NO FEAR ACT ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2012

U.S. Department of Agriculture
NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, 

marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or whether all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic 

information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the 

Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment 

activities.)

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s Equal 

Employment Oppurtunity (EEO) Counselor within 45 days of the date of the alleged 

discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can 

be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov 

/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the 

form. You may also write a letter as long as it contains all of the information that is

requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax at (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and wish to file either 

an EEO or program complaint, please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 

(800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information 

above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of 

communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), please 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Suggested Citation: 

The No FEAR Act Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012, Washington, D.C., USDA, 

Director, Office of Compliance, Policy, Training and Cultural Transformation, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

PART I: USDA Formal EEO Complaints For 1

 Fiscal Years 2011-2012

Section A – Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers 2

Section B – Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal EEO 3

Complaints at USDA

Section C – Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 5

Complaints at USDA

Section D – EEO Processing Stages 7

(1) Average Number of Days for Completion of 

Selected EEO Stages

(2) Pending Complaints at Various Stages

(3) Pending Formal Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day

Investigation Requirement

Section E – Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination 10

Section F – Analysis, Experience, and Actions 11

(1) Causal Analysis

(2) Experience Gained by USDA in the Processing of

 Formal EEO Complaints

(3) Past and Future Actions by USDA Relating to EEO Complaints Processing

PART II: USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for 17

Fiscal Year 2012

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 19

for Fiscal Years 2011 - 2012

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 23

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2012

Appendix A-1
i

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

This is the USDA’s eighth annual report submitted pursuant to the Notification and Federal 

Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law No. 107-

174, Section 203. 

The No FEAR Act mandates that Federal agencies report certain information for Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2012. This report contains the: 

• number of complaints filed with USDA alleging discrimination based on race, sex,

color, religion, national origin, disability, age, reprisal, and violations of

whistleblower protection laws;

• amount of money USDA has reimbursed to the Judgment Fund in accordance with 

the No FEAR Act;

• aggregate amount USDA has reimbursed to the Judgment Fund that is attributable to

the payment of attorney’s fees;

• USDA policies relating to disciplinary actions to be taken against employees who 

have violated antidiscrimination or whistleblower laws or engaged in prohibited 

personnel practices;

• number of employees USDA has disciplined for discrimination, retaliation, 

harassment, or prohibited personnel practices; and

• number of cases in Federal Court arising under the antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws.

In addition, the No FEAR Act requires that USDA provide an analysis of the information 

submitted in the report, including: (1) an examination of trends; (2) causal analysis; 

(3) practical knowledge gained through experience; and (4) any actions planned or taken to 

improve its complaint or civil rights programs. USDA is also required to report any 

ascertainable adjustments made in its budget as a result of its compliance with the reimbursement 

requirement.

USDA’s Mission and Mission-Related Functions

The mission of USDA is to provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related 

issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management. 
ii

USDA strives to:

• expand international trade for agricultural products and support international economic 

development;

• expand domestic marketing opportunities for agricultural products;

• strengthen risk management, the use of financial tools, and the provision of sound 

information to help farmers and ranchers in their decision-making process; 

• develop alternative markets for agricultural products and activities;

• provide financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities, 

and infrastructure in rural America;

• enhance food safety by taking steps to reduce the prevalence of food borne hazards from 

farm to table, and safeguard agriculture from natural and intentional threats;

• improve nutrition by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion; and

• protect and manage America’s public and private lands working cooperatively with other 

levels of government and the private sector.

Summary of the Report

Congress passed the No FEAR Act in May 2002 as a vehicle for reducing discrimination and 

retaliation in Federal agencies, increasing agency accountability, emphasizing training for 

managers in the management of a diverse workforce, and encouraging dispute resolution and 

communication skills. The annual report summarizes the efforts made by USDA to carry out the 

mandates of the No FEAR Act.

As demonstrated in greater detail below, USDA experienced a slight increase of 11 EEO 

complaints filed from FY 2011 to FY 2012, ending the EEO inventory at the end of FY 2012 with 

884 complaints. The number of filers also increased by 10 from FY 2011 to FY 2012, but the 

number of findings of discrimination decreased by 15 from FY 2011 to FY 2012. Data illustrating 

this trend is found in the Appendix. 

A review of disciplinary actions taken against employees who violated Federal antidiscrimination 

laws and whistleblower protection statutes shows that in FY 2012, 12 employees were disciplined; 

while in FY 2011, 28 employees were disciplined. This decrease in disciplinary actions between 

FYs 2011 and 2012 indicates a continual level of accountability present within USDA and the 

Secretary of Agriculture’s enforcement of a zero tolerance of any form of discrimination. The 

reimbursement provisions of the No FEAR Act continue to result in financial accountability for 

sub-agencies and individual staff offices within USDA.
iii

During FY 2012, USDA has implemented several initiatives that will assist in its effort to reduce 

the number of EEO complaints. These initiatives are outlined below: 

• USDA utilized the Cooperative Resolution Program (CRP), which offers custom-tailored 

services that address the specific needs of the employees to enhance their communication 

effectiveness and minimize workplace conflict. The CRP offers employees conflict 

consultation, conflict management training, and mediation services to address issues as 

an alternative to the traditional complaint grievance systems available for resolving nonEEO related workplace issues.

• The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) provides overall 

leadership, coordination, and direction for USDA’s compliance with civil rights laws in 

EEO. In order to carry out these duties, OASCR conducted five employment compliance 

reviews in FY 2012. OASCR’s compliance reviews assist the Agencies in identifying 

systemic issues and barriers both at the Agency Headquarters and the Field Offices. 

Once the compliance review is completed, OASCR works with each Agency to 

recommend any training and corrective actions and, thereupon, monitors the Agencies 

based on the findings of each compliance review. In turn, the corrective action 

requirement heightens the Agency’s awareness and knowledge of the issues regarding its 

workforce, and directs its leadership to take the necessary steps to comply with all civil 

rights and EEO laws and regulations.

• OASCR began a process to review and revise 16 USDA Civil Rights Departmental 

Regulations, C.F.R., and Departmental Manuals to be consistent with current civil rights 

laws and regulations.

• OASCR conducted the civil rights review of all USDA agencies’ policies, rules, 

regulations, advisory committees, and reorganizations submitted for Departmental 

clearance. This involved a review and civil rights impact analysis of highly sensitive 

policies, actions, and decisions that could affect USDA employment programs and

activities. These reviews facilitate the identification of potential disparate impacts on 

proposed policies or practices. Over 31 percent of our reviews resulted in 

recommendations for changes prior to concurrence rather than an immediate concurrence. 

 

• The Training Division conducted numerous training sessions on various civil rights 

topics, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEO Complaint Process, Disability Legislation, 

Age Discrimination, Workplace Harassment, No FEAR Act, and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR). Civil rights training is a method of providing awareness and 

education to USDA employees which can lead to a greater understanding of their 

responsibilities and ultimately aid in reducing the number of employment complaints. 

• Through its annual Agency Head Assessment, USDA continues to evaluate Agency 

Heads and separate Staff Offices on their agency’s civil rights performance. This 

assessment holds the Agency’s Senior Executives accountable for employment 

discrimination complaints and other civil rights statutes and regulations. For FY 2012, 

OASCR evaluated and assessed 17 USDA Agencies and six Staff Offices.
iv

• In FY 2012, USDA launched several initiatives to ensure that EEO complaints are timely 

and consistently processed. USDA enhanced its ability to track EEO complaint case files 

by modifying file routing sheets, revised many of its EEO complaint processing 

templates, updated standard operating procedures throughout its divisions to reflect 

processing changes, and began a peer review of standard complaint forms with the 

agencies.

• In an ongoing effort to ensure the uniformity and efficiency of complaint processing by 

EEO Specialists, USDA facilitated multiple training opportunities in FY 2012, including: 

Accept/Dismiss and Claim Fragmentation training; EEO Complaint Harassment and 

Fragmentation training EEO Counselor’s Report training; EEO Counselor’s Refresher 

training; and Settlement Agreements, Non-compliance Complaints and Remand 

training. As a result of the Office of Adjudication’s (OA) initiatives during FY 2012, 

USDA’s EEO complaint processing time has been significantly reduced at both the 

complaint intake and complaint adjudication stages.
1

PART I

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for

Fiscal Years 2011-2012
2

Section A- Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers 

at USDA

Introduction

This section contains comparative information regarding the number of formal EEO complaints 

filed and the number of filers for FYs 2011 and 2012. 

Summary of Data

Table 1 below indicates the number of formal EEO complaints filed with USDA by fiscal year 

and the number of individuals who filed complaints. It shows an increase in the number of 

complaints filed over the prior year and a slight increase in the number of filers for the current 

year. (See Graph 1)

In FY 2012, the number of complaints filed was 536, whereas, in FY 2011 the number of 

complaints filed was 525. This represents a two percent increase in complaints filed. However, 

the number of filers in FY 2012 was 519, which is 10 more than the number of filers (509) in FY 

2011. 

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers

at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints Number of Filers

2011 525 509

2012 536 519
3

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

Section B– Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal EEO Complaints

at USDA

Introduction

This section contains information regarding the most frequently cited bases in formal EEO 

complaints for FYs 2011 and 2012. The basis of the complaint is the protected characteristic that 

the complainant alleges which forms the motivation for the discriminatory conduct. The bases 

protected by EEO statutes are race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age and 

retaliation (for participating in the EEO complaint process or for opposing practices made illegal 

under the EEO laws). A complaint brought under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, is 

considered to be a complaint based on sex.

 

Summary of Data

Table 2 provides data on all bases alleged in formal EEO complaints filed with USDA. Of all 

bases, the four most frequently cited in formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2012 are: (1) 

retaliation; (2) sex; (3) race; and (4) age. In FY 2011, the four most frequently cited bases were: 

(1) retaliation; (2) race; (3) sex; and (4) age. These four bases are illustrated in Graph 2, which 

shows the trend over the two-year reporting period.

350

400

450

500

550

600

2011 2012

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

Number of

Complaints

Number of Filers

Number of

Complaints
4

Table 2

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases in Formal EEO Complaints

at USDA

EEO Bases in Formal EEO Complaints

Year

Race

Color

Religion

Sex**

National Origin

Disability

Age

Retaliation

Other*

2011 221 32 21 207 57 104 191 242 42

2012 215 56 23 228 61 141 177 281 60

*Other USDA protected bases include marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, political 

beliefs, genetic information and familial status. **Additionally, the base of sex includes gender 

identity and gender expression.

Graph 2

Most Frequently Cited Bases 

 

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

“Retaliation” is the most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO complaints at USDA. This is

true for both FYs 2012 and 2011. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 281 formal EEO 

complaints in FY 2012, compared to 242 complaints in FY 2011, a 16 percent (39 complaints) 

increase over a two-year period. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Year

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation
5

Complaints Alleging Sex Discrimination 

“Sex” was the second most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2012. 

The basis of “Sex” was cited in 228 formal EEO complaints in FY 2012, compared to 207 

complaints in FY 2011, which represents a 10 percent increase (21 complaints) over a two-year 

period. 

Complaints Alleging Race Discrimination

“Race” is the third most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2012. The 

basis of “Race” was cited in 215 formal EEO complaints in FY 2012, compared to 221

complaints in FY 2011, which represents a three percent decrease (six complaints) over a twoyear period. 

Complaints Alleging Age Discrimination 

“Age” was the fourth most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2012. 

The basis of “Age” was cited in 177 formal EEO complaints in FY 2012, compared to 191

complaints in FY 2011, which represents a seven percent (14 complaints) decrease over a twoyear period. 

Section C- Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 

Complaints at USDA

Introduction

This section contains information regarding the most frequently cited issues in formal EEO 

complaints for FYs 2011 and 2012. The No FEAR Act requires Federal agencies to post data 

regarding the nature of the issues raised in EEO complaints. The issue of a complaint is the 

specific matter about which the individual is complaining or the alleged discriminatory incident 

for which the individual is seeking redress. Table 3 contains a list of issues most commonly 

raised in complaints. The “Other” category captures all issues not specifically listed. 

Summary of Data

Table 3 provides the most frequently cited issues in formal EEO complaints filed with USDA. 

The three EEO issues most frequently cited in FY 2012 were: (1) Harassment; (2) Disciplinary 

Action; and (3) Promotion/Non-Selection. Graph 3 shows the trends for these three issues over 

the two-year reporting period.

“Harassment” was the most frequently cited issue in formal EEO cases in FY 2012, with 319 

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 247 filings in FY 2011. There was a 29 percent increase

(72 complaints) from FY 2011 to FY 2012. 

“Disciplinary Action” was the second most frequently cited issue in formal EEO cases in FY 

2012, with 127 filings. In contrast, “Disciplinary Action” had 61 filings in FY 2011. There was 

an increase of 108 percent (66 complaints) from FY 2011 to FY 2012.
6

“Promotion/Non-selection” was the third most frequently cited issue in formal EEO cases in FY 

2012, with 118 filings. In contrast, “Promotion/Non-Selection” had 135 filings in FY 2011. 

There was a 13 percent decrease (17 complaints) from FY 2011 to FY 2012. 

Table 3

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Year

Appointment/Hire

Assignment of Duties

Awards

Conversions to Full Time

Disciplinary Action

Duty Hours

Evaluation/Appraisal

Examination/Test

Reassignment

Training

Time & Attendance

Termination

Medical Examination

Pay/Overtime

Promotion /Non-Selection

Harassment

Reinstatement

Retirement

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Reasonable Accommodation

Other

2011

2012

38

23

62

100

20

22

0

1

61

127

6

15

64

60

1

4

28

46

27

49

28

58

39

35

0

4

13

14

135

118

247

319

1

2

6

2

52

85

36

58

60

61

Graph 3

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2011 2012

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Harrassment

Disciplinary

Action

Promotion / NonSelection
7

Section D- EEO Processing Stages

Introduction

This section contains data regarding selected stages and associated processing times for formal 

EEO complaints processed during FYs 2012 and 2011. The formal EEO complaint process has 

various stages. Not all formal complaints complete all stages. These stages are: (1) 

Investigation (which includes Letter of Acceptance); (2) Final Agency Action with EEOC 

Hearing; (3) Final Agency Action without EEOC Hearing; and (4) Dismissal. Formal EEO 

complaints may be withdrawn or settled at any stage and may be dismissed at various stages. 

Summary of Data

The following is an analysis of data for the four EEO stages. This section contains data on: 

(1) the average number of days for completion of selected stages; (2) pending complaints at various 

stages of the EEO process; and (3) pending formal complaints exceeding the 180-day investigation 

requirement.

(1) Average Number of Days for Completion of Selected EEO Stages

Table 4 below provides the average number of days for completing a formal EEO complaint at 

each stage. The data revealed a downward trend (as shown in Graph 4) in the average number of 

days for an investigation, in the Final Agency Action without an EEOC hearing, in the Final 

Agency Action with a hearing and in dismissals. 

Table 4

Average Number of Days for Completion of Each EEO Stage

Year Investigation Final Agency 

Action with 

EEOC 

Hearing

Final Agency 

Action without 

EEOC 

Hearing

Dismissals

2011 296 183 417 119

2012 249 133 256 145
8

Graph 4

Average Number of Days for Completion of Each EEO Stage

(2) Pending Complaints at Various Stages

• Table 5 below illustrates the number of pending EEO complaints in FYs 2012 and 2011,

at each EEO stage. 

• Graph 5 shows a downward trend in pending complaints in investigations, hearings, 

Final Agency Actions and appeals.

Table 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

Year Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

2011 263 386 138 30

2012 44 348 75 10

0

100

200

300

400

500

2011 2012

Graph 4 - Average Number of Days for 

Completion of Each EEO Stage

Investigation

Final Agency

Action with EEOC

Hearing

Final Agency

Action without

EEOC Hearing

Dismissals
9

Graph 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

(3) Pending Formal Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day Investigation Requirement 

Table 6 and Graph 6 show a 48 percent decrease for pending formal complaints that exceed the 

180-day investigation requirement over the two-year reporting period. 

Table 6

Pending Formal EEO Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints Exceeding the 180-day Investigation Requirement

2011 224

2012 117

0

100

200

300

400

500

2011 2012

Graph 5

Pending EEO complaints by Stages

Investigation

Hearing

Final Agency Action

Appeal
10

Graph 6

Pending Formal EEO Complaints Exceeding 180-Day Investigation Requirement

Section E- Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Introduction

Final Agency Actions involving a finding of discrimination may be issued on the record or 

following an EEOC Administrative Hearing. The final actions involving a finding of 

discrimination include complaints with a variety of bases and issues. The No FEAR Act requires 

Federal agencies to post the total number of final actions involving a finding of discrimination, 

along with the issues and bases for those complaints. 

Summary of Data

Table 7 and Graph 7 show that the number of findings of discrimination issued with an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing decreased by one in FY 2012, and without an EEOC Administrative 

Hearing decreased by 13 in FY 2012. 

0

100

200

300

2011 2012

Graph 6

Pending Complaints Exceeding 

180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints

exceeding 180-day

Investigation

Requirement
11

Table 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Year With an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

2011 3 29

2012 21 16

Graph 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Section F- Analysis, Experience, and Actions

Introduction

The No FEAR Act requires: (1) an examination of trends; (2) a causal analysis; (3) practical 

knowledge gained through experience; and (4) any actions planned or taken to improve USDA’s 

complaint or civil rights programs. The prior sections (Sections A-E) provided an examination 

of trends. Described below are various observations related to the remaining three areas:

 1 Number reconciled to reflect data based on FY 2012 Farm Bill Report.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

2011 2012

Final Agency Actions with Findings of 

Discrimination

With an EEOC

Administrative

Hearing

Without an EEOC

Administrative

Hearing
12

(1) Causal Analysis

USDA and its sub-component agencies identified various factors impacting the filing of formal 

EEO complaints. Examples are as follows: 

1. The Agricultural Marketing Service reported an increase in the number of formal 

complaints filed in FY 2012. Specifically, there were 21 formal complaints filed in FY 

2012 as compared to 18 formal complaints filed in FY 2011. This increase is attributed

to the consolidation of several offices and the closure of offices in the field. 

2. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reported a decrease by two in the 

number of complaints filed in FY 2012. Specifically, there were 47 formal complaints 

filed in FY 2011, as compared to 49 formal complaints filed in FY 2011. This represents 

a 4 percent decrease in the number of complaints.

3. The Agricultural Research Service reported an increase in the number of complaints filed 

in FY 2012. Specifically, there were 30 formal complaints filed in FY 2012, as compared 

to 18 formal complaints filed in FY 2011. This increase in the number of complaints 

filed in FY 2012 is attributed to filings based on race, reprisal, and age. 

4. The Corporate Services Division revealed that the open complaint inventory at the end of 

the fiscal year was 522 in FY 2012. This represents an increase when compared to FY 

2011, which ended with 453 open formal complaints. The increase in the numbers of 

filers is due to complainants having filed more than one complaint. Additionally, 

employees are educated from civil rights training on what their rights are, increasing 

awareness and visibility of the complaints process.

5. The Economic Research Service (ERS) reported no change in complaints filed between

FY 2012 (1) and FY 2011 (1). The steady trend in complaints filed could be attributed to 

the early intervention process utilized by the ERS Office of Civil Rights.

6. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) had an increase from seven (FY 2011) to 10 (FY 

2012) in formal complaints filed. The increase in FAS’ formal EEO complaint activity 

for FY 2012 represents a 43 percent increase.

7. The Food and Nutrition Service reported that the average number of complaints remains 

constant at seven cases per year. There was an increase of one complaint from FY 2011 

to FY 2012.

8. The Forest Service (FS) reported an increase in complaint activity when compared to FY 

2011. FS attributes this increase to improved employee awareness and visibility of the 

complaints process. Another factor in the rise of complaint numbers may be attributed to 

recent accountability initiatives established Department-wide to ensure that USDA 

personnel are held accountable and responsible for their actions.

 2 This number subsequently increased to 56 due to database reconciliation efforts.

3 This number subsequently increased to 48 due to database reconciliation efforts.
13

9. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported a decrease of nine complaints for FY 2012 

(29) from FY 2011 (38). FSA attributes this decrease to enhancing steps in the formal 

EEO investigation procedures, tracking performance and accountability in complaint 

processing procedures, and conducting annual mandatory EEO and Civil Rights training. 

10. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reported a decrease in the number of 

formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2012 compared to those filed in FY 2011. FSIS 

attributes this decrease to budgetary constraints and continued training and educational 

efforts by FSIS’ Civil Rights Division.

11. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) reported nine 

complaints filed in FY 2012; a decrease of 18 percent from FY 2011 (11). GIPSA 

attributes the decrease in the number of complaints filed to an increase in the number of 

complainants choosing to participate in ADR during the informal process.

12. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported that the number of 

complaints decreased in FY 2012 compared to FY 2011. In FY 2012, NASS had one 

complaint (a decrease of one from FY 2011). 

13. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (formerly known as the 

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service) reported one formal 

complaint filed in FY 2012, as compared to three formal complaints filed in FY 2011. 

NIFA attributes this decrease to the re-organization and establishment of a new 

organization required by the Food, Conservation, Energy Act (Farm Bill), resulting in 

reallocation of resources and reassignment of employees. 

14. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reported an increase in the number 

of formal complaints filed in FY 2012. NRCS notes that allegations of workplace 

discrimination generally tend to rise during economic recessions, when people are more 

likely to lose their jobs and have trouble finding new work.

15. The Rural Development (RD) reports a decrease in complaints filed in FY 2012 

compared to FY 2011. This decrease is attributed to the Agency’s continued 

implementation of EEO initiatives and policies that comply with the Department’s 

accountability policies. Additionally, RD attributes the continued decline in complaint 

filings to the Agency’s proactive complaint resolution efforts to resolve employee issues 

at the lowest level possible.

16. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) reported that the number of formal complaints 

filed in FY 2012 (5) decreased by five from FY 2011 (10). RMA attributes the decrease 

in complaints to increased visibility and effective communication between senior

management and employees. 
14

(2) Experience Gained by USDA in the Processing of Formal EEO Complaints

USDA has learned the following from its past experiences in processing and addressing formal 

EEO complaints: 

• Continuing to conduct ADR training along the lines of conflict resolution is essential. 

It is a known fact that “change” can bring about fears, anxiety, anger, etc., hence, 

managers must receive sensitivity training and employees should receive more 

information and training on coping with change; 

• Involving not only managers and supervisors, but Deputy Administrators and 

Directors early in the resolution of complaints. Involvement in resolution discussions 

by senior management officials has proven beneficial;

• Ensuring on-going compliance reviews that identify EEO-related workplace issues 

and provide recommendations on how to address those issues before they evolve into 

EEO complaints;

• Holding supervisors and managers accountable for engaging in discriminatory 

practices in order to deter such conduct in the future;

• Educating aggrieved parties about the EEO process (to include the availability of 

ADR) and working aggressively with these individuals and other Agency officials in 

order to reach resolution;

• Providing training on how to recognize, evaluate, and eliminate self-defeating habits,

how to deal with delicate situations and difficult people, and recognizing the 

obligation to maintain responsibility for the way employees are treated are 

components that need to be addressed;

• Providing EEO training to all employees and managers continues to be important in 

decreasing complaint activity;

• Recognizing that increased participation and involvement of special emphasis

programs will contribute to the decrease in the number of EEO complaints filed;

• Designing a structure for effective management, accountability and self-analysis will 

ensure program success and compliance with EEOC Management Directive (MD) 

715;

• Continuing support for the ADR program and using a full-time certified mediator is 

imperative in reducing the number of formal complaints;

• Continuing to utilize ADR/mediation early in the process may assist in the early 

resolution of complaints;
15

• Providing training and open communications result in a more productive, inclusive 

work environment; thereby, reducing the number of complaints;

• Understanding that the need to continue to closely monitor EEO discrimination 

complaints, and to engage in dialogue with Employee Relations and Civil Rights 

leaderships to address early resolution of cases where weakness in policies and 

practices exist; and 

• Emphasizing that early resolution improves management-employee relations, reduces 

administrative costs significantly, and precludes the need for extended litigation.

(3) Past and Future Actions by USDA Relating to EEO Complaint Processing

USDA has taken several actions that have proven effective in improving its formal EEO 

complaint processing. USDA is also introducing new initiatives to reduce complaints in future 

years. These actions include the following:

1. Distribute civil rights information regularly to all employees via email messages to 

ensure awareness of the latest prohibited personnel practices and/or procedures. 

2. Offer employees conflict consultation, conflict management training and mediation 

services to address issues as an alternative to the traditional complaint grievance systems 

available for resolving non-EEO related workplace issues.

3. Collaborate with Civil Rights and Human Resources specialists to train managers and 

employees on cultural and diversity sensitivity and appropriate conduct. These trainings 

target discrimination on the basis of disability and the proper management of employees' 

medical documentation.

4. Promote the utilization of the CRP to enhance manager and employee communications 

and aid in conflict management.

5. Continue to monitor the complaint trends, along with conducting and planning trainings 

that target the complaint trend areas, ensuring that employees and managers are aware of 

behavior that is inappropriate for the workplace and may be deemed discriminatory.

6. Include enhancement of the ADR program, including conducting an ADR awareness 

survey, providing training in ADR for supervisors and employees, and establishing a 

Departmental cadre of resolving officials.

7. Continue to present Civil Rights and Equal Employment webinar modules (a combined 

computer-based/teleconference-based broadcast) on the EEO complaint process, preventing 

reprisal, mixed cases, and reducing EEO complaints. 

8. Update EEO/diversity and discrimination policy statements, provide EEO training to 

managers and employees and conduct site visits to area offices to continue to decrease 

complaints. 
16

9. Continue to actively monitor the timelines established for investigators to complete their 

investigations. USDA requires strict adherence to timeframes to complete investigations.

10. Continue to conduct compliance reviews to determine specific EEO trends and potential 

civil rights violations. This will enable the staff to identify potential complaints early and 

engage in efforts to eradicate issues before they escalate to a complaint filing.

11. Work with the Office of Communications to record and closed-caption all of USDA’s

Special Emphasis Program events. This will greatly expand the number of employees

that will be able to participate.

12. Execute a superior awareness of Cultural Transformation throughout each entity of 

USDA. This transformational work will start with a cultural assessment that lays the 

foundation for meaningful change in current practices.

13. Provide a refresher course for first and second line supervisors on working with 

employees with disabilities and how to provide reasonable accommodations.

14. Develop a recruitment and development plan that establishes clear goals and objectives 

for implementing strategies to recruit and retain underrepresented groups.

15. Continue to work collaboratively with the EEOC through its relationship management 

arrangement to access training opportunities.
17

PART II

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment 

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2012
18

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2012

Introduction

Table 8 below provides information on reimbursements by USDA to the U.S. Department of 

Treasury’s Judgment Fund for monies associated with FY 2012 judgments, awards, or 

settlements under the statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2012 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund For FY 2011 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney's Fees

1 $400,000.00 $0

2 $78,500.00 $0

3 $50,000.00 $0

4 $30,000.00 $0

5 $21,000.00 $0

6 $5,000.00 $0

7 $5,000.00 $0

Total $ 589,500.00 $0

Summary

In FY 2012, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund the sum of $589,500.00 for settlements (of 

which zero dollars was identified as payment of attorney’s fees). No monies were paid for 

judgments or awards.
19

PART III

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2011–2012
20

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2011– 2012

Summary of Data

PART 1: Table 9 below contains the number of disciplinary actions taken against employees 

who were found to have committed prohibited acts of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, or 

prohibited personnel practices (including those acts discovered in conjunction with investigations

of whistleblower protection or civil rights complaints).

Table 9

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

TYPE OF 

ACTION

FY 2011 FY 2012

DISC. RET. HAR. PPP WBP TOTAL DISC. RET. HAR. PPP WBP TOTAL

REMOVAL 1 1

15 DAY OR

MORE 1 2 3

14 DAY OR 

LESS 3 1 3 1 8 2 2 4 1 9

REDUCTION

IN GRADE

REDUCTION

IN PAY

LOR 4 1 8 3 16 2 1 3

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 8 2 14 4 28 4 2 5 1 12

Table Abbreviations: Disc. = Discrimination; Ret. = Retaliation; Har. = Harassment; PPP 

= Prohibited Personnel Practice; WBP = Whistleblower Protection Act; and LOR = Letter 

of Reprimand.

PART 2: Table 10 below illustrates the number of Office of Special Counsel Whistleblower 

cases and the numbers of employees disciplined under the Department’s disciplinary policies 

related to whistle-blowing and discrimination.

Table 10

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL CASES

CATEGORIES OF 

CASES

FY 2011 FY 2012 TOTAL

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

CASE

10 12 22

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

CASE CLOSED

0 0 0

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

DISCIPLINE TAKEN

0 0 0
21

Disciplinary Policy

Improving the civil rights environment throughout the Department continues to be a priority for 

USDA. There is a “Zero Tolerance” policy for acts of discrimination, harassment or reprisal of 

any kind. It is USDA’s policy to pursue appropriate administrative action against anyone who is 

found to have engaged in such activities. USDA continues to apply its accountability policy and 

employee awareness activities in its effort to prevent illegal discriminatory actions and to 

discipline those who commit such offenses. Civil Rights and Human Resources staffs work in 

close cooperation, using proven tracking and reporting systems, to monitor compliance activities 

and readily identify emerging trends. 

In cases involving discrimination, harassment, or reprisal, subordinate components of USDA 

impact disciplinary or corrective actions in accordance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, 

and policies. OHRM reviews the disciplinary or corrective actions taken by each agency in cases 

involving discrimination, harassment, or reprisal. The type and severity of disciplinary action is 

based on the USDA Guide for Disciplinary Penalties, Appendix A, Department Personnel 

Manual 751. This guide contains specific sections on discrimination and retaliation, sexual 

misconduct, and prohibited personnel practices. 

In May 2010, USDA started an initiative to provide increased oversight of cases involving 

violation of anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws where liability was found 

against the Department. As part of that initiative, OHRM established the Equal Opportunity 

Accountability Unit (EOAU) with the primary mission of ensuring that USDA personnel are 

held accountable and responsible for their actions. The EOAU raises awareness and ensures that 

individuals in decision-making positions implement appropriate corrective actions when it is 

determined that a violation of this nature has occurred. The EOAU is also responsible for the 

implementation of program improvements to make certain that USDA continues to provide its 

services in a non-discriminatory manner. The initiative has been effective in ensuring that all 

USDA personnel are held accountable and responsible for their actions to implement program 

improvements, to ensure that all services are available in a non-discriminatory manner, and in 

raising awareness of individuals in positions of authority to make responsible decisions. The 

initiative has resulted in an increase in the number of instances where individuals are now being 

held accountable for action or inaction that resulted in a finding of discrimination and/or 

significant liability to USDA.

In October 2007, USDA OHRM updated Departmental Regulation (DR) 4070-735-001, 

Employee Responsibility and Conduct. The updated DR works in conjunction with 

Government-wide ethics regulations and establishes guidelines and requirements for USDA 

employees. Specifically, it prohibits employees from engaging in workplace harassment, 

sexually inappropriate conduct, retaliation in response to protected activities, creating a hostile 

work environment, or illegal discrimination. The updated DR also requires that each employee 

receive a copy to ensure that they are fully aware of the responsibility and conduct standards for 

the Department. 
22

In January 2006, the former USDA Office of Civil Rights (now OASCR) and OHRM issued 

DR-4300-010, Civil Rights Accountability Policy and Procedures. The purpose of this directive 

is to make certain that employees are held accountable for discriminatory or related misconduct 

and outlines management’s obligation to take appropriate corrective action against those who 

have engaged in these prohibited acts. This policy also requires that all USDA employees be 

made aware of its contents.

In addition to Department-wide policies and initiatives, USDA mission areas have taken steps to 

improve the civil rights environment throughout their respective subordinate agencies. The most 

recent initiatives are the following: the Leadership Accountability Action Plan which was 

updated by the FS in 2011; and a newly established Policy on Equal Employment Opportunity 

which was implemented by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer in 2011. These initiatives 

complement the overall Departmental policy of increased accountability. The following is a list 

of other current policies by agency:

Food, Nutrition & Consumer Services

FNS & CNPP Harassment Prevention Policy 2009-3

FNS & CNPP Civil Rights Policy 2009-2

Food Safety

Directive 4735.3; Employee Responsibilities and Conduct

Forest Service

Forest Service Civil Rights Policy Statement

Forest Service Anti-Harassment Policy 

Research, Education & Economics

Policy & Procedure 461.5; Misconduct, Discipline, and Adverse Actions 

Rural Development

RD Instruction 2045-GG; Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, Performance-Based 

Actions, and Probationary Terminations
23

PART IV

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for Fiscal Year 2012
24

The following tables provide composite data for cases in Federal court pending or resolved in FY 

2012 and arising under the antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2012

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2012

Pending District Court Cases 33

Pending Appellate Court Cases 9

New Cases Filed in District Court 22

Note: Cases pending at any time during the year, including those filed during the year, 

and those disposed of during the year. 

Table 12

Pending Cases

Pending Cases

29 U.S.C. 

§206(d)

29 U.S.C. 

§631

29 U.S.C. 

§633a

29 U.S.C. 

§791

42 U.S.C. 

§2000e-16

Disposed of 

during FY 2012

0 0 4* 3 6

Still Pending at 

end of FY 2012

0 0 6** 9 24***

* More than one basis alleged in 2 case.

** More than one basis alleged in 4 cases.

*** More than one basis alleged in 1 case.

Table 13

Disposition of Cases

(Including Dismissals)

Disposition of Cases

(Including Dismissals)

29 U.S.C. 

§206(d)

29 U.S.C. 

§631

29 U.S.C. 

§633a

29 U.S.C. 

§791

42 U.S.C. 

§2000e-16

Settlements 0 0 1 0 3***

Withdrawals 0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment 

for Complainant

0 0 1*** 3 3

Final Judgment 

for Agency

0 0 0 0 0

*** More than one basis alleged in 1 case.
A-1

Appendix
A-2

Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted

Pursuant to the No Fear Act

USDA

FY 2012 for period ending September 30, 2012

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Complaints Filed 508 528 473 525 536

Number of Complainants 395 394 461 509 519

Repeat Filers 48 21 7 12 12

Complaints by Basis

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

Note: Complaints can be filed alleging 

multiple bases.The sum of the bases 

may not equal total complaints filed.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Race 184 181 166 221 215

Color 36 44 23 32 56

Religion 18 13 16 21 23

Reprisal 267 248 181 242 281

Sex 174 178 159 207 228

PDA 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 44 61 49 57 61

Equal Pay Act 0 3 1 4 3

Age 158 168 157 191 177

Disability 107 91 97 104 141

Genetics 0 0 0 0 2

Non-EEO 31 33 44 42 55
A-3

Complaints by Issue Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

Note: Complaints can be filed 

alleging multiple bases.The sum 

of the bases may not equal total 

complaints filed.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Appointment/Hire 28 20 23 38 23

Assignment of Duties 52 80 51 62 100

Awards 24 21 11 20 22

Conversion to Full-time 0 0 1 0 1

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 3 4 5 3 7

Reprimand 15 25 13 24 42

Suspension 25 23 26 19 40

Removal 7 7 6 5 10

Other 6 11 8 10 28

Duty Hours 9 9 5 6 15

Evaluation Appraisal 62 66 59 64 60

Examination/Test 2 2 1 1 4

Harassment

Non-Sexual 215 237 177 224 303

Sexual 15 15 13 23 16

Medical Examination 0 0 1 0 4

Pay (Including Overtime) 9 5 10 13 14

Promotion/Non-Selection 124 117 103 135 118

Reassignment

Denied 4 10 5 8 13
A-4

Directed 17 35 20 20 33

Reasonable Accommodation 36 28 32 36 58

Reinstatement 1 1 2 1 2

Retirement 3 6 1 6 2

Termination 11 35 34 39 35

Terms/Conditions of Employment 50 49 38 52 85

Time and Attendance 36 31 22 28 58

Training 38 35 22 27 49

Other 51 57 64 60 61

Processing Time

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Complaints pending during fiscal year

Average number of days in 

investigation 234.76 160.67 314.71 295.88 248.60

Average number of days in 

final action 736.90 677.81 626.85 360.54 214.93

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 233.11 20.60 281.79 282.63 235.23

Average number of days in 

final action 213.93 176.76 189.78 182.83 133.49

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was not requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 235.92 256.26 335.43 304.05 273.79

Average number of days in 

final action 914.71 825.73 817.92 416.86 255.96
A-5

Complaints Dismissed by Agency

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Complaints Dismissed by 

Agency 73 54 39 56 45

Average days pending prior to 

dismissal 288 248 257 119 145

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 31 24 33 31 29

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 10 15 27 32 17

Without Hearing 4 40 13 87 22 81 29 91 16 94

With Hearing 6 60 2 13 5 19 3 9 24 6

Findings of Discrimination Rendered by 

Basis

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

Note: Complaints can be filed alleging 

multiple bases.The sum of the bases may not 

equal total complaints and findings.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 8 15 27 32 17

Race 0 0 4 27 7 26 2 6 6 35

Color 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4 This number has subsequently increase by 1 due to database reconciliation efforts.
A-6

Reprisal 6 75 4 27 12 44 11 34 6 35

Sex 2 25 6 40 5 19 5 16 2 12

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 0 0 1 7 1 4 0 0 1 6

Equal Pay Act 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age 3 38 7 47 9 33 12 38 4 24

Disability 0 0 2 13 5 19 10 31 6 35

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0

Findings After Hearing 4 2 5 3 1

Race 0 0 1 50 2 40 0 0 0 0

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 2 50 1 50 3 60 2 67 1 100

Sex 1 25 1 50 2 40 0 0 0 0

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Equal Pay Act 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age 3 75 0 0 3 60 0 0 0 0

Disability 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 33 0 0

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings Without Hearing 4 8 16 23 16

Race 0 0 3 38 1 6 2 9 6 38

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-7

Reprisal 4 100 0 0 7 44 5 22 5 31

Sex 1 25 2 25 2 13 4 17 2 13

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 0 0 1 13 1 6 0 0 1 6

Equal Pay Act 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age 0 0 6 75 5 31 11 48 4 25

Disability 0 0 2 25 3 19 8 35 6 38

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0

Findings of Discrimination Rendered by 

Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 8 15 27 32 17

Appointment/Hire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assignment of Duties 2 25 0 0 2 7 4 13 2 12

Awards 2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion to Full-time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 0 0 1 7 1 4 2 6 0 0

Removal 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

Duty Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Evaluation Appraisal 3 38 1 7 0 0 3 9 3 18
A-8

Examination/Test 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harassment

Non-Sexual 4 50 1 7 12 44 16 50 8 47

Sexual 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

Medical Examination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pay (Including Overtime) 1 13 1 7 0 0 1 3 1 6

Promotion/Non-Selection 0 0 10 67 4 15 7 22 1 6

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 6

Directed 2 25 1 7 1 4 6 19 1 6

Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 0 0 3 11 4 13 4 24

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 0 0

Termination 0 0 1 7 1 4 2 6 1 6

Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 6 0 0

Time and Attendance 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 9 3 18

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 1 13 0 0 3 11 0 0 1 6

Findings After Hearing 4 2 5 3 1

Appointment/Hire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assignment of Duties 1 25 0 0 0 0 2 67 0 0

Awards 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion to Full-time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-9

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Duty Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Evaluation Appraisal 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Examination/Test 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harassment

Non-Sexual 3 75 0 0 2 40 1 33 0 0

Sexual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medical Examination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pay (Including Overtime) 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Promotion/Non-Selection 0 0 1 50 2 40 0 0 0 0

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 1 25 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0

Termination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time and Attendance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings Without Hearing 4 13 22 29 16
A-10

Appointment/Hire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assignment of Duties 1 25 0 0 2 9 2 7 2 13

Awards 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion to Full-time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 0 0 1 8 1 5 2 7 0 0

Removal 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

Duty Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Evaluation Appraisal 2 50 1 8 0 0 3 10 3 19

Examination/Test 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harassment

Non-Sexual 1 25 1 8 10 45 15 52 8 50

Sexual 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

Medical Examination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pay (Including Overtime) 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 3 1 6

Promotion/Non-Selection 0 0 9 69 2 9 7 24 1 6

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 6

Directed 1 25 0 0 1 5 6 21 1 6

Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 0 0 3 14 4 14 4 25

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0

Termination 0 0 1 8 1 5 2 7 1 6
A-11

Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 1 8 0 0 2 7 0 0

Time and Attendance 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 10 2 13

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 0 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 1 6

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total complaints from previous 

Fiscal Years 1333 1210 939 837 884

Total Complainants 1063 932 696 706 797

Number complaints pending

Investigation 102 89 81 63 44

ROI issued, pending 

Complainant's action 6 1 7 12 5

Hearing 350 300 228 290 348

Final Agency Action 360 109 88 80 75

Appeal with EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 23 24 28 30 10

Complaint Investigations

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required 

Time Frames

163 171 176 161 117