It was my usual daily call with my friend who is mere weeks from her most beneficial retirement date from federal service who said, "Your example [of retirement] is no template or encouragement for me, because when you retire you die and you haven't shown me anything that leads me to want to retire." Well, I retired involuntarily from federal service (yes Chris, I'm talking to you, BMOC) two years ago and I haven't died yet and I lamely said, "For six months I ran several miles every day until I got double hernia surgery and then suffered an achilles strain when I returned from that, and now in the last two months I'm back to trying to return to running, and I read every day and I can tell you with virtual certainty that the Allies are still looking like they're going to win WW2 no matter how bad it looks."
She scoffed and I told her my favorite humorous anecdote from my most recent book, Operation Sea Lion, "A nobleman was talking to Britain's defense minister in the summer of 1940, complaining that when the German paratroopers dropped into England in the coming invasion they'd be in London within 24 hours 'unless of course they tried to take the trains.'" This droll inclusion in the book detailing the Brits' preparation for a likely Nazi invasion of their isle after the fall of France to me is hilarious, but not getting laughter in return to my sustained laughing as I related the passage confirmed to me the reason why I only got into the UVA law school oh-so-many-years-ago and she went to Stanford.
Anyway, retirement is a scary thing and there's never a good time to marry, have a child, buy a first home or retire. It just happens when it does, and it works out because it has to.
Tomorrow I hope to run two miles, read from my three or four books for a few hours, manage my inadequate retirement account and plan towards my circumvention around North America by car later this year, a land I love. I have never been outside of it.
Showing posts with label retirement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retirement. Show all posts
Friday, April 27, 2018
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
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.
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.
Monday, January 8, 2018
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.
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.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
2017 in Review, 3 of 3
The Settlement I effected in September of my ageism and retaliation complaint against my former agency, which led to my involuntary retirement after I had devoted more than a quarter of a century to government service as a lawyer, was the most significant thing I achieved in retirement, in my legal career and perhaps my life. I felt the settlement terms I negotiated over the four months of discussions with the GC's office once an avenue of discourse was opened up, vindicated my complaint and showed the way for those coming behind me. Most importantly, it did not contain an NDA which is the customary way government and corporate entities keep their misdeeds under a shroud of secrecy. My settlement is open for anyone to review and use as they see fit. It cost me my job and took over two years, but the Settlement forced my former agency to give me the evaluation I should have gotten in 2014-2015 but for the age bias of management in my division, it required the agency to pay me money, and it mandated that all managers involved in that division take training in age discrimination, even those who left if they returned within five years. The Settlement was entered in September by the ASLJ and my case was thereby, of course, dismissed as settled. (The settlement terms.)
October was taken up by working for the Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia and trying to notify the manager who, in my opinion, created a hostile work environment for me in retaliation against me even while I was supposedly protected by the law while the investigation into my formal age-discrimination was ongoing. He had left the agency abruptly shortly after I retired and I sent a copy of the Settlement to him at his new workplace to inform him that if and when he went back to his former managerial position which he had, in my opinion, abused, he would be aware that there were requirements for him to undergo training if within five years. (Taking training to be an inside precinct observer in the November elections.)
A very big occurrence for me and the nation was the election in November of the Democratic candidate, Dr. Ralph Northam, to be the next governor of Virginia. Hopefully it's the first indication that America is on its way back to greatness. I put in a long day as a poll watcher and was gratified when I returned home late that night to find out that Northam had already been declared the winner. I spent the Thanksgiving week in Ohio at my sister's house relaxing, reconnecting with some of my nephews. (A Confederate statue in Ohio, guarding a Confederate cemetery on Johnson Island at a former POW site.)
And now another year is in the books, my first full year of retirement. In December I set up a couple of holiday lights walks on the Mall for my former running buddies at my former work, but nobody came along. I enjoyed the sights. I am looking forward hopefully to the New Year. (The Christmas tree at the Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
