NO FEAR ACT ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2011

U.S. Department of Agriculture
NONDISCRIMINATION STATMENT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex (includes gender identity and gender expression), marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file an EEO complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) All EEO 

complaints must be raised within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Individuals 

who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845 6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider, employer and lender. 

Suggested Citation: 

The No FEAR Act Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, 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 2010 - 2011

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

Section B – Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal EEO 3

Complaints at USDA

Section C – Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 5

Complaints at USDA

Section D – EEO Processing Stages 7

(1) Average Number of Days for Completion of 

Selected EEO Stages

(2) Pending Complaints at Various Stages

(3) Pending Formal Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day

Investigation Requirement

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

Section F – Analysis, Experience, and Actions 11

(1) Causal Analysis

(2) Experience Gained by USDA in the Processing of

 Formal EEO Complaints

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

PART II: USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for 17

Fiscal Year 2011

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 19

for Fiscal Years 2010 - 2011

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 23

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2011

Appendix A-1
i

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

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

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

174, Section 203. 

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

(FY) 2011. This report contains the: 

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

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

whistleblower protection laws;

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

the No FEAR Act;

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

the payment of attorney’s fees;

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

have violated antidiscrimination or whistleblower laws or engaged in prohibited 

personnel practices;

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

harassment, or prohibited personnel practices; and

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

whistleblower protection laws.

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

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

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

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

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

requirement.

USDA’s Mission and Mission-Related Functions

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

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

USDA strives to:

• expand international trade for agricultural products and support international economic 

development;

• expand domestic marketing opportunities for agricultural products;

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

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

• develop alternative markets for agricultural products and activities;

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

and infrastructure in rural America;

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

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

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

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

levels of government and the private sector.

Summary of the Report

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

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

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

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

mandates of the No FEAR Act.

As demonstrated in greater detail below, USDA experienced a slight increase of 52 EEO 

complaints filed from FY 2010 to FY 2011, ending the EEO inventory at the end of FY 2011 with 

8931 complaints. The number of filers also increased by 48 from FY 2010 to FY 2011, as well as, 

the number of findings of discrimination increased from FY 2010 to FY 2011. 

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 2011, 28 employees were disciplined; 

while in FY 2010 13 employees were disciplined. This increase in disciplinary actions between 

FY 2010 and FY 2011 indicates a continual level of accountability present 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

 1 This number subsequently increased to 895 due to database reconciliation efforts.
iii

During FY 2011, USDA has implemented several initiatives that will assist in its effort to reduce 

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

• USDA awarded a contract to conduct an independent assessment of the USDA Delivery 

of Technical and Financial Assistance to All Americans (Civil Rights Assessment). On 

March 31, 2011, the report was provided to USDA where it provided recommendations 

regarding their review of existing laws, policies, and procedures, an analysis of USDA's 

current customer base and constituencies in comparison to the existing population; an 

evaluation of current outreach efforts; and reviews of cultural competencies and 

considerations. As a result, the USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights is currently 

reviewing these recommendations for implementation in FY 2012. 

• As a result of the Departmental Initiative for the Review of Settlement Agreements and 

Decisions in Program, Individual, and Employee Complaints of Discrimination: 1) 

USDA personnel are held accountable and responsible for their behavior and actions, 2) 

policies have been established to ensure that all services are available in a nondiscriminatory manner, and 3) manager’s civil rights awareness has been raised in 

decision-making positions to make responsible decisions. 

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

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

effectiveness and minimize workplace conflict. The CRP offers employees conflict 

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

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

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

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

EEO. In order to carry out these duties, the OASCR conducted four compliance reviews 

of 17 USDA agencies in FY 2011. A strong compliance review program is an essential 

element of raising awareness to practices and policies that contribute to perceptions of 

bias or unfairness. Therefore, the OASCR is conducting compliance reviews on a regular 

basis, to assist in identifying systemic issues and barriers both at Headquarters and field 

offices. Once the compliance review is completed, the OASCR works with each agency 

to recommend training and monitors those agencies for any required corrective actions 

based on the findings of each review. 

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

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

current civil rights laws. Clearance and posting of these Departmental Regulations and 

manuals is expected to be accomplished by FY 2012.

• The 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 will affect the USDA employment or USDA 

programs or activities. These reviews facilitate the identification of potential disparate 
iv

impact on proposed policies or practices. Over 20 percent of our reviews resulted in 

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

 

• The newly established Training Division in the Office of Compliance, Policy and 

Training, as a result of the OASCR reorganization, provided civil rights, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, diversity and early dispute resolution training to employees 

at all levels across the organization. The purpose of the training is to heighten awareness 

about civil rights laws, personal responsibilities and liabilities, complaints avoidance 

actions, and good customer service practices. The OASCR civil rights education 

program is resulting in more wide spread recognition that all USDA employees are 

protected by civil rights laws, and the phrase “civil rights” is not bad nor should it insight 

fear.

• USDA implemented a number of new initiatives to improve the EEO complaint process. 

These initiatives improved EEO counseling, increased mediation between complainants, 

and constructive settlement agreements. These efforts have contributed to an overall 

decrease in formal complaints and have vastly improved communication between 

managers and employees.

• Additionally, training is being provided to USDA managers to assist them in identifying 

EEO issues, thereby, increasing the possibility of resolving the complaints at the informal 

EEO process. This training is also geared to assist the managers in identifying systemic 

EEO and management issues that lead to the filing of EEO complaints. 

• Adherence to EEOC Management Directive 715 (MD-715) requirements and other 

efforts to overcome identified barriers, the OASCR's MD-715 working group continues 

to address the identified barriers and hold agencies accountable for reporting quarterly on 

the completion of their objectives to attain the essential elements of a Model EEO 

Program.

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

agencies and separate staff offices on their agency’s civil rights performance. This 

assessment holds the agency’s senior executives accountable for employment 

discrimination complaints and other civil rights statutes and regulations.

• The OASCR began an initiative to develop, institutionalize and lead an ongoing annual 

process to review, analyze, and report on lessons learned from both EEO complaints and 

program complaints closed during the year. The plan would include identification of 

recurring themes. The plan is expected to be published during the first quarter of FY 

2012. In conjunction with the report, OASCR will provide a detailed briefing to the subcabinet. 
1

PART I

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for

Fiscal Years 2010 - 2011
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 2010 and 2011. 

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 2011, the number of complaints filed was 525, whereas, in FY 2010 the number of 

complaints filed was 473. This represents an 11 percent increase in complaints filed. However, 

the number of filers in FY 2011 was 509, which is 48 more than the number of filers (461), in 

FY 2010. 

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers

at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints Number of Filers

2010 473 461

2011 5252 509

 2 This number subsequently increased to 527 due to database reconciliation efforts.
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 2010 and 2011. 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 2011 are: (1) 

retaliation; (2) race; (3) sex; and (4) age. In FY 2010, the four most frequently cited bases were: 

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

shows the trend over the two-year reporting period.

350

400

450

500

550

600

2010 2011

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*

2010 166 23 16 159 49 97 157 181 44 

2011 221 32 21 207 57 104 191 242 42

*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 

 

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

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

true for both FYs 2011 and 2010. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 242 formal EEO 

complaints in FY 2011, compared to 181 complaints in FY 2010, a 34 percent (61 complaints) 

increase over a two-year period. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2011

Graph 2

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Year

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation
5

Complaints Alleging Race Discrimination

“Race” is the second most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA. The basis of 

“Race” was cited in 221 formal EEO complaints in FY 2011, compared to 166 complaints in FY 

2010, an 33 percent increase (55 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Sex Discrimination

“Sex” was the third most frequently alleged basis in formal EEO cases at USDA in FY 2011. 

The basis of “Sex” was cited in 207 formal EEO complaints in FY 2011, compared to 159 

complaints in FY 2010, an 30 percent increase (48 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 2011. 

The basis of “Age” was cited in 191 formal EEO complaints in FY 2011, compared to 157

complaints in FY 2010, a 22 percent (34 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 2010 and 2011. 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 2011 were: (1) Harassment; 

(2) Promotion/Non-Selection; and (3) Evaluation/Appraisal. 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 2011, with 247

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 190 filings in FY 2010. There was a 30 percent increase

(57 complaints) from FY 2010 to FY 2011. 

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

FY 2011, with 135 filings. In contrast, “Promotion/Non-Selection” had 103 filings in FY 2010. 

There was a 31 percent increase (32 complaints) from FY 2010 to FY 2011. 

“Evaluation/Appraisal” was the third most frequently cited issue in formal EEO cases in FY 

2011, with 64 filings. In contrast, “Evaluation/Appraisal” had 59 filings in FY 2010. There was 

an increase of 8 percent (5 complaints) from FY 2010 to FY 2011.
6

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

2010

2011

23

38

51

62

11

20

1

0

58

61

5

6

59

64

1

1

25

28

22

27

22

28

34

39

1

0

10

13

103

135

190

247

2

1

1

6

38

52

32

36

64

60

Graph 3

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010 2011

Graph 3

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Promotion / NonSelection

Harrassment

Evaluation/Apprais

al
7

Section D- EEO Processing Stages

Introduction

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

EEO complaints processed during FYs 2011 and 2010. The formal EEO complaint process has 

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

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

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

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

Summary of Data

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

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

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

requirement.

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

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

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

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

Agency Action with a hearing and in dismissals. 

Table 4

Average Number of Days for Completion of Each EEO Stage

Year Investigation Final Agency 

Action with 

EEOC 

Hearing

Final Agency 

Action without 

EEOC 

Hearing

Dismissals

2010 314 190 832 257

2011 296 183 417 119
8

Graph 4

Average Number of Days for Completion of Each EEO Stage

(2) Pending Complaints at Various Stages

• Table 5 below illustrates the number of pending EEO complaints in FYs 2011 and 2010,

at each EEO stage. 

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

trend in pending complaints for hearings and Final Agency Actions and appeals.

Table 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

Year Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

2010 356 296 124 25 

2011 263 386 138 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2010 2011

Graph 4

Average Number of Days for 

Completion of Each EEO Stage

Investigation

Final Agency Action

with EEOC Hearing

Final Agency Action

without EEOC

Hearing

Dismissals
9

Graph 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

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

Table 6 and Graph 6 show a 17 percent increase 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

2010 192 

2011 224

0

100

200

300

400

500

2010 2011

Graph 5

Pending EEO complaints by Stages

Investigation

Hearing

Final Agency Action

Appeal
10

Graph 6

Pending Formal EEO Complaints Exceeding 180-Day Investigation Requirement

Section E- Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Introduction

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

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

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

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

along with the issues and bases for those complaints. 

Summary of Data

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

Administrative Hearing decreased by four in FY 2011 from FY 2010, and without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing increased by seven in FY 2011 from FY 2010. 

0

100

200

300

2010 2011

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

2010 7 22 

2011 3 29

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

26

28

30

2010 2011

Graph 7

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 an increase in the number of formal 

complaints filed in FY 2011 (18) as compared to 12 formal complaints filed in FY 2010. 

This 50 percent increase is attributed to the number of trainings conducted, which 

resulted in an increased awareness of prohibited discriminatory practices. Also, an 

increase may be attributed to the expansion of the definition of an individual with a 

disability under the American with Disabilities Act (Amendments Act of 2008).

2. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported an increase by four in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2011. Specifically, there were 49 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2011, as compared to 45 formal complaints filed in FY 2010. 

3. The Agricultural Research Service reported a decrease in the number of complaints filed 

in FY 2011. Specifically, there were 18 formal complaints filed in FY 2011, as compared 

to 25 formal complaints filed in FY 2010. This decrease in the number of complaints 

filed in FY 2011 is attributed to training and the agency encouraging the use of mediation 

and cooperative resolution to resolve complaint matters. 

4. The Economic Research Service (ERS) reported a decrease of two complaints for FY 

2011 (1) from FY 2010 (3). ERS attributes the decrease to the new Civil Rights Director 

who spent a great deal of time addressing civil rights issues with employees and 

management.

5. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) reported an increase of four formal complaints 

filed in FY 2011, (from 3 in FY 2010 to 7 in FY 2011). The increase in FAS’ formal 

EEO complaint activity for FY 2011 can be attributed in part to the large number of 

Agency employees retiring. This exodus has resulted in a loss of historical knowledge 

and expertise in many areas of the Agency. This has left managers and employees having 

to do more with fewer resources. This is especially noticeable in the surge of complaints 

where the issues are relevant to assignment of duties; a 400 percent increase from FY 

2010 (5 filed in FY 2011 versus 1 filed in FY 2010). Another causative factor which has 

given rise to the increase in the number of complaints filed under Terms/Conditions of 

Employment can be seen in the deployment of FAS employees to Provincial 

Reconstruction Teams. State-side employees are not familiar with the hardships (lack of 

running water and electricity, etc.) and perhaps ill-prepared to live in such austere 

conditions for extended periods of time (one year or longer).

6. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported a decrease in the number of formal EEO 

complaints filed in FY 2011 compared to those filed in FY 2010.

7. The Forest Service (FS) reported an increase in the number of formal EEO complaints 

filed in FY 2011 compared to those filed in FY 2010. The increase was due to 

complainants having filed more than one complaint. 
13

8. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported an increase in formal complaints filed in FY 

2011. Specifically, there were 25 formal complaints filed in FY 2011, as compared to 37 

formal complaints filed in FY 2010. FSA attributes this increase to a lack of training and 

knowledge of EEO/Civil Rights regulations, and the loss of Full Time Employees. 

9. The Food Safety and Inspection Service reported an increase in the number of formal 

EEO complaints filed in FY 2011 compared to those filed in FY 2010. 

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

complaints filed in FY 2011; an increase of 22 percent from 2010 (9). GIPSA attributes 

the increase to the number of complaints filed on the basis of Color, Disability, and 

Reprisal. Also, GIPSA attributes the increase to several supervisory positions that 

became vacant and were advertised. Several Complainants applied for the vacancies but 

were not selected for the positions.

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

complaints and filers increased in FY 2011 compared to FY 2010. Specifically, NASS 

had two formal complaints filed in 2011 - an increase of one from FY2010.

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

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service) reported 3 complaints for

FY 2011. NIFA attributes their 3 complaints to a reorganization and establishment of a 

new organization, resulting in a relocation of resources and reassignment of employees.

Hence, the organizational changes were viewed by some employees as unfavorable. 

13. The Natural Resources Conservation Service reported an increase in the number of 

formal complaints filed in FY 2011 compared to those filed in FY 2010.

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

filed in FY 2011 (10) increased by 7 from FY 2010 (3). RMA attributes the increase in 

complaints to the result of a management change in at least two of its regional offices. 

15. The Rural Development (RD) reported a decrease in the number of complaints filed in 

FY 2011 compared to those filed in FY 2010. This decrease is attributed to an increase in

mandatory training given to managers. In addition, a number of management control 

reviews were conducted during FY 2010 in which employees took the opportunity to ask 

questions and receive clarification on EEO policies and procedures, thereby increasing 

the level of awareness of the difference in the EEO and Administrative/Negotiated 

Grievance procedures.

(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: 

• emphasizing that efficient processing and an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program are essential to resolving complaints;
14

• acknowledging that frequent discussions and dissemination of information has helped

agencies identify the issues and bases that give rise to EEO complaints;

• acknowledging that when a filed complaint is addressed promptly at the Departmental 

level, there is a greater likelihood the complaint will be investigated and adjudicated 

within regulatory timeframes;

• holding management officials accountable when discrimination is found;

• working with investigation contractors to ensure that they produce timely and

complete investigation reports; 

• emphasizing that managers have to understand that their role in the process requires 

that they maintain all documentary evidence and provide accurate testimony during 

the course of the investigation and hearing;

• recognizing that the EEOC’s delay of moving cases into the hearing stage appears to 

be the leading cause in the increase in the processing time for pending cases;

• recognizing that staff coordination is needed to prevent the challenges that cause a 

formal EEO complaint to be lost or hidden;

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

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

EEO complaints;

• ensuring that EEO Advisory Committee members are active, participative and are 

disseminating relevant information to their respective employees;

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

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

• emphasizing that importance of facilitating early resolution of complaints with 

employees and management;

• identifying and addressing employment related issues and concerns within the 

Agency and continue to utilize ADR; and

• improving relations with the Union, via the establishment of a Labor-Management 

committee and through Cultural Transformation efforts, all to no avail. Efforts will 

continue.
15

(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:

1. USDA is conducting a number of focus groups in FY 2012 to obtain insight into the 

challenges and issues faced by individuals in the protected groups. USDA can use the 

information gathered in focus groups to develop training plans for managers and 

implement solutions in areas that may be ripe for complaints.

2. USDA has employed conflict coaching to engage both complainants and management. 

This process includes asking questions to determine what will best empower each side to 

reach their objectives and develop stronger communication skills for difficult 

conversations.

3. The Civil Rights Program continues to actively monitor the timelines established for 

investigators to complete their investigations. AMS requires strict adherence to 

timeframes to complete investigations.

4. The USDA’s Civil Rights Programs and Human Resource staffs have collaborated to 

train managers and employees on cultural and diversity sensitivity and appropriate 

conduct. These trainings targeted discrimination on the basis of disability and proper 

management of employees' medical documentation.

5. USDA’s Accountability Policy and Procedures are continually emphasized as an 

effective method for tracking and removing policies and practices that contribute to 

findings of discrimination.

6. The OASCR is conducting regular compliance reviews and providing technical assistance 

to sub-agencies to ensure full compliance with antidiscrimination laws.

7. In an effort to further reduce EEO complaint activity through information and education, 

the ADR Center developed a Mediation Podcast. The podcast provides an overview of 

the mediation process and enables employees to view a step-by-step reenactment of how 

a mediation session is conducted, thereby providing them with reassurance in utilizing 

mediation as a tool to assist in resolving their concerns.

8. USDA (APHIS) will continue to maintain its 1-800 helpline (1-800-372-7428) for 

supervisors and managers to contact the EEO Specialists for assistance in dealing with 

civil rights and employment complaint issues.

9. USDA will promote the utilization of the CRP to enhance manager and employee 

communication and aid in conflict management.
16

10. USDA has heightened its marketing of all Special Emphasis Program (SEP) observances 

to encourage better participation at these activities from Agency employees. This 

endeavor is taking place through different marketing initiatives; such as the SharePoint 

employee news information system, posters, and flyers advertising SEP Programs.

11. Distribute Civil Rights information regularly to all employees via email messages to 

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

12. USDA provided a refresher course on working with employees with disabilities and 

reasonable accommodations for first and second line supervisors.

13. The USDA’s future priorities include enhancement of its ADR program, including 

conducting an ADR awareness survey, providing training in ADR for supervisors and 

employees, and establishing a Departmental cadre of resolving officials.

14. USDA continues to work collaboratively with the EEOC through its relationship 

management arrangement to access training opportunities and expertise in various areas.
17

PART II

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2011
18

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2011

Introduction

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

Treasury’s Judgment Fund for monies associated with FY 2011 judgments, awards, or 

settlements under the statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2011 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund For FY 2011 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney's Fees

1 $305,000.00 $ 162,000.00

2 $148,000.00

3 $75,000.00

4 $70,000.00

5 $60,000.00

6 $50,000.00

7 $8,500.00 $8,500.00

8 $7,500.00

9 $7,000.00

10 $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Total $ 736,500.00 $ 175,500.00

Summary

In FY 2011, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund $ 736,500.00, of which $ 175,500.00 was

identified as payment of attorney’s fees. No monies were paid for judgments or awards.
19

PART III

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2010 – 2011
20

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2010– 2011

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 2010 FY 2011

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

REMOVAL 2 3 5 1 1

15 DAY OR

MORE

1 1 1 2 3

14 DAY OR 

LESS 4 4 3 1 3 1 8

REDUCTION

IN GRADE

REDUCTION

IN PAY

LOR 3 3 4 1 8 3 16

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 2 11 13 8 2 14 4 28

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 2010 FY 2011 TOTAL

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

CASE

5 10 15

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

CASE CLOSED

0 0 0

OSC 

WHISTLEBLOWER 

DISCIPLINE TAKEN

0 0 0
21

Disciplinary Policy

Improving the civil rights environment throughout the Department is 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 Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM)

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 current laws, rules, regulations, and 

policies. The USDA OHRM reviews agency disciplinary or corrective 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 implemented an initiative to provide increased oversight of cases involving 

violation of anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws in which there is a finding of 

liability 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 

charged with implementing program improvements to ensure that all USDA services are 

available in a non-discriminatory manner.

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

Employee Responsibilities and Conduct. This DR establishes guidelines and requirements for 

employees and works in conjunction with government-wide ethics regulations. It specifically 

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 DR requires that each employee receive a copy to ensure that they are fully 

aware of the responsibility and conduct standards for the Department. 

In January 2006, USDA Office of Civil Rights and OHRM issued DR-4300-010, Civil Rights 

Accountability Policy and Procedures. The purpose of this directive is to ensure employees are 

held accountable for discriminatory or related misconduct and to outline 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.
22

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 Equal Employment Opportunity which was 

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

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

current policies by agency:

Food, Nutrition & Consumer Services

FNS & CNPP Harassment Prevention Policy 2009-3

FNS & CNPP Civil Rights Policy 2009-2

Food Safety

Directive 4735.3; Employee Responsibilities and Conduct

Forest Service

Forest Service Civil Rights Policy Statement

Forest Service Anti-Harassment Policy 

Research, Education & Economics

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

Rural Development

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

Actions, and Probationary Terminations
23

PART IV

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for Fiscal Year 2011
24

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

2011 and arising under the antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2011

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2011

Pending District Court Cases 54

Pending Appellate Court Cases 17

New Cases Filed in District Court 18

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 2011

0 0 2* 2* 32**

Still Pending at 

end of FY 2011

0 0 2^^ 2 32***

* More than one basis alleged in 1 case.

** More than one basis alleged in 7 cases.

*** More than one basis alleged in 6 cases

^^ More than one basis alleged in 2 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 0 0 15^

Withdrawals 0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment 

for Complainant

0 0 2 2* 18^^

Final Judgment 

for Agency

0 0 0 0 0

*Denotes more than one basis alleged in 4 cases.

^ More than one basis alleged in 3 cases.

^^ More than one basis alleged in 2 cases
A-1

Appendix
A-2

Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted

Pursuant to the No Fear Act

USDA

2011 for period ending September 30, 2011

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Complaints Filed 545 508 528 473 525

Number of Complainants 487 395 394 461 509

Repeat Filers 33 48 21 7 12

Complaints by Basis

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

Note: Complaints can be filed alleging 

multiple bases.The sum of the bases 

may not equal total complaints filed.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Race 185 184 181 166 221

Color 43 36 44 23 32

Religion 21 18 13 16 21

Reprisal 258 267 248 181 242

Sex 176 174 178 159 207

National Origin 41 44 61 49 57

Equal Pay Act 8 0 3 1 4

Age 180 158 168 157 191

Disability 103 107 91 97 104

Non-EEO 14 31 33 44 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.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Appointment/Hire 33 28 20 23 38

Assignment of Duties 58 52 80 51 62

Awards 10 24 21 11 20

Conversion to Full-time 0 0 0 1 0

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 4 3 4 5 3

Reprimand 14 15 25 13 24

Suspension 20 25 23 26 19

Removal 9 7 7 6 5

Other 14 6 11 8 10

Duty Hours 7 9 9 5 6

Evaluation Appraisal 37 62 66 59 64

Examination/Test 2 2 2 1 1

Harassment

Non-Sexual 200 215 237 177 224

Sexual 20 15 15 13 23

Medical Examination 0 0 0 1 0

Pay (Including Overtime) 5 9 5 10 13

Promotion/Non-Selection 139 124 117 103 135

Reassignment

Denied 6 4 10 5 8
A-4

Directed 35 17 35 20 20

Reasonable Accommodation 40 36 28 32 36

Reinstatement 1 1 1 2 1

Retirement 5 3 6 1 6

Termination 37 11 35 34 39

Terms/Conditions of Employment 42 50 49 38 52

Time and Attendance 40 36 31 22 28

Training 19 38 35 22 27

Other 70 51 57 64 60

Processing Time

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Complaints pending during fiscal year

Average number of days in 

investigation 271.25 234.76 160.67 314.71 295.88

Average number of days in final 

action 433.35 736.90 677.81 626.85 360.54

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 340.81 233.11 20.60 281.79 282.63

Average number of days in final 

action 120.83 213.93 176.76 189.78 182.83

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was not requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 214.80 235.92 256.26 335.43 304.05

Average number of days in final 

action 614.43 914.71 825.73 817.92 416.86

Complaints Dismissed by Agency Comparative Data
A-5

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Complaints Dismissed by 

Agency 81 73 54 39 56

Average days pending prior to 

dismissal 690 288 248 257 119

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 29 31 24 33 31

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 8 10 15 27 32

Without Hearing 3 38 4 40 13 87 22 81 29 91

With Hearing 5 63 6 60 2 13 5 19 3 9

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.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 7 8 15 27 32

Race 1 14 0 0 4 27 7 26 2 6

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 3 43 6 75 4 27 12 44 11 34

Sex 3 43 2 25 6 40 5 19 5 16

National Origin 2 29 0 0 1 7 1 4 0 0
A-6

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

Age 0 0 3 38 7 47 9 33 12 38

Disability 2 29 0 0 2 13 5 19 10 31

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

Findings After Hearing 4 4 2 5 3

Race 1 25 0 0 1 50 2 40 0 0

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 1 25 2 50 1 50 3 60 2 67

Sex 2 50 1 25 1 50 2 40 0 0

National Origin 1 25 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 75 0 0 3 60 0 0

Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 33

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

Findings Without Hearing 2 4 8 16 23

Race 0 0 0 0 3 38 1 6 2 9

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 1 50 4 100 0 0 7 44 5 22

Sex 1 50 1 25 2 25 2 13 4 17

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

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

Age 0 0 0 0 6 75 5 31 11 48

Disability 2 100 0 0 2 25 3 19 8 35

Non-EEO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0
A-7

Findings of Discrimination 

Rendered by Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 7 8 15 27 32

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

Assignment of Duties 1 14 2 25 0 0 2 7 4 13

Awards 0 0 2 25 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 2 29 0 0 1 7 1 4 2 6

Removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 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 3 38 1 7 0 0 3 9

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 2 29 4 50 1 7 12 44 16 50

Sexual 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Promotion/Non-Selection 3 43 0 0 10 67 4 15 7 22

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6
A-8

Directed 0 0 2 25 1 7 1 4 6 19

Reasonable Accommodation 1 14 0 0 0 0 3 11 4 13

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 3

Termination 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 4 2 6

Terms/Conditions of Employment 1 14 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 6

Time and Attendance 1 14 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 9

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings After Hearing 4 4 2 5 3

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

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

Awards 0 0 1 25 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 25 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 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Non-Sexual 2 50 3 75 0 0 2 40 1 33

Sexual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-9

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

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

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

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 0 0 1 25 1 50 0 0 0 0

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

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0

Termination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Time and Attendance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings Without Hearing 3 4 13 22 29

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

Assignment of Duties 1 33 1 25 0 0 2 9 2 7

Awards 0 0 1 25 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 33 0 0 1 8 1 5 2 7

Removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-10

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

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

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 0 0 1 25 1 8 10 45 15 52

Sexual 0 0 1 25 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 1 8 0 0 1 3

Promotion/Non-Selection 1 33 0 0 9 69 2 9 7 24

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7

Directed 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 5 6 21

Reasonable Accommodation 1 33 0 0 0 0 3 14 4 14

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

Termination 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 5 2 7

Terms/Conditions of Employment 1 33 0 0 1 8 0 0 2 7

Time and Attendance 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 10

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other - User Defined 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14 0 0

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total complaints from previous 

Fiscal Years 1384 1333 1210 939 837

Total Complainants 1078 1063 932 696 706
A-11

Number complaints pending

Investigation 75 102 89 81 63

ROI issued, pending 

Complainant's action 8 6 1 7 12

Hearing 303 350 300 228 290

Final Agency Action 469 360 109 88 80

Appeal with EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 20 23 24 28 30

Complaint Investigations

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required 

Time Frames

113 163 171 176 161