Page 2 of 5 of the Settlement Agreement

Page 2 of the 5-page settlement is below. It is mostly a recitation of the purposes and effects of the stipulated Settlement Agreement entered by the ALJ on or around September 20, 2017, settling the matter which had its genesis in the improperly low evaluation I received on August 26, 2015, which I believed was fatally flawed due to age discrimination. The matter was concluded via settlement over two years later but by then I was out of my job of 25 years due to my involuntary retirement because of what I considered to be a hostile work environment, exemplified by the bogus evaluation I received and marked by the retaliation that I suffered, in my opinion, in May 2016.

The legacy I left behind when I was involuntarily retired in 2016 after more than a quarter century of dedicated and outstanding work in government service, which included two trials, both won, much litigation involving frequent travel, and selfless passing on of my expertise to those who came after me, just like my two mentors, Steve and Dave, had passed on to me their wisdom and experience, was a final rating of Satisfactory. Sad.

Below is a closer look at the top of page 2 of the Settlement. The matter was investigated for another six months based upon my allegations of retaliation. A few short weeks after I left involuntarily, the manager who in my opinion had done what I considered to be retaliation left my former agency suddenly and unexpectedly. Hmmm. Following my departure in May, during the summer of 2016 I received a call from the HR office in which it was discussed with me that I could receive a Commendable, or possibly even an Outstanding, rating if I withdrew my complaint. I said that things had changed because now I was out of a job. The caller concluded by saying that he would put down (in his notes I guess) that I was unwilling to discuss settlement. I replied that that was incorrect, I was happy to discuss settlement but the situation had changed, an appropriate rating would be insufficient now and there was a problem at my former agency that I hoped to address in any settlement. That was the last I heard from my former agency about any potential settlement for almost a year.

Below is a closer look at the bottom of page 2. In late November 2016, I received two boxes of reports and exhibits, the result of the HR office's investigation into my case. Many people were interviewed, myself included, and offered sworn testimony. Now I had a choice of submitting the report to the Director of my former agency's HR office for a resolution, or to submit it to the regional office of the EEOC to initiate an Administrative Law case, which could be a de novo review with further discovery and  extended litigation. Based in part upon my less-than-confidence-building interaction with the Director that I mentioned earlier, I chose the latter option and filed the case in court on December 27, 2016. Nine more months of silence from the court concerning my case followed, except that as related previously, I established contact with my former agency's GC's office in May 2017 and meaningful settlement discussions finally started, nineteen months after the occurrence that started the case actually happened, my improperly low evaluation.