No FEAR Act

ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2014

U.S. Department of Agriculture
NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment 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 complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at 

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

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

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

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

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 

or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

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

either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Citation: 

The No FEAR Act Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 2013 - 2014

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

Section B – Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal EEO 3

Complaints at USDA

Section C – Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 5

Complaints at USDA

Section D – EEO Processing Stages 6

(1) Average Number of Days for Completion of 

Selected EEO Stages

(2) Pending Complaints at Various Stages

(3) Pending Formal Complaints Exceeding the 180-Day

Investigation Requirement

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

Section F – Analysis, Experience, and Actions 10

(1) Causal Analysis

(2) Experience Gained by USDA in the Processing of

 Formal EEO Complaints

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

 Complaints Processing

PART II: USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for 16

Fiscal Year 2014

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 18

for Fiscal Years 2013 - 201

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 21

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2014

Appendix A-1
i

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

This is the USDA’s tenth 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) 2014. This report contains the: 

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

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

age, reprisal, and violations of whistleblower protection laws;

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

No FEAR Act;

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

payment of attorney’s fees;

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

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

practices;

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

or prohibited personnel practices; and

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

protection laws.

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

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

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

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

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

reimbursement requirement.

USDA’s Mission and Mission-Related Functions

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

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

USDA strives to:

• expand international trade for agricultural products and support international economic 

development;

• expand domestic marketing opportunities for agricultural products;

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

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

• develop alternative markets for agricultural products and activities;

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

and infrastructure in rural America;

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

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

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

and

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

levels of government and the private sector.

Summary of the Report

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

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

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

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

carry out the mandates of the No FEAR Act.

As demonstrated in greater detail below, USDA experienced a decrease of 63 EEO complaints 

filed from FY 2013 to FY 2014, ending the EEO inventory at the end of FY 2014 with 890

complaints. The number of filers decreased by 47 from FY 2013 to FY 2014, but there was an 

increase in the number of findings of discrimination from FY 2013 to FY 2014. Data illustrating 

this trend is found in the Appendix A. 

A review of disciplinary actions taken against employees who violated Federal antidiscrimination laws and whistleblower protection statutes shows that in FY 2014, three

employees were disciplined; while 12 employees were disciplined in FY 2013. This decrease in

disciplinary actions between FY 2013 and FY 2014 indicates a continual level of accountability 

within USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture’s enforcement of a zero tolerance of any form of 

discrimination. The reimbursement provisions of the No FEAR Act continue to result in 

financial accountability for sub-agencies and individual staff offices within USDA.
iii

During FY 2014, USDA has implemented several initiatives that will further assist in its effort to 

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

• USDA is amending Departmental Regulation (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 that the regulation is consistent with current federal authorities, directives, 

regulations and Executive Orders governing the EEO complaint process. Changes to the 

proposed regulation include: 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.

• USDA is amending DR 4300-003, “Equal Opportunity Public Notification.” This 

regulation establishes the policy for ensuring positive and continuing notification of the 

USDA equal opportunity policy to the public and USDA employees. The amendment to 

the regulation also includes specific details about the “And Justice for All” Posters and 

requires that notices of the USDA Nondiscrimination Statement are prominently posted 

in USDA, its agencies and staff offices. 

• The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) conducted the civil 

rights review of all USDA agencies’ policies, rules, regulations, advisory committees, 

and reorganizations submitted for Departmental clearance. This involved a review and 

civil rights impact analysis of highly sensitive policies, actions, and decisions that could 

affect USDA employment, programs, and activities. These reviews facilitate the 

identification of potential disparate impacts by proposed policies or practices. Over 20

percent of our reviews resulted in recommendations for changes prior to concurrence.

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

Departmental Regulations and Departmental Manuals to be consistent with current civil 

rights laws, regulations and USDA policy.

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

EEO complaint processes in several respects. For instance, OASCR embarked on a 

project to harmonize the formal EEO complaint filing process throughout the Department 

by developing a universal formal complaint form. In prior years, each of the 

Department’s sub-agencies and/or mission areas was responsible for creating its own 

formal complaint form, leading to wide and often confusing or inadequate variations. 

The variations negatively impacted the formal complaint acceptance process, as the 

OASCR staff was often required to expend time gathering information that might have 

been captured on a more thoughtfully designed complaint form. OACSR worked with 

civil rights staff Department-wide, to create a single, comprehensive form, which: 

captures the essential information necessary for conducting the complaint acceptance 

analysis; provides complainants with clear guidance on completing the form and 

additional information about the EEO administrative process; and is 5081 compliant.

 1 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requires that Federal agencies make their electronic and information 

technology accessible to people with disabilities.
iv

• OASCR conducted several Partnership Meetings on such topics as: Conflicts of Interest 

and Non-compliance Matters in EEO Complaint Processing (September 2014); Lesbian, 

Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Discrimination in the Federal Workplace (June 2014); 

and Amendments, Referrals to Counseling, Reports of Investigation, and Other EEO 

Complaint Processing Matters (February 2014). Moreover, the OASCR staff, using an 

objective scoring system, evaluated the quality and timely submission of every EEO 

Counselor’s Report prepared by a sub-agency or mission area’s civil rights staff in 

connection with a formal EEO complaint. This enabled OASCR to provide precise 

feedback to each sub-agency or mission area about its respective informal counseling 

program, as well as, additional guidance and training when needed. In turn, the quality 

and timely availability of the reports has steadily improved, enhancing the accuracy and 

efficiency of the formal complaint acceptance process, which depends heavily on the 

contents of the reports. 

• OASCR has oversight responsibility for implementation of the USDA EEO Program and 

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

rights laws, regulations, policies and procedures regarding EEO. In order to carry out 

these responsibilities and ensure that all Agencies are in compliance and maintain 

accountability for equal opportunity and accessibility, OASCR conducted one 

programmatic compliance review in FY 2014. Also, OASCR began an initiative in 

collaborating with the Agencies to conduct Technical Assistance Compliance Reviews 

(TACR) for consistency, uniformity, and cost savings. In FY 2014, OASCR conducted 

10 TACRs. A strong compliance review program is an essential element of raising 

awareness of employment practices and policies that contribute to perceptions of bias, 

unfairness, harassment, and/or disparate treatment. The mandated practice of conducting 

compliance reviews of USDA Agencies reduces employment discrimination complaints.

• Through its annual Agency Head Assessment (AHA) Civil Rights Performance and 

Accomplishments Reports, OASCR continues to evaluate all Agency Heads and Staff 

Office Directors on their civil rights performance and activities. The process addresses 

and outlines the goals and objectives critical to achieving a model civil rights 

organization and is consistent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 

Management Directive (MD) 715, 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. Therefore, this comprehensive 

evaluation and assessment of the Agencies’ senior executives ensures civil rights 

compliance and accountability throughout USDA. In FY 2013, OASCR evaluated and 

assessed 17 USDA Agencies and four Staff Offices. During the fiscal year, OASCR 

conducted a major back briefing of the AHA for the Agency Administrators and senior 

managers, civil rights and EEO practitioners, and program analysts in order to provide an 

overview of the Performance Plan requirements and procedures. To enhance the 

Agencies and Staff Offices’ development of their Performance Plan, OASCR conducted 

more than 10 individual technical assistance briefings to review the AHA requirements.
v

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

previously the responsibility of each individual USDA Agency. At that time, 10 vendors 

along with the U.S. Postal Service conducted the EEO investigations. In FY 2014, the 

U.S. Postal Service ceased conducting the EEO Investigations and the vendors served as 

the sole investigators. During FY 2014, the Government shutdown impacted the 

investigations completed. Although the shutdown lasted 16 days for Federal employees. 

The vendors stop work order lasted for 21 days. While the shutdown impacted the 

investigations, 74 additional investigations were completed in FY 2014 in comparison to 

FY 2013. 

• OASCR has maintained the integrity of the CRES database and ensure that the system is 

certified and accredited by the USDA’s Chief Information Officer, who grants OASCR 

the authority to operate. By constantly working with stakeholders and by driving into 

staff consciousness, the need for prompt and accurate data entries, faulty reports, and data 

integrity issues are prevented. Additionally by limiting and monitoring access to

sensitive and personally identifiable information (PII) to authorized personnel only, the 

potential for abuse and misuse, as well as, future complaints is minimized.

• OASCR conducted bi-weekly, in-person training sessions for personnel in the 

Washington, D.C. area entitled, “A Brief Introduction to ADR.” The classes provided an 

overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and covered the key aspects of ADR 

dynamics, commonly used ADR techniques, and the roles and responsibilities of ADR 

participants. 

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

strategies to utilize when they encounter conflict. OASCR coordinated training 

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

employees with the tools needed to resolve conflicts themselves, which ultimately 

improved the employees’ morale, working relationships, and communication amongst 

co-workers and management. As a result, these trainings led to managers requesting 

additional training for their respective staff. 

• OASCR places a high priority and is actively engaged in educating and training all 

USDA employees (including supervisors, managers, and political appointees) at all 

USDA locations. Training addresses civil rights laws, including No FEAR, problematic 

and systemic trends, appropriate behavior, and customer service requirements. In 

addition, OASCR collaborated with the Office of Human Resources Management in 

developing and recording the webinar entitled, “Disability Legislation and Reasonable 

Accommodation – A Practical Guide for All Employees.”

• OASCR’s cultural transformation initiative continues to create a workplace culture in 

which all employees can contribute and achieve their full potential while helping to 

achieve its mission. This is done by a continuum of promoting cross-cultural 

understanding, communication, and cultural competence among employees; fashioning 

an organizational culture that respects and values diversity and inclusion within OASCR; 

monitoring diversity and inclusion achievements to ensure accountability for positive 

change; and achieving organizational goals which ensure employees and clientele are 

always treated fairly and equitably with dignity and respect.
1

PART I

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for

Fiscal Years 2013 – 2014
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 2013-14. 

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 a decrease in the number of 

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

In FY 2014, the number of complaints filed was 481, whereas, in FY 2013, the number of 

complaints filed was 544. This represents a 12 percent decrease in complaints filed. 

Additionally, the number of filers in FY 2014 was 465, which is 47 less than the number of filers

(512) in FY 2013.

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers

at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints

Filed

Number of Filers

2013 544 512

2014 481 465

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

2013 2014

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

Number of Complaints Filed

Number of Filers
3

Section B–Most Frequently Cited Bases in Formal EEO Complaints

at USDA

Introduction

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

complaints for FYs 2013-14. 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 2014 are: (1) 

retaliation; (2) race; (3) sex; and (4) age. In FY 2013, the four most frequently cited bases were: 

(1) retaliation; (2) sex; (2) race; and (4) age.

2

 These four bases are illustrated in Graph 2, which 

shows the trend over the two-year reporting period.

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*

2013 213 64 19 213 59 150 201 311 55

2014 243 73 19 207 74 130 183 270 64

*Other USDA protected bases include PDA, Equal Pay Act, Genetics, and Non-EEO. 

Additionally, the base of sex includes gender identity and gender expression.

 2 Both race and sex had a total of 213. 
4

Graph 2

Most Frequently Cited Bases 

 

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

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

2014. This is true for both FYs 2014 and 2013. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 270

formal EEO complaints in FY 2014, compared to 311 complaints in FY 2013, a 13 percent (41

complaints) decrease 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 

2014. The basis of “Race” was cited in 243 formal EEO complaints in FY 2014, compared to 

213 complaints in FY 2013, a 14 percent increase (30 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 

2014. The basis of “Sex” was cited in 207 formal EEO complaints in FY 2014, compared to 213 

complaints in FY 2013, a three percent decrease (six 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 

2014. The basis of “Age” was cited in 183 formal EEO complaints in FY 2014, compared to 201

complaints in FY 2013, a nine percent (18 complaints) decrease over a two-year period. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2013 2014

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation
5

Section C-Most Frequently Cited Issues in Formal EEO 

Complaints at USDA

Introduction

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

complaints for FYs 2013-14. 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 2014 were: (1) Harassment; (2) Terms/

Condition of Employment; and (3) Assignment of Duties. 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 2014, with 284 

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 287 filings in FY 2013, indicating a one percent decrease

(three complaints) from FY 2013 to FY 2014.

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

cases in FY 2014, with 146 filings. In contrast, “Terms/Condition of Employment” had 176

filings in FY 2013, indicating a decrease of 17 percent (30 complaints) from FY 2013 to FY 

2014.

“Assignment of Duties” was the third most frequently cited issue in formal EEO cases in FY 

2014, with 117 filings. In contrast, “Assignment of Duties” had 119 filings in FY 2013. There 

was a two percent decrease (two complaints) from FY 2013 to FY 2014. 

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

2013 34 119 24 2 91 11 85 1 52 41 50 40 2 29 123 287 0 2 176 63 26

2014 25 117 9 1 93 11 73 1 70 33 32 34 4 39 111 284 0 1 146 48 23
6

Graph 3

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Section D-EEO Processing Stages

Introduction

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

EEO complaints processed during FYs 2013-143. 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 and in the Final Agency Action without an EEOC hearing while the 

data showed an upward trend in the Final Agency Action with a hearing and in dismissals.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2013 2014

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Harassment

Terms/Condition of

Employment

Assignment of Duties
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

2013 242 119 187 83

2014 212 199 135 188

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 2013-14, at each 

EEO stage.

• Graph 5 shows a downward trend in pending complaints in Final Agency Actions and an

upward trend in pending complaints for Hearings, Investigations, and Appeals.

Table 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

Year Investigation Hearing Final Agency Action Appeal

2013 28 399 68 11

2014 35 520 50 61

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2013 2014

Axis Title

Graph 4 - Average Number of Days for 

Completion of Each EEO Stage

Dismissals

Final Agency Action without

EEOC Hearing

Final Agency Action with

EEOC Hearing

Investigation
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 54 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

2013 85

2014 190

11

61

28 35

68 50

399

520

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2013 2014

Appeal Investigation Final Agency Action Hearing
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 that the number of findings of discrimination issued with an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing increased by five in FY 2014 from FY 2013, and without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing remained the same in FY 2014 from FY 2013.

Table 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Year With an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

2013 4 15

2014 9 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2013 2014

Graph 6

Pending Complaints Exceeding 

180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints

Exceeding the 180-day

Investigation Requirement
10

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:

1. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reported a decrease by four in the number 

of formal complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were nine formal complaints 

filed in FY 2014, as compared to 13 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. AMS 

attributes the decrease to the increased number of civil rights trainings that were 

conducted during FY 2014.

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

the number of complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were 41 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2014, as compared to 423 formal complaints filed in FY 2013.

APHIS noted that numbers for FY 2014 remain on par with those indicated for FY 

2013 and no definitive reason can be identified why they decreased.

 3 The agency originally reported 41 formal complaints were filed in FY 2013; however, the Department identified one additional 

complaint filed at the end of the fiscal year, thereby, raising the actual number to 42.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2013 2014

Graph 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of 

Discrimination

With an EEOC Administrative

Hearing

Without an EEOC

Administrative Hearing
11

3. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) reported a decrease by 14 in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were nine formal complaints filed in 

FY 2014, as compared to 23 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. ARS attributes this

decrease to on-line and face to face training, and updated EEO policies to include 

sexual harassment and anti-harassment.

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

reported an increase by 14 in the number of complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, 

there were 69 formal complaints filed in FY 2014, as compared to 57 formal complaints 

filed in FY 2013. A conflict case occurs when an EEO complaint involving facts 

and/or allegations poses an actual, perceived or potential conflict between a responsible 

management official or complainant’s position or personal interest, and USDA’s 

responsibility to administer a fair, impartial investigative process and resolution of 

complaints.

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

complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were two formal complaints filed in 

FY 2014, as compared to three formal complaints filed in FY 2013. ERS attributes the 

decrease directly to the early intervention of the Office of Civil Rights and more 

importantly managers at ERS. Through training, managers have been taught that the 

vast majority of EEO complaints are avoidable if they take time to listen to employee’s

concerns and engage with their employees by conducting a daily walk through of the 

workplace.

6. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) reported no increase or decrease in the number 

of complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were five formal complaints filed in 

FY 2014, as compared to five formal complaints filed in FY 2013. FAS attribute the 

static level of complaints to the increased marketing of ADR resources and FAS 

employees increased participation in ADR and mediation services. 

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

complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were 10 formal complaints filed in FY 

2014, as compared to 13 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. FNS attributes this 

decrease to FNS going through a substantial reorganization and restructuring. 

8. The Forest Service (FS) reported a decrease in the number of complaints filed by 30 in 

FY 2014. Specifically, there were 150 formal complaints filed in FY 2014, compared 

to 180 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. FS attributes the decrease to new operating 

roles and positions being filled to address workload needs. 

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

EEO complaints filed FY 2014. Specifically, there were 15 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2014, compared to 22 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. FSA attributes this 

decrease to the Agency’s efforts to ensure participation in mandatory Civil Rights 

Training, as well as, ensuring that FSA employees receive EEO Policy Letters, EEO 

Notices, and other EEO publications.
12

10. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reported an increase by 14 in the 

number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were 60

complaints filed in FY 2014, as compared to 46 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. 

FSIS attributes this increase to employees failing to utilize appropriate forums such as 

the negotiated grievance process; unannounced or unexplained changes in policies or 

practices; a lack of information or misunderstanding on the part of one or more parties; 

interpersonal conflict; and perceptions of inequitable treatment, bias, or stereotyping.

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

increase by six in the number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, 

there were nine formal complaints filed in FY 2014, as compared to three formal 

complaints filed in FY 2013. GIPSA attributes this increase to an allegation of 

workplace harassment (non-sexual) and bullying.

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

the number complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there was one formal complaint 

filed in FY 2014 and in FY 2013. NASS attributes its low filings to its proactiveness in 

resolving complaints at the earliest stage.

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

reported a decrease by eleven in the number of formal complaints filed FY 2014. 

Specifically, there were 17 formal complaints filed in FY 2014, as compared to 28

formal complaints filed in FY 2013. The NFC-OCFO attributed this decrease to the 

counseling of all employees and working with the union president and his members to 

resolve matters at the lowest levels.

14. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) reported an increase of two in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were three formal 

complaint filed in FY 2014, as compared to one in FY 2013. NIFA attributes the 

increase in complaints to the renaming and restructuring of the Agency, reassignment 

of employees, and other administrative or policy changes.

15. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reported a decrease by one in the 

number of formal complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were 42 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2014, compared to 43 formal complaints filed in FY 2013. 

NRCS attributes decrease in complaints to maximizing early resolution in the informal 

stage.

16. The Rural Development (RD) reported a decrease by 21 in the number of formal 

complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were 28 formal complaints filed in FY 

2014, compared to 49 formal complaints in FY 2013. RD attributes the decrease to 

multiple factors, to include an emphasis on cultural transformation, improved 

communication among staff, and increased focus on EEO.

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

formal complaints filed in FY 2014. Specifically, there were five complaints filed in 

FY 2014, compared to four formal complaints filed in FY 2013. RMA attributes the 

increase in complaints to a lack of information and understanding of AntiDiscrimination laws and workplace disputes.
13

(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: 

• increasing EEO training by the Agency’s Civil Rights Program improves awareness of 

prohibited discriminatory practices, and thus, reduces the number of pre-complaints that 

progress to the formal complaints stage;

• increasing ADR awareness as set forth in the Strategic Plan was effective in reducing the 

number of complaints filed;

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

be involved in training;

• remaining proactive in our attempts to identify and address EEO (and non-EEO) 

employment related issues and concerns; and, continuing to utilize ADR/mediation early 

in the process there is a greater likelihood for the early resolution of complaints;

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

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

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

• agency actions affecting employees, result in an influx of complaints;

• increasing the number of civil rights trainings may have contributed to the decrease in the 

number of formal complaints filed;

• increasing vacancy rates together with directed reassignments because of a reorganization 

caused a lot of angst;

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

ensure program success and compliance;

• utilizing extensive employee surveys as a part of its employment compliance reviews is 

useful in gaining feedback in identifying common employee concerns; 

• recognizing that EEO and civil rights training is important so that the workforce 

understands how to recognize, evaluate, and deal with delicate situations;

• quarterly Cultural Transformation Listening Sessions allows employees to ask questions 

and make suggestions on any topic;

• improving final agency decision backlog enhanced the average length of time; and

• continuing to build the capacity to enforce the EEO regulations and Executive Orders 

ensure that workplaces are free of inequity. 
14

(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:

• conducting Resolving Official training for senior-level management in Grades 14 and 

above. This training greatly increased the number of complaints that were resolved in not 

only at the informal stage but also at the formal stage;

• continuing to heighten awareness throughout the Agency by incorporating conflict 

management and harassment training within the Civil Rights/EEO and ADR training 

modules;

• continuing to conduct the annual Administrator’s Civil Rights Training for all employees 

locally and in our field offices;

• continuing to decrease its formal complaints by informing all managers, supervisors, and 

employees about early resolution and conflict prevention resources;

• continuing developing and implementing a Conflict Prevention Program which helped to 

expand the principals of ADR;

• increasing EEO training through the Agency’s Civil Rights Program;

• creating the Action-Engagement Strategy to respond to trends and concerns raised in the 

Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey;

• implementing new national standards for procedures to ensure consistent, rapid response 

to--and accountability for--reports of sexual harassment and assault;

• creating new Misconduct Investigation Unit to ensure that complaints of inappropriate 

behavior are addressed quickly, and that corrective actions are taken in a timely way;

• evaluating civil rights and equal employment opportunity policies, procedures and 

practices through Internal compliance reviews;

• continuing to utilize its in-house mediators to conduct proactive non-EEO related ADR 

activities to address workplace disputes before they evolve into complaints;

• executing of telephonic mediation and conducting ADR training through video 

conferencing, facilitation, and settlement conferences;

• instituting diverse panels to make a recommendation based on rankings to selecting 

officials;

• continuing to hold management and employees accountable for ensuring the agency has a 

zero tolerance policy for any form of discrimination and/or retaliation within the 

workplace;
15

• continuing to reaffirm and disseminate the Agency’s EEO policy in writing to all 

supervisory personnel to ensure their understanding, cooperation, and compliance;

• continuing to 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 

training offerings; and 

• conducting Compliance Reviews within the Agency to determine specific EEO trends 

and potential civil rights violations.
16

PART II

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment 

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2014
17

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2014

Introduction

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

Treasury’s Judgment Fund for monies associated with FY 2014 judgments, awards, or 

settlements under the statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2014 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund For FY 2014 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney’s Fees

1 $113,900.00 $0

2 $79,950.00 $20,000.00

3 $76,050.00 $0

4 $49,000.00 $0

5 $30,000.00 $0

Total $348,900.00 $20,000.00

Summary

In FY 2014, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund $348,900, of which $20,000 was identified as 

payment of attorney’s fees. No monies were paid for judgments or awards.
18

PART III

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2013–14
19

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2013–2014

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 2013 FY 2014

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

REMOVAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 DAY OR

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

14 DAY OR 

LESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

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 5 0 7 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 1

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 5 0 7 0 0 12 2 1 0 0 0 3

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 2013 FY 2014 TOTAL

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE 4 0 4

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE CLOSED 0 0 0

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER DISCIPLINE TAKEN 0 0 0

Disciplinary Policy

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

USDA. 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. OASCR and the OHRM staff work in close cooperation, using proven tracking and 

reporting systems, to monitor compliance activities and readily identify emerging trends.
20

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

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

and policies. The 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.

USDA Agencies and Staff Offices encourage initiatives to improve the civil rights 

environment. Four agencies of note are RMA, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services 

(FNCS); NRCS, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). Their successes are 

described in the subsequent paragraphs:

RMA continues to issue and update policies regarding Reprisal and Retaliation, Civil Rights, 

Anti-Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Accountability and Procedures annually. In May 2014, 

RMA developed and issued a poster entitled “RMA — EEO Is the Law,” which was sent to all 

field and headquarter offices. This poster includes information on establishing a basis for filing a 

complaint and identifies the contact information to initiate EEO counseling.

Building on the realignment of their Civil Rights Division, FNCS incorporated a civil rights 

performance element into employees’ performance plans. The FNCS Civil Rights Division also 

began to provide civil rights training. FNCS now requires that new employees reporting at the 

headquarters office visit the EEO Counselor’s office as part of their new employee orientation.

NRCS recently increased its Employee and Labor Relations staff and is working directly with 

supervisors and State Human Resources (HR) staff to help produce decisions and actions that are 

based on sound guidance, including documentary evidence and thorough review of the facts. NRCS 

continues to train and educate their employees on the prohibition of making decisions based on 

protected categories and prohibited reasons. NRCS has also begun providing informal and formal 

training to supervisors on a continuous basis in order to keep them informed on regulations, agency 

policies and procedures, and advising them on the importance of ensuring a consistent and fair 

approach to all employment decisions.

In addition to sending an annual reminder regarding the policy on EEO to all employees, 

OCFO has conducted the following:

Introduction to Civil Rights and Conflict Management (July 15, 2014);,

EEO Survival Skills for Supervisors (July 24, 2014),;

Micro-inequities “Unconscious Bias Training” (August 20, 2014),;

EEO Survival Skills for Employees (Sept 18, 2014),;

USDA mandatory Civil Rights training for employees “Disabilities and

Reasonable Accommodations” (August 7, 2014 - September 30, 2014),;

Annual Cultural Diversity Celebration (August 5, 2014 - August 6, 2014),;and

Hispanic Heritage Month observance “Latino Americans” (September 30, 2014).
21

PART IV

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for FY 2014
22

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

FY 2014, and arising under the anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2014

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2014

Pending District Court Cases 39

Pending Appellate Court Cases 6

New Cases Filed in District Court 12

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 2014 0 0 2 3* 15**

Still Pending at End of FY 2014 1 0 1 1* 17***

* Age also alleged in 1 case

** Age also alleged in 3 cases

** Age and Disability also alleged in 2 cases

** Disability also alleged in 2 cases

*** Age also alleged in 2 cases

*** Age and Disability also alleged in 4 cases

Table 13

Disposition of Cases

(Including Dismissals)

Disposition of Cases

(Including Dismissals)

29 U.S.C. 

§206(d)

29 U.S.C. 

§631

29 U.S.C. 

§633a

29 U.S.C. 

§791

42 U.S.C. 

§2000e-16

Settlements 0 0 1 1 4^

Withdrawals 0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment for 

Complainant

0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment for Agency 0 0 1 4^^ 11#

^ Age also alleged in 1 case

^ Disability also alleged in 1 case

^ Age and Disability also alleged in 1 case

^^ Age also alleged in 1 case

# Age also alleged in 2 cases

# Disability also alleged in 1 case

# Age and Disability also alleged in 1 case
A-1

Appendix A
A-2

Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted

Pursuant to the No Fear Act

USDA

FY 2014 for period ending September 30, 2014

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Complaints Filed 473 525 536 544 481

Number of Complainants 461 509 519 512 465

Repeat Filers 7 12 12 26 17

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.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Race 166 221 215 213 243

Color 23 32 56 64 73

Religion 16 21 23 19 19

Reprisal 181 242 281 311 270

Sex 159 207 228 213 207

PDA 0 0 0 2 3

National Origin 49 57 61 59 74

Equal Pay Act 1 4 3 8 4

Age 157 191 177 201 183

Disability 97 104 141 150 130

Genetics 0 0 2 3 2

Non-EEO 44 42 55 42 55
A-3

Complaints by Issue Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

Note: Complaints can be filed 

alleging multiple bases. The sum of 

the bases may not equal total 

complaints filed.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Appointment/Hire 23 38 23 34 25

Assignment of Duties 51 62 100 119 117

Awards 11 20 22 24 9

Conversion to Full-time 1 0 1 2 1

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 5 3 7 3 5

Reprimand 13 24 42 28 23

Suspension 26 19 40 30 27

Removal 6 5 10 13 7

Other 8 10 28 17 31

Duty Hours 5 6 15 11 11

Evaluation Appraisal 59 64 60 85 73

Examination/Test 1 1 4 1 1

Harassment

Non-Sexual 177 224 303 275 264

Sexual 13 23 16 12 20

Medical Examination 1 0 4 2 4

Pay (Including Overtime) 10 13 14 29 39

Promotion/Non-Selection 103 135 118 123 111

Reassignment

Denied 5 8 13 19 27
A-4

Directed 20 20 33 33 43

Reasonable Accommodation 32 36 58 63 48

Reinstatement 2 1 2 0 0

Retirement 1 6 2 2 1

Termination 34 39 35 40 34

Terms/Conditions of Employment 38 52 85 176 146

Time and Attendance 22 28 58 50 32

Training 22 27 49 41 33

Other 64 60 61 26 23

Processing Time

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Complaints pending during fiscal year

Average number of days in 

investigation 314.71 295.88 248.60 242.05 212.08

Average number of days in final 

action 626.85 360.54 214.93 165.94 169.31

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 281.79 282.63 235.23 247.31 217.23

Average number of days in final 

action 189.78 182.83 133.49 119.33 199.47

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was not requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 335.43 304.05 273.79 233.21 204.07

Average number of days in final 

action 817.92 416.86 255.96 187.19 134.58
A-5

Complaints Dismissed by Agency

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Complaints Dismissed by Agency 39 56 45 67 64

Average days pending prior to dismissal 257 119 145 83 188

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 24 33 31 29 32

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 27 32 17 19 24

Without Hearing 22 81 29 91 16 94 15 79 15 63

With Hearing 5 19 3 9 1 6 4 21 9 38

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.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 27 32 27 32 24

Race 7 26 2 6 6 35 2 11 6 25

Color 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 11 1 4

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8

Reprisal 12 44 11 34 6 35 6 32 7 29

Sex 5 19 5 16 2 12 5 26 2 8
A-6

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Origin 1 4 0 0 1 6 3 16 5 21

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

Age 9 33 12 38 4 24 6 32 2 8

Disability 5 19 10 31 6 35 6 32 8 33

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-EEO 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 16 2 8

Findings After Hearing 5 3 1 4 9

Race 2 40 0 0 0 0 2 50 4 44

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 1 11

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22

Reprisal 3 60 2 67 1 10

0 0 0 4 44

Sex 2 40 0 0 0 0 1 25 2 22

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Age 3 60 0 0 0 0 3 75 1 11

Disability 1 20 1 33 0 0 1 25 0 0

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings Without Hearing 17 27 16 15 15

Race 1 6 2 7 6 38 0 0 2 13

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprisal 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 40 3 20
A-7

Sex 7 44 5 22 5 31 4 27 0 0

PDA 2 13 4 17 2 13 0 0 0 0

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

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

Age 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20 1 7

Disability 5 31 11 48 4 25 5 33 8 53

Genetics 3 19 8 35 6 38 0 0 0 0

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

Findings of Discrimination Rendered by 

Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 27 32 17 19 24

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

Assignment of Duties 2 7 4 13 2 12 0 0 3 13

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

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 1 4

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 1 4 2 6 0 0 2 11 1 4

Removal 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4

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

Evaluation Appraisal 0 0 3 9 3 18 0 0 1 4

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

Harassment
A-8

Non-Sexual 12 44 16 50 8 47 5 26 8 33

Sexual 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 5 0 0

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

Pay (Including Overtime) 0 0 1 3 1 6 0 0 1 4

Promotion/Non-Selection 4 15 7 22 1 6 4 21 5 21

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 0

Directed 1 4 6 19 1 6 1 5 2 8

Reasonable Accommodation 3 11 4 13 4 24 3 16 5 21

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 1 4 2 6 1 6 3 16 6 25

Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 11 3 13

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

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Other - User Defined 3 11 0 0 1 6 2 11 1 4

Findings After Hearing 5 3 2 4 9

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

Assignment of Duties 0 0 2 67 0 0 0 0 2 22

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-9

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Evaluation Appraisal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11

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

Harassment

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

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 2 40 0 0 0 0 1 25 4 44

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22

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

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0

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

Time and Attendance 0 0 0 0 1 10

0 0 0 0 0

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings Without Hearing 22 29 16 15 15

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

Assignment of Duties 2 9 2 7 2 13 0 0 1 7
A-10

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7

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 1 7

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 1 5 2 7 0 0 2 13 1 7

Removal 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 7

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

Evaluation Appraisal 0 0 3 10 3 19 0 0 0 0

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

Harassment

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

Sexual 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 7 0 0

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

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

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

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 2 7 1 6 0 0 0 0

Directed 1 5 6 21 1 6 1 7 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation 3 14 4 14 4 25 2 13 5 33

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 1 5 2 7 1 6 2 13 6 40

Terms/Conditions of Employment 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 13 3 20

Time and Attendance 1 5 3 10 2 13 2 13 0 0
A-11

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7

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

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total complaints from previous 

Fiscal Years 939 837 884 956 938

Total Complainants 696 706 797 885 482

Number complaints pending

Investigation 81 63 44 28 35

ROI issued, pending 

Complainant’s action 7 12 5 1 3

Hearing 228 290 348 399 520

Final Agency Action 88 80 75 68 50

Appeal with EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 28 30 10 11 61

Complaint Investigations

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required 

Time Frames

176 161 117 85 190