Carlos M. Johnson, Complainant,v.John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 11, 2002
01992631_01A03315 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 11, 2002)

01992631_01A03315

09-11-2002

Carlos M. Johnson, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.


Carlos M. Johnson v. Department of Justice

01992631; 01A03315

September 11, 2002

.

Carlos M. Johnson,

Complainant,

v.

John Ashcroft,

Attorney General,

Department of Justice,

Agency.

Appeal Nos. 01992631; 01A03315

Agency Nos. D-96-3406; D-98-3485; D-98-3490; D-98-3492; D-98-3493

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated two appeals from two final agency decisions

(FADs). The appeals concern complainant's five complaints of unlawful

employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The

appeals are accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.<1> We affirm in

part and reverse in part.

Complaint D-96-3406 (Appeal No. 01992631)

In complaint D-96-3406, dated November 20, 1996, complainant alleged

that he was discriminated against on the bases of his race (Black), sex

(male) and reprisal for his prior Title VII activity when complainant was

passed over for promotion and denied promotional consideration for several

GS-14 positions. Complainant further alleged that after his supervisor

was approached by the EEO counselor, the supervisor gave complainant

limited guidance and no support. Complainant alleged that, after he

reported the selecting official's relative's possible cocaine use, his

supervisor spoke to him in an unprofessional manner and he was harassed

when his name was submitted for a GS-13 job opening without his knowledge.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed

as a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Criminal Investigator/

Special Agent at the agency's Chicago Field Division and worked on

temporary duty in DEA's Headquarters Office of Personnel-Security Unit.

Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on November 20,

1996. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed

of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge

or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. Complainant

requested a hearing with regard to D-96-3406, but, on November 7, 1997,

complainant withdrew the request.<2>

As further background, the record shows that agency official A-1

(White male) became aware of complainant's EEO activity in September

1996 when he was contacted by an EEO counselor. The official (A-1)

advised complainant that he was not happy that he had to sit and listen

to the EEO counselor describe accusations made by complainant. Since

that time A-1, who was the complainant's supervisor, avoided talking

with complainant. Complainant's supervisor was aware of complainant's

applications and had been approached for a recommendation. When asked

how complainant would get along with people, the supervisor said that he

could not answer that. Another official, A-2 (White male), became aware

of complainant's EEO activity around November 1996. He had received one

or two calls regarding the complainant, but he said that he did not keep

a note of the specific jobs. The record shows that complainant received

excellent annual performance appraisals in 1995, 1996, and 1997 and

1998. Complainant complained that another supervisor (A-3) acted with

retaliatory animus in providing him with a Fully Successful rating for

his April 1998 through June 1998 for his performance as a GS-14 Acting

Unit Chief.

The record also shows that complainant applied for numerous positions.

Complainant had been certified as the best qualified and was selected

for a permanent GS-14 Criminal Investigator position. On April 16, 1998,

a memorandum to the Assistant Administrator, B-1, was prepared, stating

that complainant was the number one choice for the GS-14 position. The

complainant's initial selection was also documented by the May 21,

1998, Career Board minutes, that indicate that although complainant was

initially selected for the GS-14 Criminal Investigator position in the

Office of Security Programs, his selection had been rescinded shortly

after he filed a second EEO complaint. The record shows that, on June

11, 1998, the vacancy announcement (CMB-98-298 NTE 2 years GS-14 SPR)

was canceled. The agency states that complainant had been selected,

but the promotion was rescinded because official B-2, then Acting

DEA Administrator (Formerly Deputy Administrator) in Washington,

DC, stated that there were accusations about complainant's sexual

behavior. Complainant's name was on the July 1998 best qualified list

for the permanent GS-14 Criminal Investigator position, but this time

complainant was ranked third. The July 8, 1998, Career Board minutes

indicated that a Black female (C-1) was promoted to the permanent GS-14

Criminal Investigator position. This female selectee (C-1) had not made

the best qualified list the first time the position was announced.

In its FAD issued on January 13, 1999 (FAD1), the agency concluded

that the record failed to sustain complainant's claims that he was

discriminated against on the bases of his race, sex, or prior EEO activity

when he was not promoted, not supported, spoken to unprofessionally

and subjected to harassment by having an application submitted for a

GS-13 position without his knowledge.

The agency construed complainant's first claim narrowly to be that he was

passed over for promotion because he reported an applicant's drug usage.

On the face of the complaint, however, complainant alleged that he was

discriminated against because of his race (Black). Further, complainant,

in a December 16, 1996 letter, contested the limiting of the complaint

and specified that he was alleging race discrimination. Nevertheless,

the agency concluded that complainant had failed to articulate a claim

under Title VII, finding that complainant's reporting of drug usage

is not an action protected by Title VII. The FAD1 also noted that

complainant raised numerous other issues that were not investigated,

concluding that �the record does not show that complainant sought EEO

counseling on any of these other issues or that he contested DEA's

acceptance only of the four issues listed.� The record shows that the

complainant did contest the framing of his allegation and reasserted

that he was alleging discrimination on the bases of race (Black), sex

(male) and reprisal for prior EEO activity. Complainant had met twice

before with the EEO counselor and raised the other issues, as well.

Complaints D-98-3485; D-98-3490; D-98-3492; and D-98-3493 (Appeal

No. 01A03315)

Complainant filed four additional complaints, which were consolidated.

He alleged that he was retaliated against and denied permanent promotion

because he and other Blacks challenged discrimination. He also alleged

that he was subjected to racial comments, subjected to false allegations

regarding his sexual behavior, lost consideration for promotion because

of the accusations, not given the proper resources to do his job,

not informed when one of his agents was allowed to leave for the day

without his approval, not included in key discussions and meetings,

and retaliated against when he was given a performance evaluation rating

of �Fully Successful� for the period April 1998 through July 1998. The

matters were investigated and complainant requested that the agency

issue a final decision. Complainant also alleged that an Assistant

Deputy Administrator verbally threatened him and used volatile language

in an attempt to intimidate him during questioning on the handling of an

integrity issue; and that he was transferred out of Technical Operations

and given an old vehicle to drive.

The record reflects that around July 16, 1998, complainant was advised

by Chicago DEA management that he would be returning to his assignment

as a Technical Operation agent but would be reassigned. In August

1998, complainant returned to Chicago Division and reported to his

new reassignment in the Background Investigation/Intelligence group.

Complainant stated that he was given an older Ford Mustang with no

two-way radio, when agents with less seniority were assigned brand

new 1998 cars. Complainant received a Fully Successful rating for his

temporary GS-14 performance in HQ for the rating period April through

July 1998 performance.

In the FAD issued on March 27, 2000 (FAD2), the agency concluded that

management presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the

allegedly discriminatory and retaliatory actions alleged. Management

excluded him from meetings which were considered irrelevant to his job

duties. With respect to the claim that he was denied necessary resources,

all of the security programs lacked resources and were understaffed.

The selecting official based his decision not to accept the Career Board's

recommendation to promote complainant on a 1996 letter of caution that

had been issued to the complainant regarding inappropriate behavior and

the Office of Security Programs investigation of sexual harassment.

With regard to the officials' references to a Black female employee

as a �Black Widow,� the agency said that there is no indication that

this occurred on a regular basis so as to have created a hostile work

environment.

The agency also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to

support a claim of retaliation. The agency said that, to the extent

that an official made inquiries regarding complainant's sexual behavior

after he raised Title VII concerns, such inquiries were reasonable and

within management's discretion, based on the multiple sexual harassment

allegations against complainant. The agency said that the selecting

official stated that he did not know of complainant's EEO activity when

he made the decision not to accept the Career Board's recommendation of

complainant. The record indicates, however, that on October 28, 1997,

complainant e-mailed his supervisor and requested time to work on his

EEO complaint.

With regard to the claim that the Deputy Assistant Administrator used

vulgar language, swore and raised his voice at a meeting, the agency

said in FAD2, �[w]hile it appears from B-2's and A-3's testimony that

B-2 did make a comment about complainant's colleagues throwing him out

the window, that B-2 made a comment about not making this a �Black/White

issue' and that B-2 raised his voice and swore during this incident, this

single incident alone did not constitute sufficiently severe or pervasive

behavior so as to give rise to a hostile work environment claim.� See

FAD2. The agency acknowledged that the officials testified that they

knew of complainant's prior EEO activity. With regard to complainant's

claim that he received an interim rating of Fully Successful for his

work as Acting Unit Chief for the period April 1998 through June 1998,

the agency concluded that even assuming that the Fully Successful interim

review constituted an adverse action, the record lacks a preponderance

of the evidence to demonstrate that the rating resulted from unlawful

race or sex bias or retaliatory animus. The agency contends that because

management presented legitimate reasons for the rating, complainant's

claim is not established.

Complainant's Appeal

On appeal, complainant says that his claims were not adequately addressed

in either FAD1 or FAD2. Complainant reasserts his claim that�non-African

American Agents with no undercover experience continue to be promoted

over him�and that White males are promoted overwhelmingly over Blacks who

have higher education, time in grade, and greater experience. On appeal,

complainant cites extensively to a November 5, 1997, Congressional

Black Caucus hearing on �Discrimination in Federal Law Enforcement� and

further cites a March 1994 GAO study of DEA's programs which indicated

that �DEA employees are reluctant to use the EEO complaints process, they

fear reprisal from managers, and they lack confidence in the processes

used at DEA.� Similarly, on appeal, complainant refers to a 1981 ruling in

Segar v. Civiletti. According to complainant, the court ruled that African

American DEA agents were discriminated against with regard to salary,

work assignment, supervisory evaluations, work assignments, discipline

and promotion.<3> Neither the GAO study, nor the 1981 court ruling were

submitted as part of the original complaint. The agency is objecting to

complainant's inclusion of these materials and asks that these matters

should not be considered and requests that we affirm both FADs.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

requires that all federal agency personnel actions be made free of

unlawful race or sex discrimination. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. In addition,

Commission regulations, at 29 C.F.R.� 1614.101(a), state that it

is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal

opportunity in employment for all persons and to prohibit discrimination

by federal agencies. Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation

for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,

545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal

cases), the Commission disagrees with the agency that complainant failed

to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination with regard to

his promotion and retaliation allegations. In reaching this conclusion,

we note that complainant, a Black male,<4> applied for numerous vacancy

announcements, met the qualifications, did not receive

the appointments and a person not of his race or sex was selected for

the vacancy announcements for which he applied.

Regarding the claim of reprisal, the Commission has stated that adverse

actions need not qualify as "ultimate employment actions" or materially

affect the terms and conditions of employment to constitute retaliation.

Lindsey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05980410

(November 4, 1999) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual, No. 915.003 (May 20,

1998)). Instead, the statutory retaliation clauses prohibit any adverse

treatment that is based upon a retaliatory motive and is reasonably

likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected

activity. Id.

The record shows agency officials were aware of his consulting the

EEO officer as early as September 1996. In addition, in May 1998,

complainant advised two agency officials, including A-3 that he

was filing another EEO complaint. Complainant then filed complaint

D-98-3485. Thereafter, his supervisor advised complainant that complainant

had received the promotion to the GS-14 position. This supervisor (A-2)

then tried to get complainant to discuss and drop his EEO complaint,

according to complainant. Complainant says that A-2 and A-3 stated that

B-1 (the former Assistant Administrator of Operations in DEAHQ), said

the promotion was �a done deal.� The record also shows that the Career

Board recommended complainant and that the Board's recommendation was

not honored after the complainant's EEO allegations became known to

management officials. After a review of the record as a whole, the

Commission finds that the agency retaliated against complainant.

Under present Commission policy, claimed retaliatory actions which can

be challenged are not restricted to those which affect a term, condition,

or privilege of employment. Instead, a complainant is protected from any

discrimination which is reasonably likely to deter protected EEO activity.

See EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, �Retaliation;� No. 915.003 (May 20,

1998), p. 8-15. Complainant received a low performance evaluation from

a detail that ended in

August 1998. A negative performance appraisal does constitute an adverse

action for which relief can be granted.

The Commission also finds that the agency retaliated against complainant

and �blackballed� him after he voiced opposition to practices he

deemed discriminatory and consulted the EEO office. The record shows

agency officials were aware of his consulting the EEO officer as early

as September 1996 and that complainant was subjected to additional

scrutiny. The record shows that agency official A-1, former Special

Executive Assistant to the Assistant Administrator of Operations in

DEAHQ, requested an inquiry be made to find out if complainant had an

inappropriate relationship with two female employees. Complainant was

told of A-1's inquiries about alleged sexual misconduct. Both females told

A-1 that complainant never made any sexual advances toward them. Moreover,

the record does not show any formal charges of sexual harassment against

complainant; and there is no indication in the record that, prior to the

time of his contacting the EEO counselor and filing the EEO complaint,

his behavior had ever been at issue.

With regard to the hostile environment claim in FAD2, the record shows

that three management officials used the term, �Black Widow� in reference

to a Black female Human Resources employee �in general conversation�

from September 1997 through July 1998 and that complainant reported the

use of this term to the Office of Professional Responsibility. The FAD2

acknowledged that another special agent was present when A-1 used the

�Black Widow� comment on one occasion. The special agent stated that she

believed the comment to be sexually and racially motivated. With regard to

the use of the term �Black Widow,� the agency said that the evidence does

not support a hostile work environment finding. While a single incident

alone would not constitute sufficiently severe or pervasive behavior so as

to give rise to a hostile work environment claim, a workplace where race

comments are commonplace could constitute a hostile work environment.

In this case, however, the comments were not directed at complainant

or made in his presence. We find that the record does not evidence a

hostile environment.

With regard to the allegation that complainant was being threatened

and subject to the use of volatile language, there is no dispute

that the official (A2) was aware that complainant had engaged in EEO

activity. Further, the agency acknowledges that the agency official's

comments and the manner of making of the comments did appear to be

hostile based on eye-witness testimony. The Commission finds, however,

that the record before us fails to support complainant's contentions

that he was subjected to unexplained treatment by the threats, the use

of volatile language, the transfer out of Technical Operations or the

issuance of an older model vehicle. These actions were not shown to be

motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's

arguments on appeal, the information provided on appeal, the agency's

response, and arguments and evidence not specifically discussed in this

decision, the Commission AFFIRMS FAD2 with respect to the allegations

concerning his being verbally threatened, the use of volatile language,

his transfer out of Technical Operations, and the failure to be given

a new car to drive (D-98-3490 and D-98-3492). The Commission REVERSES

all of the remaining agency findings and conclusions in FAD1 and FAD2

(D-96-3406; D-98-3485; D-3493) and remands the matter to the agency for

the remedial relief and actions as set forth below.

ORDER (D0900)

The agency is ordered to take the following remedial action:

Within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency is ordered to retroactively promote complainant to

the rank and commensurate pay, including within grade increases, of a

GS-14 Criminal Investigator, as of July 8, 1998, or equivalent GS-14

position. If complainant has already been promoted to GS-14 or higher

level position, the agency is ordered to provide any additional salary

and benefits due for the GS-14 as of July 8, 1998 to the date that

complainant was promoted to GS-14 or higher position.

Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall give complainant a notice of his right to submit

objective evidence in support of any claim for compensatory damages

within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date complainant receives

the agency's notice. The agency shall complete the investigation on the

claim for compensatory damages within forty-five (45) calendar days of the

date the agency receives complainant's claim for compensatory damages.

Thereafter, the agency shall process the claim in accordance with 29

C.F.R. � 1614.108(f).

Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency is directed to conduct eight (8) hours of training

for the selecting officials A-1 and A-2 as to the current state of

the law on employment discrimination. The agency shall address these

employees' responsibilities with respect to eliminating discrimination

in the workplace. The training should also cover the laws that protect

complainant, and those who testified or otherwise participated in this

process, from any acts of retaliation.

The agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the selecting

officials identified as being responsible for the discriminatory decision

and retaliatory actions. The agency shall report its decision. If the

agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action

taken. If the agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall

set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.

No later than sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay

(with interest, if applicable), attorney's fees as noted below, and other

benefits due complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501. Complainant

shall cooperate in the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay

and benefits due, and shall provide all relevant information requested

by the agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back

pay and/or benefits, the agency shall issue a check to complainant for

the undisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final. Any petition for clarification or enforcement

must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in

the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision."

The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as

provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's

Decision." The report shall include supporting

documentation of the agency's calculation of back pay and other benefits

due complainant, including evidence that the corrective action has

been implemented.

POSTING ORDER (G0900)

The agency is ordered to post at its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

Field Division, Chicago location, copies of the attached notice. Copies

of the notice, after being signed by the agency's duly authorized

representative, shall be posted by the agency within thirty (30)

calendar days of the date of this decision, and shall remain posted

for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all

places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The agency

shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered,

defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice

is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in

the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision,"

within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.

ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0900)

If he has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29

C.F.R. �1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), complainant is entitled to an award of

reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid

by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees

to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of

this decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim

for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)

Compliance with the Commission's order is mandatory. The agency

shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days

of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall

be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington,

D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,

and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the complainant.

If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the complainant

may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action

to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following

an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,

1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant

has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in

accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil

Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to

the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If

the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of

the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.409.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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), 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 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (R0900)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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

September 11, 2002

__________________

Date

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

An agency of the United States Government

This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, dated , which found that

a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),

as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. has occurred at this facility.

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee

or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,

SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing,

promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of

employment.

The United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA), Chicago, Illinois, supports and will comply with such Federal law

and will not take action against individuals because they have exercised

their rights under law or offered evidence in support of such individuals.

The DEA was found to have violated Title VII when it discriminated against

an officer, with respect to promotion, based on his race and reprisal.

The DEA has been ordered to provide a remedy to the affected candidate. As

a remedy for the discrimination, the agency was ordered, among other

things, to: (1) provide complainant with the rank and pay commensurate

with the position that was denied to him; (2) provide training in

employment discrimination law to the responsible agency official; (3)

award reasonable attorney's fees and compensatory damages, if applicable;

and (4) post this notice. In addition, the DEA was ordered to submit

a compliance report to the Commission verifying the completion of all

ordered corrective action. The Department of Justice will ensure that

officials responsible for personnel decisions and terms and conditions of

employment will abide by the requirements of all Federal equal employment

opportunity laws.

The DEA will not in any manner restrain, interfere, coerce, or retaliate

against any individual who exercises his or her right to oppose practices

made unlawful by, or who participates in proceedings pursuant to,

Federal equal employment opportunity law.

________________________

Date Posted: ________________________

Posting Expires: _____________

1 These appeals, which are referenced in the record as agency numbers

D-96--3406, D-98-3485, D-98-3490, D-98-3492 and D-98-3493 are also

referenced by the agency as DOJ Numbers 187-1-153, 187-1-183, and

187-1-184.

2The Commission notes that the record does not contain any written

withdrawal, but in a May 18, 1998 statement complainant indicated that he

intended to withdraw his request for a hearing. As such, the Commission

finds that complainant is not entitled to a hearing on these matters.

3 There is no indication that the complainant's claims were covered by

the earlier court decision.

4The DEA Chicago Field Division staffing for the period 1994 to 1996

shows fourteen individuals at the Grade 14 level. All were White males,

as were both of the GS-15s.