Page one of five of the Settlement Agreement

A lot happened during the two years between my sub-standard personnel review of Satisfactory (less than Commendable and much less than Outstanding, which are the commonplace evaluations) that I thought was based upon age discrimination, and the Settlement I signed after about 5 months of negotiations with the GC's office at my former agency. Below is page one of that 5-page agreement, which basically covers the findings of fact. There's a formula to ratings, and I was one single point away from a Commendable rating in these highly subjective, carefully crafted and reverse engineered evaluations. I would still have disagreed with a Commendable but I wouldn't have informally complained about it because I was a go-along guy in the division, I know how subjective these evaluations are, and realize that managers protect their pets with elevated ratings. But the Satisfactory (barely above Minimally Acceptable) assigned to me was outrageously and pointedly low, unjustified, and I felt I was being singled out due to my age plus I was nobody's pet and all of my managers were a full generation younger than me. So I followed the avenues laid out as necessary for redress in the Administrative Manual, which processes are mostly a huge stall tactic in my opinion. I went and discussed the improperly low evaluation informally with the manager who gave it to me and asked her to change it after giving her my reasons. She smilingly said No. I filed a grievance, which was a waste of time because it was ruled upon by one of the very managers who signed the very evaluation I was complaining about. There was no recourse or oversight to the disparaging, and wrong, opinion he wrote. That left only the informal complaint process to the HR office, based upon my assertion of ageism in my evaluation, which had months in which to try to reach a resolution before I could file a Formal Complaint.

Below is a closer look at the top of page 1, the Findings of Fact agreed to by the two parties to the Settlement Agreement. To continue my tale about the time-suck that complainants about ageism and other improprieties at federal agencies run into is that my improperly low evaluation was done on August 26, 2015. The informal complaint I filed with the agency's HR office about it, based on age discrimination, went to December with no discernible progress at all. Then the HR office negotiator in effect threw up her hands and said sorry, they (the tightly banded-together four managers) won't budge, there's nothing I can do. I was given my options, to either let it go or file a Formal Complaint with the agency's HR office, which would then be investigated over the course of six more months. I chose to do the latter, but I still wasn't any closer to an actual resolution in front of an impartial arbiter (a court, you know) as 2015 slipped into 2016. But the formal complaint process did carry with it assurances that I would not be subjected to retaliation because, or perhaps only during the pendency, of my formal complaint. This assurance sounded very high-minded.

Below is a close-up of the text of page one of the settlement. The negotiations included the exchange of three drafts of the final agreement, which were always crafted by the GC's office at my former agency, after extended discussions. This page incorporates our agreed to findings of fact, including the fact that "On May 27, 2016, Mr. Lamberton amended his formal complaint with additional allegations of a hostile work environment, which culminated in his involuntary retirement in May 2016." That's how it was, I felt that I was retaliated against at the end of May during the pendency of the investigation into my Formal Complaint by a manager who in my opinion had engaged in retaliation before. I felt compelled to retire suddenly on Memorial Day in 2016 rather than to continue in a hostile work environment such as I was apparently in. My involuntary retirement had definite drawbacks. My income was suddenly and immediately slashed by well over 80%, ruining all my financial plans for the future. The further allegations of retaliation near the end of the original six-month investigation into my formal complaint of ageism added another six months to the investigation. There hadn't been a single word of credible settlement discussion so far.

At this point, it had been about nine months since my complained-about evaluation. Notably, in the fall of 2015 I received a team award for my work in the important auto-recall line of cases. The receipt of this award had obviously not been taken into consideration during my evaluation in August, which lacked one single point of pushing my rating from the sub-standard Satisfactory rating to the more acceptable and commonplace (but still too low) Commendable rating. I believed that this subsequent award for notable and significant work I had done during the same exact period that the evaluation had covered was exactly the later-surfacing evidence that would improve my rating, obviously. Or was this award that everyone on the team received, signifying all of our excellent work in this fully successful and ground-breaking field, merely a feel-good fillip that means nothing? I think that the rest of that excellent team would dispute that, and I was not a dog amongst thoroughbreds on it. But the reaction of the management team responsible for my unjustifiably low evaluation to this newly uncovered and hitherto unknown evidence in my favor was nil. So now I was prematurely out of a job, with a pint-sized horse statue, the symbol of my former agency, as my supposed full reward for a quarter-century of dedicated and excellent work, along with a left-behind bogus Satisfactory final rating.