Looking at 2018, the first quarter

In January I published my settlement with the FTC for its age discrimination as evidenced by my premature retirement in early 2016 due to a hostile work environment created by management in my former division.  The Commission agreed in September of 2017 to pay me $5,000 in settlement of my claims, to change my latest evaluation from Acceptable which was biased and wrong to Outstanding which it should have been all along, to issue me a certificate of superior service and most importantly to me, to provide training to the managers in my former division specifically for age-discrimination and to, in what I informally call the Chris Clause, require the same training for any former manager of mine who left the agency and who also returned within five years.  I am proud of the settlement I achieved against my agency by myself after a year and a half of litigation and negotiations, in a blow against what I consider to be prevalent age discrimination, and which importantly to me did not contain an NDA agreement so that it would be buried in a veil of secrecy.

I also attended a rally at the Supreme Court protesting voter suppression emanating out of a case brought against Ohio for aggressively purging voter rolls of persons who didn't vote and then check their mail from the voter police, and I predicted to the spineless Republicans in Congress that "We're coming for you in November."  Which us Dems did, to the tune of a turnaround of going from four Democrats in Virginia versus seven Republican Congresspersons then to seven Democrats versus four Republicans now, and a blue wave sweeping over the House by forty flipped seats.  We're coming for you all in the Senate and White House in 2020 too, just you wait.

In February I kept up going to lunch program at the local pizzeria on holidays and my estranged sons' birthdays, since two of them have birthdays in February and someday I hope to see one or all of there on one of those special days.  I also started running again, slowly, after letting my restricting Achilles strain heal for half a year.  My doctor threatened to schedule me to see a surgeon if it didn't get better by wearing a Boot, so I gave it plenty of time to heal since I'm not a surgery-first guy.

In March I got into the District a few times to run a mile or two with former running buddies and to walk around to see some of the city's omnipresent famous sites.  I had the unpleasant experience of dealing with the Social Security Administration trying to "disenroll" from Medicare after I had already quit the program by letter, including a dreadful visit to a social security office which is like visiting a third-world bus station and cooling your heels there for an entire day.  Late in March I played the Street Fighting Man in the District again at the schoolchildren's March for our Lives, as our offspring plead for sensible gun regulations like no more sales of assault rifles to teenagers and prohibitions against mega-30+ round clips, where I signed up people's pledges to vote in November.

   

Settlement Agreement, the signature page.

And so, more than two years after the sub-standard evaluation of Satisfactory I received on August 26, 2015 that caused me to file a formal complaint of age discrimination, and more than a year after I amended my formal complaint with additional allegations of a hostile work environment which culminated in my involuntary retirement in May 2016, the settlement was entered. It was with irony that I signed the document exactly two years after my bogus review. The court entered it on September 20, 2017. My final review, the one we were arguing about for all that time, was changed to Outstanding in every category.

Most people don't pursue their righteous complaints to this degree, and that's what the system, be it government, private, corporate or institutional, counts on. It takes too long. It jeopardizes your livelihood. It's shrouded in secrecy. This agreement does not contain an NDA. I wouldn't have signed one that did. That's how the system beats down individuals, because they don't know who went before them and how it came out. The culture of deceit, impropriety and even illegality, is exposed when light is shined upon it and it may then change.

Why did I do it? "Mine honor is my life, both grow in one; Take honor from me, and my life is done." R2 I.i.182-3.

Below is a picture of me at the office on the day of my 25th anniversary of government service as an attorney. My friends threw a surprise party for me in my office and I was feeling proud about my work and good about my situation. A month later I received my bogus review based upon what I believed to be age discrimination, with in my opinion a generous helping of vindictiveness baked into it, and my two year battle with the system to have a proper review entered began. I persevered and prevailed. Read the settling document and tell me otherwise. I miss my friends at my former agency though, and wish them all good fortune.

Settlement Agreement, page 4 of 5

On the top of page 4 of 5, below, is the crown jewel of my settlement with my former agency and the most revealing paragraph of the Settlement Agreement, the 4th of 4 settling points. It requires all of my managers present in the division when I received my sub-standard review of Satisfactory in August 2015, which I believed was due to age discrimination, to "complete EEO and diversity training, including training addressing age discrimination." This is my legacy at my former agency, my attempt to right a wrong, to leave something behind that benefits those who follow me even though it cost me my job, because I have my honor to live up to, a reputation to uphold and a conscience to answer to.

A closer parsing of the top of p.4 reveals something I was told that my former agency had never done before. One manager who was present two years earlier when I received my sub-standard review and who I believe engaged in retaliatory behavior which culminated in my involuntary retirement in May 2016, left shortly after I did, quite suddenly and unexpectedly. I informally refer to the 2d half of subpart d, following the words "In addition," as his amendment. This is what I negotiated and it is apparently novel. If this former manager returns to my former agency at any time in any capacity within 5 years, he (and any other affected manager) will be required by the order to "receive the above-noted training."

Settlement is settlement, and it is supposed to resolve all existing, known issues. This settlement is no different. I have already laid out my 4 settling points, changing my bogus last evaluation to what it should have been, Outstanding; receiving an honorary Superior Service Certificate; being paid money to settle, and the imposition of required training for management in my former division at my former agency. My former agency's salient settling point, the only one that I can perceive beyond normal settlement discharge language, was for me to "withdraw all complaints" etc. (IX.a). Well, yeah, that's what settlement does, and I sent this Settlement Agreement to the ALJ as it is self explanatory, and called up the HR office at my former agency to tell them and offer to send them a copy but of course they knew all about it already and declined my offer.

Don't you think this settlement is self explanatory as to what went down in my case?

Settlement Agreement page 3 of 5

The $5,000 in settlement money came from my former agency last week. That was one of the last things opposing counsel and I worked out in our five months of negotiations last spring and summer. Below is page 3 of 5 of the Settlement Agreement entered more than two years after my bogus low review of Satisfactory in August 2015, and more than a year after my involuntary retirement in May 2016, forced by what I perceived to be a a hostile work environment abetted by retaliation. The third (of four) settling points is "the FTC will pay Mr. Lamberton five thousand dollars ($5,000)" in January 2018.

I have been asked why I settled for so "little" money when what I was really was deprived of by my involuntary retirement, forced by what I perceived to be a hostile work environment brimming with nepotism, imbued with discrimination and abetted by retaliation, was a well-paying job which I was good at. That represented an actual loss of much more money than $5,000. But it was never about the money, rather, it was about what I left behind me, what my imprint was after more than 25 years of outstanding work in my 2d career. That discussion will come tomorrow when we look at the 4th settling point, on page 4 of 5. The first of three drafts I was presented with had much of what I perceived to be necessary; but it lacked money. I said there had to be money (the agency had to put skin into the game), and there was a money offer in the second draft. I said the money offer was too low. In the third draft the money offer was sweetened a little bit, and I finalized that draft by executing it because it had everything that I thought was necessary to justify my actions in filing my complaint, and in leaving when I did, and to try to put my former agency back on a fair footing for all the staff members who were still there, especially those at risk solely because of their age, and those who would follow.

The very 1st settling point is that "the FTC will issue Mr. Lamberton a performance appraisal, reflecting an overall "Outstanding" rating for the 2014-2015 rating period." This is as it should have been all along. My most influential manager, who used to call me The Closer and put me on cases where important and difficult settlement negotiations were happening or imminent, not only to settle the matter but also to teach inexperienced attorneys some of the various techniques of effective settlement. For instance, in the line of important and ground-breaking Auto Recall cases that I was a part of for the year that I received a sub-standard review, I am proud that I negotiated a favorable settlement for my former agency with one of the largest car dealers in the country which was represented by the former Associate Director of the division I worked for, who was legendary throughout the agency for his absolute mastery of the law and thorough knowledge of the agency and what it had done in the past on similar cases, and in addition he was a brilliant interlocutor. After my bogus review at the end of the affected rating period, I would have settled with that manager for just one more point in the rating formula (change just one of the three Satisfactory categories to Commendable, which certainly wouldn't have been a "gift," especially in light of my subsequent award). That alone would have changed my overall  Satisfactory rating to Commendable. Because I am reasonable, and my job and my paycheck would have tempered my pride and my notions of justice, we could have effected that compromise. But she was inflexible, or perhaps covering up or trying to shut me up, so once I no longer had a job, I had nothing to lose, really, and I negotiated exactly what I needed and could realistically achieve in pursuit of justification for me and fair play for those following.

The 2d of the 4 settling points was that I received "a Superior Service Certificate as an honorary performance award." This wasn't worth my job, and my receipt of it wouldn't necessarily change the management culture in my former division much less in my former agency, but it was nice to receive as an afterthought.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

2017 in Review, 2 of 3

I had filed my Complaint alleging age discrimination in my 2014-2015 Evaluation, and a Hostile Work Environment subsequently that caused me to retire involuntarily in May of 2016 during the investigative phase of my original formal complaint, with the Regional Office of the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in December of last year.  When May rolled around and I had not received a single confirmation from that office, no docket number issued by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") there or even acknowledgement of receipt, I contacted the General Counsel's office ("GC") at my former agency, my adversary, to inform them that I would be contacting the EEOC office to inquire about the filing in order to make sure I wasn't sleeping on my rights and thus be dis-enfranchised by inactivity, and that call got the settlement discussions rolling for the first time.  That led to lengthy negotiations about settlement that resulted in a Stipulated Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") later in the summer, more than two years after the original incident that triggered the Complaint.  The Settlemet was the most significant event of the year for  me, because it totally validated my Complaint, brought meaningful relief and was an open document, not sealed by the improper and oft-used device of a Non-Disclosure Agreement ("NDA"), in effect silencing the successful complainant and imposing a shroud of secrecy upon the matter.   My Settlement can and does serve as a warning to other violators of the law and a potential blueprint for individuals struggling by themselves against the formidable array of lawyers in their agency's GC office and the oppressive process of the bucking the system and waiting out the interminable passage of crushing time while seeking to prosecute their valid complaints about discrimination.  I did find the time during the month to donate double red blood cells, my 117th lifetime donation. (Notice that this Order of Dismissal of the Complaint I mailed in on December 27, 2016, is dated September 20, 2017.  This was the first and only court-issued document that I received in the case, the first indication I ever received from the ALJ office that it had even received the Complaint.  Also notice that the Agency number assigned is 2016-2, indicating that only two cases were filed with the EEOC office during the entire previous year, attesting to the obvious reluctance of many persons to keep pursuing the long, drawn out system  of protesting agency discrimination in the workplace.)

In June, as settlement negotiations dragged on (it's a long, slow, strategic dance that I'm not unfamiliar with), I went to Nationals Stadium two days in a row, once to see the Nationals, those proverbial losers, play the Braves and the next day for an inspirational intramural baseball game where the Congressional Democrats played the Congressional Republicans shortly after a crazy man shot some Republican congressmen and staff members at their practice field.  We were all at the stadium to cheer on and be inspired by the small Capitol Police contingent that immediately engaged the assailant at the practice field and prevailed although massively outgunned.  The injured Capitol Policeman David Bailey, though on crutches, threw out the first pitch in honor of his force and his wounded partner.  That pretty much summed up the month.  (A true hero.)

Settlement discussions during July got into the same arena for both adversaries, pointing towards a distant yet foreseeable successful outcome, if both parties remained reasonable.  The opposing counsel I was dealing with at the GC's office was always courteous, professional and truthful, not character traits that are present in all lawyers.  I watched the July 4th celebration from my back stoop.  I visited a sick neighbor twice who had been clapped into the hospital for tests, and I was soon to discover just how fragile life can be.  (Happy Fourth!)

Early in August the phone by my bed rang at 6 a.m., never a good sign.  My neighbor and friend, a man younger than me, had died suddenly overnight in the hospital.  A few days later, for the first time that I remember, I attended a Catholic memorial service in his honor, and it was beautiful service with beautiful, tear-inducing singing.  I noticed that I was instructed by the presiding priest, along with all other Protestants and, I guess, fallen Catholics, not to participate in taking communion.  The faux total eclipse of the sun came and went without my noticing it despite my constant attention to homebuilt eclipse viewer in my driveway (I didn't have a government jet at my disposal to fly to Fort Knox accompanied by a trophy wife bedecked in designer clothes she had to tweet to us "adorable people" about to view the bonafide total eclipse).  On August 26th, exactly two years after my faux evaluation at work that started my ageism complaint, I mailed back to my former agency the final draft of the Settlement, signed by me, for their signature.  I hoped they wouldn't notice or object to the lack of an NDA, which the three drafts of the document had always lacked and had never been the subject of discussion.  Its lack in the document was very important to me, for the reasons stated above.  Almost two weeks went by without me hearing back from my former agency whether or not they, in fact, would execute it.  It was an anxious time for me, because the Settlement I had signed contained everything I could realistically hope for and aligned very well with my principles as a man.  (Farewell, my friend.)