No FEAR Act

ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2015

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 2015, 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 2014 - 2015

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 2015

PART III: USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 18

for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2015

PART IV: USDA Federal Court Litigation 20

Statistics for Fiscal Year 2015

Appendix A-1
i

Executive Summary

Annual Reporting Requirements

This is the USDA’s eleventh 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) 2015. 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 an increase of 28 EEO complaints 

filed from FY 2014 to FY 2015, ending the EEO inventory at the end of FY 2015 with 878 

complaints. The number of filers increased by 31 from FY 2014 to FY 2015. Also, there was a 

decrease in the number of findings of discrimination from FY 2014 to FY 2015. Data illustrating 

this trend can be 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 2015, there were 38

disciplinary actions taken against employees as compared to three disciplinary actions taken 

against employees in FY 2014. This increase in disciplinary actions between FY 2014 and FY 

2015 indicates a continued 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 2015, USDA implemented several initiatives to further assist in efforts 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 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 4300-010, “Civil Rights Accountability Policy and Procedures.” 

The 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 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.

• 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 an analysis and 

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

potentially adversely impact USDA employment, programs, and activities. 

• OASCR continued the review and revision of four civil rights Departmental Regulations, 

Compliance DR for EEO, Compliance DR for Conducted Programs, Compliance 

programs, Compliance DR for Assisted programs and DR-4300-04 CRIA’s to ensure 

consistency with current civil rights laws, regulations and USDA policy.

• USDA revised its DR 4120-001, “Annual Departmental Civil Rights Training.” The 

regulation establishes the training policy for USDA civil rights programs and EEO. It 

also establishes oversight and accountability responsibilities for Federal employees and 

Agencies delivering federally assisted and federally conducted programs for the USDA. 

• USDA amended DR 4300-003, “Equal Opportunity Public Notification.” This regulation 

established the policy for ensuring positive, 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. 
iv

• OASCR helped to further ensure the efficient and successful administration of the 

Department’s EEO complaint processes by conducting several Partnership Meetings. 

Topics included: upcoming changes to the management directive (January 2015); 

successful ADR sessions (June 2015); and updates on recent EEO Case Law (August 

2015). Further, OASCR evaluated the quality and timely submission of every EEO 

Counselor’s Report prepared by a sub-agency or mission area civil rights office. This 

allows OASCR to provide constructive feedback to the sub-agencies on the quality and 

timely submission of their counselor’s reports developed during the informal stage of the 

process. In FY 2016, OASCR will be adding new criteria to the quality requirement in an 

effort to improve the reports and in turn assist the efficiency of the formal complaints 

process, which heavily depend on the contents of these reports.

• OASCR conducted one program compliance review and three employment compliance 

reviews in FY 2015 to ensure USDA is in compliance with civil rights laws, regulations, 

policies and procedures. With each conducted compliance review, agencies were

provided with specific corrective actions. Additionally, OASCR began Technical 

Assistance Compliance Reviews (TACR), a collaborative Agency initiative. In FY 2015, 

OASCR conducted five TACRs, resulting in consistency and uniformity throughout 

USDA.

• In FY 2015, OASCR monitored Final Agency Decisions (FAD) as it relates to programs 

to ensure compliance to the respective Order of Relief terms. Once completed, OASCR 

worked with each Agency to recommend any training and/or corrective action based on 

the findings of each compliance review. 

• OASCR continued processing all USDA Federal sector EEO investigations, which were 

previously the responsibility of each individual USDA Agency. The cost of 

investigations have decrease by less than 50%, in comparison to when the Agencies

previously conducted investigations. OASCR exceeded the number of closed 

investigations in comparison to previous years. In FY 2015, 426 investigations were 

closed, in comparison to 396 investigations closed in FY 2014 and 140 investigations 

closed in FY 2013.

• OASCR maintained a full service Customer Service Unit (CSU) for Employment and 

Program 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, Infants, and Children, school lunches, and housing. 

Over 8000 phone calls were handled in FY 2015. 

• OASCR provided USDA employees with training on conflict management techniques 

and coping strategies to utilize during conflict encounters. During FY 2015, OASCR 

coordinated training workshops 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 coworkers and management. These trainings have resulted in managers requesting 

additional training sessions. 

00
v

• OASCR partnered with several agencies and provided field-based training on conflict 

management, team building, and leadership training for USDA personnel in Nevada, 

Missouri, Louisiana, and Florida. OASCR has broadened its training capability to meet 

the needs of workplace concerns. 

• OASCR trained USDA employees on civil rights statutes, including but not limited to

current legal interpretations and case law principals. Training was delivered throughout 

the Department to help employees understand the application of equal opportunity, civil 

rights, and diversity and inclusion 

• OASCR conducted 40 training sessions, reaching 1,356 employees, at 12 USDA agencies 

and offices. Those sessions included two sessions specifically designed for political 

appointees. In addition, OASCR conducted training sessions at two national conferences

(Out and Equal and the Federal Asian Pacific American Council). The majority of FY 

2015 training sessions addressed Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender 

Nondiscrimination in the Federal Workplace. This was in response to recent decisions by 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which expanded Title VII’s 

definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Other 

training topics addressed in FY 2015 included: Unconscious Biases, Generational/

Cultural Differences, Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace, and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution. In addition, OASCR provides No FEAR Act and No Fear Act 

Refresher Training to USDA employees.
6

PART I

USDA Formal EEO Complaints

for

Fiscal Years 2014 – 2015
7

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 2014 and 2015. 

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 2015, the number of complaints filed was 509; whereas, in FY 2014, the number of 

complaints filed was 481. This represents a six (6) percent increase in complaints filed. 

Additionally, the number of filers in FY 2015was 496; whereas, in FY 2014, the number of filers 

was 465. This represents an increase of 31 filers. 

Table 1

Number of Formal EEO Complaints and Number of Filers at USDA

Fiscal Years Number of Complaints

Filed

Number of Filers

2014 481 465

2015 509 496

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers at USDA

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

2014 2015

Graph 1

Formal EEO Complaints and Filers

at USDA

Number of Complaints Filed

Number of Filers
8

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 2014 and 2015. 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 2015 are: 

(1) retaliation; (2) sex; (3) race; and (4) age. In FY 2014, the four most frequently cited bases 

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

which shows the trend over the two-year reporting period.

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*

2014 243 73 19 207 74 130 183 270 64

2015 206 71 24 215 69 165 181 296 64

*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.
9

Graph 2

Most Frequently Cited Bases 

 

Complaints Alleging Retaliation

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

2015. This is true for both FYs 2015 and 2014. The basis of “Retaliation” was cited in 296 

formal EEO complaints in FY 2015, compared to 270 complaints in FY 2014, a 10 percent (26 

complaints) increase over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Sex Discrimination

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

2015. The basis of “Sex” was cited in 215 formal EEO complaints in FY 2015, compared to 207 

complaints in FY 2014, a four percent increase (eight complaints) over a two-year period. 

Complaints Alleging Race Discrimination 

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

2015. The basis of “Sex” was cited in 206 formal EEO complaints in FY 2015, compared to 243 

complaints in FY 2014, a 15 percent decrease (37 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 

2015. The basis of “Age” was cited in 181 formal EEO complaints in FY 2015, compared to 183 

complaints in FY 2014, a one percent (two complaints) decrease over a two-year period. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2014 2015

Most Frequently Cited EEO Bases

Race

Sex

Age

Retaliation
10

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 2014 and 2015. 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 2015 were: (1) Harassment; (2) Terms/

Condition of Employment; and (3) Promotion\Non-selection. Graph 3 shows the trends for these 

three issues over the two-year reporting period.

“Harassment” was the most frequently cited issue in formal EEO cases in FY 2015, with 319 

filings. In contrast, “Harassment” had 284 filings in FY 2014, indicating a 12 percent increase 

(35 complaints) from FY 2014 to FY 2015.

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

cases in FY 2015, with 163 filings. In contrast, “Terms/Condition of Employment” had 146 

filings in FY 2014, indicating a 12 percent increase (17 complaints) from FY 2014 to FY 2015.

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

2015, with 162 filings. In contrast, “Promotion\Non-selection” had 111 filings in FY 2014, 

indicating a 46 percent increase (51 complaints) from FY 2014 to FY 2015. 

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

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

2015 35 115 19 0 128 23 90 1 65 49 78 40 8 42 162 319 1 1 163 83 28
11

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 2014 and 2015. The formal EEO complaint process has 

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

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

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

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

Summary of Data

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

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

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

requirement.

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

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

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

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

Agency Action with a hearing, and in dismissals.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2014 2015

EEO Issues in Formal EEO Complaints

Promotion\Non-selection

Terms/Condition of

Employment

Harassment
12

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

2014 212 199 135 188

2015 199 96 113 89

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 2014 and 2015, 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

2014 35 520 50 61

2015 33 448 41 27

0

50

100

150

200

250

2014 2015

Axis Title

Graph 4 - Average Number of Days for 

Completion of Each EEO Stage

Investigation

Final Agency Action with EEOC

Hearing

Final Agency Action without

EEOC Hearing

Dismissals
13

Graph 5

Pending EEO Formal Complaints by Stage

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

Table 6 and Graph 6 show an 83 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

2014 190

2015 32

61

27 35 33 50 41

520

448

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2014 2015

Appeal Investigation Final Agency Action Hearing
14

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 in FY 2015 from FY 2014, and the number of findings 

without an EEOC Administrative Hearing decreased by six in FY 2015 from FY 2014.

Table 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Year With an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

Without an EEOC 

Administrative Hearing

2014 9 15

2015 5 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2014 2015

Graph 6

Pending Complaints Exceeding 

180-Day Investigation Requirement

Pending Complaints

Exceeding the 180-day

Investigation Requirement
15

Graph 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of Discrimination

Section F-Analysis, Experience, and Actions

Introduction

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

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

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

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

(1) Causal Analysis

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

EEO complaints. Examples are as follows:

• The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reported no increase or decrease in the 

number of complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were nine formal complaints 

filed in FY 2015, as compared to nine formal complaints filed in FY 2014. AMS 

attributes the static level of complaints to training sessions conducted on the complaint 

process and harassment during FY 2015.

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported an increase by 24 in 

the number of complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were 65 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2015, as compared to 41 formal complaints filed in FY 2014.

APHIS noted that numbers for FY 2015 can be attributed to the Agency going through a 

reorganization.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2014 2015

Graph 7

Final Agency Actions with a Finding of 

Discrimination

With an EEOC Administrative

Hearing

Without an EEOC

Administrative Hearing
16

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

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

2015, as compared to nine formal complaints filed in FY 2014. ARS attributes this to the 

increase in on-line and face-to-face training, and updated EEO policies to include sexual 

harassment and anti-harassment.

• The Corporate Services Division (CSD) which processes conflict or staff office cases1

reported a decrease by 15 in the number of complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, 

there were 54 formal complaints filed in FY 2015, as compared to 69 formal complaints 

filed in FY 2014. 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.

• The Economic Research Service (ERS) reported no increase or decrease in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were two formal complaints filed in FY 

2015, as compared to two formal complaints filed in FY 2014. ERS attributes the static 

level of complaints 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.

• The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) reported a decrease in the number of complaints 

filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were four formal complaints filed in FY 2015, as 

compared to five formal complaints filed in FY 2014. FAS attributes the decrease of 

complaints to continued dialogue with managers and supervisors with regards to their 

roles and responsibilities when traversing the EEO complaint process. 

• The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported no increase or decrease in the number of 

complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were 10 formal complaints filed in FY 

2015, as compared to 10 formal complaints filed in FY 2014. FNS attributes the static 

level of complaints to the continued effort to promote a respect for diversity and provide 

EEO training to newly-hired employees. 

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

in FY 2015. Specifically, there were 153 formal complaints filed in FY 2015, compared 

to 150 formal complaints filed in FY 2014. 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.

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

perceived 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.
17

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

EEO complaints filed FY 2015. Specifically, there were 22 formal complaints filed in 

FY 2015, compared to 15 formal complaints filed in FY 2014. FSA attributes this 

increase to the percentage of personnel who failed or could not participate in training 

coupled with a lack of funding to support training in the field.

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

number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were 62 

complaints filed in FY 2015, as compared to 60 formal complaints filed in FY 2014. 

FSIS attributes this increase to the implementation of a New Poultry Slaughter System 

(NPIS). Since FY 2013, the Agency hired temporary food inspectors until 

implementation of the NPIS was complete. During FY 2015, a number of those 

temporary appointments expired and as a result, employees were terminated. Several of 

the employees who were terminated at the expiration of their temporary appointments 

filed EEO complaints, which resulted in an increase in complaints relating to disciplinary 

actions.

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

increase by five in the number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, 

there were 14 formal complaints filed in FY 2015, as compared to nine formal complaints

filed in FY 2014. GIPSA attributes this increase to generating more opportunities to 

gather and act upon employees concerns and ideas.

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

number of formal EEO complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were two formal 

complaints filed in FY 2015 and one formal complaint filed in FY 2014. NASS attributes 

its low filings to training managers, supervisors and employees annually on the EEO 

Complaint process.

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

reported an increase by 12 in the number of formal complaints filed FY 2015. 

Specifically, there were 29 formal complaints filed in FY 2015, as compared to 17 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2014. The NFC-OCFO attributes the increase in complaints to the 

loss of the Director of Strategic Planning that created avenues of redress outside of the 

EEO office.

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

number of complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were no formal complaints

filed in FY 2015, as compared to three in FY 2014. NIFA attributes the reduction in 

complaints to the consistent number of civil rights/diversity trainings provided and an 

increase of staff participation in these trainings.

• The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reported a decrease by 10 in the 

number of formal complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were 32 formal 

complaints filed in FY 2015, compared to 42 formal complaints filed in FY 2014. NRCS 

attributes the decrease in complaints to the ongoing effort to providing training and 

marketing the use of ADR.
18

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

complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were 30 formal complaints filed in FY 

2015, compared to 28 formal complaints in FY 2014. RD attributes the increase of 

complaints to an emphasis on cultural transformation, improved communication among 

staff, and an increased focus on equal opportunity.

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

formal complaints filed in FY 2015. Specifically, there were four complaints filed in FY 

2015, compared to five formal complaints filed in FY 2014. RMA attributes the decrease 

in complaints to continual cultural transformation efforts and ongoing training and 

education on the EEO processes.

(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: 

• utilizing an efficient complaint management program is essential to resolving 

complaints;

• continuing to have EEO Counselors/Mediators interact with and actively engage 

managers and supervisors in all EEO complaint processing stages helps to address and 

resolve employment concerns at the earliest stage possible;

• some problems stem from miscommunication, lack of communication, cultural and 

generational perceptions;

• continuing the focus on addressing workplace issues by distributing quarterly data trends 

to all employees helps leaders to monitor their employee relations cases and focus 

attention on areas of improvement, and employees to be aware of Agency efforts to hold 

employees accountable for inappropriate behavior and misconduct;

• constant training and refresher courses benefits the agency as a whole;

• there is a continuous need to educate management and employees on EEO procedures;

• the availability of ADR raises awareness of prohibited discrimination and reduces the 

frequency of complaint filings;

• continuing its engagement at all levels to ensure the specific cultural transformation 

requirements are met and that there truly is a shift within the Agency to create a culture 

of inclusion;

• reaching resolutions early in the EEO process is integral to the success of its CivilRights 

Program, and as such demonstrates support of the Agency’s Conflict Management 

Prevention Program;

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

effective mediation processes within the state and county offices;
19

• utilizing the Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey and its Title VII compliance review 

surveys enables the agency to gain useful information relating to employee concerns;

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

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

rights violations occurs; 

• continuing to provide sufficient human, financial and organizational resources helps to 

support an effective civil rights program;

• enforcing management transparency and early dispute resolution techniques can 

assist in resolving and decreasing complaint activity; 

• complying with legislation, policies, and civil rights training creates an environment 

where employees look forward to coming to work each day;

• implementing a proactive process was instrumental in resolving different types of 

conflicts; 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:

• increasing training efforts to improve awareness of prohibited discriminatory practices 

which cause a reduction in the number of complaints;

• encouraging the use of EEO Alternative Dispute Resolution to help resolve complaints 

and workplace issues at the earliest stage possible;

• working with Human Resources (HR) to develop and present a Civil Rights module that is 

mandatory to all new APHIS managers and supervisors;

• conducting the annual Administrator’s Civil Rights Training, as well as specialized 

training on EEO-related topics for all APHIS employees locally and in our field offices 

throughout the fiscal year;

• requiring that all policy statements be posted in all work areas visible to employees and 

contractors;

• requiring all new employees to complete the No FEAR Comprehensive training and No 

FEAR Refresher training;

• providing Reasonable Accommodation training on an ongoing basis for managers, 

supervisors and employees;
20

• ensuring prompt and impartial complaint processing and holding managers, supervisors 

and employees accountable for a workplace that is free from discrimination;

• creating and distributing a brochure entitled, “EEO Complaint Process,” describing 

employee rights and responsibilities under EEO laws;

• increasing staff to demonstrate commitment to workplace fairness, and an objective and 

reliable EEO process to address concerns;

• training and certifying multiple Agency civil rights employees to serve as mediators, as 

well as, conducted EEO Counselors Refresher training to all Agency EEO Counselors;

• responding to trends and concerns raised in the Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey;

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

employment opportunity policies, procedures and practices;

• utilizing in-house mediators to conduct non-EEO ADR activities to address workplace 

disputes before they evolved into complaints;

• holding quarterly “Real Talk” sessions determine what areas or issues exists that hinder 

or impede the work environment;

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

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

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

• conducting compliance reviews within the Agency to determine specific EEO trends and 

potential civil rights violations.
21

PART II

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment 

Fund for 

Fiscal Year 2015
22

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for Fiscal Year 2015

Introduction

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

Treasury’s Judgment Fund for monies associated with FY 2015 judgments, awards, or 

settlements under the statutes addressed in the No FEAR Act. 

Table 8

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund for FY 2015 Settlements

USDA Reimbursement to Judgment Fund For FY 2015 Settlements

Case Total Amount Attorney’s Fees

1 $250,000 $100,000

2 $130,000 $0

3 $120,000 $0

4 $50,000 $0

5 $20,000 $70,000

6 $16,000 $0

7 $10,000 $0

Total $596,000 $170,000

Summary

In FY 2015, USDA reimbursed the Judgment Fund $596,000, of which $170,000 was identified 

as payment of attorney’s fees. No monies were paid for judgments or awards.
23

PART III

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports 

for Fiscal Years 2014 – 2015
24

USDA Disciplinary Actions and Reports for

Fiscal Years 2014–2015

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 2014 FY 2015

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

2 PPP WBP TOTAL

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

15 DAY OR

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

14 DAY OR 

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

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 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 11

TOTAL

DISCIPLINE 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 33 5 0 38

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

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

of Reprimand.

PART 2: Table 10 below illustrates the number of Office of Special Counsel 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 2014 FY 2015 TOTAL

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE 0 0 0

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER CASE CLOSED 0 0 0

OSC WHISTLEBLOWER DISCIPLINE TAKEN 0 0 0

 2 In FY 2015 there were five findings of discrimination; one of the five findings is currently 

pending a disciplinary action determination. As a result of the four findings, there was one 

suspension (Less than 14 days) and three Letters of Reprimand. However, the Office of Human 

Resources Management did not ultimately classify the actions as discrimination (for disciplinary 

purposes) and therefore, the four disciplinary actions are not represented in the chart under the 

Discrimination column but instead are reflected as part of the 33 disciplinary actions under the 

Harassment column.
25

PART IV

USDA Federal Court Litigation Statistics 

for FY 2015
26

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

FY 2015 and arising under the anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

Table 11

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2015

Federal Cases Pending in FY 2015

Pending District Court Cases 49

Pending Appellate Court Cases 4

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 2015 0 0 7 3 6

Still Pending at End of FY 2015 1 0 7 10 16

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 2 1 3

Withdrawals 0 0 0 0 1

Final Judgment for 

Complainant

0 0 0 0 0

Final Judgment for Agency 0 0 4 2 5

Cases disposed of during FY 2015

Four § 633a cases also had Title VII claims

One § 633a case also had § 791 claim

Four § 633a cases also had § 791 and Title VII claims

Cases Still Pending at End of FY 2015

One § 206(d) case also based upon § 633a and Title VII

Five § 633a cases also had Title VII claims

Three § 633a cases also had § 791 claims

Three § 633a cases also had § 791 and Title VII claims

One § 791 case also had § Title VII claims

Disposition of Cases (including dismissals)

Settlements 

Three § 633a cases also had Title VII claims

One § 791 cases also had Title VII claims

Final Judgment for Agency

One § 633a case also had Title VII claims

One § 633a case also had §791 claim

Three § 633a cases also had § 791 and Title VII claims
A-1

Appendix A
A-2

Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted

Pursuant to the No Fear Act

USDA

FY 2015 for period ending September 30, 2015

Complaint Activity

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Complaints Filed 525 536 544 481 509

Number of Complainants 509 519 512 465 496

Repeat Filers 12 12 26 17 14

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.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Race 221 215 213 243 206

Color 32 56 64 73 71

Religion 21 23 19 19 24

Reprisal 242 281 311 270 296

Sex 207 228 213 207 215

PDA 0 0 2 3 1

National Origin 57 61 59 74 69

Equal Pay Act 4 3 8 4 2

Age 191 177 201 183 181

Disability 104 141 150 130 165

Genetics 0 2 3 2 2

Non-EEO 42 55 42 55 59
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.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Appointment/Hire 38 23 34 25 35

Assignment of Duties 62 100 119 117 115

Awards 20 22 24 9 19

Conversion to Full-time 0 1 2 1 0

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 3 7 3 5 3

Reprimand 24 42 28 23 55

Suspension 19 40 30 27 49

Removal 5 10 13 7 10

Other 10 28 17 31 11

Duty Hours 6 15 11 11 23

Evaluation Appraisal 64 60 85 73 90

Examination/Test 1 4 1 1 1

Harassment

Non-Sexual 224 303 275 264 303

Sexual 23 16 12 20 16

Medical Examination 0 4 2 4 8

Pay (Including Overtime) 13 14 29 39 42

Promotion/Non-Selection 135 118 123 111 162

Reassignment

Denied 8 13 19 27 25
A-4

Directed 20 33 33 43 40

Reasonable Accommodation 36 58 63 48 83

Reinstatement 1 2 0 0 1

Retirement 6 2 2 1 1

Termination 39 35 40 34 40

Terms/Conditions of Employment 52 85 176 146 163

Time and Attendance 28 58 50 32 78

Training 27 49 41 33 49

Other 60 61 26 23 28

Processing Time

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Complaints pending during fiscal year

Average number of days in 

investigation 295.88 248.60 242.05 212.08 198.94

Average number of days in final 

action 360.54 214.93 165.94 169.31 106.7

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 282.63 235.23 247.31 217.23 203.6

Average number of days in final 

action 182.83 133.49 119.33 199.47 96.48

Complaint pending during fiscal year where hearing was not requested

Average number of days in 

investigation 304.05 273.79 233.21 204.07 192.73

Average number of days in final 

action 416.86 255.96 187.19 134.58 112.82
A-5

Complaints Dismissed by Agency

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total Complaints Dismissed by Agency 56 45 67 64 55

Average days pending prior to dismissal 119 145 83 188 89

Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants

Total Complaints Withdrawn by 

Complainants 33 31 29 32 29

Total Final Agency Actions Finding 

Discrimination

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 32 17 19 24 5

Without Hearing 3 9 1 6 4 21 15 63 0 0

With Hearing 3 9 1 6 4 21 9 38 5 10

0

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.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 32 27 32 24 5

Race 2 6 6 35 2 11 6 25 1 20

Color 0 0 0 0 2 11 1 4 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0

Reprisal 11 34 6 35 6 32 7 29 2 40

Sex 5 16 2 12 5 26 2 8 0 0
A-6

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Age 12 38 4 24 6 32 2 8 1 20

Disability 10 31 6 35 6 32 8 33 4 80

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings After Hearing 3 1 4 9 5

Race 0 0 0 0 2 50 4 44 1 20

Color 0 0 0 0 2 50 1 11 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0

Reprisal 2 67 1 10

0 0 0 4 44 2 40

Sex 0 0 0 0 1 25 2 22 0 0

PDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Age 0 0 0 0 3 75 1 11 1 20

Disability 1 33 0 0 1 25 0 0 4 80

Genetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings Without Hearing 27 16 15 15 0

Race 2 7 6 38 0 0 2 13 0 0

Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Sex 5 22 5 31 4 27 0 0 0 0

PDA 4 17 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Age 0 0 0 0 3 20 1 7 0 0

Disability 11 48 4 25 5 33 8 53 0 0

Genetics 8 35 6 38 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Findings of Discrimination Rendered by 

Issue

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# % # % # % # % # %

Total Number Findings 32 17 19 24 5

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

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

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

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20

Suspension 2 6 0 0 2 11 1 4 0 0

Removal 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0

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

Evaluation Appraisal 3 9 3 18 0 0 1 4 1 20

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

Harassment
A-8

Non-Sexual 16 50 8 47 5 26 8 33 2 40

Sexual 0 0 1 6 1 5 0 0 0 0

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

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

Promotion/Non-Selection 7 22 1 6 4 21 5 21 0 0

Reassignment

Denied 2 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 6 19 1 6 1 5 2 8 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation 4 13 4 24 3 16 5 21 2 40

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 2 6 1 6 3 16 6 25 0 0

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

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

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0

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

Findings After Hearing 3 2 4 9 5

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

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

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Disciplinary Action

Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20

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 1 11 1 20

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

Harassment

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

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 0 0 1 25 4 44 0 0

Reassignment

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0

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

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0

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

Time and Attendance 0 0 1 10

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 0 0 1 11 0 0

Findings Without Hearing 29 16 15 15 0

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

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

Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 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 1 7 0 0

Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suspension 2 7 0 0 2 13 1 7 0 0

Removal 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 7 0 0

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

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

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

Harassment

Non-Sexual 15 52 8 50 5 33 5 33 0 0

Sexual 0 0 1 6 1 7 0 0 0 0

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

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

Promotion/Non-Selection 7 24 1 6 3 20 1 7 0 0

Reassignment

Denied 2 7 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Directed 6 21 1 6 1 7 0 0 0 0

Reasonable Accommodation 4 14 4 25 2 13 5 33 0 0

Reinstatement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Retirement 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Termination 2 7 1 6 2 13 6 40 0 0

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

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

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0

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

Pending Complaints Filed in 

Previous Fiscal Years by Status

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total complaints from previous 

Fiscal Years 837 884 956 938 878

Total Complainants 706 797 885 482 482

Number complaints pending

Investigation 63 44 28 35 33

ROI issued, pending 

Complainant’s action 12 5 1 3 1

Hearing 290 348 399 520 448

Final Agency Action 80 75 68 50 41

Appeal with EEOC Office of 

Federal Operations 30 10 11 61 27

Complaint Investigations

Comparative Data

Previous Fiscal Year Data

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pending Complaints Where 

Investigations Exceed Required Time 

Frames

161 117 85 190 32