Category Archives: Locally Employed Staff

US Embassy Local Employees in the News #Ukraine #Yemen #Belarus

March 1, 2022 By in Foreign Service, Hotspots, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, State Department, Trends, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , ,

 

U.S. EMBASSY BELARUS

U.S. EMBASSY UKRAINE

U.S. EMBASSY YEMEN

###

 

A Small Post in Africa Just Fired “Several Dozen Male Employees”

February 15, 2022 By in AF |Africa, Diplomatic Security, Huh? News, Investigations, Locally Employed Staff, NEA|Near East Asia, Oversight, Realities of the FS, Security, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , ,
We received the following in our inbox recently:

The Embassy held a town hall and finally disclosed that several dozen male employees had been separated from employment.

Charges included:

— improper used of government computers

— immoral conduct for posting obscene images and videos to a social media chat group

Criminal investigation is ongoing.

TDY staff have been flown in from other AF posts, NEA and Washington DC.

Outgoing ambassador departs soon; incoming ambassador to arrive in February.

Most of the job vacancies should be listed on the Embassy website in the coming weeks.

So this is a small post.  Since most jobs are expected to be advertised on the embassy website, we can assume that those separated from employment were locally hired staffers. “Several” means more than two and fewer than many.
Let’s say we have about a hundred employees at this post, with half of those male. Several dozens, say three dozens would be 36 employees. If four dozens, that would be the entire male population, half of the locally hired staff, wouldn’t it?
How would embassies ever find out what shenanigans are going on in their computer systems?
Information Systems Security Officers (ISSO) are responsible for implementing the Department’s information systems security program and for working closely with system managers on compliance with information systems security standards. The Bureau of Information Resource Management’s Office of ISSO Oversight, Regional, and Domestic Division, assists, supports, and coordinates the activities of domestic and overseas ISSOs.
In 2017, OIG inspection reports have repeatedly found deficiencies in the performance of ISSO duties. The Management Assistance Report then notes the following:

OIG reviewed information management findings in reports of overseas inspections conducted from fall FY 2014 to spring FY 2016 and found that 33 percent (17 out of 51) reported findings on the non-performance of ISSO duties. Specifically, the reports noted that information management personnel failed to perform regular reviews and analyses of information systems audits logs, user libraries, emails, workstations, servers, and hard drives for indications of inappropriate or unusual activity in accordance with Department standards.

But what if this post was previously:
— informed in 2019 that its unclassified and classified Information Systems Security Officers (ISSO) did not perform all information systems security duties, such as review and analysis of information systems audit logs for inappropriate or unusual activity, as required by 12 FAM 613.4?
— informed that its ISSOs did not brief new employees on their information security responsibilities and the Department’s policies? OIG notes that ISSO briefings are particularly important for LE staff who have never worked for the U.S. Government.
— informed that its ISSOs did not use the Department’s ISSO resources, such as standard operating procedures and checklists, to prioritize and plan their duties?
— made aware that a lack of planning and training as well as competing priorities led the embassy to neglect these duties and this has resulted in the security of the Department’s computer systems at risk?
Who should then be held accountable for this incident?
Or.
Perhaps, it took the embassy this long to finally conduct a systems audit logs and other systems security duties as required, and that’s how they found out about these obscene images?
Who should get an award?
Makes one wonder about that 17 posts who were reported for non-performance of ISSO duties.
What might they find there when they finally do perform those duties?

 

###

Barrio Azteca Gunmen Charged With US Consulate Cd. Juarez Murders Found Guilty on All Counts

February 8, 2022 By in Consulate General, Court Cases, Diplomatic Security, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, Spouses, U.S. Missions, WHA|Western Hemisphere Tags: , , , , , ,
In February 2014, we blogged about the US Consulate Ciudad Juárez Murder Trial in El Paso. The victims of that 2010 tragic incident were El Paso County sheriff’s detention officer Arthur Redelfs, his wife Lesley Ann Enriquez Redelfs, who worked at the U.S. Consulate in Juárez, and Jorge Salcido Ceniceros, husband of Hilda Salcido who also worked at the consulate.
On February 4, 2022, USDOJ announced that the Barrio Azteca Gunmen who committed the US Consulate Murders in Ciudad Juarez were found guilty on all counts. Excerpt below:

A federal jury in Texas yesterday convicted two members of the violent street and prison gang, Barrio Azteca, on all counts related to the murders of a U.S. Consulate employee, her husband, and the husband of another U.S. Consulate employee.

Jose Guadalupe Diaz Diaz, aka Zorro, 43, of Chihuahua, Mexico, and Martin Artin Perez Marrufo, aka Popeye, 54, of Chihuahua, Mexico, were found guilty at the conclusion of a 13-day jury trial before U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. The jury found Diaz and Marrufo guilty of conspiracy counts for racketeering, narcotics trafficking, narcotics importation, money laundering, and murder in a foreign country; three counts of murder in aid of racketeering, and three counts of murder resulting from use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to crimes of violence and drug trafficking.

Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that on March 13, 2010, Diaz and Marrufo served as gunmen on the hit teams that murdered U.S. Consulate employee Leslie Enriquez, her husband, Arthur Redelfs, and Jorge Salcido Ceniceros, the husband of another U.S. Consulate employee. The victims were targeted by the hit teams after departing from a child’s birthday party in Juarez because they were mistaken initially for rival gang members. Diaz shot and killed Enriquez and Redelfs. Marrufo shot and killed Ceniceros.

“The murders of Leslie Enriquez, Arthur Redelfs, and Jorge Salcido Ceniceros are a tragedy,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “These convictions demonstrate the Department’s commitment to combating violent transnational criminal organizations. I want to thank the Mexican Government for its cooperation including extraditing both defendants to the United States to face criminal charges.”

“Although 12 years have passed since these senseless murders, our office has only strengthened its resolve to seek justice for victims of cartel violence,” said U.S. Attorney Ashley C. Hoff for the Western District of Texas. “These guilty verdicts demonstrate the diligent pursuit of our prosecutors and our commitment to protecting communities from ruthless brutality.”

“These convictions represent the FBI’s commitment to take aggressive action against anyone who takes the lives of innocent American citizens,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. “Even the most ruthless criminals, whether here or afar, cannot evade justice, and we will continue to hold those accountable who commit brutal acts of violence.”

“Today’s convictions serve as a stark warning to all drug traffickers that we will pursue and prosecute any and all who compromise the safety and health of Americans and those who support our U.S missions abroad,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. “The hardworking women and men of DEA will continue to work with our domestic and global partners to rid our communities of the intimidation, violence, and drug abuse these criminal drug networks inflict.”

At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Barrio Azteca is a transnational criminal organization engaged in money-laundering, racketeering, and drug-related activities in El Paso, Texas. The gang allied with other drug gangs to battle the Sinaloa Cartel, at the time headed by Chapo Guzman, and its allies for control of the drug trafficking routes through Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. The drug routes through Juarez, known as the Juarez Plaza, are important to drug trafficking organizations because it is a principal illicit drug trafficking route into the United States.

A total of 35 defendants were charged in the third superseding indictment and are alleged to have committed various criminal acts, including the 2010 Juarez Consulate murders in Juarez, Mexico, as well as racketeering, narcotics distribution and importation, retaliation against persons providing information to U.S. law enforcement, extortion, money laundering, murder, and obstruction of justice. Of the 35 defendants charged, all have been apprehended and 28 have pleaded guilty. One was convicted by trial, one committed suicide before the conclusion of his trial and three are awaiting extradition from Mexico.

Diaz was extradited from Mexico on Nov. 13, 2019 and Maruffo was extradited from Mexico on Jan. 18, 2020. The extraditions were the result of close coordination between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement authorities, who also cooperated in the investigation and prosecution of this case.

Sentencing is scheduled for May 9. Diaz and Maruffo face a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison.

A lot of people who worked on this case deserves our gratitude:

Trial Attorney Jay Bauer of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, Trial Attorney Christina Taylor of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Spitzer of the Western District of Texas are prosecuting the case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico and the Criminal Division’s Offices of International Affairs and Enforcement Operations provided significant assistance in this case.

The FBI’s Safe Streets Task Force located at the Texas Anti-Gang Center in El Paso, FBI Albuquerque Field Office, DEA Juarez and DEA El Paso investigated the case. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Federal Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service; the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; El Paso Police Department; El Paso County Sheriff’s Office; El Paso Independent School District Police Department; Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission; New Mexico State Police; Dona Ana County, N.M., Sheriff’s Office; Las Cruces, N.M., Police Department; Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility and Otero County Prison Facility New Mexico provided valuable assistance. 

 

USDOJ: Iraqi National Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud U.S. Refugee Program

January 27, 2022 By in Court Cases, Federal Agencies, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, Security, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Via USDOJ:

WASHINGTON – An Iraqi national, Aws Muwafaq Abduljabbar, pleaded guilty today to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States related to his role in a scheme to defraud U.S. refugee programs.

The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Dr. Joseph V. Cuffari, and U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Director for Domestic Operations Mark A. Sullo.

Abduljabbar, 43, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia. He remains held without bond pending sentencing on June 24, 2022.

Abduljabbar is one of three defendants charged in an indictment that was unsealed on January 22, 2021. The indictment charges Abduljabbar and two other foreign nationals, Haitham Isa Saado Sad, 43, and Olesya Leonidovna Krasilova, 44, in connection with a scheme to defraud the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and, in particular, the Iraq P-2 program, which allows certain Iraqis to apply directly for refugee resettlement in the United States. Sad previously pleaded guilty and remains held pending sentencing. Krasilova remains at large.

According to the indictment and statement of facts agreed to by Abduljabbar as part of his guilty plea, from approximately February 2016 until at least April 2019, the three defendants, led by Abduljabbar, conspired to steal U.S. government records related to hundreds of USRAP applications. Sad was employed in Amman, Jordan from 2007 to 2016 by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Krasilova held a similar position at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia. As part of their duties, both defendants had access to the State Department’s Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS), a database containing sensitive, non-public information about refugee applicants and their family members, as well as the results of security checks and internal assessments by U.S. officials regarding applications.

Abduljabbar organized and led the conspiracy, and he relied on and paid Sad and Krasilova to steal WRAPS records and information so that Abduljabbar could assist applicants in gaining admission to the United States through fraudulent means. As outlined in the indictment and statement of facts, the theft of USRAP records creates a number of risks to public safety and national security while imposing significant costs on the U.S. government, its taxpayers, and otherwise legitimate refugee applicants negatively impacted by the scheme.

The charges in an indictment are merely allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The maximum penalty for conspiracy to defraud the United States is five years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, a defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The indictment is available to read here.

###

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

November 30, 2021 By in Awards, Foreign Service, Locally Employed Staff, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: ,

 

 

###

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

November 29, 2021 By in Career Employees, Diplomatic Security, Foreign Service, Grievance, Investigations, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, Staffing the FS, State Department Tags: , , , , ,

 

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.

 

###

Snapshot: Foreign Service National (FSN) Emergency Relief Fund

November 22, 2021 By in Foreign Service, Locally Employed Staff, Snapshots, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , ,

 

The Foreign Service National Emergency Relief Fund was created to respond to crises following natural disasters, civil unrest, and targeted attacks or “in the line of duty” incidents affecting locally employed (LE) staff working for the U.S. Government. It is one of almost 90 Gift Fund programs managed by the Office of Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service (M/EDCS) and is one of the two Gift Fund programs that exist solely to assist employees. Funding for this program is not appropriated and is sustained solely by private contributions. The donations are tax deductible and 100% of all contributions are allocated for disbursement directly to Locally Employed (LE) Staff. Contributions to the Fund can be made by Civil Service, Foreign Service, LE Staff and private sector individuals (via RNET).
Donations can be made via the following:
• Secure on-line electronic donations can be made directly from your bank account or by credit/debit card to http://www.pay.gov.
• Checks may be sent to the Department’s Gift Fund Coordinator’s Office M/EDCS, Rm. 7427-B, 2201 C Street NW, Washington DC 20520. Please make checks payable to the U.S. Department of State, designation for the “FSN Emergency Relief Fund”.
• DOS, LE Staff, and overseas American employees of other federal agencies currently being paid by State can make contributions by payroll deduction. One time or recurring payroll deductions can be made through the Payroll Customer Support Center at PayHelp@state.gov.  LE staff wishing to contribute should contact their management office for currency exchange assistance.  CGFS/EDCS has authorized reverse accommodation exchange for emergency fund contributions.  For additional information, please visit the CGFS/EDCS website.
Read more: 2 FAM 962.14  Gifts to the Foreign Service National Emergency Relief Fund

 

 

EEOC: US Embassy Yemen FSN Discrimination Claim Over Denial of Overtime Fails

October 18, 2021 By in Chaos, EEOC, Evacuations, Foreign Service, Huh? News, Lessons, Locally Employed Staff, Org Life, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , ,

 

This is an instructive case for local employees of U.S. missions overseas. Even during a crisis, especially during a crisis, during chaos, even during evacuations, if a local employee is tasked to do work outside or normal work hours, there must be overtime pre-approval by the the supervisor (typically this means the American officer-supervisor).   In this EEOC case, the local employee claimed 1,952 hours of overtime for work purportedly done from 2015-2019. Without documented pre-approval by the American supervisor, Uncle Sam is not obligated to pay.
Even if a supervisor  or some other embassy official asked for work to be done; even if work was actually done as requested …if there’s no record or documentation regarding the overtime requests or preapproval for the overtime “as required”, there would be “no basis to grant the overtime pay.”
All good supervisors and decent human beings hopefully will ensure that pre-approvals are made and granted before any work requests are made of the local staff. Otherwise, you’ll be asking, and no one will be paying …. and that would disturb one’s conscience. Or should.
Via EEOC Appeal No. 2020003186:
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Defensive Security  Coordinator, Grade 10, at the Agency’s U.S. Embassy in Yemen. On April 30, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (Arabian) and national origin (Yemen) when:

1. Complainant was denied overtime compensation for work he performed since 2015, and as recently as April 3, 2019;
2. Complainant has been denied a higher base salary level commensurate with his other American citizen colleagues; and
3. He was subjected to a hostile work environment, characterized by, but not limited to, his supervisor’s requests that he return his U.S. government-issued vehicle.  The most recent request was March 18, 2019.
Complainant was hired by the Agency in 2010, as a Local Hire under the Local Hire Program at the U.S. Embassy. Complainant has dual citizenship; he was born in Yemen and became an American citizen on September 22, 2006. He averred management knew his race and national origin because he was a Local Hire.

Claim 1 – Denial of Overtime (OT) Compensation since 2015

Complainant claimed that he held two different positions with the Agency. First, Complainant stated that he performed Defensive Security Coordinator duties from January 2014 to July 2019. Complainant stated that he had been granted overtime for years in this position prior to the Embassy’s evacuation in 2015. Secondly, Complainant claimed that he performed Regional Security Officer (RSO)/Team Lead duties from February 2015 to November 2015. Complainant claimed that his duties increased after taking on that role. Complainant alleged that he was called at all hours of the day and night.

On February 12, 2015, the Embassy where he worked was forced to evacuate. Shortly thereafter, in March, war ensued. After Complainant worked to coordinate the evacuation, he returned to the U.S. The Embassy suspended operations in 2015. The record indicates that Complainant’s entire work history was destroyed along with all other employee files that were kept onsite. The record indicates, however, that he remained on the Agency rolls until July 2019.

Complainant stated that after the evacuation, his work continued and he says his responsibilities escalated, but he was not fairly compensated. Complainant alleged that he sent an email to management officials, including his supervisor at the time (S1-2), listing all of the dates he worked overtime but he received no response. Further, Complainant claimed that he was told that they would try to process it, but he might have to wait until the Embassy reopened.

S1-2 acknowledged that Complainant held the Defensive Security Coordinator position and was eligible for overtime, but only with a prior authorization from his supervisor. He averred that he was the one to approve, but he averred “no requests for overtime were made.” S1-2 further confirmed, however, that Complainant provided information in support of his claim for 1,952 hours of overtime. S1-2 said that he forwarded the overtime claim to the Department and asked Complainant for further documentation.

Complainant submitted an email to his supervisor regarding his overtime on December 12, 2018, and after he did not receive a reply, he reached out to the Office of Civil Rights.

He received a reply on April 3, 2019. In the response, S1-2 informed Complainant that there was no record or documentation regarding his overtime requests or preapproval for the overtime as was required. Therefore, there was no basis to grant the overtime pay.

Claim 2 – Denial of Higher Compensation Given to American Colleagues

While working in the RSO section, Complainant believed that he was entitled to a higher base salary. Complainant averred that he should have received a new contract, inasmuch as he was promised a promotion. Complainant alleged that his former supervisor (S1-1) tasked him with controlling everything but did not ensure that he was compensated fairly. In addition, Complainant alleged that numerous officials over the years failed to ensure that he was compensated fairly or transition his job status. Complainant asserted that all of the issues stemmed from the fact that he was hired as a Locally Employed Staff. Complainant averred that, unlike his non-Arabian colleagues, he had to pay for his family to evacuate Yemen because of the war, but the government paid for the other employees’ families to evacuate. Complainant state that he was also put on at least one Reduction-in-Force list, but the notice was rescinded.
[…]
Complainant averred that he thought he could “work his way up” because of his American citizenship status. He acknowledged that he was hired as a Locally Employed Staff employee, which does not have a Career Ladder progression.

Claim 3 – Hostile Work Environment/Demand for Vehicle Return

Before the February 2015 evacuation of the Embassy where Complainant worked, he had been assigned a vehicle. The car is still parked at his relatives’ home in Yemen. When he and others were forced to flee in 2015, it was assumed that he would be able to come back in about a month.
He averred the Agency stopped him from going back because of the risks for him. On February 4, 2019, S1-2 issued a directive that the car be returned to service. The two communicated via email during the period February 23, 2019 to March 14, 2019. Complainant told him that he
feared his family would be placed in danger if the vehicle was retrieved. To protect his family still in Yemen, Complainant asked for certain safeguards. There were no further communications after April 2019.
[…]
In the decision, the Agency found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged.
[…]
Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant has not presented sufficient argument or evidence to establish that the Agency’s explanations for its actions were pretext intended to mask discriminatory motivation. As a result, we find that Complainant was not subjected to the discrimination as alleged.

###

US Mission Germany: LE Staff Age Discrimination Cases Fail at the EEOC Over 45-Day Time Limit

October 15, 2021 By in Americans Abroad, Discrimination, EUR|Europe, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , ,
Below are two three recent cases at the EEOC where former LE staff at US Mission Germany alleged unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Both complainants were already retired when the complaints were filed at the Commission. In both cases, the EEOC affirmed the State Department’s decision. In the first case, the complainant argues that the Commission should waive the 45-day time limit.  In the second case, the complainant’s case failed for failure to initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day time limit. In the third case, the complainant filed the case 15 years later, “well beyond the 45-day limitation period.”
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001196:
Complainant, a U.S. citizen, was hired by the Agency effective October 17, 2005, as a Secretary, Pay Plan 01, Grade 06 (PP-01-06). She was competitively promoted to Administrative Assistant Move Coordinator), PP-01-09 effective April 1, 2007, was reassigned to Administrative Assistant, PP-01-08 effective April 26, 2009, and retired on December 31, 2018. All these jobs were with the American Embassy Berlin in Berlin Germany, part of U.S. Mission Germany. Complainant worked as Locally Employed (LE) Staff, meaning staff who were legal permanent residents of Germany, including U.S. and non-U.S. citizens.

On August 24, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on age because throughout her employment she was ineligible, due to being hired after her 45th birthday, to participate in the Mission Germany Retirement Benefit Plan/Defined Benefit Plan (DBP) for LE Staff.
[…]
The Agency dismissed the EEO complaint because Complainant did not initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day time limit of when she reasonably should have suspected discrimination. It found as follows. Complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination upon her retirement (December 31, 2018) when she learned that she did not qualify for retirement benefits, and again by February 26, 2020, when post leadership issued cable 20 STATE 21066 denying Complainant and similarly situated LE retirees retirement benefits. The Agency found that Complainant had constructive notice of the 45-day time limit because of numerous posted notices on the Agency’s internet site, its intranet site dedicated to employment information, and on Embassy Berlin’s intranet site. The Agency also dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for various reasons.

The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant argues that when she was hired American Embassy Berlin was in the process of building a new embassy. She writes she was not located in one of official Embassy buildings and because her location did not have access to the Agency and Mission Germany intranet websites she did not have the means to learn of the 45 day time limit. Complainant writes that the above occurred when she worked for Overseas Building Operations (OBO) of the Embassy.
[…]
The record reflects Complainant stopped working in OBO when she was promoted on April 1, 2007, and she does not argue she was unaware of the 45-day time limit thereafter. Rather, Complainant argues that the Commission should waive the 45-day time limit because the Agency deliberately hindered those injured from becoming aware of the age discrimination and because of the gravity of its offense. Complainant argues that she only formed a reasonable suspicion of age discrimination after extensive consultation with experts and similarly situated LE Staff and retirees, and hence her EEO contact was timely. She also argues that her complaint states a claim.
[…]
Complainant argues that after she retired on December 31, 2018, she helped establish a Pension Sub-Committee to meet with management to discuss DBP age discrimination (meaning allow those excluded from DBP due to their age to retroactively join DBP), but on February 26, 2019, via cable, management declined to grandfather them into DBP. Based on this information, we  conclude that Complainant had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination years before she initiated EEO counseling on July 21, 2020. Accordingly, the FAD is AFFIRMED
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001243
Complainant, a U.S. citizen, was hired by the Agency starting on February 24, 1997, to a limited term position as a Commercial Representative at the American Consulate General, Office of the Foreign Commercial Service, in Dusseldorf, Germany. The term appointment allowed for the option of subsequent annual extensions. It appears the Agency annually renewed Complainant’s term employment until he retired on October 31, 2017. In July 2009, Complainant was reassigned from Dusseldorf to Munich, Germany, where he remained until his retirement. Throughout his career with the Agency’s U.S. Mission Germany, Complainant worked as Locally Employed (LE) Staff, meaning staff who were legal permanent residents of Germany.
On July 23, 2020, Complainant initiated EEO counseling and later filed a formal equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint dated August 26, 2020, alleging the Agency discriminated against him based on his age because he was ineligible, due to being hired after his 45th birthday, to participate in Part A of the Mission Germany Retirement Benefit Plan/Defined Benefit Plan (DBP) for LE Staff.
[..]
The Agency dismissed Complainant’s EEO complaint because he did not initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day time limit of when he reasonably should have suspected discrimination. The Agency found that, at the latest, Complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination when he retired on October 31, 2017, because he did not qualify for retirement benefits at that point. It further found that assuming Complainant did not reasonably suspect discrimination upon his retirement, he should have reasonably suspected discrimination when, on February 26, 2020, via cable (identified as 20 STATE 21066), Agency leadership denied the request by similarly situated former LE Staff, also hired after age 45, for retirement  benefits. The Agency found that Complainant knew or had constructive notice of the 45-day time limit because of posted notices on the Agency’s intranet and internet sites dedicated to employment information. The complaint file contains screen shots of the referenced notices.
[…]
The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual’s failure to pursue diligently his course of action could bar his claim. We find laches applies here. Complainant delayed almost three years after he retired to initiate EEO counseling. While the record may not show exactly when Complainant was notified of the time limit to initiate EEO counseling, we conclude that the record sufficiently supports a finding that he did not act with due diligence in starting his EEO case, justifying the application of the doctrine of laches. Accordingly, the FAD dismissing the complaint for untimely EEO counseling is AFFIRMED.
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001278 :
During the relevant period, Complainant worked as a Computer Management Specialist at the Agency’s US Embassy Berlin in Berlin, Germany.

On July 21, 2020, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact. Informal efforts to resolve his concerns were unsuccessful.

On August 27, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on age when he was informed that he was not eligible for benefits under Mission Germany’s Retirement Benefit Plan, beginning the date of his employment as a locally employed staff member on October 17, 2015.

In its October 13, 2020 final decision, the Agency dismissed the formal complaint claim for untimely EEO Counselor contact, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2).
Specifically, the Agency determined that Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact on July 21, 2020, which the Agency found was more than forty-five days after the alleged discriminatory event occurred. In addition, the Agency argued that Complainant knew or should have known that retirement benefits were not part of his employment benefit package.
In support of its assertions, the Agency included a copy of Complainant’s offer letter and employment history that he signed on September 9, 2005, acknowledging receipt of the Foreign Service National (FSN) Handbook that explains retirement benefit eligibility.
[…]
The Agency noted further that the instant complaint raises issues of retirement benefits for Locally Employed Staff (LE) which arise under the Foreign Service Act (FSA). Complainant signed the LCP when he began his employment with Mission Germany and properly grieved the LCP provisions. The Agency found that, as a result, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide the allegations Complainant raised in his complaint.

Finally, the Agency found that the subject claim is a collateral attack on the Agency grievance proceeding. The Agency stated that Complainant should have raised his allegations through the Agency grievance proceeding, and not through the EEO complaint process.
[..]
Here, the Agency properly dismissed the formal complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO counselor contact. Complainant was notified in his employment contract in 2005 that he was not eligible for retirement benefits. However, Complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO

Counselor until July 21, 2020, 15 years later and well beyond the 45-day limitation period. We note that in his complaint, Complainant states he did not reasonably suspect discrimination until February 26, 2020, when Agency leadership issued a decision entitled 20 STATE 21066 denying retirement benefits to Complainant and other similarly situated retirees. Even counting from that date, Complainant’s July 21, 2020 initial EEO counselor contact was untimely made.
[..]
The Agency’s final decision dismissing the formal complaint for the reasons stated herein is AFFIRMED.
Not sure what “Agency grievance proceeding” the State Department is referencing here. Is there a grievance system for LE staff overseas, besides getting a hearing from the COM? The Foreign Service Grievance System (FSGB) applies to Foreign Service employees only.
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 Kabul Evacuates 2,800 Locally Employed Staff and Families

August 30, 2021 By in 71st Secretary of State, Americans Abroad, Blinken, Consular Work, Evacuations, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, Spectacular, State Department, U.S. Missions, US Embassy Kabul Tags: , ,

 

Related:

###