USDA 

United States Department 

-

of Agriculture 

Food Safety and 

Inspection Service 

Office of the 

Administrator 

Civil Rights Staff 

5601 Sunnyside Ave. 

Building 1 

Room 2260 

Mailstop 5261 

Beltsville, MD 20705 

 January 13, 2021 

TO: USDA Center for Civil Rights Operations 

Compliance Division 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

FROM: Angela E. Kelly 

Director 

SUBJECT: Data Submission of the 2020 Notification and Federal Employee 

Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR Act) Annual 

Report 

In accordance with the reporting requirements of Title III of the No FEAR Act of 

2002 and No FEAR Act Report Guidelines, attached is the Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Annual Report. 

The report reflects from FY 2019 to FY 2020 the Agency’s formal complaint 

inventory marginally decreased by three complaints. The Agency attributes this 

decrease to actions taken to address hiring and retention issues, as well as 

continued annual training efforts to educate employees on Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) and Civil Rights (CR) matters. 

If you have any questions on the contents of the report, please contact me at 

angela.kelly@usda.gov or at (301) 504-7755. 

cc: Bridget.Peters@usda.gov 

CCROCompliance@usda.gov 

Attachment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

FY 2020 Annual Report of the Notification and Federal Employee 

Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act Report 

1. The status and disposition of pending or resolved Federal court cases against the 

 agency arising under employment discrimination and whistleblower protection 

laws: 

The USDA Office of the General Counsel submits the response on behalf of the 

agency. 

2. The amount of money the agency was required to reimburse the Judgment Fund:

 The USDA Office of the General Counsel submits the response on behalf of the 

agency. 

3. The number of individuals disciplined and the type of discipline in connection 

with employment discrimination or whistleblower cases: 

None. 

4. A description of the agency’s policy for taking disciplinary action: 

Reference FSIS Directive 4735.3 Employee Responsibilities and Conduct found at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/98f86e3d-4c63-403a-ba33-

650d9c79f1f2/4735.3.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 

5. Actions planned or taken to improve complaint processing or other civil rights

 programs in the agency: 

• “Ask CRD” electronic mailbox – The Agency continues to promote this 

confidential mailbox to address employee questions and concerns about EEO/CR. 

• EEO/CR information on the agency Internet and Intranet - The Agency revised its 

web pages with updates and expanded information and links to related department 

and agency policy statements, definitions, complaint processing information, 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a special emphasis program directory, and 

a video library. Initiatives are underway to use electronic technology to automate 

and enhance the delivery of annual training modules and distribution of 

information relevant to the essential elements of a Model Agency EEO program. 

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – The FSIS Administrator continues to 

require management participation in ADR where an employee elects to 

participate. Each aggrieved party is offered the opportunity to elect ADR in lieu 

of traditional counseling. In FY 2020, 62% of aggrieved parties elected to 

participate in ADR. Offers of ADR in the formal stage of complaint processing 

Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

are also done, but this is on a case-by-case basis after an agency case assessment 

of the report of investigation and where a USDA decision on the record is the 

adjudicatory forum. 

• Balanced Scorecard for all Program Areas and District Offices – This measures 

performance compliance against the six essential elements for a Model Agency 

EEO program. Included are periodic briefings from the CR Director to each 

Assistant Administrator and District Manager on trends in informal and formal 

complaint activity. 

• Updated policy on Reasonable Accommodations (RA) and Personnel Assistance 

Services (PAS) - The updated FSIS policy directive 4306.2 aligns with USDA 

Departmental Regulation 4300-8 issued on October 30, 2020 to ensure 

employees are aware of and comply with new and revised policy and procedures 

for RA and PAS. 

• Civil Rights Enterprise System (CRES) - FSIS continues to effectively use this 

system to process, track, monitor, report, and assess trends in EEO complaint 

activity from initiation to closure. 

• Training Initiatives – EEO/CR training continues to be an integrated part of 

mandatory Agency training programs such as New Employee Orientation; Basic 

Supervisory Training for In-Plant Supervisors; Frontline Supervisory Training; 

and the New Supervisory Training Program. Customized civil rights and EEO 

training will continue to be developed and delivered upon request to numerous 

customers using both on-site and remote methods (in-person visits, use of 

telephone/videoconferencing). 

Comparative Analysis of the Agency’s FY 2019 and FY 2020 No FEAR Act data 

1. Number of Formal Complaints Filed 

Trend Examination: 

There was a five percent net decrease in the number of formal complaints filed in Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2020 (55) compared to the number filed in FY 2019 (58). 

Causal Analysis: 

The decrease in the formal complaint inventory can be attributed to any of the following 

actions or activities undertaken by the Agency during FY 2020: 

• EEO/CR Training - The Agency issued mandatory No FEAR Act training to all 

employees to ensure they were knowledgeable about EEO/CR laws and 

regulations. Ninety-two (92) percent of employees completed the training. 

Additionally, all FSIS managers and supervisors were required to complete AntiReprisal training, of which 87 percent completed the training and satisfied the 

Page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

competency requirement. This percentage exceeded the target competency rate of 

82 percent established in the Agency’s FY 2017-2021 Strategic Plan. Other efforts 

to train and educate the workforce included: articles on EEO/CR topics in various 

Agency newsletters and activities (Beacon, Wednesday Newsline, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Advisory Committees, Special Emphasis Programs, and 

webinars). When employees are educated about discrimination, harassment, 

reprisal, the EEO process, and conduct that contributes to violations of law and 

agency policy, they are more likely to refrain from engaging in behaviors that 

contribute to the filing of EEO complaints. 

• Continued marketing of ADR for complaint resolution at the lowest level 

possible – To increase the ADR acceptance rate, the Agency established a goal of 

48% ADR acceptance in the FY 2020 Strategic Plan. To meet this goal and garner 

participation in the ADR program, the Agency marketed the ADR program 

through training; during interactions with aggrieved parties; and through the 

dissemination of ADR brochures and promotional items. As a result, 62% of ADR 

offers during the informal complaint process were accepted. Further, the Agency 

continued to require all supervisors and managers participate in ADR. The Agency 

also designated one primary resolving official to participate in ADR for complaints 

originating from its field inspection program which had most of the complaints 

referred to mediation. Designating one primary resolving official helped the 

agency identify and address systemic issues and ensured consistency. In addition, 

the experience and knowledge of the Agency’s EEO Counselors and Mediators 

assisted all the parties to reach resolution during the informal stage of the EEO 

process. As a result, the Agency’s pre-complaint resolution rate during FY 2020 

was 60%. This exceeded the government-wide resolution rate of 56% and 

USDA’s resolution rate of 45%. 

• Fewer complaints related to the implementation of the New Poultry 

Inspection System (NPIS) – Comparatively fewer numbers of GS-7 Food 

Inspectors were impacted in FY 2020 by the poultry industry’s continued 

conversion to the NPIS inspection system than were impacted in FY 2019. 

Accordingly, fewer impacted employees raised EEO complaints regarding their 

dissatisfaction with the outcome of work reduction procedures and other terms and 

conditions of employment that led to EEO filings on claims of promotion/nonselection, reassignment out of the local commuting area, testing/grading outcomes 

of required inspection courses as a condition of employment to encumber 

Consumer Safety Inspector positions, and temporary travel and shift 

reassignments/hardships. 

• Continual and informative communication by top Agency leadership in 

providing instruction and guidance to the workforce during the COVID-19 

pandemic – Agency leadership provided weekly all-employee telephonic town 

hall meetings three times per day for approximately four months, and biweekly 

meetings thereafter, on the pandemic and its impact on Agency operations. These 

sessions kept the workforce informed on the latest policy guidance and public 

health recommendations from the CDC, OPM, and Agency for personal protective 

Page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gear, social distancing, and other protective measures in the in-plant environment. 

The sessions also provided employees with timely guidance on the use of available 

leave categories and the use of the reasonable accommodations process. This 

continual contact from top Agency leadership and day to day instructions from 

front-line supervisors provided updated information and guidance that helped to 

boost morale for inspection personnel who were required to report to work daily 

during a nationwide pandemic. Clear and on-going communication of policy and 

expectations created an environment of transparency and trust where employees 

less frequently felt the need to invoke the EEO process to have their concerns or 

complaints heard or where they believed they were treated disparately. 

• Conducting Title VII compliance reviews – The Agency continued to monitor its 

policies and practices through Title VII compliance reviews of internal programs. 

These reviews proactively assisted the Agency to identify potential violations or 

weaknesses in its EEO programs as well as workplace climate concerns, thereby 

preventing potential EEO complaints. The Agency conducted Title VII compliance 

reviews of five program areas. During each of the reviews, the Agency analyzed 

the program’s workforce demographic data; assessed internal procedures and 

practices and EEO complaint activity for a 3-year period; administered a climate 

assessment survey and analyzed the results; and conducted facility assessments to 

determine if facilities were accessible to Persons with Disabilities (PWD) and 

displayed appropriate EEO posters and materials. Findings and recommendations 

were issued and action plans were developed to improve each program’s EEO 

programs. 

• Holding supervisors and managers accountable for engaging in 

discriminatory practices to deter such conduct in the future. A standardized 

stand-alone mandatory EEO/CR critical element is incorporated into all 

supervisory performance standards that establish performance expectations to 

ensure supervisory compliance with EEO requirements. In addition, FSIS 

references USDA’s table of penalties covering discriminatory misconduct and 

applies applicable discipline when appropriate. The Agency’s Labor and 

Employee Relations Division (LERD) conducts accountability assessments on all 

findings of discrimination and settlement agreements. Where appropriate, 

Responsible Management Officials are held accountable for their conduct through 

corrective and/or disciplinary action. The Agency also reviews findings of 

discrimination against existing policies and procedures to identify knowledge gaps 

or inconsistencies in application to proactively prevent future adverse decisions. 

Knowledge Gained: 

Supervisors and managers who completed the No FEAR Act and Anti-Reprisal trainings 

were better informed about the laws governing discrimination complaints. This will 

enable them to ensure their work environments are free from actions and behaviors that 

lead to complaints. 

Page 5 
 

 

 

 

The Agency gained significant insight into the climate of the workforce through the Title 

VII compliance reviews. Five compliance reviews are conducted annually to assess 

internal EEO programs and the workplace climate. Following the assessment, 

management is provided with findings and recommendations to assist them in ensuring 

they are taking proactive steps to address employees’ concerns and adequately managing 

their EEO programs. The Agency continues to streamline the process by working across 

the Agency with a data integration analyst and survey/data collection experts to ensure 

the efficient and accurate collection of employee perceptions and proper analysis of 

relevant EEO data. 

Three years into the implementation of the NPIS inspection system saw a net reduction of 

nearly 50% of EEO complaints filed in FY 2020 on claims of promotion/non-selection 

and terms/conditions of employment. This may be the result of fewer slaughter line 

employees being impacted by work reductions from plants converting to NPIS in FY 

2020, and/or these employees having increased knowledge of Agency work reduction 

processes resulting from Agency educational efforts. 

Continual, transparent, and effective management communication to employees during 

the COVID-19 pandemic may have positively improved employee morale and confidence 

in the Agency’s mandate to provide on-going inspection coverage to industry. When 

employees understand the rationale behind top management’s policies and actions, there 

may be fewer instances where employees believe discriminatory intent drives the actions. 

This may be a reason why fewer complaints were filed in FY 2020. 

Action Taken or Planned: 

In FY 2020, the Agency issued mandatory No FEAR Act training to the entire workforce 

and Anti-Reprisal training to managers and supervisors. The goal was to increase and 

refresh employees’ knowledge of EEO/CR laws and regulations to reduce the occurrence 

of infractions that lead to complaint filings. 

The Agency implemented two initiatives to address staffing shortages that may have been 

contributing factors to employee dissatisfaction and EEO complaint filings. The Agency 

utilized OPM-approved direct hire authority to decrease the time needed to staff critical 

frontline GS-1863 Food Inspector and GS-1862 Consumer Safety Inspector positions. 

The Agency also implemented a group monetary retention incentive program for in-plant 

Supervisory Veterinary Medical Officers/Public Health Veterinarians with five or more 

years of service. The objective of the monetary incentive program is to retain qualified 

personnel in a mission critical occupation that has experienced high turnover and 

vacancies. 

In FY 2021, employees will be required to complete two EEO/CR-related trainings. One 

course will focus on religious accommodation, veterans’ preference, age discrimination, 

national origin discrimination, employee use of official time for EEO activity, and 

reprisal. The second training will focus on reasonable accommodations. 

Page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Number of Individual Filers and Number of Repeat Filers 

Trend Examination: 

In FY 2020, there were 53 individual complainants, two of whom were repeat filers. In 

comparison, in FY 2019 there were 56 individual complainants, two of whom were also 

repeat filers. There was no comparative change in the number of individual and repeat filers 

between fiscal years. 

Causal Analysis: 

The causal analysis described under Section 1 of this report is also applicable for the 

decrease in the number of complaint filers noted during FY 2020. The decrease in 

complaint filers can also be associated with the same contributing factors resulting in a 

decreased volume of total complaints filed. Each of the two repeat filers’ subsequent 

complaints alleged reprisal from the same responding officials, however each filer raised 

new claims that were distinct from the claims raised in their previous complaints. 

Knowledge Gained: 

Regarding the number of individual filers, the knowledge-gained analyses is the same as 

that described under Section 1 for total number of complaints. It was also noted some 

individuals use the EEO process to raise allegations, including reprisal, to air grievances, 

to seek information, or to raise objections to their perceptions of being wronged, harmed, 

ignored, or treated differently in the workplace. 

Action Taken or Planned: 

The decrease in the number of complaint filers is associated with the same contributing 

factors resulting in a decreased volume of total complaints filed. The actions taken or 

planned actions were described in Section 1 of this report. 

3. Number of Bases Alleged in Complaints 

Trend Examination: 

The top four bases remained consistent between FY 2020 and FY 2019. Although reprisal 

remained the top basis, there was a 37 percent decrease in FY 2020. Race, sex, age, and 

disability were the other top bases noted in FY 2020. 

FY 2020 FY 2019 

1. Reprisal (26) 1. Reprisal (41) 

2. Race (21) 2. Sex (24) 

3. Sex (20) 3. Race and Disability (23) 

4. Age and Disability (17) 4. Age (18) 

Page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race was alleged in 21 complaints in FY 2020 and 23 complaints in FY 2019, a net decrease of 

8.7 percent. Complaints citing sex decreased by 16.7 percent, from 24 in FY 2019 to 20 in FY 

2020. Complaints citing disability had a net decrease of 26.1 percent from FY 2019 (23 

complaints) to FY 2020 (17 complaints). Age was the fourth most frequently cited basis in 

both fiscal years with a net decrease of 5.6 percent from 18 complaints in FY 2019 to 17 

complaints in FY 2020. 

Causal Analysis: 

The Agency experienced a decrease in all protected bases during FY 2020 compared to FY 

2019, with the most significant decreases seen in the bases of reprisal and disability. This 

could be attributed to several factors including the Agency’s efforts to resolve complaints at 

the earliest stage possible, specifically during the informal stage. Through traditional 

counseling and ADR, the Agency placed a great deal of emphasis on working with parties to 

reach resolution during the informal complaint process. The Agency continued to ensure 

employees, supervisors, and managers receive mandatory EEO/CR training and reasonable 

accommodation training to keep them apprised of current regulations and policies. Supervisors 

and managers also completed mandatory Anti-Reprisal training in FY 2020 to re-emphasize 

their understanding of what constitutes reprisal and what behaviors contribute to it. Further, 

the Agency ensured all senior managers designated as Resolving Officials received training 

regarding their responsibilities. The Agency also designated a single Resolving Official for its 

largest program with the most complaint activity. This helped the Agency identify and address 

systemic issues and achieve complaint closure. 

Knowledge Gained: 

The description of knowledge gained under Section 1 is similarly relevant here. 

Action Taken or Planned: 

During FY 2020, the Agency implemented all planned actions reported in the FY 2019 

No FEAR Report. Specifically, the entire workforce completed mandatory No FEAR 

training and all managers and supervisors completed mandatory Anti-Reprisal training. 

Additional training was also provided to employees, managers, and supervisors. Three 

Special Emphasis Programs were conducted in field locations. These actions collectively 

assisted Agency’s efforts towards achieving and maintaining a discrimination-free 

workplace. 

During FY 2021 the workforce will be required to complete Agency issued mandatory 

EEO/CR training on religious accommodation, veterans’ preference, age discrimination, 

national origin discrimination, employee use of official time for EEO activity, and 

reprisal. Employees will also be required to complete RA training issued by the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Number of Issues Alleged in Complaints 

Trend Examination: 

In FY 2020, the ranking of the top four claims remained unchanged from the ranking observed 

in FY 2019. The top claims were harassment (non-sexual), disciplinary/adverse actions, time 

and attendance issues, and terms/conditions of employment. Except for time and attendance 

issues, this ranking mirrors the same claims cited in complaints filed across all Federal 

agencies. 

FY 2020 FY 2019 

1. Non-sexual Harassment (35) 1. Non-sexual Harassment (38) 

2. Disciplinary Actions (19) 2. Disciplinary Actions (18) 

3. Time and Attendance (9) 3. Time and Attendance (17) 

Terms/Conditions of Employment (17) 

4. Terms/Conditions of Employment (8) 4. Promotion/Non-Selection (13) 

There was an 8 percent net decrease in the number of complaints citing non-sexual harassment, 

from 38 in FY 2019 to 35 in FY 2020. The number of complaints citing disciplinary/adverse 

actions increased by 5.5 percent from 18 in FY 2019 to 19 in FY 2020. Time and attendance 

claims were citied in 9 complaints in FY 2020; this represented a net decrease of 47 percent 

from FY 2019 (17 complaints). Claims classified as terms/conditions of employment had a net 

decrease of 52 percent from FY 2019 (13 complaints) to FY 2020 (8 complaints). 

Causal Analysis: 

From FY 2019 to FY 2020, there was no change in the ranking of the top issues. Non-sexual 

harassment remained the top cited claim, which is consistent with trends reported at both 

Departmental and Federal levels. Complainants frequently raised a series of sequentially 

occurring work-related incidents they categorized as harassment. Several Complainants also 

retroactively raised untimely discrete acts of alleged discrimination (such as non-selections for 

promotion and disciplinary actions) for use as background information in support of hostile 

work environment allegations. 

The net increase in claims pertaining to discipline/adverse action is likely influenced by the 

Agency’s adherence to Executive Order (E.O.) 13839, Section 5- Ensuring Integrity of 

Personnel Files. The Agency is prohibited from entering into settlement agreements that alter 

or rescind personnel actions in an employee’s Official Personnel Folder (OPF) that were not 

the result of an Agency error. The E.O. impacted the Agency’s ability to settle informal 

complaints involving disciplinary/adverse actions, neutral references, performance appraisals, 

and other personnel related actions. Two years after the E.O. was issued, aggrieved parties 

continue to pursue formal EEO complaints after they were made aware the resolutions they 

sought in the pre-complaint process were unavailable pursuant to the E.O. 

Decreases in the number of claims citing time and attendance and terms and conditions of 

employment may have been influenced by the Agency’s FY 2020 direct hire authority and 

monetary retention efforts that addressed in-plant staffing shortages. In prior FYs, staffing 

Page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shortages and limited relief coverage culminated in employee stress and dissatisfaction with 

the work environment often resulting in time and attendance issues and complaints about the 

terms or conditions of employment. 

Fewer complaints pertaining to promotion/non-selection actions may be the result of fewer 

inspection personnel raising claims arising out of the intense competition for positions caused 

by the voluntary conversion of poultry plants to the NPIS. 

Knowledge Gained: 

The description of knowledge gained under Section 1 is similarly relevant here. 

Action Taken or Planned: 

The description of actions taken and/or planned under Section 1 is similarly relevant here. 

6. Findings of Discrimination 

Trend Examination: 

For the past two years, there were no findings of discrimination issued to the Agency by the 

EEOC or USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR). 

Causal Analysis: 

None. 

Knowledge Gained: 

None. 

Action Taken or Planned: 

None. 

7. Average Length of Time to Complete Each Stage of the Complaint Process 

Investigation: USDA averaged 11 more calendar days to complete investigations of 

FSIS cases which represented a 5.5 percent increase in processing time. 

FY 2020 – 210 days FY 2019 – 199 days 

Page 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Agency Action with Hearing: USDA averaged five fewer days to issue Final Orders 

of FSIS cases after receiving Administrative Judges decisions and orders entering 

judgment. This represented a 16.7 percent decrease in processing time. 

FY 2020 – 25 days FY 2019 – 30 days 

Final Agency Action without Hearing: USDA averaged 17 fewer days to issue merit 

Final Agency Decisions on FSIS cases which represented a 31.5 percent decrease in 

processing time. 

FY 2020 – 37 days FY 2019 – 54 days 

Dismissals: There was a 60 percent increase in the average number of days cases were 

pending prior to a procedural dismissal. 

FY 2020 – 24 days FY 2019 – 15 days 

There was a 180 percent increase in the total number of complaints dismissed in FY 2020 

(14 cases) compared to FY 2019 (5 cases). 

8. Pending Complaints Filed in Previous Fiscal Years 

Investigation: No change. FY 2020 – 1 FY 2019 – 1 

Hearing: 12.5 percent decrease (5 fewer cases pending). FY 2020 – 35 FY 2019 – 40 

Final Agency Action: 33.3 percent decrease (2 fewer cases pending). 

FY 2020 – 4 FY 2019 – 6 

Appeal: 17.4 percent increase (12 more cases pending). FY 2020 – 81 FY 2019 – 69 

9. Total Number of Pending Complaints Where Investigations Exceed Required

 Timeframes 

There was no change in the number of pending cases exceeding the 180-day timeframe. 

There were no cases in either FY 2019 or FY 2020. 

Additional Reporting Requirements for Agency Annual No FEAR Report 

10. Posting No FEAR Statistical Data 

A hyperlink to USDA’s No FEAR page reflecting the Agency’s quarterly complaint data is 

available on the FSIS public website home page at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/home, as well as the FSIS Civil Rights page at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis/civil-rights. 

Page 11 
 

 

 

 

 

11. No FEAR Training of Agency Employees 

The Agency provides mandatory No FEAR training as part of the initial onboarding process 

for new hires. The Agency provides bi-annual mandatory refresher No FEAR training through 

AgLearn and by distributing paper copies to employees without AgLearn accounts. The 

Agency’s Civil Rights Staff reviews FSIS No FEAR data in AgLearn and provides notification 

to employees who have not taken the No FEAR training each year. In addition, the Agency 

routinely notifies the workforce about the requirement for No FEAR training through the FSIS 

weekly newsletter (Wednesday Newsline). 

12. No FEAR Notice 

A hyperlink to USDA’s No FEAR page and the No FEAR Act Notice is available at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/home; on the FSIS Civil Rights page at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis/civil-rights; and through the FSIS 

weekly newsletter (Wednesday Newsline). 

Page 12