Order of Dismissal

There are two main problems that keep inequities, indeed even illegalities, present if not endemic or rampant at agencies, corporations, entities and with powerful individuals. NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) and the lengthy, mandatory process involved in reporting and pursuing allegations at HRA offices. My case wherein I suffered an "involuntary retirement in May 2016" is such an example. My original complaint was based upon age discrimination after I received, in my opinion, an unfair, biased and erroneous substandard evaluation of Satisfactory on August 26, 2015. The Order of Dismissal below, one of six pages that encapsulates the settlement of my case, which I shall publish this week, is dated September 20, 2017, effecting the settlement on or about that date. Its issuance is more than 2 years after the occurrence I originally complained about, the erroneous performance appraisal that was allegedly biased based upon age discrimination. I followed the process presented to me fully, and that is how long it took to resolve the matter. This is too long a process and the lengthy, built in delays cause many people to give up in despair, go silent and get on with their lives and careers, especially because there are strong social pressures based upon many factors to not make waves. Not the least of these pressures comes from the fact that if a complaint eventually goes to litigation, your colleagues might be called to testify and will be given the Hobson's choice of remembering correctly the sequence of events and the atmosphere in your shop or not remembering it (I don't recall.). Most of them will be returning to their jobs and working for years or decades with the same managers.

You will notice that this Order of Dismissal, entering the attached 5-page stipulated settlement, is dated September 20, 2017, and it was issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Washington Office, an administrative law body, and signed by an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge). It has its own docket number, EEOC No. 570-2017-00377X, which refers to the Agency No. 2016-2. I timely filed this Complaint with the EEOC office on December 27, 2016, after the lengthy and exhaustive investigation was completed at my agency. I could not have filed it with an ALJ any earlier. This was almost a year and a half after the original occurrence of the allegedly unfair, biased and erroneous evaluation I complained about, following the presented process. I was out of a job following my "involuntary" retirement in May, 2016 and this was another thing hanging over my head along with my 80% income diminution. There were no meaningful settlement discussions about my complaint during that entire year and a half. Perhaps, dear reader, you can you get a sense of the pressures that build up during the pendency of a complaint as time slowly passes and one year turns into the next with no end in sight.  There are two interesting things about the dates on the document that will be discussed in the paragraph below.

I filed the EEOC Complaint on December 27, 2016 and the first time I received a single thing back from the EEOC was on September 20, 2017, the Order of Dismissal which entered the stipulated settlement. This was almost 9 months later! It was radio silence before that from the court. I didn't receive a docket number, nor an acknowledgement of receipt, or a scheduling order. Nada. After about six months, I started fretting that I was "sleeping on my rights" and that I could have my case dismissed for lack of prosecution so I called the GC's (General Counsel's) office at my former agency to inquire if they had heard anything back from the court. That event started settlement discussions for the first time, about 20 months after the occurrence originally complained about. I was told, which I had no reason to disbelieve, that this lack of response so far by the court was not unusual and that the actual litigation itself, once it started, could take a year or or even years to conclude. Can you imagine the pressure that the passage of time builds upon you as you anticipate years of litigation ahead and the cost of extensive discovery?  I was litigating by myself with no real resources against all of the staff and resources of my former agency's GC's office. This leads to the second interesting date on the document, the date indicated by the agency's referral No., 2016-2. This told me that during the entire year of 2016, mine was only the second complaint that had been pursued this far (remember that I filed my case with the EEOC on during the last week in December of 2016) from my former agency, a smallish but by no means tiny agency. No wonder I was only one of two formal complaints! The process is so drawn out and oppressive that it must cause many or most people to just go away, and especially with age discrimination, perhaps the person will just expire in the meantime.

So here, for today, I will end my tale of filing a complaint with the HR department at my former agency. Below is the backside showing the two opposing counsels in the case being resolved by the Order of Dismissal.  As stated, this document entered the stipulated settlement more than two years after the original occurrence complained about. My case did include an allegation about illegal retaliation, which did add some months to the agency's HR office's investigation, but in my experience, retaliation, which might or might not be in the eye of the beholder, was not unheard of.  I believed I had witnessed retaliation at my former agency just the year before from the same actor and based upon a similar set of circumstances and allegations.