No FEAR Act

ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY 

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

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

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

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

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

derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in 

employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. Not all 

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.

If you wish to file an employment discrimination complaint, you must contact your 

agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Counselor within 45 days of the date of 

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

information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint filing file.html. 

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

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint filing cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call 

(866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter as long as it contains all of 

the information that is requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication (OA), 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, 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 2016, Washington, D.C., USDA, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary i 

PART I: USDA Formal EEO Complaints for 1

 Fiscal Years 2015 - 2016

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

Section B – Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal EEO 3 

Complaints at USDA

Section C – Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 5 

Complaints at USDA

Section D – EEO Processing Stages 6 

(1) Average Number of Days for Completion of 

Selected EEO Stages

(2) Pending Complaints at Various Stages 

(3) Pending Formal Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day 

Investigation Requirement 

Section E – Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination 9 

Section F – Analysis, Experience, and Actions 10 

(1) Causal Analysis 

(2) Experience Gained by USDA in the Processing of 

 Formal EEO Complaints

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

 Complaints Processing 

PART II: USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for 17

 Fiscal Year 2016 

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for 19

Fiscal Years 2015 - 2016 

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 21

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2016 

Appendix A-1
i 

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

This is the USDA’s twelfth 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) 2016. This report contains the: 

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

(including gender identity), sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, disability, 

age, reprisal, and violations of whistleblower protection laws; 

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

No FEAR Act; 

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

payment of attorney’s fees;

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

violated anti-discrimination or whistleblower laws or engaged in prohibited personnel 

practices; 

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

or prohibited personnel practices; 

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

protection laws; and

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

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 provide 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, nutrition education, and nutrition

promotion; and

• protect and manage America’s public and private lands by 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 anti-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 an increase of 21 EEO complaints 

being filed from FY 2015 to FY 2016. The number of filers increased by 11 from FY 2015 to 

FY 2016. Also, there was an increase in the number of findings of discrimination from FY 2015 

to FY 2016. Data illustrating this trend can be found in Appendix A. 

A review of disciplinary actions taken against employees who violated Federal antidiscrimination laws and whistleblower protection statutes shows that in FY 2016, there were 

seven

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

as compared to 38 disciplinary actions taken against employees in FY 2015. This decrease in

disciplinary actions between FY 2015 and FY 2016 reinforce the Secretary of Agriculture’s

commitment to accountability and enforcement of a zero tolerance of any form of discrimination. 

 

1 Subsequent database reconciliation revealed that there are a total of eight findings of discrimination, resulting in 

one disciplinary action decision still pending with the Office of Human Resources Management.
ii

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 2016, USDA and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) 

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

accomplishments are outlined below: 

• conducted a civil rights review of all USDA Agencies’ policies, rules, regulations, 

advisory committees, and reorganizations submitted for Departmental clearance. This 

involved working diligently with USDA Agencies, Departmental Management (DM), 

and Staff Offices to ensure that their submissions do not adversely impact USDA 

employees. Throughout the year, OASCR made recommendations that resulted in

Agencies modifying their decisions to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse 

impacts. 

• revised Departmental Regulation (DR) 4120-001, “Annual Departmental Civil Rights 

Training.” This regulation establishes the training policy for USDA civil rights and 

equal employment opportunity programs. It also establishes oversight and accountability 

responsibilities for Federal employees and Agencies delivering federally assisted and 

federally conducted programs for USDA. Annual training plans must comply with the 

requirements of this DR, but nothing in the DR precludes Agencies, Staff Offices, 

National Appeals Division, or Office of the Inspector General (OIG) from conducting 

additional and supplemental civil rights training throughout the year. 

• revised DR 4300-004, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis.” The regulation establishes the 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) policy and procedures for USDA employment, 

federally conducted, and federally assisted programs and activities. The regulation also 

provides guidance to USDA Agencies, Staff Offices, DM, National Appeals Division, 

and OIG on how to prepare and meet all CRIA obligations as set forth in this regulation. 

The revisions broaden and clarify the requirements for Agencies to easily determine the 

effects of their proposed actions. 

• revised DR 4300-007, “Processing Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints of 

Discrimination.” The regulation establishes rules and guidelines for processing 

administrative complaints of employment discrimination at USDA, in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. Part 1614. The proposed changes ensure the regulation is consistent with 

current Federal authorities, directives, regulations and Executive Orders governing the 

EEO complaint process. Changes to the proposed regulation such as: adding “gender 

identity” as a protected basis, adding certain definitions, emphasizing USDA’s 

commitment to the utilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) during the 

informal and formal complaint process, and clarifying the procedures for processing 

Conflict of Interest Complaints.

• revised DR 4300-010, “Civil Rights Accountability Policy and Procedures.” This

regulation establishes the civil rights accountability policy and procedures for ensuring 

appropriate disciplinary or corrective actions are taken when discrimination, retaliation, 

civil rights violations, harassment, bullying, or related misconduct occurs. The 

regulation also strengthens procedures that measure and evaluate both organizational and 

individual accountability in providing fair and equitable treatment for all USDA 

customers and employees, while ensuring its delivery of programs and the enforcement 

of civil rights. 
iv

• established a contract from the Language Doctors, LLC for language interpretation, 

translation, and certification services for OASCR. As a result of this, all of OASCR’s 

vital documents were translated into the top languages frequently encountered from our 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) customers. In addition, Policy statements (such as 

the Civil Rights Policy Statement and ADR Statement) were posted on OASCR’s 

webpage for the public in languages other than English. 

• partnered with several Agencies and provided training for USDA civil rights managers, 

to broaden their awareness on topics such as: Management Directive 110, ADR, and 

Mixed Case Complaints. 

• conducted bi-weekly training sessions (in-person) for personnel in the Washington DC 

area entitled, “A Brief Introduction to ADR.” Each session provided an overview of 

ADR and covered the key aspects of ADR dynamics, commonly used ADR techniques, 

and the roles and responsibilities of ADR participants. 

 

• monitored EEO Final Agency Decisions to ensure compliance with Order of Relief 

terms. Additionally, OASCR worked with each Agency to recommend training and/or 

corrective actions based on the findings in each compliance review. 

• assumed the processing of all USDA Federal sector EEO investigations, which were 

previously the responsibility of each individual USDA Agency. As a result, the cost of 

investigation has decrease significantly and produced a total savings in FY 2016 of 

$682,472.26. 

• maintained the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the Civil Rights Enterprise 

System, which is a database repository for ADR issues and employment discrimination 

complaints. By constantly working with stakeholders and emphasizing the need for 

prompt and accurate data entries, OASCR has prevented faulty reports and data integrity 

issues. Additionally, by monitoring and limiting access to sensitive and Personally 

Identifiable Information to authorized personnel only, the potential for abuse and misuse, 

as well as future complaints are minimized. 

• maintained a full service Customer Service Unit (CSU) for employment discrimination 

complaint and inquiries. The CSU serves as the liaison between OASCR and its internal 

and external customers who regularly call to inquire about access to USDA programs 

such as, Women, Infant, and Children, school lunches, and housing. Over 14,000 phone 

calls were handled in 2016. 

• conducted 26 training sessions, reaching 2,321 employees, at 12 USDA Agencies and 

Staff Offices in 7 states and the District of Columbia. Most of the training sessions 

addressed conflict resolution; conflict and cultural differences; workplace bullying; team 

building and communications; communication styles; stereotypes; and Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride history. Additionally, OASCR launched two 

online training courses on AgLearn that focused on LGBT Nondiscrimination in the 

Federal Workplace and Anti-Harassment. Over 40,000 USDA employees completed the 

online training in FY 2016. 
v 

• held training in Louisiana, Colorado, Maine, Missouri, and New Mexico for employees, 

managers, and supervisors of USDA Agencies. Training topics included: the EEO 

complaint process, reasonable accommodation, harassment, reprisal, ADR, program 

complaint process, LEP, unconscious bias, and LGBT issues. 

• conducted 24 events to increase employee engagement and knowledge of the history of 

civil rights laws and policy and awareness of current civil rights and related events. 

Through the cultural transformation initiative, USDA has co-sponsored 13 heritage

month and special emphasis observances, Inter-Agency Holocaust Remembrance 

Program; work-life balance forum, two documentary film screenings; weekly civil rights 

challenge games for OASCR’s employees; team building activities designed to 

strengthen employees engagement; and inspirational messages from the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights to OASCR employees recognizing civil rights aspects of 

Federal holidays and observances. The aforementioned activities resulted in improved 

internal communication, diversity, and inclusiveness. 

• conducted comprehensive evaluation and assessment of the Agencies’ Senior Executives, 

Agency Heads, and Staff Office Directors on their civil rights performance and activities. 

The process addressed and outlined the goals and objectives critical to achieving a model 

civil rights organization. The process was consistent with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission’s Management Directive 715, DR 4300-06, Civil Rights Policy 

for Department of Agriculture, DR 4300-010, Civil Rights Accountability Policy and 

Procedures, and other relevant EEO statutes, regulations, policies and procedures. In FY 

2016, OASCR provided leadership and face to face meeting sessions to 24 USDA 

Agencies. This effort resulted in Agencies timely submitting accurate and complete 

reports in compliance with the above mentioned regulations.
1 

PART I: 

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for 

Fiscal Years 2015 – 2016 
2 

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

Introduction

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

filed and the number of filers for FYs 2015 and 2016. 

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

In FY 2016, the number of complaints filed was 530; whereas, in FY 2015, the number of 

complaints filed was 509. This represents a four percent increase in complaints filed. 

Additionally, the number of filers in FY 2016 was 507; whereas, in FY 2015, the number of 

filers was 496. This represents an increase of 11 filers. 

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints

Filed

Number of Filers

2015 509 496 

2016 530 507 

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers at USDA

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

2015 2016

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

Number of Complaints Filed

Number of Filers

Number of Complaints Filed

Number of Filers

Number of Complaints Filed

Number of Filers
3 

Section B–Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal

EEO Complaints at USDA

Introduction

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

complaints for FYs 2015 and 2016. The basis of the complaint is the protected characteristic the 

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

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

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

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

considered to be a complaint based on sex.

Summary of Data 

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

bases, the four most frequently cited in formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2016 are: 

(1) retaliation; (2) race; (3) sex; and (4) age. In FY 2015, 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.

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

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

FY 2016. This is true for both FYs 2015 and 2016. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 270 

formal EEO complaints in FY 2016, compared to 296 formal EEO complaints in FY 2015, a nine 

percent decrease (26 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Race Discrimination 

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

FY 2016. The basis of “Race” was cited in 222 formal EEO complaints in FY 2016, compared 

to 206 complaints in FY 2015, an eight percent increase (16 complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Sex Discrimination

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

FY 2016. The basis of “Sex” was cited in 206 formal EEO complaints in FY 2016, compared to 

215 complaints in FY 2015, a four percent decrease (nine complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Age Discrimination 

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

FY 2016. The basis of “Age” was cited in 182 formal EEO complaints in FY 2016, compared to 

181 complaints in FY 2015, a half (.5) percent increase (1 complaint) over a two-year period. 
4 

Table 2

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases in Formal EEO Complaints at USDA

EEO Bases in Formal EEO Complaints

Year

Race

Color 

Religion

Sex

National Origin

Disability

Age

Retaliation 

Other2

2015 206 71 24 215 69 165 181 296 64 

2016 222 63 35 206 47 157 182 270 41 

Graph 2

Most Frequently Cited Bases 

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

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2015 2016

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation
5 

Section C-Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 

Complaints at USDA

Introduction

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

complaints for FYs 2015 and 2016. 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 2016 were: (1) Harassment; (2) 

Promotion/Non-selection; and (3) Terms/Condition of Employment. 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 2016, with 300 

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 319 filings in FY 2015, indicating a six percent decrease 

(19 complaints) from FY 2015 to FY 2016. 

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

FY 2016, with 149 filings. In contrast, “Promotion/Non-selection” had 162 filings in FY 2015, 

indicating an eight percent decrease (13 complaints) from FY 2015 to FY 2016. 

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

cases in FY 2016, with 102 filings. In contrast, “Terms/Condition of Employment” had 163 

filings in FY 2015, indicating a 37 percent decrease (61 complaints) from FY 2015 to FY 2016. 

Table 3 

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Year

Appointment/Hire

Assignment of Duties

Awards

Conversions to Full Time

Disciplinary Action

Duty Hours

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal

Examination/Test

Harassment

Medical Examination

Pay/Overtime

Promotion /Non-Selection

Reassignment

Reasonable Accommodation Disability

Reinstatement

Retirement

Termination

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Time and Attendance

Training

*Other

2015 35 115 19 0 128 23 90 1 319 8 42 162 65 83 1 1 40 163 78 49 28

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

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2015 2016

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Promotion/Non-Selection

Terms/Condition of

Employment

Harassment

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 2015 and 2016. 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 an upward trend (as shown in Graph 4) in the average number of 

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

dismissals. For all Final Agency Action with an EEOC hearing, there was a downward trend in 

the average number of days for processing. Promotion/Non- Selection Terms/Condition of Employment Harassment

Promotion/NonSelection

Terms/Condition of Employment

Harassment
7 

Table 4 

Average Number of Days for Completion of Each EEO Stage

Year Investigation Final Agency Action 

with EEOC Hearing

Final Agency 

Action without 

EEOC Hearing

Dismissals

2015 199 96 113 89 

2016 209 70 124 97 

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 2015 and 2016, at each 

EEO stage.

Graph 5 shows a downward trend in pending complaints in Final Agency Actions, Hearings, 

Investigations, and Appeals. 

Table 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage 

Year Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

2015 33 448 41 27 

2016 18 401 47 116 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2015 2016

Axis Title

Average Number of Days for 

Completion of Each EEO Stage

Investigation

Final Agency Action with EEOC

Hearing

Final Agency Action without

EEOC Hearing

Dismissals

Investigation

Final Agency Action with EEOC Hearing 

Final Agency Action without EEOC Hearing 

Dismissals

Investigation

Final Agency Action with EEOC Hearing 

Final Agency Action without EEOC Hearing 

Dismissals
8 

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 69 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

2015 32

2016 10 

33 

18 

448 

401 

41 47 

27 

116 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2015 2016

Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

Investigation

Hearing

Final Agency Action

Appeal

Investigation

Hearing

Final Agency Action

Appeal
9 

Graph 6

Pending Formal EEO Complaints Exceeding 180-Day Investigation Requirement 

Section E-Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Introduction

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

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

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

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

along with the issues and bases for those complaints. 

Summary of Data 

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

Administrative Hearing decreased by four, from FY 2015 to FY 2016, and the number of 

findings without an EEOC Administrative Hearing decreased by three from FY 2015 to FY 

2016. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2015 2016

Pending Complaints Exceeding 

180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints

Exceeding the 180-day

Investigation Requirement
10 

Table 7 

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination 

Year With an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

2015 5 9 

20163 1 6 

Graph 7 

 Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination 

Section F-Analysis, Experience, and Actions

Introduction

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

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

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

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

(1) Causal Analysis 

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

EEO complaints. Examples are as follows:

3 Subsequent database reconciliation reveled that there are a total of eight findings of discrimination, resulting in one 

disciplinary action decision pending with the Office of Human Resource Management.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2015 2016

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of 

Discrimination

With an EEOC Administrative

Hearing

Without an EEOC

Administrative Hearing

With an EEOC Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC Administrative Hearing

With an EEOC Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC Administrative Hearing
11 

• The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reported an increase by one in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 10 formal complaints filed in FY 

2016, as compared to 9 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. AMS attributes the increase 

of complaints to the reduction of training sessions conducted in FY 2016 compared to FY 

2015. Additionally, AMS attributes the increase to employees using the term harassment 

incorrectly to describe unfavorable work conditions or assignments, without any nexus to 

a protected basis.

 

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported a decrease by 24 in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 41 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2016, as compared to 65 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. 

APHIS attributes the decrease to a multitude of actions, including, but not limited to EEO 

education and training, use of ADR and early engagement of Agency manager, and 

supervisors in addressing employment concerns. 

• The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) reported an increase by four in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 19 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2016, as compared to 15 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. ARS attributes this to

miscommunication or lack of communication between management and employees. 

• The Conflict Complaints Division, which processes conflict cases

4

, reported a decrease 

by seven in the number of complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 47

formal complaints filed in FY 2016 as compared to 54 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2015. 

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

complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there was one formal complaint filed in 

FY 2016, as compared to two formal complaints filed in FY 2015. ERS attributes the 

decrease in complaints to ERS’ Director of Civil Rights practice of immediately engaging 

management when an employee raises a work related issue as well as management’s 

willingness to create an environment free from discrimination and harassment. ERS also 

attributes this to the desire of ERS employees to understand their rights in responsibilities 

when provided training. 

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

complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were seven formal complaints filed in 

FY 2016, compared to three formal complaints filed in FY 2015. FAS attributes the 

increase of complaints to the interaction and education employees on EEO issues and 

concerns leading employees to believe in the neutrality of the being comfortable going to 

and discussing EEO issues with the OCR Staff and its EEO Counselors. 

 

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

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

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

resolution of complaints.
12 

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

complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 18 formal complaints filed in FY 

2016, compared to 10 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. FNS attributes the increase in

complaints to improved understanding of employment discrimination and whistleblower 

protection laws through employee training during onsite Compliance Reviews, new 

employee onboarding, and Agency-wide training offered throughout the year. 

• The Forest Service (FS) reported an increase by five in the number of complaints filed in 

FY 2016. Specifically, there were 158 formal complaints filed in FY 2016, compared to 

153 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. FS attributes this increase to employees using 

the term harassment incorrectly to describe unfavorable work conditions or assignments, 

without any nexus to a protected basis. Many Agency harassment cases are non-sexual 

and involve general dissatisfaction with the work environment, work assignments, 

communication styles, and employee accountability. 

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

EEO complaints filed FY 2016. Specifically, there were 27 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2016, compared to 22 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. FSA attributes this 

increase to the lack of employee EEO awareness. 

• The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reported an increase by six in the number 

of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 68 complaints filed 

in FY 2016, compared to 62 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. FSIS attributes the 

increase in complaint activity to issues in telework and training. The increase in 

complaints related to telework may be attributed to increased agency marketing of work 

life programs, which may lead employees to perceive telework options as an entitlement 

rather than privilege. The increase in training related complaints may be the result of the 

Agency’s recurring vacancy rate in the field inspection positions. 

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

decrease by six in the number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, 

there were 8 formal complaints filed in FY 2016, compared to 14 formal complaints filed 

in FY 2015. GIPSA attributes this decrease to focusing on resolving disputes at the 

lowest possible level through the use of ADR. 

 

• The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported an increase by one in the 

number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were two formal 

complaints filed in FY 2016 and one formal complaint filed in FY 2015. NASS attributes 

the static level of complaints to being proactive in resolving all complaints at the earliest 

stage. 

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

reported an increase by 19 in the number of formal complaints filed in FY 2016. 

Specifically, there were 48 formal complaints filed in FY 2016 compared to 29 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2015. The NFC-OCFO attributes the increase in complaints to an 

increase in the number of employees becoming aware of their EEO rights through EEO 

training conducting during the reporting period. These sessions with employees 

explained the avenues of redress outside of the EEO office and matters that are within the 

EEOC’s jurisdiction.
13 

• The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) reported an increase of three in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were three formal 

complaints filed in FY 2016. No complaints were filed in FY 2015. NIFA attributes the 

increase in complaints to the restructuring of Agency offices, reassignment of employees, 

and administrative or policy changes. 

• The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reported a decrease by 12 in the 

number of formal complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 20 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2016, compared to 32 formal complaints filed in FY 2015. NRCS 

attributes the decrease in complaints to increased efforts to educate employees on what 

constitutes harassment and how to address it. 

• The Rural Development (RD) reported an increase by 15 in the number of formal 

complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were 45 formal complaints filed in FY 

2016, compared to 30 formal complaints in FY 2015. RD attributes the increase of 

complaints to training and employees increased awareness of their rights and the 

procedures to file an EEO complaint. 

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

formal complaints filed in FY 2016. Specifically, there were five complaints filed in FY 

2016, compared to four formal complaints filed in FY 2015. RMA attributes the increase 

to one employee who filed an EEO complaint which was non-EEO related. 

(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: 

• a combination of civil rights training, ADR, and proactive actions minimizes any possible 

adverse effects on employees thereby preventing possible complaints; 

• willingness of RMOs and aggrieved persons to work together resulted not only in their 

mutual interest, but also generated a positive work environment, and increased morale 

and productivity; 

• providing relevant EEO information and guidance to all employees through 

dissemination of information in briefings and exchanges helps employees become more 

knowledgeable about their rights; 

• implementing a new supervisory civil rights training module helped to address the 

importance of reasonable accommodations, employee relations, labor relations, 

performance, Human Resources, and employee development for all managers; 

• coordinating EEO information with Human Resources and USDA regional offices helps 

ensure consistency in the new employee orientation packages; 

• it is important for management to engage with employees as long as possible, before 

relinquishing the issue to the EEO process; 
14 

• offering ADR reduces the number of formal employment discrimination complaints filed

at USDA; 

• conducting compliance reviews of USDA regional offices helps to improve, strengthen, 

and promote USDA’s Civil Rights Programs; 

 

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

effective mediation processes within the state and county offices; 

• enforcing zero-tolerance reprisal and disciplinary policies helps to ensure accountability, 

discipline, and corrective actions take place when discriminatory conduct related to civil 

rights violations occurs; 

• the establishment of an employee engagement program has proven invaluable in assisting 

employees with adapting to a culture that is being transformed into one that promotes 

engagement and interaction, and values the success of all members of the organization; 

• continuing to provide sufficient financial and organizational resources helps to support an 

effective civil rights program; 

 

• ensuring expectations are clear and performance elements are established helps to hold 

employees and managers accountable for EEO; 

• EEO and civil rights training is important so that USDA employees understand how to 

recognize, evaluate, and deal with delicate situations and difficult people; and

• proper accountability measures must be in place to address agency personnel that have 

been found to have participated in or exhibited discriminatory practices and inappropriate 

conduct.

(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: 

• issued an ADR policy statement emphasizing the use of mediation in the formal stage in 

an effort to resolve allegations of discrimination; 

• collaborated with Human Resources to develop the Anti-Harassment policy for the 

agency;

• executed civil rights training on topics including Micro-Inequities, Discrimination Defined, and 

Women in Leadership; 

• required offices to post all policy statements in designated work areas and Web sites; 
15 

• developed a new, engaging, and comprehensive employee training suite, entitled Equal 

Employment Opportunity: Learning and Applying Skills for Workplace Success, which 

brings together information in ADR reasonable accommodation and the EEO complaints 

process; 

• informed national office employees of the grievance and complaint forums that are 

available to them; 

• provide refresher training to its cadre of Resolving Officials to aid in accomplishing the 

Agency’s goal of resolving complaints at the lowest level possible in both the informal 

and formal EEO complaint stages; 

• 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; 

• keep Administrators and Senior Managers apprised of EEO activity within their respective 

programs; 

• train all counselors/mediators in processing EEO complaints from the initial intake and 

informal stage through formal filing through EEOC hearings and settlements; 

• review of the ADR process and implementing additional or new measures to increase the 

success rate of the early resolution and conflict prevention process through ADR; 

• increase employee awareness of the ADR program through notification, training, and 

counseling; 

• conduct Civil Rights Exit Interviews with employees to assess their experience and 

reasons for departure; 

• training to assist in determining the difference between workplace conflicts (grievances) 

and alleged discrimination;

• notify employees via email of the No FEAR Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act; 

• implement a conflict resolution program which will expand the principles of ADR to 

encompass all informal workplace conflicts before they rise to the level of EEO 

complaints; 

• make EEO counseling available via video-conferencing; 

• maintain staff coordination to improve effectiveness of partnership with the OASCR 

Staff to ensure inventory of Formal EEO Complaint data is correct; 

• require employees to re-certify their telework agreement and participate in telework 

training to assist in dispelling employee misconceptions about the program;

• have Civil Rights Mediators take proactive steps to conduct mediation by contacting the 

parties within five business days of the complainant contacting the Civil Rights Staff;
16 

• work towards having exemplary EEO and diversity programs; 

• develop and implement improvements in all areas of the EEO arena – including 

recruitment, hiring, retention, development and advancement for all employee; 

• expand the use of technology in training programs to include web-based learning through 

AgLearn, WebEx, and Live Meeting, in an effort to increase and improve the availability 

and opportunity for employees nationwide to participate in trainings offered; and

• ensure that all new employees complete the Comprehensive No FEAR Act training 

within the first 30 days of their employment and require all employees to complete the 

Refresher No FEAR Act training through AgLearn. 
17 

PART II: 

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment 

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2016 
18 

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2016 

Introduction

Table 8 provides information on reimbursements by USDA to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s 

Judgment Fund for monies associated with FY 2016 judgments, awards, or settlements under the 

statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2016 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund For FY 2016 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney’s Fees

1 $80,000.00 $0.00 

Total $80,000.00 $0.00 

Summary

In FY 2016, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund $80,000, of which zero dollars were

identified as payment of attorney’s fees. 
19 

PART III: 

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2015 – 2016

 
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY2016

20 

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2015–2016 

Summary of Data

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

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

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

of whistleblower protection or civil rights complaints).

Table 9

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

TYPE OF 

ACTION

FY 2016

DISC. DISC. RET. HAR. PPP WBP TOTAL

REMOVAL 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 

15 DAY OR

MORE 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 DAY OR 

LESS 0 0 19 2 0 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 

REDUCTION

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

REDUCTION

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

LOR 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 0 0 33 5 0 38 0 7 0 0 0 7 

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

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

of Reprimand.

PART 2: Table 10 illustrates the number of Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Whistleblower 

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

related to whistle-blowing and discrimination. 

Table 10 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL CASES

CATEGORIES OF CASES FY 2015 FY 2016 TOTAL

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE 0 5 5 

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE CLOSED 0 0 0 

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER DISCIPLINE TAKEN 0 0 0 

FY2016 2016

RET. HAR. PPP WBP TOTAL

FY 2015

. . . . 
21 

PART IV: 

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for FY 2016 
22 

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

FY 2016 and arising under the anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2016

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2016 

Pending District Court Cases 37

Pending Appellate Court Cases 8 

New Cases Filed in District Court 10

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 2015 1 0 5 3 11

Still Pending at End of FY 2015 0 0 3 5 13

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 1 3 

Withdrawals 0 0 0 0 0 

Final Judgment for 

Complainant

1 0 5 2 8 

Final Judgment for Agency 1 0 5 3 11

NOTES ON CASES WITH MULTIPLE BASES ALLEGED

Case under 29 U.S.C. § 206(d):

One also had claims under both 29 U.S.C. § 633a and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Cases under 29 U.S.C. § 633a:

Four also had claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; two also had claims under 29 U.S.C. § 791; one also had claims 

under both 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 29 U.S.C. § 791

Cases under 29 U.S.C. § 791:

One also had claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 29 U.S.C. § 633a

Cases under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e:

Three also had claims under 29 U.S.C. § 633a; four also had claims under 29 U.S.C. § 791; and one also had claims 

under both 29 U.S.C. § 633a and §791
A-1 

Appendix A 
Previous Fiscal Year Data Y Year ear

Comparative Data 

Complaints by Basis 

Previous Fiscal YearData Data Year Data 

Comparative Data Data Data

Complaint Activity Complaint Activity 

A-2 

Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted

Pursuant to the No FEAR Act

USDA

FY 2016 for period ending September 30, 2016 

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Number of Complaints Filed 536 544 481 509 530 

Number of Complainants 519 512 465 496 507 

Repeat Filers 12 26 17 14 19 

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.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Race 215 213 243 206 222 

Color 56 64 73 71 63 

Religion 23 19 19 24 35 

Reprisal 281 311 270 296 270 

Sex 228 213 207 215 206 

PDA 0 2 3 1 0 

National Origin 61 59 74 69 47 

Equal Pay Act 3 8 4 2 1 

Age 177 201 183 181 182 

Disability 141 150 130 165 157 

Genetics 2 3 2 2 1 

Non-EEO 55 42 55 59 39 
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Previous Previous Fiscal Fiscal Year Data Previous Fiscal Y Year Data Previous Fiscal Year earData Data

Comparative Data Complaints by Issue 

A-3 

Complaints by Issue Comparative Data 

Note: Complaints can be filed alleging 

multiple bases. The sum of the bases may 

not equal total complaints filed.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Appointment/Hire 23 34 25 35 27 

Assignment of Duties 100 119 117 115 92 

Awards 22 24 9 19 9 

Conversion to Full-time 1 2 1 0 0 

Disciplinary Action

 Demotion 7 3 5 3 4 

 Reprimand 42 28 23 55 28 

 Suspension 40 30 27 49 26 

Removal 10 13 7 10 6 

Other 28 17 31 11 7 

Duty Hours 15 11 11 23 20 

Evaluation Appraisal 60 85 73 90 91 

Examination/Test 4 1 1 1 1 

Harassment

Non-Sexual 303 275 264 303 282 

 Sexual 16 12 20 16 18 

Medical Examination 4 2 4 8 1 

Pay (Including Overtime) 14 29 39 42 21 

Promotion/Non-Selection 118 123 111 162 149 

Reassignment

Denied 13 19 27 25 14 

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Previous Fiscal Year Data 

Previous Fiscal Year 

Data 

Previous Fiscal Year 

Data 

Previous Fiscal Year 

Data 

Comparative Data 

Comparative 

Data 

Processing Time 

A-4 

Directed 33 33 43 40 18 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Disability 58 63 48 83 69 

Reinstatement 2 0 0 1 2 

Religious Accommodation* 0 0 0 0 3 

Retirement 2 2 1 1 4 

Sex-Stereotyping* 0 0 0 0 1 

Telework* 0 0 0 0 29 

Termination 35 40 34 40 27 

Terms/Conditions of Employment 85 176 146 163 102 

Time and Attendance 58 50 32 78 59 

Training 49 41 33 49 51 

Other 61 26 23 28 5 

Processing Time

Comparative Data 

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 

Complaints Pending During Fiscal Year

Average Number of Days in 

Investigation 248.60 242.05 212.08 198.94 208.93 

Average Number of Days in Final 

Action 214.93 165.94 169.31 106.7 97.94 

Complaint Pending During Fiscal Year Where Hearing was Requested

Average Number of Days in 

Investigation 235.23 247.31 217.23 203.6 212.88 

Average Number of Days in Final 

Action 133.49 119.33 199.47 96.48 69.94 

Complaint Pending During Fiscal Year Where Hearing was not Requested

Average Number of Days in 

Investigation 273.79 233.21 204.07 192.73 202.01 

2016
20122012 20132013 20142014 20152015 20162016 

PreviouPrevious FiscalPrevious FiscalPrevious FiscalPrevious 

FiscalPrevious FiscalPrevious FiscalPrevious FiscalPrevious 

FiscalPrevious Fiscals Fiscal Y Yeaearearearearearearearearearr

DaData DataData ta 

CompComparative 

Comparative arative 

DData Data DataData DataData Data ata

2012201 20133201 20144201 20155201 20166201 2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Previous Fiscal Year Data Year Data Year Data Previous Fiscal Previous Fiscal Previous Fiscal Year earData Data Data Year Data Year Data 

Comparative Comparative Comparative Data Data Data Comparative Data Data Data Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Basis 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Previous Fiscal Year Data Previous Fiscal Previous Fiscal YearData Data 

Comparative Data Data Data

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination 

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination 

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination 

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Previous Previous Fiscal Previous PreviousFiscal Fiscal Fiscal YYYYear ear ear earData Data Data Data 

Comparative Comparative Data Data 

Complaints Dismissed byAgency Agency 

A-5 

Average Number of Days in Final 

Action 255.96 187.19 134.58 112.82 124.03 

*Data was not collected prior to Fiscal year 2016

Complaints Dismissed by Agency

Comparative Data 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Total Complaints Dismissed by Agency 45 67 64 55 57 

Average Days Pending Prior to Dismissal 145 83 188 89 97 

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 31 29 32 29 28 

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

# % # % # % # % # % 

Total Number Findings 17 19 24 5 7 

Without Hearing 1 6 4 21 15 63 0 0 6 86 

With Hearing 1 6 4 21 9 38 5 100 1 14 

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.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

# % # % # % # % # % 

Total Number Findings 27 32 24 5 7 

Race 6 35 2 11 6 25 1 20 3 43 

Color 0 0 2 11 1 4 0 0 1 14 

Previous Fiscal Year Data
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

A-6 

Religion 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 

Reprisal 6 35 6 32 7 29 2 40 4 57 

Sex 2 12 5 26 2 8 0 0 3 43 

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

National Origin 1 6 3 16 5 21 0 0 0 0 

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

Age 4 24 6 32 2 8 1 20 0 0 

Disability 6 35 6 32 8 33 4 80 2 29 

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Findings After Hearing 1 4 9 5 1 

Race 0 0 2 50 4 44 1 20 1 100 

Color 0 0 2 50 1 11 0 0 0 0 

Religion 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 

Reprisal 1 100 0 0 4 44 2 40 1 100 

Sex 0 0 1 25 2 22 0 0 1 100 

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

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

Age 0 0 3 75 1 11 1 20 0 0 

Disability 0 0 1 25 0 0 4 80 0 0 

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Findings Without Hearing 16 15 15 0 6 

Race 6 38 0 0 2 13 0 0 2 33 
Previous Fiscal Year Data

Comparative Data Comparative Data Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Dat Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Issue 

Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Issue 

Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Issue 

Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Issue 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

A-7 

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reprisal 0 0 6 40 3 20 0 0 3 50 

Sex 5 31 4 27 0 0 0 0 2 33 

PDA 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

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

Age 0 0 3 20 1 7 0 0 0 0 

Disability 4 25 5 33 8 53 0 0 2 33 

Genetics 6 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Findings of Discrimination Rendered 

by Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

# % # % # % # % # % 

Total Number Findings 17 19 24 5 7 

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

Assignment of Duties 2 12 0 0 3 13 0 0 1 14 

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

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 2 29 

Suspension 0 0 2 11 1 4 0 0 1 14 

Removal 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 

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

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

201

2 

201

3 

201

4

201

5

201

6 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A-8 

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal 3 18 0 0 1 4 1 20 0 0 

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 8 47 5 26 8 33 2 40 2 29 

Sexual 1 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Pay (Including Overtime) 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 

Promotion/Non-Selection 1 6 4 21 5 21 0 0 2 29 

Reassignment

Denied 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Directed 1 6 1 5 2 8 0 0 0 0 

Reasonable Accommodation Disability 4 24 3 16 5 21 2 40 1 14 

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

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

Termination 1 6 3 16 6 25 0 0 0 0 

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

Time and Attendance 3 18 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 

Other - User Defined 1 6 2 11 1 4 0 0 0 0 

Findings After Hearing 2 4 9 5 1 

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

Assignment of Duties 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 1 100 
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

A-9 

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 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 

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

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 0 0 0 0 3 33 2 40 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 0 0 1 25 4 44 0 0 0 0 

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Directed 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 

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

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Telework* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

A-10 

Termination 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

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

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Findings Without Hearing 16 15 15 0 6 

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

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

Awards 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 

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

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 

Suspension 0 0 2 13 1 7 0 0 1 17 

Removal 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 1 6 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 

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

Performance Evaluation/Appraisal 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 8 50 5 33 5 33 0 0 2 33 

Sexual 1 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Pay (Including Overtime) 1 6 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 
 iPrd ienPrevious viPrevious n

ou

n 

s FisFiscal cal 

YeYear ar DData DataData Dataata

CompComparative Comparative arComparative Comparative ative DData aData tData Dataa 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

PePendingPendingnding C 

Complomplaintsomplaintsaints F Fileiled iiled id innn PrePrevious vious FisFiscal cal YeYears ars by Sby Status tatus 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Previous Fiscal Year Data 

Comparative Comparative Comparative Comparative Data Data Data Data Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status 

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status 

A-11 

Promotion/Non-Selection 1 6 3 20 1 7 0 0 2 33 

Reassignment

Denied 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Directed 1 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reasonable Accommodation Disability 4 25 2 13 5 33 0 0 1 17 

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

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

Termination 1 6 2 13 6 40 0 0 0 0 

Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 2 13 3 20 0 0 2 33 

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

Training 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 

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

*Data was not collected prior to Fiscal Year 2016

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status 

Comparative Data 

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Total Complaints from Previous 

Fiscal Years 884 956 938 878 4725

Total Complainants 797 885 482 482 446 

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

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

significant decrease in complaints between FY 2015 and FY 2016.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 
Number Number Co Complaints mplaints mplaints Pending 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Number NumberCoComplaints mplaintsPePending nding Pending 

Previous Fiscal Year Data 

Comparative Data 

Complaint Investigations 

Complaint Investigations 

A-12 

Number Complaints Pending

Investigation 44 28 35 33 18

ROI Issued, Pending 

Complainant’s Action 5 1 3 1 2

Hearing 348 399 520 448 401

Final Agency Action 75 68 50 41 47

Appeal with EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 10 11 61 27 116

Complaint Investigations 

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required Time 

Frames

117 85 190 32 10