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.

EEOC: @StateDept Failed to Provide Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason for Not Promoting Complainant

 

Via EEOC: Terrie M. v. Dep’t of State,  EEOC Appeal No. 2019002167 (Sept. 22, 2020).
Agency Failed to Provide Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason for Not Promoting Complainant.
Complainant, a Consular Section Chief at a U.S. Embassy, alleged, among other things, that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex when it failed to promote her.  The Commission found that Complainant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, and the Agency failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.  Complainant was qualified for a promotion, as evidenced by her Employee Assessment Reviews, and responding management officials acknowledged that Complainant was eligible for the promotion.  Moreover, Complainant asserted that the prior curtailments of her overseas assignments due to her high-risk pregnancy impacted the ranking she received in the promotion process.  Therefore, Complainant had raised an inference that her sex was a factor in her non-selection for promotion.  The Commission found that the Agency failed to overcome Complainant’s prima facie case because the evidence was not sufficient to provide a specific, clear, and individualized explanation as to why Complainant was not selected for promotion.  While the Agency explained the general mechanics of the promotion process, it failed to provide an individualized explanation for Complainant’s specific situation.  The Agency was ordered, among other things, to retroactively promote Complainant, with appropriate back pay and benefits, and investigate her claim for damages.  Terrie M. v. Dep’t of State,  EEOC Appeal No. 2019002167 (Sept. 22, 2020).
Excerpt:

In the instant complaint, Complainant has alleged that because she is a woman who got pregnant  twice and had to curtail her assignments as a result, she was disadvantaged in the selection for promotion process. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Based on record evidence, we find that Complainant has established a prima facie case of sex discrimination. First, Complainant belongs to a protected group as she is female. Complainant is also qualified for promotion to the FSO-03 position. HDR1 also acknowledged that Complainant was eligible for the promotion; and the evidence shows that Complainant was a high-performing FSO as demonstrated by her EARs. Moreover, Complainant has asserted that she believes her prior curtailments of her assignments overseas due to her high-risk pregnancy impacted the ranking she received in the promotion process. Therefore, Complainant has raised an inference that her sex was a factor in her non-selection for promotion.3 Because Complainant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, the Agency now has the burden of producing a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for not selecting Complainant for promotion.

Here, DDHR1, corroborated by DDHR2, explained that Complainant was not selected for promotion because she had been mid-ranked by the Selection Board. To support this explanation, the record only includes the same generalized information about the rules governing the selection process that the Commission had previously found insufficient, and which resulted in the complaint being remanded for a supplemental investigation. The record does not include pertinent documentation reviewed by the Selection Board and information regarding comparators. Also missing from the record are comparative data related to Complainant’s protected class or affidavits from Selection Board members; and thestatement of the Agency’s reasons for mid-ranking Complainant that led to her consequent non-selection for promotion. Moreover, the supporting testimony provided by DDHR2 does not add relevance to the instant complaint because, as Complainant stated, DDHR2 had only been in her position since June 1, 2018, nearly four years after Complainant’s non-promotion incident. DDHR2 herself indicated that she had no personal knowledge about Complainant or her non-promotion. In fact, the extent of the Agency’s explanations for its actions is that promotion decisions are based only on the documentation in the candidates’ Official Performance Folder for the most recent five years and at grades FS-02 and above, on the security incident records. The two DDHRs also stated that PE staff does not have information related to, nor will they address, personal or assignment decisions of employees, and only from the material submitted by the employee to his/her eOPF could this information be known.

We find that the evidence presented by the Agency is not sufficient to provide a specific, clear, and individualized explanation as to why Complainant was not selected for promotion in 2014. The Agency explained the general mechanics of the promotion process but failed to provide an individualized explanation for Complainant’s specific situation. See, e.g., Koudry v. Dep’t of Educ., Request No. 0520100196 (Apr. 13, 2010) (discrimination found where agency merely explained the mechanics of selection process, provided list of candidates deemed best qualified, and summarized applications of selectee and complainant, but failed to provide statements from selecting officials explaining how complainant’s qualifications were evaluated compared to selectee’s qualifications). The record does not indicate how the Agency determined which 76 candidates were selected for promotion or why Complainant was not one of the 76. Merely indicating that the Selection Boards rely only on information in candidates’ eOPF for making promotion decisions is not enough. Moreover, we add that the record also does not identify how or why the 76 candidates selected for promotion in 2014 received their scores and rankings. Simply stating that candidates who are mid-ranked do not receive scores is inadequate.

Moreover, nothing in the record provides a basis for dispelling Complainant’s belief that the staff of HR/PE had access to her curtailment memo as well as access to her personnel files which contained information about her pregnancy and presumably communicated with post leadership about the curtailment. Neither did the Agency refute Complainant’s assertion that the Board may have been aware of her pregnancy because the panel works closely with HR on promotions; and that the Board was also aware of the gaps in her tours and the shortened lengths of her tours because that was reflected in her personnel and evaluation files. As the Agency never presented any testimony from the Board members who reviewed Complainant’s promotion materials, we are left with only Complainant’s unrebutted assertions.

We note DDHR2’s statements that the Board notes are only retained for one year after dismissal of the FSSB and, therefore, were no longer available. In that regard, because Complainant filed her EEO complaint within a year of her non-selection for promotion, those statements should have been made available to the Investigator, given there was an ongoing EEO complaint being processed on this selection. See EEOC regulations at 29 C.F.R. Section 1602.14 (requiring employers to retain “all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition”

ORDER (D0617)
The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions:
I. The Agency will promote Complainant to FS-03 retroactively to the date she would have been promoted in 2014 absent discrimination, within thirty (30) calendar of the date this decision is issued.5 II. The Agency shall pay Complainant back pay with interest from the date in 2014 when Complainant would have started in the FS-03 position. The Agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest, and other benefits due Complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501, no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the date this decision was issued. The Agency will ensure that all tax consequences are taken into account. Complainant shall cooperate in the Agency’s efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits due and shall provide all relevant information requested by the Agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or benefits, the Agency shall issue a check to Complainant for theundisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Agency determines the amount it believes to be due. Complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.”
III. The Agency will conduct and complete a supplemental investigation on the issue of Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages and will afford her an opportunity to establish a causal relationship between the Agency’s discriminatory action and her pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses, if any.  ….

The order is accompanied by a “Posting Order” which required the State Department to post the EEOC Notice signed by agency representative in DOS Washington, DC offices – in both hard copy and electronic format within 30 calendar days of the decision dated September 22, 2020, and to remain in place for 60 consecutive days in “conspicuous places”.  Anyone saw this posting order anywhere in the obscure corners of the Intranet?
Having seen the State Department  and the federal government negotiate on claims for damages like this, we would not be surprised if the negotiations for damages would run on not just for weeks, but months, even years. The goal is not really to find an agreement — the government has lawyers with limitless hours billable to Uncle Sam — the goal appears to be to negotiate up to the point where the complainant is exhausted that he/she would take whatever deal the government offers. Someday, somebody should calculate the costs when the government drag on these negotiations, as opposed to expeditious settlement when it is found to be in the wrong.
Read in full below:

Click to access 2019002167.pdf