Tag Archives: Treasury Department

@StateDept Settles Title VII Discrimination in Federal Employment For $500K

February 14, 2022 By in Court Cases, Discrimination, Spectacular, Staffing the FS, State Department Tags: , ,

 

According to the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, the State Department paid $500,000 in settlement under 42-USC-2000e-16 for a Title VII Discrimination in Federal Employment.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
The payment under Control 202201949, Payment ID 017762022 was sent on January 25, 2022.
This was a case in the U.S. District Court of the District Court of Columbia (Agency File #18-3065). The data does not include the name of the payee. We have been unable to locate the 18-3065 file.

###

 

Who did @StateDept/BBG pay $9,033,600 for Title VII, Discrimination in Federal Employment?

November 18, 2021 By in Court Cases, Discrimination, Federal Agencies, Questions, State Department Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 

The Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund pays court judgments and compromise settlements of lawsuits against the government. Federal agencies may ask the Bureau of the Fiscal Service to pay from the Judgment Fund for:
  • Most court judgments and Justice Department settlements of actual or imminent litigation against the government
  • Administrative claim awards (settlements by agencies at the administrative level, not involving a lawsuit)
According to Treasury, an agency may only ask for payment from the Judgment Fund if funds are not legally available to pay from the agency’s own appropriations. If another source of funds exists to pay the award, the Judgment Fund cannot be used even if the other source does not have enough money. In that case, the agency with the other source of funds must ask Congress to appropriate more money for that other source.
In most cases, the agency does not have to reimburse the Judgment Fund. However, reimbursement is required when the case comes under either the Contract Disputes Act or the No FEAR Act.
On October 7, 2021, an amount of $9,033,600.00 was sent from the Judgement Fund under Payment ID 062262021. The defendant agency is listed as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG now USAGM) and the State Department. The database does not include the name of the complainant nor the docket number at the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia which is listed as having jurisdiction of this case. It lists the Principal Citation Code as 42-USC-2000e-16 with the Principal Citation Code Description as “Title VII, Discrimination In Federal Employment.”
The Principal Amount is listed as $9,033,600.00.
The database does not indicate if this payment involves a single complainant or multiple ones. Or if a gag order is included as a bonus.
For more information about the Judgement Fund, click here.

Related item:
5 CFR 724 – Implementation of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002-Judgment Fund

 

Related posts:

 

 

Another Dual-Hatter? Marshall Billingslea Joins @StateDept as Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control

April 15, 2020 By in Appointments, Huh? News, Political Appointees, Special Envoys and Reps, State Department, Top Ranks, Trends, Trump Tags: , ,

 

Marshall Billingslea was confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in June 2017. As of today, five days after the WH announcement, Mr. Billingslea’s bio is still up at the Department of Treasury website. Making folks wonder if this is another of those dual-hatted appointees, with Mr. Billingslea straddling two positions at State and Treasury.
State Department statement on the appointment of Marshall Billingslea:

President Trump has appointed Marshall Billingslea as Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control.  In this role, Billingslea will lead arms control negotiations on behalf of the U.S. Government.

Mr. Billingslea most recently has been serving as Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing at the U.S. Department of Treasury since June 2017.  In that role, he has built international coalitions and led U.S. efforts to counter illicit financial activities.  In 2018 he was selected unanimously by the 37 member countries of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) — the global anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing body — to serve as its President.  Mr. Billingslea also co-chairs the global Counter-ISIS Finance Group and multiple bilateral negotiating fora with friendly and allied nations.  He has deep expertise in arms control and broad experience in foreign policy and national security, having held senior positions in the private sector, NATO, the Department of Defense and on the staff of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Billingslea holds a Bachelor of Arts from Dartmouth College and a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy from Tufts University.

The United States remains committed to effective arms control that advances U.S., allied, and partner security; is verifiable and enforceable; and includes partners that comply responsibly with their obligations.  President Trump has charged this Administration with beginning a new chapter by seeking a new era of arms control that moves beyond the bilateral treaties of the past.  The appointment of Marshall Billingslea reaffirms the commitment to that mission.

 

Putin Sends Medical Supplies in “Largest Cargo Aircraft” to “World’s Largest Humanitarian Provider” – Wait, Wat?

April 6, 2020 By in Coronavirus, Foreign Assistance, MEDical, Spectacular, State Department, Trends, Trump Tags: , , , ,

 

 

https://www-wsj-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/russian-fund-behind-coronavirus-aid-shipment-is-on-u-s-lending-blacklist-11585873617

The Giant Halkbank Octopus: New Episodes Coming Soon!

October 25, 2019 By in EUR|Europe, Federal Agencies, Foreign Affairs, Iran, Locally Employed Staff, State Department, Trends, Trump, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 

From our old post in 2017: Erdogan Rages Against the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara — What’s That About?

On March 19, 2016, Reza Zarrab an Iranian-Turkish citizen was arrested for allegedly engaging in hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions on behalf of the Government of Iran and Iranian entities as part of a scheme to evade U.S. sanctions (Download u.s._v._zarab_et_al_indictment.pdf).

On March 28, 2017, Mehmet Hakan Atilla, a Turkish banker was also arrested and charged for alleged conspiracies to violate the IEEPA and to commit bank fraud (Download US v. Mehmet Hakan Atilla complaint.pdf).

On September 6, 2017 DOJ announced the Superseding Indictment alleging that nine defendants (including a former Turkish Minister of the Economy (currently serving in Turkish Parliament), and a former General Manager Of Turkish Government-Owned Bank), “conspired to lie to U.S. Government officials about international financial transactions for the Government of Iran and used the U.S. financial system to launder bribes paid to conceal the scheme.”

In November 2017, NBC News also reported that Zarrab began cooperating with federal prosecutors in a money-laundering case.
According to avhal, the Turkish banker, Hakan Atilla served 32 months in prison in the United States for helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions, and was released on July 19 this year. On October 21, 2019, Turkey’s Finance and Treasury Minister Berat Albayrak (and Erdogan’s son-in-law) announced that the former Halkbank director has been appointed as the director general of Borsa Istanbul, Turkey’s main stock exchange.
On October 15, USDOJ announced that TÜRKİYE HALK BANKASI A.S., a/k/a “Halkbank,” was charged in a six-count Indictment with fraud, money laundering, and sanctions offenses related to the bank’s participation in a multibillion-dollar scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran.
On October 24, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon announced that he is launching an investigation into the Halkbank scandal.
Courthouse News Service Adam Klasfeld who has covered this case extensively notes in his October 22 report that “Turkey continued to hold three U.S. consulate workers in captivity with relative silence from the White House, and Halkbank kept an indictment at bay for more than two years, even after its ex-general manager Suleyman Aslan and executive Atilla had been charged with the multibillion-dollar conspiracy.”
Back in 2017, we thought this thriller which started out actually in 2013  (see the New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins piece, A Mysterious Case Involving Turkey, Iran, and Rudy Giuliani) — with a cargo plane from Accra, Ghana, which was diverted to Istanbul’s main international airport, because of fog, and three thousand pounds of gold bars — was going to unravel under the glare of sunlight, but here we are in 2019.  So now we wait for the next episodes.

Related posts:

@StateDept Publishes Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Report

July 17, 2017 By in Federal Agencies, Foreign Affairs, Govt Documents, Interagency Cooperation, Obama, Regulations, State Department, Trump, US Presidents, Visas Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted: 4:41 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’]

 

The State Department published the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Report on June 20. The Act enacted on December 23, 2016, authorizes the President to impose financial sanctions and visa restrictions on foreign persons in response to certain human rights violations and acts of corruption.

According to the notice, the President approved the report on April 21, 2017.  The report required per Pub. L. 114-328, Subtitle F details (1) U.S. government actions to administer the Act and (2) efforts to encourage the governments of other countries to impose sanctions that are similar to the sanctions authorized by Section 1263 of the Act.

Under Sanctions, the report notes:

“Although no financial sanctions were imposed under the Act during the 120 days since its enactment, the United States is actively seeking to identify persons to whom this Act may apply and collecting the necessary evidence to impose sanctions.”

Under Visa Sanctions, the report notes:

“Although no visa sanctions were imposed under the Act during the 120 days since its enactment, the Department of State is continuously reviewing available information in order to take appropriate actions with respect to visa ineligibilities.”

Under Termination of Sanctions, the report notes:

“No sanctions imposed under the Act were terminated in the 120 days since its enactment.”

The report also notes the following:

“With the passage of the Act, the United States now has a specific authority to identify and hold accountable persons responsible for gross violations of human rights and acts of significant corruption. The global reach of this authority, combined with a judicious selection of individuals and entities, will send a powerful signal that the United States continues to seek an end to impunity with respect to human rights violations and corruption. The Administration is committed to implementing the Act to support efforts to promote human rights and fight corruption. By complementing current sanctions programs and diplomatic outreach, the Act creates an additional authority to allow the Administration to respond to crises and pursue accountability, including where country-specific sanctions programs may not exist or where the declaration of a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act may not be appropriate. With the establishment of the first dedicated global human rights and corruption sanctions program, the United States is uniquely positioned to lead the international community in pursuing accountability abroad consistent with our values.”

While no individual has been sanctioned under the act, the report lists a few examples of Treasury Department designations issued in recent years which illustrates designations that align with the Act’s focus on human rights and corruption.

Andrey Konstantinovich Lugovoy: On January 9, 2017, Russian national and member of the Russian State Duma Andrey Konstantinovich Lugovoy was designated under the Magnitsky Act, which includes a provision targeting persons responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross human rights violations committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activity by Russian government officials. Lugovoy was responsible for the 2006 extrajudicial killing of whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko in London, with Dmitriy Kovtun (also sanctioned) acting as his agent or on his behalf. Lugovoy and Kovtun were two of five individuals designated under the Magnitsky Act on January 9, 2017.

Evariste Boshab: On December 12, 2016, Evariste Boshab was designated under E.O. 13413 (“Blocking Property of Start Printed Page 28216 Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”), as amended by E.O. 13671 (“Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”), for engaging in actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Boshab offered to pay DRC National Assembly members for their votes in favor of a bill to amend electoral law to delay elections and prolong President Joseph Kabila’s term beyond its constitutional limit.

Kalev Mutondo: Also on December 12, 2016, Kalev Mutondo was designated under E.O. 13413, as amended by E.O. 13671, for engaging in actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the DRC. Kalev supported the extrajudicial arrest and detainment of opposition members, many of whom were reportedly tortured. Kalev also directed support for President Kabila’s “MP” political coalition using violent intimidation and government resources.

North Korean Ministry and Minister of People’s Security: On July 6, 2016, the North Korean Ministry of People’s Security was designated pursuant to E.O. 13722 (“Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers’ Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea”) for having engaged in, facilitated, or been responsible for an abuse or violation of human rights by the Government of North Korea or the Workers’ Party of Korea. The Ministry of People’s Security operates a network of police stations and interrogation detention centers, including labor camps, throughout North Korea. During interrogations, suspects are systematically degraded, intimidated, and tortured. The Ministry of People’s Security’s Correctional Bureau supervises labor camps (kyohwaso) and other detention facilities, where human rights abuses occur, such as torture, execution, rape, starvation, forced labor, and lack of medical care. A Department of State report issued simultaneously with these designations cites defectors who have regularly reported that the ministry uses torture and other forms of abuse to extract confessions, including techniques involving sexual violence, hanging individuals from the ceiling for extended periods of time, prolonged periods of exposure, and severe beatings. Choe Pu Il, the Minister of People’s Security, was also designated for having acted for or on behalf of the Ministry of People’s Security.

Joseph Mathias Niyonzima: On December 18, 2015, Joseph Mathias Niyonzima was designated under E.O. 13712 (“Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi”) for being responsible for or complicit in or for engaging in actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burundi. Niyonzima supervised and provided support to elements of the Imbonerakure pro-government militia in Burundi, a group that has been linked to the arrest and torture of individuals suspected of opposing the Nkurunziza regime. He was also involved in plans to assassinate prominent opposition leaders.

Fahd Jassem al-Freij: On May 16, 2013, Syrian Minister of Defense Fahd Jassem al-Freij was designated pursuant to, among other authorities, E.O. 13572(“Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria”) for his role in the commission of human rights abuses in Syria. During his time as Syrian Minister of Defense, the Syrian military forces wantonly and capriciously killed Syrian civilians, including through the use of summary executions and indiscriminate airstrikes against civilians. Some of these airstrikes killed civilians waiting outside of bakeries.

The report says that the United States is committed to encouraging other countries to impose sanctions that are similar to those provided for by the Act. “The Department of State actively participates in global outreach, including the G-20 Denial of Entry Experts Network, a sub-group of the G-20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, in which countries share best practices among visa and immigration experts. Through this network, the United States has encouraged other G-20 members to establish and strengthen corruption-related visa sanctions regimes.”

#

Congress Authorizes Petition Fee Increases For Certain L-1 and H1B Visas Until Sept 30, 2025

January 6, 2016 By in Congress, Consulate General, Federal Agencies, Interagency Cooperation, Regulations, Visas Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted: 3:05 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

A section of the ‘‘Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016’’ which became Public Law No: 114-113 on December 18, 2015 includes an item on the temporary increase of “visa fee” for L-1 and H1B, as well as extensions.  The processing fee for petition based visa categories like L (Intracompany Transferees) and H (Temporary Workers/Employment or Trainees) visas is currently posted on travel.state.gov at $190.00. It looks like the bump in fees is really for the L-1 and H1B visa petition fees (with DHS) and not for the visa processing fees collected by the State Department.

The new law talks about the “combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee” which are fees already collected by DHS.  Under Pub. L. 111-230, DHS/CIS charges $2,000  for H-1B petitioners that employ 50 or more employees in the United States with more than 50 percent of their employees in the United States in H-1B, L-1A or L-1B nonimmigrant status. Under the same law, L1 petitioners are also charged $2250. Both provisions ended on October 1, 2014, but were extended through September 30, 2015 by Pub. L. 111-347. The temporary bump in the L1 and H1B petition fees under Public Law No: 114-113 that just passed will be good until September 30, 2025.

‘‘SEC. 411. 9-11 RESPONSE AND BIOMETRIC ENTRY-EXIT FEE.

‘‘(a) TEMPORARY L-1 VISA FEE INCREASE.—Notwithstanding section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351) or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section and ending on September 30, 2025, the combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee required to be submitted with an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)), including an application for an extension of such status, shall be increased by $4,500 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) of such Act.

‘‘(b) TEMPORARY H-1B VISA FEE INCREASE.—Notwithstanding section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1351) or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section and ending on September 30, 2025, the combined filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee required to be submitted with an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), including an application for an extension of such status, shall be increased by $4,000 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are such nonimmigrants or nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.

‘‘(c) 9-11 RESPONSE AND BIOMETRIC EXIT ACCOUNT.—‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the general fund of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as the ‘9–11 Response and Biometric Exit Account’.

‘‘(2) DEPOSITS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph  (B), of the amounts collected pursuant to the fee increases authorized under subsections (a) and (b)—

‘‘(i) 50 percent shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury; and

‘‘(ii) 50 percent shall be deposited as offsetting receipts into the 9–11 Response and Biometric Exit Account, and shall remain available until expended.

‘‘(B) TERMINATION OF DEPOSITS IN ACCOUNT.—After a total of $1,000,000,000 is deposited into the 9–11 Response and Biometric Exit Account under subparagraph (A)(ii), all amounts collected pursuant to the fee increases authorized under subsections (a) and (b) shall be deposited authorized under subsections (a) and (b) shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.

#

State Dept’s Employee Discrimination and Reprisal Statistics May Boggle Your Mind, Or Not

December 8, 2013 By in Career Employees, Functional Bureaus, Govt Documents, Huh? News, Org Life, ScribD, State Department Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

— Domani Spero

On May 15, 2002, then-President Bush signed into law the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act to increase federal agency accountability for acts of discrimination or reprisal against employees. This act requires that federal agencies post on their public Web sites certain summary statistical data relating to equal employment opportunity complaints filed against the respective agencies.  This data is updated quarterly.  The report ending on September 30, 2013 is posted below. This data is maintained and published by State/OCR and originally posted at state.gov here.

We should note that the Secretary of State has delegated both tasks of advancing diversity within the Department and ensuring equal opportunity to all employees to the Director of the Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR), an office headed by   John M. Robinson since March 3, 2008.

The total final finding of discrimination from 2008 to-date at the State Department has been one case of reprisal in 2011 out of 133 complaints, one case on race in 2012 out of 133 complaints and one case based on sex discrimination out of 152 complaints in the current year. Three cases of discrimination in favor of the complainant (two with a hearing and one without a hearing) in the last six years?  Single digit finding for the plaintiffs is not unheard of, is it?

If you are an employee with a possible EEO case, this FY2013 statistics is not hopeful.

Number of complaints: 152

Top five (complaints by basis):
reprisal (75), race (50), sex (40), disability (40)
age (36), national origin (21)

Top five (complaints by issue):
harassment/non-sexual  (55)
evaluation/appraisal (25)
promotion/non-selection (21)
disciplinary action (20)
assignment of duties (19)

Total Final Agency Action Finding Discrimination: 1

The average number of days in investigation is 276.89 days, the average number of days in final action is 259.14. When hearing was not requested, the average number of days in final action is 319.50 days.  Take a look.

The State Department has 13,787 Foreign Service employees and 10,787 Civil Service employees working domestic and 275 overseas missions as of March 2013. The S/OCR data does not include a breakdown of cases by employee type.

Also we were curious how other agencies handle this No Fear Act statistical requirement.  We found the Department of Treasury quite more elaborate in its reporting than the State Department. For instance, in FY2012, Treasury closed 61 EEO complaints with monetary corrective actions, totaling $792,477 in back pay/front pay, lump sum payments, compensatory damages, or attorney’s fees and costs.  The monetary component in the State Department’s  report is not even discussed.  At one point we were following the litigation between  FSO Virginia Loo Farris and the State Department (See  Farris v. Clinton: Race/Gender Discrimination Case Going to Trial).  On March 12, 2009,  United States District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina granted the defendant’s (Clinton/State Department) renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to Virginia Loo Farris’ retaliation claims but denies it with respect to the her discrimination claims. In October 2010, the case was dismissed after a settlement was reached between Ms. Farris and the State Department. Details of the settlement were not released.

Anyway, check out the FY2012 report from the Treasury Department here, the year-end data for the five previous fiscal years for comparison purposes actually are quite informative and includes real numbers besides zeros and ones.  It also includes the number of judgement for plaintiff (2), number of  employees disciplined for discrimination, retaliation, harassment, or any other infraction under the cited law (33), analysis of the complaints, data on counseling and alternative dispute resolution. The State Department’s No Fear Act report is absolutely bare bones, although it’s not alone in doing so.

If State/OCR has submitted a separate report to Congress detailing more fully its handling of EEO complaints in the State Department, including monetary corrective actions, we would like to see that information available to the public.

 

* * *

Related posts:

Snapshot: State Department’s Permanent Workforce Demographics

Snapshot: State Dept Discrimination and Reprisal Complaints FY2008-FY2013