Chapter 3 - Filing a Formal EEO Complaint within the USDA

[Filing a Formal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint within the parent agency (e.g. USDA) is required before a federal employee can request an “outside” investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The USDA is allowed 180 days (six months!) to examine the evidence and issue a Report of Investigation (ROI), but they can delay the process as long as they like, since there appears to be no oversight until an employee files a complaint with EEOC.]

01.) USDA has a history of incompetence in handling discrimination cases

  - U.S. Government Reports Related to Civil Rights Deficiencies at USDA

          USDA Problems Continue in Processing Discrimination Complaints (January 1999)

          USDA'S Civil Rights Programs and Responsibilities (October 1999)

          OIG’s 7th Attempt to Correct USDA’s Mismanagement of Employment Complaints (March 2000)

          USDA Problems Processing Discrimination Complaints (September 2000)

          Major Management Challenges (January 2001)

          Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights Program (September 2002)

          Major Management Challenges and Program Risks (January 2003)         

          Followup on Prior Recommendations for Civil Rights (September 2005)

          Civil Rights Report from USDA Coalition (2006)

          Civil Rights Efforts Continues to be Deficient (May 2008)

          Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (October 2008)

          USDA Long-Standing Civil Rights Issues (April 2009)

02.) USDA continued to demonstrate incompetence when handling Alaska’s EEO cases

  - The first woman research scientist filed a Formal EEO Complaint with USDA

          Original Informal EEO Complaint of Employment Discrimination (with Timeline of discriminatory events)

          Informal EEO Report  (EEO case: ARS-2008-00542) with Extension

          Right to File a Formal Complaint with USDA

          (Letter from USDA acknowledging receipt of EEO complaint) (Letter is error-filled)

          USDA mistakenly assigns case to Arkansas  (ARS-2008-00542)

          Complainant’s letter to USDA (Requests for corrections)

          (USDA’s response)

          Complainant’s letter to EEO Investigator  (To correct USDA’s fragmented claims)

          Complainant’s letter to ARS Civil Rights Staff (To consolidate the three EEO cases)

          Reply from ARS Civil Rights Staff (In response to the consolidation request)

          Letter from USDA accepting amendments (Letter demonstrates USDA incompetence)

          (USDA fails to meet 180-day deadline, so Complainant files with EEOC)

          Formal EEO Report from Independent EEO Counselor (EEO case: ARS-2008-00542)

  - The second woman research scientist filed a Formal EEO Complaint with USDA

          (Informal EEO Report) (EEO case: ARS-2008-00647)

          (Letter to USDA)

          (USDA’s response) (USDA mistakenly assigns case to Arkansas) (ARS-2008-00647)

          (Complainant’s letter to USDA in order to correct USDA’s fragmented claims)

          (USDA fails to meet 180-day deadline, so Complainant files with EEOC)

  - The third woman research scientist filed a Formal EEO Complaint with USDA

          Original Informal EEO Complaint of Employment Discrimination

          Informal EEO Report  (EEO case: ARS-2008-00696)

          Right to File a Formal Complaint with USDA

          Letter from USDA acknowledging receipt of EEO complaint  (Letter is error-filled)

          USDA mistakenly assigns case to Arkansas (ARS-2008-00696)

          (Complainant’s letter to USDA in order to correct USDA’s fragmented claims)

          (USDA fails to meet 180-day deadline, so Complainant files with EEOC)

          Formal EEO Report from Independent EEO Counselor (EEO case: ARS-2008-00696)

          Eight of nine Respondents were not contacted during the EEO investigation (which seems unethical)

03.) Contracted Investigators Documented EEO Violations Against the Women

  - EEO Affidavits  

(Yet despite these sworn statements describing unlawful discrimination, the USDA Agricultural Research Service would not properly investigate the complaints and did not impose any penalties on the abusive supervisor, in violation of U.S. laws and Agency regulations.)

ARS-2008-00542

    Summary of USDA Investigation (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) (Part 5) (Part 6)

          Affidavit  (Lori Winton, Research Plant Pathologist)

          Affidavit  (Janis Contento, ARS Administrative Officer)

          Affidavit  (Andrew Hammond, ARS Pacific West Area Director)

          Affidavit  (Peter Bechtel, Research Food Scientist)

          Affidavit  (Cindy Bower, Research Food Scientist)

          Affidavit  (Steven Seefeldt, Research Agronomist)

          Affidavit  (Cindy Prucha, Human Resources Specialist)

          Affidavit  (Jeff Conn, Research Agronomist)

          Affidavit  (Dennis Fielding, Research Entomologist)

          ARS-2008-00542  (Nancy Robertson, Research Plant Pathologist)

          ARS-2008-00542  (Alberto Pantoja, Research Entomologist)

          ARS-2008-00542  (Alberto Pantoja, Research Entomologist)

ARS-2008-00647

    Summary of USDA Investigation (Part 1) (Part 2)

          ARS-2008-00647

          ARS-2008-00647

ARS-2008-00696

    Summary of USDA Investigation (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) (Part 5)

          ARS-2008-00696

          ARS-2008-00696

          ARS-2008-00696

                    Rebuttal Statement         

          ARS-2008-00696

          ARS-2008-00696

  - EEO Emails

04.) USDA Allowed the ARS Supervisor’s Unlawful Activities Against the Women to Continue

  - Affidavits

  - Emails

05.) USDA was not held accountable for its incompetence

                  (so it’s unlikely that USDA Civil Rights personnel will ever strive to improve their performance)

                                    (and it’s equally unlikely that discrimination against women will ever be curtailed within the agency)