The Coalition For Change, Inc.

(C4C)
P.O. Box 142
Washington DC 20044
OPEN LETTER TO THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Chair Jenny R. Yang
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20507
Re: Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues
The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C), a non-profit civil rights organization and support
network for persons seeking an end to racial injustice and retaliation in the Federal
workplace, responds to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (EEOC)
Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. The C4C was
founded in 2009. Our members include present and former Federal employees, largely
Black Americans, harmed by employment discrimination/ retaliation for engaging in the
formal complaint processpurportedly protected activity.
The EEOCs January 21, 2016 Press Release speaks to the persistent problem of
retaliation in the U.S. Federal government. The C4C asserts that Federal workplace
retaliation presents a looming domestic threat to the American public. It injects fear.
It silences workers from warning the public of potential dangers. It contributes to the
debilitating health of workers charged with upholding the public trust. It adds to the
taxpayers burden. Moreover, it negatively impacts the governments ability to deliver
quality, timely and cost-effective programs and services.
As noted on EEOCs website: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate.
However, statistical data discloses that the EEOC fails to deter workplace
discrimination. Specifically, the EEOCs retaliation-based charge data suggests that the
enforcement agency overwhelming decides in favor of the defendant. From FY2011
thru FY 2015 the EEOC found reasonable cause less than five percent (5%) of the time.
The EEOCs failure to execute its role with unbiased discernment leaves civil servants,
raising legitimate discrimination claims, vulnerable to recurring retaliatory attacks.
The Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR)
Act of 2002 was to curb retaliation by holding Federal agencies more accountable.
However, the EEOCs lack of oversight and enforcement has rendered the No FEAR act
1

largely ineffective in addressing the harrowing culture of Federal workplace reprisal.

The former Chairman of the United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Mr. Neil
McPhie, sheds light on the omnipresent fear in the Federal workplace in an 2014 article
entitled --- Federal Employees Have Nothing to Fear but Their Agencies
As we have done before the C4C, recommends improvements to address the Federal
workplace culture. The seven (7) C4C recommendations follow our three (3) concerns
below about the EEOCs Federal complaint handling.
At times, the EEOC:
1. Renders decisions that directly conflicts with the evidence in the record;
2. Acts as a surrogate attorney for a Federal agency rather than a fair
adjudicator of the facts; and
3. Fails to weigh evidence in favor of the moving party; but instead weighs
evidence heavily in favor of the agency, especially when the complainant
reporting a civil rights violation operates Pro se, without legal counsel.
The C4C is particularly troubled by the EEOCs decisions involving Mr. Kirk Webster,
a former Department of Defense (DoD) employee. Mr. Webster filed a claim asserting
a settlement breach with the DoDs National Geospatial-Investigation Agency (NGA).
The agency AGREED with Mr. Webster stating that it had, in fact, breached the June
2012 agreement; yet the EEOCs Mr. Carlton Hadden ruled against Mr. Webster
finding that the agency did not breach the settlement agreement. The EEOC failed to
consider Mr. Websters evidence - a letter of admission from NGA.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Measure 1: Announce Unlawful Violations via E-Notice to Employees
The EEOC should require agencies to announce unlawful violations to employees via E-notice. The E-notice (e-mail) to employees shall, at a minimum, identify the specific
office where violation occurred, the statute that was violated, the name of the party
found culpable; and a statement assuring that the discrimination found will not recur.
Measure 2: Issue Sanctions against Agencies Violating EEOC Regulations
The EEOC should make more effective, timely, and regular use of its authority to issue
sanctions to combat retaliation when a Federal agency violates an EEOC regulation
governing Federal sector complaint processing. For example, the EEOC should enter a
judgment in favor of employee when a Federal agency fails to timely comply with the
180 day EEO complaint investigative requirement, as prescribed in 29 CFR 1614.108.
[NOTE: No FEAR 2015 statistical data the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA)
provided disclosed that the agency exceeded the prescribed days to conduct
investigations. SSA: Average Number of Days 286 for Fiscal year of 2015. The
SSA, which has on-going class complaint activity, exceeded regulations. Despite the
2

SSAs non-compliance with existing regulations, the agency faced no consequences

from the EEOC.]
Measure 3: Post Class Action Complaints on EEOC Website
The EEOC should post agency class action complaint data on its website. Data should
disclose: the name of the agency, the initial filing date and status of the class complaint.
Measure 4: Post Federal Violations on the EEOC Homepage
The EEOC should post on its homepage the civil rights violations taking place within an
offending Federal Agency the same way it has done with private sector companies.
Measure 5: Disband Anonymity: Identify the Discriminating Official
The EEOC should list on its Federal Sector Appellate Decision page the name of the
agency official found guilty of violating civil rights laws. The EEOC should list the public
official by name in lieu of such acronyms as S1 or Supervisor 1. When the EEOC
issues a final finding of discrimination and no further recourse exists for appeal at the
administrative level the names of violators should appear in Federal Sector Appellate
Decisions. Officials are public servants and such proven violations that cost the
taxpayers should not be kept private. [NOTE: Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
only light can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King]
Measure 6: Re-Institute Use of Plaintiffs Names on Complaints Filed With
the EEOC
In its October 2015 Press Release the EEOC promoted using Randomly Generated
Names in Federal Sector Appellate Decisions. The C4C asserts that using aliases in
lieu of actual names in complaint filings is contrary to the administrations transparency
goals, and obscures the fair processing of an employees complaint. In the case of
veteran Ralph Saunders, who had successfully proved discrimination against the U.S.
Veterans Affairs (VA), the EEOC assigned Mr. Saunders an alias and incorrectly
assigned him the identical case number of another complainant. [NOTE: Veteran
Saunders was fired after he successfully proved retaliation in an earlier complaint. He
later went into settlement discussions in connection with a separate complaint to have
the termination removed from his record. Saunders conveys that EEOC left him
without recourse amid a hostile work climate.]
Measure 7: Support Discipline. Refer and Post Referrals to the Office
Special Counsel (OSC) on the EEOC Website
When a supervisor is found guilty of an unlawful violation and the EEOC issues a
finding against the supervisor/agency and all appeal rights are exhausted--- the EEOC
should at the very least, recommend discipline and forward the name of the
discriminating official to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for discipline. The C4C
conducted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiry to assess how often, if at all,
3

the EEOC followed through with its enforcement authority by referring cases to the
OSC for disciplinary action when appropriate. We found that over a ten year period
and after finding retaliation in numerous cases, the EEOC referred ZERO names to
OSC for disciplinary action.
The EEOC fails to effectively use the Memorandum of Agreement it has with the OSC.
In the case of Isaac Decatur, a former VA employee, the EEOC found VA managers
guilty of discriminating against veteran Decatur; yet the EEOC failed to make any
referral to the OSC. Veteran Decatur wrote to President Obama to request an answer
as to why the managers (Jeanette Butler, Larry Thomas and Maurice Troop) were never
disciplined for their retaliation against complainants. The EEOC replied in a letter to
Mr. Decatur:
The matters you are concerned with are preventative in nature.
While EEOC orders agencies to consider; we have no authority to issue
discipline." (Decatur v Shinseki, 0120073404.)
The EEOC should have referred both the Decatur case and Saunders case which involved widespread retaliation and Blacklisting at the VA - to the
OSC for disciplinary action. Undoubtedly, the EEOCs failure to make warranted
referrals for disciplinary action to the OSC contributes to the escalation of retaliation in
the Federal workplace. It is no surprise to C4C, as EEOC contends, that: retaliation
violations comprised 53 percent of all violations found in the federal sector in fiscal
year 2015. Afterall, the EEOC has not provided the proactive leadership needed to
stamp out reprisal within Federal agencies.
In closing, the Coalition For Change, Inc. C4C appreciates the opportunity to respond to
proposed regulations; however, we recognize that a revise regulation will never suppress
Federal workplace retaliation; nor will it cure the inaction of any EEOC official when
justice demands fair, prompt and judicious decision-making.
| signed |
Tanya Ward Jordan, President and Founder
The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)