NO FEAR ACT ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2013

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 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 (OA), 1400 

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

email at program.intake@usda.gov.

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 2013, Washington, D.C., USDA, 

Director, Office of Adjudication, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

PART I: USDA Formal EEO Complaints For 1

 Fiscal Years 2012 - 2013

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 18

Fiscal Year 2013

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 20

for Fiscal Years 2012 - 2013

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 24

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2013

Appendix A-1
i

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

This is the USDA’s ninth 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) 2013. 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; and

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

• expand international trade for agricultural products and support international economic 

development;

• expand domestic marketing opportunities for agricultural products;

• strengthen risk management, through the use of financial tools, and providing 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 

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 a slight increase of 8 Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints filed from FY 2012 to FY 2013, ending the EEO 

inventory at the end of FY 2013 with 956 complaints. The number of filers decreased by seven

from FY 2012 to FY 2013, but the number of findings of discrimination increased by two from 

FY 2012 to FY 2013. 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 2013, 12 employees 

were disciplined; and 12 employees were also disciplined in FY 2012. This static level of

disciplinary actions between FY 2012 and FY 2013 indicates a continual level of accountability 

within USDA and the Secretary'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 2013, USDA has implemented several initiatives that will further assist in its effort to 

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

• In FY 2013, USDA finalized Department Regulation 4300-005, entitled “Prohibition 

Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency in Programs and Activities Conducted by USDA.” This required Agencies to 

have a plan in place to regularly and consistently assess the Limited English Proficiency 

(LEP) status and language assistance needs of current and potential customers and 

applicants, as well as, a mechanism for monitoring its effectiveness. 

• USDA is amending 7 C.F.R. 15d, “Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities 

Conducted by USDA.” The changes proposed will clarify the roles and responsibilities 

of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) and USDA agencies in 

enforcing non-discrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department. 

These changes will strengthen USDA’s civil rights compliance and complaint processing 

activities to better protect the rights of USDA customers. The proposed regulation 

outlines three specific changes to current activities. First, the proposed regulation

includes a requirement that each agency shall, for civil rights compliance purposes, 

collect, maintain, and annually compile, by county and State, data on the race, ethnicity, 

and gender of all applicants and participants of programs and activities conducted by 

USDA. Second, the rule requires that OASCR offer Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) services to program complainants. Finally, USDA adds protection from 

discrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department with respect to two 

new protected bases, political beliefs and gender identity.

• 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 by 

proposed policies or practices. Over 14 percent of our reviews resulted in 

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

• OASCR continues its process of reviewing and revising 16 USDA Civil Rights 

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

current civil rights laws, regulations, and USDA policy.

• OASCR has oversight responsibility for implementing the USDA EEO Program and 

provides overall leadership, coordination, and direction for compliance with all civil 

rights laws, regulations, policies and procedures regarding EEO. A strong compliance 

review program is an essential element in raising awareness of employment practices and 

policies that contribute to perceptions of bias, unfairness, harassment and/or disparate 

treatment. In order to carry out these responsibilities and ensure that all Agencies are in 

compliance and maintain accountability for equal opportunity and accessibility, OASCR 

conducted two employment compliance reviews in FY 2013. Also, OASCR began an 

initiative in collaborating with the Agencies to conduct Technical Assistance Compliance 

Reviews (TACR) for consistency, uniformity and cost savings. In FY 2013, OASCR 

conducted five TACRs.
iv

• OASCR commenced processing all USDA federal sector EEO investigation, which were 

previously the responsibility of each individual USDA Agency. OASCR’s goal for this 

initiative was to increase quality, increase timeliness and reduce costs of the 

Department’s Report of Investigations (ROIs). The initiative resulted in the transfer of 

12 employees from USDA Agencies. It also required OASCR to draft new position 

descriptions and performance standards for the transferred employees. In an effort to 

increase ROI quality, OASCR drafted a new vendor Statement of Work (SOW) and 

reduced the number of contract EEO vendors from 30 to 10. While much work remains, 

USDA has already increased timeliness, quality, and reduced the cost of the 

Department’s ROIs.

• OASCR continues to evaluate USDA Agency Heads and Staff Office Directors on their 

civil rights performance and activities through its annual Agency Head Assessments.

The process provides a detailed overview of the goals and objectives critical to achieving 

a model civil rights organization and is consistent with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Management Directive 715, DR 4300-010, Civil 

Rights Accountability Policy and Procedures, and other relevant EEO statutes, 

regulations, policies and procedures. In FY 2013, OASCR evaluated and assessed 17 

USDA Agencies and 6 Staff Offices.

• OASCR developed and maintained websites for all USDA agencies for the reporting of 

No FEAR data. In addition, it is responsible for the production of the Ad Hoc reports, 

which provides information on the processing time for the Office of Adjudication. This 

information enables users to analyze complaint processing time and develop performance 

measures that will assist in decreasing the average processing time. OASCR was also 

instrumental in developing the monthly reports which reflects program and employment 

complaint status and trends.

• OASCR established a bi-weekly, in-person, training session for personnel in the 

Washington DC area entitled, “A Brief Introduction to ADR.” The small classes 

provided an introduction to the field of ADR and covered the key aspects of ADR 

dynamics, commonly used ADR techniques, and roles of participants.

• OASCR also provided personnel with training on conflict management techniques and 

coping strategies to utilize when they encounter conflict. These coordinated training 

workshops were offered via live audience, webinar, and webcast which covered the 

following topics: How to Deal with Workplace Bullying, Communication Strategies for 

Effective Working Relationships, and Preparing for Performance Appraisals. The 

training provided employees with the tools needed to resolve conflicts themselves, which 

ultimately improved employees’ morale, working relationships, and communication. 

Feedback from the surveys reflected that the employees were very satisfied with all facets 

of the training. The feedback received resulted in additional trainings for employees in 

various field offices throughout USDA. Overall, in FY 2013, OASCR provided training 

to 5,627 USDA personnel.
v

• The Training and Cultural Transformation Divisions provided civil rights training to 

employees at all levels Department-wide. The purpose of the training was to create 

awareness, enhance skills, and encourage employee commitment to improving program 

delivery and making USDA a model employer. The training has resulted in a wider

recognition that all USDA employees are protected by civil rights laws. Employees have 

a heightened awareness about civil rights laws, personal responsibilities and liabilities, 

complaints avoidance actions, and good customer service practices.

• OASCR helped to further ensure the efficient and successful running of the Department’s 

EEO complaint processes by significantly broadening its metrics for contributing to

OASCR’s annual Agency Head Assessment. This has allowed OASCR to effectively 

identify areas for substantive improvement in how the reports are prepared, and 

necessarily, how informal EEO counseling is conducted throughout the Department. The 

quality goal indicator has also enabled OASCR staff to provide targeted feedback and 

training to agency partners.

• OASCR continued to aggressively identify opportunities for low or no cost EEO training, 

both for internal staff, as well as, for employees involved in the EEO process throughout 

the Department. Examples include coordinated training on sexual orientation and gender 

identity issues in EEO complaints, conducted by senior EEOC staff attorneys, and an 

advanced Procedural Dismissal training, conducted in collaboration with the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Office. In addition, extensive training was 

conducted on iComplaints, the Department’s EEO complaint tracking database. 

Throughout the year, in-house training for OASCR and other Departmental employees, 

including, for example in-depth training on quality EEO counseling and the preparation 

of EEO Counselor’s Reports and civil rights training for the Department’s political 

appointees was also conducted.
1

PART I

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for

Fiscal Years 2012 – 2013
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 2012 and 2013. 

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 2013, the number of complaints filed was 544, whereas, in FY 2012, the number of 

complaints filed was 536. This represents a one percent increase in complaints filed. However, 

the number of filers in FY 2013 was 512, which is 7 less than the number of filers (519) in FY 

2012.

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers

at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints Number of Filers

2012 536 519

2013 544 512
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 2012 and 2013. 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 2013 are: (1) 

retaliation; (2) sex; (3) race; and (4) age. In FY 2012, the four most frequently cited bases were: 

(1) retaliation; (2) sex; (3) race; 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

2012 2013

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*

2012 215 56 23 228 61 141 177 281 60

2013 213 64 19 213 59 150 201 311 55

*Other USDA protected bases include marital status, parental status, and 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 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2012 2013

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Year

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation
5

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

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

true for both FYs 2013 and 2012. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 311 formal EEO 

complaints in FY 2013, compared to 281 complaints in FY 2012, an 11 percent (30 complaints) 

increase over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Sex Discrimination 

“Sex” was the second most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2013. 

The basis of “Sex” was cited in 213 formal EEO complaints in FY 2013, compared to 228

complaints in FY 2012, a 7 percent decrease (15 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Race Discrimination

“Race” was the third most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2013. 

The basis of “Race” was cited in 213 formal EEO complaints in FY 2013, compared to 215

complaints in FY 2012, a 1 percent decrease (2 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Age Discrimination 

“Age” was the fourth most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2013. 

The basis of “Age” was cited in 201 formal EEO complaints in FY 2013, compared to 177

complaints in FY 2012, a 7 percent (22 complaints) increase over a two-year 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 2012 and 2013. 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 2013 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 2013, with 287

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 319 filings in FY 2012 indicating a 10 percent decrease

(32 complaints) from FY 2012 to FY 2013.
6

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

cases in FY 2013, with 176 filings. In contrast, “Terms/Condition of Employment” had only 85 

filings in FY 2012 indicating an increase of 107 percent (91 complaints) from FY 2012 to FY 

2013.

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

2013, with 123 filings. In contrast, “Promotion/Non-Selection” had 118 filings in FY 2012. 

There was a four percent increase (5 complaints) from FY 2012 to FY 2013. 

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

2012

2013

23

34

100

119

22

24

1

2

127

91

15

11

60

85

4

1

46

52

49

41

58

50

35

40

4

2

14

29

118

123

319

287

2

0

2

2

85

176

58

63

61

26
7

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 2013 and 2012. 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.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2012 2013

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Harrassment

Terms /

Conditions of

Employment

Promotion/ NonSelection
8

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

2012 249 133 256 145

2013 242 119 187 83

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 2013,

at each EEO stage.

• Graph 5 shows a downward trend in pending complaints in Investigations and Final 

Agency Actions, and an upward trend in pending complaints for Hearings and Appeals.

Table 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

Year Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

2012 44 348 75 10

2013 28 399 68 11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2012 2013

Graph 6 - 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 27 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

2012 117

2013 85

0

100

200

300

400

500

2012 2013

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 increased by two in FY 2013 from FY 2012, and without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing decreased by one in FY 2013 from FY 2012.

0

100

200

300

2012 2013

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

2012 2 16

2013 4 15

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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

2012 2013

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 (AMS) reported a decrease by eight in the number of 

formal complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 13 formal complaints filed 

in FY 2013, as compared to 21 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. AMS attributes the 

decrease to the reduction in the number of office consolidations or closures, continued 

civil rights training, and the promotion of ADR to complainants.

2. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported a decrease by six in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 41 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2013, as compared to 47 formal complaints filed in FY 2012.

APHIS attributes this decrease to increased training of managers and supervisors; 

restructuring of the complaint process; holding counselors to 30-day deadlines without 

allowing automatic 90-day extensions; increased use of ADR; and increased involvement 

of upper management early in the resolution stage.

3. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) reported a decrease by seven in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 23 formal complaints filed in FY 

2013, as compared to 30 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. ARS attributes this

decrease to the Agency’s on-line and face-to-face training, and updated EEO policies.

4. The Corporate Services Division (CSD) which processes conflict or staff office cases

reported an increase by 14 in the number of complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, 

there were 57 formal complaints filed in FY 2013, as compared to 43 formal complaints 

filed in FY 2012. 

5. The Economic Research Service (ERS) reported an increase by three in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were three formal complaints filed in FY 

2013, as compared to no formal complaints filed in FY 2012. ERS attributes this

increase directly to employees now having faith in the complaint process. They now 

believe that the EEO process will give them a chance to, at a minimum, air their concerns 

and problems.

6. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) reported a increase by five in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 5 formal complaints filed in FY 

2013, as compared to 10 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. FAS attributes the increase 

to increased marketing and utilization of ADR.

7. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported a decrease by six in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 13 formal complaints filed in FY 

2013, as compared to 7 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. FNS attributes this decrease

to substantial reorganization and restructuring within FNS. Over half of the complaints 

were based on promotion, hiring, or reorganization. 
13

8. The Forest Service (FS) reported an increase by eight in the number of complaints filed 

in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 179 formal complaints filed in FY 2013, compared 

to 171 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. FS attributes the increase in formal 

complaints to a 70 percent increase in repeat filers and increases in complaint filings of 

reprisal, race, and disability claims.

9. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported a decrease by seven in the number of formal 

EEO complaints filed FY 2013. Specifically, there were 22 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2013, compared to 29 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. FSA attributes this 

decrease to employees’ awareness about the Agency’s EEO complaint processing and

training.

10. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reported a decrease by 23 in the number 

of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 45 complaints filed 

in FY 2013, as compared to 68 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. FSIS attributes this 

decrease to the Agency’s proactive efforts in EEO and Civil Rights training; marketing 

ADR; promoting employee awareness of EEO issues; and hosting SEP observances 

geared towards educating its workforce.

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

decrease by six in the number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, 

there were three formal complaints filed in FY 2013, as compared to nine formal 

complaints filed in FY 2012. GIPSA attributes this decrease to an increase in the number 

of complainants choosing to participate in ADR during the informal process and limited 

hiring during the year.

12. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported no increase or decrease in 

the number complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there was one formal complaint 

filed in FY 2013 and in FY 2012. NASS attributes its low filings to mandatory EEO 

training on the complaint process for managers, supervisors, and all employees.

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

reported an increase by seven in the number of formal complaints filed FY 2013. 

Specifically, there were 29 formal complaints filed in FY 2013, as compared to 22 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2012. The NFC-OCFO attributed this increase to the fact that 57 

percent of the complainants were repeat filers. Additionally, the Agency’s employees’ 

union president encouraged members to file complaints rather than use appropriate 

forums, such as, union grievance, administrative grievance process, and ADR.

14. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) reported no increase or decrease

in the number of complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there was one formal 

complaint filed in FY 2013 and in FY 2012. NIFA attributes the single complaints filing 

to re-organization and establishment of a new organization required by the Food, 

Conservation, Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill), resulting in reallocation of resources and 

reassignment of employees. 
14

15. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reported an increase by 3 in the 

number of formal complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 43 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2013, compared to 40 formal complaints filed in FY 2012. NRCS 

notes that allegations of workplace discrimination generally tend to rise during economic 

recessions.

16. The Rural Development (RD) reported an increase by 13 in the number of formal 

complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were 49 formal complaints filed in FY 

2013, compared to 36 formal complaints in FY 2012. RD attributes this increase to 

multiple factors, including the reduction in the Agency’s workforce as a result of 

Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program; 

strict budgetary constraints and a hiring freeze imposed upon the agency in FY 2013.

17. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) reported a decrease by one in the number of 

formal complaints filed in FY 2013. Specifically, there were four complaints filed in FY 

2013, compared to five formal complaints filed in FY 2012. RMA attributes the decrease 

in complaints to changes at the Agency’s senior management level, specifically, a new 

Administrator committed to civil rights.

(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: 

• involving Deputy Administrators and Directors early in resolution discussions has proven

beneficial in the resolution of complaints;

• coordinating with Human Resources and Agency Area offices to ensure consistency in 

the new employee orientation packages/Research Leader/Supervisory training;

• encouraging the Area Outreach, Diversity and Equal Opportunity Program Managers to 

be involved in training;

• encouraging supervisors and managers to actively communicate with employees during 

periods of reorganization and structural change may help reduce inherent anxiety in such 

situations;

• educating aggrieved parties, managers, and supervisors about the EEO process (to 

include the availability of ADR) and working aggressively with these individuals and 

other Agency officials will help to reach resolution at the lowest level possible;

• training employees, supervisors, and managers on EEO laws and regulations so that they 

can make informed decisions;

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

providing recommendations on how to address those issues before they evolve into EEO 

complaints; 
15

• holding supervisors and managers accountable for engaging in discriminatory practices in 

order to deter such conduct in the future;

• collaborating with EEO Advisory Committee members and SEP managers to ensure 

relevant information is disseminated to their respective employees;

• enhancing the ADR program by adding a new ADR Coordinator and Mediator has 

contributed to a more confident managers and employees in the ADR process, a long 

term reduction in the number of EEO complaints filled, and a heightened ability by 

managers and employees to exercise ADR skills at its lowest levels;

• reducing travel to field offices due to budget constraints greatly hinders the most 

effective mediation processes;

• enhancing steps in the formal EEO investigation procedures, tracking performance and 

accountability in complaint processing procedures, conducting annual mandatory EEO 

and Civil Rights Training has not fixed challenges of management exhibiting alleged 

practices of discrimination that largely emerge from the non-federal arena (County 

Employees);

• providing further analysis at the local areas may be needed to identify trends and 

potential systemic issues; and

• implementing of an employee survey to provide all full time and part time employees 

with an opportunity to provide feedback has helped identify organizational strengths and 

areas for improvement.

(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. These past and future actions include:

• conducted staff training to provide managers and supervisors with the context, 

background, and competencies to execute everyday supervisory responsibilities, in 

accordance with legal and regulatory framework;

• required employees and staff to complete the Workplace Harassment training in addition 

to other mandatory training, including AgLearn;

• developed a Conflict Prevention Program expanding the principals of ADR to encompass 

all informal conflicts before they become EEO complaints;
16

• provided internal compliance reviews to evaluate their civil rights and equal 

opportunity policies, procedures and practices;

• started a cultural assessment that will lay the foundation for meaningful change in the 

current practices; 

• conducted trends analysis of systemic bases, claims and barriers, and develop desired 

learning objectives for Civil Rights Training; 

• requested from Senior Management the appropriate number of Full-Time Employees to 

conduct EEO Complaint processing, Informal/Formal ADR/Mediation/Settlements 

Agreements, EEOC Hearing Preparations, Special Emphasis Observances/Programs, and 

Quarterly/Annual Mandatory Civil Rights Reporting;

• requested Senior Management assistance in ensuring all units involved in EEO 

Complaint processing implement performance standards on all EEO practitioners to meet 

the standards as outlined in 29 C.F.R. 1614 and MD-110;

• refocused foundation for measuring “Real Performance” improvements;

• distributed Civil Rights information regularly to all employees via email messages to 

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

• coordinated staff to improve effectiveness of partnership with OASCR staff members to 

ensure inventory of Formal EEO Complaint data is correct;

• determined the training needs of the workforce by conducting a training needs 

assessment, reviewing prior years’ reports (e.g., MD-715, 462, Compliance Reports, 

etc.), and complaint data;

• met with the local Union and discussed the importance of ADR to resolve workplace 

issues as they prepare to share dialog with management to proactively address the 

concern and issues of workforce change-over and departmental vision for workforce;

• ensured prompt and impartial complaint processing and hold managers, supervisors and 

employees for a workplace that is free from discrimination. NASS will continue to work 

towards developing a model EEO workplace where employees can work in an 

environment free from discrimination and harassment;

• ensured policy complies with current regulatory requirements and that those policies are 

clearly understood by all employees;

• encouraging the use of EEO ADR to help resolve complaints and workplace issues at the 

earliest stage possible;
17

• undergoing a redesign with a focus on building an organizational structure that will 

improve services and efficiencies by reshaping the Agency’s outreach and recruitment, 

Reasonable Accommodations, ADR, national reporting, EEO and ER integration for 

optimal performance;

• will hold quarterly meetings with Agency Heads, Administrators, and State Directors to 

discuss complaint activity, in a continued effort to strengthen communications, identify 

trends, and continually evaluate the possibility of early resolution; and

• continuing to conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews for identifying strengths and/or 

weaknesses in the EEO program.
18

PART II

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment 

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2013
19

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2013

Introduction

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

Treasury’s Judgment Fund for monies associated with FY 2013 judgments, awards, or 

settlements under the statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2013 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund For FY 2013 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney's Fees

1 $475,000.00 $0

2 $70,000.00 $0

3 $12,500.00 $0

4 $10,000.00 $0

5 $6,000.00

Total $567,500.00 $6,000.00

Summary

In FY 2013, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund $567,500, of which $6,000 was identified as 

payment of attorney’s fees. No monies were paid for judgments or awards.
20

PART III

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2012 – 2013
21

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2012–2013

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 2012 FY 2013

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

REMOVAL 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 DAY OR

MORE 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 DAY OR 

LESS 2 2 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

REDUCTION

IN GRADE 0 0 0 0 0 0

REDUCTION

IN PAY 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOR 2 1 3 5 0 7 0 0 12

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 4 2 5 1 12 5 0 7 0 0 12

Table Abbreviations: Disc. = Discrimination; Retail. = 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 2012 FY 2013 TOTAL

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

CASE

12 4 16

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

CASE CLOSED

0 0 0

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

DISCIPLINE TAKEN

0 0 0
22

Disciplinary Policy

Improving the civil rights environment throughout the Department continuesto be a priority

for USDA. There is a "Zero Tolerance" policy for acts of discrimination, harassment, or

reprisal of any kind. It is USDA 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

effect disciplinary or corrective action in accordance with applicable laws, rules, regulations,

and policies. The Office of Human Resources Management (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 nondiscriminatory 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, 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.
23

In January 2006, the USDA Office of Civil Rights 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 Leadership Accountability Action Plan which was updated by the FS 

in 2011, and a newly established Policy on EEO 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 and 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

Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service Civil Rights Policy Statement

Forest Service Anti-Harassment Policy 

Research, Education and 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
24

PART IV

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for Fiscal Year 2013
25

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

FY 2013 and arising under the anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2013

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2013

Pending District Court Cases 52

Pending Appellate Court Cases 10

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 2013 0 0 4* 5* 16**

Still Pending at 

end of FY 2013 1 0 3* 12* 30***

* More than one basis alleged in 2 cases.

** More than one basis alleged in 3 cases.

*** More than one basis alleged in 8 cases

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

2013 for period ending September 30, 2013

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Complaints Filed 528 473 525 536 544

Number of Complainants 394 461 509 519 512

Repeat Filers 21 7 12 12 26

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.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Race 181 166 221 215 213

Color 44 23 32 56 64

Religion 13 16 21 23 19

Reprisal 248 181 242 281 311

Sex 178 159 207 228 213

PDA 0 0 0 0 2

National Origin 61 49 57 61 59

Equal Pay Act 3 1 4 3 8

Age 168 157 191 177 201

Disability 91 97 104 141 150

Genetics 0 0 0 2 3

Non-EEO 33 44 42 55 42
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.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Appointment/Hire 20 23 38 23 34

Assignment of Duties 80 51 62 100 119

Awards 21 11 20 22 24

Conversion to Full-time 0 1 0 1 2

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 4 5 3 7 3

Reprimand 25 13 24 42 28

Suspension 23 26 19 40 30

Removal 7 6 5 10 13

Other 11 8 10 28 17

Duty Hours 9 5 6 15 11

Evaluation Appraisal 66 59 64 60 85

Examination/Test 2 1 1 4 1

Harassment

Non-Sexual 237 177 224 303 275

Sexual 15 13 23 16 12

Medical Examination 0 1 0 4 2

Pay (Including Overtime) 5 10 13 14 29

Promotion/Non-Selection 117 103 135 118 123

Reassignment

Denied 10 5 8 13 19
A-4

Directed 35 20 20 33 33

Reasonable Accommodation 28 32 36 58 63

Reinstatement 1 2 1 2 0

Retirement 6 1 6 2 2

Termination 35 34 39 35 40

Terms/Conditions of Employment 49 38 52 85 176

Time and Attendance 31 22 28 58 50

Training 35 22 27 49 41

Other 57 64 60 61 26

Processing Time

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Complaints pending during fiscal year

Average number of days in 

investigation 160.67 314.71 295.88 248.60 242.05

Average number of days in 

final action 677.81 626.85 360.54 214.93 165.94

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 280.60 281.79 282.63 235.23 247.31

Average number of days in 

final action 176.76 189.78 182.83 133.49 119.33

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was not requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 256.26 335.43 304.05 273.79 233.21

Average number of days in 

final action 825.73 817.92 416.86 255.96 187.19
A-5

Complaints Dismissed by Agency

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Complaints Dismissed by 

Agency 54 39 56 45 67

Average days pending prior to 

dismissal 248 257 119 145 83

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 24 24 33 31 29

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 15 27 32 17 19

Without Hearing 13 87 22 81 29 91 16 94 15 79

With Hearing 2 13 5 19 3 9 21 6 4 21

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.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 15 27 32 17 19

Race 4 27 7 26 2 6 6 35 2 11

Color 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 11

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1 This number has subsequently increased by one due to database reconciliation efforts.
A-6

Reprisal 4 27 12 44 11 34 6 35 6 32

Sex 6 40 5 19 5 16 2 12 5 26

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 1 7 1 4 0 0 1 6 3 16

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

Age 7 47 9 33 12 38 4 24 6 32

Disability 2 13 5 19 10 31 6 35 6 32

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 16

Findings After Hearing 2 5 3 1 4

Race 1 50 2 40 0 0 0 0 2 50

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 1 50 3 60 2 67 1 100 0 0

Sex 1 50 2 40 0 0 0 0 1 25

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 0 0 3 60 0 0 0 0 3 75

Disability 0 0 1 20 1 33 0 0 1 25

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50

Findings Without Hearing 8 17 27 16 15

Race 3 38 1 6 2 7 6 38 0 0

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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 40

Sex 0 0 7 44 5 22 5 31 4 27

PDA 2 25 2 13 4 17 2 13 0 0

National Origin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20

Equal Pay Act 1 13 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0

Age 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20

Disability 6 75 5 31 11 48 4 25 5 33

Genetics 2 25 3 19 8 35 6 38 0 0

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

Findings of Discrimination Rendered by 

Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 15 27 32 17 19

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

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

Awards 0 0 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 1 7 1 4 2 6 0 0 2 11

Removal 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 5

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0

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

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

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 1 7 12 44 16 50 8 47 5 26

Sexual 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 5

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

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

Promotion/Non-Selection 10 67 4 15 7 22 1 6 4 21

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 6 0 0

Directed 1 7 1 4 6 19 1 6 1 5

Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 3 11 4 13 4 24 3 16

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 0

Termination 1 7 1 4 2 6 1 6 3 16

Terms/Conditions of Employment 1 7 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 11

Time and Attendance 0 0 1 4 3 9 3 18 2 11

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 0 0 3 11 0 0 1 6 2 11

Findings After Hearing 2 5 3 2 4

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

Assignment of Duties 0 0 0 0 2 67 0 0 0 0

Awards 0 0 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 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 0 0 2 40 1 33 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 50 2 40 0 0 0 0 1 25

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25

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

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

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-10

Findings Without Hearing 13 22 29 16 15

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

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

Awards 0 0 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 1 8 1 5 2 7 0 0 2 13

Removal 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 7

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0

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

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

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 1 8 10 45 15 52 8 50 5 33

Sexual 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 7

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

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

Promotion/Non-Selection 9 69 2 9 7 24 1 6 3 20

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 6 0 0

Directed 0 0 1 5 6 21 1 6 1 7

Reasonable Accommodation 0 0 3 14 4 14 4 25 2 13

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
A-11

Termination 1 8 1 5 2 7 1 6 2 13

Terms/Conditions of Employment 1 8 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 13

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

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 0 0 3 14 0 0 1 6 2 13

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total complaints from previous 

Fiscal Years 1210 939 837 884 956

Total Complainants 932 696 706 797 885

Number complaints pending

Investigation 89 81 63 44 28

ROI issued, pending 

Complainant's action 1 7 12 5 1

Hearing 300 228 290 348 399

Final Agency Action 109 88 80 75 68

Appeal with EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 24 28 30 10 11

Complaint Investigations

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required 

Time Frames

171 176 161 117 85