incident of unin~ 

vited sexual attention meets the 

current legal def'mition of sexual harassment. 

281 

Une of' the dimcltltl~ inherent 

in .ny di~UMion of MCxunl hara.,'4~ 

ment Is that the tenn itself Is 8 

"term of art" . thaI. holds different meanings for different people. In 

late 1979, the U.S. Office of Per· sonnel Management (OPM) lsoued a policy statement that defined sexual ha......,ent as "deliberate 

or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, or physical 

contact of • sexual nature which are unwelcome." In 1980 the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Issued guidelines on 

unlawful discrimination because of 

sex that expanded this definition. 

EEOC specified, for example, that 

conduct of a sexual nature could 

be considered sexual harassment if 

It created ''In Intimldatln& hostile, 

or offensive working environment." The EEOC guldellnes also 

noted that a determination of the 

legality or alleged sexually harassiII8 conduct would be made from 

the facts, on a cue-by ...... basis. 

Sinee the EEOC guidelines were 

issued, • body of legal precedents, 

Including a 1986 Supreme Court decision, has provided lesai 

clarirtcation as to what constitutes sexual harassment. For porposes of 

this report, however, the Board 

relies upon the expressed views or F\!deral employees for Its definition. If a respondent to the 

Board's survey .tated that he or she had received uninvited or unwanted sexual attention during 

the precedi118 24 months, that was counted as an incident of sexual harassment even though not every 

incident, if fully investigated, 

would necessarily meet the legal 

definition of sexuai harassment. 

As this report discusses. sexual 

harassment in the workplace, like 

racial discrimination, can be a per- vasive fonn of illegal discrimination that i. hoth dlrrlcult to precisely measure and dirficult to 

change. Yet, like racial discrimination. sexual harassment must be 

addressed so that poSitive change 

O1n occur. The purpose of this 

report is to clarify the nature and 

extent of the problem within the 

~deral Government, to review 

some of the actions taken during 

the last 7 years to address that 

problem. and to offer some suggestions for future efrort...oc;, 

Summary of Findings 

Compared to 7 years ago. 

~eral workers are now more inclined to define certain types 

of behavior .. sexual harass- ment. FOr example, in 1980 ap- proximately 77 percent of all employees considered uninvited 

pressure for dates by a supervisor to be sexual harassment. In 1987 

that percentage had Increased to almost 84 percent. Likewise, In 

1980, 84 percent of male 

employees and 91 percent of 

female employees considered. unwanted supervisory pressure for 

sexual favors to be sexual harassment. In 1987 those percentages 

had increased to 95 percent and 

99 percent, respectively. Similar 

changes were seen in employee at~ 

titudes about most otMr tyPes of 

behavior. 

In 1987, 42 percent of all 

women and 14 percent or all 

men reported they experieneed 

some form or uninvited and unwanted 8eXual attention. Despite an apparent increase in the level 

of sensitivity about what behavior 

may be considered sexual harassment. there has been no significant change since the Board's Isst 

survey In 1980 In the percentage 

of F\!deral employees wbo ssy they 

have received such uninvited and unwanted attention. Within the 

context of this report. unwanted 

and uninvited sexual attention is 

considered sexual harassment. 

Interestingly. among current 

Federal employees who had also 

worked outside the Federal 

Government, the preponderant 

opinion is that sexual harassment 

is no more of a problem in the 

Government than outside it. 

The most frequently experienced type of uninvited sexual 

attentlon Is "unwanted sexual 

teasing. joke&. remarks, or questions. to The least frequently 

experienced type of harassment-Uactual or attempted 

ralM!': or assault"-ls al80 

arguably the most severe. Sexual 

hara.ssm~nt takes many forms and 

an employee may experience more 

than one form. In answering the 

Board's 1987 survey. 35 percenl 
of all female respondents and 12 percent of aU male respondents 

said they experienced some type 

of "unwanted sexual teasing) 

jokes, remarks, or questions ... 

Also in 1987, approximately .8 

percent of all female respondents 

and .3 percent of male respondents said they experienced "actual or attempted rape or assault ••• 

The Ineldenc. rate for alleged 

sexual harusment varies by agency. For example, 1ft 1987 a 

high of 52 percent of the female employees at the Denartment of 

State claimed they experienced 

some form of uninvited sexual attention, compared to a low of 29 

percent of the female employeea 

at the Department of Health and 

Human Services. Moreover. among 

the 16 agencies whose employees 

were surveyed in both 1980 and 

1987, several did show some shIfts 

In the percentage of employeea 

claiming they experienced uninvited and unwanted sexual attention. A few agencies (for example, 

the Depsrtmenls of Labor and Transportation) experienced a significant decHne In the percentage of female employees who said 

they were harassed. 

Coworkers are much more likely 

than aupervlsonJ to be the . 801.Iree of sexual harassment. In 

1987, 69 percent of female victim. 

and 77 percent of male victims 

said they were harassed by a 

coworker or another employee 

without supervisory authority over 

them. Only 29 percent of the 

female victims and 19 percent of 

the male victims cited someone in 

their supervisory chain as the 

source of their harassment. This 

pattern is consistent with the 

Board's 1980 findings. 

Some Individuals are more likely 

than others to be victims of sexual harassment. For example, 

based on the data obtained in 

1987. women who: are single or 

divorced; are between the ages of 

20 and 44; have some college 

education; have a nontraditional 

job; or work in a predominantly 

male environment or for a male supervisor have the greatest 

chance of being sexually harassed. 

282 

However, as the Board found In 

1980t despite this generalization, 

sexual harassment Is stili widely 

distributed among women and 

men of aU ages. backgrounds, and 

Job categori", 

Many victims tried more than one response to Dnwanted sex- oal attention. Although later judged ineffective by most of 

, them, almost half of all victims 

tried to III1I0re tlte behavior or 

otlterwl.., did nothing In 

response. In 1987, only 5 percent 

ot both female and male victims 

said they took some type of formal action. Although most 

employees were aware of the 

availability of formal action-e.g., 

filing a grievance or a discrimination complaint-very few chose to use those potential remedies. 

When v1_ of oemaI haraas- ment did __ ltI"" _Ion In 

response to lUlwanted aexaal attention, It "' .. largely Informal 

action and, In JlULIQI' cues. was 

judged to be effeetl_ The most 

effective and frequently taken informal action was simply telling 

the harasser to stop. FOrty-four 

percent of the female victims and 

25 percent of the male victims 

said they took this aetlon and, In over 60 percent of the cases, both groups said it Hrnade things 

better." 

Among tlte 22 largest Federal departmenlll and agendes 

surveyed, all had luued polky 

statements or other Internal 

guldanee daring the 7-year 

period from FY 1980 through FY 

1986 concerning prohibitions 

against sexaal harassment. How 

frequently that guidance was updated and each agency'. method 

of dlasemination varied. Most 

employees, however, said they are 

aware of their agency's policies 

regarding sexual harassment and 

the internal complaint p1"OCedures 

available to victims. 

Every ageney maintained It pro- vided training on the Issue of 

sexual harassment, although 

most efforts were d~ted at managers and personnel and 

equal employment opportunity 
283 

omelale ratber than nou_per. vlaory empl_ Moot (18 of 22) 

.,.,neleo _ted that during the 7-year period from FY 1980 

IItrou8h FY 1988, the ave,.. empl_ apent 2 hounl or f_ 

In training related to oexuaI 

.......... ent. It should be noted, 

however. that agencies are not re- quired to keep detailed """,rd, In 

this reprd and, therefore,. moot reoponoeo · tended to be .. _ 

estimates." 

M_ ..-cleo malntalaed lIIat 

th." have takeR • namber of dlffeftnt aetlona In an effort to 

redaee eex.a1 harusm.ent and 

that, In moot -. tho ... ~ 

tio ... have been err_l_ 

Empl_ were more okeptical. 

Thr """",pie, every agency 

surveJed oaId It provided • .. wlft 

and thorough InvestIptions of 

complaints" and that sud> In- -.,.tIons -.-e effective. Only 

32 peroent of the employees 

surveyed relt their .,.,ndeo provided such investigations. 

Daring the I-year period from 

Mq 1985 tbroalh Ma;y 1987, 

~ ..... ment eollt the 

FedenI GoYenuaent ... 

e.tImat.ed 1267 aoIUloa. Thls c_ .. In addition to _ perso .... coat ud an .... h IMIIJ' or the vlctlmo had to bear. This conoervatlve estimate Is derived by 

calculating the cost of replacing 

employees who leave their jobs as 

a result or aexual harassment, or paJlnl sick leave to employees 

who miss work u a consequence, 

and of reduced individual and 

work group productivity. 

Conclusions and 

Recommendations 

Based on the findings discussed in thls report, since the Board conducted Ito first study of _uol 

harassment, lhere is evidence thal 

some posiUve changes have oc· 

curred In Federal employee at· 

titudes and perceptions regarding 

uninvited sexual attention. More 

empl~ both men and women, are aware that certain behaviors 

of a sexual nature can be both un-

.....ted and Inappropriate In the workplsce. In addl~lon, moot 

employees are now a~ that sex· uaI harusment II contrary to 

eotoblilhed agency policy. Durlna 

thJ. time, Federal ogencieo have 

&lao taken. number or actlons 

deltsned to reduce the incidence of sexual haruement and at least a rew agendes have had BOme auc- ceos In th .. reprd. 

Delplte th_ positive trends, 

however, the overall bottom Une 

did not change. Uninvited and unwanted sexual attention WIll ex· perieneed by almost the Identical 

proportion of ·the work force In 1987 as In 1980. Sexual harassment is still a pervasive, costly, 

and systemiC problem within the 

Federal workplace. 

The Board recommenda that: 

• All ageney empl_ ....... ld 

be perlodlcallJ' reminded of their _lbWtIeo _ held 

aeeoantable for eOlllplIance 

with Federal law .... d aseftey 

polley prohibiting oemal 

ha.raument In the workplace. 

It mao! be clear that oexaaUy 

_Bing be .. vtor "" aft)' 

employee ...... ot and ..01 not 

be tolerated. Th10 can be accomplished '" a number of ways, Indudlng Issuinl an .,.,ncy policy statement signed by the 

head of the agency detailing the 

specific prohibited practices and the penalties _ated with 

those practices. Th .. statement 

should be updated annually or 

as needed. Agencies should also 

require each emplayee to 

acknowledse thot lie or she has read and understands the policy. 

• With regard to enforcement or 

the law and agency policies on 

sexual h.aruement, each .,eney should: 

--seek to identify, on Its own 

bdtlatlYe, poulble Inataneea 

of !leX'" b.uusment; 

-Qalcldy and thoroaghly In-

_ti"le alleptlona (within 

120 dayB If pooalble); and 

-EotabU.h and exercloe 

strong aanctlons against 

harassers where the facts warrant. 
• Feden.l agencies ahou.ld pro-. 

v!de tl"&lnlng On sexual harusment to nonsupervleory 

employees as well as to 

managers and E~O and per- lonnel oCficlalL The training should Include disCussion of the 

various behaviOrs t"at may be 

construed as sexual \}larusment 

and, for- victim~ some of the ~ 

propriate and more effective 

responses posaIble_ The training should abo stre .. that Individuals need to be sensitive to 

tM ways In which their actions 

may be Interpreted by others. 

Whether certain behavior con- stitutes sexual harassment depends not only on the intent 

behind th<! behavior but also on the perceptions of those arrected_ 
40-881 97 - 10 

285 

Background, 

Policy, and 

Definition 

of Sexual 

Harassment 
Obiectives 

At the conclusion of this program, 

should understand: 

• The importance of a work environment fr

discrimination and sexual harassment. 

• The definition of sexual harassment. 

• Examples and effects of sexual harassme

• Actions to take if sexual harassment occu

• How to use the EEO complaints process: 

informal steps. 

• The rights and responsibilities of all parties 

complaints process. 

• How to prevent sexual harassment. 
287 

Facilitator's notes 

Leave on .creen during registration 

and leatlng. 

1 

THE 1'liI vr IJTION OF SEXUAl HARASSMUJT MJrJ THF DISCRlt/llJATION COMPLAINTS I'IIOCESS 
I: 

o 

. 

.... 

-

~ 

=- -a 

o 

.. 

.... 

I: 

-

-C 

0> ...... E 0 (.1)-

(.I)C 

o 0> 

o E 

..c.1:: 

-0 00. 

::::J 0> 

~o (.I) 0> "- ..c 0_ 

c-o 

.Q C cO 

0> ::::J c-. > 0 (.I) 0> >-.=: 

ao E 

0>""'« -- ..c Ccn 

-oc 

.!:2 1::: 0 >-o~ 

..c o.~ 

3:.~ ~ 

288 
289 

Facilitator's notes 

Open with this question. Then answer 

using the following Information: 

Prevention Is the best way 10 elimInate sexual 

harassment. Even If you are never personally 

Involved In on IncIdent of sexual harassment. 

you ore affected by this behavIor because It 

Impact. the work environment. 

Sexual harassment Is: 

-sex discrimination 

-streSSful for the employee 

-a barrier to productivity 

-agaInst the low 

It Is an Important Issue because It Is on 

offensive misuse of power, and every VA 

employee has the rIght to work In on 

environment that Is free from discrimInatIon 

and harassment. 

2 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINA liON COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Recent Events 

• 1980 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

• 1987 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

• 1991 Clarence Thomas Confirmation Hea

• 1991 U.S. Navy Tailhook Scandal 

• 1992 VA Receives National Attention 
291 

Facilitator's notes 

Recent events have brought this Issue to the 

forefront: 

-In 1980 the Merit Sysfems Profecflon 80ard 

conducfed Its flrsf official study regarding 

sexual harassmenf with a follow-up sfudy In 

1987. The findings revealed fhaf sexual 

harassment In fhe federal government Is a 

pervasive, cosfly, sysfemlc problem. (An 

Execuflve Summary of fhe MSPB Sfudy 

Results Is In fhe Background Leffers and MSPB 

Study Summary Secflon.) 

-The Clarence Thomas conflrmaflon hearing 

brought fhe Issue of sexual harassmenf fa 

naflonal affenflon. Women became aware 

of fhelr rlghf and responsibility fa report these 

Incldenfs. 

-We are now aware fhaf sexual harassment Is 

a major concern within fhe Departmenf of 

Veferans Affairs. 

-The recent U.S. Navy Tallhook scandal polnfs 

auf fhe repercussions of Ignoring allegaflons 

of sexual harassment. Allegaflons had been 

made Infernally buf were Ignored until fhe 

media heard abouf and publicized fhem. 

As a result, fhe Secrefary of fhe Navy was 

forced fa resign and fop Navy officials were 

removed from fhelr posfs. This lIIusfrafes why 

fhere will be 'zero folerance"In the VA. All 

allegaflons will be Invesflgafed. 

3 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AN D THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
The Secretary's Comm

... /11 am also strongly committed to the pr

elimination of sexual harassment in the D

Sexual harassment is inappropriate and u

conduct that will not be tolerated. Alleg

harassment must be addressed immedia

employees raising complaints of discrimin

provided prompt, fair, and impartial revie

of their complaints./I 
293 

Facilitator's notes': 

Our commitment to the EEO program starts 

at the top with Secretary Jesse Brown. The 

"quote' shown Is from his February 16, 1993, 

letter to all employees regarding his personal 

commitment to this program. You have all 

received a copy of this letter. 

Today's training puts this pledge Into action. 

All employees are requIred to receIve four 

hours of training before December 31, 1993 

which may Include participation In a 

vldeoconference. A vldeoconference Is 

planned for August 1993. In order to discuss 

pertinent Issues. In addition, the Secretary's 

continuIng commitment Is reflected In his 

policy that all employees receive refresher 

training every two years. New employees 

are to receive training within 60 days of their 

employment. 

The purpose of this training Is to provide 

Information on the two major components of 

the EEO Program: The Prevention of Sexual 

Harassment and The Discrimination 

Complaints Process. The training course Is 

divided Into four parts: Parts 1 and 2 focus on 

the behaviors that constitute sexual 

harassment. Parts 3 and 4 focus on the 

response to Incidents of sexual harassment 

and Its prevention, as well as the steps In 

processing EEO complaints of diScrlmlnatlan. 

SpeCific objectives for this training appear at 

the beginning of the course and again within 

each appropriate section. 

4 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Pari One Obieclives 

At the conclusion of this section, yo

understand: 

• The definition of sexual harassment, 

• The importance of a work environment fr

discrimination and sexual harassment. 
295 

Facilitator's notes 

Read through obJectives on 

transparency. 

5 

THE PREVENTION OF SfXUi\l HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMI~IATION CO'lPI AINTS PROCESS 
MSPB Study 

The Department of Veterans (VA) was se

among all federal agencies in the perce

women experiencing sexual harassment 
297 

Facilitator's notes 

In deanng with sexual harassment In the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. It Is useful to 

look at some background from the 1987 

study mentioned earMer. 

ThiS study by the Merit Systems Protection 

Board Identified several facts about sexual 

harassment that are stili relevant today. 

NOTE: 

The study found that the 1# 1 lederal agency In 

which women experienced sexual 

harassment was the State Department. 

6 

THE PREVE NTION OF SEXU!IL H!, 0 ASSi!"!I! AI JD T'"E DISCRI\;~INA TION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
MSPB Study 

The VA was first among all federal agenc

the percentage of men experiencing sex

harassment (21%). 
299 

Facilitator's notes 

7 

Requires no additional Information. 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMEr,JT A~ID iHE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
MSPB Study 

The study indicated that a high percenta

sexual harassment allegations went unre
301 

Facilitator'S notes, 

Unreported can mean that: 

a) the situation has been resolved and the 

behavior stopped, or 

b) that the sltuatlan continues but the victim 

fears reprisal. 

8 

THE PREVENTIO~ OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
MSPB Study 

The harasser was most frequently a 

• Quid Pro Quo 

• Hostile Work Environment 

• Sexual Favoritism 
303 

Facilitator's notes 

Point out that the 1980 study showed 

that the majority ot sexual harassment 

was by a supervisor toward a 

subordinate. The 1987 study revealed 

that most sexual harassment was 

committed by co-workers. 

Explain that sexual harassment takes 

on distinct forms: 

1. Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo sexual 

harassment occurs when submission to sexual 

conduct Is made an express or Implied 

condition of employment or when submission 

to or relectlon of such conduct Is used as a 

basis for an employment decision. 

2. Hosllie environment. The hostile work 

environment claim generally arises when 

sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of 

creating an Intimidating. hostile. or offensive 

working environment. or of unreasonably 

Interfering with an employee's work 

performance. 

3. Sexual Favorillsm. A relatively new theory 

that Is accepted by some courts and 

relected by others. EEOC recently Issued 

Interpretive policy guidance clarifying the 

rules on sexual favoritism found In Its 

Guidelines. Previously. the Commission and a 

few courts had ruled that sexual favoritism 

cauld. regardless af the circumstances. give 

rise to a claim of sexual harassment by 

employees who. although not themselves 

harassed. were allegedly denied benefits 

given ta other employees who submitted to 

a supervlsar's sexual advances. Several 

courts refused ta recognize such a claim and 

the Commlsslon's recent Interpretive 

guidance on the Issue somewhat limits the 

9 

circumstances under which this type of claim 

will lie .• 

Consensual Relationships: The most typical 

situation Involves Instances of preferential 

treatment based upon a consensual 

romantic relationship between a supervisor 

and a subordinate. Preferential treatment 

given to one's spouse, mistress. or special 

friend may be unfair to other employees In 

the unit. and Is obviously Inconsistent with 

merit principles. Nevertheless. the 

Commission now believes that such 

preferential treatment. provided the 

relationship Is consensual (I.e .. welcome) 

does not discriminate against men or women 

since all employees In the unit. regardless of 

gender. are equally disadvantaged. In other 

words, a female who Is denied an 

employment benefit under such 

circumstances would not have been treated 

more favorably had she been a male nor. 

canversely. was she treated less favorably 

because she Is a woman. Hence. such 

preferential treatment will not give rise to a 

sexual harassment claim by other employees 

In the unit. 

Caerced Relatlonshlp(s): The Commission 

takes the position that If a female employee 

Is coerced Into submitting to a sexual 

relationship In return for a Job benefit. other 

femaie employees may be able to establish 

quid pro quo sexual harassment If there Is 

evidence that the harasser publicized or 

boasted about hiS conquest or regularly 

harassed the victim In the presence of other 

employees. The theory Is that such evidence 

would support a conclusion that sex was 

generally a condition to receipt of lob 

benefits. Even absent such evidence. 

however. the Commission believes that both 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Facilitator's notes 

male and female employees will have 

standing to challenge the favoritism If they 

can demonstrate a specifIc personal loss or 

InJury as a result of the dlscrlmlnatlon directed 

against the woman who was coerced. 

WIdespread Favoritism: If a number of 

women benellt from favoritism granted In 

exchange for sexual favors. the Commlsslon 

believes that both male and female 

employees who do not welcome thIS 

conduct can establish a hostile work 

environment regardless of whether any 

obJectionable conduct Is directed at them 

and regardless of whether those who 

granted the favors dId so willingly. 

Furthermore. managers who engage In 

widespread favoritism may be conveyfng the 

message to women that the granting of 

sexual favors IS a condition precedent (I.e .. a 

quid pro quo) to advancement. 

304 

continued 

9 

THE PREVENtiON OF SEXUAL HARASS'0EI\ T AND THE D1SCR'M1NAT:ON COMPLA'NTS PROCESS 
Sexual Harassment 

100---------------------------------

o 

PRESSURE TOUCHING 

FOR 

SEXUAL 

FAVORS 

LmERS 

AND 

CAUS 

PRESSURE SUGGESll

FOR LOOKS 

DATES 

Percentage 01 women who consider certain behavior to be sexual hara

Source: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Boord. 
306 

Facilitator's notes 

Sexual harassment Involves on Interaction 

between two people. The perceptions 01 the 

person being harassed are often quite 

dllferent fram those 01 the person accused of 

doIng the haraSSIng. likewise. the perception 

of certain behavIor as sexual harassment wI« 

vary from person to person. 

The definition of sexual harassment does not 

rely solely on the perspectives cif the parties 

Involved. It also conSiderathe Circumstances 

surrounding the event. 

Reasonable Woman Standard: Recent 

decisions by several circuit court. of appeal 

have held that employers must focus on the 

perspective of the Victim when evaluating 

the severity or pervaSIveness of the sexual 

harassment. ThIS new standard holds that 

conduct will constitute sexual harassment If a 

reasonable woman In the victim's shoes 

would consider If as such. notwithstanding the 

lact that a reasonable man might 

conceIvably coNider the conduct as 

harmless or even amusing. 

(The courts and eEOC are coNidering 

changing reasonable woman to reasonable 

victim because reasonable woman does not 

encompass male vIctims of sexual 

harassment.) 

10 

ThIS new standard lor evaluating the 

evidence In sexual harassment cases could 

possibly have an Impact on the number of 

incidents necessary to demonstrate severity 

and pervaSiveness. In other words. prevIOus 

cases defined these concepts based on the 

reasonable man standard and reasonable 

men might consider certain types of conduct 

as harmless or common social Interaction 

rather than harassment (e.g., campRmentlng 

a woman for having a "great figure" or 'nice 

legs"). A reasonable woman (defined by the 

courts and the EEOC as one who Is not 

hypersensitIve), on the other hand. might 

view such actions as harassment and be 

willing to tOlerate far lewer of them than a 

male might consider necessary to 

demonstrate pervasiveness. 

THE PRE V E NTION OF SEXU!<L HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Definition of Sexual 

Harassment 

• Sexual Harassment is a form of sex discrim

• Sexual Harassment is deliberate or repea

unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, o

physical conduct of a sexual nature whic

are unwelcome. 
308 

'(facilitator's notes . 

Sex discrimination occurs when Individuals 

ore treated or Impacted In a dlffe;ent 

manner because of sex (gender) distinctions. 

Although sexual harassment Is a form of sex 

discrimination, It Is concerned only with 

unwelcome sexual behavior that Interferes 

with an Individual's employment, benefits, or 

ability to work effectively. 

According to the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission guidelines, sexual 

harassment Is: 

"delIberate or repeated unsolicIted verbal 

comments, gestures or physIcal conduct of 0 

sexual nature whIch are unwelcome .• 

It Is Important to note key words In the 

definition: deliberate, repeated, unsolicited, 

sexual nature, unwelcome. 

11 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PI AINTS PROCESS 
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests f

favors, and other verbal or physical co

sexual nature constitute sexual harassm

• Submission to such conduct is made eithe

or implicitly a term or condition of an ind

employment, 

• Submission to or rejection of such conduc

individual is used as the basis for employm

affecting such individual. 

• Such conduct has the purpose or effect 

interfering with the individual's work perfo

creating an intimidating, hostile, or offens

environment, 
Facilitator's notes 

Read this statement: 

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission) has Issued official guidelines 

which define sexual harassment as a form of 

sex dIScrimination under TI~ VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. 

Explain the following: 

To determine whether alleged conduct 

consmutes sexual harassment. the 

Commission looks at the record 01 a whole 

and at all the circumstance. related to the 

InCident. These circumstances Include the 

nature of the sexual advances and the 

context In which the aneged Incident 

occurred. The legality of a particular action 

Is determined from the facts. on a case by 

case basis. 

310 

12 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
311 
312 

TIJ( rr<! \'t NT' C) '] (). ',I \,JI\I II/\P/\1 \)~V'" ~,r Ai f) ilH 

DlscrW/'I"JATIO~. COVI'Lf,I' HS PfIOCI:'3 

Handout for Activity One 

• Please read the Incident described below 

• Applying the definition of sexual harassment and other EEOC 

guidelines. determine how this Incident constitutes sexual 

harassment 

Brenda Is a lab .techniCian In a VA MedICal 

Center. She has excellent Job performance evaluations and on outstanding 

academIC background. When the Chief of 

laboratory services rellres • .the new mole Chief 

reorganize. the lob structure. creating a new 

supervisory position. . 

One evening. the Chief flnd. Brenda working 

late to flnlstl up a project. He Invite. her to /Oin 

him for a quICk dinner. and Brenda accepts. At 

dtnner. the Chief encourages Brenda to apply 

for the supervisory postllon. The next morning. 

he sends flowers to her lob stallon. along with a 

note thanking her for a 'speclal evening." The 

next day. he Invites Brenda to again JoIn him for 

dinner. She refuses. indICating She has to go 

directly home. He later offers her a ride home. 

which ahe olio refuses. That night. the Chief 

calls Brenda at home and asks her for a date. 

She again refuses. 

For a few weeks. Brenda doesn·t hear from the 

Chief. In the meantime. She aubmlt. her 

applICation lor the aupervlsory posttlon. Shortly 

aNer. the Chief begins to leave notes at 

Brenda's desk and Irequently coils her home. 

She continues to reluse his overtures. 

Finally. the Chief calls Brenda In for a 

conference. He mentions how Impressed he Is 

with her work performance and what a strong 

candidate she Is for the new position. 

However. the position win require travel to and 

participation In out-of-town·conferences. The 

Chief questions whether Brenda can 'handle" 

that responsibility. since She has no such 

experience. He mentions a conference 

coming Up In the next week. where he will be a 

contr "utor. He suggests that she accompany 

hi n order to observe what goes on and assist 

with his activities. He also reminds her that 

the experience would help strengthen her bid 

for the new posttlon. Brenda declines to 

accompany him. Subsequently. the supervisory 

position Is awarded to another lab technician. 

DISCUSS Conclusions 
313 

Facilitator's notes 

The participant's copy of Activity One 

(Handout) Is to be duplicated and 

distributed to each participant at this 

point In your presentation. 

Leave transparency #13 on the 

screen and distribute the handout. 

Give participants at least 4 minutes to 

read the handout, keeping In mind 

that they will discuss the following 

question: ·Uslng terms from the 

definition of sexual harassment and 

other EEOC guidelines, determine 

how this Incident constitutes sexual 

harassment. " 

You may break Into smaller groups for 

discussion purposes. Select a leader 

from each group to summarize Its 

discussion. Be sure everyone has had 

enough time to read the Incident and 

to discuss It as a group. 

Lead a discussion with the whole 

group. 8e sure the following pOints 

are made: 

-there are repeated and unSOlicited verbal 

comments. gestures, or physical contact 

-the lab ChIef repeatedly asks Brenda for 

private ttme togeth9f or dates 

-at no time does Brenda express an Interest In 

the Chief or In having a relationshIp with hIm 

other than .whatever professIonal 

Involvement her posttton requIres 

-the lab Chief sends nowers to Brenda's work 

statIon with a personal note 

13 

The Chief's overtures are unwelcome -

-after the Initial dinner, Brenda refuses the 

lob Chief's requests for dates or ttme 

together 

Submtsston to ... such conduct IS made 

Impncltlya conditIon of an Individual's 

employment or used as the basts for 

employment declstons - "QuId pro quo' 

-the lab ChIef implIes that If Brenda 

accompanied him out-aI-town, he would 

return the favor with a promotton to the 

supervisory posItion 

INCIOENT: 

Brenda IS a lab technIcIan In a V A MedIcal 

Center. She has excellent lob performance 

evaluations and an outstanding academic 

background. When the ChIef of laboratory 

ServIces rettres. the new male ChIef 

reorganIzes the lob structure, creating a new 

supervIsory positIon. 

One evening. the Chief finds Brenda workIng 

late to finIsh up a prolect. He Invites her to 

loin him for a quick dinner, and Brenda 

accepts. At dinner, the Chief encourages 

Brenda to apply for the supervIsory poSltton. 

The next morning. he sends flowers to her lab 

stallon, along with a note thanking her for a 

'speclal evening.' The next day, he Invites 

Brenda to again lotn him for dinner. She 

refuses, Indlcattng she has to go dlrectty 

home. He later offers her a rIde home, which 

she also refuses. That night, the Chief colts 

Brenda at home and asks her lor a date. She 

again refuses. 

For a few weeks, Brenda doesn't hear from 

the ChIef. In the meantIme, she submits her 
314 

Facilitator 1s notes 

applcotlon for the supervisory potItton. 

Shortly otter, the Chief begins to leave notes 

at Brenda'. desk and frequently calis her 

home. She continues to refuse his overtures. 

Finally, the Chief calla Brenda In for a 

conference. He mentions how Impr_d he 

Is with her work pertormance and what a 

strong candidate She Is for the new position. 

However, the pOSItIon wll require travel to 

and partICipation In out-of-town 

conferences. The Chief question. whether 

Brenda can "handle" that respanllbillty, IInce 

She hal no luch experience. He mentions a 

conference coming up In the next week. 

where he wI be a contributor. He suggests 

that She accompany him In order to observe 

what g08l on and aIIIat him with hili activities. 

He also remlndl her that the experience 

would help strengthen her bid lor the new 

position. Brenda decnne. to accompany 

him. Subsequently, the supervisory position Is 

awarded to another lob technICian. 

DIscUII Conclullonl. 

continued 

13 

Thf ppr vi rJTIor~ or seVUM 1I.\riAS3MEcJj NFl TIIF D:SCR'M"iATlor~ COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
315 

Identifying 

Sexual 

Harassment: 

Its Effects 

and 

Consequences 

." 

» 

::0 

-I 

N 
Pari Two Obieclives 

At the conclusion of this section, yo

understand: 

• Examples and effects of sexual harassme

• Actions to take if sexual harassment occu
317 

, Facilitator's notes 

ThiS second port of the trolnlng module will 

continue to focus on behavior. that 

constitute sexual harassment. 

Read through objectIves on 

transparency. 

14 

THE PRE 'It NTIOI" OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT A~ID THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Examples of Sexual 

Harassment 

Verbal 

• Sexual innuendoes 

• Suggestive remarks 

• Insults 

• Humor and jokes about sex or gender-spe

• Sexual propositions 

• Threats 
319 

Facilitator's notes 

Expand on the transparency list with 

the following examples: 

COMMENTS: 

-Sexual comments about a person's body, 

clothing or looks 

SUGGESTIVE REMARKS: 

-Conversations about sexual fantasies, 

preferences, or history 

-Personal questions about a person's social or 

sexual life 

PROPOSITIONS: 

-Repeatedly asking out a person who Is not 

Interested 

INSULTS: 

-Telling lies or spreading rumors about a 

person's personal sex life 

15 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
-II 

::t 

.>C 

CD 

v. 

......... 

01: 

",CD 

..!!E 

a. E; '" 

II" >ell 

... :z: 

320 
321 

Facilitator's notes 

Expand on the transparency list wIth 

the followIng examples: 

LEERING 

-Staring In general or at a particular part of 

the anatomy 

OGLING 

-Looking up and down (elevator eyes) 

OBSCENE GESTURES 

-Suggestive facial expressions or sexual 

gestures 

OBSCENE MATERIALS 

-Displaying sexually suggestive visuals of any 

kind 

In addition. non-verbal harassment can 

Include: 

-Following a person 

-Giving personal g ifts 

-"Hanging around" a person 

16 

TilE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMFNT AND TilE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Examples of Sexual 

Harassment 

Physical 

• Touching others 

• Pinching 

• Touching oneself 

• Brushing the body 

• Cornering 

• Actual or attempted rape or assault 
323 

Facilitatorls notes 

Expand on the transparency list with 

the following: 

TOUCHING: 

-Touching a person's clothing. hair or body 

-Hugging. kissing. palling. pinching. or 

stroking 

-Touching or rubbing oneself sexuany while 

around another person 

BRUSHING: 

-Standing close to or brushing up against a 

person 

CORNERING: 

-Blocking a person's path 

17 

THE prlEVENTION OF SEXUAl HARASSMEr~T AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PI AINTS PROCESS 
Effects of Sexual Hara

on the Victim 

• Mental anguish and stress 

• Uncomfortable working environment 

• Impact on productivity and efficiency 

• Constructive discharge (forced resignatio

• Reprisal 

• Potential for litigation 
325 

Facilitator's notes . 

Read through list on transparency 

and explClln: 

Sexual harassing activity Is always 

Inappropriate and counterproductive. The 

conduct t:an have devastating and adverse 

ellects on the morale, behavior, productivity, 

and many times on the health of the victim. 

18 

THE PREVErJTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PLAINTS PROCESS 
Effects of Sexual Hara

on the Organization 

• loss of morale, productivity, and efficienc

• Increased absenteeism and turnover 

• Uncomfortable work environment 

• Potential litigation 

• Adverse publicity 
327 

Facilitator's notes 

Read the list on transparency, then 

add: 

We are all the victims of sexual harassment 

when It affects the organization for which we 

work. Individual Incidents of sexual 

harassmenf have a 'rlpple effect" that 

ultimately harm an organization and create 

an unpleasant working environment for 

everyone. 

19 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Consequences of Sexu

Harassment on the Of

• Written Counseling 

• Disciplinary/Adverse Action 

-Admonishment -Suspension 

-Reprimand -Removal 

• Potential Liability 

-Payment of Civil Suit Damages 

-Criminal Prosecution 

• Potential Adverse Impact on Family 

Standing 
329 

Facilitator's notes 

Read the list on transparency. then: 

Explain that sexual harassment IS an Issue of 

conduct. Therefore. It IS handled through a 

progression of disciplinary actions. The 

degree of discipline IS based upon the 

seriousness and repelltlveness of the 

conduct. 

NOTE: 

Personal Tort LIability: In the past. federal 

employees. If found by a court to have 

engaged In sexual harassment. could rest 

assured that they would not be held 

personally liable for any monetary Judgment. 

This IS because. under federal Civil rights laws. 

only the head of the department or agency 

Involved can be named In the suit. Any 

Judgment handed down Is a Judgment 

against the agency payable out of the 

government·s Judgment Fund. This Is stili true 

Insofar as federal civil rights laws are 

concerned. This Includes the recentlyenacted CMI Rights Act of 1991 which 

provides for compensatory damages of up to 

$300.000 over and above any backpay 

which may be owing. 

However. with Increasing frequency. federal 

courts are beginning to permit victims 

bringing sexual harassment claims to add. 

under certain circumstances. state tort law 

claims to their federal claims. This permits 

them to hold the harasser personally liable for 

damages. A tort Is a civil wrong for which 

compensatory and punitive damages may 

be asseaed against the wrongdoer. Typical 

state tort claims being raised by plaintiffs In 

sexual harassment cases Include. but are not 

limited to. assault. battery. Intentlanal 

Infliction of emotional distress. outrageous 

conduct. and false ImprISonment. 

20 

Generally. before a federal court wll allow a 

victim to raise a state tort claim In 

connection with the federal claim of 

harassment. the case must usually be one 

Involving Indecent touching or some other 

obJectlanable conduct. Judgments In these 

state tort claims have somellmes resutted In 

compensatory and punitive damage awards 

against the Individual harasser In excess of 

one million dollars. The Federal Government 

will not pay such Judgments on behalf of the 

employee Since the emplayee was clearly 

not acting within the scope of emplayment 

while engaging In the IdenHfled conduct. 

It Is Important to mention the landmark case 

that was decided against the former Chief. 

Fiscal Servtce. VAMC lyons. NJ (This article 

was published In The (Newark. NJ) Starledger. 11/26/92): 

Former Top Official at VA Hospital Admits 

Guilt In Sexual Harassment Case - A 

former top official at the VAMC In lyons. 

N.J .. pleaded guHtv In federal court In 

Trenton. NJ. to sexually harassing a female 

employee. Chauncy W.lewls. 55. Chief of 

the Fiscal Service. pleaded before U.S. 

Magistrate John J. Hughes to one count of 

"abusive sexual contact.' according to 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Dyana lee. lewis' 

case was the flm In New Jersey and 

possibly the nallan In which federal 

authorities brought criminal charges 

against a government offICial for aleged 

sexual abuse. SentenCing for lewis IS 

scheduled to take place before Hughes on 

January 15. lewIS faces a maximum of Six 

months In federal prISon and $5.000 In fines. 
Employee Responsibil

Conduct 

Title V, Code of Federal Regulations, Pa

The maintenance of unusually high standar

integrity, impartiality, and conduct by gove

employees is essential to assure the proper 

of the government business and the mainte

confidence by citizens in their government. 

The avoidance of misconduct on the part o

employees".through informed judgment is 

to the maintenance of these standards. 
Facilitator's notes 

Federal employee and employer 

responsibilities for conduct while acting within 

the scope of employment are set forth In the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

As a federal employee, you have a 

responsibility to avoid misconduct such as 

sexual harassment. 

Please read regulation from 

transparency. 

331 

21 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Employer Responsibili

Conduct 

Title 29, CFR, Chapter Xiv, Part 1604, 

Item C: 

An employer is responsible for its acts and 

agents and supervisory employees with r

harassment, regardless of whether the em

should have known of their occurrence. 

Item D: 

An employer may rebut apparent liability 

acts by showing it took immediate and a

corrective action. 
333 

Facilitator's notes 

Read transparency and explaIn: 

An employer Is responsible for acts of sexual 

harassment In the workplace where the 

employer (Its agents or supervisory 

employees) knows or should have known of 

the conduct. 

Implicit In this statement Is management's 

responsibility to toke action based on 

awareness of sexual harassment activity 

regardless of whether a complaint has been 

flied. 

Management must respond to all allegations 

of sexual harassment with an Inquiry and 

Intervention designed to end. and to repair 

the effects of, the harassment. Where the 

employee alleges hostile environment sexual 

harassment. the v A may ovoid liability by 

showing that there was immediate and 

appropriate corrective action as soon as 

management was put on notice of the 

harassment. 

In a hostile environment claim. the first step In 

fixing an employer's liability Is to determine 

whether the misconduct was committed by 

a co-worker or a supervisor. In general. /I the 

hostile environment Is created by a coworker. IIabmty will attach only /I the 

employer knew (actual knowledge), or 

reasonably should have known (constructive 

knowledge). of the harassment and failed to 

take Immediate and appropriate corrective 

action. 'Actual knowledge" Is usally present 

when the employer's supervisors/managers 

become aware of the abusive environment 

through first-hand observation, or when the 

victim Informally complains to his or her 

supervisors. or when an EEO Counselor 

discusses the victim's allegations with 

management officials. and. of course. when 

the victim flies a formal complaint of 

discrimination. 

22 

'Constructlve knowledge" Is present when 

management officials should have known of 

the harassment. For example, a supervisor 

may claim lack of actual knowledge; that Is 

that he or she never observed any 

misconduct and was never Informed of It. 

On the other hand. If the facts In the case 

clearly demonstrate that the harassment was 

widespread and well-known among 

employees. the supervlsar cannot shield his or 

her employer from liability simply by arguing 

that he or ahe was oblivious to what was 

happening. This situation often occurs when 

there Is more than one harasser and/or more 

than one victim. Under these circumstances. 

the employer will be deemed to have 

constructive knowledge of the harassment 

and will be liable If It falls to toke Immediate 

and corrective action. 

Where the employee alleges Quid pro quo 

sexual harassment, the VA cannot avoid all 

liability. Supervisory employees represent the 

V A and/or are authorized to oct on behalf of 

the V A such that the V A Is strictly liable for 

their actions. This means that the V A Is held 

accountable for sexual harassment by a 

supervisor In the course Of employment even 

where no other management official hod 

knowledge of the sexual harassment. 

Although a prompt appropriate 

management response will not reduce the 

VA's liability for the sexually harassing 

conduct of Its supervisory employees. 

management stili has a duty to respond. 

Intervention by management will minimize 

the ellects of the harassment on the 

Individual victim, and will support 

management·s goal of preventing further 

harassment In the workplace. 

n't PiEVE CJl10N OF SEXLlI\L HI\RI\SSMENl AND THE DISCRIMINI\ TION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Note That: 

• The harasser is most frequently a coworke

• Often the harasser is not directly employe

the agency, 
335 

Facilitator's notes 

While we have already Identified that the 

harasser Is most frequently a co-worker. we 

need to be aware that the harasser may 

Include people who are not dlreclly 

employed by the Agency. For example. 

vendors and outside contract personnel may 

be Involved In sexual horassmenl. These 

Incidents also need to be brought to the 

Immediate attention of management. 

You have the right to be protected from nonemployees In the workplace. This Includes 

anyone who Is on V A property to conduct 

buSiness or receive medICal core. Sexual 

harassment victims should contact their 

supervisor. the Personnel Office. or Medical 

Administration Service for guidance If a 

patient Is the harasser. 

23 

THE PREVEt"TION OF SEXUAL HARASsrvENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Victim's Respo"nsibility 

• Tell the harasser to stop because th

unwelcome. 

• Keep a journal or record. 

• Tell someone: 

-supervisor or other appropriate manage

-EEO counselor 

-co-worker 

• Utili%e VAMC resources: 

-grievance process 

-informal complaint process 

-formal complaint process 
337 

Facilitator's notes 

Read: 

When on Individual "feelS he or she has been 

the vICtim of sexual harassment. the following 

actions should be token: 

Read through list on ffansparency. 

The molarity of employee. In 'the VA are 

mature and responsible adults who. If 

Informed that their behavior IS offensive and 

that such behavior must be stopped. will oct 

accordingly, If the behavior does not stoP. 

the victim must toke Immediate action to 

alert and Inform the appropriate officials, 

(Appropriate Informal and formal action Is 

described further In Part 3) 

24 

THE PREVE NTION OF SEXUI\I HI\RI\SSMENT I\N D THE DISCRIMINATION COMPl/IINTS PROCESS 
338 

"-- -

z::. 

~ 

E 

~ 

~ 

'= -= -'= ::I 

~ "> 

~ 

-~ z:: 

--

~ 

0 ~ 

~ --~ 

z:: 

-- >- ~ 

~ .... ..c 

--

:- -Q 

-- ~ .... 

... • 

.. 
339 

THE fof/LVI II1IUI·j CJI "I :<UJ\I fl~\pr\~,',MLlII J\I'JI) TilL 

DISCRlrvl~!ATIOI, COI\lPu\lr!TS PROCESS 

Handout for Activity Two 

• Please read the 3 IncIdents descrIbed below 

• ApplyIng the definItIon of sexual harassment, EEOC guIdelines, and 

other InformatIon receIved, determIne whether these IncIdents 

Involve sexual harassment 

1. A representative af a hospital supply vendor routinely visits the Procurement Office. ThiS "rep" 

considers himself a "ladles man" and always makes suggestive remarks to the two lemale clerks In 

the office. He addresses them as "Sweetie" and "Honey," and comments on their appearance, 

with specific references to parts of their anatomy. At the end of each visit, he always asks the 

unmarried clerk for a date, and leaves her his personal phone number, written on his business card. 

The clerk repeatedly turns down his request for dates and tries to refuse the phone number, but the 

"rep" always forces the Issue. Fearful of creallng bod feelings, the clerk takes the business card, 

smiles politely, and promises to "think about It." This clerk Is very uncomfortable with the man's 

behavior and confides her feelings to the other clerk. The second clerk tells the supervisor that 

both women find the rep's behavior obJectionable. The supervisor responds, "Yeah-he's a real 

smooth talker. But he's Just trying to be friendly to his customers. Ignore him and he probablv 

won't bother you." Shortly thereafter, the unmarried clerk contacts an EEO counselor with a 

complaint 01 sexual harassment. 

2. A woman member of the housekeeping ataff at a Medical Center Is assigned to a work team 

comprised of men and women. Members of the team work together on tasks. ond since the work 

Is physical, they usually talk as they work. In addition, team members often take breaks together, 

so the team Is a social group as well as a work team. They feel comfortable with each other and 

are on friendly terms. The new woman member 01 the team seems to fit In Quickly, making friends 

with the other workers and Joining In their conversallons. She uses vulgar language freely In her 

speech and often Initiates sexually oriented conversallons with her co-workers. She asks male 

team members about their marital aex lives and whether they engage In extramarital affairs. She 

freely discusses her own sexual encounters In conversations with both mole and female co-workers. 

A few weeks after she Joined the work team, the woman alerts her supervisor to the fact that she 

has be9n propositioned by male co-workers and subjected to sexual remarks. She claims sexual 

harassment. 

3, A resident physician at a VA hospital routinely stops by the nurses stallon on his ward. He always 

greets the nurses by hugging tham or touching them In some sexual way. Some of the nurses laugh 

and go along with his "playfulness,' while others genlly push him away and dismiss his forwardness. 

Those nurses who object to his behavior move away to avoid him. The doctor does not force his 

otten lions on the nurses who ovoid him, and he does not pursue the others beyond the physical 

contact he Initiates. One of the nurses finds this dally scene to be very upsetting, although she has 

always mode her displeasure obviOUS and has never been approached by the doctor. Even so, 

she claims that she Is a vlcllm of sexual harassment because of the environment created by the 

doctor. 

Discuss Responses 
340 

';facilitator's notes 

The partiCipant', copy of Activity Two 

(Handout) I, to be duplicated and 

distributed. to each participant at this 

point In your presentation. 

Leave transparency #25 on the 

screen and distribute the handout. 

Give participants at least 4 minutes to 

read the handout, keeping In mind 

that they will discuss the following 

question: • ApplyIng terms from the 

definition of sexual harassment, EEOC 

guIdeline" and other InformatIon 

received, determIne whether these 

IncIdents Involve sexual harassment.· 

You may break Into smaller groups for 

dIscussIon purposes. Select a leader 

from each group to summarize Its 

discussion. Be sure everyone has had 

enough time to read the Incident and 

to discuss It as a group. 

Lead a discussion with the whole 

group. 

In evaluating responses, consider the 

following points: 

-Is the victim subjected to verbal, non-verbal 

or physical harassment? 

-Is the behavior deliberate, repeated, 

unsolicited, unwelcome, of a sexual nature? 

-Is submission to the conduct made a 

condlflon of the victim's employment or 

used as the basis for an employment 

decISIon affecting the victim? 

25 

-Does the conduct Interfere with the victim's 

work performance or create a hostile 

enVironment? 

-Hal the victim let the harasser know the 

behavtor Is unwelcome? 

-Has the victim recorded or reported the 

Incident? 

-Old the emp/oyer know of the alleged 

conduct? 

-Has the employer taken Immediate and 

appropriate corrective action? 

Incident 111: (Key pOints) 

-The vendor's behavior Is deliberate, 

repeated, unsolicited. 

-The vendor verbally harassed the unmarried 

clerk with terms of endearment and 

suggestive comments. He continues to ask 

her out, even though she has turned him 

down repeatedly. 

-Management may be responsible for the 

actions of people who are not directly 

employed by the agency, such as vendors, 

when they know of their behavior. This 

supervisor was Informed about the behavior, 

but did not take Immediate and corrective 

action. 

Incident 112: (Key pOints) 

The propositions and sexual remarks made 

by the co-workers to the woman were 

deliberate, repeated, and of a definite 

sexual nature. However, the question here Is 

whether the behavior was unsolicited and 

unwelcome, and whether It resulted In a 

hostile environment. In this case, the court 

found that the co-worker's behavior was 

prompted by the woman's own sexual 

aggressiveness and her own sexually explicit 

conversallons. 

THE PREvE;JT/ON OF StXUAL HARASSlvlFNT AlID THE DISCRIMINATIOIJ COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
341 

·Facilitator's notes 

Incident 113: (Key points) 

Even though the doctor In question does not 

have direct verbal or physical contact with 

the nurse/Vlctlm. his behavior may Indeed 

create a hostile environment. The nurse feels 

that If she does not continually make a 

definite effort to avoid him and discourage 

him. she will be subjected to the same 

behavior. This Is subtle harassment. but very 

real to the victim. and It may Interfere with 

her work performance. By not participating 

In this behavior. the nurse has Indicated to 

the doctor that It Is unwelcome. We do not 

know whether she has shared her feelings 

with the other nurses or her supervisor. We 

also do not know whether the supervisor 

knows about these Incidents; however. since 

they ore repeated on a routine basis. It might 

be expected that the head nurse would be 

aware of the situation or present during their 

occurrence. 

INCIDENTS: 

1. A representative of a hospital supply 

vendor routinely visits the Procurement 

Ottlce. This 'rep' considers himself a 'ladles 

man' and always makes suggestive remarks 

to the two female clerks In the ottlce. He 

addresses them as ' Sweetie" and 'Honey.' 

and comments on their appearance. with 

specific references to parts of their anatomy. 

At the end of each visit. he always asks the 

unmarried clerk for a date. and leaves her his 

personal phone number. wrillen on his 

business card. The clerk repeatedly turns 

down his request for dates and tries to refuse 

the phone number. but the 'rep' always 

forces the Issue. Fearful of creating bad 

feelings. the clerk takes the business card. 

smiles pOlitely. and promises to 'think about 

It.' This clerk Is very uncomfortable with the 

continued 

25 

man's behavior and confides her feelings to 

the other clerk. The second clerk tells the 

supervisor that both women find the rep's 

behavior obJectionable. The supervisor 

responds. 'Yeah-he's a real smooth talker. 

But he's Just trying to be friendly to his 

customers. Ignore him and he probably 

won·t bother you." Shortly thereafter. the 

unmarried clerk contacts an EEO counselor 

with a complaint of sexual harassment. 

2. A woman member of the housekeeping 

staff at a Medical Center Is assigned to a 

work team comprised of men and women. 

Members of the team work together on tasks. 

and Since the work Is physical. they usually 

talk as they work. In addition. team members 

often take breaks together. so the team Is a 

social group as well as a work team. They 

feel comfortable with each other and are on 

friendly terms. The new woman member of 

the team seems to fit In quickly. making 

friends with the other workers and Joining In 

their conversations. She uses VUlgar 

language freely In her speech and otten 

Initiates sexually o~ented conversations with 

her co-workers. She asks male team 

members about their marital sex lives and 

whether they engaged In extramarital affairs. 

She freely discusses her own sexual 

encounters In conversations with both male 

and female co-workers. A few weeks after 

she Joins the work-team. the womon alerts 

her supervisor to the fact that she has been 

propositioned by male co-workers and 

subjected to sexual remarks. She claims 

sexual harassment. 

3. A resident physician at a V A hospital 

routinely stops by the nurses statlan on his 

ward. He always greets the nurses by 

hugging them or touching them In some 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
342 

Facilitator's notes 

sexual way. Some of the nurses laugh and 

go along with his • playfulness •• while others 

gently push him away and dismiss his 

forwardness. Those nurses who object to his 

behavior move away to avoid him. The 

doctor does not force his attentions on the 

nurses who avoid him. and he does not 

pursue the others beyond the phy&lcal 

contact he Initiates. One of the nurses finds 

this dolly scene to be very upsetting. 

although she has alway. made her 

displeasure obvious and has never been 

approached by the doctor. Even so. she 

claims that she Is a victim of sexual 

harassment because of the environment 

created by the doctor. 

continued 

25 

THE PREVE NTION OF SEXUAL HARASSME ~J1 AND THE DISCRIMI~JA TION COM PLAINTS PROCESS 
343 

The o 

Discrimination 

Complaints 

Process: Steps 

in the 

Inf,orrnal 

Process 
Part Three Obiectives 

At the conclusion of this section, yo

understand: 

• How to use the EEO informal complaints 

• Rights and responsibilities of all parties in t

complaints process. 
345 

Facilitator'S notes 

Read through objectives on 

transparency. 

26 

THr PREVUJTION OF SEXUAL HAR!ISSI.lrNT MID THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Activity Three 

ANSWER THE TRUE/FALSE QUEST

HANDOUT 3 

• At the end of this section, see if yo

your original choices. 
347 

Facilitator's notes 

Duplicate the handout for Activity 

Three. Before you begin section three. 

distribute the handouts to partiCipants 

and give them a few minutes to 

answer the questions. You will discuss 

the answers at the end of the section. 

Read: 

Before we explore the details of the 

complaints process, let's determine what we 

know about how the process workS. Take a 

few minutes to answer these True/False 

statements. Then, at the conclusion of this 

section, see If you agree with your original 

choices. 

Read through True/False statements: 

1. A complaint of sexual harassment must 

also show evidence of disparate treatment, 

reprisal, non-accommodation, adverse 

Impact, or perpetuation of past 

discrimination. (True) (False) 

2. The complaint system Is designed to 

Informany resolve a discrimination dispute, 

where possible, without deciding who Is right 

or wrong. (True) (False) 

3. A complainant 'does not have to seek 

counseling If he or she Intends to file 0 formal 

complaint of employment discrimination. 

(True) (False) 

4. A good counselor Is the advocate of the 

complainant. (True) (False) 

5, No further steps In the complaint process 

are pursued once the complaint has been 

resolved Informally. (True) (False) 

27 

6. A complainant's fight to remain 

anonymous expires when he or she flies a 

formal complaint. (True) (False) 

7. An aggrieved person Is responsible for 

using the complaints process only as a means 

to ensure equal employment opportunity, 

and not to pursue resolution of other 

problems at the work-site. (True) (False) 

8. The responsible management official does 

not have to be given access to all case 

materials If the counselor believes that 

certain Information would be an Invasion of 

the victim's privacy. (True) (False) 

9. While the complolnant Is entitled to official 

time off In order to purse counseling, he or 

she must have the supervisor's permission to 

be absent from the work-site. (True) (False) 

10. The responsible management official 

should withhold relevant case Information If It 

would leopardlze his or her present and 

future employment status. (True) (False) 

THE PREVENTION or SEXUAL HARASS~HNT Ar,D THE DISCRIMI~JI\TION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Basis for Filing a Com

Discrimination 

• Race 

• Color 

• Religion 

• Sex and Sexual Harassment 

• Age 

• National Origin 

• Physical or Mental Disability 

• Reprisal 
349 

Facilitator's notes' . 

Please explain the following: 

BASIS FOR FILING A COMPLAINT 

The law states that If a person feels that he or 

she has been discriminated against they may 

file an EEO complaint. However. to file a 

complaint the action must fall within eight 

protected categories. Each of the 

catego~es has specific criteria which help 

determine discriminatory actions, 

RACE 

Often confused with "Nationality.' refers to 

the biological origin of a person; may differ In 

color of skin. color and texture of hair. and 

other external characteristiCS. 

COLOR 

The complexion of people who are not 

classed as Caucasian. such as Black. Red. 

and Yellow. 

SEX 

Male or Female (Homosexuality and 

Lesbianism are not accepted Issues for an 

EEO Complaint within the Federal 

Government. at this time) 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 

NOTE: This Information has already been 

defined In Part 1 a",d can be referenced 

here rather than restated. 

Unwelcome sexual advances. requests for 

sexual favors. and other verbal or physical 

conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual 

harassment when: 

(1) Submission to such conduct Is made 

either explicitly or Implicitly. a term or 

condition of an Indlvldual's employment; 

28 

(2) Submission to or relectlon of such 

conduct by an Individual Is used as the basis 

for employment decisions affecting the 

Individual; or. 

(3) Such conduct has the purpose of 

unreasonably Interfering with an Indlvldual's 

work performance or creating an 

Intimidating. hostile or offensive working 

environment. 

NATIONAL ORIGIN 

National origin discrimination Is broadly 

defined as Including. but not limited to. the 

denial of equal employment because of an 

Individual's. or his or her ancestor·s. place ot 

origin; or because an Individual has the 

physical. cultural or linguistic characteristics 

of a national origin group. 

RELIGION 

Includes all aspects of religious observances 

and practices. as well as beliefs. 

AGE 

If someone Is 40 years or older at the time 

that the discrimination took place. 

DISABILITY (PHYSICAL OR MENTAL) 

A disabled person Is defined as one who: 

(1) Has a physical or mental Impairment 

which substantially limits one or more of such 

person's malor life activities (life activities are 

walking. seeing. hearing. speaking. 

breathing. learning. and working); or 

(2) Has a record ot such Impairment (this 

means the person has a history of. or has 

been classified as having a physical or 

mental disability that substantially limits one 

or more malor life activities); or 

THE PREVE NTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
350 

Facilitator's J10tes 

(3) II regarded al having an impairment (this 

means that; (a) a persan might have a 

physical or mental impairment that does not 

substanl1al1y ImIt major Ufe activities but 18 

treated by an employer as havfng such 

limitations or (b) a pelIOn has a phystcal or 

mental impairment that substantlally limits 

major lite actlvillel only as a result of the 

attltude of an employer toward the 

Impairment; or (c) a pelIOn might not have 

a phystcal or mental Impairment but II 

treated by an employer as having such 

an impairment, 

REPRISAL 

Because of participation In a process 

protesting discrimination oncludea 

negol1ated grievance). the Indlvldual feels 

that management 18 taking action against 

them, Participation can be: IRIng a 

complaint; being a wltn_. on EEO 

Counselor. EEO Investigator ar anyone 

associated with the program; and those 

who express a belief In the program, 

continued 

28 

lHF PRE \ F 111101~ OF SEXUI\L HI\RI\SSIv1F N i I\t I[) lHE DISC PI~ 11t~A 1101'1 ( OIM'll\lt~lS PllOCESS 
Theories of D-iscrimina

• Disparate Treatment 

• Reprisal 

• Accommodation 

• Adverse Impact 

• Perpetuation of Past Discrimination 
352 

Faciljtator!s notes 

Acts of discrimination can be further 

claSllfled according to these theories of 

discrimination. 

Read through list on transparency. 

29 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRi:v1INATION COMPlAI"lTS PROCESS 
Disparate Treatment 

• All cases where the complainant says tha

treated differently from other members o

the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, 

physical/mental disability, or in reprisal 

• 80% of all formal complaints are based o

treatment theory 
354 

Facilitator's notes " 

The DI$par~te Treatment Theory of 

Discrimination 

The flrlt of the five theorlelldentlflel 

discrimination based on dllparate treatmen!. 

This theory 1& listed Ilrst because It applies to 

most complaint situations. Approximately 80 

percent of all complaints flied against the 

Department of Veterans Affairs are properly 

analyzed using this theory. 

It applies to all allegations that the victim was 

treated differently from similarly situated 

Individuals of a different and non-protected 

class. For example. an employee may allege 

that he or she was not selected for promotion 

because of race (black). where the person 

selected Is white. This would be a disparate 

treatment case. Similarly, a complaint may 

allege that a female employee was 

reprimanded because of sex (gender), 

where similarly males were (allegedly) 

disciplined less harshly. This Is also a 

disparate treatment case. 

30 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND TH[ DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Reprisal 

Cases where an employee is warned tha

situation could become uncomfortable if 

participates in the discrimination complai

opposes any unlawful discriminatory prac
356 

Facilitator's notes 

The ReprIsal Theory of DIscrimInation 

ThiS theory applies to allegations that the 

victim was treated Improperly because 0' 

prtor EEO activity. The poor EEO actfvfty may 

encompass protests 0' allegedly 

dlscrtmlnatory acts. as well as participation 

In the EEO complain' process as a 

complainant. a witness or a representative. 

31 

THE PREVErHlON OF SFYUAL HARASSMEN) AND THF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Accommodation 

Complaints filed on the basis of disability 

discrimination, which allege that the com

entitled to a reasonable accommodatio

religious beliefs or disabling condition 
358 

Facilitator's notes -

The Accommodation Theory of 

Discrimination 

This theory applies to certain complaints of 

religious or disability discrimination. These 

complaints allege that the vtctlm was entitled 

to a reasonable accommodation to his or 

her religious beliefs, or to his or her disabling 

condition. This theory does not apply to 

race, color, sex, national origin, age or 

reprisal complaints. In addition, It does not 

apply to all religion and disability 

complalnts-only to those Involving 

accommodations. 

32 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND-THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Adverse Impact 

Complaints which allege that a policy or 

applied equally to everyone, has an adv

particular protected classes 
360 

Facilitator'S notes 

The Adverse Impact Theory of 

Discrimination 

In an adverse Impact case. the focus Is on 

the consequences of an employment 

practice. rather than on the motive. Adverse 

Impact complaints are those which anege 

that a policy or practice. though applied 

equolly to 011 employees or applicants for 

employment. has an adverse Impact or 

effect on particular protected classes. For 

example. let us suppose there Is a Nursing 

Service education requirement applied to all 

applicants. regardless of race. If this results 

In black nurse applicants being hired at a 

rate significantly lower than white nurse 

applicants. this would be an adverse 

Impact case. 

33 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PLAIN TS PROCESS 
Perpetuation of Past 

Discrimination 

A practice or policy which serves to cont

disc rimination 
362 

Facilitator'S notes 

The Perpetuation of Past 

Discrimination Theory of 

Discrimination 

This theory concerns situations where. In the 

past. management has had a discriminatory 

policy or practice which It eliminated and 

replaced with another policy or practice. 

The new practice Is neutral on Its face. but 

stili perpetuates the discriminatory effect of 

the past policy. For example. let us suppose 

that management had a past practice of 

hiring only white registered nurses. let us also 

suppose that It eliminated that practice 

several years ago. but replaced It with the 

practice of hiring only those registered nurses 

who were referred to management by 

members of Its all white registered nurse 

corps. The policy of considering only 

Internally referred applicants Is neutral on Its 

face. because the current registered nurse 

corps IS free to recommend any qualified 

candidate. regardless of race. Nevertheless. 

If the policy results In black registered nurse 

applicants being selected at a rate which Is 

significantly below the rate that white 

registered nurse applicants are selected. then 

the policy perpetuafes the past 

discrimination. 

As should be apparent. perpetuation cases 

are very much like adverse Impact cases. 

with the added tactor of a past discriminatory 

practice. The analysIS of the Impact of the 

replacement policy or practice Is conducted 

In the some way as In adverse Impact cases. 

Also. as with adverse Impact cases. once 

discrimination Is established. the burden shifts 

to management to Justify the policy or 

practice as a business necessity. 

34 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
EEO Complaints 

• Most allegations of discrimination are ba

and/or sex in connection with personnel 

• Complaints based on sexual harassment 

increased over 100% since 1987. 
364 

Facilitator's notes 

Promotion. termination. appointment. and 

dl.clpllnary action. are the most common 

personnel actions that result In the filing of 

formal EEO complaints. 

Between 19B7 and 1992. the number of 

complaint. flied on the basIS of .exual 

harassment Increased over 100 percent. 

35 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE QISCRIMINA TION COM PI AINTS PROCESS 
365 

VI 

VI 

• ~ 

0 

~ 

A. 0 

E 0 

.. (5 E 

-- (5 I: c u.... 

--

II .. N - - CD CD a- 0) 0) 

0 .!2 E en 

- en 

0 • • 

'-' 
366 

iFacilitator 1s notes 

Many think of the complaint sysfem 01 a 

means of deciding who Is right or wrong. This 

Is called ·adJudlcatlon.· buf It Is only one way 

to resolve a complaint. and not the goal of 

the complaint process. Actually. the system 

Is carefully designed to Informally resolve 

disputes at the lowest level possible (the 

Informal complaint process). 

'AdJudication' (the formal complaint 

process) - In the form of on agency decision 

as to who Is right and who Is wrong-takes 

place only when good faith efforts towards 

Informal resolution fall. 

Administrative Board of 

Investigation 

36 

Some medical center directors appoint 

AdminIStrative Boards of Investigation to 

Investigate allegations of sexual harassment 

because the process moves foster than the 

EEO complaints process. It an administrative 

Investigation Is conducted. It Is Important to 

understand the tollowlng: 

- The administration Investigation and the 

EEO complaints process are separate 

processes that can occur at the lome time. 

- The administrative Investigation process 

does not supersede or stop time lines set 

forth In the EEO complaint process. 

- The EEO complaints process wllrnot be 

Influenced by the adminIStrative 

Investigation. 

1 HE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Informal Complaints P

• Step 1: Complainant contacts counse

45 calendar days 

• Step 2: Counselor seeks informal reso

complaint 

• Step 3: Counselor gives written Notice 

Interview within 30 calendar d

be extended) 

• Step 4: Complainant has 15 calendar 

formal complaint 
368 

Facilitator's notes ' 

Uncover each step as you discuss 

them 

Step 1. Pre-complaint counseling Is a 

prerequlslle for filing a formal complaint of 

employment discrimination. The employee 

must seek such counseling from a designated 

counselor within 45 days of the alleged 

discriminatory event. or If It Is a personnel 

action, wllhln 45 days of lis effective dote. 

Counseling may not be waived, even by the 

Deportment against which the complaint Is 

raised. Similarly, the 45-day time limit Is a rigid 

one. 

Note - The 45-day time Ilmll was changed 

through CFR 1614 which was effective 

October I, 1992. Previous to this, the time 

IImll was 30 days. 

step 2. The counselor represents nellher the 

complainant nor management but Is a 

neutral fact finder who faCilitates resolution 

of the complaint during the Informal process. 

Counselors are expected to: 

-Conduct fact finding 

-Review records 

-Interview parties relevant to the Issue 

-Facilitate meetings between complainant 

and management 

-Faclillate resolutlo'n of employee/appllcantmanagement disputes 

-Advise the parties to a complaint of their 

rights 

-Record counseling efforts 

Step 3. The counselor must conduct a final 

Interview wllh the complainant (employee or 

applicant) wllhln 30 days of Initial contact. 

This period may be extended up to an 

addllianal 60 days through wrllten 

37 

agreement between the complainant and 

the agency. During this step, the agency Is 

represented by the EEO Director or his/her 

designee. The agency or the unll of the 

agency where the counseling occurs may 

have an established allernatlve dispute 

resolution procedure. If so, and the victim 

agrees to partiCipate In the procedure, the 

pre-complaint processing period shall not 

exceed 90 days. 

Step 4. Following receipt of the "Notice of 

Final Interview: (or the "Notice of Right to File 

EEO Complaint·) the employee or applicant 

Is free to file a formal complaint. The formal 

complaint must be In writing. A 

Discrimination Complaints Form (V A Form 

4939) Is available In the personnel office. A 

plain sheet of paper may be used as long as 

the Information that V A Form 4939 requires Is 

Included. The complaint must be signed 

personally by the complainant and It must be 

flied within 15 calendar days of receipt of the 

"Notice of Final Interview' If one was Issued. 

It may be flied with the EEO Officer (the 

Director of the field facility at which the 

complaint arose) or with the Secretary of 

veterans Affairs, the Deputy Assistant 

Secretory for Equal Employment Opportunity, 

or the VA Federal Women's Program 

Manager In the Office of Equal Opportunity, 

VACO. 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSME~JT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Complainant's rights 

• Right to use the EEO complaint process 

• Right to an EEO counselor of choice 

• Right to representation 

• Right to reasonable on-the-job time to pu

complaint process 

• Right to remain anonymous 

• Right to freedom from restraint, interferen

and reprisal 

• Right to file a formal complaint 
370 

Facilitator's notes 

The aggrieved pelllon's most basic right Is to 

use the complaint process to protest any 

employment action or Inaction which he or 

she believes to have been discriminatory. " 

the allegation 01 dISCrimination Is sustained. 

the victim has the right to be 'made whole'. 

That means he or she Is entitled to receive 

corrective action which restores him or her to 

the status that would have been enjoyed If 

the discrimination had not occurred. 

The victim has the qualilled right to select on 

EEO Counselor 01 his or her choice among 

those deSignated to serve the partICular 

lacillty. This right. under VA Policy. Is 

considered 'qualified' because It Is not 

absolute. In Instances where a popular 

counselor Is vastly overburdened with 

counseling while another counselor IS underutilized. the Ilrst EEO Counselor may direct the 

aggrieved person to another EEO Counselor. 

or to the EEO Ollicer for assistance In finding 

another available EEO Counselor. 

Additionally. there are other circumstances 

under which It would be Inappropriate lor a 

selected EEO Counselor to accept a 

particular counseling asSIgnment. 

The aggrieved person has the right to be 

represented by an Individual of his or her 

choice. provided that person. If a VA 

employee. does not occupy a position 

where a conlilct 01 Interest could be 

presented. A management official. an 

EEO practitioner. or a personnel specialist 

employed In the some facility as the 

complainant and serving as representative Is 

on example where such a conflict would 

arise. The repiesentatlve may be. but Is not 

required to be. an attorney. Frequently. It 

will be a union shop steward or other union 

official. 

38 

EEO counselors. EEO ollicers. and EEO 

program managers have vital roles In the 

resolution of discrimination complaints. To 

operate effectively they must have the 

confidence of both the agency and the 

employees. It Is Inconsistent with their neutral 

roles for EEO counselors. EEO officers. and 

EEO program managers to serve as 

representatives for agencies or 

complainants. Therefore. EEO counselors. 

EEO officers. and EEO managers cannot 

serve as representatives for complainants 

or for agencies In connection with the 

procesSIng of discrimination complaints. 

(See generally. 29 C.F.R .. 1614.605(c)-

disqualification of representatives for 

conflict of duties). 

The right to remain anonymous exists only 

during the Informal counseling stage 01 the 

process. After a formal complaint Is flied. the 

aggrieved person becomes a complainant 

and no longer has the right to anonymity. 

The aggrieved person has the right to a 

reasonable amount of olliciol time away 

from the Job to develop and present his or 

her complaint. Including time lor precomplaint counseling. What Is "reasonable" 

Is up to the Judgment of the EEO Officer. 

depending on the complexity of the case. 

"Reasonable" Is usually defined In terms of 

hours. however. not In terms of days. weeks. 

or months. While the aggrieved person's 

right to official time to prepare and present 

the case Is absolute. he or she does not have 

the right to leave his or her work site lor this 

purpose without the permission of his or her 

supervisor. 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Complainant's respon

• Use the complaint process for its intended 

• Cooperate throughout the entire process 

• Make a good faith effort for resolution at 

level possible 

• Request a reasonable amount of on-the-

• Adhere to all time frames 

• Provide written advisement of representa

changes in representation 

• Be specific about the incident 

• Keep Management informed of any add

• Do not misuse information gained during 
372 

FaGilitator's notes 

Above all, the victim/aggrieved person Is 

responsible for using the discrimination 

complaints system for the purpose for which It 

was established: to provide a mechar-Ism for 

ensu~ng equal employment opportunity. The 

process should not be used for purposes of 

pursing a personal vendetta, harassment. 

and other abuses. Such uses limit the 

system's availability to respond to the 

legitimate concerns of those who truly 

believe they have been discriminated 

against. 

Other complainant responsibilities Include: 

-Good faith cooperation In the prosecution 

of his or her complaint, such as promptly 

furnishing requested supplemental 

Information, being available to the 

Investigator, and similar requirements. 

-Limiting his or her absence from the work site 

to the minimum required for effective pursuit 

of the complaint. He or she Is also 

responsible for keeping the supervisor 

Informed of the official time required for this 

purpose and for obtaining the supervisor', 

approval In advance for any required 

absences from duty. 

-Adhering to the time limits prescribed for 

contacting the counselor and for each of 

the subsequent steps of administrative 

processing of a complaint. 

39 

-Providing sufficient specific details about the 

harassment Incident so that It can be 

Investigated. This Includes providing the 

names of people having knowledge of the 

events In question. 

-Keeping the agency Informed of his or her 

current address, and his or her whereabouts 

If away from that address for any significant 

period of time. 

-Not misusing Information gained In the 

course of pre-complaint counseling or the 

Investigation. 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMFr,T AND THE DISCRIMlr,jATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
The Respondent Mgt. 

(RMO) Rights & Respo

Rights: 

• The agency official responsible for allege

discriminatory activity is a witness and is e

no more than the rights of any witness. 

Responsibilities: 

• To cooperate with ongoing investigations 

• To provide all relevant and material inform
374 

Facilitator's notes 

RMO Ia the term now Uled to replace ADO 

(Aneged Dlacrlmlnatlng Official). Another 

term you may hear that Ia synonymous with 

Respondent Management Offlclalla 

ResponSIble Management Otflclal. 

The retpOnllble management Otflclal should 

have acc_ to case materlala to the eJrtent 

needed to relPOrld to allegatION and give 

evidence. The agency hal the burden of 

determining which case material may be 

released In accordance with The Prlvacv Act. 

After the COfTVTlilllan deleted the term and 

concept of an ADO. eome federal agencies 

decided to coin new terms for ADO' .. such 

as "RetpOnIIbIe Manogement Otflclall. 

Responding Management Otflclall.· and 

others. From a legallfandpolnt. complaints 

are lied against lederal agencies al entities. 

regard'- of whether a complainant names 

or ldentillei the person responsible lor the 

action which gave rile fo the complaint. 

40 
Management's 

Responsibilities 

• Attempt resolution of the complaint at th

possible level 

• Insure timely processing of complaints 

• Insure that employees be allowed to sele

counselor of their choice based upon av

• Provide an adequate number of EEO cou

• Post pictures, names and telephone num

along with complaint processing time fra
376 

Facilitator'S notes 

41 

Read through lilt on tranlparency. 

THE PRE. EI FICIJ OF S: XUfIL H!\'iI\SSI;UJT !-1m THr DIScrW.'I~JI\ liON CO~~PII\INTS PROCESS 
CD 

CD 

.. 

...I: 

.... 

~ I!II;] --

:-

--.... ... 

c 

377 
378 

lllf 1'1 f [ f j 11 r j ( 1 'I • II \ I 11/11),\ I , • 11 r 11 {\ ' 'I ) 1111 

:)\ )cr~ ':. J\~lr)'] C()" iPL/d; 11:) r'r<OCl 'l 

Handout for Activity Three 

Before we explore the details of the complaints process, let's 

determine what we know about how the process works. Take a few 

minutes to read through and answer these True/False statements. Then, 

at the conclusion of this section. see If you agree with your original 

choices. 

1. A complaint 01 sexual haraument mUlt olio ,how evidence of 

disparate treatment. reprisal. non·accommodatlon. adverse Impact. 

or perpetuation of post dlaC~mlnation. 

2. The complaint system Is designed to Inlormally resolve a dlaC~mlnation 

dispute,' where poSSIble. wHhout deciding whola ~ght or wrong. 

3. A complainant does not have to leek counseling II he or she Intend. to 

file a formal complaint of employment dlaCrlmlnation. 

4. A good counselor Is the advocate 01 the complainant. 

I. No further .tePI In the complaint procell ore pursued once the 

complaint has been resolved Inlormally. 

6. A complainant·. rtght to remain anonymous expires when he or ahe fhea 

a lormal complaint. 

7. An aggrteved perlOn II reapon.IDle for ulfng the complaints proce .. 

only as a mean. to ensure equal employment opportunity. and not to 

pursue resolution of other probtems at the work·slte. 

I. The responlfble management offiCial does not have to be given 

acce .. to all case matertalslf the counselor believes that certain 

Information would De on Invaston 01 the victim's prtvacy. 

9. Whne the complainant Is entitled to o,"clal time olf In order to pursue 

counseling. he or ahe must have the supervlaor', permiSSIon to De 

absent Irom the work·slte. 

10. The responlfble management olflclalshould wHhhold relevant case 

Information" H would Jeopardize his or her present and luture 

employment statu •. 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 

TRUE FALSE 
379 

Facilitator's notes 

At this point, you have reviewed the 

steps In the Informal complaints 

process and the rights and 

responsibilities of all parties Involved. 

Now, go through the True/False 

questionnaire, revealing one question 

at a time. Ask partiCipants to correct 

their original response.. Answer any 

questions. 

ACTIVITY THREE ANSWER SHEET 

1. A complaint of sexual harassment must 

also show evidence of disparate treatment. 

reprisal. non-accommodation. adverse 

Impact, or perpetuation of past 

discrimination. TRUE 

2. The complaint system Is designed to 

Informally resolve a discrimination dispute. 

where possible, without deciding who Is ~ght 

or wrong. TRUE 

3. A complainant does not have to seek 

counseling If he or she Intends to file a 

formal complaint of employment 

dlscrlmlnatlon. FALSE 

4. A good counselor Is the advocate of the 

complainant. FALSE 

5. No further steps In the complaint process 

are pursued once the complaint has been 

resolved Informally. FALSE 

6. A complainant's right to remain 

anonymous expires when he or she flies a 

formal complaint. TRUE 

42 

7. An aggrieved person Is responsible for 

uSing the complaints process only as a means 

to ensure equal employment opportunity. 

and not to pursue resolution of other 

problems at the work-site. TRUE 

8. The responsible management official does 

not have to be given access to all case 

materials If the counselor believes that 

certain Information would be an Invasion of 

the victim's privacy. TRUE 

9. While the complainant Is entitled to official 

time off In order to pursue counseling. he or 

she must have the supervisor's permission to 

be absent from the work-site. TRUE 

10. The responsible management official 

should withhold reievant case Information If It 

would leopardlze his or her present and 

future employment status. FALSE 

THE PROVE NTIO'J OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
380 

Discrimination 

Complaints: 

Steps in the 

Formal Process 

How to 

Prevent Sexual 

Harassment 
Part Four Obiectives 

At the conclusion of this section, yo

understand: 

• How to use the EEO formal complaints pr

• The rights and responsibilities of all parties 

complaints process. 

• How to prevent sexual harassment. 
382 

Facilitator's notes 

Read through objectives on 

transparency. 

43 
Steps in Formal Comp

Process 

• Step 1: Complainant files formal complaint 

the following: 

-EEO Officer/Medical Center -Federal Wome

Director Manager 

-Secretary of Veterans -Deputy Assista

Affairs for Equal Op

• Step 2: EEO Officer reviews for acceptabilit

-Submits to Office of Equal Opportunity for assig

-Refers to Office of General Counsel for accept

• Step 3: Investigation conducted 
384 

Facilitator's notes 

Complalnll are considered flied when 

delivered to an appropriate official. If the 

complaint II mailed and addr_d to an 

appropriate official, the postmark Indicates 

the complaint hal been flied. The 

complainant Is not required to Identify a 

responSible management official on the 

complaint form. 

According to Title 29 of the Code of Federal 

Regulation., a federal employee who Is 

covered by a collective bargaining 

agreement may elect to pursue allegations 

of discrimination through one of two 

channels. The matter may be pursued either 

through the grievance and arbitration 

procedurealn the collective bargaining 

agreement, If the matter Is grlevable under 

the agreemeni, or It may be pursued through 

the EEO process. An employee may not 

pursue both procedurea. If a written 

grievance Is flied first, the complainant may 

not thereafter file an EEO complaint on the 

same matter. This holds true even If the 

grievance ralsea an allegation of 

discrimination within the negotiated 

grievance procedure. Choosing a 

procedure constitutes an "election of forum.· 

An election Is triggered by the filing of a 

formal complaint or a written grievance. 

44 

THE PREVE~,1101, Cc SFXUAL f',\RASSMEI n Aim THE DISCRiMINA TION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Steps in Formal Comp

Process 

• Step 4: Investigative report is issued to th

complainant and complainant's represe

with an advisement of rights letter 

• Step 5: EEO Officer has the option to me

complainant to pursue resolution. If reso

achieved, a written settlement agreeme

drafted and signed by all parties involved 

• Step 6: If complaint is not resolved, comp

requests decision from OGC or requests h

conducted by EEOC 
386 

Facilitator's notes 

The EEO Officer has the authortty to accept 

formal complaints but not dl1lmfll them. Onlv 

the Offlce of General Counsel has the 

autho~tv to dtamlss complaints. 

-Investigator wAI not be an employee of the 

facNltv where the comptalnt Originated 

-Investigators are authorized to administer 

. oaths 

-Official affidavits may be taken by taping or 

use of court reporter 

-Investigator wm make a good faith effort to 

facilitate resolution 

45 

THE PR[VF\ TIO~, OF SEXUJ\I '1ARAS5~',f'~T iii JD lYE DISC RIf,.' INA liON COMPlAINTS PROCESS 
Preventing Sexual 

Harassment 

• Communicate VA policy 

• Enforce the policy 

• Train employees 

• Encourage compliance by personal exa

• Report unacceptable behavior 

Hot-line number: 1-800-767-0184 
388 

Facilitator's notes 

Our goolls a work environment free of sexual 

harassment. Prevention Is the best method for 

achieving this goal. 

The V A has established an explicit policy 

against sexual harassment. It relies on 

managers and employees to put the policy 

Into practice. 

Managers/Supervisors should: 

1. Communlcat. th. polley In writing to all 

.mploy •••• 

2. Educat •• mploye •• to anure 

und.r.tandlng and •• n.ltlvlty. Train 

employees In the specific applications 01 the 

policy. 

3. a.com. more ob •• rvant. Try to anticipate 

circumstances In which sexual harassment 

may occur. 

4. Diligently .nforc. the polley. Pursue 

complaints quickly. Take Immediate and 

appropriate corrective action. This sends a 

strong message to everyone about your 

commitment to the policy. 

5. Encourag. Individual. who b.II.v. th.y 

have b •• n haran.d to r.port such Incld.nts. 

Make sure that subjects 01 harassment know 

they are protected and that there are 

alternate. accessible routes for complaint. 

In addition: 

·Cooperate fully with any ongoing 

Investigation. 

46 

·Include compliance with the policy on 

sexual harassment as a component of 

perlormance appraisal. 

Policy and pressure are only part of the 

solution. All employees are responsible for 

complying with the spirit and the letter of the 

policy. We can only reach our goal If each 01 

us Is committed to the Idea of lair and equal 

treatment. 

THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND TI'F DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS 
Activity Four 

List of 7 steps: (Note: in scrambled 

• Complaint filed 

• Counselor contacted 

• Hearing if requested, with findings and co

• Occurrence (of Sexual Harassment) 

• Agencyfinaldec~on 

• Notice of right to file 

• Complaint investigated and notice issue
390 

TH[ ,'II[V[NTION OF SeXUAl IIAliASSMUIT filii) Tlif 

DISCRIMINATION COMPLAI"ITS PROCESS 

Handout for Activity Four 

This chart shows an overview of the progressive steps In the EEO 

Complaint Process. Using the Information you have received on the 

formal and Informal process, place the seven steps listed Into the 

appropriate point on the tlmellne 

STEPS IN THE PROCESS 

• COMPLAINT FILED 

• COUNSELOR CONTACTED 

• HEARING IF REQUESTED. WITH 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

• OCCURRENCE (OF SEXUAL 

HARASSMENT) 

• AGENCY FINAL DECISION 

• NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE 

• COMPLAINT INVESTIGATED AND 

NOTICE ISSUED 
391 

Facilitator's notes 

ACTIVITY FOUR ANSWER SHEET 

This chart shows the progressive steps In the 

EEO Complaint Process (under 29 C.F.R. Part 

1614). 

47 

Distribute copies of "Handout for 

Activity 4·. Review the chart 

·Overvlew of the Complaint Process·, 

revealing each step on the screen, 

one by one. SollcR answer. from the 

participants. Answer any questions. 

Conclude by explainIng: 

This Is the end of this training module on the 

Prevention of Sexual Harassment and the 

Dlscrtmlnatlon Complaints Process. 

It Is hoped that you now understand the 

Importance of a work environment free from 

dlscrtmlnatlon and sexual harassment. and 

that you know how to prevent and deal with 

such problems If they occur. 

If you have further Questions. you may 

contact your supervisor. your union steward. 

an EEO counselor. or the Human Resources 

Service (Personnel Office). 

Thank you for coming to the training. 

;YE 0REVEWIO\J OF SEXUAL HARASSiV,E'JT ;\\JD THE DISCRltJINATION COMPLAIN'S oROCcSS 
392 

» 

c 

o 

:3 

o 

z 

en 
393 

OPPICB OP INSPBCTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSB TO QUESTIONS PROM 

THE HONORABLB LANE EVANS 

RANKING DBMOCRATIC MBMBBR OP 

THE COMMITTBB ON VETBRANS AFPAIRS 

HEARING ON SBXUAL HARASSMENT: APRIL 17, 1997 

QUESTION 1. Does the VA IG take any steps to inform VA 

employees concerning how to make a hot line inquiry? What 

steps do you or the VA take to notify employees of the 

availability of the hotline? 

RESPONSB The IG Web Site (http : //www . va .gov/oig) gives 

extensive information on the VA IG' s jurisdiction and how 

and where to report allegations of fraud, waste and gross 

mismanagement . In addition , the VA employee handbook 

includes an explanation of the IG's function and the 

employee's responsibility to report information on potential 

fraud, waste and mismanagement . The handbook includes 

information regarding the IG's protection of complainants' 

confidentiality, as well as the rights and protections 

afforded complainants under the Whistleblower Protection 

Act . 

The process for filing a complaint with the IG hot line is 

easy. A simple letter (signed or unsigned) to the IG or a 

call to our well publicized 800 number can be used to 

register a complaint with the IG hotline . Also, the hotline 

can be contacted through e-mail, and our e-mail address is 

listed in our Web Site. 

The IG hotline's 800 number and/or mailing address is 

publicized in a number of ways to include the following: 

• In the Internet Web Site, where the March 1997 contacts 

with the IG Web Site totaled over 52,000, 

• On posters that have been distributed to all VA 

facilities, 

• On business cards that have been handed out by IG staff 

during investigations, audits, inspections and other reviews 

at VA facilities, 

. • In the VA telephone directory, 

• In the yellow pages of major metropolitan areas, 

• On pay slips for all VA employees, 

• On the back cover of the IG's Semiannual Report . 

The number of contacts with our hot line are, to our 

knowledge, the highest in the IG community. This high rate 

of contacts indicates to us that complainants are not having 

any difficulty in determining how and where to file a 

complaint with the IG hotline. 

QUESTION 2. With regard to the VA IG review of the 

allegations against Director Calhoun in Fayetteville, please 

explain how you conducted your investigation and explain to 

the Subcommittee when the initial hotline calls were 

received, how many people took part in your investigation, 

how many witnesses you talked to, and the basis upon which 

you reached your ultimate findings? 
394 

RESPONSE The initial indication of potential problems at 

VAMC Fayetteville was disclosed to the IG in a signed 

constituent's letter forwarded to us by Senator Lauch 

Faircloth. We received this information on March 4, 1996. 

The initial allegations did not mention sexual harassment, 

but instead focused on the alleged use of foul language in 

mixed company by the Director, the Director's alleged 

penchant for lying to the staff, and alleged stress 

experienced by the staff and unfavorable impact on staff 

morale created by the Director's actions. 

Since the complainant's letter did not contain specific 

examples, a member of the IG hotline staff contacted the 

complainant on March 12, 1996 and asked him to provide the 

IG with whatever details he had on the alleged problems 

created by the Director, VAMC Fayetteville. On March 20, 

1996 the complainant called in a list of current and former 

employees of VAMC Fayetteville who he believed could confirm 

his allegations against the Director. 

During the next two weeks, the hotline staff member 

contacted 5 individuals on the complainant's list. One of 

the individuals contacted was Ms. Cindy Force. During the 

discussion with the IG hotline staff member, Ms. Force made 

an allegation of sexual harassment against the Director . 

This was our first indication that the misconduct 

allegations against the Director may also involve sexual 

harassment. 

At this point, there was enough information for the IG to 

open a Special Inquiry into the allegations. Ms. Judy 

Shelly, a senior analyst with over 4 years experience on the 

IG's Special Inquiry staff and prior GAO experience, was 

assigned the case. She conducted the interviews with 

assistance from the Special Inquiries Division Director, Mr . 

Michael Staley. Mr. Staley has been the Division Director 

since September 1995 and prior to that was a senior auditor 

in the VA IG organization for over 20 years. 

At the beginning of the special inquiry, as is our normal 

practice, we contacted the VISN 6 staff to discuss our 

review and make arrangements for a site visit. During those 

discussions, VISN 6 staff indicated they were aware of 

"management" problems with the Director, VAMC Fayetteville 

and were planning a visit to VAMC Fayetteville to review the 

situation. 

In follow on discussions with the VISN 6 staff, they 

indicated that they had received a complaint from Ms. Judy 

Hawkins' husband alleging the Director's actions created a 

hostile work environment for his wife. This allegation was 

forwarded to us since it contained some indication that the 

Director may have, among other things, used inappropriate 

language of a sexual nature with Ms . Hawkins. 

The VISN Director and the IG's special inquiries staff 

struck an informal agreement that the VISN would perform an 

independent review of the management issues at VAMC 

Fayetteville and the IG would review the alleged sexual 
395 

harassment by the Director. Given the limited staffing in 

the Special Inquiries Division and the willingness of the 

VISN staff to investigate what could be extensive management 

problems, the agreement seemed a reasonable two-pronged 

approach to getting at the alleged problems with the 

Director. 

After we began our on-site interviews, our hotline received 

a call from the original complainant that Ms. Sue Caruana 

had also been sexually harassed by the Director. With that 

information, we now had three potential cases of sexual 

harassment by the Director. Also, as in many other reviews 

we conduct, once we go on site it is not unreasonable to 

expect other victims to step forward with complaints and/or 

for interviewees to provide other names of individuals with 

similar complaints. This is precisely what happened in our 

previous investigation of sexual harassment at VAMC Atlanta. 

In conducting the special inquiry, our records indicate that 

we interviewed 21 employees, or former employees of VAMC 

Fayetteville, as well as other individuals. These 

interviews are key to this type of investigation because 

acts of sexual harassment are not usually documented in a 

written record or witnessed by others. 

The IG report clearly outlines our findings and conclusions 

regarding the Director's alleged sexual harassment and abuse 

of the three women we reviewed . Prior to finalizing the 

report, the evidence collected was thoroughly assessed by 

senior managers in the office of the Assistant Inspector 

General for Departmental Reviews and Management Support and 

the Office of the Counselor to the Inspector General. In 

the opinion of these individuals and after a careful 

analysis of the evidence relative to laws, regulations, 

policies and case law pertaining to sexual harassment, the 

conclusions were made that one woman was sexually harassed 

and the Director's behavior towards all three women was 

abusive , threatening and inappropriate. 

QUESTION 3. You have testified that your office 

investigated three separate allegations of harassment by Mr. 

Calhoun made by three individual employees at the 

Fayetteville VA facility . You were unable to substantiate 

one of the allegations because your office was unable to 

corroborate the allegations with testimony from other 

witnesses. Does that mean that any time you investigate an 

allegation involving no other witnesses other than the 

alleged victim and the accused, you would be unable to 

substantiate the allegations. 

RESPORSI Not necessarily. In all cases, we look for 

evidence to corroborate or refute the testimony of the 

accused and the alleged victim. In some types of cases, 

such as sexual harassment, it is not unlikely that the 

prohibited conduct occurred outside the presence of third 

party witnesses. We routinely ask the alleged victim 

whether he or she related the incident(s) to anyone or made 

any contemporaneous writings about the incident. The 

existence of such evidence could corroborate the alleged 
396 

victim's testimony and could be t he basis for a finding that 

the sexual harassment complained of did , i n fact , occur. 

As stated in our report, this is the type of evidence we 

used to substantiate Ms. Force's allegation that she was 

sexually harassed by Mr. Calhoun. Unlike Ms . Force, Ms. 

Caruana was unable to provide us with any information, other 

than her own testimony, to corroborate her allegations. In 

addition to seeking the existence of evidence to corroborate 

the testimony of the alleged victim, we also ask the accused 

whether there is any evidence to corrobo rate his vers~on of 

the events of circumstances . As with the alleged victim, 

such evidence would either support or refute the testimony. 

Like Ms. Caruana, Mr. Calhoun could not provide us with any 

evidence to corroborate or refute the allegations, other 

than his own testimony. 

When neither the accused nor the alleged v i ctim can provide 

evidence to corroborate or refute the allegations, the 

creditability of the two witnesses becomes the key 

ingredient in a "he said, she said" type of case . If it can 

be established through testimony on related issues that one 

or the other witness is not creditable, then we may be able 

to conclude that the unreliable witness is not being 

entirely truthful with us and the other person is the more 

creditable of the two witnesses. 

In this case, we did question Mr . Calhoun's creditability . 

However, the longtime friendship between Mr. Calhoun and Ms . 

Caruana and other evidence of Ms . Caruana's more recent bias 

and bitterness towards Mr. Calhoun tended to cloud the 

issue . Therefore, based on a thorough review of all the 

evidence , it was the opinion of our legal staff, that it 

would have been extremely difficult for a charge of sexual 

harassment to be sustained by the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB) should the Agency have charged Mr. Calhoun 

based on Ms. Caruana's allegations. 

As noted in our report, we did conclude that Mr . Calhoun ' s 

conduct towards Ms . Caruana was inappropriate . In our view , 

Mr. Calhoun could have been charged with misconduc t, not 

sexual harassment of Ms . Caruana, and the misconduct charge 

could reasonably be expected to be sustained by MSPB . 

QUESTION 4. You have indicated that you are currently 

investigating two other sexual har assment allegations 

against senior VA managers. When can we expect a report on 

these investigations, and what is the status of these 

investigations? 

Are there any other pending allegations of sexual harassment 

against VA employees that the IG's office is currently 

investigating? If so, can you provide the subcommittee with 

a status report on the nature and number of such 

investigations? 

RESPONSB We currently have two on-going special inquiries 

of allegations of sexual harassment agai nst senior VA 

managers . The first case involves the allegation that a 
397 

lower graded employee engaged in sexual harassment and 

misconduct over a period of time, and senior managers at the 

facility who were aware of the employee's conduc t did 

nothing to stop it . If valid, this could create a hostile 

working environment for employees. The field work and 

interviews are nearly complete. After a careful review by 

senior IG staff, including IG legal staff, we will issue a 

draft report for management comment. At this time, we are 

targeting July 15, 1997 for the release of the draft report. 

The second active case under review involves allegations of 

verbal sexual harassment by a senior VA manager. We are in 

the midst of this investigation and at this time it is too 

early to predict a date for release of the draft report . 

Also, at this time, the IG is not conducting any other 

investigations of sexual harassment by VA employees. 

o 
ISBN 0 · 16· 055671·6 

90000 

9 780160 556715