FSGB Grievant Asks @StateDept “Which Surnames Qualified as “Hispanic Surnames” #Census #Google

 

Via Record of Proceedings
FSGB Case No. 2020053 | October 22, 2021

I. BACKGROUND
The background of this case is described in detail in the June 17, 2021, Order: Motion to Compel issued by the Foreign Service Grievance Board (“FSGB” or the “Board”). That Order required the Department to provide additional responses to grievant’s initial discovery requests including grievant’s Interrogatory #1 which sought disaggregated statistics on rates of tenure for Foreign Service Generalist career candidates with Hispanic surnames who were considered for tenure during a specified five-year period, as compared with the tenure rate for other candidates.

On July 7, 2021, the Department responded to grievant’s Interrogatory #1.

Grievant was dissatisfied with the response and on July 14, 2021, he requested clarification of how the Department determined which surnames were Hispanic. The Department responded the same day, explaining how it had determined which surnames were Hispanic.

On July 27, 2021, grievant made a follow-on discovery request, seeking a list of the surnames the Department determined to be Hispanic and a list of the surnames of the candidates who had non-Hispanic surnames and were denied tenure.

On August 25, 2021, the Department objected to grievant’s July 27, 2021 request. The parties met and conferred on grievant’s discovery request and the Department’s objection, without reaching agreement.

In a motion to compel, the burden is on the requesting party to prove the merits of the motion. FSGB Case No. 2016-027 (Order, dated October 28, 2016); FSGB Case No. 2011-013 (Order, dated September 28, 2011).

Excerpt:

B. SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

Interrogatory #1
Interrogatory #1 states as follows:

Please provide disaggregated statistics on rates of tenure for minority Foreign Service Generalists as compared to white Foreign Service Generalists between March 9, 2014 and March 4, 2019.

Department’s Response:
On July 7, 2021, The Department provided the following data for Foreign Service Generalist Tenure Candidates reviewed from March 2014-March 2019:

Candidates with Hispanic Surnames – 108
3 denied tenure = 2.8%

105 recommended for tenure = 97.2%


Candidates with non-Hispanic Surnames – 1871

48 denied tenure = 2.6%

1823 recommended for tenure = 97.4%

Grievant asked the Department how it determined which surnames qualified as “Hispanic surnames.”

Department’s Response to Request for Clarification

The Department responded that it accessed publicly available 2010 Census data and “pulled the record of last names where more than 50% of respondents by that name identified as being Hispanic.” There were 199 Hispanic surnames on the Census list and the Department cross-referenced those names with the cumulative list of tenure candidates. The Department then looked at all of the remaining names and identified other Hispanic surnames that did not appear on the Census list. To confirm, the Department checked those names for Spanish/Hispanic origin via Google search. Lastly, the Department checked a random assortment of the remaining names on the list of tenure candidates to confirm that they were other than Hispanic.

Relevance of the Follow-On Interrogatory

In the instant case, grievant alleges that the CTB discriminated against him because of his Hispanic surnames. Grievant has not alleged that he has direct evidence, relying entirely on statistics. To establish a prima facie case based on statistics, grievant must establish that Hispanic surnamed candidates were tenured at a statistically significantly lower rate than non-Hispanic surnamed candidates. Accordingly, the surnames of the candidates who were tenured, and those who were denied tenure, clearly are relevant to grievant’s claim, just as the gender of candidates would be relevant to a claim of sex discrimination.
[…]
the Privacy Act does not prohibit disclosure of Human Resources information about comparator employees to a grievant if ordered by the Board.
[…]
The Board has determined that grievant is entitled to know what surnames are considered Hispanic for purposes of the Department’s discovery responses. At the same time, the other candidates deserve privacy regarding their tenuring decisions. To accommodate those competing interests, the Board will order the Department to respond anew to grievant’s Interrogatory #1, as set forth in Section IV, infra.

IV. ORDER

Grievant’s Second Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

1. Within 14 days of this Order, the Department shall email grievant the list of 199 Hispanic surnames the Department previously identified from the Census data.

2. Within 14 days of the Department’s email, grievant shall email the Department a list of any of the 199 surnames that grievant considers not to be Hispanic (“List A”), and a separate list of any surnames not on the list of 199 that grievant considers to be Hispanic (“List B”) and the source of the surnames. Grievant may use any source of surnames for List B, e.g., lists publicly available on the Internet. If grievant fails to email List A and List B to the Department by this deadline, grievant shall be deemed to have waived any further response to Interrogatory #1, and grievant’s discovery shall be considered complete.

3. Within 21 days of grievant’s email, the Department shall email grievant a revised response to Interrogatory #1, using the 199 surnames from the Census data after striking the surnames on List A and adding the surnames on List B, thereby creating List C. At that point grievant’s discovery shall be considered complete. The Department may not object to responding to Interrogatory #1 using List C. ….

4. The Board denies grievant’s request for the list of the surnames the Department determined to be Hispanic and a list of the surnames the Department determined to be non-Hispanic surnames and were denied tenure.

###
 

Read more: 2020-053 – 10-22-2021 – B – Order re Second Motion to Compel_Redacted.pdf
Note: Depending on the browser you’re using, the FSGB cases may not be available to read online; each record may need to be downloaded to be accessible. With Firefox browser, however, you may select “open with Firefox” if you want to read the case file, or save the file to your computer. Please use the search button here to locate specific FSGB record.

U.S. Embassy Moscow: A Scheme to Evade Taxes While Renouncing U.S. Citizenship Results in $500M+ Penalty

 

On October 29, USDOJ announced that Oleg Tinkov, aka Oleg Tinkoff, the founder of Russian Bank was sentenced for felony tax conviction arising from scheme to evade exit tax while renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Defendant Paid Over $500 Million in Taxes, Interest, and Penalties

The founder of a Russian bank was sentenced today for his felony conviction for filing a false tax return. As required under his plea agreement, prior to sentencing, Oleg Tinkov, aka Oleg Tinkoff, paid $508,936,184, more than double what he had sought to escape paying to the U.S. Treasury through a scheme to renounce his U.S. citizenship and conceal from the IRS large stock gains that he knew were reportable. This includes $248,525,339 in taxes, statutory interest on that tax and a nearly $100 million fraud penalty. Tinkov was additionally fined $250,000, which is the maximum allowed by statute, and sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release.

Tinkov was indicted in Sept. 2019 for willfully filing false tax returns, and was arrested on Feb. 26, 2020, in London, United Kingdom (UK). The United States sought extradition, and Tinkov contested on medical grounds. In public records, Tinkov has disclosed that he is undergoing a UK-based intensive treatment plan for acute myeloid leukemia and graft versus host disease, which has rendered him immunocompromised and unable to safely travel in the foreseeable future.

On Oct. 1, 2021, Tinkov entered a plea to one count of filing a false tax return. According to the plea agreement, Tinkov was born in Russia and became a naturalized United States citizen in 1996. From that time through 2013, he filed U.S. tax returns. In late 2005 or 2006, Tinkov founded Tinkoff Credit Services (TCS), a Russia-based branchless bank that provides its customers with online financial and banking services. Through a foreign entity, Tinkov indirectly held the majority of TCS shares.

In October 2013, TCS held an initial public offering (IPO) on the London Stock Exchange and became a multi-billion dollar, publicly traded company. As part of going public, Tinkov sold a small portion of his majority shareholder stake for more than $192 million, and his assets following the IPO had a fair market value of more than $1.1 billion. Three days after the successful IPO, Tinkov went to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia, to relinquish his U.S. citizenship.

As part of his expatriation, Tinkov was required to file a U.S. Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement. This form requires expatriates with a net worth of $2 million or more to report the constructive sale of their assets worldwide to the IRS as if those assets were sold on the day before expatriation. The taxpayer is then required to report and pay tax on the gain from any such constructive sale.

Tinkov was told of his filing and tax obligations by both the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and his U.S.-based accountant. When asked by his accountant if his net worth was more than $2 million for purposes of filling out the expatriation form, Tinkov lied and told him he did not have assets above $2 million. When his accountant later inquired whether his net worth was under $2 million, rather than answer the question, Tinkov filled out the expatriation form himself falsely reporting that his net worth was only $300,000. On Feb. 26, 2014, Tinkov filed a 2013 individual tax return that falsely reported his income as only $205,317. In addition, Tinkov did not report any of the gain from the constructive sale of his property worth more than $1.1 billion, nor did he pay the applicable taxes as required by law. In total, Tinkov caused a tax loss of $248,525,339, which he has paid in full with substantial penalties and interest as part of his plea, together with tax liabilities for other years.

Read in full here.

 

 

@US2Somalia’s Muna Mohamed – 2021 Foreign Service National of the Year

 

 

###

US Embassy Jerusalem: New @USAmbIsrael Tom Nides Now at Post

 

###

FSGB: Extra/Marital Drama With Three Women, Two Pregnancies, and a Reduced 12-Day Suspension

 

Via ROP/FSGB 2020-036/September 21, 2021:

Held – The Department of State (“Department”) met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that grievant committed the misconduct with which he was charged; that the discipline proposal was timely and without procedural defect; and that the proposed penalty was reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct.

Case Summary – Grievant was serving as a Diplomatic Security (“DS”) Special Agent (“SA”) at an overseas post with his then-wife. He was engaged in extramarital affairs with two women employed at the embassy (both of whom became pregnant), failed to report these relationships, failed to report out of country travel with one of the two women, and threatened and intimidated the other woman, prompting two investigations and his voluntary curtailment from post. Two years later, while participating in a meeting concerning the medical evacuation (“medevac”) of his new wife, grievant was accused of bullying and intimidating behavior toward personnel from the Bureau of Medical Services (“MED”), prompting a third investigation. On December 8, 2017, the Department proposed a 30-day suspension without pay, on five charges with 22 specifications. On January 23, 2019, the Department sustained the proposed 30-day suspension. Grievant filed a grievance, challenging the validity of the charges and the severity of the penalty. In the agency-level grievance decision, the Department sustained four charges with 13 specifications and reduced the suspension to 12 days.

Grievant alleged that much of the conduct reflected misunderstandings. He stated that his first marriage was failing when he arrived at post and he eventually married, and remains married to, one of the two women with whom he had affairs. He contended that the investigations into his alleged misconduct were marred by the bias and unprofessional conduct of post’s Regional Security Office as well as being unduly delayed, causing him personal and professional harm. He argued that the alleged misconduct at the MED meeting resulted from mistreatment of his family by MED and should be dismissed. Grievant also alleged that the discipline was untimely, coming almost six years after the first alleged act of misconduct until the Department’s agency-level decision, an unreasonable period of time that impacted his ability to grieve a flawed process and manage his career. Grievant also argued that the Department did not meet its burden of proving the charges, appropriately weigh mitigating factors, or offer timely or proportionate discipline. Grievant argued that the charges should be dropped, or the penalty substantially reduced.

The Department responded that the complexity of the case and number of incidents leading to successive investigations, justified the time necessary to propose discipline. The agency also rebutted allegations that the discipline process was procedurally flawed, asserting that it properly assessed the charges and grievant’s misconduct, considered all mitigating factors, and levied a penalty that was both fair and proportionate.

The Foreign Service Grievance Board (“Board”) found that the Department met its burden of proving all charges and specifications. The Board found no procedural errors and concluded that the charges were not stale and the delay not prejudicial. The Board upheld the Department’s penalty determination process, including an assessment of all mitigating factors and review of appropriate comparator cases. The grievance was denied in full.

According to the ROP, the grievant was advised on January 25, 2017, “This case is still ongoing pending additional information.”8 Notwithstanding this notice, in February 2017, grievant was promoted to FS-03, still as an ARSO, retroactive to November 2016.9″
The small prints:
1 Although grievant was once tenured as a DS SA and promoted to FS-03 in that capacity, he subsequently changed careers to FSO generalist at a reduced grade of FS-04 and he remains untenured in that capacity.
9 The Department reported that grievant’s name was “temporarily removed from the rank order list of employees recommended for promotion by his 2016 FS Selection Board pending a standard vetting check …. [D]ue to his then-pending discipline cases, [he] should have been continually reported [as ineligible for promotion] in the ensuing vetting checks …. [I]t appears that [grievant’s] name was not properly reported [in early 2017] … resulting in the erroneous reinstatement of his name to the promotion list.” See Agency Amended Response to Board Request for Information, at 3-4.
ROPs available to read via FSGB.
Note: Depending on the browser you’re using, the FSGB cases may not be available to read online; each record may need to be downloaded to be accessible. With Firefox browser, however, you may select “open with Firefox” if you want to read the case file, or save the file to your computer. Please use the search button here to locate specific FSGB records.

 

###

US Embassy Manila: USINDOPACOM Employee Pleads Guilty For Removal of Classified Material

 

Via USDOJ:  Woman Pleads Guilty to Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Material

A Hawaii woman pleaded guilty today to one count of knowingly removing classified information concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States and retaining it at an unauthorized location.

According to court documents, Asia Janay Lavarello, 31, of Honolulu, admitted to having removed and retained numerous classified documents, writings and notes relating to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States without authority. While working as an Executive Assistant for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii, Lavarello accepted a temporary assignment working at the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines. There, she had access to classified computers and documents, and attended classified meetings as part of her official duties. Court documents list several specific instances in which Lavarello mishandled classified material of the United States.

According to her plea, on March 20, 2020, Lavarello removed classified documents from the U.S. Embassy in Manila. She took the classified documents to her hotel room where she hosted a dinner party later that evening. Among the guests were two foreign nationals. During the party, a co-worker discovered the documents, which included documents classified at the SECRET level. Lavarello’s temporary assignment in the Philippines was ultimately terminated due to her mishandling of SECRET classified documents.

After Lavarello returned to Hawaii, investigators executed a search warrant at her government workplace. In her desk, investigators found a notebook containing Lavarello’s handwritten notes of meetings she attended while working at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. The notes contained facts and information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET levels. Investigators determined that Lavarello personally transported the documents to Hawaii, unsecured, and kept the classified notebook at an unsecure location until at least April 13, 2020.

Investigators also discovered that Lavarello included information from the classified notebook in a Jan. 16, 2020, email from her personal Gmail account to her unclassified U.S. Government email account. The information she transmitted over unsecure networks was classified at the SECRET level.

Lavarello pleaded guilty to the charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material and faces up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The FBI and Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) are investigating the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mohammed Khatib of the District of Hawaii and Trial Attorney Stephen Marzen of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case.

###

 

Justice Breyer Swears-In Victoria Reggie Kennedy as U.S. Ambassador to Austria

 

###

Around the World in Tweets: Assistant Secretaries

 

 

US Announces Travel Restrictions For Eight African Countries Over New COVID Variant

 

On November 26, President Biden issued a Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Certain Additional Persons Who Pose a Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019. The proclamation is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on Monday, November 29, 2021. This proclamation notes that this does not apply to persons aboard a flight scheduled to arrive in the United States that departed prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on November 29, 2021.
The entry restrictions cover travelers (with certain exceptions) who were physically present within the Republic of Botswana, the Kingdom of Eswatini, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of Namibia, the Republic of South Africa, and the Republic of Zimbabwe during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States.
Excerpt:

The national emergency caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States continues to pose a grave threat to our health and security. As of November 26, 2021, the United States has experienced more than 47 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and more than 773,000 COVID-19 deaths. It is the policy of my Administration to implement science-based public health measures, across all areas of the Federal Government, to act swiftly and aggressively to prevent further spread of the disease.

On November 24, 2021, the Republic of South Africa informed the World Health Organization (WHO) of a new B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, that was detected in that country. On November 26, 2021, the WHO Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution announced that B.1.1.529 constitutes a variant of concern. While new information is still emerging, the profile of B.1.1.529 includes multiple mutations across the SARS-CoV-2 genome, some of which are concerning. According to the WHO, preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant, as compared to other variants of concern. Further, the WHO reports that the number of cases of this variant appears to be increasing in almost all provinces in the Republic of South Africa. Based on these developments, and in light of the extensive cross-border transit and proximity in Southern Africa, the detection of B.1.1.529 cases in some Southern African countries, and the lack of widespread genomic sequencing in Southern Africa, the United States Government, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services, has reexamined its policies on international travel and concluded that further measures are required to protect the public health from travelers entering the United States from the Republic of Botswana, the Kingdom of Eswatini, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of Namibia, the Republic of South Africa, and the Republic of Zimbabwe. In addition to these travel restrictions, the CDC shall implement other mitigation measures for travelers departing from the countries listed above and destined for the United States, as needed.

Given the recommendation of the CDC, working in close coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, described above, I have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to suspend and restrict the entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of noncitizens of the United States (“noncitizens”) who were physically present within the Republic of Botswana, the Kingdom of Eswatini, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of Namibia, the Republic of South Africa, and the Republic of Zimbabwe during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions.

Read in full here.

 

Giving Thanks With a Grateful Heart

This Thanksgiving Day, with a grateful heart, I thank  all of you who made it possible to keep this blog going. This has been a long journey and most of you have been with us since we started; without your dedicated support, the blog would have folded its wings some time ago.
I am forever grateful for your kind support and affording us this uncommon existence online. Thank you for reading, and thank you for for keeping us company. It has been my great honor to share this small corner of the world with you. Thank you with all my heart. ❤️❤️❤️ — D

###