No FEAR Act 

ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2017 

U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) prohibits discrimination 

against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, 

national origin, age (40 and over), disability, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), religion, reprisal/retaliation, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income 

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 discrimination complaint, you must contact your 

agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (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 discrimination complaint, 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 (OA), 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or by fax (833) 256-

1665.

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and who 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 the information 

above on how to contact us by mail 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 2017, Washington, D.C., USDA, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

PART I: USDA Formal EEO Complaints for 1

 Fiscal Years 2016 - 2017

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 6

(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 9

Section F – Analysis, Experience, and Actions 10

(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 16

Fiscal Year 2017

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for 18

Fiscal Years 2016 - 2017

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 20

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2017

Appendix A-1
i

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

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

Employee Anti-discrimination 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) 2017. This report contains the: 

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

(including gender identity), sexual orientation, 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 anti-discrimination or whistleblower laws or engaged in prohibited personnel 

practices;

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

or prohibited personnel practices; 

• number of cases in Federal Court arising under the anti-discrimination and whistleblower 

protection laws; and

• statistical data USDA is required to post on its public website.

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 and procedures. 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:

• ensure USDA programs are delivered efficiently, effectively, and with integrity and a 

focus on customer service;

• maximize the ability of American agricultural producers to prosper by feeding and 

clothing the world;

• promote American agricultural products and exports;

• facilitate rural prosperity and economic development;

• strengthen the stewardship of private lands through technology and research;

• foster productive and sustainable use of our National Forest System Lands; and

• provide all Americans access to a safe, nutritious and secure food supply.

Summary of the Report

Congress passed the No FEAR Act in May 2002, to reduce anti-discrimination and retaliation in 

Federal Agencies, increase agency accountability, emphasize training for managers in the 

management of a diverse workforce, and encourage dispute resolution and employee 

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 an increase of 31 EEO complaints 

being filed from FY 2016 to FY 2017. The number of filers increased by 24 from FY 2016 to 

FY 2017. Also, there was a decrease in the number of findings of discrimination from FY 2016

to FY 2017. Data illustrating this trend can be found in Appendix A. 

A review of disciplinary actions taken against employees who violated Federal antidiscrimination laws and whistleblower protection statutes shows that in FY 2017, there were 23 

disciplinary actions (See Part III: Table 9 Disciplinary Actions) taken against employees, as 

compared to 71 disciplinary actions taken against employees in FY 2016. This increase in 

disciplinary actions between FY 2016 and FY 2017 resulted from the establishment of USDA’s 

Equal Opportunity Accountability initiative, which has strengthened procedures that measure 

and evaluate both organizational and individual accountability in providing fair and equitable 

treatment for all USDA employees. The reimbursement provisions of the No FEAR Act 

continue to result in financial accountability for sub-agencies and individual staff offices within 

USDA.

 1 Subsequent database reconciliation revealed there were a total of eight findings of discrimination.
iii

During FY 2017, USDA and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) 

implemented several initiatives to reduce the number of EEO complaints. These initiatives and 

accomplishments are outlined below:

• collaborated with USDA agencies, Departmental Management (DM), and staff offices to 

ensure that regulations and reorganizations do not adversely impact USDA employees. 

• extended the contract with Language Doctors, LLC for language interpretation, 

translation, and certification services for OASCR.

• instituted an EEO 180-Day Initiative which increased efficiencies and reduced processing 

times to historic measures. OASCR staff developed training materials and streamlined 

standard operating procedures to eradicate pending inventories of formal complaints and 

appeal records to be submitted to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC)

Office of Federal Operations. OASCR led and served on several work groups in order to 

increase efficiency including: Standardization of the EEO Counselor Report and 

Improved Formal Complaint Processing. In addition, OASCR staff evaluated and made

recommendations for permanent revisions to operating procedures to ensure continued 

improvement and efficiency;

• processed 480 investigations in FY 2017. This was an increase compared to the 411 

investigations processed in FY 2016, and the 426 investigations processed in FY 2015;

• monitored the sufficiency of compliance efforts across the Department by evaluating 19 

compliance reviews conducted by USDA agencies, as well as, 4 settlement and 

conciliation agreements;

• conducted a briefing of the Agency Head Assessment for the agency Administrators and 

senior managers, civil rights and EEO practitioners, and program analysts and provided

an overview of the Performance Plan requirements and procedures. This comprehensive 

evaluation and assessment of the agencies’ senior executives ensure civil rights 

compliance and accountability;

• provided USDA personnel with training on conflict management techniques and 

strategies to utilize when encountering conflict. OASCR coordinated training workshops 

that were offered via live audience and webinar. The training provided employees with 

tools needed to resolve the conflict which ultimately improved employees’ morale, 

working relationships, and communication amongst co-workers and management;

• partnered with several USDA agencies and provided field-based training in several 

locations on topics such as conflict management, team building, and leadership training 

for USDA personnel. OASCR has broadened its training capability to meet the needs of

the workplace. This led to an increased interest by USDA leadership to add leadership 

tools such as conflict management and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). OASCR

also developed a web site which hosts a library of conflict management tools such as 

presentations and resources for managers and employees;

• conducted 21 class-room instructor-led Civil Rights training sessions, attended by 387 

employees at 15 USDA agencies and staff offices across the country, while at the same 

time reaching 86,625 employees across the department through AgLearn, for a total of 
iv

87,000 employees trained. Training topics included: the EEO complaint process, 

reasonable accommodation, anti-harassment, reprisal, alternative dispute resolution, 

unconscious bias, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender nondiscrimination in the 

Federal workplace; conflict resolution; limited English proficiency, workplace bullying; 

team building and communications;

• launched an online training course on AgLearn, unconscious bias, which was the 

mandatory FY 2017 civil rights training topic. By the end of the fiscal year, 

approximately 86,000 employees (77%) had completed the mandatory training. 

Evaluation feedback on the course was very positive—the course was video-based and 

featured Howard Ross, a well-known expert, as the trainer. Use of AgLearn significantly 

increased the number of employees trained across the department;

• assisted the Office of Human Resource Management, Special Emphasis Program staff in 

planning and conducting a training program in recognition of Women’s Equality Day. 

The session focused on developing a competitive resume and identifying and 

strengthening transferrable skills was on August 15, 2017; approximately 80 individuals 

attended and more than 100 participated on-line; 

• ensured the Civil Rights Enterprise System met the annual assessment and authorization 

requirements established by USDA’s Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO).

During this process, the USDA/OCIO reviewed and issued a memo, which granted

OASCR’s Chief Information Officer the Authority to Operate; and

• handled approximately 22,000 Employment discrimination complaint inquiries. As 

front-line professionals, each Customer Service Unit staff was trained to answer and 

return calls promptly, provide helpful and accurate information and defuse customer 

complaints by maintaining professionalism and treating each caller with respect.
1

PART I:

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for

Fiscal Years 2016 – 2017
2

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

Introduction

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

filed and the number of filers for FYs 2016 and 2017. 

Summary of Data

Table 1 below indicates the number of formal EEO complaints filed with USDA by FY and the 

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

filed and the number of filers over the prior year (See Graph 1). 

In FY 2017, the number of complaints filed was 561; whereas, in FY 2016, the number of 

complaints filed was 530. This represents a six percent increase in complaints filed. 

Additionally, the number of filers in FY 2017 was 531; whereas, in FY 2016, the number of 

filers was 507. This represents an eight percent increase in the number of filers. 

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints

Filed

Number of Filers

2016 530 507

2017 561 531

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers at USDA

480

500

520

540

560

580

2016 2017

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

Number of Complaints Filed Number of Filers
3

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 2016 and 2017. The basis of the complaint is the protected characteristic 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 2017 are: 

(1) retaliation; (2) race; (3) sex; and (4) age. In FY 2016, 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.

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

“Retaliation” was the most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO complaints at USDA for both 

FYs 2017 and 2016. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 311 formal EEO complaints in FY 

2017, compared to 270 formal EEO complaints in FY 2016. This represents a 15 percent 

increase (41 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Race Discrimination 

“Race” was the second most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO complaints at USDA in 

FY 2017. The basis of “Race” was cited in 243 formal EEO complaints in FY 2017, compared 

to 222 complaints in FY 2016, a 9 percent increase (21 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Sex Discrimination

“Sex” was the third most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO complaints at USDA in 

FY 2017. The basis of “Sex” was cited in 216 formal EEO complaints in FY 2017, compared to 

206 complaints in FY 2016, a 5 percent increase (10 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Age Discrimination 

“Age” was the fourth most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO complaints at USDA in 

FY 2017. The basis of “Age” was cited in 207 formal EEO complaints in FY 2017, compared to 

182 complaints in FY 2016, a 14 percent increase (25 complaints) over a two-year period. 
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

Other2

2016 222 63 35 206 47 157 182 270 41

2017 243 75 35 216 67 185 207 311 66

 

Graph 2

Most Frequently Cited Bases 

 

 2 Other USDA protected bases include Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), Equal Pay Act, Genetics,

 and Non-EEO. Additionally, the bases of sex include gender identity and gender expression.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2016 2017

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Race Sex Age Retaliation
5

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 2016 and 2017. 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 subject matter about which the individual is complaining or the alleged discriminatory 

incident for which the individual is seeking redress. Table 3 below 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 2017 were: (1) Harassment; (2) 

Terms/Condition of Employment; 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 2017, with 355

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 300 filings in FY 2016, indicating an 18 percent increase 

(55 complaints) from FY 2016 to FY 2017.

“Terms/Condition of Employment” was the second most frequently cited issue in formal EEO 

cases in FY 2017, with 146 filings. In contrast, “Terms/Condition of Employment” had 102

filings in FY 2016, indicating a 43 percent increase (44 complaints) from FY 2016 to FY 2017.

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

2017, with 124 filings. In contrast, “Promotion/Non-selection” had 149 filings in FY 2016, 

indicating a 17 percent decrease (25 complaints) from FY 2016 to FY 2017. 

 

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

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal

Examination/Test

Harassment

Medical Examination

Pay/Overtime

Promotion /Non-Selection

Reassignment

Reasonable Accommodation Disability

Reinstatement

Retirement

Termination

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Time and Attendance

Training

*Other

2016 27 92 9 0 71 20 91 1 300 1 21 149 32 69 2 4 27 102 59 51 38

2017 40 87 18 3 105 18 91 2 355 4 30 124 37 84 0 5 36 146 67 40 33

 *Other USDA protected issues include Religious Accommodation, Sex-Stereotyping, Telework, and Other. 
6

Graph 3

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Section D-EEO Processing Stages

Introduction

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

EEO complaints processed during FYs 2016 and 2017. The formal EEO complaint process has 

various stages. Not all formal complaints complete all processing 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 processing 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 and in dismissals. For all Final Agency Actions with an EEOC hearing

and without an EEOC hearing, there was an upward trend in the average number of days for 

processing.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2016 2017

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Promotion/Non-Selection Terms/Condition of Employment Harassment
7

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

2016 209 70 124 97

2017 161 109 181 66

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 2016 and 2017, at each 

EEO stage.

Graph 5 shows a downward trend in pending complaints in following stages: Final Agency 

Actions; and Investigations. In addition, Graph 5 shows an upward trend in pending complaints

in following stages: Hearings; and Appeals.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2016 2017

Axis Title

Average Number of Days for 

Completion of Each EEO Stage

Investigation

Final Agency Action with EEOC

Hearing

Final Agency Action without

EEOC Hearing

Dismissals
8

Table 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage3

Year Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

2016 18 401 47 116

2017 14 434 27 192

Graph 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

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

Table 6 and Graph 6 shows a 20 percent decrease for pending formal complaints that exceed the 

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

 3 The data reflected in Table 5 is inclusive of Pending EEO Formal Complaints in the Investigation Stage that are 

either: Formal, Mixed or Class Complaints from the previous fiscal year (FY). The numbers may not comport with 

other FY EEO data reports and methodologies.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2016 2017

Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal
9

Table 6

Pending Formal EEO Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints Exceeding the 180-day Investigation Requirement

2016 10

2017 8

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 the number of findings of discrimination issued with an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing increased by one, from FY 2016 to FY 2017, and the number of findings 

without an EEOC Administrative Hearing decreased by three from FY 2016 to FY 2017.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2016 2017

Pending Complaints Exceeding 

180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints

Exceeding the 180-day

Investigation Requirement
10

Table 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Year With an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

20164 1 6

2017 2 3

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) Causal Analysis

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

EEO complaints. Examples are as follows:

 4 Subsequent database reconciliation reveled that there were a total of eight findings of discrimination in FY 2016.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2016 2017

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of 

Discrimination

With an EEOC Administrative

Hearing

Without an EEOC

Administrative Hearing
11

• The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reported a decrease by eight in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 2 formal complaints filed in FY 

2017, as compared to 10 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. AMS attributes the 

decrease in formal complaints filed to the intensification of Civil Rights and EEO 

training and the Civil Rights Program’s proactive approach in resolving complaints in the 

informal stage of the compliant process.

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported an increase by 19 in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 60 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared to 41 formal complaints filed in FY 2016.

APHIS noted there was no definitive contributing factor(s) to which this increase may be 

attributed. 

• The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) reported a decrease by two in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 17 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2017, as compared to 19 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. ARS attributes this

decrease to the timely and effective issuance of all current EEO policies, as well as,

identifying and enforcing mandatory EEO training.

• The Conflict Complaints Division, which processes conflict cases5

, reported an increase 

by 10 in the number of complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 57 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared to 47 formal complaints filed in FY 2016.

• The Economic Research Service (ERS) reported a decrease by one in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there was zero formal complaint filed in 

FY 2017, as compared to one formal complaint filed in FY 2016. ERS attributes the 

decrease in complaints to the early intervention of the Office of Civil Rights and more 

importantly by ERS managers. Through training, managers were taught EEO complaints 

can be avoided if they take time to listen to employee concerns daily.

• The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) reported an increase by two in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were nine formal complaints filed in FY 

2017, as compared to seven formal complaints filed in FY 2016. FAS attributes the 

increase in the number of complaints filed to its effort in educating employees on EEO 

and civil rights policies and their rights to participate in the EEO process without reprisal 

or retaliation. This education and information sharing has educated employees on EEO 

issues, concerns and the opportunity to come to OASCR to discuss their issues and 

concerns.

 5 Conflict case(s) is an EEO complaint involving facts and/or allegations that are determined to pose an actual,

perceived, and or potential conflict between a Responsible Management Official or complainant’s position or 

personal interest, and USDA’s responsibility to administer a fair and impartial investigative process and resolution 

of complaints.
12

• The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported an increase by two in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 20 formal complaints filed in FY 

2017, as compared to 18 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. FNS attributes the increase 

in complaints to FNS’ leadership turnover and a re-organization in FY 2015 and FY 

2016. These changes are believed to have continued to create a stressful environment for 

some employees in FY 2017. 

• The Forest Service (FS) reported a decrease by 15 in the number of complaints filed in 

FY 2017. Specifically, there were 143 formal complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared 

to 158 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. FS attributes this decrease to the continuous 

commitment to eradicating workplace discrimination by creating a variety of Civil Rights 

programs and trainings for employees and managers.

• The Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported an increase by six in the number of formal 

EEO complaints filed FY 2017. Specifically, there were 33 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2017, as compared to 27 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. FSA attributes this to a

newly initiated policy that requires all FSA employees to view and acknowledge reading 

all FSA civil rights policy letters through AgLearn.

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

of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 58 complaints filed 

in FY 2017, as compared to 68 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. FSIS attributes the 

decrease to the Agency’s continued efforts to provide EEO and Civil Rights training and 

market ADR to the workforce.

• The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) reported an

increase by four in the number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, 

there were 12 formal complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared to 8 formal complaints 

filed in FY 2016. GIPSA attributes the increase to the rise in termination of employees.

• The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported no change in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were two formal complaints filed in FYs

2017 and 2016. NASS attributes the static level of complaints to the training offered to

its managers, supervisors and employees annually. The training plays a critical role in 

raising awareness and fostering behaviors that can prevent complaints. 

• The National Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (NFC-OCFO) 

reported a decrease by 13 in the number of formal complaints filed in FY 2017. 

Specifically, there were 35 formal complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared to 48 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2016. The NFC-OCFO attributes the decrease to counseling and 

conflict resolution techniques used to de-escalate issues and matters between employees 

and managers.

• The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) reported a decrease by one in the 

number of formal complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were two formal 

complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared to three formal complaints filed in FY 2016. 

NIFA attributes the decrease in complaints to its emphasis on Civil Rights training, ADR, 

and early proactive prevention of discrimination in its workplace.
13

• The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reported an increase by six in the 

number of formal complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 26 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2017, as compared to 20 formal complaints filed in FY 2016. 

NRCS attributes the increase in complaints to unexpected decisions affecting employees 

and differential treatment of employees by management.

• The Rural Development (RD) reported an increase by 17 in the number of formal 

complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were 62 formal complaints filed in FY 

2017, as compared to 45 formal complaints in FY 2016. RD attributes the increase of 

complaint filings to political leadership turnover, and hiring of new employees and 

leadership. Additionally, the increase in the number of filings was attributed to an 

increased focus on equal opportunity training, which resulted in more employees being

aware of how to file a complaint. 

• The Risk Management Agency (RMA) reported an increase of four in the number of 

formal complaints filed in FY 2017. Specifically, there were nine complaints filed in FY 

2017, as compared to five formal complaints filed in FY 2016. RMA attributes the 

increase to workplace disputes to misinformation and miscommunication.

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

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

EEO complaints: 

• scheduling annual compliance reviews of USDA’s offices helps to assist management in

addressing employee concerns and strengthening Civil Rights Programs;

• holding managers, supervisors and employees accountable from exhibiting 

discriminatory practices and inappropriate conduct helps to create a workplace that is free 

from discrimination;

• planning mandatory Civil Rights Training assists in decreasing complaints by helping 

USDA employees deal with delicate situations and understand the difference between 

workplace conflicts (grievances) and alleged discrimination;

• budget constraints, resulting in the absence of travel to field offices, greatly hinders the 

mediation processes within the state and county offices;

• the early involvement by managers and supervisors in working with EEO Counselors/ 

Mediators continues to be instrumental in the early identification of employment 

concerns;

• collaborating with stakeholders and incorporating feedback from clients during ADR

reduces the number of formal employment discrimination complaints filed at USDA;

• disseminating information in briefings helps employees become more knowledgeable 

about their rights;
14

• employees and supervisors working together results in building positive relationships, 

generates a positive work environment, and increases employee productivity; and 

• working with Human Resources helps ensure new employee orientation packages include

appropriate EEO and Civil Rights information.

(3) Past and Future Actions by USDA Relating to EEO Complaints 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. The past actions include:

• utilized the services of the Human Resources Division and the Conflict Resolution Division 

to address an increasing number of non-EEO employment concerns;

• evaluated USDA EEO policies, procedures, and practices through internal compliance 

reviews and comprehensive EEO complaint briefings;

• required that all policy statements be posted in all work areas visible to USDA employees 

and contractors;

• conducted trend analysis of EEO systemic bases, claims and barriers, to develop desired 

learning objectives for Mandatory Annual Civil Rights Training;

• offered the following ADR services: Mediation, Conflict Coaching, Consultation, 

Facilitated Dialogue, Group Facilitation, and Group Intervention;

• required new and current employees to complete No Fear Training and Anti-Harassment 

Training on Preventing Workplace Harassment;

• conducted the following “Teachable Moments” sessions for managers and supervisors:

The ABC’s of Civil Rights; EEO Observer; Civil Rights, Diversity, and Inclusion; EEO 

Complaint Process; Reasonable Accommodation; Disability and Religious 

Discriminations; The pitfalls of the Reasonable Accommodation Process; 

Retaliation/Reprisal for Engaging in EEO activities; Workplace Harassment (Sexual 

Orientation and Sexual Harassment Training); Whistleblower Protection and EEO; 

Discussions on EEO and the Hatch Act; Theories of Discrimination (i.e., Adverse Impact, 

Disparate Treatment and Hostile Work Environment);

• continued proactive steps to ensure employees adhered to USDA’s civil rights policy, and 

current prohibited personnel practices through the distribution of civil rights information

via email messages and trainings; and

• re-issued policy statements on (civil rights and diversity, reasonable accommodations, 

and anti-harassment policy and procedures), reiterating the zero-tolerance policy towards 

discrimination in employment related actions, such as selections, merit promotions, 

awards, transfers, reassignments, training, disciplinary actions or removals.

Additionally, USDA plans to take the following future actions:
15

• provide employees copy of the No FEAR Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act;

• develop new EEO-related webinars in FY 2018, to provide information and guidance to agency 

employees at all levels;

• conduct Civil Rights Exit Interviews with employees to assess the reasons for their 

departure and experience; 

• require employees to complete Understanding Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 

training;

• increase training efforts to improve awareness of prohibited discriminatory practices 

outlined in Departmental Regulation (DR) 4120-001, "Annual Departmental Civil Rights 

Training; and

• identify and track EEO trends as they occur through its monthly complaint activity report and 

disseminate the information to key stakeholders.
16

PART II:

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment 

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2017
17

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2017

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 2017 judgments, awards, or 

settlements under the statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2017 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2017 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney’s Fees

1 $999,999.00 $0.00

2 $305,000.00 $0.00

3 $200,000.00 $0.00

4 $65,000.00 $0.00

5 $45,000.00 $0.00

6 $35,000.00 $0.00

7 $30,000.00 $0.00

Total $1,679,999.00 $0.00

Summary

In FY 2017, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund $1,679,999.00, of which zero dollars were

identified as payment of attorney’s fees. 
18

PART III:

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2016 – 2017
19

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2016–2017

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 2016 FY 2017

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

REMOVAL 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 5 0 0 6

15 DAY OR

MORE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 DAY OR 

LESS 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 6

REDUCTION

IN GRADE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

REDUCTION

IN PAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOR 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 10 0 0 11

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 0 7 0 0 0 7 2 0 21 0 0 23

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 (OSC) 

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 2016 FY 2017 TOTAL

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE 5 5 10

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE CLOSED 0 0 0

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER DISCIPLINE 

TAKEN

0 0 0
20

PART IV:

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for FY 2017
21

Tables 11,12, and 13 below provide composite data for cases in Federal Court pending or 

resolved in FY 2017 and arising under the anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2017

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2017

Pending District Court Cases 54

Pending Appellate Court Cases 76

New Cases Filed in District Court 23

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 2017 1 0 3 3 8

Still Pending at End of FY 2017 0 0 8 6 28

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 1 0 0 0 1

Withdrawals 0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment for 

Complainant

0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment for Agency 0 0 3 1 4

Total disposed of Cases in 

2017

1 0 3 1 5

 6 Four (4) appellate cases were also pending in district court case at some point in FY 2017.
A-1

Appendix A
A-2

Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted

Pursuant to the No FEAR Act

USDA

FY 2017 for period ending September 30, 2017

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Complaints Filed 544 481 509 530 561

Number of Complainants 512 465 496 507 531

Repeat Filers 26 17 14 19 24

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.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Race 213 243 206 222 243

Color 64 73 71 63 75

Religion 19 19 24 35 35

Reprisal 311 270 296 270 311

Sex 213 207 215 206 216

PDA 2 3 1 0 2

National Origin 59 74 69 47 67

Equal Pay Act 8 4 2 1 8

Age 201 183 181 182 207

Disability 150 130 165 157 185

Genetics 3 2 2 1 1

Non-EEO 42 55 59 39 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.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Appointment/Hire 34 25 35 27 40

Assignment of Duties 119 117 115 92 87

Awards 24 9 19 9 18

Conversion to Full-time 2 1 0 0 3

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 3 5 3 4 4

Reprimand 28 23 55 28 44

Suspension 30 27 49 26 36

Removal 13 7 10 6 17

Other 17 31 11 7 4

Duty Hours 11 11 23 20 18

Evaluation Appraisal 85 73 90 91 91

Examination/Test 1 1 1 1 2

Harassment

Non-Sexual 275 264 303 282 342

Sexual 12 20 16 18 13

Medical Examination 2 4 8 1 4

Pay (Including Overtime) 29 39 42 21 30

Promotion/Non-Selection 123 111 162 149 124

Reassignment

Denied 19 27 25 14 17

Directed 33 43 40 18 20

Reasonable Accommodation 63 48 83 69 84
A-4

Disability

Reinstatement 0 0 1 2 0

Religious Accommodation* 0 0 0 3 4

Retirement 2 1 1 4 5

Sex-Stereotyping* 0 0 0 1 1

Telework* 0 0 0 29 25

Termination 40 34 40 27 36

Terms/Conditions of Employment 176 146 163 102 146

Time and Attendance 50 32 78 59 67

Training 41 33 49 51 40

Other 26 23 28 5 3

Processing Time

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Complaints Pending During Fiscal Year

Average Number of Days in 

Investigation 242.05 212.08 198.94 208.93 161.02

Average Number of Days in Final 

Action 165.94 169.31 106.7 97.94 151.66

Complaint Pending During Fiscal Year Where Hearing was Requested

Average Number of Days in 

Investigation 247.31 217.23 203.6 212.88 165.95

Average Number of Days in Final 

Action 119.33 199.47 96.48 69.94 108.76

Complaint Pending During Fiscal Year Where Hearing was not Requested

Average Number of Days in 

Investigation 233.21 204.07 192.73 202.01 153.61

Average Number of Days in Final 

Action 187.19 134.58 112.82 124.03 181.49

*Data was not collected prior to Fiscal year 2016
A-5

Complaints Dismissed by Agency

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Complaints Dismissed by Agency 67 64 55 57 83

Average Days Pending Prior to Dismissal 83 188 89 97 66

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 29 32 29 28 35

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 19 24 5 7 5

Without Hearing 4 21 15 63 0 0 6 86 3 60

With Hearing 4 21 9 38 5 100 1 14 2 40

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.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 32 24 5 7 4

Race 2 11 6 25 1 20 3 43 3 75

Color 2 11 1 4 0 0 1 14 0 0

Religion 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 6 32 7 29 2 40 4 57 1 25

Sex 5 26 2 8 0 0 3 43 0 0

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 3 16 5 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-6

Equal Pay Act 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age 6 32 2 8 1 20 0 0 1 25

Disability 6 32 8 33 4 80 2 29 0 0

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 3 16 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings After Hearing 4 9 5 1 2

Race 2 50 4 44 1 20 1 100 2 10

Color 2 50 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 0 0 4 44 2 40 1 100 0 0

Sex 1 25 2 22 0 0 1 100 0 0

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0

Equal Pay Act 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age 3 75 1 11 1 20 0 0 1 50

Disability 1 25 0 0 4 80 0 0 0 0

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 2 50 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings Without Hearing 15 15 0 6 2

Race 0 0 2 13 0 0 2 33 1 50

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 6 40 3 20 0 0 3 50 1 50

Sex 4 27 0 0 0 0 2 33 0 0

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 3 20 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-7

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

Age 3 20 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disability 5 33 8 53 0 0 2 33 0 0

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 1 7 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 19 24 5 7 4

Appointment/Hire 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assignment of Duties 0 0 3 13 0 0 1 14 2 50

Awards 0 0 1 4 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 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 1 20 2 29 0 0

Suspension 2 11 1 4 0 0 1 14 0 0

Removal 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Duty Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal 0 0 1 4 1 20 0 0 0 0

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 5 26 8 33 2 40 2 29 0 0

Sexual 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Pay (Including Overtime) 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-8

Promotion/Non-Selection 4 21 5 21 0 0 2 29 3 75

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 1 5 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation Disability 3 16 5 21 2 40 1 14 0 0

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religious Accommodation* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sex-Stereotyping* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telework* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 3 16 6 25 0 0 0 0 1 25

Terms/Conditions of Employment 2 11 3 13 0 0 2 29 1 25

Time and Attendance 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Training 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 2 11 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings After Hearing 4 9 5 1 2

Appointment/Hire 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assignment of Duties 0 0 2 22 0 0 1 100 1 50

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion to Full-time/Perm Status 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 1 20 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
A-9

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal 0 0 1 11 1 20 0 0 0 0

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 0 0 3 33 2 40 0 0 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) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Promotion/Non-Selection 1 25 4 44 0 0 0 0 1 50

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation 1 25 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religious Accommodation* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sex-Stereotyping* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telework* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50

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 0 0

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Findings Without Hearing 15 15 0 6 2

Appointment/Hire 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Assignment of Duties 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 50

Awards 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-10

Conversion to Full-time/Perm Status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 0 0

Suspension 2 13 1 7 0 0 1 17 0 0

Removal 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Duty Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 5 33 5 33 0 0 2 33 0 0

Sexual 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Pay (Including Overtime) 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Promotion/Non-Selection 3 20 1 7 0 0 2 33 2 100

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation Disability 2 13 5 33 0 0 1 17 0 0

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religious Accommodation* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sex-Stereotyping* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telework* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 2 13 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0

Terms/Conditions of Employment 2 13 3 20 0 0 2 33 1 50
A-11

Time and Attendance 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Training 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Data was not collected prior to Fiscal Year 2016

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Complaints from Previous 

Fiscal Years 956 938 878 4727 472

Total Complainants 797 885 482 482 429

Number Complaints Pending

Investigation 28 35 33 18 14

ROI Issued, Pending 

Complainant’s Action 1 3 1 2 0

Hearing 399 520 448 401 434

Final Agency Action 68 50 41 47 27

Appeal to EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 11 61 27 116 192

Complaint Investigations

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required Time 

Frames

85 190 32 10 8

 7 Due to recommendations made by Federal Agencies (at Micro Pact’s Annual No FEAR User Forum) to change the 

formula for calculating the number of “Total complaints from previous Fiscal Years,” this field has experienced a 

significant decrease in complaints between FY 2015 and FY 2016.