December 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................3

2. ANTI-HARASSMENT COORDINATION....................................................................................................5

2.1 Designation of the Center Anti-Harassment Coordinator..............................................................................5

2.2 Notice of Employees.....................................................................................................................................5

3. REPORTING AND RESPONDING TO HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS..........................................................7

3.1 Harassment Defined............................................................................................................................7

3.2 Employees’ Responsibilities...................................................................................................................8

3.3 Managers’ and Supervisors’ Responsibilities.............................................................................................8

3.4 The Role of Labor................................................................................................................................11

3.5 Addressing Confidentiality Concerns and Requests for Anonymity..................................................................11

3.6 Harassment Allegations Involving NASA Contractors..................................................................................12

4. FACT-FINDING....................................................................................................................................14

4.1 Determine Whether Fact-Finding is Necessary............................................................................................14

4.2 Authorizing the Fact-Finding..................................................................................................................15

4.3 Conducting Interviews...........................................................................................................................16

4.4 Concluding Fact-Finding........................................................................................................................17

4.5 Preparing the Fact-Finding Report...........................................................................................................18

4.6 Actions to be Taken upon Completion of the Fact-Finding............................................................................18

5. RECORDS MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................................22

5.1 Tracking of Harassment Allegations.........................................................................................................22

5.2 Maintenance of Records...........................................................................................................................22

APPENDIX A. ANTI-HARRASSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (NASA Form (NF) 1799).............................................23

APPENDIX B. CHECKLIST OF BASIC INFORMATION TO ALLEGED HARASSERS (NF 1794)............................ 24

APPENDIX C. FACT-FINDING AUTHORIZATION MEMO (NF 1796).................................................................. 25

APPENDIX D. FACT-FINDING REPORT TEMPLATE.................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX E. HARRASSMENT ACTIVITY REPORTING/TRACKING (NF 1798).................................................. 28

APPENDIX F. INTERVIEW TIPS................................................................................................................ 29

APPENDIX G. NOTICE OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NASA EMPLOYEES (NF 1795).........................31

APPENDIX H. QUESTIONS TO ASK PARTIES AND WITNESSES....................................................................32

APPENDIX I. SAMPLE NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.........................................................................................33

APPENDIX J. STATEMENT OF FACTS (NF 1797)..........................................................................................34

APPENDIX K. ANTI-HARASSMENT PROCESS FLOWCHART......................................................................... 35

NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 2 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

Preface to the 2nd Edition 

The first edition of the Anti-Harassment Program Implementation Guide was issued in March 2010, shortly after 

the inception of the Anti-Harassment Program (AHP). This second edition of the Guide includes all of the 

information contained in the first edition as well as encompassing a wealth of new material that reflects the 

lessons learned from the first six years of the AHP. As those who have played a role in the implementation of this 

policy know, there have been myriad new and emerging issues since the inception of the program. The 2nd Edition 

compiles the guidance issued by ODEO since the issuance of the 1st Edition in March 2010 and also provides 

new guidance on a host of topics that have not been addressed in policy guidance over the years. The overall 

intent is to provide a reference and resource tool for the NASA Anti-Harassment community of practice. All of the 

new guidance is set off in blue boxes placed throughout the guide in that section of the guide that addresses the 

new topic in the context of the broader process element. For example, new guidance having to do specifically with 

fact-finding can be found in the Fact-Finding Section of the Guide. All guidance reflects coordination and 

collaboration between ODEO and key stakeholders Agency-wide, such as Equal Opportunity, Human Resources, 

Labor Unions, and Legal offices at the Agency level as well as their Center counterparts. 

3 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

1. INTRODUCTION 

NASA ANTI-HARASSMENT PROCEDURES 

 An Implementation Guide 

This guide provides information on the development and implementation of the NASA Agency Anti-Harassment 

Program (AHP), under NASA Procedural Requirements 3713.3, Anti-Harassment Procedures (effective date: 

October 6, 2009). The guide is intended as a desk-reference for managers and supervisors, Center AntiHarassment Coordinators, Fact-Finders, and other stakeholders (e.g., Equal Opportunity, Human Resources, and 

Legal) to assist in ensuring prompt, thorough and impartial action is taken regarding harassment allegations.1 

This guide offers considerations to be addressed by NASA Centers2

 regarding specific aspects of the process. 

These considerations include designating a Center Anti-Harassment Coordinator, informing employees of the 

process and how to access it, handling reports of harassment, conducting inquiries (fact-finding) into harassment 

allegations, and tracking and monitoring of such allegations. 

The appendices to the guide provide supporting information, including sample forms and formats for some of the 

key documents which are a part of the anti-harassment processes at NASA, such as a fact-finding report 

template. (See Appendix D.) 

NASA’s anti-harassment policy and procedures are intended to ensure that immediate and appropriate action is 

taken in response to allegations of harassing conduct, including the use of disciplinary action, and to eliminate 

harassing conduct regardless of whether the conduct violated the law.3 The overarching goal of the policy and 

procedures is to address harassing conduct at the earliest possible stage, before it can become severe or 

pervasive, e.g., behavior that is widespread, common, or repeated.4 

The EEO complaints process and the AHP are separate and distinct. The former is designed to make 

individuals whole for discrimination that already has occurred and to prevent the recurrence of the unlawful 

discriminatory conduct. The latter seeks to address and resolve harassing conduct before it ever reaches the 

level of discrimination, as defined under the anti-discrimination laws. For this reason the EEOC stresses the 

need to maintain separate EEO complaints and anti-harassment processes.5 It is also important to note that the 

anti-harassment process does not affect employees’ right to file an EEO complaint, nor does it alter required 

timelines for filing.6 Employees may also utilize either the Agency’s Administrative Grievance Procedures, or 

negotiated grievance procedure if covered by a bargaining unit. CAHCs should provide employees raising 

allegations of harassment with Form 1796, which clarifies the distinctions between EEO and the AHP. (See 

Appendix G.) 

 

1 This guide relies primarily on NPR 3713.3 and on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) established standards and guidelines for 

developing anti-harassment policies and procedures, EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, Notice 

915.002, June 18, 1999 (hereafter Vicarious Liability Guidance). 

2

 Use of the word Center(s) in this text includes NASA Headquarters and the NASA Shared Services Center. 

3

 NASA Anti-Harassment Policy Statement. 

4

 NPR 3713.3, P.1, Purpose (b). 

5

 See generally Vicarious Liability Guidance; see also EEOC, Model EEO Programs Must Have an Effective Anti-Harassment Program (September 2005). 

6

 NPR 3713.3, P.1, Purpose(e) 

4 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

2. ANTI-HARASSMENT COORDINATION 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

2.1 Designation of the Center Anti-Harassment Coordinator 

2.1.1 Appointment 

Consistent with NPR 3713.3, each Center Director7 shall appoint an individual to serve as the Center AntiHarassment Coordinator (“CAHC”). 

Appointing Two Center Anti-Harassment Coordinators (CAHCs) 

 

 

It is advisable for all Centers to appoint both a CAHC and at least one Alternate CAHC. Having an Alternate 

CAHC can assist in better ensuring the impartiality of the process. It also serves the practical purpose of allowing 

the Center to address matters that may arise when the CAHC is unavailable, for example, when the CAHC is on 

leave. Having an Alternate is most important for Centers with larger caseloads, but is advised for all Centers for 

both process enhancement and practical considerations.

2.1.2 Separation between EEO Complaints and Anti-Harassment Process 

When selecting a CAHC, Center Directors must take into account the appearance of conflicts of interest with the 

EEO complaint process. This means that if the CAHC is an employee who works in the EEO office, the office 

shall ensure that there is a “firewall,” that is, a means for avoiding conflict of interest by maintaining a separation 

between handling of the informal EEO complaints process and the Center’s anti-harassment process.8 

To help ensure that employees raising allegations of harassment are fully aware that the Agency’s AHP is 

separate and apart from the EEO complaints process, CAHCs should provide employees raising harassment 

allegations with a Notice of Rights and Responsibilities clearly stating the distinctions between the two processes. 

(See Appendix G. Notice of Rights and Responsibilities of NASA Employees Alleging Harassing Conduct). 

Firewall: Caution Against EO Directors Serving as CAHCs and Other Considerations in Naming CAHCs 

In guidance to the field issued in December 2010, ODEO stated: “[T]he issue of ensuring an appropriate firewall 

between the EEO complaints process and the AHP is important to maintain the appropriate separation between 

the two processes. Such a separation is needed to ensure the integrity of both processes, including providing 

clarity for employees on the distinction between the two.” ODEO, in consultation with the Office of the General 

Counsel (OGC), carefully examined the firewall issue. On closer examination of the operation of the process, the 

two offices expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of maintaining a meaningful and effective firewall 

between the EEO complaints process and the anti-harassment process if Center EO Directors also served as 

CAHCs. While leaving the ultimate decision to Center Directors, consistent with the Anti-Harassment NPR, 

ODEO strongly cautioned Centers against naming EO Directors as CAHCs. 

 

Another key consideration in naming a CAHC: ODEO recommends that Center Directors name CAHCs at an 

appropriate level of authority within the organization and access to Center senior leadership. This would generally 

be a GS 15, SES, or ST/SL employee. The need for appropriate authority and access is especially critical for 

addressing those matters in which disagreement arises among the Center Advisory Team comprised of the 

CAHC, Legal, HR, and possibly other organizational representatives/subject matter experts.

7

 Any reference to Center Director(s) in this text includes the Executive Director for the Office of HQ Operations and the Executive Director, NASA Shared Services 

Center. 

8

 See EEOC, Model EEO Programs Must Have An Effective Anti-Harassment Program (September 2005). 

5 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

2.2 Notice to Employees 

A notice to employees on the Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures, and contact information for the office of 

the CAHC, should be displayed in public areas throughout the Centers. (See Appendix I. Sample Notice to 

Employees). 

ODEO will provide Centers with other information to help apprise employees about the anti-harassment process, 

such as web postings and brochures. When made available, Centers should ensure that all materials are 

thoroughly disseminated to managers, supervisors, and employees. 

 

Anti-Harassment Training for the Workforce and Community of Practice 

Beyond the notice to employees, CAHCs should work in collaboration with ODEO to ensure that Centers are 

appropriately trained on the Agency’s anti-harassment policy and procedures. In this regard, we note several 

options available to Centers. First, ODEO has created an online Anti-Harassment Learning Tool, available and 

creditable on the Agency’s online training system (Course Title: Anti-Harassment Procedures Program; Course 

No.: HQ-AHT-011). This tool comes complete with a video fictionalization of how an allegation of harassment can 

be processed, from a portrayal of the incident that gives rise to the allegation to the action taken by management, 

and closure of the case. CAHCs should work with Center training offices to inform the workforce about the 

availability of this training and encourage managers and supervisors to recommend it for their employees. 

Secondly, since the AHP’s inception, ODEO has offered classroom training for managers, supervisors and 

supervisors, which it expects to continue doing. This training, however, is limited in size (no more than 30 

students per class) and subject to available resources. Therefore, ODEO works with Centers to supplement the 

training, both through CAHC-led training efforts utilizing ODEO-provided materials, and through periodic 

community of practice virtual meetings conducted by ODEO. The latter provides CAHCs, Fact-Finders, and 

subject matter experts with training for new members of the community and refreshers for seasoned members. 

Notice to employees is a critical aspect of the program, and necessary to its functioning, as stated in Section 2.2. 

Training and technical assistance are no less important. In addition to the steps discussed above, CAHCs should 

develop, in collaboration with ODEO, well-thought-out communications strategies. These may include 

communications from Center leadership informing the Center community about the AHP and encouraging 

managers, supervisors and employees to avail themselves of available training options, such as those mentioned 

above. Given the importance of striving for harassment-free workplaces for both managers, supervisors and 

employees, Centers should give consideration to making AHP training mandatory. Other helpful tools for 

employees are the Anti-Harassment Brochure (accessible at http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/documents/AntiHarassment_Brochure_Tagged.pdf) and the Anti-Harassment FAQs (accessible at 

http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/documents/AntiHarassment_FAQs.pdf). These should be disseminated as widely as 

possible at the Center level. Additional copies of the brochure are available through ODEO. 

6 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

3. REPORTING AND RESPONDING TO HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

3.1 Harassment Defined 

Harassing conduct, as defined in NPR 3713.3, is any unwelcome conduct, verbal or physical, based on an 

individual's race, color, gender, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, status as a parent, 

gender identity, or retaliation when: (1) the behavior can reasonably be considered to adversely affect the work 

environment or (2) an employment decision affecting the employee is based upon the employee's acceptance or 

rejection of such conduct. 

Allegations or claims outside the purview of the Agency’s Anti-Harassment Procedures must be filed with the 

appropriate office with jurisdiction to process the matters. The CAHC, and other designated officials, will advise 

alleged harassees of the different avenues of redress available. 

Specific Behaviors Inconsistent with NASA Policy 

 

As of March 2013, the NPR references specific behaviors that are inconsistent with NASA’s anti-harassment 

policy. These include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Threatening that rejection of sexual overtures will affect appointments, promotions, transfers, or evaluations; 

(2) Displaying belittling caricatures or objects depicting persons of a particular race, national origin, religion or 

other protected category; 

(3) Telling racial or ethnic jokes or stories; 

(4) Teasing, mimicking or repeatedly commenting on an individual1s disability, accent, or other protected 

category; 

(5) Making offensive comments, jokes or suggestions about an employee1s gender; 

(6) Making obscene or lewd comments, slurs, jokes, epithets, suggestions or gestures; 

(7) Commenting on an employee’s body or sexual characteristics; 

(8) Displaying nude or sexually suggestive objects, pictures, images or cartoons; 

(9) Continuing prohibited behavior after a co-worker has objected; 

(10) Laughing at, ignoring or retaliating against an employee who raises a harassment allegation; 

(11) Exhibiting bullying, intimidating, or threatening behavior. 

While NASA’s AH process specifically ties this behavior to a protected basis, NASA Centers should still consider 

looking into and addressing allegations of harassing conduct, such as bullying behavior, even when no link to a 

protected basis is made. Some key considerations to be taken into account in invoking the AH process in the 

absence of the alleged harassee raising a protected basis under the policy are: 

(1) Is the allegations relating to interpersonal interaction in the workplace or relating to the workplace, e.g., 

travel? 

(2) Is the allegation particularly related to bullying, intimidating, or threatening behavior? 

(3) Is it possible that the fact-finding will show that a protected basis is involved? 

(See also “Best Practice: Consideration of Fact-Finding Irrespective of Whether a Protected Basis is Raised,” 

below.) 

Responding in Cases Involving Physical Threats 

In circumstances involving inappropriate physical contact or other disruptive behavior involving a direct or indirect 

threat of physical harm, Center AH Teams should immediately involve the Center’s Threat Assessment Team 

under NPD 1600.3, Policy on Prevention of and Response to Workplace Violence. Such behavior is prohibited 

under NPD 1600.3. 

7 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

EEO and Anti-Harassment: Key Differences in Analysis 

 

In analyzing allegations of harassment under the Agency’s Anti-Harassment Program, the focal point is on the 

behavior, or interpersonal interaction, at issue. In contrast, the focal point in EEO complaints, which are alleging 

impermissible discrimination, is often on a discrete action(s) that is being alleged to be discriminatory, such as a 

hiring decision, promotion, or performance rating. While harassment alleging a hostile work environment can be a 

form of discrimination if it meets a certain standard, that is, “severe or pervasive.” Regardless of whether it meets 

the standard for discriminatory harassment, it is about behavior, or interpersonal interaction, and generally not 

about a discrete action(s). Again, this should be understood in contrast with the EEO complaints or discrimination 

complaints process where a discrete action, such as non-selection for promotion, or a lower performance rating 

than desired, may be at issue. In the AHP process, such a discrete action would not be considered a form of 

“harassment” unless accompanied by interpersonal related behaviors, such as telling offensive jokes or engaging 

in bullying or intimidating conduct. 

Recently, there have been a number of situations where employees are coming to the CAHC about concerns that 

their supervisors are “harassing” them about their work performance and/or leave issues when the action(s) at 

issue would not be objectively viewed as “harassment” but rather as appropriate execution of supervisory roles 

and responsibilities. The CAHC should be mindful about whether these type of cases are appropriately handled 

under this process. Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. 

This is also the case with retaliation, which is covered as a protected basis under both NASA’s Anti-Harassment 

Policy and Procedures and under the EEO complaints process. However, just as the focal point under the AntiHarassment Policy generally is behavior, retaliation under Anti-Harassment must also be in the form of allegations 

based on conduct or behavior, not based on a specific discrete employment action, such as a non-selection for 

promotion or a poor performance appraisal, or other issues than can be raised in the EEO complaints context. 

3.2 Employees’ Responsibilities

Employees who believe that they have been subjected to harassing conduct by another civil service employee or 

contractor employee in violation of NASA policy are expected to report the matter immediately to their first-line 

supervisor, the CAHC, or other official(s) as designated by the Center Director.9 In the event that the employee’s 

first-line supervisor is the alleged harasser, the employee shall contact the second-line supervisor, the CAHC or 

other(s) officials as designated. When the person to whom the alleged harassment is reported fails to take 

prompt action, the employee should immediately report the alleged incident of harassment to the CAHC, 

or other official as designated by the Center Director. 

3.3 Managers’ and Supervisors’ Responsibilities

When an allegation of harassment is reported by a NASA employee, the supervisor (or designated official) shall 

assess the situation immediately, and consult with the CAHC and/or with subject matter experts, such as Legal, 

HR, and EO staff that comprise the Center AH Advisory Team, to determine whether a fact-finding or other action 

is warranted.10 The supervisor should take the following steps: 

3.3.1 Ensure that the CAHC is notified. A manager or supervisor receiving an allegation falling within the 

purview of the anti-harassment process will notify the CAHC as a matter of course. Managers and supervisors 

should be generally familiar with the definition of harassing conduct under Agency anti-harassment 

policy and procedures (see 3.1, above). 

3.3.2 If the employees involved in the allegations are members of collective bargaining units, the manager or 

supervisor should immediately contact the Center Labor Relations Officer (LRO). 

9

 NPR 3713.3, Sec. 1.1. 

10 NPR 3713.3, Sec. 1.2. 

8 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

3.3.3. Determine the extent to which a fact-finding is needed. A supervisor should consult with the CAHC and 

relevant subject matter experts for this determination. Managers and supervisors should take all allegations of 

harassing conduct seriously. They should determine the extent of the fact-finding needed on a case-bycase basis. For example, if the allegation involves a single instance and there are no witnesses other than the 

alleged harassee and the alleged harasser, the fact-finding should be relatively simple. On the other hand, if the 

alleged harassee describes more than one instance of harassing conduct, or indicates that there are others who 

may have witnessed the conduct, the fact-finding will involve more interviews in addition to the alleged harasser 

and alleged harassee. Finally, managers and supervisors should not allow the fact that there is no initial 

corroboration of the alleged harassee’s allegation to prevent them from taking some initial remedial measures. 

When faced with an allegation that cannot be immediately substantiated, the Agency shall consider remedial 

measures such as increased monitoring of employee behavior or, if deemed necessary, separating the involved 

employees.11

Best Practice: Consideration of Fact-Finding Irrespective of Whether a Protected Basis is Raised









 

As we have noted in the past, we continue to see a trend in which many Anti-Harassment Program allegations do 

not involve EEO-related protected bases. We would advise Centers that, prior to conducting a fact-finding, the 

CAHC and Center AHP Team should make a determination as to whether they view the allegations as 

appropriate to be addressed as an AHP matter. In making this determination the Team should consider whether 

the behavior at issue: 

1. Involves interpersonal interaction either on NASA premises or both on and off NASA premises 

2. Involves one or more protected bases, e.g., race, gender 

3. If the behavior at issue does not involve a protected basis, does it involve bullying, intimidation, threats 

4. Can be addressed promptly and effectively through utilization of the AHP 

5. Is physical violence or the threat of violence involved? For matters involving violence or threats of violence, 

a Threat Assessment Team should be immediately convened. 

Centers should, at a minimum, establish a practice of consultation between the CAHC and the Center AHP Team 

on matters which, while not clearly within the scope of the AHP as envisioned in the NPR, cannot be said to be 

entirely outside the scope of the NPR either, based on the four part test above. (See also “Specific Behaviors 

Inconsistent with NASA Policy,” above.)

Criteria for Determining Interim Relief Prior to or While Conducting Fact-Finding 

The EEOC advises that it may be necessary to undertake intermediate measures before completing the factfinding to ensure that further harassment does not occur, especially if the investigation is going to be timeconsuming and may involve many accusations, several witnesses, and time to sort things out. Therefore, when an 

allegation of harassment is received, the manager or supervisor who receives it (or the CAHC if she or he 

receives it) shall conduct a mini-inquiry, with the advice of subject matter experts from the Center AHP Advisory 

Team, to determine whether immediate interim measures are necessary. Factors that may indicate an interim 

relief is appropriate when the allegations are very serious and/or when the alleged harassee asks for such relief.

Examples of interim relief measures include: 

Offering a temporary transfer to the alleged harasser to a position that requires the same general skills, 

with retention of all compensation and benefit levels; 

Making scheduling changes so as to avoid contact between the parties, e.g., telework; 

Reassigning the alleged harasser to a different building, floor, or department, or to a special project that 

can be completed either at home or in a different work area; 

Placing the alleged harasser on non-disciplinary (administrative) leave with pay, pending the conclusion 

11 Vicarious Liability Guidance, V.C.1.e.iii. 

9 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 



of the Fact-Finding (this should be a last resort); 

Having the alleged harassee report to a different supervisor (in case the actual supervisor is the alleged 

harasser); 

If the parties have to be separated, then the separation should not burden the employee who has reported the 

harassing conduct. An involuntary transfer of the alleged harassee could constitute unlawful retaliation. 

3.3.3 Act as or designate a Fact-Finder immediately, when it is determined that a fact-finding is necessary. 

As stated in the NPR, supervisors and supervisors dealing with allegations of harassing conduct should avail 

themselves of the expertise of subject matter experts and the CAHC throughout this process; including whom to 

appoint to serve as the Fact-Finder. 

Supervisory Decision to “Act as” or Appoint Fact-Finder 

In determining whether to act his or her own Fact-Finder or authorize a FF in a given case, supervisors, in 

consultation with Center AH Teams, should give careful consideration to the complexity of the case, e.g., number 

or individuals involved, number of separate incidents, number of witnesses to interview. Supervisors should 

balance the labor-intensiveness of the case with their regular job duties in making the decision of whether to take 

on their own fact-finding. A key consideration is that AHP cases should be handled as promptly as possible, 

ideally in a matter of days. If a supervisor does not have the time to handle a case quickly, he or she should 

authorize a fact-finder. 

Best Practice: Fact-Finder Cadres 

Some Centers, including Goddard, HQ, and Stennis, now have in place Fact-Finder cadres. These are groups of 

employees who are trained, willing, and able to serve as Fact-Finders on an as-needed basis. Such groups can 

be very useful in helping to increase the overall efficiency of a Center’s Anti-Harassment Program. They are 

helpful in this regard specifically because they have been thoroughly vetted and trained on the AHP by CAHCs 

and other subject matter experts at the Center. As seasoned contributors to the Center’s overall AHP effort, they 

can be called upon to both conduct fact-findings as well as help in the training of new Fact-Finders. Cadre 

members also can deal with complex cases in which managers or supervisors would not normally act as their own

Fact-Finder. Such cadres have even proven useful to the overall Agency AHP because Centers are working with 

each other to “loan out” Fact-Finders who are willing and able to go to another Center to conduct a fact-finding. 

This has been particularly helpful when alleged harassees have requested outside Fact-Finders. In training FactFinder cadre members, CAHCs should use the Ant-Harassment Policy, Procedures, and Guidance compendium 

or E-Binder (June 2013) (available through ODEO upon request) as well as ODEO’s online Anti-Harassment 

Training Tool.

3.3.4 Ensure that a prompt, thorough, impartial, and appropriate fact-finding is conducted. The elements 

of a fact-finding are discussed in Section 4, below. 

Timeframes and Promptness 

Promptness is one of the most critical aspects of the process. This is important to note in addressing any 

allegation. It is also important to note that harassment allegations vary in complexity, with each case reflecting a 

position on a continuum - from the very simple to the extremely complex. The simplest cases would be those 

where there is a single incident between co‐workers and the supervisor acts as his or her own Fact‐Finder (FF). 

For such cases, the timeframe should be under a week from allegation to closure. More complex cases involving 

an appointed FF might take a week to two weeks, possibly as much as a month, depending on the facts of the 

case. CAHCs should stay abreast of cases through appropriate and frequent consultation, for example, consulting 

with FFs to approximate the length of time for completion of a fact-finding, taking into account the circumstances 

of each case. 

10
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 





 

If a fact-finding is taking longer than expected, CAHCs should determine why and if there are any steps 

that can be taken to bring the fact-finding to a close, without compromising its effectiveness. Where a 

fact-finding is taking longer than one month, CAHCs should develop written justifications as to why the 

process is taking so long. In previous guidance, we recommended 45 days as a marker. However, recent case 

law suggests the need for agencies to move more quickly to ensure that they are taking prompt and effective 

action. We understand that cases taking longer than a month are going to happen. However, these should be 

very much the exception and not the rule. The point of the justification is to ensure that when it does happen, if 

the Agency is later called upon to defend its efforts, say, where the alleged harassee files an EEO complaint that 

is being reviewed by EEOC, the Agency will at least be able to explain why the process took so long in that case. 

CAHCs do not need to send a copy of the justification to ODEO, although we are certainly available to provide 

technical assistance. The important thing is that the justification exists. If you find yourself with a case that has 

gone on for over a month, it is time to make sure a justification is prepared that explains the amount of time the 

case is taking. CAHCs will need to consult, as always, with subject matter experts in the preparation of the 

justification. As mentioned, ODEO is available to provide assistance and review. In preparing justifications, 

consideration should be given to: 

The complexity of the case, e.g., the number of allegations, number of witnesses, need for 

acquiring outside expertise to conduct the fact‐finding 

Availability of key witnesses, e.g., is someone on extended leave? Has someone left the Agency?

3.4 The Role of Labor 

3.4.1 CAHCs and Center AH Advisory Teams should always coordinate with Center Labor Relations Officers to 

ensure any labor obligations are met regarding harassment allegations. 

3.4.2 Parties and witnesses to anti-harassment cases who are members of collective bargaining units may 

consult with labor union representatives for advice and guidance. 

3.5 Addressing Confidentiality Concerns and Requests for Anonymity 

3.5.1 Generally 

All information obtained from allegations of harassing conduct must be maintained on a confidential basis to the 

greatest extent possible. Managers and supervisors should make this clear to employees. The Agency will not 

guarantee complete confidentiality, since it cannot conduct an effective fact-finding without revealing 

certain information to the alleged harasser and potential witnesses. However, information about the 

allegation of harassment should be shared only with those who need to know about it. Records relating to 

harassment complaints will be kept confidential on the same basis.12 

When an employee complaining of harassment requests anonymity tension will likely arise as a result of the 

employee's desire for confidentiality and the supervisor’s obligation to take action in response to the allegation. 

Supervisors have an obligation to take immediate action regardless of an employee’s confidentiality 

request. Supervisors should explain that they will maintain as much confidentiality as possible but they 

must investigate the matter. Inaction by the supervisor in such circumstances could lead to Agency liability and 

possible disciplinary action against the supervisor.13 Further, EEOC states that “While it may seem reasonable to 

let the employee determine whether to pursue a complaint, the employer must discharge its duty to prevent and 

correct harassment.”14 

Requests for Anonymity in the Informal EEO Complaints Process and the AHP 

Employees have the right to request anonymity when entering the informal stage of the EEO complaints process. 

However, if the employee is raising allegations of harassment, hostile work environment, bullying or the like, the 

12 Id., Sec. V.C.1.d. 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 

11
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

 

management obligation to take prompt and effective steps may supersede any request for anonymity. Therefore, 

EO officers, their staffs and EO counselors should inform CAHCs when aggrieved individuals entering the 

informal stage of the EEO process raise allegations of this kind. 

3.5.2 Privacy Act Compliance 

It is the responsibility of the CAHC to ensure that all records pertaining to allegations of harassment are compliant 

with the Privacy Act of 1974 and retained in accordance with NPR 1382, NPR 1382.1, and NASA Privacy 

Procedural Requirements. (See also Sec. 5.2). 

CAHCs and managers and supervisors receiving allegations of harassment should provide the alleged harasee 

with a Privacy Act Statement. During fact-finding, Fact-Finders should provide all witnesses in the fact-finding a 

copy of the Privacy Act Statement. Consistent with Privacy Act requirements, the alleged harassee shall not 

receive a copy of the Fact-Finding report. (See also Sec. 5.2) 

3.6 Harassment Allegations Involving NASA Contractors 

As stated in the NPR, while NASA does not have the authority to address contractor-on-contractor issues 

pertaining to harassment; however, it is expected that all contract employees on NASA facilities will 

refrain from engaging in harassing conduct.

15 For contractor-on-contractor allegations of harassment, NASA 

supervisors or the CAHC shall immediately contact their Center Director of Procurement for referral to the 

appropriate Contracting Official. 

In instances where a contractor is alleging harassing conduct by a civil servant or vice versa, the allegations 

should be reported to the CAHC for further processing consistent with the NPR. This should include a 

determination as to the scope of the alleged harassing conduct. The CAHC should also contact his or her Center 

Director of Procurement for referral to the appropriate Contracting Official, as appropriate. 

It should be noted that, where only one of the parties is a contractor or when a contractor has been identified as a 

witness, NASA Fact-Finders need to request access through their Center Director of Procurement or designee, 

before the Fact-Finder interviews any contract employee. Therefore, NASA cannot compel cooperation by the 

contracting organization; it would be voluntary on the part of the contract employee. It is important for CAHCs to 

know this, and to communicate this to supervisors, supervisors, and employees. 

Contractor v. Contractor Allegations 

When processing allegations involving an alleged harasee(s) and alleged harasser(s) who are BOTH contractor 

employees, keep in mind that the processing of the case is essentially outside the scope of the Agency antiharassment process. This is because, as stated in this section, NASA does not have the authority to require 

contract employees to participate in an anti-harassment fact-finding. Moreover, when the allegations of harassing 

conduct involve contractors as parties on both sides, it is the obligation of the contractor employer(s) to address 

the matter. Nonetheless, it is in the best interests of the NASA workplace to make sure that the matter does get 

addressed. 

To more clearly “step out” the process to be followed when both parties are contractor employees, start with the 

premise that in such cases it is the Center Office of Procurement that should be the lead office interfacing with the 

contractor employers. Provided below is a rough sketch of the step-by-step process for contractor v. contractor 

complaints: 

1. If allegations are raised to a civil servant supervisor, that supervisor should immediately contact the 

CAHC. 

2. Once the CAHC has been put on notice of the contractor v. contractor allegations, either directly from the 

alleged harasee(s) or through a third party to whom the alleged harassee(s) raised the matter, e.g., civil 

servant supervisor, the CAHC, with advice from the Center Anti-Harassment Program (AHP) Team shall 

15 NPR 3713.3, fn. 1. 

12
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

contact the Center’s Director of Procurement. 

3. The CAHC promptly contacts the Center’s Director of Procurement, with advice from the Center AHP 

Prior to contacting the Procurement Office, the CAHC and AHP Team should make a determination as to 

whether they view the allegations as appropriate for referral to the Procurement Office as an AHP matter. 

In making this determination the Team should consider whether the behavior at issue: 







Involves interpersonal interaction either on NASA premises or both on and off NASA premises; 

Involves one or more protected bases, e.g., race, gender; 

Involves bullying, intimidation, threats (If the behavior at issue does not involve a protected basis). 

4. The Center Director of Procurement, either personally or through a designee, consults with the CAHC and 

other members of the AHP Team to determine next steps. 

5. The Procurement Office reaches out to appropriate officials of the contractor employer(s) to put them on 

notice that NASA has received allegations of harassment from a contractor employee. 

6. The Procurement Office, in consultation with the CAHC and other members of the AHP Team, as needed, 

interfaces with contractor officials to urge the contractor employer to take appropriate steps to address the 

matter. 

7. The Procurement Office follows-up in a reasonable period of time to ascertain action(s) taken by the 

contractor employer (normally measured in days not weeks, depending on the seriousness of the matter). 

8. The Procurement Office works with the CAHC and the AHP Team to develop a close-out memorandum to 

the file, and other documentation, as deemed necessary, for example, a written communication to the 

contractor employer. 

13
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

4. FACT-FINDINING 

4.1 Determined Whether Fact-Finding is Necessary 

Where fact-finding is determined to be necessary, supervisors will act as or designate the Fact-Finder to conduct 

fact-findings into allegations of harassing conduct.16 When a supervisor chooses to appoint an independent FactFinder, he or she will do so through the CAHC, in consultation with the CAHC and other members of the Center 

AH Advisory Team as needed. The CAHC will serve as the primary liaison between Fact-Finders and supervisors. 

To the extent that a Center establishes a “Fact-Finder Cadre”, the CAHC oversees selection and training of Cadre 

members (see also, “Best Practice: Fact-Finder Cadre,” at Sec. 3.3.3m above). The primary goal of fact-finding is 

to ascertain the facts pertinent to the incident, what actually caused the incident, the outcome of the incident, and 

what actions need to be taken that will improve the probability that similar incidents will be prevented in the future. 

Whether the supervisor acts as the Fact-Finder or one is appointed, the Fact-Finder should conduct this assigned 

investigation as his or her official duty. Conflicts with pre-existing regular duties should be resolved within the 

management chain. Finally, the appointed Fact-Finder may not be subordinate to any official or employee 

involved or alleged to be involved in the matter. 

The supervisor, working in collaboration with the CAHC, shall also ensure that designated Fact-Finders have 

been provided a copy of the NPR and this Implementation Guide and have had an opportunity to familiarize 

themselves with the contents of these documents. Additionally, CAHCs shall coordinate with ODEO to ensure 

that designated Fact-Finders have been provided access to other available resource materials on the Agency’s 

anti-harassment procedures, such as online education and awareness information. 

There may be some situations where fact-finding is very limited. For example, if the alleged harasser does not 

deny the accusation, there would be no need to interview witnesses, and the Agency could immediately 

determine appropriate corrective action. However, there needs to be a document for the record, noting the 

incident and its resolution. 

Role of the Fact-Finder 

 

The fact-finder is to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations and prepare the fact‐finding report. The 

fact-finder is expected to interview the alleged harasser, the alleged harassee, and any witnesses who may have 

knowledge of the allegations. The Fact-Finder should also be available to answer any questions the supervisor, or 

other member of the Center Anti-Harassment Team may have regarding the facts of the case. Although it is 

recommended that the fact-finding report be as comprehensive as possible, the fact‐finding report is intended 

only to establish what the conduct was, that is, what happened, when and how frequently it happened, 

and who witnessed it. The report should also address whether the witnesses’ statements tend to corroborate the 

allegation or contradict it. In some cases it may be appropriate for the fact‐finder to make some initial 

determination of credibility, based on the evidence, for example, the statements of the witnesses. The fact-finder 

should keep the CAHC involved throughout the fact-finding process and is especially critical in situations where 

the alleged harassee is trying to broaden the scope of the fact-finding or if witnesses are refusing to cooperate. 

The fact‐finder should not attempt to draw a conclusion as to whether the alleged conduct violated the 

policy; nor should he/she make recommendations as to what steps should be taken to address the 

situation. This is the role and responsibility of the supervisor, in consultation with subject matter experts, for 

example, Legal and HR. The supervisor should take into account that the Agency’s anti‐harassment policy and 

procedures are intended to address the conduct at the earliest possible stage, before it become more 

serious. The most appropriate steps to be taken to address the situation should be the driving factor in the 

supervisor’s deliberations, as the policy is designed to be proactive and preventive. 

16 NPR 3713.XX, Sec. 1.2.3.4. 

14
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

Inter-Center Fact-Finding 

 

Inter-Center cases are not uncommon. We have seen a number of cases involving more than one Center over the 

years – this can take many different permutations. It may be that the alleged harassee or the alleged harasser is 

officially located at a different Center, but is on a detail, or in a leadership development program, or has some 

other reason for being at the Center where the alleged harassment takes place. Another permutation: the alleged 

harassment involves parties from different Centers who are on official travel together, for example, attending an 

off-site meeting. These cases can become very complicated as far as determining who will serve as the CAHC, 

from which Center will the Fact-Finder be selected, and at which Center the Fact-Finding will be conducted. Still 

other questions: who will serve as the decision maker of record? Who will review the Fact-Finding report? 

We offer a few guideposts for inter-Center cases: 

1. The key point is communication between the CAHCs and AHP Teams at the involved Centers. As a 

general rule the decision-maker is the alleged harasser’s supervisor, or, if the supervisor is also an 

alleged harasser, than his or her supervisor, and so-on up the management chain. Inter-Center cases 

should operate the same way – the decision-maker would typically be the alleged harasser’s supervisor, 

even if the alleged harasser’s supervisor is located at a different Center from where the alleged 

harassment occurred, e.g., the alleged harassment occurred at NSSC, and the decision-maker resides at 

HQ. 

2. The CAHC of record in inter-Center cases would normally be the CAHC at the Center where the decisionmaker resides. However, it is possible that the CAHC at the Center where the harassment occurred can 

serve as the CAHC of record. The important thing is inter-Center communication – both (or multiple) 

CAHCs must communicate with each other in these cases. It is advisable that the involved CAHCs 

consult with their Center AHP Teams in making determinations about who will serve as the CAHC of 

record and who will conduct the Fact-Finding. 

3. Given that the decision-maker and CAHC of record would normally be those residing at the Center where 

the alleged harasser resides, it follows that the Fact-Finder should be appointed from the same Center as 

the decision-maker and the CAHC. If it makes more sense to appoint a Fact-Finder from the Center 

where the alleged harassment occurred rather than the Center where the decision-maker and CAHC 

reside, that is perfectly acceptable if the decision is made jointly between the involved Centers.

4. To the extent that bargaining unit members are involved, CAHCs and Center AH Teams should consult 

with Center Labor Relations Officers (see Section 3.4). 

4.2 Authorizing the Fact-Finding 

Upon a determination that a fact-finding is needed, the supervisor will either: 1) conduct the fact-finding; or 2) 

prepare an authorization letter designating a Fact -Finder and setting out the subject of the fact-finding. The 

essential elements of the authorization letter are set forth below (see Appendix C. Fact-Finding Authorization 

Memo):

Who Authorizes the Fact-Finding 

The supervisor of record/decision-maker authorizes the fact-finding, using NASA Form 1796. However, it is 

acceptable for CAHCs to fill out the forms for the supervisor’s signature. 

4.2.1 Scope/Allegation: Defining the incident/allegation to be investigated. The scope of the allegation should be 

very clearly defined, relying on the allegations as set forth by the alleged harassee in NASA Form 1799 (AntiHarassment Questionnaire) and/or by the CAHC. The supervisor should work closely with the Center AHP Team 

to clearly identify the scope of the allegation and convey this to the Fact-Finder.

15
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

4.2.2 Report Instructions: Establishing reasonable timelines for completion of the Fact-Finding Report. It is 

important that the Fact-Finder has a clear understanding of the need for both promptness and effectiveness in the 

conducting of the fact-finding and the development of the report. “Reasonable timeframes” for the AHP will be 

determined by the complexity and the seriousness of the case, including number of alleged harassers, length of 

time the alleged harassment occurred, number of separate alleged harassing incidents. Generally though, factfinding should be completed in one to two weeks (see also Sec. 3.3.4, Timeframes and Promptness). Since time 

is of the essence in conducting these inquiries, fact-finders should make sure that they have the time to devote to 

addressing the matter quickly and are otherwise able to perform in an effective manner. 

4.3 Conducting Interviews 

The fact-finding shall include, at a minimum, interviews with key individuals such as the alleged harasee, the 

alleged harasser, and any witnesses to alleged harassing conduct.17 For a detailed discussion on conducting 

interviews see Appendix F. Interview Tips. For various examples of appropriate questions to ask alleged 

harassees, alleged harassers and other witnesses, see Appendix H. Questions to Ask Parties and Witnesses, 

which also appears in NPR 3713.3. Several other considerations impacting the interview process are addressed 

below. 

Telephonic Fact-Finding Interviews 













 

Interviews conducted by telephone may be an acceptable means of conducting fact-finding. However, in making 

this choice, it should be remembered that consistency in the fact finding process is important. This is particularly 

true within the context of a specific fact-finding. For example, if one party or witness is interviewed by phone while 

the others are interviewed in person, there should be a record of the rationale behind this. Was the person 

interviewed by phone on travel? Was the person interviewed by phone one of the less important witnesses? 

4.3.1 Credibility Assessments 

Where the interview process results in conflicting versions of relevant events, as is often the case, the Fact-Finder 

or supervisor may ultimately have to weigh each individual’s credibility. In such cases, credibility assessments can 

be critical in determining whether the alleged harassment in fact occurred. 18 If there are conflicting versions of 

relevant events, the supervisor, as the decision-maker, will have to weigh each party's credibility. Factors to 

consider include: 

Inherent plausibility: Is the testimony believable on its face? Does it make sense? 

Demeanor: Did the person seem to be telling the truth or lying? 

Motive to falsify: Did the person have a reason to lie? 

Opportunity to Observe: Did the witness have enough information to make an informed observation? 

Corroboration: Is there witness testimony (such as testimony by eye-witnesses, people who saw the 

person soon after the alleged incidents, or people who discussed the incidents with him or her at around 

the time that they occurred) or physical evidence (such as written documentation) that corroborates the 

party's testimony? 

Past record: Did the alleged harasser have a history of similar behavior in the past? 

EEOC cautions that “None of the above factors are determinative as to credibility. For example, the fact that there 

are no eye-witnesses to the alleged harassment by no means necessarily defeats the complainant's credibility, 

17 NPR 3713.3, Sec. 2.2.1. 

18 Vicarious Liability Guidance, Sec. V.C.1.e.ii. 

16
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

since harassment often occurs behind closed doors. Furthermore, the fact that the alleged harasser engaged in 

similar behavior in the past does not necessarily mean that he or she did so again.”19

4.3.2 Statement of Facts 

Fact-Finders should request that witnesses review their statements to help ensure the accuracy of witness 

statements. To this end, Fact-Finders may request witnesses interviewed during a fact-finding sign a Statement of 

Facts. (See Appendix J. Statement of Facts). The purpose of this is solely to ensure the accuracy and 

completeness of the interview and not to bring in “new facts” that was not discussed with the fact-finder. If the 

fact-finder requests that the witnesses sign the statement, the witnesses should do so in a timely manner and 

should not hold up the fact-finding process. However, such statements will not be necessary in every case. 

A good “rule-of-thumb” to use in making this decision is the complexity or severity of the case at hand. Some 

considerations in determining whether witnesses should sign statements are: 

 Was the supervisor or supervisor present during the incident(s) that gave rise to the allegation? 

Does the allegation involve a single incident or a pattern of conduct? 

Are there witnesses (other than the parties themselves) to the incident(s) that gave rise to the allegation? 

Is there the potential for a factual dispute among the witnesses as to what happened? 

Did the alleged incident involve inappropriate physical contact? (see also Section 3.1 on responding and 

reporting in cases involving physical threats) 









4.3.3 Retaliation Prohibition 

In addition, Fact-Finders should be aware that the anti-harassment process prohibits retaliation against 

employees who report harassment or provide information related to such allegations. Therefore, when 

conducting interviews during a fact-finding, the official who interviews the parties and witnesses should remind 

these individuals about the prohibition against retaliation.20 

4.3.4 Allegations Beyond the Scope of the Fact-Finding 

If a Fact-finder receives other allegations of harassment beyond the allegations into which the fact-finding 

is being conducted, the Fact-Finder should consult immediately with the supervisor or supervisor who 

appointed the Fact-Finder. The supervisor should consult with the CAHC and subject matter experts to 

determine whether the new incidents of alleged harassment are supporting evidence of the original allegations but 

do not raise a new allegation, whether the new incidents are like or related to the original allegations of harassing 

conduct, or whether the new incidents are not an allegation of harassment. 

If the Fact-Finder receives other allegations unrelated to harassment, he or she shall refer such allegations to the 

appropriate office, i.e., EEO, HR. Such allegations shall not be part of the written report.21

4.4. Concluding Fact-Finding 

There is no set formula to dictate when enough information has been gathered to ensure that a Fact-Finder has 

fully completed an inquiry. There are, however, some general concepts that can be followed in determining when 

enough testimony and evidence have been collected. Here are some tips to assist in making this 

determination: 

 When all evidence has been collected and all witnesses interviewed. 

 

19 Id. 

20 Vicarious Liability Guidance, Sec. V.C.1.b. Managers and supervisors should also look closely at employment decisions affecting the alleged harasee and 

witnesses, during and after the fact-finding to ensure that such decisions are not based on retaliatory motives. 

21 NPR 3713.3, Sec. 2.2.2 

17
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

 When the preponderance of testimonial and physical evidence clearly indicate that the facts of the case in 

question are or are not substantiated. 

When the testimony is redundant, and it is unlikely that further testimony will discover new information 

essential to the fact-finding. 

When it is determined that all disputed facts are resolved and continuing the fact-finding will disrupt the 

normal operation of the facility. 





4.5 Preparing the Fact-Finding Report 

4.5.1 Purpose of the Report 

Once the fact-finding is completed, the Fact-Finder must prepare a Fact-Finding Report and provide it to the 

supervisor.22 A copy should also be provided to the CAHC and the Center Anti-Harassment Advisory Team. The 

Fact-Finding Report is the means through which supervisors evaluate the facts and make decisions regarding 

what corrective action, if any, should be taken. The Report is normally in memorandum format. Note also that it 

is essential for supervisors to consult with the CAHC and subject matter experts (e.g., Human Resources, 

EO, Chief Counsel) on the Report before implementing any corrective action. 

4.5.2 Tips for Developing the Fact-Finding Report 

 Remember the audience - it may include individuals unfamiliar with functions, terminology, and 

organizations. 

Explain references, terminology, and acronyms as needed.

Identify the specific evidence relied upon for each finding of fact.

Ensure that all evidence relied upon is contained and referenced as an exhibit in the report and file.

Identify how you resolved significant inconsistencies or conflicts in evidence with an objective analysis.









For additional information on the Fact-Finding Report, please see Appendix D. Fact-Finding Report Template. 

NOTE: Where the Fact-Finder is not the supervisor, the Fact-Finder shall return to the supervisor all draft copies, 

tapes, notes, working papers, etc., relevant to the allegations of harassment and/or used to formulate the final 

Fact-Finding Report. Nothing relating to the case should be retained by the Fact-Finder. The original copy of the 

completed report, all exhibits and the authority for conducting the fact-finding should be submitted to the CAHC, 

who will in turn provide the material to the supervisor and members of the Center AH Advisory Team in the 

manner specified in the letter authorizing the fact-finding. A copy of the report shall reside with the CAHC. 

4.6 Actions to be Taken upon Completion of the Fact-Finding 

4.6.1 Determining the Appropriate Remedy 

Based on the Fact-Finding Report, the supervisor will determine, in consultation with the CAHC and subject 

matter experts (EEO, Human Resources, Legal, etc.) what action, if any, is recommended in the case and take 

action, as necessary. Remedial measures should be designed to stop the harassment, correct its effects on the 

employee, and ensure that the harassment does not recur. These remedial measures need not be those that the 

employee requests or prefers, as long as they are effective. 

In determining disciplinary measures, management should keep in mind that the Agency could be found liable if 

the harassment does not stop. At the same time, management may have concerns that overly punitive measures 

may subject the Agency to claims such as wrongful discharge, and may simply be inappropriate. Nonetheless, at 

 

22 NPR 3713.3, Sec. 2.2.4.2 

18
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

the very least, when faced with an allegation of harassment that cannot be immediately addressed, the Agency 

has an obligation to take preventative measures, such as training or monitoring. 

 

Utilization of Conflict Management Techniques 

 

Conflict management techniques may be utilized to remediate problem behavior shown to have occurred through 

an anti-harassment fact-finding. For example, conflict management one-on-one consultations with supervisors or 

employees may be an appropriate means to help address behavior that violates the Agency Anti-Harassment 

Policy. In the absence of a violation finding, conflict management may still be used to address behavior that is 

deemed inappropriate or otherwise unacceptable. To learn more about conflict management options view the 

Agency’s Conflict Management Program brochure at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/nasaonly/odeo/CMP_Brochure.pdf and/or consult with the ODEO CMP Manager. 

However, Centers are strongly cautioned AGAINST the use of conflict management as a means of replacing the 

anti-harassment fact-finding called for under the policy. This is because the Agency does not want alleged 

harassees to feel dissuaded from using the process as described Agency-wide in both policy, communications 

and technical assistance materials. Centers should NOT engage in either conflict management or alternative 

dispute resolution (ADR) without 1) conducting a fact-finding into the allegation(s) 2) consulting with the CAHC 

regarding ADR processes and 3) gaining the express agreement of all parties to participate in alternate processes 

as a means of addressing the allegation(s). 

Remedial measures should not adversely affect the harassee. Thus, for example, if it is necessary to separate the 

parties, then the harasser should be transferred (unless the harassee prefers otherwise). Remedial responses 

that penalize the harassee could constitute unlawful retaliation and are not effective in correcting the 

harassment.23

4.6.2 Notifying the Alleged Harassee and Harasser 

The supervisor shall notify the alleged harassee and harasser of the outcome of the process to the extent 

permitted under the Privacy Act.24 A harassee does not need to know and may not be provided the outcome of 

any disciplinary action against a harasser. A harassee is not to be provided with a copy of the Fact-Finding 

report. The supervisor should consult with the CAHC and subject matter experts as to this notification. The same 

rules generally apply to the alleged harasser, who is not entitled to see the fact-finding report as a matter of 

course. However, if disciplinary action is to be taken against the alleged harasser, he or she is entitled to see that 

portion of the report that forms the basis for taking the action. 

Decision (Close-Out) Memos to the Parties 

Role of the Supervisor of Record 

It is the role of the supervisor of record to issue decision memos to both the alleged harassee and the alleged 

harasser, or in cases in which a violation of the Agency anti-harassment policy has been found, the harassee and 

the harasser. Under the procedures, the supervisor has the option to ACT AS or DESIGNATE a Fact-Finder (FF). 

Generally speaking, it is expected that the supervisor will act as the FF in cases involving more minor incidents 

and will appoint a FF in more serious, or more complex matters, under the advice of the CAHC and subject matter 

experts. Regardless, the memos should always be signed by the supervisor (decision-maker) with a courtesy 

copy to the CAHC. 

Developing Decision Memos 

The action to be taken in terms of close-out recordation will vary from case to case, depending on the complexity 

23 Id. at V.C.1.f. 

24 NPR 3713.XX, Sec. 2.3.3. 

19
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

of the case and whether further steps need to be taken. In relatively simple cases, that is, those involving a single 

incident, a simple fact-finding conducted by the supervisor him/herself and involving just the parties or one or two 

others, there may be a single close‐out memo to the file, to be shared with the CAHC. The close-out memo in 

such cases should state what occurred, who was involved, and the supervisor’s determination as to whether, and 

what, follow‐up action is to be taken. [Note: Such memos to the file should only be prepared and serve as the 

primary form of case recordation where the supervisor handles the matter without recourse to disciplinary action, 

beyond verbal counseling.] 

In more complex cases, generally those in which a FF has been designated to conduct the fact-finding on the 

supervisor’s behalf, decision memos, one for the alleged (or actual) harasee and one for the alleged (or actual) 

harasser, should be developed in consultation with the CAHC and subject matter experts. It is important to note in 

this regard that, in developing the substance of decision memos, the most appropriate steps to be taken to 

address the situation should be the driving factor in the supervisor’s deliberations, as the policy is 

designed to be proactive and preventive. Managers also should take into consideration the definition of 

harassment in the NPR when conducting their post fact‐finding deliberations in a given case. The definition refers 

to unwelcome conduct based on one or more of the policy’s protected classifications, for example, national origin, 

when either 1) the behavior can reasonably be considered to adversely affect the work environment or (2) an 

employment decision affecting the employee is based upon the employee's acceptance or rejection of such 

conduct. Thus, with respect to the first prong of the definition, NASA supervisors are looking to see whether the 

conduct at issue can REASONABLY be said to adversely affect the work environment, based on the facts as set 

forth in the fact‐finding report. Making this determination should be guided by common sense. For example, 

how serious was the conduct? How frequent was it? Did it involve more than one harassee? If the conduct is 

already serious, what steps should be taken? If not, are there steps that can be taken now to address the conduct 

BEFORE it becomes severe and pervasive? As always, supervisors should consult with subject matter experts in 

making these determinations. 

Generally, decision memos in such cases should include: 

1. The allegation; 

2. The steps taken regarding the allegation, e.g., fact‐finding [Note: This does not need to be a detailed 

recitation; it is sufficient to state: “A fact‐finding into the matter was conducted.”]; and

3. The determination as to whether the conduct that was the subject of the allegation violated the NPR. 

Decision memos should be developed in consultation with Legal and HR, and should clearly state the ultimate 

decision. 

Examples of Decision Memo Language 

The following are examples of decisional language you may wish to consider, depending on the facts: 

1. Where the policy is found to have been violated: 

Ex. A: “I have found that your behavior/certain instances of your behavior constitutes harassment as defined by 

the NASA Anti‐harassment Policy.”

Ex. B: “I have found that the evidence supports the allegation(s) of harassment as it is defined by NASA’s 

Anti‐Harassment Policy.”

2. Where the policy is NOT found to have been violated: 

Ex. A: “I have found that the subject behavior does not constitute harassment as defined by the NASA 

Anti‐harassment Policy.”

Ex. B: “I have found no evidence to support the allegation(s) of harassment.”

20
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

 

 

3. Where the policy is NOT found to have been violated, but poor judgment was found to have been exercised 

and additional action, e.g., training, is deemed appropriate: 

Ex. A: “While I did not find that NASA’s Anti‐harassment Policy was violated, I did find extremely poor judgment 

was exercised by Ms. X in the manner in which she interacted with Mr. Y. It is my goal, and the goal of the 

Agency, to ensure that all employees can work in a productive environment free of harassment. I request you to 

take appropriate action in addressing Ms. X’s poor judgment in this matter and to take any action(s) you believe 

necessary to ensure that all NASA supervisors at Center X understand their roles and responsibilities under 

NASA’s Anti‐harassment Policy.”

Ex. B: “Although I did not find a violation of our anti‐harassment policy, you exercised extremely poor judgment in 

[subject behavior]. This should never have occurred, and I expect NASA supervisors to exhibit better judgment. 

My intent is to address your behavior so you are aware how some of your communications and actions are 

perceived by others regardless of your intent, and to ensure you take appropriate steps to modify your behavior 

as appropriate. As you know harassing conduct of any nature will not be tolerated. This includes jokes, remarks 

(regardless of whether they are specifically directed at an employee), videos, gestures and any similar actions 

that unreasonably interfere with work performance or create an intimidating or hostile work environment.”

21
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

5. RECORDS MANAGEMENT 

 

5.1 Tracking of Harassment Allegations

Each Center shall be responsible for ensuring the maintenance and tracking of information pertaining to 

allegations of harassment.25 Tracking data about allegations of harassing conduct is necessary for recordkeeping purposes. It also serves as a reference source for inquiries and responses on a need-to-know basis only. 

To facilitate tracking of allegations of harassing conduct, please see Appendix E. Harassment Activity 

Reporting Tracking Form, to be used by CAHCs to periodically gather data, to report on the number and bases 

of allegations over time, to conduct trends analysis, and to ensure that the fact-finding and other actions taken in 

response to allegations are in accordance with the requirements of NASA’s Anti-Harassment Procedural 

Requirements. 

5.2 Maintenance of Records 

The CAHC will ensure the Center maintains case files pertaining to the anti-harassment process at their 

respective Centers.26 The maintenance of records and any disclosure of information from these records must be 

in compliance with the Privacy Act, Title 5 United States Code (USC) 552a, NPR 1441.1, NASA Records 

Retention Schedules, and NPR 1382.1, NASA Privacy Procedural Requirements. Such information, however, 

may have to be disclosed to those officers and employees who have a need for the record in order to carry out 

the purpose and intent of the Anti-Harassment procedures. (See also Sec. 3.4) 

Anti-Harassment System of Records 

 

NASA has developed a System of Records Notification (SORN) to ensure that all records pertaining to the 

Agency’s Anti-Harassment Program (AHP) are maintained in a manner consistent with Privacy Act requirements. 

The SORN may be accessed at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_10HRCF-2011.pdf The 

SORN defines and describes categories of individuals and records, routine uses of AHP records, and retention 

and disposal timeframes. It names the Agency Anti-Harassment Coordinator as System Manager and the CAHC 

at each Center as a Sub-system Manager. All CAHCs should familiarize themselves with the SORN. 

25 NPR 3713.XX, P.5, Verification/Measurement 

26 NPR 3713.XX, Sec. 1.6.1.5. 

22
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX A. ANTI-HARRASSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 

23
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX B. CHECKLIST OF BASIC INFORMATION TO ALLEGED HARASSERS 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

1. As a person identified or alleged to be responsible for harassing conduct, the employee will be asked to provide 

information relating to the allegations. The alleged harasser is responsible for fully cooperating with the fact-finding 

process. 

2. If there are individuals who can provide information concerning the allegations of harassment, the alleged harasser 

should be prepared to furnish the Supervisor, the CAHC, or the Fact-Finder, with their full name, position, and contact 

information. The Fact-Finder will determine what interviews and documentation are necessary. 

3. The information in the Fact-Finding Report is protected by the Privacy Act, and the information contained therein may 

only be shared with those who have a need to know in the performance of their duties. 

4. An alleged harasser may be an employee covered under a collective bargaining agreement and may be entitled to 

certain rights. It is recommended that the supervisor, or CAHC consult with your Legal Office or your Center Labor 

Relations Officer regarding these rights. 

5. An alleged harasser is required to keep the Agency informed of his or her contact information. 

6. An alleged harasser must notify the CAHC or the NASA Anti-Harassment Coordinator of any questions or concerns 

he or she may have about the Anti-Harassment Process. 

24
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX C. FACT-FINDING AUTHORIZATION MEMO 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

[DATE] 

To: Fact-Finder 

From: Supervisor 

Subject: Authorization of Fact-Finding for NASA’s Anti-Harassment Process 

____________, an employee at [NAME OF CENTER] has raised an allegation(s) of harassment. In accordance with NPR 

3713.3, I hereby authorize [NAME OF FACT-FINDER] to conduct an independent fact-finding into this allegation(s). 

NAME TITLE 

 __________________ Fact-Finder 

Upon identification, the Fact-Finder will expect your complete cooperation in this matter. Pursuant to NPR 3713.3 Chapter 1.1.4, 

all NASA employees are expected to participate in the process and may be subject to disciplinary action for failing to do so. 

Should you have any questions about this process, please contact xx, your Center Anti-Harassment Coordinator or me. 

[Appointing AUTHORITY’S SIGNATURE BLOCK with name and official NASA Title]

cc:

25
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX D. FACT-FINDING REPORT TEMPLATE 

The fact-finding report will vary from case to case. In simple cases, for example, an incident that occurs with the supervisor 

present, the “report” may consist of a supervisor’s brief memorandum to the file describing the inappropriate conduct and what 

was done to address it. In more complex cases, the Fact-Finder will need to prepare a more in-depth document. However, 

the document should be as concise as possible, laying out only the needed information to make a decision as to whether 

prompt action should be taken to address the matter, and if so, what action is needed. The template below provides an outline 

of the information to be provided when it is determined that an in-depth report is appropriate. 

I. Preliminary Statement 

A. Identify the authority for conducting fact-finding.

The paragraph should generally read as follows: “This fact-finding was authorized by __________________ (place) 

on (date) per Memorandum dated___________________.”

B. Identify the purpose and scope of the fact-finding. 

1. The initial purpose of the fact-finding should be concisely stated. As an example: “to conduct a fact-finding 

into whether harassment in violation of NASA policy occurred when . . .” 

2. The fact-finding should always be limited in scope to just the allegation for which the fact-finding has been 

authorized. However, if during the course of the fact-finding, information was provided to the Fact-Finder that 

goes beyond the scope of the current fact-finding, a note to the reader should be provided: 

a. Example: “Fact-finding was limited to the alleged incident. Two employees and one contractor found to 

have knowledge pertinent to the incident were interviewed.”

b. Example: “During the course of the fact-finding, two other employees made two additional allegations of 

harassment by Mr. Oxford.”

C. List or summarize the witnesses interviewed. 

II. Findings of Fact

A. Findings go to the when, who, what, why, where, and how. Findings are the resolutions of the details. 

B. The Findings should be set forth in a narrative addressing all the pertinent evidence. In a good narrative, the 

issues are set out and resolved in an orderly way. The simplest way to organize the narrative is to describe the 

allegation and then describe what each witness or other evidence had to say about it. 

C. Keep in mind that there must be a reference to exhibits in support of every factual assertion. Therefore, after 

every factual statement the exhibits supporting that statement should be identified in parentheses ( ). The 

exhibits are not repeated in the narrative; they are described. This must be done correctly and fairly. It is not fair, for 

example to describe a witness as “admitting” a fact when he or she merely stated it and the fact doesn’t bear on his 

or her culpability. In other words, watch the use of emotionally-charged language. Such language will impair 

credibility. 

III. Signature 

A. The Fact-Finder shall sign the Report. 

B. Signatures reflect the accuracy of the report and view of the Fact-Finder. 

26
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX D. FACT-FINDING REPORT TEMPLATE, continued 

IV. Exhibits 

A. This section of the Report includes an index of all exhibits supporting the findings and a descriptive heading of 

each. The exhibits should be included in their entirety. The Report is incomplete if the exhibits are not part of the 

package. 

B. This section includes any material referred to or considered in the findings of fact. e.g., emails, photographic 

images. 

C. Exhibits may also include signed statements from the parties and witnesses, depending on the complexity and 

severity of the allegations (See Section 4.3.2, above). 

27
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX E. HARRASSMENT ACTIVITY REPORTING/TRACKING FORM* 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

CENTER: _________________________ 

HARASSMENT ACTIVITY REPORTING/TRACKING 

* To be prepared and maintained by the CAHC. 

28
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX F. INTERVIEW TIPS 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

I. Purpose of the Interview Questions 

It is essential that Fact-Finders understand the purpose of interviews is to obtain relevant facts. Relevant facts are those that 

are important to deciding the previously identified ultimate issues. They are outcome determinative. Therefore, fact-finding 

questions must be designed to obtain the relevant facts. Also, remember that for every piece of disputed evidence, there 

should be a factual finding.

II. Interviewing Techniques

Interviewing techniques vary, depending upon the facts, circumstances, and witnesses. The following suggestions should be 

considered as techniques to elicit the best, most reliable information: 

A. All questions asked during the interview must be directed toward discovering the answers to “who, what, when, 

where, why, and how.”

B. Avoid beginning an interview with specific questions, as they may inhibit the witness. The witness may feel that only 

those items mentioned are pertinent. 

C. The first set of questions should establish the witness’ title, experience, education (where appropriate) and job-related 

duties for the record. 

D. The second set of questions should establish the witness’ knowledge of the event(s) under fact-finding. Elicit a 

description of the scene first; then the related action. Asking an open-ended question allows the witness to tell his or 

her rendition of events. Once the person has completely related his or her narrative, specific questions may be asked 

to clarify specific points and gather additional information. 

E. Compound questions are confusing and should be avoided. 

F. Leading questions are questions that suggest an answer. Examples: “This isn’t the first time you’ve had performance 

issues, is it?” “You confronted your subordinate, didn’t you?” The disadvantages inherent in leading questions are 

that they can lead to distortions of the statements made and can potentially lead to witness intimidation. Leading 

questions should be avoided. 

G. Problems can also arise when asking questions that are answered by a simple yes or no. This limits the witness to 

answering only specific questions, and in many instances the witness has a tendency to answer affirmatively just to 

be agreeable. They are appropriate in limited situations, where a direct response is important. 

H. Keep the format simple and carefully choose the language as word choice can affect an answer. 

I. Actual interview – If fact-finding addresses specific events, inquire about all events during the relevant time frame in 

chronological blocks of time. For each block ask, who, what, when, where, why and how: 

1. What was the alleged conduct? 

2. Who was present? 

3. What was said? 

4. What exactly occurred? 

5. When did it occur? 

6. Where did it occur? 

7. How did this affect you? 

8. How did it occur? 

9. Where did it happen? 

10. Who else has information? 

J. The Fact-Finder should also determine the following: 

1. What was said? 

2. Who said it? 

3. When was it said? 

29
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX F. INTERVIEW TIPS, continued 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

K. The Fact-Finder should keep in mind the following:

1. Always ask if there is any other information they have about the situation that he or she believes could be 

significant. 

2. Don’t tell one witness what another specific witness said.

3. Always maintain control. 

4. Don’t discuss personal opinions or conclusions. 

5. Don’t make accusatory statements.

6. Have the witness explain terms and phrases. 

7. Resolve contradictions. 

III. Interview Closing Phase

At the end of every interview, bolster the witness, whether he or she is friendly or hostile. This can be accomplished by 

employing the following statements: 

A. “Is there anything else I should ask you that I haven’t?”

B. “Anything else I need to know?”

C. “If you have any doubts, is there anything else you think you should tell me?”

D. Remind the witness “it’s for the record.”

E. “Certainly you appreciate that this matter may go to a higher level. Is there anything you’d like to amend or 

supplement?”

F. Always give the witness the privilege of contacting the Fact-Finder if additional information is later recalled or comes 

to their attention. Not everyone can think of every detail on the spot, and the questioning may well trigger further 

search of memory and records. 

30
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX G. NOTICE OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NASA EMPLOYEES ALLEGING HARASSING 

CONDUCT 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Employees who believe they have been subjected to harassing conduct have the right to: 

1. Report the matter immediately to their first-line supervisor, the CAHC, or any other official designated by the Center 

Director/OIC. In the event that the employee’s first-line supervisor is the alleged harasser, the employee shall contact 

the second-line supervisor, the CAHC, or any other official as designated. 

2. Report the alleged incident of harassing conduct to the CAHC, or other official as designated by the Center 

Director/OIC when the person to whom the alleged harassment was reported failed to take prompt action. 

3. Pursue the matter under the Agency's Anti-Harassment Procedures, the EEO complaint procedures, or both 

processes simultaneously. The process established under the Anti-Harassment Procedural Requirements is entirely 

separate and apart from the EEO complaints process. An employee who reports harassment in accordance with the 

Anti-Harassment Procedures has not filed an EEO complaint under 29 CFR 1614 and NPD 3713.6P. A consultation 

with a CAHC is not EEO counseling for purposes of filing an EEO complaint. An employee who wishes to file a 

complaint of discrimination shall contact his/her Center EEO Office within 45 days of the alleged harassment. 

4. Present and pursue the allegation of harassing conduct free from restraint, interference, coercion, harassment and 

reprisal. 

5. Prompt notification upon completion of the fact-finding. However, to the extent that disciplinary action 

is taken, the employee shall not be apprised of the disciplinary action taken against an alleged harasee.

Employees alleging harassment have the responsibility to: 

1. Fully cooperate with the presentation of information, to include scheduling of interviews or meeting, responding to 

correspondence, and providing requested material or information, in the processing of their allegations of harassing 

conduct. 

2. Keep the Agency informed of your contact information. 

3. Notify the CAHC or the NASA Anti-Harassment Coordinator of any questions or concerns about the Anti-Harassment 

Process. 

This is to acknowledge that a copy of this form was provided to me.

______________________________ _____________________ 

Employee Alleging Harassment Date 

______________________________ _____________________ 

Supervisor or CAHC Date 

31 

 
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX H. QUESTIONS TO ASK PARTIES AND WITNESSES 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The following are examples of questions that may be appropriate to ask the parties and potential witnesses. Any actual 

fact-finding should be tailored to the particular facts. 

I. Questions to Ask the Alleged Harassee

A. Who, what, when, where, and how: Who engaged in the alleged conduct? What exactly occurred or was said? When

did it occur and is it still ongoing? Where did it occur? How often did it occur? How did it affect you? 

B. How did you react? What response did you make when the incident(s) occurred or afterwards? 

C. Are there any persons who have relevant information? Was anyone present when the alleged conduct occurred? Did 

you tell anyone about it? Did anyone see you immediately after the alleged conduct? 

D. Did the person who you believe harassed you engage in what you consider inappropriate conduct toward anyone 

else at that time? Do you know whether anyone complained about inappropriate conduct by that person? 

E. Are there any notes, physical evidence, or other documentation regarding the incident(s)? 

F. How would you like to see the situation resolved? 

G. Do you know of any other relevant information? 

II. Questions to Ask the Alleged Harasser

A. What is your response to the allegations? Give us your recollection of the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’

concerning the alleged event(s). 

B. Are there any persons who have relevant information? 

C. Are there any notes, physical evidence, or other documentation regarding the incident(s)? 

D. Do you know of any other relevant information? 

III. Questions to Ask Third Parties

A. What did you see or hear? When did this occur? Describe the alleged harasser's behavior toward the harassee and 

toward others in the workplace. 

B. What did the harassee tell you? When did she/he tell you this? 

C. Do you know of any other relevant information? 

D. Are there other persons who have relevant information? 

32
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

 

 

APPENDIX I. SAMPLE NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

STOP Workplace 

Harassment 

Causes Tension 

Causes Emotional Distress 

Undermines Productivity 

Lowers Morale 

Increases Employee 

Turnover Rates 

Increases Absenteeism 

Inhibits Growth and Creativity 

Undermines Professionalism 

Undermines Inclusion 

Insults Dignity of Employees 

Harassing conduct is any unwelcome conduct, 

verbal or physical, based on individual’s race, 

color, gender, national origin, religion, age, 

disability, genetic information, sexual orientation, 

status as a parent, gender identity, or retaliation 

when: 

(1) The behavior can reasonably be 

considered to adversely affect the work 

environment; or 

(2) An employment decision affecting the 

employee is based upon the employee’s 

acceptance or rejection of such conduct. 

Examples of harassment that may adversely affect the work 

environment include but are not limited to making jokes or 

remarks or displaying images, pictures, other materials that 

may unreasonably interfere with work performance and/or 

create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work 

environment based on an individual’s race, color, gender, 

national origin, religion, age, disability, genetic 

information, sexual orientation, status as a parent or 

gender identity. Examples of harassment based upon an 

employee’s acceptance or rejection of harassing 

conduct include, but are not limited to, a supervisor coercing 

an employee into an unwelcome sexual relationship and 

then rewarding the employee with a promotion, or a 

supervisor taking disciplinary action or denying a promotion 

to an employee because he or she rejected sexual advances 

from the supervisor. 

Retaliation against an employee for alleging harassment or 

participating in a harassment fact-finding is also 

impermissible. 

NASA employees who believe they have been subject of 

an incident of harassing conduct in violation of NASA 

Policy must not wait – tell the person that his or her 

behavior is a problem, report the matter immediately to 

his or her immediate supervisor, the Center AntiHarassment Coordinator, or other official as designated 

by the Center Director. 

Should you wish to receive additional information on NASA’s 

Anti-Harassment Procedures, please contact: 

Or visit: 

www.nasa.gov 

33
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 

APPENDIX J. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I, ____________________, (position title, grade and series), (location), NASA, make the following statement freely and 

voluntarily to ____________________, who has identified himself to me as a Fact Finder for the Agency, obtaining information 

and fact-finding in relation to an allegation(s) of harassment in violation of NASA policy. I have been informed that this 

statement may be used in evidence. I understand that this statement may be shown to the interested and relevant parties and 

those with a legal right to know. 

[STATEMENT] 

I have read the above statement, consisting of __ pages, and it is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 

 __________________________ 

 Witness Name and Date

34
NASA Anti-Harassment Implementation Guide 35