How @StateDept Handles Domestic Violence Overseas: One Example and Some Questions

 

In the many years that we’ve watched the State Department, or asked questions about assaults, harassment, or domestic violence, we seldom see a public accounting of how the agency handles these cases, particularly overseas.  State had such a case in 2018. And we’re only seeing it now because the case landed in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The EEOC case came from a complainant who was previously assigned to an overseas post in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA).
On November 7, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency [State Department] subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment/harassment on the basis of sex (male), status as a parent, and in retaliation for “whistleblower activity”. The EEOC notes that “With respect to Complainant’s allegations on appeal of violations of the U.S. Constitution, whistleblower protection laws, criminal laws, and tortious laws not addressed by EEO laws, these laws are not within the purview of the EEO complaint process.”.
The State Department concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. On March 13, 2020, the EEOC issued a decision which affirmed the Agency’s final decision. Excerpt from Appeal No. 2019005790:
The Agency accepted the complaint as to the alleged basis of sex and conducted an investigation, which produced the following pertinent facts:
Complainant was assigned to the Agency’s facility [/], accompanied by his spouse (“Spouse”) (female) and children. He and his family resided in U.S. government-supplied housing.
On September 21, 2018, Spouse reported an incident of domestic violence to the Deputy Regional Security Officer (Deputy RSO), alleging Complainant assaulted her. The alleged assault occurred on September 9, 2018, while they were on vacation in Poland. Deputy RSO attested that, based on Spouse’s report, it was reasonable to believe that domestic violence had occurred, and he reported the situation to the front office and the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), as required by Agency policy.
The Agency’s Family Advisory Team (FAT) was advised of Spouse’s report of domestic violence and they recommended that, in the best interest of the family, Complainant and Spouse be separated for a cooling down period. One factor in the decision was Spouse’s comment that she was afraid of Complainant’s finding out that she made the report. Members of the FAT recommended the separation out of concern for further violence, without a determination as to the veracity of Spouse’s allegations, until a decision could be made as to the next steps. The Deputy Chief of Mission instructed that Complainant be removed from the residence, pending further deliberations by the FAT.
On September 21, 2018, Deputy RSO and two other Agency employees went to the residence Complainant shared with his Spouse and their children and informed Complaint that he was being relocated to a hotel. Complainant and Spouse were instructed not to contact each other until a decision was made about the alleged domestic violence incident. Complainant cooperated and was escorted to a hotel.
On September 25, 2018, Complainant reported to Deputy RSO that Spouse was the aggressor in the domestic violence incident. Deputy RSO instructed Complainant to communicate with OSI, as they had jurisdiction.
In the instant complaint, Complainant alleged sex was a factor because he was required to leave the residence, while Spouse remained in the home with their children.
On September 26, 2018, Complainant met with a Human Resources Officer (HRO) and Agency security personnel and was informed that he must immediately leave the post and return to the United States. He was given the choice of voluntary or involuntary curtailment. He was informed that the issues facing his family could not be addressed locally and resources were not available to manage his family situation. Complainant agreed to a voluntary curtailment because the official reason would be classified as personal and there would be no discipline. He also attested that he selected voluntary curtailment because, even though he was the victim of Spouse’s assault, he did not believe he would have any support at the post.
HRO explained that when there is a conflict between two members of a household and one or more of the individuals are direct hires, the Agency policy is to curtail the direct hire. She further explained that this approach is preferred as there is an unwillingness to involve the local police in a potential domestic violence situation. She explained that the post cannot adjudicate claims and make a determination, as that authority rests with OSI. She explained that the post has no authority to require a family member of a direct hire to leave the country and the only viable option is to require the direct hire to curtail, which then will require the spouse or other family member to vacate the government-supplied housing.
The Deputy Chief of Mission attested that she made the decision to curtail Complainant, as this was the third occasion of serious behavioral incidents involving Complainant since he arrived, less than a year ago and, based on the advice from FAT, she instructed that he be given a choice of voluntary or involuntary.
On September 28, 2018, Complainant returned to the United States. Spouse and their children remained behind to pack their belongings and arrived in the United States on October 17, 2018.
Upon his arrival in the United States, Complainant was informed by Diplomatic Security that an update for approval of his security clearance had been initiated “for cause.” Complainant’s security clearance was not scheduled to expire until June 2021. Complainant alleged that the review of his security clearance was initiated by the post to support their decision to remove him from [post].
The Office Director of DS/SI/PSS explained that he was, in part, responsible for the investigation and adjudication of security clearances for the Department and Complainant was subject to an “out of cycle” investigation regarding his security clearance because of the reports received from a Diplomatic Security investigation alleging potential misconduct. He explained that the investigation was “for cause,” non-routine, and pursuant to regulations.
With respect to the alleged harassment, Complainant attested that, on November 7, 2018, the Agency notified him that he was the subject of an administrative inquiry into allegations that he was a harasser.
He explained that he learned that, during a social setting, he made a comment about Spouse that might have been considered a distasteful joke but did not rise to the level of harassment. He also alleged that, during a meeting with the American Foreign Service Association and Human Resources, a Human Resources representative asked him when he anticipated retiring.
[…]
The Agency explained that, following Spouse’s report of domestic violence, the Agency felt it in the best interest of the family that Complainant and Spouse be separated for a cooling down period, pending a determination as to what steps were next. The Agency further explained that there is an unwillingness to involve local authorities in such matters and it lacks the authority to adjudicate such matters. The Agency explained that in such situations involving a direct hire employee and an accompanying spouse, it is the Agency’s policy to curtail the direct hire, which would then cause the spouse and family to be required to vacate the government-supplied housing. The Agency also explained that Complainant was subject to an “out of cycle” investigation regarding his security clearance because of the reports of alleged potential misconduct. We note that, although Complainant and Spouse disagree as to who initiated the domestic violence, Complainant does not deny that the domestic violence occurred. We find the Agency’s actions of separating the spouses, sending the employee back to the United States, and subjecting him to another security investigation to be reasonable under these circumstances. Therefore, although Complainant has alleged discrimination, he has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons articulated by the Agency were a pretext for unlawful discrimination or motivated by some unlawful discriminatory animus with respect to any of these claims.
The links to the related regs are below. In this case, State told the EEOC that “there is an unwillingness to involve local authorities in such matters and it lacks the authority to adjudicate such matters.” And yet, 3 FAM 1815.2 says:

d. If the initial report is substantiated, action may include one or more of the following: (1)  Post may call upon local authorities or resources in certain cases; […] (5)  Post may be asked to call upon shelter and child protection resources or find alternative shelter within the post community for the victim and any children.

Seriously though, why are these options decorating the FAM if they are never real options? In certain cases? Which cases would there be a willingness for post to call upon local authorities to settle a domestic violence case?
Perhaps the most striking thing here — well, a couple of things. 1) “Complainant agreed to a voluntary curtailment because the official reason would be classified as personal and there would be no discipline”; and 2) the Agency’s point that “the only viable option is to require the direct hire to curtail, which then will require the spouse or other family member to vacate the government-supplied housing.”
And then what?
The spouse and children returns to the United States. To where actually? To get back with the spouse? To a halfway house? To a homeless shelter? What actually happens to the family upon return to the United States following a report of domestic violence overseas? Folks do not always have houses in the DC area, spouses may be foreign born with no families in the DC area. In most cases, the household effects and those on storage are also under the employee’s name only (unless the spouse made prior arrangements).
So what happens next? Could ‘what happens next’ be one of the main reasons why folks do not report these cases?  

Related items:
3 FAM 1810 FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM (CHILD ABUSE, CHILD NEGLECT, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE)
3 FAM 1815  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

USCG Guangzhou: Gender Disparity in the Awards Nomination Process #FAST

Excerpted from State Department/OCR – FY2019 EEOC Management Directive 715 (MD-715) Part I.1 Report:
PART I, EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier, requires agencies to report specific plans of action aimed at identifying and removing barriers from their policies, procedures, or practices that limit or restrict free and open competition for groups involving race, ethnicity, and sex groups. To address barriers involving disability status, agencies must establish plans in PART J.
An employee notified S/OCR of an allegation of gender disparity in the awards nomination process for entry level officers in Guangzhou’s consular section. The complaint is that male entry-level officers were nominated for awards but not women. After checking the records, Post HR discovered that this is correct. Of the 21 individual award nominations for entry-level Consular officers, only one was for a female.
The Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR) worked with Human Resources staff in Consulate General (CG) Guangzhou (hereafter referred to as “Post”) to identify possible reasons for the identified trigger. Post has 50 “entry-level officers” (ELOs). The focus of this barrier analysis is first or second tour, tenured or untenured, generalists and specialists as well as Consular Fellows/other limited non-career appointments and Consular Adjudicator-eligible family members employed in the Consular Section of the CG. This pool of employees comprise 35 male employees and 15 female employees. The trigger indicates that 17 out of 35 men (49%) received an award and that 3 out of 15 women (20%) received an award.

S/OCR asked Post whether selection panels are utilized, whether they believe managers know the procedures for nominating employees, whether employees are aware of the awards program, whether panelists receive training, among other questions.

S/OCR also acquired a breakdown of Post by gender and award recipient, grouped by supervisors. The 50 employees were spread across eight supervisors with some sections as large as 12 and some as small as two. The different sections were usually similar in male/ female proportion.

S/OCR is pleased to see that Post has a very involved awards program. Not only do awards seem to be encouraged, but Post follows up with information sessions to help guide the process.

Continue reading

EEOC: @StateDept Improperly Dismissed Complaint Over EEO Counseling Process

Via EEOC:
Complaint Improperly Dismissed for Raising Matter Not Brought to Attention of EEO Counselor. The Commission reversed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s complaint on grounds that it raised a matter that was not brought to the attention of an EEO Counselor. In dismissing the complaint, the Agency relied on Complainant’s failure to participate in the EEO counseling process, stating that the assigned Counselor attempted to engage Complainant multiple times by email and telephone, but was unable to do so. Complainant stated, however, that he did not receive an initial or final interview or counseling to attempt to informally resolve the matter. The assigned Counselor stated that she could not engage Complainant to conduct counseling, so she issued Complainant a notice of right to file a formal complaint, which he timely did. The Commission found that, contrary to the Agency’s assertions, Complainant raised the instant issues with an EEO Counselor even though no actual counseling sessions occurred, and timely filed a formal complaint when given the opportunity to do so. The Commission noted that it is the Agency’s burden to provide evidence to support its final decisions.

Ian G. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005132 (Jan. 8, 2020).

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development. On May 17, 2019, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Department of State (hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”)2 discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian), sex (male), national origin (Kashmir), religion (Islam), disability (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Fibromyalgia), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. in March and April 2019, the Agency denied Complainant reasonable accommodation for the FACT course, and

2. in April 2019, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS) and the Agency subjected Complainant to hostile work environment harassment during the FACT course. Complainant alleged that he was repeatedly subjected to inappropriate “epithets and derogatory stereotypes.”

In his EEO complaint, Complainant stated “Counseling requested but not conducted.”

In a July 9, 2019 final decision, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency reasoned that, “[Complainant d]id not go through EEO Counseling” because his allegations of discrimination were not first discussed with an EEO Counselor. The Agency stated that the assigned Counselor attempted to engage Complainant multiple times (via email and telephone) but was unable to do so. The Agency noted that the Counselor issued the Notice of Right to File (NORF) on May 15, 2019.

The instant appeal from Complainant followed. On appeal, Complainant stated that although he initiated contact with the Agency’s EEO office on April 10, 2019, no counseling or initial/final interview took place and he informed the EEO Counselor that he would be overseas for an extended period. Also, Complainant stated that he learned that the Counselor issued a counseling report on May 17 and June 12, 2019, and the Agency only provided him the second report initially. Further, Complainant stated that the Agency misapplied the standard for dismissal under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), and failed to conduct EEO counseling as required under federal regulations. Complainant stated that he raised his issues with an EEO Counselor in a timely manner.

The EEOC reversed the Department of State’s final decision dismissing the instant complaint and remanded the matter to the Agency for further processing consistent with the decision it issued. Read more here.

EEOC: Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Found

Via EEOC:

Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Found.

Jona R. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182063 (Jan. 23, 2020).

Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of disability when she was not provided with a reasonable accommodation of situational telework as her medical circumstances required. Complainant had been teleworking for several years, but her telework agreement expired. According to the record, Agency managers repeatedly asked Complainant to resubmit her request or provide additional information over a period of several months. Approximately six months after Complainant requested accommodation, the Agency informed Complainant that she could telework on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and would have a one-hour window to report her duty station to her supervisor on those days. The Commission found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant when it did not approve her request for situational telework. The Agency acknowledged that Complainant was a qualified individual with a disability. Complainant demonstrated that she needed to be able to telework when she experienced symptoms related to her condition, and these symptoms occurred without notice and were not limited to the three days specified. Therefore, the Agency’s offer, which was essentially the same telework schedule Complainant had before she requested reasonable accommodation, was not an effective accommodation. The Commission found that the Agency failed to prove it would have been an undue hardship to allow Complainant to telework when her medical conditions warranted.  The Agency was ordered, among other things, to provide Complainant with the ability to situationally telework, restore any lost leave or pay, and investigate her claim for compensatory damages.
Jona R. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182063 (Jan. 23, 2020).

Burn Bag: Sharing COVID-Positive Employees’ Information May be Prohibited Under ADA and EEO Regulations

Via Burn Bag:
“The Department has numerous required trainings for supervisors.  Yet, some continue to disregard them.  This behavior can create costly lessons for the Department, especially when it touches upon ADA and EEO regulations.
A supervisor recently emailed several individuals the full name of an employee – from a different team/office – who tested positive for COVID.  Our understanding is that the supervisor should have omitted the employee’s name per federal ADA/EEO regulations.  We do not know if the employee is aware of this supervisor’s actions, but based on previous experiences, this supervisor will retaliate if we inform the employee, EX, or S/OCR.
 Since we do not have an anonymous EEO reporting process, we ask the Department institute a mandatory training for all Bureau and posts for all supervisors, FSOs, FSSs, CSs, EFMs, contractors, detailees, and others to learn about federal EEO/ADA regulations for COVID-related matters.
 Returning to this supervisor, s/he has averaged approximately one EEO violation per month towards various individuals (with his/her leadership’s knowledge).  Yet the Department allows this supervisor to remain.  We’d like to remind the Department that it has the authority to proactively manage supervisors without waiting for numerous costly and time-consuming ADA/EEO complaints.  Employees (on their personal time) are also allowed to inform their Senators and Congressmen of the Department’s compliance with ADA/EEO regulations.”

Addendum:

“We understand that S/OCR will soon be drafting the 2020 MD-715, an annual status report of the Department’s EEO/ADA programs, which should include COVID-related actions.  We are curious to learn how it may acknowledge that 1) supervisor(s) may be in ongoing non-compliance with EEO/ADA regulations, 2) the Department appears to maintain supervisors in their same roles and 3) this continued non-compliance directly hurts retention and advancement of employees with disabilities.”

 

White Cat on Grass Field by Pixabay

EEOC: National Origin & Age Discrimination Found When Agency Terminated Complainant’s Candidacy for a Position

 

Via EEOC: Leon B. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182144 (Nov. 5, 2019).
National Origin & Age Discrimination Found When Agency Terminated Complainant’s Candidacy for a Position.
The Commission found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant when it terminated his candidacy for a Diplomatic Security Foreign Service Special Agent position because his score on an oral and written assessment was below the cut-off level. Agency officials averred that they asked all candidates the same questions and rated them according to pre-determined factors.  No one identified what the factors were, however, and Agency officials refused to provide information about the assessment questions and materials.  The EEO Investigator asked the Agency officials to provide the names of and pertinent information about the applicants who were found suitable to continue their candidacy for the position and information regarding the applicants whose candidacy was terminated, or not terminated, for the same reasons as Complainant’s candidacy.  The Agency stated only that it had assessed 726 candidates, that 272 passed the assessment, and that the candidates who passed as well as those who did not pass the assessment “ranged from all ages, races, and gender[s].”
Based on the Agency’s statement regarding the candidate pool, the Commission found that Complainant established prima facie cases of discrimination based on race/national origin and age.  The Commission further found that the Agency officials’ vague, conclusory statements about the assessment process did not explain why the Agency terminated Complainant’s candidacy.  The Agency provided no information about the pre-determined factors, the questions posed to the candidates, Complainant’s answers to the questions, how the reviewers scored Complainant’s answers, or the bases for the scores given to Complainant and the other candidates.  The Commission ordered the Agency to change Complainant’s assessment results to a passing score and to process his candidacy in the same manner that it processed the candidacies of other applicants who received passing scores.
Leon B. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182144 (Nov. 5, 2019).

Hill v. Pompeo: An African-American DS Agent, Offensive Baboon Gear, and a Removal From Leadership Position

This is a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lawsuit involving an African-American Special Agent in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security who joined the State Department in 2002. In September 2013, he joined State’s Office of Mobile Security Deployments (MSD). Excerpt below from the May 31, 2020 Memorandum of Opinion by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
Summary:
Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Hill, it alleges facts to support all three elements of this type of race discrimination claim. First, it alleges that “Hill and Whitaker were the only African American Team 2 members and that the Caucasian Team members had been complaining about them, admitting they did not respect them, and requesting transfers to get away from them since the month after Hill took over as Team Leader.” Compl. ¶ 118. The complaint enumerates multiple instances where the Caucasian team members complained about Hill, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 31, 39, 42, and sought his removal from his leadership position, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 45, 46, 49. And the ongoing dispute over the Caucasian team members’ use of the baboon logo and their joking references behind Hill’s back to the baboon logo as “racist,” id. ¶ 19, give rise to a reasonable inference that the Caucasian team members’ treatment of Hill was racially discriminatory. Second, “State admits it removed Hill based on the complaints from the Caucasian Team 2 members, making their complaints the proximate cause of the actions taken against Hill.” Id. ¶ 117. Third and finally, a fair inference can be drawn that Collura and Rowan, Hill’s supervisors, should have known that the Caucasian team members’ complaints were racially motivated. See id. ¶ 120. The complaint alleges: (1) a clear fissure between Hill and Whitaker and the Caucasian team members from the very start of Hill’s tenure, see id. ¶¶ 19–29; (2) that Hill complained to his supervisors about team members defying his order not to use the racially offensive baboon logo, see id. ¶ 47; and (3) that several of the Caucasian team members’ complaints about Hill had a questionable basis, see, e.g., id. ¶ 37, 43; yet, (4) “[m]anagement acted on the Team’s accusations against Hill without investigating the facts,” id. ¶ 120. Accepting all of these allegations as true, Collura and Rowan acted negligently by not investigating the Caucasian team members’ complaints before removing Hill from his leadership role.3 And because Collura and Rowan acted negligently with respect to the information the Caucasian team members provided, the racial bias of the team members is imputed to them. See Vasquez, Inc., 835 F.3d at 276. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the race discrimination claim based on Hill’s removal from his leadership position. 4
4 In contesting this conclusion, the Secretary places heavy reliance on Tallbear v. Perry, 318 F. Supp. 3d 255 (D.D.C. 2018). In that case, the Court dismissed a Title VII race discrimination claim by a plaintiff who alleged that her co-workers had continued to use the word “Redskins” in spite of her objection to the term. Id. at 260–61. But Tallbear’s co-workers used the term in the context of discussing the Washington Redskins, a local professional football team, and there was no indication that they used the word as a racial slur or directed it at Tallbear herself. Id. at 261. Here, in stark contrast, Hill has alleged that his team members explicitly referred to the baboon logo as “racist” and ordered hundreds of dollars’ worth of baboon-branded gear behind his back after he, the team leader, explained why the logo was offensive and ordered the team to stop using it. Compl. ¶ 19. Moreover, and more importantly, Hill’s co-workers engaged in extensive and targeted efforts to remove him from his supervisory role, see id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 31, 39, 42, 45, 46, 49, and those efforts ultimately succeeded, id. ¶ 56.
Background excerpted from court record:

The Office consists of several teams of agents who deploy worldwide to provide specialized training to overseas personnel, as well as security support for potential and actual crises. Id. ¶ 10. At all times relevant to this case, Hill’s first-level supervisor was Justin Rowan, and his second-level supervisor was Nicholas Collura, Deputy Director of the Office. Id. ¶ 11. Both Rowan and Collura are Caucasian. Id.

In March 2014, Hill was assigned to Team 2 of the Office as its Team Leader. Id. ¶ 12. Another Special Agent, Steven Whitaker, was assigned to Team 2 at that same time. Id. ¶ 15. Both Hill and Whitaker are African American. Id. When Hill and Whitaker joined Team 2, the team consisted of four members, all of whom were Caucasian. Id. ¶ 14. The four Caucasian team members described themselves as close friends. Id.

When Hill and Whitaker joined Team 2, each of them found a printed image of a baboon—the team’s unofficial logo—at their new desks. Id. ¶ 16. Both Hill and Whitaker were offended by the logo. Id. When Hill officially took over as Team Leader in May 2014, Hill held a team meeting. Id. ¶ 18. At this meeting, Hill explained that he found the baboon logo offensive because of the history of racially derogatory references to apes. Id. Hill instructed the members of Team 2 to stop using the baboon as the team logo. Id.

The Caucasian members of Team 2 continued to use the baboon logo nevertheless. Id. ¶ 19. After Hill banned the logo, the Caucasian team members used their government email accounts to order hundreds of dollars’ worth of baboon coins, badges, stickers, and hats. Id. They jokingly referred to the baboon logo and the word baboon as “racist.” Id. They did not tell Hill or Whitaker that they were ordering the baboon gear. Id. Hill soon discovered that his team members were disregarding his order, though; one agent’s phone lock screen was the baboon image and another agent was handing out baboon coins to soldiers and local contacts. Id. ¶ 20

Continue reading

Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: Public Comments #FedMeToo

 

This is a follow-up to our posts on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’s  examination of sexual harassment in the federal government.  The Commission specifically examined agency-level practices to address sexual harassment at the U.S. Department of State and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) says that the testimony from their May 2019 briefing and public comments “will inform” their 2020 report “to Congress, the President, and the American people regarding the federal government’s response to sexual harassment in the federal workplace.”
USCCR has now made available the public comments sent to the Commission.
Note that S/OCR is one of those offices that report directly to the Secretary of State,
Also, left on its own, we don’t think the State Department would willingly release the victims of harassment, discrimination or assaults from the Non Disclosure Agreements signed.  It is left to the U.S. Congress to mandate such a release, as well as require the Department to make public the cost of these taxpayer funded-settlements each fiscal year.
Individual 2: FSO-01 with 17 years in the Foreign Service and six years of active duty in the U.S. Military

 

Individual 3: Retired FSO (2006-2017) with 16 co-signers

 

Individual 5: FSO for Locally Employed Staff

FSO, assault survivor

Senior Litigator at the Justice Department, stalked by supervisor for over a year
Related posts:

USCCR will accept public comments by an anonymous author in #sexualharassment inquiry

Help Fund the Blog Diplopundit 2019 — 60-Day Campaign from June 5, 2019 – August 5, 2019

______________________________________

 

This is a follow-up post to USCCR extends comment period for sexual harassment inquiry to Monday, June 25th and U.S. Civil Rights Commission Examines Sexual Harassment in Federal Govt (State, NASA) #FedMeToo.

We asked the USCCR how federal employees can protect themselves from potential retaliation from their agencies, and still be able to contribute to the Commission’s inquiry on sexual harassment in government offices. We understand that some State Department employees may also be tied  up with NDAs that may prevent them from discussing some details (for instance sensitive or classified locations, etc). We were also interested in learning if the Commission is also looking into practices at other agencies, and if so, which agencies are also being looked at (besides NASA and the State Department).

Below is the response we received from USCCR:

The US Commission on Civil Rights will accept public comments by an anonymous author. In regard to the application of non-disclosure agreements (NDA’s) the Commission cannot provide legal advice. We recommend that an individual who is a party to an NDA consult an attorney.

As far as what our investigation entails we are looking at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) enforcement efforts to combat workplace sexual harassment across the federal government, including the frequency of such claims and findings of harassment, the resources dedicated to preventing and redressing harassment, and the impact and efficacy of these enforcement efforts. The investigation and subsequent report will also examine agency-level practices to address sexual harassment at the U.S. Department of State and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

#

USCCR extends comment period for sexual harassment inquiry to Monday, June 25th

Help Fund the Blog Diplopundit 2019 — 60-Day Campaign from June 5, 2019 – August 5, 2019

______________________________________

 

This is a follow-up to our post: U.S. Civil Rights Commission Examines Sexual Harassment in Federal Govt (State, NASA) #FedMeToo

The U.S. Commission by unanimous vote extended the public comment period for its sexual harassment in the federal workplaces investigation from June 10th to Monday, June 25th.

The Commission is seeking to learn more from the public about sexual harassment in the federal government, including:

  • the culture surrounding the reporting of harassment in federal agencies,
  • the reporting process,
  • and new tools that can be used to address the issue.

The Commission will now accept written materials for consideration as we prepare our report on the subject. Please submit no later than June 25th, 2019 to sexualharassment@usccr.gov or by mail to: Staff Director/Public Comments, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Testimony from this briefing and public comments will inform our 2019 report to Congress, the President, and the American people regarding the state of sexual harassment in the federal government.

#