Gender Discrimination:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. It is illegal to discriminate in any terms or conditions of employment, such as: 1) hiring and firing; 2) compensation, assignment, or classification of employees; 3) transfers and promotions. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices.  (

Petty Slights and Annoyances:

Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. (

You Decide


Grievances and Complaints (2007 - 2010)


  1. First Administrative Grievance Series

  2. - my first informal grievance to ARS (December 27, 2007)

  3. - response from ARS (January 24, 2008)

  4. - my first formal grievance to ARS (February 4, 2008)

  5. - response from ARS (March 14, 2008)

  6. - my request to ARS Administrator Knipling for Final Agency Decision (March 26, 2008)

  7. - final agency decision from ARS Administrator Knipling (May 27, 2008)

                    [Dr. Knipling ruled that a “hostile environment for women” and “discriminatory

                     treatment” by an ARS supervisor are “nongrievable matters”.]

  1. - final Agency Decision  versus  requesting a Grievance Examiner

                    [Dr. Knipling ensured that the women scientists in Alaska would

                     not receive fair treatment with either method.]

You Decide:

Do you believe that ARS Administrator Dr. Edward Knipling acted ethically (i.e. in accordance with U.S. anti-discrimination laws) when he ruled that discrimination against ARS women research scientists is nongrievable?


  1. Second Administrative Grievance Series 

  2. - my second informal grievance to ARS (January 21, 2008)

  3. - response from ARS (February 4, 2008)

You Decide:

Do you believe that ARS Assistant Area Director Dr. Robert Matteri acted ethically (i.e. in accordance with U.S. anti-discrimination laws) when he required my complaint (about my supervisor) to be submitted to the Area Director "through supervisory channels" including my supervisor's concurring "through" signature?


  1. Third Administrative Grievance Series

  2. - my third informal grievance to ARS

  3. - response from ARS

You Decide:

Since every woman research scientist in Dr. Pantoja’s unit was complaining about his harassing behaviors and biased policies, wouldn’t you expect the ARS administrators to launch an investigation to uncover the truth? (Instead, they just waited until August 2010, and then considered the problem “solved” when the last woman research scientist quit.)


  1. Communiques (submitted to ARS administrators)

  1. Informal EEO complaint (submitted to ARS)

  1. Formal EEO complaint (submitted to USDA)

  1. EEOC complaint (submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

  1. My EEOC discovery requests (submitted to the ARS) and their (inadequate and evasive) responses

  1. ARS’s EEOC discovery requests (submitted to me) and my responses

  1. EEOC deposition: The USDA Agricultural Research Service believes that a woman filing an EEOC complaint should be deposed in the presence of the supervisor responsible for the discriminatory offenses.

  1. Summary Judgment motion that I prepared against the agency, (but my attorney would not support it)

  1. Agency’s Summary Judgement against me (and responses)

  1. Evidence assembled for the EEOC Hearing  (which was never scheduled by Judge Gaffin)