0120122930
06-20-2014
Complainant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Complainant
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120122930
Agency No. 2004-0659-2009100359
DECISION
On July 9, 2012, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's June 26, 2012, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decision.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the Agency constructively discharged Complainant on the basis of age or national origin.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant, a GS-15 Staff Pathologist, worked as the Director of the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service (P&LMS) at the Agency's W.G. (Bill) Hefner VA Medical Center (SVAMC) in Salisbury, North Carolina. The Chief of Staff (CS) was Complainant's first-level supervisor, and the Medical Center Director (MCD) was Complainant's second-level supervisor.
Procedural History
On November 25, 2008, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him in the bases of age (65) and national origin (Iran) when it forced him to retire on October 24, 2008, in lieu of removal. On February 17, 2009, the Agency dismissed Complainant's complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120091573 (July 23, 2009), the Commission found that Complainant's complaint stated an actionable claim of constructive discharge, reversed the Agency's dismissal, and remanded the matter to the Agency for further processing.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency discriminated against him as alleged.
In EEOC Appeal No. 0120101571 (August 17, 2011), the Commission concluded that the record was insufficiently developed for a determination of whether the Agency constructively discharged Complainant. The Commission noted that it was not clear whether CS or the Acting Chief of Staff (ACS) proposed Complainant's removal and that the record did not contain an affidavit from either official. Accordingly, the Commission vacated the Agency's final decision and remanded the matter to the Agency for a supplemental investigation. The Commission ordered the Agency to "obtain all pertinent evidence to address Complainant's claim," including sworn affidavits from CS and ACS detailing their roles in proposing Complainant's removal and their reasons for doing so. The Commission also ordered the Agency to give Complainant an opportunity to respond to the additional testimony. Citing 29 C.F.R. � 1614.404(c), the Commission noted that the Office of Federal Operations may issue sanctions when an agency fails to comply with a Commission order to investigate a complaint.
The Agency conducted a supplemental investigation. The Supplemental Report of Investigation does not contain an affidavit from CS. According to the Report, the EEO Investigator made "several attempts" to locate CS but could not do so. The Report stated that the Agency's e-mail records did not list CS as an employee of the Agency and that "the investigator was told by Employee and Labor Relations that it was believed [CS] was deceased, but no evidentiary documentation was provided to the investigator in this regard, upon request." In September 16 and 20, 2011, e-mails to an Agency official (C1), the EEO Investigator requested copies of documentation related to the proposed removal and removal actions against Complainant. In a September 23, 2011, e-mail to the EEO Manager, the Investigator thanked the EEO Manager for his assistance in obtaining the removal documents, noted that she had "gotten no cooperation from Chief [C1]," asked about the possible existence of a proposed removal by CS, and asked for contact information for CS. The Investigator reiterated the request on September 28, 2011. The EEO Manager replied on September 29, 2011, that he was looking into the matter. In a September 30, 2001, e-mail to the Investigator, the EEO Manager stated that he was still trying to determine CS's status and that he was checking files to determine if there was a previous proposed removal. The record contains copies of a June 16, 2008, notice of proposed removal signed by ACS and an October 3, 2008, notice of removal signed by MCD.
Following the supplemental investigation, the Agency issued a new final decision finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency discriminated against him. This appeal followed.
Factual Background
On August 29 through 31, 2007, while Complainant was the Acting Director of P&LMS, a Region III Technologist from a different Agency facility conducted an inspection of the laboratory. In a September 18, 2007, Assessment Summary Report, the Technologist cited 14 "non-conformances." Complainant subsequently asked to return to a Pathologist position. By memorandum dated January 4, 2008, CS granted Complainant's request and detailed him to a Surgical Pathologist position.
On February 11, 2008, CS rated Complainant "Fully Successful" on his performance appraisal for the period October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2007. The performance appraisal identified Complainant's position as "Chief, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine." CS wrote in the narrative summary, "Despite many of the negative issues found in the laboratory, [Complainant] continues to perform well in surgical and anatomic pathology. The presence of inadequate space and staffing has caused issues upon him [sic] which should not reflect negatively on his abilities."1
CS left SVAMC at some point, but the record does not disclose when or why he left.2 ACS became the Acting Chief of Staff in April 2008.
Subsequently, by letter dated June 16, 2008, ACS proposed to remove Complainant from his laboratory position and from federal service. The letter stated that the Assessment Summary Report "identified numerous deficiencies" that affected laboratory test results and patient-care services and that Complainant was "responsible for the overall management and functioning of laboratory services for SVAMC." In addition, the letter outlined three charges: Failure to Provide Quality Control Measures; Failure to Adhere to Established Guidelines Delineated in CAP Chemistry and Toxicology Checklist, 2006; and Failure to Review and Assess Competency and Qualifications of Assigned Staff. The letter noted, among other things, that Complainant "failed to adhere to established guidelines . . . with regard to thyroid function tests" and that "[a]pproximately 400 patients were identified with these erroneous [reference] ranges."
In a June 16, 2008, letter to MCD, Complainant asserted that the charges were inaccurate. He stated that he delegated the technical functions of the laboratory to the Laboratory Manager and direct supervisors and that they were responsible for the incidents cited in the Assessment Summary Report. According to Complainant, the incidents resulted from inadequate space and staffing, technical supervisors' poor performance, and the Human Resources Department's failure to respond to the laboratory's needs. He asserted that he tried to correct the incidents but "did not have adequate support or dedicated personnel" and that he should not be a "scapegoat." Complainant stated that there was no evidence that the incidents affected patient care. He also stated that removal from his position would create substantial stress for him and that he planned to retire in July 2009.
By letter dated October 3, 2008, MCD notified Complainant that he would be removed from employment effective October 24, 2008. She sustained the three charges cited in the notice of proposed removal. She stated that she had considered such factors as Complainant's length of service, his work record, the seriousness of the offenses, and whether any circumstances justified a mitigation of the penalty. MCD concluded that "the sustained charges against [Complainant] are of such gravity that mitigation of the proposed penalty is not warranted, and that the penalty of removal is appropriate and within the range of reasonableness." Complainant applied for retirement on October 14, 2008, and retired from the Agency effective October 24, 2008.
The record discloses that the Agency proposed to remove two other laboratory employees (E1 and E2) but, on July 10, 2009, mitigated the proposed removals to demotions. The Agency demoted a 53-year-old employee of Guyanese national origin (E1) from a GS-12, Step 10, Administrative Officer position to a GS-9, Step 10, Patient Representative position. The Agency demoted a 51-year-old employee of unknown national origin (E2) from a GS-13, Step 2, Supervisory Medical Technologist position to a GS-9, Step 10, Training Specialist position. In addition, the Agency mitigated the proposed reprimand of a 49-year-old Lead Medical Technologist of unknown national origin (E3) to an admonishment; following a Step 2 Grievance, the Agency reduced the admonishment to a written counseling. The record contains no documentation of any actions against a 43-year-old Medical Technologist of unknown national origin (E4), who was on military leave at the time of the investigation, and a 54-year-old Assistant Laboratory Manager of United States national origin (E5).
In his affidavits, Complainant argued that he had no choice but to retire. Complainant asserted that the deficiencies cited in the inspection report occurred because of a staffing shortage and that he helped to correct the problems even though he was no longer the director of the laboratory. He also asserted that the cited errors and incidents did not justify his removal. In addition, Complainant alleged that managers wanted to remove him because of his age, his length of service, and their desire to replace him with a younger pathologist (E6). Complainant also alleged that the removal letter's reference to his length of service was a "hint" about his age. He asserted that the only person capable of evaluating his performance was the pathologist who was his direct supervisor at the time of the removal action. According to Complainant, the person who inspected the laboratory was a medical technologist and was not qualified to review Complainant's performance. Complainant did not know if ACS or MCD knew his national origin and age, but he noted that his personnel file contained information about his age.
In her initial interview, MCD told the EEO Investigator that she believed that the Region III Technologist who conducted the inspection was a doctor of pathology. She stated that CS and the Region III Technologist informed her that "there had been significant findings" regarding the laboratory and that the first communication she had with Complainant was when she called him to discuss her concerns about the laboratory. She also stated that CS proposed Complainant's removal and that she sustained the removal because the problems in the laboratory were an "egregious act" that put patients at risk. According to MCD, she met with Complainant but he failed to present any mitigating factors. After considering the "Douglas Factors,"3 MCD sustained the removal. MCD denied that she forced Complainant to retire. In addition, MCD asserted that she demoted rather than removed three employees (E1, E2, and E4) because Complainant did not provide supervisory oversight and did not complete performance appraisals for the employees. MCD told the EEO Investigator that she did not know Complainant's national origin or age but believed him to be older than 40. She stated that Complainant's age and national origin were not factors in the decision to remove Complainant. She also stated that E6 was hired as a cytopathologist under an initiative designed to increase the number of pathologists in the laboratory.
Subsequently, during the supplemental investigation, MCD told the EEO Investigator that ACS worked with the Human Resources Department (HR) to prepare a proposed removal and that she reviewed all of the information, considered Complainant's response, and sustained the removal "because of the egregious impact this had upon our patients." According to MCD, the "reference points" used in some laboratory tests were wrong, and the laboratory results of more than 800 patients had to be reviewed. She stated that Complainant "was directly responsible for ensuring the appropriateness of the lab equipment . . . and he did not do that."
ACS told the EEO Investigator that he was responsible for issuing the notice of proposed removal to Complainant. He stated that, in June 2008, HR presented him with information about the problems that the inspection had found in the laboratory. ACS believed that the findings from the laboratory inspection were "egregious enough that [he] felt that a proposed removal was in order." He also believed that immediate action was needed because significant patient-safety issues had not been addressed. ACS was not sure whether there already was a proposed removal that needed to be signed or whether he asked HR to prepare one. He told the EEO Investigator that he "saw something in the documentation that [CS] had proposed removal." Although there was "an annotation in one of the records that [CS] had discussed [the] proposed removal with [MCD]," ACS did not find an earlier proposed removal. ACS stated that he consulted with HR regarding the Douglas Factors, that HR guided him through the process, and that he issued proposed removals to several other laboratory employees at the same time. ACS denied that he was aware of Complainant's age or national origin.
An Employee and Labor Relations Specialist (ELRS) stated that he reviewed documents related to the laboratory investigation, provided technical assistance to management, prepared the evidence package, and prepared the proposed removal notice. He stated that factors such as an employee's length of service and past performance are Douglas Factors that may mitigate or aggravate the decision whether to sustain a charge. During the supplemental investigation, ELRS stated that he conferred with CS and also spoke with ACS while reviewing the matter.
Final Agency Decision
In its final decision, the Agency found that it did not discriminate against Complainant. The Agency concluded that management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action and that Complainant failed to show that the articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. The Agency also concluded that Complainant retired voluntarily and that he failed to show that the Agency subjected him to constructive discharge.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argues that CS and MCD "failed to provide adequate staffing and resources for the laboratory." He asserts that the Region III Technologist should have conducted the inspection with a board-certified pathologist, that the inspection report lacked integrity because the Technologist was not a pathologist, that there was a serious shortage of staff in the laboratory, and that ACS was not his supervisor and had no contact with him during or after the laboratory inspection. He also asserts that MCD was not familiar with laboratory functions and "falsely rais[ed] the number of patients from 400 to 800." In addition, Complainant argues that it was inappropriate for ELRS to draft the removal charges because ELRS was not a pathologist. Complainant states that he wanted to retire in 2011 and that MCD's decision not to mitigate his removal left him with no other choice but to retire. He argues that, although CS was aware of the laboratory deficiencies, CS stated in Complainant's performance appraisal that the deficiencies were not related to Complainant's performance. Complainant also argues that MCD's decision to sustain his removal was based on false perceptions and a lack of knowledge of laboratory operations. In addition, Complainant notes that the Agency did not remove other laboratory employees and asserts that the other employees were the "primary culprit[s] of all incidents." Complainant also notes that, at the time of his removal, he was no longer the director of the laboratory.
The Agency argues that Complainant has failed to produce any evidence of discrimination based on age or national origin. With respect to Complainant's assertion that other employees were responsible for the laboratory's deficiencies, the Agency notes that it disciplined other employees and that Complainant was responsible for oversight of the laboratory. The Agency argues that management believed the deficiencies to be egregious and that ACS believed the report to be reliable. The Agency asserts that, "regardless of whether 400 or 800 patients were required to return to have blood redrawn, it is nevertheless true that hundred[s] of patients were required to return to have blood redrawn because of deficiencies that occurred when [Complainant] was Director of the Lab."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chap. 9, � VI.A. (Nov. 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Supplemental Investigation
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.404(c), when a party to an appeal fails without good cause to respond fully and timely to requests for information, the Office of Federal Operations shall, in appropriate circumstances:
(1) Draw an adverse inference that the requested information or testimony would have reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the requested information;
(2) Consider the matters to which the requested information or testimony pertains to be established in favor of the opposing party;
(3) Issue a decision fully or partially in favor of the opposing party; or
(4) Take such other actions as appropriate.
In addition, during an investigation, "[t]he complainant, the agency, and any employee of a federal agency shall produce such documentary and testimonial evidence as the investigator deems necessary." Id. � 1614.108(c)(1).
In this case, the Agency failed to comply with the Commission's order to obtain an affidavit from CS. Although "it was believed [CS] was deceased," the record contains no documentation, such as a Form 50 Request for Personnel Action or other personnel record, to establish whether, and if so when, CS's employment with the Agency ended. Further, the Supplemental Report of Investigation indicates that C1 did not cooperate with the EEO Investigator's request for documents, including a possible proposed removal by CS.4 The record does not contain a proposed removal signed by CS, and it is unclear whether CS ever proposed Complainant's removal. Although ACS stated that he "saw something in the documentation that [CS] had proposed removal," he also stated that he did not find an earlier proposed removal.
Because the Agency failed to obtain an affidavit from CS and failed to produce documentation establishing that CS no longer works for the Agency, we take an adverse inference against the Agency and find that the missing information would have reflected unfavorably on the Agency. In that regard, we find that CS would have reiterated his opinion, expressed in Complainant's February 11, 2008, performance appraisal, that the laboratory problems should not reflect negatively on Complainant. We further find that CS never proposed Complainant's removal.
Even with this adverse inference, however, we find that the evidence of record does not establish that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of national origin or age. See Newbold-Reese v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073324 (Nov. 17, 2009) (no discrimination found where, even with an adverse inference for failure to preserve records from the selection process, the record did not establish that complainant would have been chosen over the selectee for the position); Cosentine v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 07A40114 (Aug. 9, 2006) (same). Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, we affirm the Agency's final decision.
Disparate Treatment
A claim of a disparate treatment generally is examined under the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). Complainant can do this by showing that the proffered explanations are unworthy of credence. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256.
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Here, the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for issuing the October 3, 2008, removal notice to Complainant. The June 16, 2008, notice of proposed removal, which noted that the Assessment Summary Report cited numerous laboratory deficiencies, charged Complainant with failure to provide quality control measures, failure to adhere to established guidelines, and failure to review and assess staff. In the October 3, 2008, removal notice, MCD sustained the charges and concluded that they warranted removal.
Complainant has not shown the articulated reasons to be pretextual. The record establishes that the laboratory had serious deficiencies during the time that Complainant directed the laboratory. Complainant has not disputed that the deficiencies existed. Instead, he has argued that the deficiencies occurred because of space and staffing issues. Even given the adverse inference that CS believed that the deficiencies should not reflect negatively upon Complainant, we cannot say that the articulated reasons were not the true reasons for the removal notice. Complainant has not shown that he provided sufficient quality control measures, adhered to guidelines, or adequately reviewed and assessed staff.
Similarly, Complainant has not shown that his national origin or age more likely motivated the Agency's actions. Complainant has argued that the Agency failed to respond to the laboratory's needs and that he was treated as a scapegoat, but he has not established that this occurred because of his age or national origin. He likewise has not established that the Agency discriminatorily proposed his removal while mitigating the discipline of other employees whom Complainant claims were primarily responsible for the laboratory's deficiencies. Complainant was the laboratory director when the deficiencies occurred; the other employees were not. Finally, although Complainant asserted that the removal notice's reference to his length of service support his claim of age discrimination, the record in this case establishes that the reference pertained to the Douglas Factors and not to Complainant's age.
Having considered the evidence of record, we find that Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency issued the October 3, 2008, removal notice because of his age or national origin.
Constructive Discharge
The central question in a constructive discharge case is whether the employer, through its unlawful discriminatory behavior, made the employee's working conditions so difficult that any reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign. Carmon-Coleman v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 07A00003 (Apr. 17, 2002). To establish a claim of constructive discharge, Complainant must show: (1) that a reasonable person in his situation would have found the Agency's actions intolerable; (2) that the Agency's actions were discriminatory; and (3) that his resignation, or in this case retirement, resulted from the Agency's actions. See Pernell v. Nat'l Archives and Records Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0120051935 (Oct. 31, 2006).
As discussed above, Complainant has not shown that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of age or national origin. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has not established that he was constructively discharged when he retired on October 24, 2008.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision and its finding of no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
June 20, 2014
Date
1 In the April 10, 2007, progress review, CS wrote that the laboratory was "severely understaffed" and that "space is critical, short."
2 The Assistant Chief of Human Resources, MCD, and ACS stated in their affidavits that they believed that CS went to a different Agency facility.
3 In Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981), the Merit Systems Protection Board identified 12 factors to consider when determining the appropriateness of a proposed penalty. One of the factors is "the employee's past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability."
4 We remind the Agency that it has a duty to develop an impartial and appropriate factual record, 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(b), and that management officials and other employees have a duty to cooperate fully with EEO investigations, id., at � 1614.108(c)(1). We strongly encourage the Agency to train all of its managers to ensure that they understand and comply with their duty to cooperate with EEO investigations.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120122930
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120122930