Posted: 3:40 am ET
— Felicia Schwartz (@felschwartz) January 9, 2018
For those attending the event, here are a few items to read though this is not an exhaustive list. Help us ask these presenters questions that State/PA and State/DS have long ignored:
- @StateDept Diplomat: Why would any woman in her right mind choose to report harassment? See me? #MeToo
- Burn Bag: A DCM Gets Kicked Out For Sexual Harassment
- Who’s a Slacker in Policing Sexual Misconduct in Federal Agencies? Take a Guess
- Inbox: Female Contractor at DS Training Center Fired 3 Hours After Filing Harassment Complaint
- Diplomatic Security’s Basic Special Agent (BSAC) Training: Sexual Harassment Alert!
- PDAS Miller Issues Sexual Harassment Message to Diplomatic Security Employees, What’s Missing?
- Chien v. Kerry: DS Agent Files Suit For Race/Sex Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, and Retaliation Sept 2016
- Inbox: Female Diplomatic Security Agent Pens a Note on Sexual Harassment and Career Suicide
- Another Concerned DS Agent Pens Response to Diplomatic Security’s Broadcast Message on Sexual Harassment
- A Joke That Wasn’t, and a State Department Dialogue That Is Long Overdue
- State Dept Security Officer Alleged Sexual Misconduct: Spans 10 Years, 7 Posts.
- State/OIG on Diplomatic Security’s Special Investigations Division – The Missing Firewall.
- CBS News: Possible State Dept Cover-Ups on Sex, Drugs, Hookers — Why the “Missing Firewall” Was a Big Deal
- State/OIG Releases Investigation on CBS News Allegations: Prostitution as “Management Issues” Unless It’s Not
While we are on the subject, let us revisit a classic case of sexual harassment, where the State Department, specifically one of the presenting offices in the January 11 session had determined that “the alleged acts of sexual harassment did not occur” only to be reversed by the EEOC.
On January 4, 2012, Complainant filed Complaint 24 alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her national origin (Arabic/Iraqi), sex (female), religion (Christian), color, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when:
3. Her teaching contract was not renewed after August 5, 2011;
4. She was subjected to a hostile work environment characterized by, but not limited to, name calling and sharing an office. She specifically asserted that since her conversion to Christianity, she was taunted by her Iraqi colleagues, who called her a “peasant,” a “prostitute,” a “bitch,’ and a “daughter of a dog.” She asserted further that she had been told that she had “sold her religion” and had a shoe thrown at her. Complainant further asserted that she had been the victim of an unsolicited sexual overture by a colleague; and
5. On September 23, 2011, she was not selected for a full time teaching position.
The Agency completed its initial investigation on Complaint 1 in November 2012. It did not complete an investigation on Complaint 2. On Complaint 2, according to the Agency, Complainant did not submit an affidavit for the investigation. Around that time – on March 14, 2013 – Complainant signed forms withdrawing Complaints 1 and 2.5 The Agency ceased processing Complaint 2, but went ahead and issued a FAD on Complaint 1 on May 13, 2013.
In its FAD, the Agency found no discrimination on Complaint 1. Complainant filed an appeal. On appeal, the Agency did not note that Complainant previously withdrew her complaint.
In EEOC Appeal No. 0120132236 (May 16, 2014), we recounted that Complainant was provided the right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, but there was no evidence she did so. We reversed the FAD on the ground that the investigation was inadequate. Unaware that that Complainant withdrew Complaints 1 and 2, we ordered the Agency to do a supplemental investigation and to consolidate Complaint 2 with Complaint 1 if the Agency was still processing Complaint 2 and had not yet issued a final decision thereon.
In its request for reconsider EEOC Appeal No. 0120132236, the Agency argued that it issued its FAD on Complaint 1 in error, and that Complainant previously withdrew Complaints 1 and 2. It submitted a copy of its letter to the EEOC compliance officer about the withdrawal of Complaint 1, and Complainant’s signed withdrawals. We denied the request on the ground that it was untimely filed, and repeated our order in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132236.
Following a supplemental investigation on Complaint 1, the Agency issued a new FAD finding no discrimination therein. The Agency found that Complainant was not denied the opportunity to attend training and to proctor tests, and the alleged acts of sexual harassment did not occur. The Agency recounted that it ceased processing Complaint 2 after she withdrew it.6
The EEOC’s decision says that the “Complainant was not subjected to discrimination regarding issue 2” but it determined that “Complainant was subjected to discrimination based on her sex regarding issue 1 – sexual harassment.”
This case which was filed in 2010 was decided by the EEOC on July 7, 2016. Six years. The State Department was ordered to take the following remedial actions within 150 days after the decision became final, and was “directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.” The report shall include supporting documentation of the agency’s calculation of back pay and other benefits due complainant, including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.”
1. The Agency is directed to conduct training at FSI, School of Language Studies for all management and staff in the Arabic Section. The training shall focus on how to identify and prevent sexual harassment connected with employment.14
2. If S2 is still employed with the Agency, it shall consider taking disciplinary action against him. The Agency shall report its decision. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.
3. The Agency shall gather evidence on compensatory damages, including providing Complainant an opportunity to submit evidence of her pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages regarding being sexually harassed. For guidance on what evidence is necessary to prove pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the parties are directed to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at eeoc.gov.) Thereafter, the Agency shall calculate damages, pay Complainant any damages awarded, and issue a new FAD on damages appealable to the Commission.
The State Department was also directed to post the EEOC order:
The Agency is ordered to post at its Foreign Service Institute, School of Language Studies copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency’s duly authorized representative, shall be posted both in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision,” within 10 calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.