EEOC Association of America
EEOC Best Kept Secrets
File
Claim Complaint for Cash Settlements
OFFICE
SEX Sexual Harassment at Work SEXUAL ASSAULT BY MANAGER SUPERVISOR BOSS
EEOC COMPLAINT
EEOC CLAIM
CASH $100,000.00
EEOC Free Guidebook Free Workbook Free
How To Instructions How To File Your EEOC Claim Complaint Cash Settlement
Request without a Lawyer. - EEOC Best Kept Secrets - Office Girls, Working
Girls, Forced Workplace Sex EEOC CONFIDENTIAL SERVICES, FILE COMPLAINT, FILE
CLAIM, LEARN HOW TO FILE AND COLLECT MONEY, QUICK, EASY, SEXUAL ASSAULT EEOC
EXTORTION SEX WORK BOSS MANAGER SUPERVISOR NUDITY INTERCOURSE AT WORK WITH BOSS
FORCED THREATS PROMOTIONS MONEY
EEOC
HOW TO BOOK race, color, religion, sexual harassment, pregnancy, gender
identity, sexual orientation, origin, over 40 disability, genetic, retaliation
Claims Complaints Cash Settlements
Representation
During the Complaint Process - Although you don't have to be represented by a
lawyer during the complaint process, you have the right to have a lawyer if you
want one. You can also ask someone who is not a lawyer to represent you, EEOC
Association of America, or you can
represent yourself. The EEOC will not represent you during the complaint
process, and we will not appoint a lawyer to represent you.
EEOC CONFIDENTIALSERVICES
EEOC
Association of America
Get Cash Money - EEOC Discrimination - SEX Discrimination - EEOC FREE EEOC BOOK DOWNLOAD ONLINE - Discrimination Diversity Harassment Disability Retaliation Age Color Religion - This is the free help you need and we're very pleased to teach you and coach you through the EEOC process so this is the opportunity you've been looking for to regain your rights and get the cash money you deserve. Free Money is hard to find so accept our help as we are her to help you and mentor you and our EEOC Advisor Ebook is the training, teaching and coaching you need.
Retaliation
Retaliation Found with Regard to Performance Appraisal. Complainant worked for the Agency as an Intern or trainee, Human Resources Specialist, and had engaged in prior EEO activity of which her managers were aware. In 2009, Complainant's Supervisor rated her as Level 4 "Exceeds Expectations" on her annual performance appraisal. The Chief of Staff, however, returned the appraisal to the Supervisor, stating that he wanted further justification for the high score. Complainant's Supervisor believed that Complainant's rating was reduced because of her prior EEO activity. Ultimately, the Supervisor reduced the rating because the Chief would not move the appraisal along otherwise. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency retaliated against her with regard to the appraisal. An AJ ultimately granted the Agency's motion for summary judgment and issued a decision finding no discrimination.
On appeal, the Commission initially found that the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of material fact. The Commission found, however, that the AJ erred in finding in favor of the Agency, as the record showed that Complainant was in fact subjected to retaliation. The Commission stated that the AJ erred in finding that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case because she did not show that she was treated differently than similarly situated comparative employees. The Commission noted that was not the proper analysis for a claim of retaliation, and the AJ, instead, should have examined how Complainant was adversely treated and whether or not the treatment was based on prior protected activity. In this case, all management officials were aware that Complainant engaged in protected activity, and she was subjected to adverse treatment when the Chief of Staff ordered the Supervisor to lower her performance rating. The evidence of record also established that there was a nexus between the protected activity and the lower rating. The claim for damages in Complainant's prior complaint was pending at the time the Chief of Staff ordered Complainant's appraisal to be lowered. Further, the testimony of Complainant's Supervisor established that the Chief was motivated by reprisal. The Supervisor described an ongoing bias from upper management against Complainant since she engaged in prior EEO activity.
While the Chief stated that he returned the appraisal for revision because it was poorly written, the score was not justified, and the rating was too high given Complainant's few years of service, the Commission found the reasons to be pretextual. The record showed that three of the five appraisals returned by the Chief were for employees who had engaged in protected activity. In addition, the Supervisor stated that she was the only person who observed Complainant's performance on a daily basis, and believed Complainant deserved a Level 4 rating, describing her work as "well above" what was required. The Supervisor also noted that the Chief never discussed Complainant's performance with her. The Commission noted that the Agency conducted a fact finding conference and had the opportunity to question the Supervisor about her statements but did not do so. Thus, a hearing was not necessary to further examine the Supervisor, and the Commission concluded that the Agency retaliated against Complainant. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to change Complainant's performance appraisal, and investigate her claim for damages. Coffee v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120117 (March 15, 2013).
Retaliation Found. Complainant, an Education Technician, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging, among other things, that the Agency retaliated against her when her overall annual performance rating was reduced from "outstanding" to "exceeds," and she was refused entrance to the facility prior to her start time. Following a hearing, the AJ found discrimination with regard to those matters, and the Commission affirmed the findings on appeal. Complainant's first and second level supervisors, who were the rater and reviewer for her appraisal, were aware that she had filed a prior EEO complaint. The Agency asserted that Complainant's ratings had been inflated and that she was "borderline" between an overall rating of outstanding and exceeds. In addition, the Agency stated that Complainant was denied access to the facility on the days in question because it was Agency policy that no one was allowed to enter before their start time.
The AJ found that the Agency's explanations for its actions were a pretext to mask reprisal discrimination. Complainant received an overall rating of "outstanding" in the previous year based upon the same ratings on six job elements. Complainant also received "outstanding" ratings in the two years prior. All three appraisals had the same rating and reviewing officials. The Agency admitted that Complainant's performance did not decline, and her second level Supervisor acknowledged that her prior appraisal rating of "outstanding" was deserved. The AJ found that the Agency's explanation that the rating was lowered because the first level Supervisor inflated his ratings was not credible. The responsible officials sought advice from Human Resources on what overall rating to give Complainant, but did not do this for other employees. With regard to Complainant's entry into the facility, the AJ noted that Complainant and her supervisor testified that another employee was allowed admittance prior to his start time. The Commission rejected the Agency's assertion that the matters did not constitute adverse actions. Complainant testified that she could have received a monetary or time off award if she had gotten an "outstanding" rating. Further, the Commission noted that adverse actions need not qualify as "ultimate employment actions" or materially affect the terms and conditions of employment to constitute retaliation.
The Agency noted that management feared that Complainant would file an EEO complaint if she did not receive an overall "outstanding" rating, and, therefore, discussed the matter with Human Resources. The AJ expressed concern that Complainant's first and second level supervisors would discuss Complainant's EEO complainant and potential to file another while completing her performance appraisal. Further, the Commission noted that the two employees cited by the Agency as having their overall ratings decreased received ratings of "exceeds" in three of five elements, and four of five elements, respectively. Thus, there was no discretion but to give those employees an overall rating of "exceeds." The Commission concluded that the AJ's finding of discrimination was supported by substantial evidence. The Commission also affirmed the AJ's finding of no discrimination with regard to three other matters. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to change Complainant's overall rating to "outstanding" for the year in question and provide her with any benefits she would have received as a result thereof, as well as pay her $10,000 in proven compensatory damages and attorney's fees. Renner v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720130004 (January 29, 2013).
Retaliatory Non-selection and Harassment Found. Complainant, a temporary Housekeeping Aid, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency retaliated against him when it did not select him for a permanent position, and his Supervisor harassed him. Following a hearing, the AJ found that Complainant was discriminated against as alleged. The Commission affirmed the AJ's findings on appeal. Complainant applied for a permanent position and his application was referred to his Supervisor for an interview. The Supervisor, however, sent a memorandum to Human Resources stating that Complainant would not be interviewed for the position noting that he had been excessively late and missing from work. Complainant stated that his absences had been for medical treatment or hospitalization for a serious medical condition, and he believed his absences had been excused. Complainant's Supervisor confirmed that he received medical documentation from Complainant, but indicated that he did not submit it to his Manager and did not save the documentation. Further, Complainant had previously initiated an EEO complaint after he was issued a Notice of Termination for absenteeism. The AJ noted that Complainant entered on duty with the Agency as a disabled veteran with a 100 percent disability rating. Thus, the Agency should have reasonably anticipated that he would be absent due to illness or to seek medical treatment. Further, the AJ stated that, despite its assertion that Complainant was not selected because of excessive absenteeism, Complainant's Supervisor failed to keep an accurate accounting of medical documentation provided by Complainant. The AJ found that Complainant's Supervisor independently provided a negative reference to Human Resources in an effort to thwart Complainant from being selected for a permanent position.
With regard to the issue of harassment, the record showed that Complainant's Supervisor confronted Complainant as he left the Agency's Employee Health Clinic. The confrontation occurred in front of other patients and employees and an Agency physician and the Chief of Human Resources had to assist in quieting the disturbance created by the Supervisor. The physician provided a letter to Human Resources detailing the Supervisor's conduct, describing it as "overbearing…undignified and belittling." While the Supervisor stated that Complainant subsequently acted in a threatening manner toward him, the AJ noted that he failed to report any of the incidents and Complainant denied engaging in threatening conduct or making threatening statements. Therefore, the AJ did not find the Supervisor's assertion to be credible. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to reinstate Complainant into a permanent Housekeeping Aid position if he was able to return to work, with appropriate back pay and benefits, and pay Complainant $32,500 in proven compensatory damages. Johnson v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720120023 (January 16, 2013).
Remedies
(See also "Findings on the Merits" in this issue. - Ed.)
Remedies Discussed. In a prior decision, the Commission found that the Agency subjected Petitioner to a discriminatory hostile work environment and retaliation. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to pay Petitioner $65,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, retroactively promote her to a GS-12 position, determine the appropriate amount of back pay, interest and other benefits, remove two named individuals from their supervisory roles over Petitioner, and provide 40 hours of EEO training to all management officials at Petitioner's facility. The Agency was also directed to submit a Report of Compliance to the Commission and Petitioner. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for enforcement and clarification, stating that she was unable to determine from the redacted Report of Compliance whether compliance had been achieved. Petitioner also indicated the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) informed her that the damage award was considered taxable and was subjected to interest and penalties. The Agency stated that it did not send Petitioner an un-redacted Report of Compliance because it contained information regarding other employees that was protected under the Privacy Act.
The Commission noted that redaction of information protected under the Privacy Act, such as specific information concerning disciplinary action taken against another employee, is appropriate in an EEO Report of Compliance sent to a complainant. In the instant case, however, the Agency noted that it would not provide Petitioner with the Report, "redacted or not." The Commission stated that the Agency was required to disclose non-disciplinary information to Petitioner in the Report. The Commission set forth only four specific items that should be redacted, and instructed the Agency to re-issue the Report to Petitioner. The Commission further found that the Agency did not provide Petitioner with adequate information to demonstrate how it calculated the amount of back pay to which she was entitled. The Commission stated that the Agency must provide detailed documentation regarding its back pay calculations and use clear and concise "plain language" as to the methods of calculation. The Commission also noted that the Agency had not provided appropriate training to all management officials at the facility.
With regard to damages, the Commission noted that the IRS excluded damages from gross income only to the extent that they are compensation for emotional distress caused by physical injury or sickness, and considered damages taxable unless they are reimbursement for medical or other out-of-pocket costs. The Commission has held that it is beyond the Commission's purview to categorize an award of damages in terms of its potential federal income tax ramifications. The Commission noted that, in the underlying decision on appeal, it found that Petitioner's non-pecuniary compensatory damages were partially based on physical injuries she suffered as a result of the Agency's discrimination. Specifically, the Commission stated that Petitioner experienced mental anguish and physical injuries because of the harassment. Nevertheless, the Commission stated that it was beyond its purview to determine how much, if any of the damages awarded Petitioner should be considered taxable gross income. The Agency was ordered to re-issue the Report of Compliance with only the four redactions specified, send all information regarding back pay calculations to Petitioner, and provide training to all management officials at Petitioner's facility. Kessel v. Dep't of Commerce, EEOC Petition No. 0420110014 (January 31, 2013).
