House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Sexual Harassment in The Va
House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Sexual Harassment in The Va
House Hearing, 105TH Congress - Sexual Harassment in The Va
HEARING
BEFORE THE
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Everett ................. ..... ............... ....... ......................................... ........ ....... 1
Hon. Lane Evans, ranking democratic member, Full Committee on Veterans'
Affairs .................................................................................................................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Evans .................................................. 105
Hon. Michael Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Flor-
ida .......................................................................................................................... 4
Prepared statement of Congressman Bilirakis .............................................. 111
Hon. Vic Snyder ........................ ... .... ........................................................................ 5
Hon. Steve Buyer ..................... ......... .... ...................................... ............................. 5
Hon. James E. Clyburn ........................................................................................... 7
WITNESSES
Barefoot, Lovia B., Department of Veterans Affairs employee (ret.) ................... 15
Prepared statement of Ms. Barefoot ............................................................... 178
Blumenthal, Ronnie, Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission ........................................................................... 37
Prepared statement of Ms. Blumenthal, with attachment ........................... 189
Caruana, Susan, Department of Veterans Affairs employee ............................... 11
Prepared statement of Ms. Caruana ................................................. ........... ... 164
Dawkins, Judy, Department of Veterans Affairs employee ................................. 13
Prepared statement of Ms. Dawkins, with attachment. ...... ............. ............. 170
Force, Cynthia A., Department of Veterans Affairs emllloyee ............................. 8
Prepared statement of Ms. Force ... ....................................... .......................... 158
Gober, Hon. Hershel, Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs ac-
companied by Gerald K. Hinch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Op-
portunity; Hon. Mary Lou Keener, General Counsel; Jule D. Moravec,
Ph.D., Chief Network Officer, Veterans Health Administrator; Leroy P.
Gross, M.D., Director, Veterans Integrated Service Network No.6................ 49
Prepared statement of Deputy Secretary Gober, with attachment .............. 197
Inzeo, N~c~olas M., Deputy Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ............. ............... ..... .......................................................................... 39
Prepared statement of Mr. Inzeo ................................... ............... .................. 194
Jordan, Berry D., National President, Federal Managers Association ............... 98
Prepared statement of Mr. Jordan .................................................................. 238
Merriman, William T., Deputy Inspector General, Department of Veterans
Affairs accompanied by Jack Kroll, Assistant Inspector General; Maureen
Regan, Counsel; Michael Bennett, Office of Counsel; and Judy Shelly, Office
of the Assistant Inspector General.............................. ...... ......... ...... .................. 79
Prepared statement of Mr. Merriman ................. ............... ...... .... .................. 208
Miller, Maura Farrell, Ph.D., ARNP, CS, President, Nurses Organization
of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................................... 95
Prepared statement of Dr. Miller ..... .................................... ........... ................ 227
Moore-Russell, Doris A., M.S.W., Department of Veterans Affairs employee .... 18
Prepared statement of Ms. Moore-Russel... ...... ........... ...... ......... ...... ..... ...... ... 183
Nelms, Dorothy, President, Federally Employed Women, Inc. ............................ 93
Prepared statement of Ms. Nelms ................................................................... 218
Peddicord, Kitty, Women's Director, American Federation of Government Em-
ployees ................................................................................................................... 96
Prepared statement of Ms. Peddicord, with attachments ............................. 231
(III)
Page
IV
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Article:
"VA's 'Zero Tolerance' Questioned," by David Dahl, St. Petersburg Times,
April 14, 1997 .................. ................................ ...... .. ..................................... . 153
Chart:
"Complaints Filed-FY 1991-FY 1996, Veterans Affairs Compared to
Government Wide," submitted by Ms. Blumenthal .................................. . 193
Chronology:
"Actions of Secretary Brown to Eliminate Sexual Harassment in the
~i::~.~~~.~~.~~~~~~~. ~~~~~.~:::.~.~~~~~.~~.~~.~~:.~~~~~~. ~.~ .~~~.~~~ 203
Memorandum:
From David Whatley, Medical Center Director to Leroy P. Gross, M.D.,
Director, VISN 6 re Network 6 Special Inquiry Report, September
26, 1996 ................................ .. .... ....................................... ............................ . 143
Report:
Special InQ,uiry-"Alleged Improper Conduct By A Senior Official, VAMC,
FayettevIlle, NC," November 8, 1996 .. ...................................................... .. 116
Statements:
~~~~Gr~;;~:::~. ::: : : ::: : : : : : : ::: : ::: : : : : : :::: : ::: : : ::: : : :::: : ::::::: : : : :
188
110
Written committee questions and their responses:
Chairman Everett to Department of Veterans Affairs ................................ .. 244
Congressman Bilirakis to Department of Veterans Affairs ........................ .. 250
Congressman Evans to Department of Veterans Affairs ...... ...................... .. 253
Congressman Evans to Inspector General, DVA .......................................... . 393
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA
40-881972
30
Mr. BUYER. If at the end of my questions you time it just right-
Ms. DAWKINS. I can butt in.
Mr. BUYER. I think members of Congress would cringe if there
was any implication with regard to relationships for photos that we
have had taken with individuals in the past. (Laughter.)
I do not want that to be a new standard.
One thing I would like you to do, Ms. Dawkins, for the record,
you were very hesitant to speak publicly about remarks that were
made about your body. If you would please provide that to the com-
mittee in writing, I would appreciate that.
One other question I have. Someone brought up something about
the New York Medical Center and a sexual harassment complaint,
and they had to do some typing on that. Which one was it?
Will you tell the committee, this New York Medical Center, this
was also part of the VA system?
Ms. BAREFOOT. Yes.
Mr. BUYER. And was there a pending sexual harassment com-
plaint against--
Ms. BAREFOOT. That is what is so difficult for me to remember
exactly. I do not recall the person's name, but I do recall, as I stat-
ed, that it appeared to be like three items perhaps that this person
from one of the two hospitals, and I do not recall which hospital,
had against Mr. Calhoun's behavior, and all that he dictated to me
were the responses to those, I think, three allegations.
But as I said, my instructions were to typewrite those, make no
record of it, make no photocopy of it, give it back to him for mail-
ing. So I am sorry I am not more helpful, but it is 3 years.
Mr. BUYER. That is all right.
Ms. Dawkins, you can time this. Go ahead.
Ms. DAWKINS. Okay. The orange button is alreadyon.
I did not ever in any statement to the Office of the Inspector
General when I was interviewed in my home while I was on medi-
cal leave, I never said Mr. Jerome Calhoun sexually harassed me.
He made an inappropriate remark about my body.
I do not mind stating it if somebody wants to hear it, but I did
not want to put it in writing now, and I do not mind putting it in
writing. Now I never, never inferred; I have never filed; I have not
contacted a lawyer because I do not believe that I was sexually
harassed. However, I was abused as a human being. It was a hos-
tile environment for our employees and patients.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you.
Mr. Buyer, for the record, the incident you referred to about prior
sexual harassment, we have asked the VA for any documentation
they can find on that, and, again, they seem to have no record of
it, but they are looking for it. Mr. Snyder.
Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Force, if I understood your statement, you had said that one
of the staff members had explained the settlement between Mr.
Calhoun and the VA to you and that once you had that explanation
you felt better about it.
Ms. FORCE. Yes.
31
Mr. SNYDER. Could you briefly state, please, how your attitude
about the settlement changed after getting the explanation? What
was it about the explanation that was new information for you?
Ms. FORCE. Well, I do not think that it was my attitude toward
the settlement. Maybe I misrepresented what I was thinking. Just
the fact that someone had taken the time to explain why they did
the things that they did.
You know, the only thing I had read was the IG report and the
statements that were in the Florida and Fayetteville newspapers,
which from those accountings was presented as though he was re-
warded with where he wanted to be in Florida.
Mr. SNYDER. And what is your understanding now that why
what was done was done?
Ms. FORCE. It was explained to me that all of the attorneys that
reviewed the sexual harassment case felt that it was a strong case,
but when it went before Personnel, they were afraid; some of them
were afraid that it was not strong enough because the Merit Pro-
motion Standards Board had overturned another case from another
agency that was even stronger than this case. They wanted Jerome
Calhoun removed as Director, and they did not want to take a
chance that he would just be given a suspension and go back as
Director.
Mr. SNYDER. So the fear was--
Ms. FORCE. Made this deal.
Mr. SNYDER. I have got you. So if they had run with your com-
plaint and lost, he would have still been Director of the VA. Okay.
Ms. FORCE. And everybody would have lost.
Mr. SNYDER. And, Ms. Caruana-am I saying your name right?
Ms. CARUANA. Caruana.
Mr. SNYDER. Caruana. Did I understand you in your testimony
to say you had worked for Mr. Calhoun for several years, like 8 or
9 years? 9 years?
Ms. CARUANA. Nine years.
Mr. SNYDER. Was there a difference in his management style for
those first 9 years versus the period of time that we are talking
about now?
And I guess what I am getting to: should the VA have been on
notice during that period of time that perhaps this is not a fellow
that ought to be promoted up through the system?
Ms. CARUANA. I will explain this as best I can. When I worked
for him in Buffalo, he was the Associate Director. He had a super-
visor physically over him.
When he went to Fayetteville, he was the Director. He did not
have anybody physically over him right there in the same building.
His supervisor initially was in Jackson, MS.
So, therefore, he had all of this power. This was his kingdom
now.
Mr. SNYDER. So were you surprised to see--
Ms. CARUANA. Yes.
Mr. SNYDER (continuing). Mr. Calhoun acting the way he did in
his new kingdom?
Ms. CARUANA. I mean, you know, he got a little crazy in Buffalo
at times.
32
Mr. SNYDER. But nothing that you apparently were fearful of be-
cause you made the move to come to work for him.
Ms. CARUANA. I did not see that side of him.
Mr. SNYDER. I understand.
Ms. CARUANA. And with the directorship, like I said, came this
power and I think that that is what happened. It just went to his
head.
Mr. SNYDER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think those are all of the
questions that I have at this time.
Thank you.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Snyder.
The chair recognizes our Ranking Member, Mr. Evans.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my absence, but I real-
ly appreciate this panel's testimony. You have been on for quite
some time, so I will try to keep it short.
Can each you describe to the members of the subcommittee what
you knew about the complaint process, the EEO process, during the
time that you were exposed to Mr. Calhoun's conduct?
And have you or any other employees that you know ever partici-
pated in sexual harassment sensitivity training within the VA?
Ms. FORCE. I do not know about sexual harassment sensitivity
training. We have had 4 hours of mandatory sexual harassment
training, and we were in the process of doing that when Jerome
Calhoun was appointed to the Fayetteville VA.
I was so afraid of what would happen to me when I was actually
at the Fayetteville VA that I never seriously considered going
through the EEO process. I knew Eugene Paul was Mr. Calhoun's
right-hand man. You could not do much with EEO unless you went
through that office, even if you went to the counselors, as far as
I knew. Everywhere I went people said, "Don't even attempt it. You
know, it's ridiculous. Don't even think about doing it."
So until I got away and realized that I was still a victim and the
victimization was not going to end until I took some steps and I
obtained an attorney also, and the attorney made the initiative to
contact the EEO because I was still too fearful to do anything at
that point in time.
Mr. EVANS. All right.
Ms. CARUANA. I was petrified to file an EEO complaint. I knew
that once I did it, it was going to be over for me.
I went to see an attorney. We all have the same attorney, and
I told her about what I was experiencing, and she told me that I
should file an EEO complaint, but I waited a few months to do so
because I just knew that he was going to go off and become a luna-
tic, and I was petrified.
I came down here to work with this man, and I did not know
what he was going to do. So I went ahead and filed the complaint,
and I am waiting to go on to the next step. They did not find in
my favor, and we all have to attend 4 hours of mandatory sexual
harassment training each year.
Mr. EVANS. All right. Ms. Moore.
Ms. MOORE-RuSSELL. First of all, I am part of management. I ti.n
a supervisory social worker, and, yes, I have had some training or
the EEO process, but, no, I did not file an EEO complaint earlier
because I was told that I could not because of our ethnicity.
33
But once I returned to the VA, yes, I did file an EEO complaint.
One of the things I have to tell you is that I was very embar-
rassed and ashamed by the fact that I had to undergo such an or-
deal with Mr. Calhoun because I am a clinician, and like I said,
I counsel people who have to go through sexual assault and sexual
trauma, but for me to have to go through the same thing myself
and being a manager that supervised others and deal with patients
on a regular basis, it was very embarrassing, and so, no, I did not
pursue it through the proper channels.
Mr. EVANS. Can I ask you a direct question about what you do?
You are a veteran, too; is that correct?
Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. Yes, I am.
Mr. EVANS. So just what do you think is the likelihood if we have
people such as Mr. Calhoun within the VA that women veterans
returning from the Persian Gulf or from other duty assignments,
coming back and making claims of sexual harassment while they
were in the military; what kind of faith or credibility would they
have within the VA if we have these kinds of problems among the
people that are supposed to be treating veterans?
Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. They will not have a lot of faith in the VA.
At our Fayetteville VA in reference to sexual harassment, one of
the things that happened since I have returned to work is that I
am not allowed to assist with women veterans who are experienc-
ing sexual trauma because I was told that my training as a sexual
trauma therapist is outdated.
It does not make sense. I have a Master's degree in social work,
but because of the hostile environment, I am not allowed to utilize
my skills as a sexual trauma counselor. A lot of the women veter-
ans that I had seen previously asked that I continue to counsel
with them, but I am not allowed to do so.
Mr. EVANS. If your training is outdated, what year did you get
your Master's in social work?
Ms. MOORE-RUSSELL. 1986.
Mr. EVANS. 1986. I am running out of time. I am sorry, but I
would like to maybe explore that with you. It just seems to me that
it would be very difficult for us to get women veterans to come into
the VA if, in fact, the VA is having widespread problems with sex-
ual harassment itself.
So I maybe could talk to you before you leave. I would like to.
I would just like to ask the last two if they could make their com-
ments brief about the previous question.
Mr. EVERETT. Absolutely.
Ms. BAREFOOT. I do not recall the EEO training of the proper
procedure to do things, but I will have to say that I was absolutely
scared to death of this man and fully aware that he was the Direc-
tor. He made that perfectly clear.
Because of my retirement, my early retirement, I did speak with
the same lawyer that these ladies have talked about, and she said
because I was retired I had to go through this in a different man-
ner, and she referred to it as an Office of Special Counsel, and to
day nothing has been done for me.
Mr. EVANS. Okay. Ms. Dawkins.
Ms. DAWKINS. I have attended the mandatory sexual harassment
training. In the last year I have worked in the Director's office, and
34
there was not time to attend other training that is mandated, but
I have never attended any EEO.
I am going to say something that you might not like to hear. I
thought it was all for the counselors and supervisors, and I am a
26 year-plus federal employee, and I did not know that EEO train-
ing was offered to someone who was not a supervisor.
Mr. EVANS. Okay. Thank you.
I assume that none of you were contacted or consulted by the VA
when they were deciding what action to take against Mr. Calhoun.
[Chorus of nays.]
Mr. EVANS. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Lane.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to truly commend you for giving the oath
to these witnesses because, you know, some of these things that we
have heard from them, they knew that they were under oath, and
they are certainly all very responsible people with a great deal of
experience and education, and I think it is even more impacting,
their testimony, as a result of that.
And insofar as EEO is concerned, the process, Mr. Clyburn spent
a lot of time on that. He obviously knows more about that process
than any of us do, I think, and obviously more than any of the wit-
nesses, and I just wonder. We are talking about what is it, the fox
counseling the henhouse or whatever the proper term there is?
We make the laws, and maybe with Mr. Clyburn's help we can
take a look at that area. Putting ourselves in the shoes of these
witnesses, as well as others who are not here, they would be scared
to death. I think even I would be scared to death to bring a com-
plaint when I know dam well that my boss or bosses are part of
the counseling system and that all of those counselors work con-
ceivably for the person who they are complaining against.
So there is really something wrong there, and I think, Mr.
Clyburn, you certainly would recognize that, and I think we ought
to work on it.
Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. By all means.
Mr. EVERETT. There is not only that situation of them counsel-
ing, as you put it, the fox counseling the henhouse. There is sworn
testimony that they laughed and joked about this.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. Yes, that certainly is true, and again, under oath.
That is sworn testimony.
Ms. Caruana, regarding the dream that the gentleman had and
the question that it could be worth your while if you actually did
sleep with him, did you tell the IG about that?
Ms. CARUANA. Yes, I did.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. You did, and the IG found against you, did he?
Ms. CARUANA. The IG found that I may have been a biased wit-
ness because he had told them that I was just making my com-
plaint as retaliatory because I was reassigned.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. As retaliatory.
Ms. CARUANA. And I was upset that the IG did not fmd in my
favor because there were no witnesses. I said to them afterwards
35
that I do not think too many people are sexually harassed in front
of anybody.
What he said to everybody was there were no witnesses.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. Yes.
Ms. CARUANA. But I do not think too many people are going to
say that somebody said or did this, knowing that they have got to
go through all of this.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Who is Susan Odom, Ms. Caruana, and what hap-
pened to her?
Ms. CARUANA. Susan Odom was the Associate Director's sec-
retary in the Director's office when I was there. She has since
resigned.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. And that is it?
Ms. CARUANA. I believe she is living in Florida.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Where in Florida? Do you know?
Ms. CARUANA. I do not know. I originally heard she was in Jack-
sonville, and then I have heard she is in the West Palm Beach
area.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. Okay. Do you have any personal knowledge of
anything that might have happened to her or involved her that
might be pertinent to this hearing?
Ms. CARUANA. Yes, sir.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Share that with us.
Ms. CARUANA. After I was in the office for about a month, it be-
came clear to me that there was something going on between Mr.
Calhoun and Susan Odom. I was not allowed to take a lunch. I had
to be at my desk all the time. I was not allowed to take leave when
he was not there, yet Susan was allowed to leave the office every
day, go and pick up his cleaning, go to his post office box and get
his mail, and pick up lunch for him.
There were several incidents that happened, and I went into Mr.
Calhoun's office, and I said, "Something has got to be done. What's
going on with you and Susan has to stop. You've worked 25 years
to get where you are, and you're going to lose it all, and I don't
think she's worth it."
And said to me, ''You've come to the brilliant deduction that I'm
'F-ing' her. So what?"
As a friend, I was concerned. I just said, ''You've brought this
into the office, and it is disrupting the office, and the entire medi-
cal center."
And after that he seemed to make my life more miserable. I
guess that was none of my business, and I should have not said
anything.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. So you were basically concerned about him?
Ms. CARUANA. Yes.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. When you made these comments?
Ms. CARUANA. Yes, I was. After that, she eventually got a pro-
motion, and then she resigned, I believe, 2 days before the an-
nouncement was made that he was being reassigned to Florida.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Let me ask very quickly here. I know
that Ms. Barefoot is no longer a VA employee. She took retirement
a couple of years ago. Have any of you experienced any type of re-
taliatory action since you agreement to testify before this sub-
committee?
36
Ms. Force? Very quickly, if you would all maybe respond.
Ms. FORCE. No, sir.
Mr. EVERE'IT. No. Ms. Caruana.
Ms. CARUANA. No, I am just looked at like I am from another
planet, but I cannot consider that retaliatory.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Moore-Russell.
Ms. MOORE-RuSSELL. Well, I was told I could not take advanced
payment for this trip and everyone else was informed that they
could.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. And in your opinion that is retaliatory?
Ms. MOORE-RusSELL. Yes, because the employee travel clerk is
one of Mr. Calhoun's lieutenants. I met my supervisor in the hall
the morning that I was leaving, and she said, ''Well, I would ask
Ms. Moore a question, but perhaps she don't have time to give me
a testimony."
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Dawkins.
Ms. DAWKINS. No, I have not.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Barefoot, I know you have been gone a couple
of years. Do you have anything you wanted to say in that regard?
Ms. BAREFOOT. In regard to what, Susan Odom or--
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Retaliatory action.
Ms. BAREFOOT. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you.
Ladies, we know from 4 years ago, to continue this line Mr. Bili-
rakis brought up, that witnesses such as yourself have had con-
cerns about reprisals. If you believe that you are experiencing re-
prisals because of your testimony, this subcommittee wants to
know.
I would consider included, but not limited to that, any isolation
you experience, any comments made toward you, and as I said, I
do not limit it to that. That would also, for instance, include any
non-communication from VA to any correspondence that you have
given to your supervisors.
I can assure you that this subcommittee takes this dead serious,
and I want to put VA on notice now that I will use the subpoena
powers of this subcommittee to subpoena anyone that VA has not
taken appropriate action against if these complaints are filed.
I want to again thank you very much. I thank you for your cour-
age. I thank you that you have taken the time to be up here, and
hopefully this committee meeting, unlike the one 4 years ago, will
lead to a different set of circumstances for the handling of these
type cases, where hospital directors and senior supervisors are not
simply either retired or given a plush assignment somewhere else.
Thank you very much.
The chair will now recognize Ms. Ronnie Blumenthal, Director,
Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission, and ask her to introduce her counsel.
37
STATEMENT OF RONNIE BLUMENTHAL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
FEDERAL OPERATIONS, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOR-
TUNITY COMMISSION ACCOMPANIED BY NICHOLAS M.
INZEO, DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL
Mr. INZEO. I can tell you from my experience, and I believe that
Ms. Blumenthal would say the same thing, that in our experience
upper level managers should and are held to a higher standard. We
would expect that, and I think we would expect it of others.
Mr. SNYDER. Okay. All right. Let me go on to another one, if I
can.
The issue, and I asked Ms. Force, I believe it was, about when
the settlement was explained to her, as a general matter when you
have a complaint-and I do not want to talk about this case-but
when you have a complaint that has been made and apparently the
agency at some level has decided that there is some confirmation
for the story, but they get into this problem of it is going to be a
tough case and it is going to be overturned; as a general matter of
course, should that agency-you know, basically it is a plea bar-
gain-should they be sitting down as a matter of policy with the
complainants and layout the facts? You know, we could go for
murder I, but we are going to take murder II because of a proof
problem.
Or do you think that that is not something-do you understand
what I am getting at here? I do not mean set in rules, but more
as a matter of policy?
Ms. BLUMENTHAL. That is just what you said. It is very hard to
set rules in this area.
Mr. SNYDER. Right.
Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Because personnel policy and human re-
sources policy, private sector or federal sector, it tends to vary case
by case. As Mr. Inzeo said, there are cases where senior level offi-
cials have been very harshly disciplined. There are others where
settlements are reached with all parties.
It is like litigation. Each case, particularly if it involves a group
of people as this one seems to, is handled differently. Unless there
is a confidentiality agreement, usually the relief is explained to all
parties if you are talking about government-wide. It usually is ex-
plained. People who have complained generally know what
happened.
Mr. SNYDER. But it apparently was not in this issue.
I have some other questions. Mr. Chairman, if you decide there
is a second round, I will be armed and ready.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Snyder.
I would say to this panel, and if you would not mind, we could
submit those questions for the record, and I am sure that they
would respond.
Much of what we have heard so far today is kind of deja vu. Four
years ago we went through a lot of this. The VA had an oppor-
tunity to correct some of the situations that exist today, and I
think that is one reason that Mr. Evans and I are considering leg-
islation, statute changes, if you will, that would address these
problems.
I do thank this panel for appearing before us today and for your
testimony.
Ms. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. INZEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Yes. I think it is only fair that since I swore in the
first panel, that I swear in your panel. Mr. Gober, would you all
49
please approach the table and raise your right hands and repeat
after me?
[Witnesses sworn.J
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Please be seated.
Mr. Deputy Secretary, thank you. I welcome you, and I thank
you very much for coming today, and I would ask you to introduce
your panel.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
pleasure to do so.
I have with me on my left here the Assistant Secretary for
Human Resources and Administration, Eugene Brickhouse. Next to
him is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, Mr.
Gerald Hinch. The Honorable Mary Lou Keener, the General Coun-
sel of the Department. Dr. Jule Moravec, who is the Chief Network
Officer for the Veterans Health Administration, and Dr. Leroy P.
Gross, who is the Director of the Veterans Integrated Service Net-
work No.6, in which Fayetteville, NC, falls.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much.
We will receive your testimony. If you could summarize it, we
will make sure that your complete testimony is put in the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. HERSHEL GOBER, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOMPANIED BY
GERALD K. HINCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; HON. MARY LOU KEENER, GENERAL
COUNSEL; JULE D. MORAVEC, Ph.D., CHIEF NETWORK OFFI-
CER, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR; LEROY P. GROSS,
M.D., DmECTOR, VETERANS INTEGRATED SERVICE NET-
WORK NO. 6
Secretary Brown and I have worked very hard ever since to ful-
fill that promise, and I will assure you. I know this committee is
upset, but no one is more upset than Secretary Brown and I and
all of those employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who
are loyal workers and who do not like to see the department's
name drug through the mud because it sticks to all of us.
These people are wonderful. They have done a good job, and we
are very proud of them.
Very early on, Secretary Brown established the policy of zero tol-
erance for sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination
within the department. I cannot overstate how strongly I support
this policy. Secretary Brown made the policy, and it is my duty as
the chief operating officer to enforce it.
No level of harassment will be tolerated or condoned. Any and
every allegation of sexual harassment or discrimination will be
thoroughly investigated, and when evidence supports the allega-
tion, the VA will take actions to protect victims and discipline of-
fenders within the range of options allowed by law.
In saying this, however, it is relevant to clarify that zero toler-
ance does not mean that all offenders will, in every instance, be re-
moved from federal service. Sexual harassment and discrimination
can encompass such a broad range of conduct that removal from
federal service may not always be the most appropriate or legal
remedy.
Secretary Brown and I have done everything that we know to
support the zero tolerance policy regarding sexual harassment. He
has issued letters to all VA employees expressing his strong com-
mitment to diversity, equal employment opportunity, and the pre-
vention of sexual harassment.
The Secretary has asked every one of our employees to join him
in making the effort needed to uphold this commitment. In count-
less speeches to our VA associates, he and I both have both empha-
sized and reemphasized this policy. Every speech I have made
where I speak with our VA employees, I talk to them about the fact
we want them to be able to come to work in the morning, be treat-
ed with dignity and respect, and be free from any kind of fear that
distracts them from doing their job.
Consistent with these efforts, the department has developed a
program designed to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination
by all employees, not just by senior executives. The program takes
a three-pronged approach: communication, training, and policy
development.
The Secretary issued his first all employee letter in 1993 and has
issued numerous ones since then. Every employee has gone
through 4 hours of training, and then we have 2 hours remedial
training every 2 years. Secretary Brown and I have been through
all of those trainings.
We have an ongoing training program for managers and super-
visors concerning VA's equal employment programs and respon-
sibilities. We have significantly improved the training for our EEO
professionals to include counselors, investigators, and program
managers.
In the area of policy development, we have established formal re-
quirements that all allegations of sexual harassment be elevated
51
above the field level facility for a high level review to determine
whether intervention is necessary to protect an employee from
harm, pending a full investigation and resolution of the allegations.
In order to encourage the employees to bring forward their alle-
gations and protect them when they do this, in May of 1993 we es-
tablished a requirement for a high level review of all complaints of
reprisal and retaliation. For those employees who wish to remain
anonymous, we established a sexual harassment and discrimina-
tion hotline.
Other relevant policy developments include, but are not limited
to, streamlining of the formal EEO complaint processing proce-
dures; development of performance standards for senior executives
to improve work force diversity and meet timeliness requirements;
clarification of penalties for misconduct so there can be no question
that sexual harassment and discrimination are actionable offenses,
punishable by anything from reprimand to removal for a first
offense. -
Attached to my written testimony which I submitted to you, Mr.
Chairman, is a comprehensive chronological list of the actions Sec-
retary Brown has taken to deal with the issue of sexual harass-
ment. The list is long and far-reaching because, as I have said be-
fore, the Secretary and I firmly believe in the institution and en-
forcement of a zero tolerance policy throughout VA.
Over the past 4 years we have had nine cases involving senior
management officials in which we have taken action based on alle-
gations of sexual harassment or related matters. In seven the ex-
ecutives resigned or retired. The other two instances the executives
were taken out of the Senior Executive Service and placed in a
lower grade position. _
I would like to address briefly the case that precipitated this
hearing, that of the former Director of the Fayetteville VA Medical
Center, who was alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment.
Following an investigation, VA management seriously considered
proposing his removal from federal service, but a review of the
facts in the case created significant doubt that the evidence could
sustain a removal action on appeal to the Merit System Protection
Board or in the courts.
As a result, a negotiated settlement was reached with the Direc-
tor. To date the former Director steadfastly denies the allegations.
The agreement insured the Director's removal from the medical
center, from the directorship of any VA facility, from the Senior Ex-
ecutive Service, and from any supervisory position, but it permitted
him to continue as a government employee without loss of pay.
I fully understand and appreciate that some view VA's decision
to reach that agreement as indicative of a lack of management's
concern about sexual harassment, or possibly as a VA practice of
protecting senior managers from the consequences of improper ac-
tions. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members in the
strongest possible terms that it does not.
If the verifiable evidence had been such that management was
reasonably confident that the Merit System Protection Board or the
courts would have sustained removal from federal service, then
that action would have been pursued to its conclusion.
52
It is important to reiterate that management felt it was ex-
tremely important from the standpoint of both the provisions of
health care services to our veterans and the work environment for
our associates at this facility that the former Director be removed
from his management position and relieved of all supervisory re-
l!ponsibilities as rapidly as possible.
Accordingly, VA entered into a settlement with him under which
he was transferred out of the Fayetteville VA Medical Center. He
also resigned, as I said earlier, from the Senior Executive Service
and was reduced in grade and rank to a nonsupervisory GS-14
position.
By these actions, management achieved what was considered to
be the most critical objectives. I fully understand that this decision
will be second-guessed by some. However, we believe that, given
the facts and the circumstances of this case, it was the best option
available to us.
One of the problems that emerged from the case in Atlanta, that
I mentioned earlier at the beginning of my statement, was the fact
that responsibility for investigating allegations of harassment rest-
ed with the facility Director. If the Director was the subject of the
complaint, you can see that we had the classic situation of, as we
say in Arkansas, "the fox guarding the chicken house."
That situation no longer exists. Now if there is a complaint about
sexual harassment at any level, I dispatch an investigative team,
completely independent of the Director or division or even the
Under Secretary, to check out the allegations. As the chief operat-
ing officer of the department, I have the authority to do this, and
I will make sure that when we send in these teams, and there is
sexual harassment involved, there will always be high-ranking
women on the team.
What concerns us most about the Fayetteville matter is that it
has damaged VA's standing with some of our women employees
and the women veterans that we serve, and this is most regret-
table. As I have stated earlier, we have taken serious actions over
the past 4 years to try to insure that all of our employees have a
work place where they feel secure and safe from discrimination and
harassment of any kind.
We believe it is very important not only for their well-being, but
for our ability to provide veterans with the health care and other
benefits and services they deserve.
To strengthen our employee protections further in light of this
case, the Secretary has recently established the following new re-
quirement. In any matter of allegations of sexual harassment or
other misconduct against senior VA executives, the Secretary now
requires that the allegations and recommendations for dealing with
these situations be brought to the attention of a committee drawn
from the senior staff in our VA headquarters here before action is
taken to resolve this matter, and I will be heavily involved in the
review of these cases, and then the recommendation will be made
on the settlement.
Our position is that matters of sexual harassment and other
forms of discrimination are considered most serious and will re-
ceive the highest level of scrutiny.
53
We have recently, Mr. Chairman, conducted a survey of all of our
employees throughout the VA to find out their perception on how
the VA handles sexual harassment. That report is due by June,
and at that time we will be mote than glad to share that with you.
To insure this survey was conducted in an objective manner, we
went to an outside contractor, a professional contractor.
In addition, Secretary Brown is in the process of composing and
writing another letter to all of our employees to make sure that
they understand that they are free to come forward. The letter will
remind our employee of the means available to them to deal with
any problems they may encounter in these areas. We are optimistic
that these new measures will help us in our efforts.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in closing here before we
begin the questioning that when I sat her this morning and lis-
tened to these ladies talk about they felt they were abandoned, I
was appalled. I was upset. They are a member of our family, and
for them to be out on a limb and feel like they were by themselves
is wrong. Without even arguing the merits of the case or talking
about any subsequent litigation, the fact is we have worked very,
very hard to make everyone feel like they are a member of the VA
family, and today I spoke to each of these ladies and told them that
we will make sure that they receive the assistance that we can give
within the law at their locations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are ready to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Deputy Secretary Gober, with attach-
ment, appears on p. 197.J
Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Brown was invited to the hearing today, and I am real-
ly disappointed he was unable to make it, but I do appreciate you
coming. I have great respect for Secretary Brown and I respect the
candor and frankness of the discussions that you and I have been
able to have on other matters, and I have great confidence that you
will try to do exactly what you say you will do.
I have concern, though, that there is a "good 01' boy" network out
there, and that there is a culture at VA which very much needs
changing. I am not sure whether you share that same belief about
the culture.
I would say that I am pleased that Secretary Brown initiated and
has been highly visible in promoting the VNs zero tolerance policy
on sexual harassment. It appears, however, that some of VA's most
senior career officials did not get the message.
You are the department's chief operating officer, and your will-
ingness to appear and give an official explanation of Fayetteville
and sexual harassment issues in the VA is appreciated, and I ap-
preciate your comments that you closed with.
You know that we are going to ask some hard questions, but I
do want to keep it constructive with the good government objective
of identifying, addressing, and solving problems.
Mr. Secretary, many VA employees and members of the public
believe that the VA has a culture, as I mentioned, of tolerance for
misconduct and mismanagement by senior officials. Just read the
newspapers from Florida, North Carolina, and New York. The only
way to overcome this is to meet it head on and do something about
it.
54
In the case that we are hearing about today, Mr. Calhoun, a VA
Medical Center Director, had a pattern of abusive behavior appar-
ently even before becoming a Director. Yet VA seems to be much
more concerned, and that is the testimony that we have heard here
today and it is the feeling, I think, of the majority of this commit-
tee, that VA is much more concerned about Mr. Calhoun than the
rank and file employees who are on the receiving end.
The VA's solution was to arrange a transfer to Florida and to cre-
ate a new position for Mr. Calhoun where he would be paid more
money than when he was a medical center Director, over $106,000,
and also to a location where he already owned a home. The "Club
Med" treatment has literally been met with derision by VA employ-
ees, as well as by editorial writers who, as you are aware, have
mighty sharp pens.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you how much did you person-
ally know about the Calhoun case as it was pending in VISN 6 and
in VA Washington's headquarters.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes, sir. I will be glad to answer that,
Mr. Chairman.
We were concerned about the management there because there
had been complaints coming out of there before these sexual-and
everybody stop me if I misspeak here-before the sexual harass-
ment came to the forefront.
Let me back up a little bit. We have no record of any, or we have
been unable to find any record about any, misconduct in Baetavia.
When Mr. Calhoun left Batavia, he was promoted to an SES and
moved to Fayetteville. We have from the IG file a form that says
they had no complaints pending against him.
So if there is something out there, we did not know about it. We
have searched back through our files. That is not to say there is
not something there in Buffalo. I am sorry, but we did not have
any information.
When the investigation started in Fayetteville, Dr. Moravec came
in to brief me on the situation down there and told me what they
were doing and wanted the delegation of authority to deal with the
disciplinary situation there. That is not unusual. As you know, in
government also not only have we been trying to push for the
elimination of sexual harassment and discrimination. We have also
been trying to let people make decisions at the lowest level
possible.
We are now moving back in the other dh-ection in this area, but
anyway, I signed over the delegation of authority to Dr. Moravec,
and I was aware that the case was going on and that it was getting
to be pretty serious.
When it came to me, they told me what the settlement was. My
reaction to it was: is that the best deal you can get? Could we have
gone to court? And it was explained to me that the people who
looked at the case thought that the chances of prevailing might not
be as good as they should be, and the last thing I wanted was to
go before the MSPB, have it reversed, have to pay all kinds of at-
torney fees, maybe have to pay some other kind of monetary
award, and put a person anywhere they wanted to go.
So, based on the merits, the decision was made to do this.
55
Mr. EVERETT. At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent
that all members have 10 minutes to question this panel and that
we possibly have a second round.
In checking his previous employment record, did you check both
locations or just Buffalo?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. I am informed both locations.
Mr. EVERETT. Both?
Deputy Secretary GoBER. I would say this though. Really I do
not think there was really a requirement to check both. Only when
you promote someone to an SES is it required to check this, but
we are going to close that gap also. We are going to shut the barn
after the mule got out, but another mule will not get out.
Mr. EVERETT. I surely hope you are right.
Deputy Secretary GoBER. Well, we are going to do the best we
can, sir. You know, we are a huge agency, 240,000 people, a huge
agency, and I saw the figures here about how many more com-
plaints we are having. Well, I take a different sfin on that. I hope
that indicates that our people are starting to fee like that they can
come forward without fear of retaliation.
I think we are making some progress. We will never be perfect,
but we will try our best.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary, you are welcome to look at it that
way, but I would observe that other people would look at it in an-
other fashion and would have perhaps the same right to do so.
The problem seems to be if I told you, "Mr. Secretary, look out
the window there. It is snowing," and you looked out the window
and you did not see any snow, and I suggested that you would not
see any snow, then you would not believe it was snowing, and I do
not know that VA has demonstrated in any way that they have the
concern they are telling me about today for the employees, and it
is pretty apparent to me that the concern is more in alignment
with these senior officials and department heads.
Now, you said that you felt like the settlement that you got was
the best deal you could make. Who made that decision, and did
they have benefit of counsel? And did counsel agree with that
decision?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. I am going to ask Dr. Moravec and Dr.
Gross, who were intimate in the details of this, to comment on
that, if it is okay with you, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir.
Dr. MORAVEC. I would like to respond to that and then ask Dr.
Gross to deal with more specific details.
In this kind of a situation and in this situation, Dr. Gross, who
is our highest level field executive, has responsibility for making
decisions about what it was we were dealing with, and he was very
thorough, in my view, in trying to track the information coming ul-
timately out of the IG report and what he could glean from discus-
sions with some on the EEO activities and processes, and would
frequently call me to share with me what he was experiencing,
what he was feeling and seeing.
He was, of course, the contact to the various principals, the medi-
cal center Director at that time, Mr. Calhoun, and the regional
counsel, the personnel experts, and so forth, as is the way it gen-
erally works in the field where we use that counsel very closely.
56
And as it evolved, it became apparent that we were ultimately
not certain and felt that we would very easily or very possibly, per-
haps not easily, be overturned, and the objective that we--
Mr. EVERETT. Excuse me. When you say "we," do you mean coun-
sel advised you might be overturned?
Dr. MORAVEC. No, I mean the VA. When I say "we," I mean
VHA, the Veterans Health Administration as--
Mr. EVERETT. Why would you not seek counsel's opinion on that?
Dr. MORAVEC. We did.
Mr. EVERETT. And counsel confirmed that the case might be
overturned?
Dr. MORAVEC. No. Let me see if! can be more clear.
Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate that. What I am interested in is know-
ing did you seek counsel and did counsel say that this case would
be overturned. Be as specific and short as you can, please.
Dr. MORAVEC. Yes. I will defer to Dr. Gross since he was the one
that was on the scene making those contacts.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, sir.
Dr. GROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to say, first of all, that I am a newcomer to the VA.
I joined the VA in 1995, in November from the private sector and
look forward to the opportunity of serving the VA and the veterans,
many of whom are my colleagues in the military.
But to answer your question, when the IG report was con-
summated and I reviewed the IG report with my regional counsel,
they reviewed the testimony. We consulted about what the next
step is, and this is obviously a learning process for me. I have
never been through this process in the VA before.
Mr. EVERETT. Dr. Gross, excuse me. We will come back to this
a little bit later, but what I really would like is a yes or no answer.
Did you seek counsel on this and did counsel advise you that this
case could not be made?
Dr. GROSS. I sought counsel on it. Counsel presented to me a
wide range of choices based on the table of penalties, and the deci-
sion was ultimately left up to me in consultation with other VA
specialists.
Mr. EVERETT. Did they make any recommendation at all?
Dr. GROSS. They did not make a recommendation one way or the
other.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay. Thank you. I will have additional questions.
If the committee will allow me, Secretary Gober, from a previous
statement by Secretary Brown we understand there have been
cases with 12 senior VA officials. I think you referred to nine. I as-
sume the difference is the Atlanta situation.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes, sir. Since we came in 1993, there
has been nine.
Mr. EVERETT. Nine who have been demoted or have retired to
avoid disciplinary action in the past 5 years for sexual harassment
offenses.
Please inform the subcommittee of the general circumstances of
each case, including whether it involved VHA or DVA officials, the
type of offense, when it occurred, and the disposition.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Would you like that in writing, sir, or
would you want--
57
Mr. EVERETT. If you have got it now, I would like it now.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. I think we have that.
Mr. EVERETT. Let me ask you some questions. How many of
these people were allowed just to retire?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Seven out of nine, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Okay. What was the nature of the complaints
against these seven?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, some
of these people were told to retire because if they did not retire,
charges were going to be filed against them, and they chose to
retire.
Mr. EVERETT. Did anybody receive a $25,000 buyout?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT. Let me get this straight. You told somebody to re-
tire or they were going to have disciplinary action taken against
them, and then you gave them a $25,000 buyout?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. I am not sure that this individual was
one of the ones we told to retire.
Mr. Hinch will answer this question while I am--
Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HINCH. Mr. Chairman, what happened was this particular
individual you are talking about was aware that an allegation had
been made against him and that we were beginning to investigate
the actions and everything. At that time we had the window open
for buyouts. So he decided it was in his best interest to jump out
and take hold of a buyout before the matter was concluded.
Mr. EVERETT. And there was nothing that we could do to pre-
clude or keep a person who had a disciplinary action of this nature
pending against him from getting a buyout?
Mr. HINCH. We had not gotten that far with it.
Mr. EVERETT. I beg your pardon?
Mr. HINCH. We had not gotten that far with it.
Mr. EVERETT. All right.
Mr. HINCH. It means he was aware that there was an allegation
against him that has begun to be investigated. It means that he
was aware of what he had done and what he felt the outcome
would probably be.
Mr. EVERETT. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HINCH. Excuse me?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. The investigations.
Mr. HINCH. Investigations.
Mr. EVERETT. But you do not have to give it. That is a discre-
tionary thing. You do not have to give somebody a buyout.
Mr. HINCH. I did not give him a buyout, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Somebody did.
Mr. HINCH. I am saying the buyout offer window was open at the
time that he decided to leave. I have nothing to do with buyouts
or personnel matters in that regard.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. He was not under formal investigation
at the time. He just knew what he had done, and the buyout win-
dow was open. So he jumped in the life boat. .
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Secretary, my time has run out for this round,
and I do appreciate the patience of the members of the panel, but
58
let me just say that we have got a situation here where somebody
had an obvious charge made against him and somebody gave him,
and, by the way, this is discretionary. They did not have to do it-
gave him a $25,000 buyout.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. But if the person did not know that the
investigation was going on, if it had not--
Mr. EVERETT. Well, why didn't the person?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. If it had not reached that point sir. I
mean, if it had not reached that point and he was one of those hun-
dreds or whatever people that wanted a buyout and his position
was targeted for a buyout, he got in there, and he got lost in the
crowd.
Mr. EVERETT. It would not have been flagged?
Ms. KEENER. If I might make a comment, Mr. Chairman. If an
individual seeks a buyout and because there is an investigation
going on that has not been concluded at the time, everyone is fortu-
nately considered to be innocent until proven guilty.
If the individual asks for a buyout and that buyout was then de-
nied, that person could come back and sue us for retaliation be-
cause of the ongoing investigation. So there are a lot of--
Mr. EVERETT. Even though a buyout is discretionary and it does
not have to be given?
Ms. KEENER. If we chose not to give him the buyout, he could
and, most likely, would allege that the reason we used to exercise
our discretion not to give him the buyout was because of incidents
that were alleged in the ongoing investigation.
Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate your answer. As I said, my time is
out, but I would suggest to you that there are those who could use
the same law to their advantage, and in this case obviously did.
I recognize the Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I tend to agree. I was a little bit hesitant to break in, but I think
we have to be very, very careful with these. The allegations are
just that. They are allegations, and you have to be very, very care-
ful going to conclusions.
I think it was said earlier that, a lot of times you can take a case
to its conclusion and still lose it, and in the instances such as this
if you deny someone the opportunity to buyout, I suspect they
have got some pretty serious legal claims to be made against the
VA. So you have to be very, very careful about it.
I would like to know, and let me preface my question by saying
this. I was in Fayetteville a few weeks ago to do a banquet, and
the morning afterwards some friends were having something for
me. It did not occur to me until today, Mr. Chairman, that this
gentleman, if I might call him that, Mr. Calhoun, was discussed
pretty extensively. He is held in very low regard among the people
that I heard talking about him. I did not know who he was and
did not have any idea that I would be sitting here today in some
assessment of him.
So this gentleman's actions were known throughout that commu-
nity. People in that community abhor his actions. They are very
disturbed by what they feel has been an unjust resolution of this
matter.
59
If we do, in fact, have a zero tolerance for these kinds of issues
in the VA, it would seem to me that those who are responsible for
redressing these kinds of grievances have taken the real easy way
out here, and I am wondering whether or not this, is the final reso-
lution of this particular case.
What would happen at this point if one of these ladies who we
heard from earlier today were to bring legal action outside of the
complaint process, were to file a lawsuit? They could very well file
a tort action, especially the lady who said her breasts were mas-
saged or something. That is a tort action.
What would the VA's position be if a tort action were filed?
Ms. KEENER. At this point, Mr. Clyburn, the VA settlement
agreement is final. The VA can take no more action against Mr.
Calhoun.
The individual complainants always have the right to sue him for
a variety of legal actions in a federal court. They can sue him for,
from what I heard this morning, a variety of actions if they choose
to do that.
The VA, because at the time that the alleged actions were com-
mitted Mr. Calhoun was a VA employee, we would be in the posi-
tion of having to defend him against the complainant unless the al-
legations occurred outside the scope of his professional duties.
So if an allegation occurred when he was not in the position of
the VA Medical Center facility Director, then we would not have
to defend, but any actions alleged in a federal suit that occurred
during the scope of his responsibilities as a Director, we, the VA
and the Department of Justice, would have to defend.
Mr. CLYBURN. That is my problem here. If you have got to de-
fend-I cannot remember which young lady who indicated that she
was really verbally abused in the presence of the EEO officer and
some other person by Mr. Calhoun-are you telling me now that
if her attorney, and I understand that she has an attorney, were
to file appropriate legal action, that the VA would, in fact, defend
him because he made his decisions? This whole discussion was
within the scope of his employment.
Ms. KEENER. We have a responsibility to defend actions of em-
ployees that are committed within the scope of their--
Mr. CLYBURN. No, ma'am.
Ms. KEENER (continuing). Position.
Mr. CLYBURN. I do not believe that is the law. You are telling me
that you have to defend and condone? I mean .you are really de-
fending that. You would be condoning those actions.
Ms. KEENER. Well, Mr. Clyburn, there are a lot of attorneys that
defend people that are accused of very serious crimes, too. Every-
one is entitled to a lawyer, and fortunately or unfortunately the
way the law is the VA is charged with defending VA employees
when they are accused of violations of the law.
We would not actually provide the litigation. The Department of
Justice would, but we would work with the Department of Justice,
and we would have to defend this case.
As in any case that is litigated, a determination is always made
on the merits of the case as, you know, how far you want to pro-
ceed with the litigation, but those are decisions that are made on
each case based on the merits. I certainly cannot make any com-
60
ments as to what might happen if any of these particular cases
that we heard this morning were to be litigated, but the VA would,
in fact, except for the exceptions that I noted, have to defend Mr.
Calhoun.
Mr. CLYBURN. So these ladies are accurate in their emotions ex-
pressed here this morning that this guy, as far as the VA is con-
cerned, has gotten away with all of this.
Ms. KEENER. I am not sure if he really got away that Scot free.
He was transferred out of the facility. Those individuals at that fa-
cility no longer have to deal with Mr. Calhoun.
Mr. CLYBURN. I understand.
Ms. KEENER. He was stripped of his SES status. He is no longer
in a supervisory position. He is not in a position that allows him
to have any authority to supervise women in his current job in
Florida.
So I do not think that he got away Scot free in this situation.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, let me ask. I have a question. How many
EEO officers within the VA are women?
Mr. HINCH. Each medical center Director is also designated as an
EEO officer. I do not know how many women medical center direc-
tors we have or regional directors in Veterans' Benefits, but the
head of each office or medical center is the EEO officer.
The reason for that originally was that they wanted to designate
the EEO officer as someone with authority to take whatever nec-
essary corrective action was needed in settlement of a discrimina-
tion complaint or sexual harassment complaint and so forth.
In the military, frequently it is the base commander.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, let me ask you this. Am I to understand that
Mr. Calhoun was the EEO officer in Fayetteville?
Mr. HINCH. Right.
Mr. CLYBURN. If he were the EEO officer in Fayetteville, then
the very first complaint should have immediately gone outside the
agency. So they would not have to complain to him about him.
Mr. HINCH. Let me say from what I heard this morning the sys-
tem did not work. When you were listening to Ms. Blumenthal, she
described how the system should work. That is the way that we
train and require that the system works in VA also.
Something did not happen. Many things obviously did not hap-
pen there that should have happened. They should have, when
they first contacted a counselor, been given a written notice as to
how long counseling would last, what the next step was, and how
to secure that step in writing.
Mr . CLYBURN. So nothing happened, and so then you were saying
that these people from this morning really should have gone di-
rectly to EEOC?
Mr. HINCH. No, what I am saying is at Fayetteville if the system
had worked properly, they would have gotten all of the administra-
tive remedies available to them without going to EEOC, but EEOC
was built into it.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, from whom?
Mr. HINCH. Well, let me explain how the system works. You go
to a counselor. The counselor really serves as the mediator to see
if it can be resolved informally. The counselor has 30 days to do
that in. At the end of 30 days unless the counselor has written per-
61
mission from the complainant to extend the counseling process, the
counselor must give the complainant a notice of the right to file.
It says you have the right now to file a formal complaint, and it
tells them how to file it and who to file it with.
They can file it at my office in Washington. They can file it with
the National Director of Women's Programs.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, that is my point. The complaint could have
been filed to you after the EEO counselor, and they would not have
to go to Mr. Calhoun.
Mr. HINCH. Right.
Mr. CLYBURN. Let me ask. I believe it was in 1993 when I first
became aware of the situation in Atlanta.
Mr. HINCH. Yes.
Mr. CLYBURN. We talked about that in this very room, and we
talked about some things, Mr. Bilirakis, that we needed to do in
order to insure that people had these direct lines outside the
agency.
If my memory serves me well, there was some resistance within
the VA to doing that. I think Sanford Bishop joined me in that, and
you all told us at that time that no Atlantas would happen again.
Now we are hearing that no Fayettevilles will happen again.
Mr. HINCH. Let me respond if I may. At that particular time I
was one of the people testifying at that time, and Mr. Evans was,
I think, chairing that committee.
Mr. CLYBURN. Right.
Mr. HINCH. What the Secretary said at the time was he sup-
ported the intent of the legislation, H.R. 1032, but he really did not
feel it was necessary for legislation; that he could accomplish all of
those things administratively, and he was going to do so.
Mr. CLYBURN. Right.
Mr. HINCH. Shortly thereafter, Senate bill 404 also was being
considered in the Senate, and the Secretary was advised at that
time that it was only a matter of months before EEOC takes on
the whole government-wide EEO program.
So the Secretary wrote to Chairman Montgomery at the time and
said, "In lieu of that, I do not want to go through a major reorga-
nization in the Department of Veterans Affairs only in a few weeks
later to have to hand the program over to EEOC."
That is why we did not do it administratively at that particular
time, but we were fully supportive of the intent of H.R. 1032, Sen-
ate bill 404, and we had developed a very specific administrative
proposal that would have accomplished everything that was in-
tended in H.R. 1032.
Mr. CLYBURN. So you are telling me then that all of this has
been accomplished?
Mr. HINCH. I am tell you that it was--
Mr. CLYBURN. No, your position, not your procedure. I am saying
S. 404 and H.R. 1032, everything that was in S. 404 and H.R.
1032--
Mr. HINCH. Never got off the drawing board.
Mr. CLYBURN. Because you all anticipated that a law was going
to pass the Congress?
40-881 97 - 3
62
Mr. HINCH. Yes. The EEOC was going to take over the whole
program. I did not anticipate it, sir. Let me tell you because I have
been in this business a long time.
Mr. CLYBURN. That is what I would think.
Mr. HINCH. And I have seen similar efforts go nowhere.
Mr. CLYBURN. Absolutely.
Mr. HINCH. But there were others who thought it would happen.
Mr. CLYBURN. And so the Secretary decided not to move because
he was advised that this was going to become law.
Mr. HINCH. That this was imminent.
Mr. CLYBURN. And then in 1996, 3 years later, it still had not
been done.
Mr. HINCH. That is the case.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Mr. Clyburn, if I may, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. Yes, sir.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. One of the reasons for the--
Mr. CLYBURN. It is Clyburn. Let me get my name right here.
There is no A in this name, sir. C-I-y.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, I saw that.
Mr. CLYBURN. Y gets the sound of I.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. When I saw that earlier, I saw that,
but someone called you--
Mr. EVERETT. Did I do that?
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, Everett is my good friend. So I let him call
me anything he wants to. (Laughter.)
Deputy Secretary GOBER. And like you said, I understand what
you are saying. I just saw some of that snow out of the window
here, too.
Mr. EVERETT. My sincere apologizes.
Mr. CLYBURN. That is all right.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. But one of the reasons there, was a
price tag attached to what the Secretary was going to do adminis-
tratively, and it was about $3.5 million a year. I think. the Sec-
retary very wisely, at that point in time, thought if this law does
pass that we would just be throwing $3.5 million out the window
basically, and so he held off on it, and of course, the law did not
pass.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, if I remember H.R. 1032 correctly, if I may,
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Lerner is he and he really can correct me
if I am wrong, I thought that what the Secretary was saying to us
was that we did not need to do H.R. 1032 because he was going
to do it administratively. He was going to accomplish administra-
tively what H.R. 1032 would ask him to do.
We did not have a budget on H.R. 1032.
Mr. EVERETT. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLYBURN. Yes, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. I have it underlined here in the record there where
the Secretary says the department does not support H.R. 1032.
Mr. CLYBURN. Right. Yes, that is what I am saying. He did not
support it.
Deputy Secretary GoBER. But that was only because he felt we
would be doing it administratively.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I am going to close with this, Mr. Chairman.
63
You know, out of deference to what I said in my opening state-
ment, I have a great deal of experience with the VA, experiences
I have slept with for 35 years, but I will tell you. I think that we
are here today because no one followed up on what we talked about
in 1993, and I do not see any indication that anything is being
done at this point to keep us from being here next year with the
same kind of allegation.
Now, I say this because I think Ms. Blumenthal indicated a fig-
ure, and I hesitate to bring this up because I was out of the room,
and I apologize for that, but if you have got B.-something percent
of employees in federal agencies sitting at the VA, but you have got
14 percent of the sexual harassment complaints at the VA, some-
thing is wrong.
Mr. HINCH. I do not want to defend that, but I would like to offer
a comment, please.
Mr. CLYBURN. Please.
Mr. HINCH. The VA is a distinctly different department than
some of the others that we are talking about. We have over 57 per-
cent of our work force is female. They are located throughout the
whole Nation, large towns, small towns, medium size towns, iso-
lated locations, medical centers where men and women work to-
gether very closely in very unsupervised atmospheres. So I think
there are some factors that may contribute to that.
Now, I do not want to present to you that that is why those num-
bers are there, but I would also say to you that, overall, our figures
for sexual harassment as compared to the total complaint work
load we have has been f0ing down.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, would suggest, and this is my final state-
ment on this, someone testified earlier that X number of the VA
complaints had been contracted out.
Mr. HINCH. About 59 percent.
Mr. CLYBURN. About 59 percent. I would suggest that one of the
quickest ways to get to this is to contract out 100 percent of the
complaints involving sexual harassment.
If you took these sexual harassment complaints right out of the
system as soon as you got them, that would go a long way towards
keeping us from being here with these kinds of things in the
future.
Would you agree that that would be a good way to deal with sex-
ual harassment complaints? Contract them out, every single one of
them. That is zero tolerance.
Mr. HINCH. I would like to resolve them before you get to the in-
vestigative stage.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, we all would like to do that, sir, but you and
I both know, and you just gave a real good reason why you cannot
do that. If you have got people in isolated situations, and you are
talking to the father of three daughters, and so I would like to see
that happen also.
But the fact of the matter is when the complaints are brought-
you see, you are not going to bring the complaints while they are
being counseled-but when the complaints are brought, I am say-
ing at that point every sexual harassment complaint ought to be
contracted out, especially since the Secretary did not support H.R.
1032.
64
Mr. HINCH. We do not have a problem with that, and as you de-
scribe it, it is quite possible to do that. We can do that without a
great deal of difficulty. It just means assigning a contractor to it
rather than a collateral duty investigator.
I guess I did not understand you at first.
Mr. CLYBURN. Yes.
I am through, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. (Laughter.)
Mr. EVERETT. The chair now recognizes Mr. Buyer.
Mr. BUYER. Actually, you know, a few weeks ago I extended
great compliment to my colleague from South Carolina for being
the new Ranking Member, and on this line of questioning, I com-
pliment it, and it reinforces my compliment to you.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you.
Mr. BUYER. Part of what he is sharing with you is no different.
I am going to have to go back because I am doing what Mr. Everett
is doing on the sexual misconduct in the U.S. Military. This one is
huge, and there are many of whom are saying, you know, there is
such a problem that you need an ombudsman. You need independ-
ent commissions, and everybody is trying to do all kinds of
outreach.
That is no different than Mr. Clyburn here asking for the same
thing. One thing though that concerns me about that request for
going outside is that we are not changing behavior. We are leaving
the same bad players in the same positions taking six figure sala-
ries, and that concerns me.
When we are talking about those employers are setting the tone
of the environment for the work place, I am not so apt to leave
them in the work place, and I have said publicly and I will stress
it also to the VA. It is entirely acceptable for the American people
to demand of the VA, the military or the federal agencies' authori-
ties a higher standard.
You say, "Steve, a higher standard than what you would find in
Monticello, Indiana?" Absolutely, absolutely.
So I think the gentleman's line of questioning was entirely appro-
priate. One thing that does concern me, and he was getting mto
this agreement, let me share a perspective here. I'm a country guy
from the com fields of Indiana, a country lawyer, and I try not to
get lost in the high weeds, you know, that kind of thing. So I just
read a document only by the four comers of the document.
So as I read the document, I look at this and say, you know,
there is something here that had to have occurred, and I learn that
there were three allegations, I guess, Dr. Gross, at the time that
this was drafted, and if the a~eement is based upon the three alle-
gations at the time and this IS then signed, if there are other alle-
gations that occur that are outside your knowledge that were
made, that being now that the testimony of Ms. Barefoot or-who
else do we have?-well, there were other individuals. You can take
action.
The VA can go after this gentleman, if I can call him a gen-
tleman. He is innocent until proven guilty, but the document, if h
only refers to specific cases-as a matter of fact, this is not a very
well drafted document.
65
Who drafted this thing? Dr. Gross, who drafted this?
Dr. GROSS. Well, the draft was a joint effort, but the personnel
specialist was the primary author.
Mr. BUYER. Did the lawyers for Mr. Calhoun draft this docu-
ment?
Dr. GROSS. The lawyers for Mr. Calhoun?
Mr. BUYER. Yes.
Dr. GROSS. No, they did not. They advised him in the process of
negotiation, but the document itself was drafted by the human re-
sources specialists in the VA.
Mr. BUYER. The Whatley report, what is that? Whatley?
Dr. GROSS. The Whatley report.
Mr. BUYER. Did you draft that?
Dr. GROSS. No, Mr. Whatley drafted it.
Mr. BUYER. Do you agree with that report? Are you comfortable
with it?
Dr. GROSS. I do not really understand what you mean. Am I com-
fortable with it?
Mr. BUYER. Well, I listen to testimony. I read some statements.
I think that the report itself is awfully understated and almost be-
nign. What is your opinion of the report?
Dr. GROSS. I think the report was benign. I agree with that.
Mr. BUYER. Well, that is my opinion. What is your opinion? It is
benign?
Dr. GROSS. It is benign.
Mr. BUYER. What does it mean when you say a report is benign?
My interpretation from Indiana may be different from yours.
Dr. GROSS. When I say it is benign, the report itself does not, in
fact, address the issue specifically enough. It is too general. It is
broad.
Mr. BUYER. All right. What then did you have to do to go beyond
the report to satisfy you at a level of accountability to take action?
What did you find?
Dr. GROSS. I think the report met my purposes, especially my
oral outreach from Mr. Whatley, and that was he confirmed as an
independent assessment that, indeed, there were hostile conditions
at Fayetteville, and after the report and verbal outreach, I elected
to notify Mr. Calhoun that I wanted him removed as soon as pos-
sible and started to negotiate with my superiors and headquarters
to remove him as the medical center director on the basis of the
hostile work environment-his management by threats and intimi-
dations.
Mr. BUYER. You made a decision based upon what you feel was
a benign report in generalities, unwilling to go into the detail, but
you were satisfied that based on the report that he should be re-
moved. All right?
Dr. GROSS. That is a combination of that report plus my own
visit to the facility and talking to individuals.
Mr. BUYER. How did you feel when lawyers then told you-you
are in a position of authority now, had the taxpayers' interests also
at heart-and somebody tells you you cannot remove a bad actor?
How did you feel about that?
66
Dr. GROSS. Well, no one told me I could not remove a bad actor.
I could not remove a bad actor without going through the legal
process and due process, et cetera.
Mr. BUYER. Right, and for some reason you were unwilling to
take the case through the chain of legal events. Even though you
did not know about the details, you were unwilling to take it
through a chain of events, and you relied upon someone else telling
you that, well, perhaps this is a case that we cannot win.
I just share this with you. This is Hoosier perspective again. You
see when I come out here to Washington, DC, I get upset because
when I look out two blocks from here, I look at homes and I look
at businesses that have bars on the windows, and my perspective
says, you know what? The wrong people are behind bars.
Now I look at the bureaucracy, and I share the same perspective
and say, you know what? There must be a real problem with the
bureaucratic culture in this country if we have people of authority
that are afraid to go after bad actors.
Dr. GROSS. Well, quite to the contrary, I am not afraid to go after
bad actors. In fact, I was very aggressive--
Mr. BUYER. Then please explain to us why you did not aggres-
sively go through the legal process because now the taxpayer, be-
cause this Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that permits women
to file claims under the tort law, whereby if the government, the
VA, loses a case, the taxpayer has to pay. So please share with me.
Dr. GROSS. I am not sure if you-perhaps let me clarify the chro-
nology here. At the time Mr. Whatley conducted his investigation
at my request, I had already visited the Fayetteville facility and
come to the conclusion that it was a very hostile work environment,
but I needed an independent assessment of the management cli-
mate there.
The sexual harassment issue was not an issue at that time. This
was in the summer of 1996. It was after the Whatley report, and
my conversation with him and my conversation with my superiors
that I elected to seek action to remove Mr. Calhoun. I was very ag-
gressive in that regard.
He reluctantly agreed to step down as Director, and it was at
that time that the OIG, who was working in collaboration with me,
providing me some additional information related to the hostile
work environment, that the OIG decided that they would then go
in to investigate two cases of sexual harassment which they did not
identify what they were to me.
So rather than let Mr. Calhoun remain in the Director position,
I sought permission from my superiors, to detail Mr. Calhoun out
of the facility. My main objective was to aggressively pursue remov-
ing Mr. Calhoun at all costs, to make whole the people in that facil-
ity so that we could start to go about the business of taking care
of our patients.
So there were two efforts there.
Mr. BUYER. You know, we heard some testimony here from five
ladies that are very uncomfortable about the VA and their han-
dling of these cases. Can you imagine that with all the scrutiny
upon the U.S. military at the moment, that if you had a Navy cap-
tain who did something on a destroyer and they said, "Well, let's
get him off that destroyer and we'll give him a job and he's now
67
going to command an aircraft carrier"? Do you think that would
happen in the Navy?
No, it would not. So now let's shift over and say what? Are we
going to treat-now they are out of the military, but now they are
in the VA-we are going to treat them by different standards?
No, no, no. I think that-let me compliment the Ranking Mem-
ber and Chairman for bringing this hearing, and Mr. Bilirakis.
There is a real problem here with the VA. If we have got 12 senior
level positions that have all now been discharged from their duties
because of these allegations, that is like-is it 12? You are shaking
your head.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Nine.
Mr. BUYER. Nine? Oh, all right. Nine.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Only two of them--
Mr. BUYER. That's like saying nine generals. Don't go West.
Pardon?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Only two are still on active duty. The
rest are retired.
Mr. BUYER. What about the others?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. We drove them out. Some of them were
driven out and retired early. Some of them took buyout. One of
them took a buyout earlier. They are no longer in the service. We
have two senior executives that are no longer senior executives.
They were, to use your military analogy, they received a cap-
tain's mass and not a court martiaL They are still serving in the
VA, but they are no longer in leadership positions.
Mr. BUYER. And you have created a position for them to protect
that individual is my assessment.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Not to protect the individual. The fact
is that there was a legal process we have to go through. Our people
made a judgment.
Mr. BUYER. A legal process which you chose not to go through.
You gave this guy a good salary--
Deputy Secretary GoBER. We made--
Mr. BUYER (continuing). And a wonderful climate that I do not
have in Indiana.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, you know, I want to address a
couple of things. There is no way that I am going to sit here, Mr.
Clyburn, and promise anything like this will not happen, the rea-
son being is that I am not a fooL Things like this happen. This is
a huge organization. Things happen, and you and I both know it,
that should not happen. We understand that. It should not happen,
and our policy is we do not want it to happen, and we are doing
everything possible.
Now, let me tell you what I think we should do from now on.
When we have a situation like this happen, let's just say we have
a Director in Indiana or anyplace you want to take. When we get
allegations that this is happening. What we will do is we will
transfer; we will detail that Director totally away, maybe into
Washington, DC, and we will send a team in that will investigate,
and we will get to the bottom of it so that we do not have a few
allegations come forward and we fmd out about then and then later
on you find more.
68
We will do a complete investigation, do like you are talking about
so that when we go forward we have got a complete package. If
that individual is innocent, you know, the Constitution is a heck
of an impediment, but it is a nice thing that individual has rights.
If he or she is innocent we will protect them. If they are not, then
we will throw the full weight of the VA against it.
But I do not want anybody to think that the VA has not made
progress because that is patently untrue.
Mr. BUYER. And, Mr. Chairman, I guess my understanding is
that the Secretary will be dispatching one of these teams to inves-
tigate the new allegations against Mr. Calhoun.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. What I will have to do is-again, I am
not an attorney-but I will consult with my attorneys. If there is
a way that we can do that, we will but I do not know if there is
a double jeopardy problem. My folks are very capable of advising
me, and we will do whatever the law says we can do. We will also
respect the rights of individuals.
Mr. EVERE'IT. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Evans.
Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Hershel, I know you have worked hard on this, and
as we said in our introductory statements, we have no personal
problem with the attempts of you and Jesse Brown to move ahead
with zero tolerance, but 5 years ago our former colleague, Jill Long,
Congresswoman from Indiana, concluded after the hearing was
done that the VA sexual harassment policy essentially boiled down
to this:
"If you are sexually harassed, you get demoted, but if you are the
harasser, you get transferred, and the taxpayers support your de-
fense as well as your salary."
Now, one of these women carne forward today saying that it was
very uncomfortable for her to sit in this committee room and talk
about these issues. Obviously it was tough for all of these women,
but if they could help one woman deal with the problems that she
is facing in the VA, it would have been worthwhile.
Our duty, and I know you will never get 100 percent, is to do
99 to 100 percent if at all possible, and I guess the message we are
sending out listening to Ms. Keener for a second, is that he did not
get off Scot free in the case of Mr. Calhoun because he was de-
moted from the senior management status, and it was good to
know that women in Buffalo and Fayetteville are now off the hook,
but I guess women in Bay Pines had better be on guard.
And my question is you have failed to mention that the provision
that allows Mr. Calhoun in this settlement to be considered for re-
entry in the SES in 3 years. How could you explain that, given his
past record?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. He is barred for 3 years for reentry.
Mr. EVANS. Okay. But so do we--
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Why would we consider letting him
reenter?
Mr. EVANS. Right.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Well, you know, and again, I am not
an attorney, but I would say in layman terms, he has not been con-
victed of anything. You would hope that a person-you know, part
69
of the VA is rehab. I would say this. This gentleman, Mr. Calhoun,
lives in a fish bowl. His SES status, leaving the SES status, he has
not gotten off Scot free, and contrary to what we have heard about
him receiving an increase, a pay raise, he did not do that. He got
a cost-of-living adjustment like every other employee in the govern-
ment gets. We did not give him an increase of pay.
But the point is I guess your question, Congressman Evans, is
how could you ever reconsider this person. Well, you know, hope-
fully-should I say anything more?
Mr. HINCH. Hershel, could I say something to that?
Deputy Secretary GOBER. Very little.
Mr. HINCH. Okay. Mr. Evans, actually if we had not put that pro-
vision in there, he could have reapplied to readmission to SES at
any time.
Mr. EVANS. You cannot bar that?
Mr. HINCH. That is what this does. This means that he cannot
really apply for readmission for 3 years. Without that he would
have been able to.
Now, understand we do not determine his readmission to SES.
That is controlled by the Office of Personnel Management. That is
who he would apply to. That provision in the agreement really bars
him from applying before 3 years.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. So really this is a plus for us. It is
something that we got.
Mr. EVANS. But you know, I do not see it as a permanent punish-
ment. I do not understand all of the parts of the SES. Basically if
he can reapply, he can regain that status after 3 years is the way
I read it.
Deputy Secretary GOBER. He can reapply. He has no automatic
reinstatement, and he has to go through the whole procedure
again. ~ Mr. Hinch said, if we had not had that in there, he could
have reapplied the next day.
Mr. EVANS. Is the standard now in these kinds of agreements,
something to that effect at least? And why couldn't we have barred
him for 10 years or for the rest of his career?
Mr. HINCH. It may have been possible. I do not know if that
would have been a break point on the settlement negotiations. I
was not there.
You know, again, I understand your concern, Mr. Evans. I would
just make the observation that with all that has transpired unless
his rehabilitation is really stellar and so apparent, his reapplying
is going to be a very difficult task.
Dr. MORAVEC. May I make an effort to add to that, please?
Mr. EVANS. Yes.
Dr. MORAVEC. It seems that we have a common understanding
here that it was important to get Mr. Calhoun out of that environ-
ment so that these ladies and others would not have to deal with
that on a day-to-day basis. What we were concerned about as we
talked about this is to get the greatest amount of assurance that
we would be successful in getting him out of that environment, and
as we went through it and as information evolved and discussions
occurred, there was some question about whether we could prevail
in sustaining removal.
70
That precipitated the need for some dialogue with him and his
attorneys in trying to move towards a settlement. The settlement
maybe could have been better. It seemed to us that he was very
adamant, as I understand it, about the dollars apparently due to
his circumstance, whatever it was. We were looking for a way to
free the environment of what we have heard about as a person who
had behavior that was certainly destructive or counterproductive,
and we succeeded in that.
Maybe if we could do it all over, maybe we could do it better, but
we did succeed in that one single mission, if you will, that everyone
seems to agree was the right thing to do: get him out of that
environment.
Mr. EVANS. Well, I do not think we are going to stop this conduct
until it is punished and viewed as a punishment by women who
have been abused, and somehow they have got to have some input
into this process because I understand not a single one of them has
been consulted by the VA when this agreement was drafted for any
kind of consultation or any kind of input; is that correct?
Dr. MORAVEC. Yes, I am certain it is correct. It would be a very
unusual process to involve people who were in process, in some
kind of a legal or a procedure such as EEO, and I do not believe
that happens in any case that I am aware of, whether it is a griev-
ance or an EEO, or sexual harassment complaint. I do not believe
it does.
Mr. EVANS. All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield back my
time.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. BILlRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, no one has to convince me of the concern for veterans or
veterans' rights that Secretary Gober holds and certainly Secretary
Brown. He was what, Executive Director, I guess it was, of the
DAV for many years. That is how we knew him, and Hershel goes
way back as far as veterans' rights are concerned.
And I will tell you I really misjudge you if you are not sitting
there damned uncomfortable, Hershel. You have got to be uncom-
fortable.
You know, we have got to look at this overall picture. We are
concerned about the rights of these ladies, the rights of others who
have been taken advantage of, but we also have to take a look at
this from the eyes of the veteran, the grassroots veteran out there.
I mean the people that I have heard from. You have an awful
lot of friends out there in the veterans community. You are bound
to have heard from them, and I doubt very much that any expla-
nation that we have heard here today from you or any of the others
in this panel is something that would be anywhere near acceptable
to those veterans.
Golly, you said things happen. You are right. It is an agency with
240,000 people. It is just like, you know, some may ask us, "Hey,
you guys are the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Why didn't you
know this was going on?"
Well, one might unfairly ask you the same thing, I suppose, be-
cause how in the world can you possibly know everything that is
going on. So, yes, things happen, and you refused to, rightly so, re-
fused to commit to the fact it will not happen again.
71
(105)
106
TIME.
Thank you for your inquiry about by status since the September 17,
1992 hearing. I regret that serious personal family health problems
preclude my attendance.
I filed and won a civil suite against my harasser, but the judgment
awarded has not been obtained due to his retirement status.
The costs of each case for legal expenses, decreased morale and
productivity, loss of highly motivated employees and hiring / retraining
replacements must be exorbitant.
I don't know what side effects and long term damages I may suffer
from medications taken the past six and a half years to help control
symptoms . I don ' t know if , despite the help of caring professionals,
I'll ever be able to stop treatment .
WORKPLACE IN 1992.
SENATE DID NOT ACT ON H.R. 1032, AND THE BILL WAS NEVER
SUFFICIENT.
SENIOR VA EMPLOYEE.
HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS .
A RAISE IN SALARY."
TODAY'S HEARING.
~ Department of
Veterans Affairs
SPECIAL INQUIRY
WARNING
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
This report contains information subj~cr 10 the pro\'isions of the Priv:u:y Act of 19'" (5 l '.S.C. Seclion 5521). Such
information may be disclosrd only 85 . urhorized by this 5latute. Questions concerning rticltsc of this report thereof shou ld be
('Go rdinated with t he Department of Vcttrans Affain. Office of Inspeclor General. The co ntents of this I'"('porl must bc
safeguarded fro m unauthol'"ized disclosure and may b( shar-ed within the Department of Velrr:1ns ,Hr"irs on l!. n(('dlo know
basi ~o nl).
2. Our review determined that Mr. Calhoun sexually harassed one of the three
female employees. While we could not conclusively determine whether he
sexually harassed the other two employees, we did conclude that Mr. Calhoun's
behavior toward them was abusive, threatening, and inappropriate. We also
concluded that Mr. Calhoun was less than truthful about certain matters in
responding to the allegations, which raised some doubt concerning his credibility.
4. The second complainant testified that Mr. Calhoun made unwelcome sexual
advances toward her and retaliated against her when she rejected his suggestions
i
118
that they have a personal relationship. Our review substantiated quid pro quo
sexual harassment and sexual harassment for creating a hostile work env '1TT' ~ nt .
The quid pro quo sexual harassment was a result of Mr. Calhoun 's ["o.a . .. on
against the complainant by reassigning her to a position that she was not qualified
for. because she rejected his proposals. The creation of a hostile and offensive
work environment resulted because Mr. Calhoun continued to make unwelcome
and inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the complainant after she had
clearly indicated her discomfort with such comments. We found the testimony of
the complainant to be credible in that it was corroborated over and over again by
the views of other medical center employees and the complainant's psychologist.
Due to the sexual harassment, this complainant transferred to another medical
center.
5. The third complainant testified that Mr. Calhoun made unsolicited verbal
comments of a sexual nature to her on more than one occasion. The complainant
told us there were no witnesses to the remarks on either occasion. Y1r. Calhoun
denied making comments of a sexual nature to the complainant. He suggested that
the complainant was angry at him because he transferred her out of her previous
position, and that she had falsely made the accusation of sexual harassment out of
revenge. While we could not determine if the allegations of sexual harassment
were substantiated because it was essentially her word against his, we did conclude
that Mr. Calhoun's treatment of the third complainant continued to demonstrate a
pattern of inappropriate and abusive behavior.
~a.tJ~G
~ .JCK H. KROLL
" Assistant Inspector General for
Depanmental Reviews and Management Suppan
Enciosure
119
CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................ .
Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1
Background................................................................................................ 1
Scope ......................................................................................................... 3
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 21
Recommendation ............................................ ...... ... ...... ..... ... ........... ...... ... 22
Appendix
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Inspector Oeneral (orO) reviewed
allegations that Mr. Jerome Calhoun, Director, VA Medical Center, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, sexually harassed three women. At the time of the alleged harassment, the three
women were employed at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center. Two of the allegations
surfaced during a review of a Hotline complaint sent to the oro's Hotline and Special
Inquiries Division. The oro initiated a review of the third allegation in response to a
request for assistance from the Director, Veterans Integrated Service Network in Durham,
North Carolina (VISN 6). We also agreed to conduct this review because the allegations
were serious in nature and involved possible misconduct by a high ranking VA official, and
the statute of limitations for filing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, based
on charges of sexual harassment, had expired.
We also received allegations from Senator Lauch Faircloth regarding misconduct and
unprofessional behavior by Mr. Calhoun. These allegations were referred to VISN 6 for
appropriate action. The Director, VISN 6, initiated a review to determine the validity of the
allegations. Based on that review, he concluded that Mr. Calhoun was not effective as a
medical center director. We have respond to Senator Faircloth regarding the results of that
review.
Background.
Mr. Calhoun became the Director of the Fayetteville Medical Center in April 1994. His
previous assignment was as Associate Director at the VA Medical Center in Buffalo. New
York.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:
Sexual harassment that occurs when a supervisor bases an employment decision about an
individual on that individual's submission to or rejection of the supervisor's unwelcome
sexual conduct is known as "quid pro quo" sexual harassment. The other major type of
sexual harassment involves inappropriate behavior or speech which creates a hostile work
environment.
While a single isolated incident, such as a threat to take a negative personnel action, may be
sufficient to establish quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment claims can be more
complicated. Generally, there must be a series or pattern of events which are sufficiently
offensive that the work environment has been altered to the extent that a reasonable person
would be uncomfortable or that person's productivity would be negatively affected.
However, even one instance of egregious misconduct, e.g., indecent touching, may be
sufficient to create a hostile environment.
VA policy (MP-7, Part I. Change I) also prohibits sexual harassment. According to that
policy. "sexual harassment is unacceptable conduct in the workplace and will not be
condoned." The policy defines sexual harassment as "deliberate or repeated unsolicited
2
122
verbal comments, gestures, or physical contacts of a sexual nature which are unwelcomed.
It is a form of employee misconduct which may create an unproductive or an offensive
working atmosphere and which undermines the integrity ofihe employment relationship."
Scope
To evaluate whether Mr. Calhoun sexually harassed three Medical Center employees, we
interviewed the three women, witnesses who heard or were told of the alleged harassment,
and Mr. Calhoun. All interviews conducted in person, including those with the three
complainants and Mr. Calhoun, were tape recorded and the interviewees were placed under
oath. We also reviewed the personnel records of the three women and obtained available
documentation of the alleged harassment.
3
123
We substantiated the allegations of sexual harassment with respect to one of the three
employees. We found that Mr. Calhoun sexually harassed Complainant No.2.
Regarding Complainant No. I, we determined that Mr. Calhoun did make inappropriate
comments of a sexual nature to her, but we are concerned that a sexual harassment charge
might be difficult to uphold. Given the speech and behavior of Complainant No. I, it could
be found that such comments were not uninvited or offensive to her. With regard to
Complainant No.3, it was her word against Mr. Calhoun's with regard to the sexual
harassment allegation. Therefore, we could not substantiate that allegation, given that
management would have the burden of proof on the issue.
While we could not conclusively determine that he sexually harassed Complainants No. 1
and No.3, we did conclude that Mr. Calhoun's behavior toward them was abusive,
threatening, and inappropriate. We also concluded that Mr. Calhoun was less than truthful
about certain matters in responding to the allegations, which raised some doubt concerning
his credibility.
Complainapt No, 1
The complainant, a secretary to Mr. Calhoun, alleged that on three occasions Mr. Calhoun
made an unsolicited; offensive verbal comment of a sexual nature to her, or threatened to
repeat the comment in the presence of others. The complainant (hereafter referred to as
Complainant No.1, or Ms. A) testified that in February or March 1996, she came into
Mr. Calhoun's office to place some papers on his desk and, as she was leaving, he told her
he had just talked on the telephone to a friend of his and told the friend,that his secretary
does "the strangest thing." He then asked her, "Did you know that every time you get upset
your nipples get hard?" Ms. A told us that her first thought was to slap Mr. Calhoun on the
face, but that she just stared at him and then responded, "No." She said Mr. Calhoun then
told her, "Well, they really do. It's not bad to see you get upset." She testified that she then
left Mr. Calhoun's office without further comment. She said there were no witnesses to this
remark.
4
124
Ms. A testified that, on a second occasion when she was in Mr. Calhoun's office, he
remarked to another person present in the room, "Do you know what happens when [the
complainant] gets excited?" The complainant told us she did not recall if Mr. Calhoun
followed up that remark with a conunent about her nipples. However,the third person in
the room (Complainant No.3, Ms. C) testified that, while Ms. C was talking to
Mr. Calhoun, Ms. A walked in and, after a brief conversation, Mr. Calhoun remarked that
there was something very interesting about Ms. A. According to Ms. C, 1\.1. Calhoun then
remarked that Ms. A's nipples got hard when she was anxious . [Ms. C could not recall if
Mr. Calhoun used the word anxious, nervous, or excited.] Ms. C told us this occurred
around March 1996. According to Ms. C, Ms. A reacted to the remark with a shocked look
on her face, and crossed her arms in front of her.
Ms. A's actions indicate that she was offended and embarrassed by the Director's
statements. Her facial expression, in response to the offensive statements, was described by
Ms. C as "shocked." The crossing of her arms in front of her was clearly an attempt to
cover the part of the body the Director was inappropriately bringing attention to through his
remarks.
Ms. A testified that, several weeks after the first incident, Mr. Calhoun threatened to repeat
the conunent about her nipples in the presence of the Associate Director and the Chief of
Staff. Ms. A told us that after her official duty hours on a Friday afternoon, she delivered a
document to Mr. Calhoun, who was in his conference room with the Associate Director and
Chief of Staff. Upon entering the conference room, Ms. A testified that she told the
Director, Associate Director, and Chief of Staff that she was working late again, was
"drowning" in work and urgently needed additional clerical help to accomplish what
needed to be done. According to Ms. A, Mr. Calhoun responded to her, " You know what
happens to you when you get upset. Do you want me to tell [the Chief of Staff and the
Associate Director] what happens to you when you get upset?" Ms. A testified that she
crossed her arms in front of her, trying to hide her breasts, and responded, "No sir, I don't."
She said she then walked out of the conference room, turned off her computer, and went
home. Ms. A's actions and words again indicate that she found the Dir~ctor's statements
embarrassing and uncomfortable.
Ms. A testified that she told no one about the above remarks for several months. She said
she did not file a sexual harassment charge against Mr. Calhoun because she was afraid of
him and afraid of what her husband would do when he found out. She also testified that she
did not think anyone would believe her allegations.
5
125
In some respects, the Associate Director corroborated Ms. A's testimony with regard to the
third incident. She told us that, while she did not think that Ms. A was shocked, Ms. A did
have "some kind of reaction" to Mr. Calhoun's remark. She testified that after the
complainant 1eft the conference room, Mr. Calhoun told her [the Associate Director],
"You'd have to be a man to appreciate this, so we're not going to even talk about it." The
Associate Director told us that, although Mr. Calhoun did not explain his comment, she
believed she knew what he meant by it. She said that Mr. Calhoun had told her, some time
prior to the above incident, that Ms. A previously had breast surgery and that Ms. A
voluntarily told him that, as a result of the surgery, her nipples got hard when she was upset.
When we asked Mr. Calhoun ifhe had ever made a remark to Ms. A about her breasts, he
knew what we were referring to without us having to tell him the specific comment. He
repeatedly denied that he ever made a remark to or about the complainant in which he used
the word "nipples" or "breasts." He testified that, to the contrary, Ms. A had told him she
had breast surgery and that, as a result of the surgery, her nipples got hard when she was
upset. Mr. Calhoun admitted that, on more than one occasion, he reminded Ms. A, without
specifically saying the word "nipples," about what happens to her when she is upset or
excited. He testified that, on the occasion he was meeting with the Chief of Staff and
Associate Director, he made the comment as a way of telling the complainant to "get out of
here."
Mr. Calhoun initially testified that he did not recall threatening to tell the Associate Director
and Chief of Staff about what happened to the complainant when she got "upset," nor did
he recall telling the Associate Director, "You'd have to be a man to appreciate this ...."
However, when we confronted him with the Associate Director's testimony that she recalled
that he did in fact make those remarks, he stated that he would not argue otherwise. In
short, he did not challenge or in any way rebut the Associate Director's testimony.
The Director's statements to the Associate Director essentially admit that he was well aware
that his statements were offensive and unwelcome to the average woman. The fact that he
would not discuss the subject with the Associate Director, a woman, demonstrates that he
knew the subject was inappropriate and, perhaps inherently, offensive. His statement that
the comment was the equivalent of telling Ms. A to "get out of here" is conclusive evidence
that he was aware that the comments were sufficiently embarrassing to Ms. A that they
would result in her being so uncomfortable that she would leave the room.
Mr. Calhoun, however, also testified that Ms. A made frequent comments about her own
body to the effect that she had a good body for a woman her age and that she was still
6
126
attractive mid desirable. He testified that Ms. A discussed, in fairly explicit teims, her
sexual activities with her husband. According to Mr. Calhoun, Ms. A frequently wore
"inappropriate" clothing of a sexy, provocative nature and would turn every conversation
around to a sexual cOMotation.
Two other witnesses, including the female Associate Director, each o(whom had direct
knowledge about Ms. A, corroborated the Director's testimony with regard to Ms. A's
clothing and speech. The Associate Director testified that Mr. Calhoun told her that Ms. A
said, with regard to the effects of her breast surgery, my husband "likes them better this
way." The Associate Director, in discussing Ms. A's inappropriate clothing, stated that
she believed Ms. A wanted attention. She told us that prior to Ms. A being hired as the
Director's secretary, a staff person who worked with her previously discussed her
inappropriate clothing and behavior. However, the Associate Director stated that Ms. A had
~ever rnad~ an inappropriate remark in her presence.
Ms. A told us that she did tell Mr. Calhoun about her breast surgery because he had asked
her what prompted her active participation in the American Cancer Society. She stated that,
although she did not have breast cancer, she did have breast tissue removed as a preventive
measure and replaced with implants. She indicated that she has spoken to many groups
about breast cancer and her surgery and she is not embarrassed by it or ashamed to discuss
it. However, she denied that she ever told Mr. Calhoun that her nipples got hard when she
was upset or excited.
In analyzing the allegations of sexual harassment, we note that there was no corroborating
witness for the first alleged instance. The corroborating witness for the second alleged
instance is Ms. C, who is the third complainant alleging sexual harassment against
Mr. Calhoun. As we will discuss in more detail in the Complainant No.3 section of this
report, Ms. C, like Ms. A, is a victim of abusive behavior by Mr. Calhoun. Ms. C is not an
unbiased witness. In addition to her allegations, which would be enhanced if sexual
harassment by Mr. Calhoun against Ms. A was substantiated, she is bitter toward
Mr. Calhoun. Given her bitterness toward Mr. Calhoun, she may not be a particularly
independent and objective witness.
Finally, as to the third alleged instance, while the basic facts were confirmed and
corroborated by the Associate Director, Ms. A's testimony was not corroborated with
respect to the offense Ms. A took to the rernark. The Associate Director's testimony was
that Ms. A was upset and fluttery before the Director made the remark and that the remark
itself did not have a major noticeable negative effect on Ms. A. Although, it could be
7
127
argued that it did have the effect intended by Mr. Calhoun, which was to get Ms. A to leave
the room.
We determined that Mr. Calhoun did make inappropriate statements of a sexual nature to
Ms. A about her body. While we consider his statements to and about Ms. A's body
improper and evidence of misconduct, especially for the Director of a VA Medical Center,
we cannot conclude that these remarks constitute a provable case of sexual harassment.
While we do not in any way wish to minimize or condone Mr. Calhoun's remarks, we
believe that his remarks may not have created a hostile and offensive work environment in
terms of sexual harassment.
Given the reportedly sexually oriented speech of Ms. A, i.e., her comments about her
husband's reaction to her breast implants, her comments about her own attractiveness, and
her open comments about her sexual activity with her husband, it is possible that Ms. A
would not prevail in a claim that the Director's comments were offensive or that they
created a hostile work environment, in the context of a sexual harassment case. In fact, it
could be argued that Ms. A, through her own clothing and conversation, inadvertently
created an environment where sexually oriented speech was openly discussed and tolerated.
Irrespective of whether the remarks constitute sexual harassment in a legal sense, such
remarks are nonetheless indecent and totally inappropriate.
In her testimony regarding the allegations of sexual harassment, Ms. A also .alleged that
Mr. Calhoun's behavior toward her was inappropriate in a variety of other ways. For
example, she alleged that Mr. Calhoun shouted at her, used profane language toward her,
refused to speak to her on certain business-related matters, falsely accused her of stealing
from him, and constantly and frequently threatened to fire her (while at the same time
refusing to reassign her). Ms. A testified that the Director'S constant and prolonged abusive
behavior, which persisted for the better part of a year, had been degrading and diminished
her self esteem. She stated that the stress caused by Mr. Calhoun had such a significant
negative effect on her physical and mental health she began routine visits to her family
physician.
Ms. A testified that she initially spent 3 hours talking to her physician about the effects of
Mr. Calhoun's inappropriate behavior towards her. Her physician diagnosed her as
suffering from situational depression, gave her medication and recommended that she stay
away from the workplace. Ms. A eventually filed a claim with ihe Office of Workers'
Compensation due to her stress and that claim was approved.
8
128
We believe that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Director's overall behavior
toward Ms. A created a work environment that was stressful, threatening, and
uncomfortable for Ms. A. She was subjected to terrible stress due the Director's repeated
threats that she would be frred and lose her job. The fact that the Director threatened to
embarrass Ms. A in front of two other people by commenting on her body is indicative of
his abusive treatment toward her. The Director's assertion that he never used the words
"breast" or "nipples" completely misses the point. The point is that he essentially admitted
that his threatened comment, of a sexual nature, was intended to result in Ms. A leaving the
room. If he wanted Ms. A to leave the room, he should have just asked her to do so.
Intentionally abusive comments made by a supervisor to a subordinate are inappropriate,
offensive, indefensible, and an abuse of power. Mr. Calhoun'S behavior toward Ms. A
created an atmosphere that was uncomfortable, stressful, tense, abusive, and non-
productive.
The pattern of behavior exhibited does not seem out of character for Mr. Calhoun. Other
medical center employees interviewed also testified that they found the Director to be
abusive, profane, and threatening. Additional examples of this behavior are discussed in the
following sections.
Complaipapt No.2
The complainant (hereafter referred to as Complainant No. 2 or Ms. B), the Chief of the
Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCR) Section at the time the alleged harassment occurred,
alleged that Mr. Calhoun transferred her from her position because she refused his
suggestion that the two of them have a personal relationship.
Ms. B alleged that quid pro quo sexual harassment occurred because Mr. Calhoun retaliated
against her by implementing an employment decision negatively affecting the complainant
without sufficient justification for the personnel action. Specifically, she alleged that the
Director'! actions concerning her reassignment from her position as the Chief, MCCR
Section to a position she was not qualified for, was caused by her rejection of the Director's
unwelcome sexual advances toward her.
In addition to the unjustified personnel action taken against her, Ms. B also alleged that the
Director's behavior toward her involved threatening behavior and additional unwelcome
and inappropriate corrunents of a sexual nature, which created a hostile and offensive work
environment.
9
129
The evolution of the Director's treatment of Ms. B changed dramatically over time. to
fully appreciate the change, it is necessary to present the full context of their interactions.
Both Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B testified that during the first few months after Mr. Calhoun
arrived at the Fayetteville Medical Center, the two of them met frequently to discuss MCCR
matters. They testified that Mr. Calhoun had a high interest in the MCCR program and
communicated directly with Ms. B to keep abreast of the program's status. Ms. B testified
that during their many meetings, they often had conversations on non-MCCR topics and
joked with one another. She testified that she felt comfortable enough with Mr. Calhoun
that on one occasion shortly after he arrived in Fayetteville she invited him to have dinner
with her and a co-worker, and he accepted the invitation.
Ms. B testified that around September 1994, while she .was in Mr. Calhoun's office
discussing MCCR issues, he told her that now that she was divorced [Ms. B's divorce was
fmal in August 1994], he had something to say to her. Ms. B testified that Mr. Calhoun
asked her who her best friend was and told her that she could not tell her best friend what he
was about to say. Ms. B testified that Mr. Calhoun then told her that he was " interested" in
her. She said she took that comment to mean he had an interest in her that was personal, not
work related. Ms. B said she was surprised by the comment and told Mr. Calhoun that she
was already in a relationship with someone and did not want to jeopardize it. According to
Ms. B, Mr. Calhoun persisted by asking her to "think about it."
A friend of Complainant No. 2 corroborated her testimony about this incident when she
testified that Ms. B told her that Mr; Calhoun had expressed an interest in having a personal
relationship with Complainant No. 2 and that she rejected his proposal. The friend could
not remember exactly when the incident occurred, but said Ms. B told her about it
immediately after it occurred. Ms. B also discussed the incident with her psychologist,
whom she was initially seeing on a non-work related matter, shortly after the incident
occurred. The psychologist also corroborated Ms. B's testimony.
In the weeks that followed the incident, Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B continued to have meetings
to discuss the MCCR program. Ms. B testified that at one of these meetings Mr. Calhoun
told her that he "got sick when he was rejected." Ms. B said that this remark upset her. At
this point, she said that she decided that if Mr. Calhoun made any further unwelcome
remarks to her, she would tell him that she did not appreciate them. She said that she knew,
based on her sexual harassment training, that this was what she was supposed to do. The
psychologist again corroborated Ms. B's statement concerning how the Director reacted to
rejection, based on Ms. B's contemporaneous reporting ofthis event to the psychologist.
10
130
According to Ms. B, during a meeting with Mr. Calhoun in his office in mid-October 1994,
Mr. Calhoun brought up his interest in having a relationship with her once again. Ms. B
testified that Mr. Calhoun said, "You haven't given me an answer yet." She stated that she
asked Mr. Calhoun what he was talking about, and he said, "About my being interested in
you." Ms. B testified she told Mr. Calhoun that she thought she had given him an answer,
and again told him she was not interested because she was already in a relationship that she
did not want to jeopardize. She also said that she told Mr. Calhoun, "Please don't do this to
me." After Ms. B left Mr. Calhoun's office, she remembers feeling intimidated. She
testified that she thought about charging Mr. Calhoun with sexual harassment, but did not
have the nerve to do it.
At this point in time, i.e., after the second incident, Ms. B clearly let the Director know that
she was not interested in a personal relationship with him. By saying, "Please don't do this
to me," she conununicated that his advances were unwelcome and made her uncomfortable.
Ms. B's testimony about this incident was once again corroborated by her psychologist, to
whom she made a contemporaneous report of these events. Ms. B's contemporaneous
reporting of these events were detailed in a written statement that was prepared by the
psychologist. After Ms. B provided the written statement to us, we confirmed with the
psychologist that he had, in fact, written it.
The relationship between Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B began to deteriorate during the next
several weeks. According to Ms. B, by December 1994, Mr. Calhoun's interactions with
her changed. She said their meetings to discuss the MCCR program became less frequent,
and he would often not talk to her when he saw her. Ms. B's psychologist stated that she
told him in January 1995 that "she sensed that rapport had broken down between herself
and Mr. CalhoUn." The psychologist stated that, according to Ms. B, Mr. Calhoun seemed
to be withdrawing from her, and that on passing in halls and on other occasions he appeared
to be glaring at her and unresponsive to her greetings. Ms. B said she believes that the
change in their working relationship occurred because she rejected his -offer to have a
personal relationship.
We talked to four current and former Medical Center employees who had knowledge of the
relationship between Mr. Calhoun and Ms. B. All four told us that they were aware of a
change in that relationship. For example, one employee noted that "all of a sudden ...
nothing [Ms. B] did was right." Another employee told us that Mr. Calhoun seemed to
"tum" on Ms. B. These witnesses corroborated Ms. B's testimony that her working
relationship with Mr. Calhoun noticeably changed for the worse.
11
131
Mr. Calhoun denied that he ever had anything except a strictly professional relationship
with the complainant. He testified that they discussed only ~CCR business during their
frequent meetings. He did acknowledge that he once went out for drinks with Ms. B. He
testified that the reason he began to meet less frequently with Ms. B to discuss the MCCR
program was that he was not pleased with her performance and "just backed off."
By January 1995, Ms. B sensed that the rapport between herself and Mr. Calhoun had
broken down completely. She described an incident in which Mr. Calhoun became furious
with her and shouted and cursed at her in front of other employees. Mr. Calhoun admitted
to us that he does have a problem in that he does curse too much at work in front of staff.
He testified that in recent months he tried to improve in this area by being less emotional
and cursing less.
Ms. B said that she felt threatened by Mr. Calhoun's belligerence toward her and feared that
he might actually strike her. She stated that Mr. Calhoun later apologized to her for his
outburst, and then said to her, "I really miss the days when if a woman was out of line you
could just slap her around."
In his written statement, the psychologist corroborated that Ms. B related to him a pattern of
inappropriate behavior towards her on the part of Mr. Calhoun, to include verbal abuse,
physical intimidation, and sexual harassment. The psychologist stated that Ms. B told him
the Director's behavior created a work environment that made her feel frustrated and
intimidated.
Ms. B said the situation became more than she could tolerate when, in February 1995, while
discussing her work with Mr. Calhoun in his office, Mr. Calhoun made a sexual remark,
"You have beautiful tits." She stated that she responded, "That's not what we are here to
talk about." She said they completed their discussion and she left. Ms. B reported this
sexual abuse to her psychologist immediately after it occurred. The psychologist's written
statement to us conftnned that Ms. B contemporaneously reporte~ the unwelcome,
offensive sexual comment. Mr. Calhoun denied making the statement.
Ms. B testified that at about the time the above incident occurred, she heard from others that
Mr. Calhoun was spreading rumors that she had made advances toward him. Ms. B stated.
"This is clearly untrue and is nothing more than an unlawful power move on his part to
humiliate and embarrass me."
12
132
Ms. B stated to her psychologist that these accumulated events were increasingly distressing
to her and were placing her in a quandary. She stated that she was disillusioned by
Mr. Calhoun's behavior in that he was the Director who, rather than harassing her, should
have been protecting her from harassment. She stated that her concentration, anent ion and
feelings of being imposed on, and feelings of helplessness in this situation, were impacting
on her mood. She noted sleep problems, bad dreams, and flashbacks to the occasions
discussed above.
Ms. B stated that sometime in early 1995, Mr. Calhoun referred to a report of a recent
inspection of the MCCR Section as a "piece of shit," even though the inspection report
found no problems with the Section. She said that he described the team that inspected the
MCCR Section as "useless."
In early May 1995, Mr. Calhoun directed that Ms. B be removed as Chief of the MCCR
Section and be reassigned to another position. The reassignment was effective June 11 ,
1995. TIle complainant said that she was assigned to a budget analyst position even though
she had no experience or training for that position. Ms. B testified that she believed
Mr. Calhoun directed that she be put in this position because he was "sening her up" to fail.
The former Acting Chief of Human Resources corroborated the complainant's testimony by
advising us that, in his opinion, she probably lacked the necessary skills to be a budget
analyst. In fairness, however, according to Ms. B, the former Fiscal Chief told her that he
thought she could handle the budget analyst position.
Mr. Calhoun testified that he wanted to reassign Ms. B from her MCCR position because,
under her direction, the program was not generating as much income as it could, because
Ms. B was not being effective as a supervisor, and because she was not trying to improve
her performance.
We found no evidence that Ms. B's performance, or the performance of the MCCR Section,
was unsatisfactory. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. For example, on her
performance appraisals covering the periods April 1993 to March 1994 and April 1994 to
March 1995, Ms. B received an "exceptional" rating in the critical element of "MCCR
operations." This critical element includes the standard, " insures that all phases of the
MCCR Unit capture all billable cases to anain maximum reimbursement." In addition, on
performance appraisals for the two rating periods, Ms. B was rated "fully successful" in the
13
133
Furthermore, for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the MCCR Section exceeded its maximum
collection goal established by VA Central Office. In fact, in her April 1995 management
briefing on the MCCR program, Ms. B noted that the Fayetteville VA Medical Center was
one of 15 Medical Centers nationwide that was recognized at the national MCCR
conference for obtaining IO-percent or more growth in collections for three consecutive
years. Having met or exceeded the fmancial collection goals for the MCCR program, the
Director's complaints about her performance appear without merit and pretextual.
With regard to the Director's allegations about Ms. B's problems as a supervisor, we talked
to the employee who was executive vice president of the union at the Fayetteville VA
Medical Center when Ms. B was reassigned. He told us two employees supervised by
Ms. B discussed with him that they were dissatisfied with Ms. B's management style. The
union official told us the two employees did not file a formal grievance against Ms. B.
Despite our three requests to the union official to provide us documentation he testified he
had regarding the employees' complaints, we never received it. According to the current
Chief, Human Resources Management Service, no grievances were ever filed by any
employee against Ms. B. While Mr. Calhoun personally met with Ms. B's two disgruntled
subordinate employees, his testimony that there were "near riots down there" in Ms. B's
section seems an exaggeration given that no formal grievance was ever filed. In addition, it
appears that Ms. B was pressing her employees to produce more, just as Mr. Calhoun was
pressing her.
Mr. Calhoun did not carefully consider a new position for the complainant.
According to the former Chief of Fiscal Service, who was in that position and was Ms. B's
immediate supervisor at the time of her reassignment, Mr. Calhoun directed him to transfer
Ms. B from her MCCR position. The former Chief of Fiscal Service told us that
Mr. Calhoun was adamant that Ms. B be transferred and told him she could be reassigned to
any other position either in Fiscal Service or elsewhere in the Medical Center. The former
Chief of Fiscal Service said he was in need of a Budget Analyst so he offered her that
position.
Ms. B testified that she did not believe she was qualified for the Budget Analyst position.
As stated, she said she believed Mr. Calhoun was "setting her up" to fail in that position.
The former Acting Chief of Human Resources Management Service. who was in that
14
134
position atl the time Ms .. B w~ reassigned to the Budget Analyst position, told us he
believed Ms. B probably did not have the skills necessary for that position. He also said,
\lowever, that, as a "company man," he offered no objection to the reassignment.
Our assessment of Ms. B's work experience indicates that she was not qualified for the
Budget Analyst position. Her work experience beginning in 1972 was primarily in the
secretarial and clerical field. Prior to being selected as the Chief, MCCR in 1993, she
participated in the Medical Center's "upward mobility" program and supervised the release
of information under the Freedom ofinformation Act and supervised the billing clerks. We
do not believe this experience provided her the knowledge required for the Budget Analyst
position. As described in the position description, the Budget Analyst incumbent requires a
comprehensive and detailed knowledge of budgetary policy, pertinent legislation and
regulations, principles and concepts of budgeting for appropriated and revolving fund
accounts, knowledge of salary forecasting and budgeting programs, and knowledge of the
Medical Center's mUltiple and complex programs to plan, analyze, and forecast aspects of
the budget. Ms. B had no experience whatsoever related to these budgetary matters.
Mr. Calhoun testified that he had directed many reassignments in the medical center when
those occupying the positions were not performing satisfactorily. Here, however, it appears
that his actions revealed no consideration for Ms. B as an employee or for the medical
center's need to have qualified employees in all positions. At best, assuming the
reassignment of Ms. B out of the MCCR was valid (and we are not persuaded it was),
solving one personnel problem while simultaneously creating a new personnel problem
demonstrates a lack of managerial judgment and insight.
Ms. B testified that her reassignment involved a move from the main Medical Center
building, where Mr. Calhoun's office was located, to another building on the grounds of the
facility. She testified that one morning, several weeks after her reassignment, she
encountered Mr. Calhoun as she was coming up the front steps to the main building. Ms. B
said she was on her way to the canteen, which is located in that building. She testified that
when she returned to her office, the former Chief of Fiscal Service told her that
Mr. Calhoun had called him to ask why she was in the building and instructed him to tell
her she was no longer allowed to be there. As a result, Ms. B said her work duties were
changed because she was required to go to the main building on a daily basis to the agent
cashier's office. About 2 weeks later, according to Ms. B. Mr. Calhoun retracted his
15
135
directive. The former Chief of Fiscal Service corroborated this incident. Mr. Calhoun,
however, in yet another instance where his credibility is called into question, denied that he
ever restricted Ms. 8 from the main bUilding.
Mr. Calhoun's asserted problems with Ms. 8's MCCR performance do not explain or justify
the order to keep Ms. 8 out of the building. On the other hand, Ms. 8's rejection of the
Director's advances could serve as an explanation, although not a justification, of his order
barring Ms. 8 from the building.
We believe Ms. 8's allegations of sexual harassment are substantiated, both for the quid pro
quo sexual harassment and for creating a hostile work environment. The quid pro quo
sexual harassment was as a result of Mr. Calhoun's retaliation against Ms. B by reassigning
her to a position that she was not qualified for because she rejected his suggestions for a
personal relationship. Creating a hostile and offensive work environment resulted because,
in addition to his unwelcomed advances to have a personal relationship, Mr. Calhoun
continued to make unwelcome and inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to Ms. 8
after she had clearly indicated her discomfort with such comments. We found the
testimony of Ms. 8 to be credible in that her testimony was corroborated over and over
again by the testimony of other medical center employees and her psychologist.
The actions of the Director are also troubling in that they continue to reveal a pattern of a
profane, intimidating, and threatening manager. The incident with Ms. B. for which Ms. B
said that Mr. Calhoun apologized, involved both profanity and anger to the point that Ms. B
was concerned for her physical well being. This incident provides further support that
Mr. Calhoun was inexcusably abusive toward medical center employees.
16
136
Complaigagt No.3
The complainant (hereafter referred to as Complainant No. 3 or Ms. C), a staff assistant,
alleged that Mr. Calhoun made unsolicited verbal C0mments of a sexual nature to her.
Ms. C testified that, in March or April 1996, she was in Mr. Calhoun's office discussing a
business related matter, when he told her he had a dream about her the previous night.
According to Ms. C, Mr.-Calhoun told her, "I dreamt that I went to bed with you." Ms. C
told us she tried to take the remark as a joke, but that after she laughed, Mr. Calhoun told
her, "It could be worth your while." Ms. C testified that she told Mr. Calhoun she was not
at all interested and would never do that. However, according to the complainant,
Mr. Calhoun brought up the subject of his "dream" again on a subsequent occasion. She
said there were no witnesses to the remarks on either occasion.
Ms. C also testified that around the end of April 1996, just prior to a visit she made to see
her boyfriend, Mr. Calhoun made a derogatory remark to her about the boyfriend and then
told her that he {Mr. Calhoun] "could take care" of her. Ms. C said Mr. Calhoun again told
her, "It could be worth your while." She said that, again, there were no witnesses to this
remark. Ms. C did not file sexual harassment charges against Mr. Calhoun at the time he
made the remarks to her, but told us she was planning to file a sexual harassment lawsuit
against him.
Mr. Calhoun denied that he made any of the above comments to Ms. C. He said he knew
Ms. C for over 10 years (she was his secretary when he was Associate Director at the
Buffalo Medical Center), and he would not have waited that long to make a sexual advance
towards her. He suggested that Ms. C was angry at him because he transferred her out of
her previous position, and that she had falsely made the accusations in revenge.
We were not able to substantiate the allegations of sexual harassment against Complainant
No.3 because, in this case, it was her word against his. Unlike Complainant No.2, there
was no independent corroboration. On the other hand, the allegations fit a pattern of
behavior alleged against the Director by both of the other complainants.- In addition, as
discussed in the next section, Mr. Calhoun's credibility is lacking. Finally, it is worth noting
that Mr. Calhoun's own statement indicates he does not consider sexual advances toward
subordinate females inappropriate. He never said that such a sexual advance was in any
way inappropriate; rather, he indicated that he would not have waited so long to make such
an advance.
17
137
Like Ms. A and Ms. B, Ms. C alleged that Mr. Calhoun behaved inappropriately towards
her in addition to allegedly making sexual remarks. Ms. C related to us instances in which
Mr. Calhoun shouted and cursed at her, threatened her position and pay, and made
unreasonable demands of her. For example, Ms. C stated that when Mr. Calhoun wanted to
reassign her from her position as his GS-8 secretary to a GS-7 position, he told her that if
she did not sign the statement voluntarily requesting the reassignment, she would be a GS-3
by the time he was fmished with her. On another occasion, after her reassignment, Ms. C
stated that Mr. Calhoun called her into his office and angrily accused her of being a bigot,
lying to him, and stabbing him in the back. She said he told her he never wanted her to
speak to him again and then demanded that she leave his office. Ms. C told us that she
feared he was going to hit her.
Ms. C said she believed that the root of most of her problems with Mr. Calhoun was that he
was having an affair with another secretary who worked in the Director's office, and that
secretary would use her relationship with Mr. Calhoun to undermine Ms. C. As a result,
Ms. C and the other secretary openly argued on a frequent basis, to the point of disrupting
the office. The Associate Director said that the arguing, would at times, get loud and out of
control. On one occasion, she said she closed her door and just let them fight it out.
Ms. C told us that Mr. Calhoun acknowledged to her that he was having the affair. When
we interviewed Mr. Calhoun, he denied having such an affair.
Credibility Determination
As in virtually all cases involving sexual harassment, the testimony of the complainants and
the alleged harasser are conflicting on most of the significant events. In this case,
Mr. Calhoun denied making certain statements. Therefore, in order to make a
determination about the truth or falsity of the statements made, we are sometimes required
to make determinations about the credibility of the parties involved. For the reasons that
follow, we gave credence to the testimony of Complainant No. 2 regarding events
described, rather than to the Director's denials.
For example, several factors were critical in our determination that Ms. B's testimony was
credible and the Director's was not. First, Ms. B's testimony and her allegations were
consistently buttressed and supported by independent corroboration from numerous
sources. On the other hand, the Director's credibility was severely damaged because his
version of several events was contradicted by a variety of sources. Finally, our inquiry
18
138
reveals that there is a pattern to the allegations of sexual harassment by the Director (as well
as a pattern of abusive, hostile behavior toward employees at the VA Medical Center). The
behavior patterns demonstrated by the Director provide considerable support for the
complainant's assertions.
With regard to the corroborating testimony of other witnesses, we recognize that in some
cases, such as the friend in whom Ms. B confided and the psychologist to whom Ms. B
relayed the events as they occurred, the corroborating witnesses do not have first hand
knowledge of the events in question, but instead are repeating what Ms. B told them about
the events. Nonetheless, the corroborating evidence is persuasive. Both the friend and the
psychologist advised us that Ms. B's statements to them about the Director's remarks and
behavior were immediate, or contemporaneous, with the actual events. It strains credulity
to believe that Ms. B falsified all of the information that she provided to other individuals
with an eye toward eventually bringing wholly fabricated accusations against the Director.
Ms. B's credibility is especially enhanced by the testimony of the other witnesses with direct
knowledge of events. For example, four witnesses testified that, after the Director'S
expressions of interest in Ms. B, the professional relationship between the two deteriorated,
just as Ms. B said it did. Three of the four witnesses indicated that they personally observed
a change in the behavior of the Director as compared to his prior behavior toward her. In
addition, the former Acting Chief of Human Resources independently confirmed Ms. B's
assertion that she did not have certain skills that were necessary for a budget analyst.
The Director's credibility, on the other hand, is damaged by evidence supplied by witnesses
with direct knowledge of events that completely contradicts his statements. For example,
the former Fiscal Chief testified that the Director banned Ms. B from the building in which
the Director worked. While the Director denied this, the resulting actions taken by the
Fiscal Chief, i.e., immediately telling Ms. B about the order and having her restructure her
duties to comply with the Director's order shortly after it was made, all support the
credibility of Ms. B at the expense of the credibility of the Director. - As discussed
previously in the section dealing with Complainant No. I, the Director denied a particular
statement when an independent witness testified that she heard the remark.
In addition, the Director's testimony about his reasons for reassigning the complainant, i.e.,
for her poor performance, are directly contradicted by substantial documentary evidence,
including her performance appraisals, the external review of the MCCR program and, most
notably, the recognition of the accomplishments of the MCCR program under her
leadership.
19
139
With regard to Complainant No.1, the Director initially told us he could not recall that he
threatened to tell the Associate Director and Chief of Staff about what happened to the
complainant when she got "upset." When told that the Associate Director corroborated
Ms. A's statements, the Director did not challenge the Associate Director's recollection.
While Mr. Calhoun acknowledged to making some sort of statement along the lines of the
allegation, he denied ever using the words "breasts" or "nipple." He did, however, admit to
making the threat with the intent of getting Ms. A to leave the room.
In short, the pattern of denials by the Director, in the face of credible, contrary testimony,
makes the Director's credibility suspect. Just as important, Ms. B's credibility was enhanced
and supported by both independent witnesses with direct knowledge of events as well as by
her own contemporaneous statements to several witnesses over many months, all of which
support her independent testimony. To believe the Director, one would have to conclude
that there was widespread conspiracy of many individuals, all of whom were lying, under
oath, in their testimony to us. There is evidence that tends to disprove the Director's denials
with respect to the first and second complainants.
With respect to Complainant No.3 and Mr. Calhoun, a credibility determination was more
difficult. For example, Mr. Calhoun said that, when Ms. C worked for him at the Buffalo
Medical Center, he did not want to keep her as his secretary because he considered her
incompetent, but the Director would not agree to a change. Yet, Mr. Calhoun then hired
Ms. C to be his secretary at the Fayetteville Medical Center and paid permanent change of
station money to move her to North Carolina. Mr. Calhoun's actions and statements
concerning Ms. C appear inconsistent.
Ms. C, on the other hand, was extremely bitter about the way her life worked out after she
left Buffalo to go to Fayetteville. She said she felt betrayed and she was very upset toward
Mr. Calhoun for the favoritism that he had shown the Associate Director's secretary over
her. The depth of her emotions toward Mr. Calhoun suggests that it may have been a
personal, and not just a professional relationship, that did not work out. This was partially
supported by the fact that Mr. Calhoun admitted that he did household repairs for Ms. C at
her home and gave her a key to his house. Ms. C said that Mr. Calhoun was like a brother
to her when they worked together in Buffalo.
20
140
Conclusion
Mr. Calhoun's statements to Ms. A constitute inappropriate, abusive language on his part.
Mr. Calhoun made deliberate, offensive comments of a sexual nature to Ms. A. However,
because Ms. A may have opened the door to such language, we were unable to conclude
that the remarks contributed to an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment.
He was aware that Ms. A found the comments unwelcome. Due to the stress that resulted
from the overall abuse by Mr. Calhoun, Ms. A removed herself from the workplace. Some
of the comments Mr. Calhoun made to her were witnessed by others, and Mr. Calhoun
acknowledged that he said some of the offensive remarks. He also admitted to being loud,
emotional, and profane.
Regarding Complainant No.2, Mr. Calhoun made an unwelcome sexual advance towards
her, even after she refused his initial advance. After Ms. B refused his advances,
Mr. Calhoun changed the conditions of their working relationship and reassigned her from
her position. We found no persuasive work-related reason for Mr. Calhoun to have
reassigned Ms. B. His explanation, that she was not performing well, is not supported by
her annual appraisals or by statistical evidence of her program's performance.
Mr. Calhoun's directive that Ms. B not enter the main Medical Center building, where his
office was located, further suggests that his motive in reassigning her was personal, not
professional. We concluded that Mr. Calhoun's actions constituted "quid pro quo" sexual
harassment. We also concluded that Mr. Calhoun created a hostile work environment for
Ms. B through continued intimidating, inappropriate and unwelcome comments of a sexual
nature. We believe that Mr. Calhoun's harassment of Ms. B effectively ended her career at
the Fayetteville Medical Center and resulted in her having to move at her own expense to
another VA facility.
In addition to the sexual harassment, the Director's actions with respect to Ms. B evidence
poor judgment, deficient management actions, and abuse of authority. It seems that
Mr. Calhoun created an intimidating atmosphere and made decisions contrary to the best
interests of Ms. B and the medical center.
While we were unable to substantiate the allegations of sexual harassment with regard to
Mr. Calhoun and Ms. C, we cannot dismiss Ms. C's allegations as false. Given the
Director's lack of credibility with regard to the other allegations of sexual harassment, we
believe that there is a possibility that this complainant may have been sexually harassed, but
we could not make a defmitive determination based on the lack of independent.
corroborative evidence. We did find that Mr. Calhoun was abusive in his treatment of
21
141
Ms. C, and he often displayed loud, emotional, and intimidating behavior. Further, he
allowed a tense and disruptive office environment involving Ms. C and another secretary
that he allegedly favored, to continue unabated.
Recommendation:
The VISN 6 Network Director should take appropriate administrative action against
Mr. Calhoun for the misconduct and abuse of authority, as detailed in this report.
The Network Director concurred with our fmdings and recommendation. He told us he met
with his Regional Counsel and with the Chief Network Officer, and was in the process of
fmalizing a plan of action to implement the recommendation. The Network Director's
comments are in the appendix to this report.
We will review the Network Director's plan of action to ensure it is responsive to our
recommendation and follow up on that plan until the issue is resolved.
22
142
APPENDIX
10fl
....
Department of
Veterans Affairs Memorandum
::i. , ':,ruJlc:. c:.J:&t: 1d'Y 'P"'J'~o"'w ~WpCJIII1dan.:. to ycc vi!! IoI.l':'ow ymI
to ~t..1Y ~ ... L=- u ..a. :n.l.-..1 ~ SCDUtu= LLr..uob.
Paire.1ot:..b.. "1. . . ~oct:ac~ ao O~ A:W. ~C.t:o.:9OQ~ ~w.1l.::1 yo\; :le.::t
4ctcU':.ionuJ. :"'='O:Dlc...Lcx.
1. i: bePfl C.O PTovtde ym; ~\.~ a t=1-.r. r.t llct!.on t:y o:~ot:.. r l~
: ~.6. 'rhar.k you and your .C'c~ to:, y=ur =rvi.v of tJrl.. oatt.r.
23
143
Department-of Memoranaum
Veterans Affairs
-- Seplem&wr28. 1_
fJl8dic:aI CentBrDiA!dor (6OaIQo)
~ s"eciaf lnqullyRepoIt
LaQy-P.~M.D.
Cirec:I, vlSN 5
Oepa~nt of'VeteransAtrah'$
300 Motgan Street. SUite 1402
Durham. N.C. 2n01
=;re~~' "'~'''
Miidrc:el Center
VA. Med'1C8I Cen1et
Oit~f <:s
~ Fteedom.Way
AugUsta, GeQrgla 30904-6285
Attachrnet\t
144
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The. D;rmor
The VA Medleaf Cente:". Fayetteville, N.C operates 171 hospital beds and a 39
bed Nunsjng Home Can! Unit. Operating beds include a 25 bed substance abuse
treatment unit (tempomnly d~ atld a sateIite hemoctalysis unit Se!\lit:a$
inc:iude ambuiatnty surgery, a mental health unit., and a me<flC3Vsurgic:aJ Intensive
can;: unit A c:ommuruty nursing home prcglam facililatesthe outplacement of
long-term care patients. Extended care programs include residential care. respite
care. a geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) unit, hospice care and a
preventive health progtam. There are apprCldmately 163.905 veterans In
Fa.yet1e\lHle's primarysetlli<:e area. Approximately SS% gf the veterans who
receive care frcm this faCiIlty have Getvice<Qnnedec! disabirrties. Outj:latient-visits
totaled 111.555 In FY 1995. The ambulatory care prc9(arT1S were enhanced by
the activation of an 87,000 SF clinical addltlQn in late 1981.
The VA Medica! Cel'\ter has a sharing agreement with Womack Army Medical
Centerwtaid1 provides Fa)'13Ueville V/W.C with ambulance servi=es. backup CT
scanning. backup mammography examinations, major surgical gynecology
pnx:edures, backup blood supply. aural rehabilitation therapy. ambulatory
rehabilitation medic:al seNic:es. backlJP VClscufar tadiology $E!lVk:es and \/3Scular
surgecy ccnsuf!::aOOn and procgdures. This medical center provides nudear
medicine studies. blood support lab testing. speechlang~e tes1ing. EKG. EEG.
mecflC3l and surgical consultation. psy--hii:!tric SeM~. alcohol rehabilibtion and
2. Neiwotk S Special Inquity. VAMC, FayeaeYilte. N.C.
Fay~ VA Medical Center Qlso has chatfng ~naetnents with Pope AFB
Medical crlnk:. under which VA provides physIcal therapy. endoscopy
e.w:amlnatlons. treadmM testing. halter n'IOnltotlng. and sulgical consultants_
II. BACI(GROU"O
A recent series CIf allegations and ~pfajnts by several present and former
emp\Qyee$ to 1he NetltCrK Oiredor. NetHor\( Clinical Manager and Network Staff
resulted in thIS visit to the Fayetteville VA Medical Center on June 17..20. 1996_
ut. ME'TMODOLOGY
'The reviewer ccndu<:b1 inteMews wi'J1 selectEd etJmmt and former senlct
management official!: and other elTlployees and fonner emplayea-s at all levels
within the Med"acal Center. An inteMew was also held with the Superintendent.
Board of Educ::afian. Fayetteville. The tevje~r contacted the offia:!s of the Mayor
of Fayetteville and the Chan<:ellor, Fayetteville State University, In an effcrt to
soIic:it their input Hcmever. these efforts ~ unsu~fut Interviews were also
cls
held with Veteran SeMQe Officers (VSO). voltmteer5. VIeR as, Netwotl( 6 strlf.
The DiredOi was provided an opportlJnity during thGl re'vieN tg prviide names :ot
indhliduals whom he wished to have inteNievved: No discussions/conversations
were tape ream:led..
146
rI. FlNOINGS
'Based upon a tourcftne Mecfal Center with Mr. Calhoun, my Interactions and
con~tior.s wdf'l senior management staIVstaff in.genefBI, VSOs. volunteers and
ccmm~.auakehok:ef3., it was clear that many improvements have been made at
ctle f:a,eueviUe VA MecflC8l Center since Mr. calhoun's appointment as Oiteetcr.
FQt ~pIe. the Implementation at primary care. renovationlupd~ patient care
areas. ~ ~l'IShips with Womack Army Haspifal and estabIisrung an
e1fedMl relationship witf11he local middle and senior High Schools whereby
PaJ1ner&hips have been ee1abflShed with stuCents. Another example. of positive
changas that have occurred during Mr. Calhoun's tenure, Is SI'I internal
reQl'ganizatiOl1a1 effot't that is consistent with changes that are occumng nationally
inVHA.
it was aear during ttle visit that there an! three "Camps' within the Medical Center;
thoSe that are staund1 supporters CJf Mr. Calhoun. those that are adamantly
against him and th~; 1hat try to be neutral and cbjec:tiw.
The allegations and o:IOcems that had previously been brought to the attention of
the Networir: Director ~bout Mr. Calhoun resutfaced during this visit These
inc:iuded: consistenUy usit\g profanity in forums Which inQuded key staff. openly
embarrassing key staff in the presence cf peer.!. using radaJ epitaphs. threatening
staff C'tD fire- or "shoot tf1emj, ~ various remale employees. including his
present and previous seaetarIGs, and showing fayaritism toward certain staff by
pramoting them. OYer 62% of the indIviduals inteMewed expressed a lack of-
respect. ~ or confidence in Mr. Calhol.ln as Diredcr and do not feel comfortable
In his presence. This 910UP felt his management styie has adversely impacted
morale and dMded staff.
Mr. caJhoun admitted that he. in the past. had used pl'Qfane language, but had
improved his behavior in this respect He also indiQ2d that he had made
comments to staff that he would "shoot" them but it was not meant as a threat; it
was just a "metaphcr".
V. CONCLUSIONS
As discussed in the findings sedion of this report. Mr. Calhoun initiated several
pn:ISratnS and changes tIlatw11l add value to the Medical Center as ;( whole thus
ad~1tIg valUe to ~ent :::are. .Also discussed were the concems/allegations raised
by the staff, some admitted by Mr. Calhoun.
147
1. This is 10 document the agreement reached ~ allegations of sexual harassment and hoslie -rc
environmenl, and the subsequent inYestigalion by the Oftice of the Inspector General, agains( Mr. Jerome CahJun,
Oireclor, VAMC Fayelteville, North Carolina. By reference 10 the rescinded leiter of proposed removal, daIecl-OcIober 24,
1996, Mr. Calhoun Is aware 0( the general nalure 0( the a!legations agalns( hlm. As an Informal resolution 10 1hIs maller,
the parties agree to the following:
a Mr. Calhoun resigns from the SenIor Executive Service to be appointed 10 the position 01 Special
Assistant 10 the Oireclor, VA Me<f1Ca! Center, Bay Pines, Florida, in the grade of GS-14 with save pay (salary retention). As
a managemenl action delermlned 10 be In the best Interest of the govemmen~ Mr. Calhoun wiD receive salary retention
approval under the Seaelary's cfoscretionary authority in acconlance with 5 CFR 536.104(b), delegated 10 VA
Administration Heads for positions GS-14 and below by memorandum delegation authority (#1) dated Apnll995.
b. The effective date of the resignation and appointment is January 19 1997. Mr. Calhoun will remain in
ejetaff status whUe relocation is being ananged.
C. Mr. Calhoun may be considered for re-enlty into the Senior Executive Service after three years of
satisfactory performance and documentation of positive efforts, tJaining, counsefing, and growth towards relating to the
treatment of women.
e. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6308, and 5 U.S.C. 6304, Mr. Calhoun's leave balance as of January 19,
1997, not in excess of nil hours, wintJansfer to his new position and will become his personal leave ceiling. The personal
leave ceiling will be reduced in any leave year in which more leave is used than eamed. The reduced end of year leave
balance will constitute the new personal leave ceiling.
2. Mr. Calhoun is aware of his due prOcess rights as specified in FPM Supplement 920-1,SI0-5(d), including, but not
limited 10, a 30 day advanced notice of charges (leiter or proposed adverse action), at least 7 days to reply 10 charges, a
right to be represented by an attomey or other representative and a right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
3. Mr. Calhoun waives all due process rights with regards to this matter.
4. Mr. Calhoun waives aU admiilis!Jative appeal, grievance, and EEO rights regarding this matter.
5. Mr. Calhoun waives any claims 10 attorney fees or any other monetary claims nol specifically agreed to herein.
6. This agreement may not be revoked or amended In any part by Mr. Calhoun.
7. By entering inlo this agreement, Mr. Calhoun does no( admit guilt 10 the aforementioned allegations of misconduct
8. This agreement shall not serve as a precedent for resoMng other matters.
9.
The undersigned agree that this agreement is entered into voIuntanly~n n ~ /, { ~f'7
~~&w~~~~=L4~~~~p?1 ~~ /I'~ (~~,/
Date Jule Moravec, Ph.D. Date
Chief Network Officer
148
1. This is to notify you that it is proposed to remove you from the Senior E.x.ecutlvc Semce
and the Federal Servi= This action is based on misconduct ~ charges for which this action is
proposed are as follOWll:
1. While talking to Judy Dawkins, your secretmy. and Susan CaIuana, Medical
Service Staff Assistant (and your former secrctmy), around March 1996. you rema:rked that "th=
was something Verj iJ;J.t=ting about Ms. Dawkins - Her nipples got hard when sbo was anxious."
or words to that effect Ms. Dawkins was offended by the disrespectful comment You knew or
should have known that this act could he interpreted as harassment, disrespectful and/or
unprofessional conduct Your actions in this matter constitute a violation of 5 CFR Section
735.203. which proluOiU IIIl employee from engaging in "criminal, infiunoU!!. dishonest, immoral,
or notorioU!!ly disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to the Government."
II. Around April 1996. Judy Dawkins. your sec::retaIy. entered a conference room
where you were meetiJ;J.g with the Associate Director and Chief of Staff. Ms. Dawkins cotim1entcd
that she was drowning in work and urgently needed additional clerical help. You responded to
Ms. Dawkins, "you know what happens to you when you get upset. Do you WIIIIl me to tell [the
Chief of staff and the Associate Director] what happens when you get upset,n or words to that
effect Ms. Dawkins felt that you were referring to her bteast:7 (sec Charge I li=in). and sbo was
offended by the di=spc>ctful remarlc. In the testimony that you gave to the Inspector O=al's
Office, you admitted tnaIcin& the oommenU.! a way of telling Ms. Dawkins to,"gCt out ofbe::e"
(1.0. Trans. B.p p.103). You knew or should have known that tbis comment could have been
interpreted as h.arassmeut, disrespectful andlor unprofessional conduct. Your actions in this matter
constitute a 'lio1a1ion or 5 CFR Section 735.203, which prohibits an employe~ from engaging in
"c;rimina1, infamous, dishonest, immoral, Or nDtonously disgraceful conduct or other conduct
prejudicial to tho Oovernment."
149
N. In Febtuary 1995, while discussing Cynthia ForCe', WOlkin your office you
mnarlced, "you have beautiful tits, " or words to that effect. Ms. Forc:e, again, rejected your
advance. You knew or 5hDuld have known that your conduct bad the effect of'tmI!ing an
or offcwive wodcing environment, which is a form of sexuaI harassment,
jntjmjdBtjng, hostile,
identified at 29 eFR Section 1604. I 1(a)(3).
V. In May 1995. you dirCcted Iha1 Cyulhia. Force be reassigDedout of the MCCR
Olordlnator position. Ms. F= was assigned into a Budget AnaIy$t po-sitiOIl, even though she
1acked the necessary tIaining and experience for tlmtjob. Ms. Farte's prior rejoctions of your
sexuaI rc:marlc3Iadvance:s were used by you as a basis for your decision to remove Ms. Force from
her MCCR position; your conduct constituted sc:xual harassmeat identified at 29 CFR Section
1604.1 1(a){2).
\r11. In Septcml-or 1995, Susan Caruana, your formec socre'.2!j. accepted a change to a
lower graded position out of fcar of being rued. In October 1995. you and Ms. Caruana discussed
150
tho possibility oCher retumiog as your scorctary, and you specifically discussc:d a listllfrequcsts
made by Ms. Ca:uana. In expIainii1g to the Inspector Gcac:ral', OfIice your bmldwriueu: IIOtc3 00
the list ofrequcst3, you admi1ted to "hollering" at Ms. Caruana for pcrlormance-rc1atcd matter.!
(lG. T[8Q. 8.0 p. 38). You blew or sho-.1ld have known that bo\lc:riog 111 ~ COnstitutes
disrcspcctful c.>oduct, which u particularly unbecoming of a VA McdkaI CcuIcr Dimctor.
2. You haV!! the right to reply to this notice orally, or in writing, or both orally and in writing,
:md to submit affidsvilS in SUpport of your reply, showing why this ootice is inaocuraIIc aod any
other reasons 'Why your mnoval should not be effected. You will be allowed eight (8) hollr.l of
official duty time Cor reviewing the evidence relied on to sappan 1hc reasons in thIa DOtioe,
preparing a written rePly, securing affidavits, and making a pcnouaI ttply. Amuacmems for the
use of official time or requests fur additional time should be DJBde with me. Yau h&ve the right to
be n:pre$CIItcd by an attorney or other rcprc3eDllIIive
3. You .....ill be given UDlil close of business on November 8, 1996, to reply to these reasom
orally, in writing, or both orally and in writing. The evidence au which this notice of proposed
action is based is atrached. Your written reply should be submitted through me to the Chief
Network Officer. The OUefNetworlc Officer will receive your oral reply or will dcIigoate Ell
official or officials ro reocivc< it If you wish to make an onIl response, you may contact Caren
EUkson, Executive PersoDllc!, at (202) 273-4937, to make arrangements fur an appainrment with
the ChiefNetwodc OfIica or his desigoaml official. If you do net understand the above reasons
";'hy your removal is proposed, you truly contact Caren Eirkson or me for a further explanation.
4. The final decision to effect the action proposed has not been made. The OUcfNctwork
Officer, who will make the final decision, will give full and impartial consideration to your reply.
if a replyis submitted.
5. Senior Executive Service (SES) members, beause of their greater respoIl!ibilitics. have a
significant impact on agency programs and public image. Consequently, offenses by them are
considered more serious and would norma1ly warrant the imposition of a more sevm: peiIalty.
Regulation.!! for ad~ actionS in 1hc SES proride for only twQ acdons. removal B1ld mspension
for more than fuurt=l (14) days. Removal means removal from the federal service. A SES
appointee removed for disciplinary n:asons lw DO entitlement to placement in a position outside
the SES, and an agency bas no authority to move the "PPOintec directly to a pon-SES position.
Following the action.removing the appointed form the feden! service, however a scp8l81o action
to reappoint the individual to a position outside the SES may be ulo:n. r consider the gnwity of
your misconduct as very serious, warranting adverse action. It is importarit to me that you
undern-.znd th~ limitatioru regarding adverse actions under SES so that you can make a fully
informod respODS~
151
6. lfit is Ibe docisioJ1 ofthc auefNetwon: Offia:r that yOll be n:movcd. your rauoval will be
eff.ectivc net less than thirty (30) c::aImdar days from he dzy attathedate of~ofthis nouce..
7. YOIl will be given a written decision II! 1I0OI1 as pouible afu:r your reply hu bad 1UU
coasidendioD, or after tile close ofbusiuess November 8. if you do not cqUy.
8. YOIl will be reIlIined in an at:tive duty stalUs duri!Ig the adwnce DOUce period.
d~
SI ATURE
152
ENCLOSURE 4
December 6, 1996
In Reply Rof.r To; ION6
Mr. Jerome Calhoun
VA Medical Center
2300 Ramsey Street
Fayetteville, NC 28301
The letter of proposed adverse action issued to you, dated October 24, 1996, is hereby rescinded.
The ~etter was issued to you prior to the completion of the evidence file_ I apologize for any
inconvenience.
A new letter of proposed adverse action and charges is being prepared, and willlle issued to you in
the near future_ You will have 15 calendar days from receipt of the proposed action to provide an
oral andlor written reply to the charges against you.
I have no desire to pursue a more lengthy formal action_ If possible, I would rather resolve this
matter informally_ Thus, in the interim, While the letter of proposed adverse action and evidence
file are being finalized, you may present me with any offer you may have to resolve this matter
informally. Formal action will bring further embarrassment to you, the Fayetteville Medical
Center, and to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I will delay the issuance of the new letter of proposed adverse action for a period not to exceed 14
calendar days from the day you receive this letter to allow you an opportunity to submit a
proposed infonnal resolution of this matter. If no reasonable offer is submitted by you within the
specified time period, I will have no alternative but to initiate formal aerion against you.
~~-
Leroy P. Gross, MD. MPH
Date
153
The Front
VA's "zero tolerance' questioned
Page
Fayetteville.
Croft did not respond, the suit states, but as she began
to leave the room "Dr. Karam walked next to her,
turned to her. pinched the left nipple of her breast, and
then said he wanted to see her."
2. My position as Chief, MCCR was very important to the financial viability of the
Fayetteville facility. The MCCR program was also of great interest to the Director. I
took my job very seriously, gave 100% of my efforts towards that job and would not put
up with any kind of behavior that would jeopardize the smooth workings of the program.
3. Shortly after his arrival at the FVAMC, Mr. Calhoun began meeting with me to
discuss the MCCR Program. He made it clear that he held me entirely responsible for the
program and planned to meet with me often. Almost immediately he began interrogating
me about the behavior of other employees at the facility, most notably Mr. Crocker.
During meetings in his office he would make statements that were very uncomfortable,
Le., "Jim Crocker has to go ....! don't like him......He is fighting me ...... He knew how
important MCCR is to me and he has done nothing to improve the program." This
demonstrated to me that he singled out an employee and was trying to secure information
on that employee solely for the purpose of terminating him. I had confidence in Mr.
Crocker' s abilities as the Fiscal Officer and admired the professional way he treated Mr.
Calhoun in the face of Mr. Calhoun's irrational and tyrannical behavior towards Mr.
Crocker.
4. Shortly after my divorce in August, 1994, Mr. Calhoun stated to me that "was
interested in me". I took this to mean a personal interest and not just an interest in my
work. Mr. Calhoun and I had an easy going relationship; we would laugh and joke, as he
often did with those that he liked. I can't say that his behavior with staffwas ever
professional; either you were his buddy or his enemy, few fell in the middle. He had a
reputation for being a womanizer and would often drape his arm around a woman's
shoulder as they talked. For these reasons, I took this to mean a personal interest. I
responded that I was in a relationship and did not want to jeopardize the relationship. I
would have assumed that had he not meant a personal relationship, he would have
illlIJl.ediately corrected this misassumption. He did not and replied, "well think about it".
I left his office.
159
5. During our conversations he would often talk with me about the problems he was
having at that facility. He felt as though everyone was fighting him because he was
Black. At one such meeting he stated that he becomes sick when he gets rejected. This
made me very nervous but 1 tried hard to deny that this applied to me and my rejection of
his advances. 1 just did not want to believe that my trust in this person was inappropriate.
At that time, 1 did trust him. He had great insight and vision for the Medical Center and 1
was one of his "few" 'staunch supporters.
6. A few weeks later, we were again meeting about the program. As 1 was leaving the
office, he stated, "you haven' t answered my question". 1 asked, "what question" and he
stated, "about my interest in you". 1 answered, "I thought I did answer you. 1 told you
that I was in a relationship and I did not want to jeopardize it. ...please don't do this to
me". I left the office and prayed that would be the end of it.
8. On or about the 23rd of February, 1995, Mr. Calhoun and I were meeting to discuss a
project that he had assigned to me. In the midst of my presentation he interrupted me by
saying "you have beautiful tits". I was dumbfounded. It had been a few months since the
last remarks and our relationship was no longer friendly so this just came out of the blue.
I responded, ''that's not what we are here to discuss", finished my presentation and left
the office. After this incident and because of the deterioration of our working
relationship, 1 was really uneasy. In addition, 1 heard from others that Mr. Calhoun was
indicating that 1 had made advances toward him. This was clearly untrue and 1 felt as
though he were just trying to humiliate me.
9. The MCCR Program had been reviewed by the MCCR Fiscal Integrity Team. They
had found no significant problems with the program. Mr. Calhoun was angry with the
results and referred to the report as "a piece of shit". He also stated that the report had
given him nothing to use. He wrote letters to the Director of the Review Team and the
Director of the MCCR Program requesting another review. I will add that prior to
beginning the review, the team had asked me exactly what it was that he was looking for
as they felt uneasy after their initial meeting. I stated, "as much as you can give me to
hang those he wants to hang" or something to that effect. The team members responded,
"that's what we thought".
160
10. At the end of March, 1995 I returned from a site visit to the V AMC, Hampton,
Virginia. I had wondered why, when I was obviously not in his good graces, he had
decided I should go with the Quality Assurance Coordinator to Hampton. When I
returned I learned that two of my employees were meeting with the AFGE Vice
President, planning a meeting with Mr. Calhoun at his home after hours to discuss
problems they had with me. At no time was I notified of a problem, no grievances were
filed. Prior to this planned meeting there had apparently been numerous meetings
between the AFGE VP and the two MCCR employees. These employees had been asked
to provide documentation against me to Mr. Calhoun to affect my removal as Chief,
MCCR. This caused me great anxiety. I will add that I had been documenting poor
performance by these two employees. I had made Mr. Crocker and Mr. Calhoun aware of
the poor performance. Additionally, I stated to Mr. Calhoun at one such meeting that I
understood that he had been meeting with these two employees or had plans to do so. He
stated, "what have I told you about listening to gossip".
11. On May 8, 1995, I was informed by Mr. Crocker that I was being removed from my
position at Mr. Calhoun' s request. My position description had been rewritten from a GS
9 to a GS 11112, but I was not to be promoted to the new grade. He wanted a new Chief,
MCCR. No reason was given to me for my removal, except that Mr. Calhoun was not
happy with my performance. I asked to meet with Mr. Calhoun for an explanation of my
removal. On May 9, a meeting was held including me, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Crocker, the
EEO Manager, Health Systems Specialist, Acting Chief, Human Resources, and the
Associate Director (her first day). Mr. Calhoun started the meeting by saying that he and
I had met often regarding the program and I knew that he was not pleased with my
performance. He wanted me removed and Mr. Crocker needed a budget analyst and was
willing to place me in that position. I remarked that the only comment that he had ever
made regarding my performance had been "you have a lot to learn, but you are doing a
good job" and that did not equate to poor performance to me. He responded that if he did
not make himself clear that was something that as a Director he would have to work on. I
again asked this question and received the same response. He informed me that I could
remain as MCCR Coordinator and he would put me on performance improvement plan
and get rid of me in 90 days or I could take the Budget Analyst position being offered by
Mr. Crocker. From his remark it was clear to me that no matter what I did, in 90 days he
would get rid of me. I also knew that he had enlisted the assistance of the two MCCR
employees and, additionally, the AFGE VP was the computer specialist assigned to assist
MCCR. Mr. Crocker and I had already found that Mr. Calhoun had copies of information
that was only available to Mr. Crocker and I, therefore, we assumed this was provided by
the AFGE VP. On May 24, 1995, as directed, I signed a memorandum requesting
reassignment to the Budget Analyst position. Effective June 11 , 1995, I was reassigned.
12. I was aware of my limited management background. Mr. Calhoun had come from
Buffalo, New York, whose MCCR Program was number one in the nation. On more than
one,occasion, I had stated to Mr. Calhoun that I was not sure that I had the knowledge
and expertise to make the Fayetteville program into what he expected. His response was
always the same, "you have a lot to learn but you are doing a good job" . For this reason,
161
I felt as though this removal was personal retaliation on his part. He wanted to humiliate
me. If not, he and I would have had a discussion and I would have been moved to a
mutually agreed position, certainly not one for which I was not qualified.
13. On June 28, 1995, Mr. Calhoun had barred me from going to the main VA building
at the Fayetteville facility. Mr. Crocker was instructed to inform me of this decision. My
duties were changed in order to accommodate this mandate. To the best of my
knowledge and belief this was never done to anyone else. I did nothing to provoke this
action and it is a clear demonstration of a power move against me.
14. On July 8, 1995, Mr. Calhoun and his wife encountered me at the roadside clean-up.
Mrs. Calhoun noticed that my shoe lace was untied and Mr. Calhoun got on bended knee
to tie my shoe. He stated while he was doing this, "when you are going to murder
someone, you tie their shoes backward so that it looks like they tied them themselves."
This incident my witriessed by another VA employee. I was struck dumbfounded and
saw it as yet another threat, not to my personal safety, but to my employment.
15. I tried to find other positions within MCCR at other VA facilities because of the
hostile work environment and the fact that I felt sure he would find a way to get rid of me
altogether. After all, I was in a position for which I was not qualified. Part of the duties
were to advise the Service Chiefs on management of their budgets. I was not allowed in
the hospital, how was I to meet with the Chiefs on a regular basis. All of the positions for
which I applied were canceled; two reannounced with change in grade and one, to my
knowledge, not reannounced until last ~eek. I did secure a lateral position at the VA
Medical Center in Durham and transferred there on October 16, 1995. This position was
not in my career field and has no promotion potential. After three months of commuting
2 hours each way, I moved with my children and household goods at great expense;
emotional, physical and financial.
16. I had hoped that the move from the Fayetteville VAMC would lessen the fear and
anxiety that I had. However, I still felt an uneasiness in the pit of my stomach each
morning as I entered the Durham VAMC. Occasionally, Mr. Calhoun would be present
at the Durham VAMC for meetings. When I would become aware of his presence, I
would have to leave for the day or for as long as he would be in the vicinity. I found that
all that had changed was my geographic location; the fear, paranoia and anxiety were still
with me. Because of these reasons, when I was notified that the IG had been contacted, I
knew that in order to ever hope to end the victimization I would have to tell my story.
11. I was amazed when I read the IG report. I had hoped to prove my case, but I had
never thought that a government agency would have been so negative against a
government official. I was relieved that Mr. Calhoun had been removed from SES. I just
would like to feel more confident that he will never have the opportunity to return to any
typ<;,of supervisory position. I was a bit surprised when the "punishment" was
announced. I, of course, had never thought that he would be fired, even though I had
wished for that. However, I also never thought that he would be rewarded by being/sent
162
to the place he wanted to be with a raise in salary. Additionally, all his moving expenses
were paid and, ifhis house doesn't sell, the VA will purchase it. Unfortunately, I was not
that fortunate.
18. It concerns me that at no time have the victims been contacted by anyone in
Headquarters. The only information I have received has been in the IG report and what I
have read in the Florida and Fayetteville newspapers. I read in the newspaper and, I
believe it was a Florida paper, that Headquarters had empathy for me but I was not sure
how that was possible since they had never had any contact with me. Additionally, I read
that the settlement with Mr. Calhoun was made in the best interest of all concerned; I
guess I was of no concern. Since that time, Mr. Kingston Smith has explained the reason
for the settlement, which I much appreciated. Had this been explained to me earlier, I
might not have felt so patronized, insulted and, frankly, victimized once again, this time
by V A Headquarters.
19. As a result of these incidents, I have been diagnosed as suffering from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder and am still under treatment for this condition. It has been a
struggle to get some emotional stablility back into my life. I have tried hard to put this all
behind me and was surprised when this weekend I finally pulled out all of my
documentation and found that many of these things that happened to me had been pushed
back into my memory. I am thankful for that. There was a long period of time when the
thoughts of what were happening to me and what did happen to me consumed my life. I
am glad that I have found the courage to move past all of that
20. I have spent the past year and one half trying to get my life back together. I have
spent lots of time, energy and money trying to get some emotional stability back into my
life and put this whole incident behind me. I have done fairly well. The only time that I
have a problem is at work. I am a bit paranoid because I do not know if! am seen as a
political enemy. I am still a bit anxious at times and am very distrustful. I worry that my
career is over and I will remain in this dead-end job unless I can manage to move on to
another facility. Unfortunately, I still have a black mark in my OPF because I left the
MCCR position and went to Budget Analyst for four months, then went to Administrative
Assistant in Durham. Without explaining my sexual harassment case, how do I explain
these changes honestly? There seems to have been much concern about how Mr.
Calhoun could finish out his career, but no concern for what happens to mine. Have I
received the upgrade of an 11/12 for which I was denied while in my MCCR position? I
have heard no concern for the expenses that I incurred in moving my family, selling my
house, etc. I never began this fight for what I could get out of it, however, when the
accuser is so obviously rewarded, where is the justice for the victims?
21. What has been of greatest concern to me has been the implication that I filed sexual
harassment charges because of inappropriate comments of a sexual nature. I would
never have gone through the hell of the past two years for comments made to me. Mr.
Calhoun is not the first man who has ever made inappropriate comments of a sexual
nature to me; he is, however, the first man who ever tried to destroy my life when I
163
rebuffed his comments. The findings of the IG were quid pro quo sexual harassment and
sexual harassment for a hostile work environment. Those are the reasons that I filed these
charges and those are the allegations that were proven by the Inspector General. I resent
the implications made to the contrary.
22. I understand that sexual harassment is the headline complaint. However, what about
all the other complaints voiced by employees of the Fayetteville VA Medical Center.
There were many victims of this man's tyrannical behavior. There has never been an
announcement as to the findings of Dr. Gross' review that was conducted by Mr. David
Whatley. There were many more problems identified that just the three that you are
hearing about today. If you want a true picture of the "harassment" that went on at the
FV AMC, maybe you should convene a hearing at the facility. I certainly feel that the
voices of those other people should also be heard.
I HAVE WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR 31 YEARS, ALL BUT
SINCE I HAD WORKED WITH HIM FOR SEVERAL YEARS , CONSIDERED HIM A
HIM.
SECRETARY BROWN HAS STATED THAT REP . TIM HUTCHINSON DOES NOT HAVE
DID NOT FIND IN MY FAVOR DOES NOT MEAN IT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO,
WHAT IS nIE PUNISHMENT?? HE IS REWARDED FOR HIS MISCONDUCT AND
ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS. THE FACT THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE
HARASSMENT/MISTREATMENT BY VA MANAGERS.
WRONG .
HAPPEN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN AND FOR THE INVITATION TO SPEAK WITH
THANK YOU.
~ CAR~ANA
) ./>
- . /J,.~
USAN M.
170
STA'RIIIDIT
From the time I began working for Mr. Jerome Calhoun in S.pember 1995
Th.r. wer. alDo.t daily incident. of hi. cur.ing. y.lling and .cr.aming
at .... or oth.r _dical cent.r _loy..... liven when I wa_ not the on.. whom h ..
was angry with. it was discouraging to h.ar th.s. conv.rsations. Bi. actions
and worda w.r 0 brutal and h.artle with _loy...... that a d .. structiv.. and
h~ver. I wa. unabl .. to do this when hi. abusive behavior began in th..
morning and continu.d throughout the day. Bach time h .. used profanity toward
actions. Be t the tone for the office and medical center each day, which
believe the atmo.phere which exi.ted in the medical center was bar.mful to our
patienta.
In all the year. that I hav.. worked for the f ..d .. ral gov.. rnment at Fort
treated in the maDDer in which Mr4 Calhoun treated ae. Be created a very
hostile work enviroDlllent. B. d.moralized ..e to th.. point that my spirit waa
171
and then realized that l: wa. al.o becOllling depre ed. l: had nO ...ergy at all
and began to decline .ocial invitations and other activities which I had
appetite. Por the fir.t tilut in my life l: wa cared - .cared all of the
tiae. l: never knew when Mr. Calhoun wa. going to erupt and if l: was going to
be the target of hiB explo.ion. l:t we_ and has been the _ . t frightening
askinga. what was wrong . l: finally rea1i.ed tha~ l: we. unable to handle
l: did receive as.i.tance from VISIf 6 staff " - e r . when .., hu.band
my phy.ica1 and eIIIOtiona1 probl.... Bowever, l: have not received any eupport
deal" when he was rea igned to the Bay Pines VA Iledica1 Center in January
1!J!J7. Only hi. reque.t. were takan into con.ideration. No on. frca VilA BO.
or iatance.
172
-.ployaell have nevar been addressed by the top manag....ent within the VA
systea. It appears that they did not care about what happened to . . or any
of the other employeea. thay wara only concernad with asai.ting Mr . Calhoun.
During the pariod I worked for Mr . Calhoun. I beCUle tan.e and nervous
becau.a I waa .0 afraid of hi. temper and threats. I had parllonally lIeen
four latter. of propo.ed raaoval (two for chiefll and two for allBilltant
chiefa) came aero my desk. X had witne.sed numerous abusive conver tions
atatement. giving the spacific date. and time. of tha traatment I received
nota. outlining IIpecific data. of hill milluse of hi. position and disregarding
I want to clo.e on a positive note about the agency I have worked for
over the past 21 year.. The new vrSN-CODcept is excellent for our patients
and OU1 employee. too. With medical center. working a. -te . . . - and not
I greatly appreciate the as.istance which I received from Dr. Groas, Dr.
Alexander, Ms. Patterson and M8. Saula. Their 8upport was and continue. to
be outstanding.
r believe that by working together we can care for our patient.. which
Without veteran. - I would not have a job and neither would many of the
people in this room. Thank you for doing your job and looking into thia
VANe, Fayetteville, He
2. I work.d for Mr. Calhoun for two days before h. 1.ft for trip to
3. . L t W.ek in S.pt!!!b.r 1995: Mr. C.1houn r.turned frOlll r.s.rv. duty and
was v.ry upset with "'" a. to why I had not info:noed hila about nursing
per.onnel receiving cash awarda. X knew nothing about thea. award. and told
him that I did not. This was the first time he used profanity toward ID
4. October 19, 1995: Received a 3-pag. improper l.tt.r frOlll Mr. Calhoun
for early retirement (over 20 ye.r. rvice/over .g. 50). I wa. told that I
was, but .ince I had -break in .ervice-, X was not eligible to keep the
tr.... f.rring ... to ...other .ervice in the ...11cal center. Thi. incident ...s
never di.cu ed with by the Director or A ociat. Director and no action ....
7. NQVember 1995. Mr. Calhoun ... a y.lling and .creaming at the A ociate
Director' . . . ecretary, and called the a.ociate Director and _ into his
aoney and IG docuaenta were ai ing frOD hi. d.ak. Be accused of at ling
the IIIOney and the document.. I told hilll I had not b.en in hi. desk nor had
found on the env.lop., he would per.onally ae. that I was fir.d. Be al.o
.aid that he would e that .v.ryone in Payett.vill. would know that I was
fired becau.e of the theft. Be ordered ..e not to di.cusa this with anyo.. e or
BRJIS, to queation me about the misaing ""'ney and documents . I was never
adviaed that I could have had l.gal counsel pre.ent, and they .lso told ..e
Dot to discuss thia with anyone. I have never found out really happened to
1995, th.r. were two other cl.rical employees .... igned to this office. On
within the medic.l center. Be put a piece of paper in front of me reque .. ting
~~~ ~ . ~~~
176
that J: sign it at.ting that J: would p.rform .11 of the duti.s for & p.riod of
10. January 1996: J: .g.in .sk.d Mr. Calhoun to r ign ..e to anoth.r
position. B. us.d profanity and id the only way J: could l ve. my po.ition
anything to her.
did ~ u.e profanity . At th.t time he told me to forg.t about hi. previous
13. March 1996: Mr. Calhoun _de an inappropri.te r .... rk about my anatomy.
14. March 1996: Mr. Calhoun thre.tened to repe.t the r .... rk in the pre.ence
15. May 1. 1996: 8:55 ..... : Mr. C.lhoun thre.tened to fire _ and verb.lly
16. IIay 3. 1996. 6;00 p.... I broke down end told ray hu.bend what I bad
17. May 6. 1996: 4.35 p ; My hu.bend c . . . to the office to .peak with Mr.
Calhoun asking him not to u.e profanity when speaking to .e and a.king Mr.
told him everything 1 I was placed on medical leave from 5/9/96 - 8/26/96.
19. May 17. 1996; My husband contacted Dr. Gro , Network Director, Vln 6,
and provided him with inforaation of events and incidence. involviD9 the
above stated ho.tile work environment, elong with documentation of
filed an BBO grievance or contacted the OIG because I believed that the.e
processes are biased toward management. During tba period that I worked for
Mr. Calhoun, there were numerous BBO'. and OIG complaint. filed again.t him.
I do not recall of any instance in which Mr. Calhoun wa. found to be at
fault. In f.ct~ there were veral occa.ioDa when investigator. c . . . to hie
office after working hours, discussing and laughing about the complainants.
20. June 1996; I filed OWCP paperwork stating that Mr. Calhoun's constant
threats, ho.tile and abusive treatment -toward .e were the direct cause of my
ray phy.ician. lUI of this date, I bave not heard fraa OWCP. I returned to
work on 8/26/96, one week after Mr. Calhoun was detailed to Durham.
178
To Committee Members:
I appreciate Ihls opportunity to address the atrocities to which I was lIubJeoted while
Seoretary to Jerome C.lhoun trom April 1~1i4 through Jun. 1~1i4 ,
Very soon after his arrival to the Fayetteville VA Medical Center, it was quite
apparent that he intended to make changes not only in. the management 01 the
medical center but changes in personnel as well.
Within the first week ot his arrival, he advised me that I had 90 days to prove myself.
I thought that to be a strange statement in that I had held the position as Secretary to
the Director since November 1992 and had held a similar position as Secretary to the
Commander 01 the USAF Airlift Center, Pope Air Force Base as well as Secretary to
the Director of the Medical Clinic, also at Pope Air Force Base lor six years prior to
returning to the Fayetteville VAMC in November 1990.
During the transition briefing, I was assigned to take minutes. On the morning 01 the
brieling, James Crocker, then Chiel, Fiscal Service, oltered to go and bring Mr. Billy
Hightower, Transition Coordinator, from the motel to the hospital. Rather than
accepting Mr. Crocker's alter, Mr. Calhoun accused Mr. Crocker at challenging his
authority as the new Director. Aller Mr. Hightower had presented the brieling,
Jerome Calhoun stood belore the group composed 01 service chiefs and some key
stall personnel. He walked to the Iront 01 the semicircle in which we seated. He
immediately held his arms away Irom his sides, slowly walked in a 360 turn, lully
exposing his hands and wrists. When he had completed his turn, he rubbed the tops
01 his hands and relerenced the color 01 his skin.
Mr. Calhoun's managerial style, it you could call it that, was one 01 threats,
intimidation and constant lilthy language. The 'luck' word was Irequently used in my
presence, as well as a lew other curse words . In those three months, which in some
ways seemed like an eternity, he constantly inlerred that my work was substandard,
was not what he wanted, and I had better clean t.:p my act or I'd be out 01 a job. This
was done in the lorm 01 yellow sticky notes, verbally, or written in margins 01 a
finished product. I found these rejections of my work and threats for dismissal totally
foreign to anything I had ever endured before in my Federal Career. I have always
taken pride in my work, triad to do my best for my supervisors and was recognized
for this by receiving only highly satisfactory and outstanding perlormance appraisals
as well as incentive and suggestion awards. Isn't it interesting to note my
performance appraisal ending March 31, 1994, just prior to Jerome Calhoun's
arrival, was Highly Satisfactory I
I soon began to live in such fear of being reprimanded and threatened, both actions
never having been necessary by prior supervisors, that my fears altected my
perlormance. I was exposed to other employees being reprimanded, sometimes
overheard yelling and screaming through a closed door, and would see an employee
come out of Mr. Calhoun's office with their face 'beet red' . Always cognizant that I
was now in a '90-day trial period' initiated by Jerome Calhoun, I began to lear lor
my emotional survival as well as my job survival. I felt I had no one to turn to - -
who would believe my word against that of the Medical Center Director. I was a
small fish in a very large pond.
I am the type of administrative employee who likes to have her next day's work
organized before leaving the office. One afternoon around 5:00 p.m. Mr. Calhoun
called me into his ollice and told me to call the regional office at Winston Salem
179
-2-
about some matter. I made a note of his request on my calendar, said goodnight
and walked out of the ollice. As soon as I reported to work the next morning, he
yelled at me to come into his ollice that instant. He exhibited so much anger that I
was terrified and, yet, had absolutely no idea what I had done wrong. He began to
berate me lor my insubordination and not taking my job seriously. I lived with
threats the entire 3 months I worked for him as Jerome Calhoun used his authority
inappropriately. He had no need to sCl'eam at me as I have no hearing deficit. When
I asked him what he was talking about, he responded he expected me to take care of
the regional ollice matter at that moment and not wait until the next day. When I
explained the late hour of his assignment, after office hours, his only response was
something like Oh, was it that late? Never once did he apologize. After he told me I
appeared to not take my job seriously, I began to Cl'y. He then asked me to step over
beside his desk and he opened one of the drawers on the left side. Inside that
drawer was a large box of beige-colored tissues. He told me they reminded him 01
me, soft and beige, and that whenever he upset me to the point of tears, to feal free
to get a tissue from his desk as they had been bought espeCially with me in mind. I
recall asking him if his former secretary in Bullalo was ever upset to the point 01
tears and he said Yeah, frequently, especially during her marital problem days.
In May 1994, the medical center was visited by Mr. Herschel Gober, Deputy
S8CI'etary to Jesse Brown. Earlier in the day , prior to the reception for Mr. Gober and
unknown to Jerome Calhoun, Tomi MacDonough, Vet Center Leader, had a moment
to chat with Mr. Gober about some concerns he had for the Vet Center. Later, at the
reception, Mr. Gober asked Mr. Calhoun about those issues and apparently took Mr.
Calhoun totally by surprise. Alter Mr. Gober had departed the station, while seated
at my desk, Mr. Calhoun came bursting though the main ollice doorway, past my
desk, jerking his tie 011, cursing and screaming that God damn mother luckin' son 01
a bitch MacDonough was going to hear from him . Tom Arnold, then Associate
Director, was right on his heels trying to calm him down. Mr. Calhoun slammed his
ollice door. Mr. Arnold's secretary and I stared at each other in disbelief at what had
just taken place. (Please keep in mind that Mr. Calhoun was stil/fairly new on the
scene and every day presented a new horrendous adventure.) In a short while, he
came out of his ollice, stepped up to my desk, and announced he was going jogging
to de-stress. No, he did not record this absence or other like absences. Further, I
never observed him using his ollice computer during my tenure there.
Soon alter his arrival, Jerome Calhoun called me into his ollice to take dictation in a
response to a sexual harassment matter which had lollowed him from one 01 the
New York medical centers. All the Cl'iteria listed on the document, I think, were listed
in an a. b. c. type of format and each was emphatically denied by Mr. Calhoun.
When I had taken the dictation, I was told to typewrite the response, make no record
of the female's name, and keep no copy of the document. I was then told to give the
document back to him for mailing.
Jerome Calhoun was a member of the Bullalo Bills Club. During my tenure, I spent
the better part of one day making reservations for Mr. Calhoun to attend the next
season's games. I personally thought that to be a waste of government time, but I
did as I was told while existing in a vacuum of fear and reprisal from this man. As
part of my duties, I frequently made lodging reservations which he made explicitly
clear were to be only the Hilton, Marriott, and, I believe, the Sheraton, in that order.
It should be obvious that this caused per diem conflicts with Fiscal Service's travel
allowances. Here again, Mr. Calhoun used his position to get what he wanted.
Mr. Calhoun would refer to stall members in a derogatory manner. Appointments
were seldom kept on time by Mr. Calhoun. I was instructed to make those
180
- 3-
from:
- a woman who used to come to work, thankful that she had reached the grade of
GS 8, a grade at which she would one day retire,
- a woman who had excelled in facets of her personal life,
- a woman who had successfully worked with medical professionals, Air Force
Colonels, Congressional liaisons, and foreign military officers for more than twenty
years
to:
- a woman who had become a timid, nervous wreck as the result of the harassing,
hostile and intimidating work environment created by Mr. Calhoun.
- a woman who began to dread reporting to work because that office had become a
living hell
- a woman who suffered loss of appetite, insomnia, sought medical allention for
stress-related chest pain and shortness of breath and would mentally replay the day's
events.
Mr. Calhoun had, on numerous occasions, told me how inferior my work was, how I
would have to do beller or look for another job. Any perceived transcription errors
were my word against his. I could not prove he had or had not dictated as I had
transcribed but he would yell at me about something being all wrong in the finished
document. In fact, I even offered to use a micro casselle recorder to ensure there
would be no errors in a finished product. This suggestion was not received well by
him as he told me, emphatically, there would never be a recorder used in his office.
I recall one day in which he was scheduled to leave, later in the morning, to speak to
an organization out of town. That particular morning had been extremely hectic and I
didn't seem to be doing anything that pleased him. At lunch period, I requested a
friend to take me for a drive as a reprieve from the morning's hostility. Because of
my emotional state, I fell it was unsafe for me to drive. I was distraught, crying
uncontrollably, and vomiting. My friend insisted that I go .to her apartment, rest a
while, call her at the office and she would bring me back to work. Two hours later. I
reported to work and signed 2 hours sick leave. She and I both agreed that for my
own physical and emotional well being a change was due. Obviously Mr. Calhoun
wasn't going anywhere (or so I thought) and I must try to bring some sanity back into
my life.
181
-4-
After admitting to myself that all those years 01 devoted work for the Federal
Government was not something I could just throwaway, I opted to request a transfer
to another job even if that meant an obvious downgrade as I was the highest ranking
secretary in that medical center. This decision was not made on a whim. it was a
matter of survival - MINE. I had ollen discussed the work environment with my
husband and daughters and each supported me in my decision to transfer. When I
approached Mr. Calhoun requesting a transfer, he "acted" surprised. He agreed to
my request for transfer only if I signed an agreament to accept the position at a lower
grade, pay level, and that I was not coerced into doing so. This resulted in a pay
reduction of greater than $3,000 per year.
I ask you, Members of this Committee, do not the above stated facts qualify as
coercion, intimidation, harassment, hostile working environment and abuse of power
by Mr. Calhoun? Incidentally, I was still within my "90-day trial period" and this had
hung over my head like a dark cloud. I thought all my years of highly satisfactory and
outstanding ratings would have sufficed as proof of my abilities and I should never
have had to endure the pressure of sitting on the fence with my career at stake.
On my last day in the director's office, after signing that coerced statement, I
learned that Sue Caruana, Mr. Calhoun's former secretary from the Buffalo VAMC
would be reporting (at Government expense) to replace me. I found this out from
Susan Odom who later was to become known as Mr. Calhoun's "girlfriend". The
afternoon of my last day, Mr. Calhoun called Susan, who had been interim Associate
Director secretary, into his office. She went into Mr. Calhoun's office and the door
was then closed. About an hour later, Susan came out of the office and had a
flushed look and smile on her face . She whispered that she could not talk to me
then but wanted to share her secret with me on the phone that evening. It was
during this phone conversation that Susan stated Mr. Calhoun had promised her if
she played her cards right, that he would make it worth her while. Susan would
serve as interim Director's Secretary (GS 8) until Ms. Caruana's arrival, and would
then hold the position of Secretary to the Associate Director (GS 7). At the time of
this arrangement, Susan Odom held the position of Education Department Secretary
(GS 5). Well, it's obvious that Susan Odom did play her cards right as she eventually
became Secretary to the Associate Director in the fa" of 1994. This exemplifies pre
selection in its boldest form . Susan Odom was later promoted to a newly established
GS 8 position as the second staff member in the Public Affairs office.
End of June 1994,1 was reassigned to the Fiscal Service as an Office Automation
Assistant, GS 5, step 10. My new job required frequent visits to the Director's office
always with the possibility of seeing Jerome Calhoun. I was hurt and felt a terrible
loss of self esteem . To add insult to injury, I also had to face Sue Caruana, my
replacement from Buffalo. I tried to approach her with professionalism, dignity and
poise .. . inside, however, I was dying.
Had the circumstances been different, had someone with a professional management
style become the Director, then in a" probability, I would have remained at least until
January 6, 2000 at which time I would have completed 30 years of service and been
55 years of age. On September 19, 1994 I completed 25 years 01 service. The
lo"owing January, I became 50. Early out was an option which I chose; I had had
enough. I lelt betrayed by the System . I could not understand why a man 01 this
vicious, filthy-mouthed, morally corrupt persona could have ever risen to the rank of
Medical Center Director.
The Fayetteville VA Medical Center is a good hospital with some long time, hard
working, and devoted employees who never, never deserved the likes of Jerome
Calhoun. It should be apparent that the Veteran petient (the main reason for the
hospital's existence) eventually suffers when the employees are under such stress.
Medical Center employees should be able to feel respect and admiration for their
182
-5-
superiors, not fear , anxiety, and utter disgust. Mr. Calhoun quickly built the
reputation of a director wilh absolutely no respect for others by his frequent verbal
abuse of staff members using gross profanity in professional meetings. Many
respected the position Mr. Calhoun held but not the person Mr. Calhoun is.
I am sure the Members of this Committee question why I did not file an EEO
complaint. I have seen the ' workings of the EEO at the Fayetteville VA Medical
Center and have yet to ' ... a grlevenoe re.olved 10 the .ell.f.otlon of the
complainant.
Members ot Ihis Committee, I implore you to thoroughly investigate such atrocities
that these other witnesses and I endured at Fayetteville VAMC, Investigate from the
top level of the Department of Veterans' Affairs down. Investigate why the 'Jerome
Calhouns' in this administration are punished by merely transferring them from one
facility to another. Mr. Calhoun was not punished. Yes, he was removed from SES
status, but he is still drawing a $106,000+ annual salary and living in the State of
Florida where he had always intended to retire. Did the Department of Veterans'
Affairs officials really punish him or merely slap the faces of his subOf'dinates. I am
so thankful that, hopefully, the truth is to be made known.
I would like to see this problem rectified and those of us who suffered such great
losses compensated. You, Members of this Committee, are the ones to do it. In a
computer programming class that I attended in college, as we were writing our
programs, my instructor would always say " now, remember class - 'garbage in,
garbage out'". To you, I say iI's time to takeout the garbage!
Thank you for your time and allention.
~0:4A 4 kr-
-7 .- -
~~JIA B. BAREFOOT
Former Secretary to the Director and
Premature Retiree
183
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Statement of
Representative BYa M. Clayton
Veterans Affairs Subcommittee
Oversight & Investigations Bearing
Allegations of Sexual Barassment in the VA
Like you, I have been greatly disturbed and very concerned about
the recent allegations of sexual harassment at Veterans
facilities. I am especially concerned about the findings
disclosed by the Inspector General's report on the Fayetteville
VA Medical Center which is in my congressional district . Let me
assure you that the majority of the Fayetteville staff, like the
majority of all VA employees, are highly capable dedicated
professionals who deserve the highest degree of respect and
admiration for the job they do day in and day out to serve our
nations veterans.
STATEMENT OF
RONNIE BLUMENTHAL. DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
BEFORE TIlE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Ronnie Blumenthal, Director of the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You
have asked that I discuss the federal sector complaints process and, in particular, sexual
harassment complaints filed against the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA).
The EEOC Office of Federal Operations has oversight of the equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint process in the federal sector, including the hearings and appellate
processes. The office provides guidance and assistance to the EEOC Administrative Judges
who conduct hearings on discrimination complaints filed against agencies. OFO adjudicates
appeals of federal agency decisions on discrimination complaints and ensures agency
compliance with decisions issued on those appeals. While the statutes we enforce require
agencies to comply with our decisions, EEOC has no coercive authority in the federal sector.
Although we can issue orders at the appellate level and most are followed .- unlike the
private sector, we cannot take a federal employer to court to resolve a complaint of
discrimination.
The federal EEO complaints process is governed by 29 CPR Part 1614. In addition,
the Commission has issued specific implementation guidance to agencies through EEO
Management Directive 110. Within the framework established by the regulations and
management directive, each agency has great flexibility in structuring its EEO program. Some
agencies have independent EEO offices reporting directly to the head of the agency. The EEO
program at DVA is under the direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal
Opportunity who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration.
Other programs have different structures.
Each agency is responsible for investigating EEO complaints filed against it and issuing
a decision on the merits or taking other action to resolve or dismiss the complaint. Final
agency actions on complaints can be appealed to the EEOC. The following is an overview of
the process for EEO complaints and the basic aspects of that process -- EEO counseling,
investigation, hearings, appellate review and compliance.
40-881 97 - 7
190
EEQ CQunseliDI
The complaint process begins when a federal employee or applicant contacts an EEO
counselor at the agency where the alleged discrimination occurred. The time limit for
initiating counseling is 45 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory event.
EEO counseling is required as the first step and is an essential part of the federal
complaint process. EEO counseling allows the opportunity for informal resolution and many
agencies are utilizing alternative dispute resolution during the counseling stage. The counselor
provides the complainant with information on the 1614 complaint process including the time
limits involved in the process. The EEO counselor also contacts management and attempts to
assist the parties in achieving resolution. During the counseling period, the complainant is
assisted in deflning the issues and bases of the complaint. The role of the counselor is to
facilitate early resolution, not to advocate for either party or recommend specific terms of a
resolution agreement.
Counseling must conclude within 30 days of the date of the initial contact. If
counseling continues beyond 30 days, the counselor must inform the aggrieved person that he
or she has a right to me a formal complaint after 30 days in counseling, regardless of whether
counseling has been completed. This time limit for counseling can be extended with the
written agreement of the person seeking counseling. If an agency has an established ADR
procedure and the aggrieved person agrees to participate, counseling may take up to 90 days.
Many agencies use collateral duty counselors while others have full time counselors.
According to reports flied with the EEOC by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, OVA uses
collateral duty counselors.
At the conclusion of counseling, the aggrieved person must be given written notice of
the right to me a formal EEO complaint within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice. The
notice also provides instructions on how to me the complaint.
Complaint Inyestjlation
Foilowing counseling. the aggrieved person can me a formal EEO complaint with the
federal agency against which the complaint is directed. Upon receiving the complaint, the
agency must acknowledge its receipt in writing. The acknowledgement notice must also
adviS\) the complainant that the agency is required to conduct a complete and fair investigation
within 180 days of the flIing of the complaint unless the parties agree in writing to extend the
period. The notice must also advise the complainant of the right to appeal the fmal decision or
dismissal.
If a complaint is not dismissed, the agency must conduct the investigation and must
develop a complete and impartial factual record. Many agencies have full time investigative
staff, while others contract with outside organizations for investigation of complaints. In FY
2
191
1996, the Department of Veterans' Affairs contracted for 59% of its investigations, with the
remainder being conducted by collateral duty investigators .
The agency has 180 calendar days to complete the investigation. Following the
investigation, or if the investigation has not been completed within 180 days, the agency must
provide the complainant a copy of the investigative file and notice informing the complainant
of the right to request a hearing or a final decision by the agency . If the complainant requests
a final decision, the agency has 60 days within which to issue its fmal decision on the merits of
the complaint. The complainant may file a civil action in United States District Court within
90 days of receiPt of the agency's fmal decision if no appeal has been filed . The complainant
also has the option to file a civil action in United States District Court after 180 days from the
date of the filing of the EEO complaint if no fmal decision has been issued.
The Administrative Judge may issue findings of fact and conclusions of law from the
bench after the conclusion of the hearing, in lieu of issuing written findings and conclusions .
The Administrative Judge also may issue findings and conclusions without a hearing where the
material facts are not in genuine dispute and there is no genuine issue as to credibility.
Within 60 days ofreceipt of the Administrative Judge's findings and conclusions, the
agency must issue its fmal decision. In its decision, the agency may reject or modify the
findings and conclusions. If the agency fails to act on the Administrative Judge's fmdings and
conclusions within 60 days , they become the fmal agency decision.
Appellate Review
A complainant may appeal an agency's decision to EEOC. The agency's decision may
be a dismissal of the complaint based on procedural grounds, such as untimely contact with an
EEO counselor, untimely filed EEO complaint, failure to state a claim, mootness, or failure to
accept an offer of full relief. In addition to procedural decisions, an agency may issue a
decision addressing the merits of the EEO complaint, finding or not finding discrimination.
Once an appeal is docketed, the parties are provided an opportunity to submit briefs on
the appeal. When the initial appellate decision on an EEO complaint is issued, the parties are
notified of their right to request reconsideration of the initial decision by the Commission.
3
192
A complainant may file a civil action, either within 90 days after receipt of the
Commission's final decision on appeal or after 180 days from the date of filing an appeal if
there has been no final decision by the Commission. Filing a civil action terminates
Commission processing of an appeal.
If an appellate decision orders compliance action, such as remanding the complaint for
further investigation or, if a fmding of discrimination is made, awarding relief, the matter is
assigned to a compliance officer. The compliance officer monitors for compliance with the
order in the decision.
1be statistics provided to you are taken from reports filed annually with EEOC by
other federal agencies.
For 1995, the last year for which we have complete data, you will note that the DVA
had 8.36% of total federal workers, 8.01 % of total EEO complaints filed, and 14.10% of
sexual harassment complaints filed.
Again, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
4
COMPLAINTS FILED - FY 1991 - FY 1996
VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) COMPARED TO GOVERNMENT WIDE (GW)
TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF OW SEXUAL VA SEXUAL PERCENT OF
EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS HARASSMENT HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS
GW VA VA/GW YEAR GW VA VA/GW COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS VA/GW
2,726,865 215,426 7.9O'J' 1991 17,696 1,125 6.36% 707 79 11 .17%
2,742,491 219,742 6 . 01~ 1992 19,106 1,220 6.39% 947 66 7.16%
2,643,391 224,952 6.51~ 1993 22,327 2,131 9.54% 1,606 95 5.91% ...~
2,630,755 222,215 6.45~ 1994 24,592 2,216 9.01% 1,547 105 6.79%
2,563,193 219,995 6. 5~ 1995 27,472 2,201 8.01% 1,390 196 14.10%
2,532,507 211,761 6.36~ 1996 NA 2,191 NA NA 224 NA
AVERAGE
~91_- 95~_22,239_ 1,779 !,.OO%,_ 1~40 109 8.76%
STATEMENT OF
NICHOLAS M. INZEO, DEPUTY LEGAL COUNSEL
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE
COMMITrEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am Nicholas M . Inzeo, Deputy Legal Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
legal issue of sexual harassment in the workplace.
There are two primary categories of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile
environment. Although these claims are theoretically distinct, the line between the two is not
always clear, and they may occur together.
Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor makes submission to sexual conduct
a condition for job retention, promotion, or any tangible job benefits. Quid pro quo
harassment can be explicit, as when a supervisor says to a subordinate that he will fire her if
she does not engage in sexual conduct. Alternatively, such harassment can be implicit, as
195
when a supervisor makes sexual advances to a subordinate, is rejected, and shortly thereafter
fU"es her. In the latter example, the subordinate can establish a violation of Title VII if she
proves that her rejection of the supervisor's advances was a motive for her termination.
Some courts have held that quid pro quo harassment occurs only if the subordinate
rejects the supervisor's sexual advances and consequently suffers tangible job harm.
However, it is the position of the EEOC and of other courts that quid pro quo harassment
occurs whenever a supervisor makes sex a condition for job retention or job benefits, even if
the subordinate submits to the unwelcome advances and thereby avoids the threatened harm, or
resists but the supervisor never carries out the threatened job harm.
An employer is automatically liable for quid pro quo harassment by a supervisor. This
is because the employer is responsible for its supervisors' use or abuse of powers delegated to
them.
In 1986 the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mentor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477
U.S. 57 (1986), affirming the EEOC's definition of sexual harassment in its Guidelines. The
Court recognized that sexual harassment violates Title VO when it creates a hostile work
environment, even if no tangible harm is threatened. This type of harassment can occur when
arryone in the workplace -- a supervisor, a co-worker, or even a non-employee -- subjects an
individual to unwelcome sexual conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a
hostile or abusive work environment.
In 1993 the Supreme Court elaborated on the legal standards for establishing a hostile
environment. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993), the Court held that a
complainant need not prove that she suffered psychological harm as a result of the harassment.
Rather. she must establish that a reasonable person would have found the conduct sufficiently
severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. and that she perceived it as such.
Justice Ginsburg put it more simply:c it is sufficient to prove that the harassment altered the
working conditions so as to "make it more difficult to do the job. " Harris, 114 S. Ct. at 372
(Ginsburg, J., concurring).
An employer's liability for hostile environment harassment is not automatic. When the
harasser is a co-worker, the employer is liable only if it knew or should have known of the
misconduct and failed to take inunediate and appropriate corrective action. When the harasser
is a non-employee, such as a customer, the same standard applies, except that consideration is
given to the employer's ability to control the actions of the non-employee.
Courts are split as to when an employer is liable for hostile environment harassment by
a supervisor. Most courts recognize that a company is always liable for misconduct by a high
level official, such as the company president. This is because the actions of such individuals
2
196
are considered to be the actions of the employer. The legal standard is less clear with regard
to sexual harassment by other managers and supervisors. The Supreme Court in Meritor
stated that agency principles apply. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 72. Some courts have held that
under those principles, an employer is not responsible for hostile environment harassment by a
supervisor if it had an explicit policy against sexual harassment and effective complaint
procedures, and if the complainant did not notify higher management of the harassment.
Other courts and the EEOC have taken the position that an employer is liable under agency
principles whenever its supervisor used or was aided by powers delegated by the employer in
accomplishing the harassment. In such circumstances, preventive and corrective actions by the
employer would not eliminate liability, but could reduce the amount of damages that are
awarded against it.
One issue that has arisen in some recent hostile environment cases is whether Title VII
is violated when an individual in a workplace sexually harasses both men and women. Such
an individual might be called an "equal opportunity harasser." Since sexual harassment is a
form of sex discrimination, a female complainant must prove that she would not have been
subjected to the harassment had she been a man, and a male complainant must prove that he
would not have been subjected to the harassment had he been a woman.
At first blush, it might seem that there is no sex discrimination when men and women
are both subjected to hostile environment harassment. However, investigation into the facts of
these types of cases often reveals that the harassment is more severe or pervasive with regard
to employees of one gender. For example, in Kopp v. Samaritan Health Systems. Inc. , 13
F .3d 264 (8th Cir. 1993), the district court had issued summary judgment against a plaintiff
who alleged hostile environment harassment because the harasser was abusive to both female
and male employees. The Eighth Circuit reversed because the alleged incidents were more
frequent and severe with regard to the female employees.
Finally, even if a harasser's behavior towards male and female employees is equally
severe or pervasive, sex discrimination might still be found. For example, in Chiapuzio v.
BLT Operating Corp., 826 F. Supp. 1334 (D. Wyoming 1993), male and female plaintiffs
challenged a supervisor's sexually abusive remarks to them. The employer argued that there
was no sex discrimination because its supervisor harassed both male and female employees
alike. The court rejected this argument, finding that the supervisor's conduct could constitute
unlawful sexual harassment as to each plaintiff, because his behavior was designed to demean
and harass each of them based on their genders.
I hope that my testimony has provided the Committee a fuller understanding of the
issue of sexual harassment in employment. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
3
197
STATEMENT OF
HERSHEL W. GOBER
DEPUTY SECRETARY
BEFORE THE
behalf of Secretary Jesse Brown to testify about VA's policies and practices regarding
This has been a matter of utmost importance to Secretary Brown and myself from
the very beginning. I was sworn in as Deputy Secretary on February 3, 1993. One week
later I was at the Atlanta VA Medical Center dealing with a terrible sexual harassment
case that we had inherited. While I was there. I promised our employees that this
Administration would not tolerate anything that would keep them from devoting their full
attention to serving veterans. Secretary Brown and I have worked hard ever since to
Very early on. Secretary Brown established a policy of "zero tolerance" of sexual
harassment and other fonus of discrimination within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I strongly support this policy. Any and every allegation of sexual harassment 01
takes action to protect victims, and offenders are disciplined within the range of options
In saying this. however, it is relevant to clarify that "zero tolerance" does not
mean that all offenders will. in every instance, he removed from federal service.' Sexual
harassment and discrimination can encompass such a broad range of conduct that removal
from federal service may not always be the most appropriate or legal remedy.
198
tolerance" policy regarding sexual harassment. He has issued letters to all VA employees
expressing his strong commitment to diversity, equal employment opportunity, and the
prevention of sexual harassment. The Secretary has asked everyone to join him in
this policy. Consistent with these efforts, the Department has developed a program
designed to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination by all employees, not just by
The Secretary issued his rtrst all-VA employee letter on sexual harassment in
1993. That letter has been followed by four others dealing with EEO and sexual
harassment issues. In each. there has been an articulation of VA's policy, along with
four hours of training about the prevention of sexual harassment and discrimination,
followed by refresher training every two years. Every employee in V A was directed to
receive four hours of training in 1993 and early 1994, and every employee was directed to
receive two hours of refresher training in 1995 and 1996. By the end of 1996. every VA
employee also had received training in valuing diversity. Both Secretary Brown and I
under those programs. VA has also significantly improved its training for EEO
above the field facility level, to the Veterans Health Administration Network or Veterans
Benefits Administration area directors, for a higher level review to determine whether
investigation and resolution of the allegations. That Circular has expired, but its
encourage employees to bring forward their allegations, and protect them when they do
so, on May 26, 1993, VA established a requirement for a higher level review of all
complaints of reprisal and retaliation. For those employees who wish to remain
employees can report misconduct and find out what to do about it. The hotline number is
1-800-767-0184.
1994, and VHA Directive 10-94-097, dated September 29, 1994, formal'EEO
complaints.
In October 1994, V A clarified its table of penalties for misconduct, so there could
offense.
In practice, over the past four years, we have had nine cases involving senior
harassment or related matters. In seven cases, the executives resigned or retired. In the
other two instances, the executives were taken out of the Sertior Executive Service and
. I would like to address briefly the one case that precipitated this hearing, that of
the Director of the Fayetteville V A Medical Center who was alleged to have engaged in
proposing his removal from federal service. but had significant doubts that the evidence
would sustain removal action on appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board or in the
courts. As a result. a negotiated settlement was reached with the Director. To date, the
That agreement insured the Director's removal from the station. from the
directorship of any VA facility, from the Senior Executive Service, and from any
loss of pay. I understand that some view VA's decision to reach that agreement as
want to assure you in the strongest possible terms that it does not.
IT the verifiable evidence had been such that management was reasonably
confident that the Merit Systems Protection Board. or the courts. would have sustained
removal from federal service, then that action would have been pursued to its conclusion.
It is important to reiterate that management felt it was extremely important -- from the
standpoint of both the provision of health-care services to veterans and the work
environment for our employees at this facility -- that the Director be removed from his
entered into a settlement with him under which he was transferred out of the Fayetteville
VA Medical Center. He also resigned from the Senior Executive Service and was
What concerns us most about this matter is that it has damaged VA's standing
with some of our women en;Jployees and women veterans, and that is most regrettable.
As I have indicated. we have taken many serious actions over the past four years to try to
ensure that all of our employees have a workplace where they feel secure and safe from
discrimination and harassment of any kind. We believe that this is very important for
their well-being and for our ability to provide veterans with the health care and other
harassment and for that matter, other misconduct against senior V A executives, the
Secretary has required that all such allegations and recommendations for dealing
with them be brought to the attention of a committee drawn from senior staff in
the policy level, he has also charged the Office of Equal Opportunity with
of whether they are being handled through the formal EEO complaint process,
perceptions of how V A handles sexual harassment. To ensure the survey was conducted
objectively and professionally, an outside contractor was chosen. The results of this
reassuring them of VA's continuing commitment to ensuring that VA employees are free
of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. This letter will remind our
employees of the means available to them to deal with any problems they may encounter
in these areas.
We are optimistic that these measures together with all of our efforts over the past
four years are serving to reduce -- and, we hope, to move toward the elimination of --
Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, if there were one thing that I wish
I could accomplish at this hearing today, it would be to reassure all of our employees that
harassment. We want them to know that this is our policy, and we would ask them to
202
judge us on the strength of our entire record of actions in tbis area and our expressed
We will be doing all we can to get this message across to our employees and
managers, and we would welcome any suggestions you may have to help us accomplish
this.
I am available to answer your questions, as are the VA staff members who have
accomoanied me.
203
January 26, 1993 Met with the Deputy Assistant SeCretary for Equal Opportunity to
discuss his concern about sexual harassment, and to direct that actions
be taken to eliminate it.
February 2, 1993 Notified the White House of his review of the Department's EEO
program, with special attention to sexual harassment.
February 10, 1993 Sent Deputy Secretary Gober to Atlanta, GA, for an on-site review of
sexual harassment issues and the employment situation in general.
February 25, 1993 Issued a Circular which suspended the decentralization of discrimination
and sexual harassment complaint processing; delegated centralized
responsibilities to the Office of Equal Opportunity; and established a
requirement for higher-level reviews of all sexual harassment complaints,
by a level above that of the field facility in which the complaint arose, in
order to determine whether intervention is required ..
March 10, 1993 Authorized the establishment of an EEO Information Line (Hotline), to
provide employees and others a means of obtaining information and advice
about sexual harassment and discrimination, and how to report it.
March II, 1993 Established the Secretary's Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment, to
address sexual harassment and other gender-related issues. The group is
composed of headquarters and field personnel, arid is representative of
VA's diverse workforce.
April 6, 1993 Met with Harriet Woods, President of the National Womcns' Political
Caucus, to discuss their legislative agenda for women and to discuss the
Department's plans for-ensuring non-discrimination and advancement of
women in VA.
April 22, 1993 Met with his Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment to share his
concerns and ask for fonnal recommendations. The Secretary directed that
the following recommendations of the Ad Hoc Work Group be
implemented:
May 18,1993 Met with Carolyn Kroon, President, and Brigadier General Pat Foote
(Ret.), Military Advisor, from Federally Employed Women (FEW), to
2
205
June I, 1993 Issued a Circular which reported on problem areas related to sexual
harassment and discrimination complaints, as reported by the General
Accounting Office, and which required field facilities to review those
problem areas and report on what procedures were either in place or would
be put in place to correct those problems.
3
206
May 27,1994 Issued EEO performance standards for senior executives, which required
specific and measurable achievements in meeting affirmative employment
goals and in preventing discrimination and sexual harassment.
June 13, 1994 Circulated the Secretary's Performance Agreement with the President,
which included, as a major goal, becoming an employer of choice by
ensuring a work environment free from discrimination. Also established a
requirement that all managers and employees receive 4 hours of training on
managing and recognizing diversity.
October 18, 1994 Issued new VA regulations on Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, which
specified that sexual harassment and discrimination was actionable
misconduct, and provided for reprimand to removal fora first offense,
depending on the seriousness of the misconduct.
August 16, 1995 Issued an "All Employee Letter," which reaffirmed the Department's Equal
Employment Opportunity policy, to include "zero tolerance" for sexual
harassment and discrimination.
4
207
March 27, 1997 Established a committee of senior staff in VA Central Office to review all
allegations of misconduct against senior managers and executives, to
ensure that all of them are treated consistently and in accordance with the
Secretary's "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment and
discrimination, before any action is negotiated or finalized.
April, 1997 VA has several initiatives underway in the area of sexual harassment and
and continuing discrimination complaints processing. These initiatives include:
5
208
2
210
3
211
The former Director was also the EEO Officer for VAMC
Fayetteville. None of the three women, who made allegations
of sexual harassment against the former Director to the OIG,
had filed an EEO complaint .
5
213
6
214
7
215
9
217
10
218
Chairman Everett, distinguished members of the Subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
loday. I am Dorothy E. Nelms, Presidenl of Federally Employed Women (FEW). FEW is a non-profit non-partisan
membership organization representing over one million women employed by or retired from the Fede ral Government
throughout the world. Founded in 1968, FEW actively works to eliminate sex discriminatio n and enhance the career
potential of civilian and military women working in the Federal sector. FEW is finnl y commined to the princ iple that
every employee has the right to work in an environment that allows ind ividuals to perform at their best and that is
free from discrimination and harassment.
In lighl oflhe hislory of severe harassment at the VA . past scrutiny by this Subeommittee. and the VA's o fficial zero
tolerance policy against sexual harassment, it is appalling that we must be here today to address what appears to be an
undiminished environment of tolerance for sexual harassment and tacit endorsement fo r manage rs who have
perpetrated it.
Recognizing that sexual harassment is a major barrier to women's career advancement. FEW conducts widely-
recognized national, regional, and local trainings for workers and management on sexual harassment. EEO
compliance. and diversity in the workforce, among other topics.
In 1977, FEW established the independent FEW Legal and Education Fund. Inc (LEF). and in 1996, FEW
established the FEW Legal Awareness Program. The Legal Awareness Program provides o ur member.; with a short
legal advisory session to evaluate their individual situations, detennine if legal representation is needed in order to
remedy it, and, if so, to help them contact qualified attorneys. The LEF provides legal and joh-relaled counselling, a
nationwide lawyer referral service, and, for certain cases, legal defense funds .
In 1993, the LEF gave its Mary D. Pinkard Leader in Federal Equity Award to the founding members of Women
Against Sexual Harassment (WASH), a group helping Veterans Affair.; (VA) employees to fighl discrimination and
abuse. Several of those women testified before this Subeommittee in 1992. Despite their valiant support and
advocacy work, the VA continues to undemtine its own official zero tolerance policy by failing to take appropriate
action to discipline harassers.
Today, I will provide an overview of the effects of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. the effects of sexual
harassment on the women the V A serves, an overview of some of the barriers to adequately ad dressing sexual
harassment, and some concrete suggestions for measures to improve the Department's policy against sexual
harassment and its implementation.
In addition, I want to otTer any assistance that FEW can provide to the brave women who have testified here today, to
the Subcommittee in its ongoing oversight efforts. and to the Department of Veterans Affairs as it wo rks to prevent
and eliminate sexual harassment.
Overview
In 1994,44 percent of women and 19 percent afmen working in the Federal Government who responded to a survey
by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reported that they had experienced some form of unwanled sexual
attention during the preceding two years. Among women in the VA, the percentage was roughly the ~ame as the
1994 government-wide average. at 41 percent. However. the incidence among men was 27 percent. eight percentage
points higher than the government average of 19 percent (15. MSPB. 1995).
The incidence of sexual harassment has not decreased significantly since the MSPB's 1987 study. despite widespread
employee awareness programs on what constitutes sexual harassment and official efforts by Federal agencies to
institute anti-harassment programs (viii. MSPB. 1995).
Sexual harassment affects both the direct targets of harassment and their coworkers. It creates a chilling climate of
intimidation. fear. and mistrust. Women and men who know that an employee has harassed others will often go to
extraordinary lengths to avoid working with the harasse'r. transferring out of a department. turning down new
projects, or missing other important opportunities to participate in workplace teams.
When workers face retaliation for filing complaints. it exacerbates the hostility of the workplace environment and
tacitly supports sexual harassment and the attitudes that perpetuate it. Workers who support colleagues who file
complaints are often subject to retaliation as well. In 1992. for example. Mary Cavanaugh testified before this
Subcommittee that she was transferred to a lesser position in retaliation for supporting Donna Grabarczyk. who had
filed a sexual harassment complaint.
The cost of sexual harassment to the Federal Government continues to be significant. The MSPB estimates that
between April 1992 and April 1994. sexual harassment cost an estimated $327 million in sick leave. job turnover. and
productivity losses (ix, MSPB. 1995).
All too often. individuals and organizations attempt to deny or diminish the egregious incidence and impact of sexual
harassment by claiming that the majority of occurrences are "trivia'" or "minor." However. although sexual remarks.
jokes, and teasing do occur far more frequently than incidents of sexual touching and assault. they are not. as some
might suggest, less traumatic or detrimental in their effects on victims and their coworkers. Like low intensity
warfare. this type of harassment can be most damaging to victims over the long run. because it tends to happen
repeatedly over a period of one to six months (16. MSPB, 1995).
In the "grey areas," the burden of proof on victims is more difficult to bear. Victims often doubt themselves and fear
that coworkers or supervisors will not support them and that they will not be able to establish adequate proof of
harassment until they have endured long weeks or months of abuse and intimidation.
According to the MSPB. "data suggest that the percentages of employees who reported experiencing sexual
harassment are not due primarily to the inclusion of isolated incidents of bad management or poor judgement in ...
calculations of the extent of sexual harassment" (21. MSPB. 1995). Even when the MSPB excluded incidents of
sexual harassment defined as "less serious" -- looks/gestures, pressure for dates. letters. cans. and jokes and remarks -
-from its calculations of incidence rates, it still found that 38 percent of women and 15 percent of men reported
experiencing sexual harassment.
It is also common to dismiss many sexual harassment complaints as retaliatory gestures by disgruntled Federal
employees. However. according to the American Psychological Association (APA). research shows that less than
one percent of sexual harassment complaints are false. In fact. victims of sexual harassment rarely file complaints
even when they are justified in doing so because of the continuing stigma. time. and threat of reprisal involved (APA
fact sheet).
Federal workers, in particular, do not seem to make anegations of sexual harassment lightly. Government-wide, 17
percent of victims chose not to take formal action because they did not want to hurt the perpetrator of the harassment.
and 29 percent thought it would make their work situations unpleasant (35. MSPB. 1995). Only 6 percent of victims
reported taking formal action (33, MSPB, I99S).
Lack of appropriate treatment of sexual harassment and abuse at the VA not only undermines the confidence. health.
safely, and productivily of the women and men who work at the VA. but it also undoubtedly undermines the
confidence of the women the VA serves.
Over the years. the VA has been charged with providing inadequate service to women veterans and. in response. the
VA has made a public effort to improve the quality and scope of services it provides. Secretary Brown recently sent
a letter to more than 400.000 women veterans explaining the services offered by the VA and assuring them that the
VA has the "resources and the commitment to provide the counseling and care needed hy those !mffering the effects
of sexual assault. battery. or harassment while in military service" (SI. Petersburg (FL) Times. 2/5/97).
Unfortunately, this latest sexual harassment debacle sends a stark contradictory message to all women who deal with
the VA: "You are not safe here. We will not take your concerns seriously." Women patients. who are in the
vulnerable position of needing to discuss the intimacies of their health with V A doctors. the majority of whom are
men. may exacerbate their conditions by delaying or avoiding seeking care because they fear harassment or abuse
from V A staff.
The hostile environment at the VA and the Department's apparent unwillingness to deal with it are of even graver
concern to the huge numbers of women veterans have endured sexual harassment or domestic abuse while serving in
the military and who are now seeking care for the ongoing physical and psychological effects of the abuse. A 1993
study of women using the Minneapolis V A Medical Center concludes that women serving in the armed services may
be at higher risk of sexual assault than other government employees and. thus. are even more likely to need sensitive.
comprehensive services to address their concerns. 90 percent of women under age 50 and 37 percent of women over
age 50 reported having been sexually harassed while serving in the military. and 25 percent reported that a partner
had physically abused them within the last year (Family Violence Prevention Fund).
How can an agency that has a history of tolerating or even. it seems. rewarding. sexual harassment within its own
ranks reasonably instill confidence that it is ready. Willing. and able to help heal the effects of sexual harassment and
assault among the veterans it serves?
FEW feels strongly that the best indicators of a successful sexual harassment policy are a low incidence of sexual
harassment and employees' confidence that their agencies will deal with it effectively if it does occur.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a government-wide disparity between employee and employer perceptions
both of agencies' willingness to confront seJ:ual harassment and of their effectivenes~ in doing so.
Although 100 percent ofagencies reported taking swift action to investigate complaints. only 32 percent of
employees shared this perception (34, MSPB. 1988).
Although 82 percent of agencies reported enforcing penalties against harassers. only 27 percent of workers
thought harassers were punished (34. MSPB. 1988).
Although 59 percent of agencies reported enforcing penalties against managers who perpetrated or tolerated
harassment, only 18 percent of employees (34. MSPB. 1988).
Although 85 percent of agencies reported that their disciplinary actions against managers were effective.
only 65 percent of employees shared that perception (37. MSPB. 1988).
The most recent incidents at the V A underscore how important it is to narrow the gap between agencies' official
stance and the daily reality that employees confront in their work environments.
If employees Ire not ~onndent that their .gen~ln .re ~ommltted to or efTectlve .t ~onrrontlng, punllhlna, Ind
elimin.ling.na.1 h.....m.nl, Ih.y will be r.lad.nllo com. forward wilh complainl. and vidim. will
endur., .. Ib.r Ihon report bo ....m.nl. H......n will feel emboldened 10 initiale or continu. Ih.ir behavior
becauselh.y know Ih.y eon "g.law.y wilh il."
Govemmentwide. a significant percentage of victims who decided not to "take formal action did not do so because
they lacked confidence in their agencies' willingness to support them or to follow-up appropriately on their
complaints:
8 percent feared they would not be believed and 9 percent feared they would be blamed for the incidents (35.
MSPB,1995).
Based on the distressing testimony we have just heard and the publicity surrounding these incidents. it is clear that
workers at the VA must suffer high levels of mistrust and fear. No matter how effective agencies think their policies
are, if employees do not perceive them to work. the policies will not have the deterrent or remedial effects they are
intended to have.
Agencies use low numben of formal complaints to justify their confidence in and reliance on their official
polici... .
The VA. for example. points to its written condemnation of sexual harassment and its mandatory trainings as
evidence of its zero tolerance program. However, all employee letters and four-hour trainings are not enough. By
failing to take complaints of sexual harassment seriously or to adequately discipline perpetrators. the VA has further
undermined employee confidence and allowed both sexual harassment and the attitudes that support it to flourish.
supervisors and managers took inappropriate or inadequate actions against harassers: and
managers failed to investigate complaints or made errors in pursuing investigations of alleged harassment
(37, MSPB, 1995).
The .pecific probl.m. Ihll exi.1 allh. V A go beyond Iho.e Ii.led above. FEW question. Ih. exlenllo which
Ih. crilicism.levied in a 1993 GAO r.view ohnu.1 hara menl.llhe V A hlv. been adequalely addred.
The review found that
certain medical center directors and supervisors "actively sought to discourage complaints from being filed"
(3, GAO. 1993);
one-third of complaints at Ihe VA were rejected on procedural grounds. suggesting both that complainants
may not have been given sufficient infonnation to file complaints in a timely basis and that EEO counselors
and investigators needed further training (3. GAO. 1993);
consistent evaluation of training for handling sexual harassment "was difficult to ensure" given that the VA's
EEO system is decentralized to 171 medical centers (3. GAO. 1993);
complaints were not investigated promptly -- an average of over 5 months elapsed before cases were
40-881 97 - 8
222
50 percent of victims felt that they .uffem! reprisal or threats of reprisal in response to their complainls.
Despite specific identificalion of barriers 10 deal wilh sexual harassmenl effectively. evolu81ion of Ihe V A's lrealmenl
ofsexual harassmenl. and the VA's official efforts 10 implemenl a zero lolerance policy. il is clear Ihal mosl of Ihese
obslacles persist.
Following are FEW's recommendations for improving the VA's treatment of sexual harassment.
WId.ly publicize the range of pen.ltl...ad dlsciplln.ry octlon. for ...801 h.....m.nt.
The VA's manual ~ "The Prevention of Sexual Harassment in the Department ofVelerans Affairs." which
describes Ihe Departmenl's zero lolerance policy. slops short of describing Ihe range of possible disciplinary
aclions againsl sexual harassment. However. according 10 Ihe MSPB.
Employees should be made aware of how lhe agency inlends 10 discipline proven harassers.
Viclims should always be infonned aboul whal happened 10 lheir harassers. and penallies
should be public enough to serve a~ exnmple!\ to potential harassers thallTlanng.erncnt's
prohibilion of sexual harassmenl is more Ihan lip service (xi. MSPB. 1995).
72 percenl of employees surveyed felt Ihal publicizing Ihe range of penalties Ihal can be imposed on
perpelralors would be among Ihe mosl effective aClion an agency could take 10 address and deler sexual
harassment (41. MSPB. 1995).
Co.duct. periodic review of both (ormal and Inform.1 compl.lab .nd their outcome. and publicize
,e.e.. 1descriptloll' oftl........
Str"Rlh.n .mrmotlv ctloll .ITort. to cr.. t nd RI.lntoln a dlv..... workforc. of talented, dedic.ted
Indlvld. .is.
In t992, 56 percent ofthe VA's slaffwere women. yel only 7 oflhe 171 VA hospilals had women ..,
directors. The vast majority ofthe EEO slafT were men. The V A should learn from olher agencies'
experiences: 8 GAO review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's handling of sexual harassment and
discrimination found that women workers expressed little confidence in the internal investigative process
because the vast majority of investigators were men. many of whom had shown lack of sensitivity in the past
(GAO, 1994).
Seeking oul qualified women for supervisory and leadership roles would go long way loward alleviating
Ihe mislrust Ihal employees feelloward managemenl and increasing confidence Ihal coworkers and
supervisors alike would be sensitive in dealing wilh complainls.
InlUot. m.morandam. of and.ntondln& with oth.r Fed...1 o,.acles that would olio", V A .mploy...
to seek coua." from a limited num""r of EEO .taIT o.tsld. or the VA.
This will bolh diversify lhe group of available EEO officers from which employ ..s can choose and help 10
avoid real or perceived connicts of interest.
Empower full-tlm. EEO Invaticoton w~o can roc........lvely OBd Ind.pe.deoUy on EEO
comp.. ints.
The current system with part-time EEO counselors may not allow EEO starr enough time tn adequately
investigate complaints. counsel complainants. or resolve cases in a timely manner. It also may fail to provide
sumcient freedom from potential reprisal when making inquiries (22.IU. 1993 and testimony llfUllnna
Grabarczyk, 1992).
A periodic summary report of the nature. extent. and form of resolution of ronnal and informal complaints at
each facility would help keep the Secretary informed of EEO activity. To quote the 1993 Inspector General's
report, "continuing deficiencies in the same VA program areas may result from merely issuing new policies
without the aHendant requisite to ensure that they are effective" (27.IG. 1993).
Take action against perpetrators of sexual harassment based on the seriousness of the offense rather
thon on tbe rank of tbe offender.
managers and supervisors should not give undue weight to the harasser's performance and
value to the agency .... [T)he value of a harasser's contributions to the organization is likely
to be diminished by behavior that hurts morale. demonstrates a lack of ethics. or exhibits a
double standard. Further. the example that management sets in following through with
appropriate penalties can be more effective as a preventative measure than the policies it
promulgates (p.xi. MSPB, 1995).
Similarly. lack of action to discipline managers adequately undermines stated official policy and sends an
unwritten message that zero tolerance is a sham.
Work barder to prevent reprisal and tak. strong action against those who do r.taliat. against
complainants.
The MSPB's 1994 survey shows that. for almost half of those employees who filed a grievance or adverse
action appeal. taking action made their situations worse. The Secretary's own letter. dated May 6. 1993
continns that "a considerable number of the discrimination complaints" filed at the VA are reprisal cases.
If the VA is going to maintain its largely internal complaint and investigation process. it must find a way to
guarantee workers that they can come forward without being victimized a second time.
67 percent of employees felt that protecting victims from reprisal is critical to effectively dealing with sexual
harassment (41, MSPB, 1995).
including in the pending survey of workers' experiences with sexual harassment additional questions
regarding both retaliation and employees' perceptions of management and supervisory response to
allegations of sexual harassment:
Clearly, it is established that sexual harassment is a problem at the VA; thus. doing additional
surveys on the type and extent of harassment need not be the primary focus of the survey. Instead.
the VA should concentrate on dealing with the consequences of sexual harassment.
referring all complaints against top management to the region-level to avoid contlict of interest: and
including the results of EEO reviews Bnd the prc!>cnce or "b~ence or reprisals against workers who
file complaints of sexual harassment in performance ratings for managers and supervisors (24. IG.
1993).
Coillborat. with other Ig.ncl.. Ind the private-'Ktor to Improv. anti-.nul h.r .... m.nllr.ining and
10 upand Ihe b of EEO .ompUan Ir.ln.rs and .....rI .
FEW has a cadre of qualified trainers who have excellent experience dealing with sexual harassment.
Improve evalultion of the efJediveness of the antl:.elull harassment trAining the Department
provides for .mploy..., manog.n, and EEO conn lon and inv .. llg.lon (d, MSPB. 1995) by
establishing melsunble standards for succeufullnining outcomes.
FinallYt FEW would strongly support I measure like the 1993 proposed VA Emplo~'ment Di~crimin.Uon Act.
H.R. 1032 would have created a central Office of Employment Discrimination Complaints Resolution within the VA .
empowered full-time investigators who would have reported to the Office of Complaints Resolution instead of to
local managers. and appointed administrative law judges who would have been the final arbiters of employee
complaints. eliminating potential conflicts of interest between management and alleged perpetrators.
SourcelJ Cited
Ballingrud, David. "VA to be harassment-free, official told." St. Petersburg (FL) Times. 2/5197 .
Department of Veterans Affairs. Remarks for the Secretary on Sexual Harassment and his Zero Tcilerance Policy
with attachments, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Budget Hearing. 2/26/97.
Family Violence Prevention Fund. "Women Veterans' Experiences With Domestic Violence and With Sexual
Assault While in the Military: A New Study. " Fact Sheet.
http://www.igc.ap<:.orglfundlthe_factslveteran .html .
General Accounting Office. Federal Employment: Sexual Harassment at the Department of Veterans' AfTairs.
Testimony of Nancy Kingsbury, Director. Federal Human Resource management Issues. before the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 3130193 . GA OITGGD931 2.
General Accounting Office. Sex Discrimination: Agencies' Handling of Sexuall-larassment and Related Complaints.
Testimony of Richard Stiener. Director. Office of Special Investigations. before the HOllse Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 3/8/94 . GAOITOSI-94-22.
Grabarczyk. Donna and Mary O'Connor. Testimony before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations hearing on sexual harassment in the VA. 9117/92. FEW tilecopy.
Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Trends. Progress. Continuing
Challenges. October 1995.
Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update. June 1988.
Office of Inspector General. Department of Veterans A ffairs . Review of the Department of Veterans' A ffairs Equal
Employment Oppot1unity Program (with Emphasis on Sexual Harassment Complaints). J/ J 1193 .
3AB-UOI -092.
Dorothy E. Nelms
Dorothy E. Nelms. National President of Federally Employed Women. Inc. (FEW). a former federal employee. took
early retirement after 28 years of service to complete law school. A graduate of George Washington University National
Law Center. Washington, DC, Ms. Nelms specializes in civil rights. criminal. and domestic law. This experience has
greatly enhanced her training programs. Most recently, as an attorney. she has conducted agency-wide training on sexual
harassment with Mitsubishi, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Indian Health Bureau.
Ms. Nelms has been a professional public speaker and trainer for many years. As an internationally renowned speaker.
she has spoken and conducted trainings in all 50 states: Gennany. Japan. Belgium. and Canada. Although most of her
work has been with the public sector, she also has worked extensively with the private sector.
National President, Federally Employed Women, Inc. (FEW). 1996 to present: Leading a national organization of
over 200 chapters in the U.S . Germany. Japan, and Korea engaged in legislative and policy issues to help end sex
discrimination in the federal government.
President, Nelms and Associates, Washington. DC. 1981 to present: Attorney-at-Law and Consultant to Management
on human resources, equal employment opportunity. and affirmative employment planning.
Director. Organizational Development and Training. Hubbard and Revo-Cohen. Inc .. a human resources consulting
firm, Reston, V A: Consulted on issues such as team-building, conflict management. executive and staff
development, managing cultural diversity, and equal employment opportunity laws.
Director of Executive Resources. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1975 -1978: Managed a staff
responsible for personnel functions of all executives. consultants. and political appointees in the Department.
Director of Training. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1971 - 1975 : Directed a staff responsible
for the training of 17.000 employees of the Department and managing two national training centers.
International Auignmeats
Germany: Frankrurt. Heidelberg. Wiesbaden. Wurm s. Augsburg. Kaiserslautern. Graerenwoehr. and Munich in
1990, 1991 , and 1992.
Japan: Tokyo in 1990 and 1991.
Canada: Toronto in 1992.
OrglnlZlltiona' Affiliation.
Education
NOW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone (202) 296-0888
=;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;::;;;;:::. Fax (202) 833-1577
Statement of
Before the
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
on
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Maura Farrell Miller, a
Gerontological Nurse Practitioner at the West Palm Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Center in
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. As President of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs
(NOV A), I am pleased to present the testimony on behalf of NOV A. I speak for our
membership and for the more than 40,000 professional nurses employed by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (OVA). I also speak as a woman, representing thousands of other
professional women, employed in a male, physician-dominated, paternalistic, Federal agency.
really knows just how pervasive a problem sexual harassment is for nurses. Dianna Johnston,
RN, JD, Assistant Legal Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) has stated: "Sexual harassment has little to do with sex and a lot to do with power."
One reason why nurses are volnerable for harassments by doctors or administrators, who are
higher up in the hospital hierarchy. In one recent study, more than half the nurses surveyed
said they had been "sexually abused" [suggestively touched, sexually insulted or
propositioned] at least once. Three of 10 nurses reported they are subject to sexual
harassment at least once every two or three months (Diaz & McMillan, 1991). A recent RN
Magazine survey of readers confirmed that common forms of abuse, including verbal, sexual
harassment, and threats of being fired, were still commonplace in the healthcare workplace
(Begany, 1995). The typical respondent in this survey was a 39 year old female registered
nurse with 13 years in nursing, not unlike the profile of the career VA professional nurse.
Preventing and reporting sexual harassment is every DV A professional nurses'
responsibility. The total absence of reported incidents of sexual harassment involving DVA
professional nurses could be a symptom of other problems and may be reflective of what is
going on in the agency as a result of healthcare reorganization. For its very survival, the
downsizing and subsequent healthcare reorganization has forced men and women to compete
for a shrinking pool of healthcare resources and positions of power and authority at an
intensity never before seen in the DV A. As a female, professional nurse working in a
historically male, physician-dominated, paternalistic healthcare system, NOVA suggests that
incidents such as this be used as catalysts for change. Further dialogue is needed on this and
other perceived problems, to make the DVA a healthier workplace and the "employer of
choice" for registered professional nurses. As the DV A healthcare system evolves, NOV A
encourages the DVA to: use opportunities such as these to bring attention to women's issues
in the workplace; use more women in solving problems within the agency; and open up
executive healthcare management positions to all genders and disciplines.
I would like to thank NOVA's Legislative Co-Chairpersons, Dr. Sarah V. Myers,
Ph.D., MSN, RNC, and Barbara Zicafoose, RN, MSN, ANP, for their assistance in the
preparation of this testimony. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this written
testimony on behalf of the Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs (NOVA).
230
References:
I. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Policy for Prevention of Sexual Harassment.
VHA Directive 10-95-055.
4. Diaz, A. L. and McMillan, J. D. (in press). Medical alert: Sexual harassment in the
health care industry. International Journal o(public Administration.
231
GE
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO
80 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 737-8700
STATEMENT BY
KITTY PEDDICORD
WOMEN'S DIRECTOR
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
BEFORE
ON
AFGE has a long history of leadership in the fight against workplace sexual
Director, and ever since then, we have been In the forefront of the battle against
sexual harassment. Our activities include the sponsorship of the amendment to the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 that brought compensatory damages for the first time to
conferences on this Issue; AFGE workbooks, pamphlets, posters and even a video on
studies by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board have revealed that approximately
42% of all women (and 14% of all men) in the federal government, have experienced
sexual harassment. Additional studies In the private sector show numbers consistent
with the federal sector experience. Unions and women's groups, naturally, find these
results Intolerable. Employers too are beginning to take this problem seriously, not
harassment, but also because sexual harassment costs employers, daily, millions of
policy against sexual harassment. Secretary Jesse Brown has repeatedly acted to
233
turn around any previously-accepted view that allegations of sexual harassment will
merely meet the "good old boy" system of cover-up, denial, and frustration. For
instance, the VA now requires agency-wide training in sexual harassment, and AFGE
applauds Secretary Brown for his decision to train all employees, not just managers, in
sexual harassment. This is something that is not routine in the federal government or
the private sector. For instance, the employees of Mitsubishi are only now receMng
such training, and while employees of the Department of the Navy have had such
training, most other employers do not now provide such training to all their employees.
The VA has also established a toll-free phone number for allegations of sexual
harassment, and it is our experience that employees in the VA are now aware that
such gestures reflect a sincere effort to address the problem from the Secretary's
Office.
the nature of the VA's service itself contributes to a culture that permits some forms of
sexual harassment. I am referring here to the fact that the VA facilities operate
Independently, under the control of separate directors, and that the workplace provides
staffing. However, anecdotal evidence from AFGE Local officials confirms the general
observation that the VA Is moving away from a culture that overlooks allegations of
sexual harassment and toward a culture that responds quickly to such allegations.
today, and known to AFGE, In which high level managers benefit from some sort of
know for a fact that the typical worker at the VA would be unable to hold onto his or
her job under such circumstances, and obviously, we can see no reason why VA
Directors or managers should be granted exemptions from the new get-tough policy at
the VA. For this reason, we have remained vigilant on the issue of sexual harassment
and other forms of unlawful discrimination at the VA, even under the present, more
concerned, VA administration.
234
often the fact that the most abusive cases of on-going, festering, unresolved sexual
union members have access to an expeditious and Inexpensive remedial process for .
such violations of federal law; namely the grievance/arbitration process. Under the
AFGE contract with the VA, union representatives can address and remedy sexual
harassment before an independent arbitrator within just a few months, and there is
sharply with the agency EEO process (known as Part 1614), where managers must go
agency EEO complaint process, the VA is in charge of investigating Itself, and can
easily extend numerous deadlines. drag out the case for years prior to a hearing, and
even reject findings of discrimination for no good reason whatsoever (thereby assuring
years more of delay), while ali along continuing harassment and reprisal against the
complainant. When such abuses occur, as they often do, to a union member, the
independent arbitrator quickly, thereby putting an immediate end to the practice and
controlling the overall cost to the agency and to the employee as well. The value of
partnership process, and clearly demonstrates why the long-term outrageous cases
The second observation from today's witnesses is our firm belief that the series
anrogance of power that affects many other employment related deCisions, and the
VA's total lack of checks and balances on the various facility Directors. Long before
these managers committed the outrageous acts of sexual harassment, they learned
that they could ignore their obligations in the labor relations area, sabotage the EEO
process (as I stated before), and otherwise behave indiscriminately with impunity.
235
While we are certainly grateful that the agency hotline telephone number will help to
remedy Mure cases of sexual harassment, the union would like the same kind of
cases detailed today, AFGE's early warnings about the irresponsible conduct of the
As I stated earlier, AFGE will remain vigilant on the progress recently taken by
example, I would like to show the Committee the attached flyer which announces our
campaign at selective VA sites across the country to survey the workforce on sexual
harassment, racial discrimination, and abuses of the agency EEO process. As you
may know, two recent studies of the federal government have shown large disparities
in the diSCipline of federal employees by race, and the VA was identified as one of the
discrimination would equal that of sexual harassment cases. AFGE's union survey,
which kicks off next week and continues throughout the summer, will explore this
problem by establishing a toll-free phone number for employees to call with their civil
rights concerns. I will be glad to share the results of the survey with the Committee
when we conclude this AFGE-VA civil rights project. Again, I thank you for your
GRANT DISCLOSURE
Kitty Peddicord brings a lifetime of government and union experience to her position
with AFGE. She was elected to her post at AFGE's National Convention August 17.
still employed by the Social Security Administration (SSA). In 1970, Peddicord joined
the federal service as a G8-2 file clerk at SSA's Division of Personnel where she
soon became an AFGE steward with Local 1923. After several years at home and in
the private sector, Peddicord returned to the SSA Office of Disability Operations as a
part-time GS-3 typist in the typing pool. She moved up to Benefit Authorizer and
resumed her post as a steward with the Local. She also served as a member of the
Local's Health and safety Committee, and later as Chief Negotiator fighting for
impressive string of organizing victories, never once losing a campaign that she led.
Along with her AFGE responsibilities, Peddicord also serves as a board member of the
Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW). the A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the White
House Conference on Aging and the Democratic National Committee. She and her
PROILIM. WITII
IIICRIMI .7
Have you experienced:
~4~1
. . sex discrimination?
. . race discrimination? 0
. . sexual harassment?
. . abuse or frustration with the EEO process?
BERRY D. JORDAN
PRESIDENT, ZONE 4
BEFORE THE
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
1641 Prince S"..t Alexandria VA 213142818 (703) 683-8700 FAX (703) 6838707
239
Statement ofFMA PRsidcnt, Zone 4 Berry D. Jordan befo", the Oversight 11 Investigations Subconunlttee 4117197
My name is Beny D. Jordan and I am the President of the Federal Managers Association (FMA) Zone 4
(Southeastern United States) and Chair of the Association's Professional Development Committee and
Federal Management Institute. On behalf of the 200,000 managers and supervisors in the Federal
Government whose interests are represented by FMA, I would like to thank you for holding this
important hearing and for allowing us to present our views to the Veterans Affairs Oversight
Subcommittee on sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. I applaud the Subcommittee's concern
and leadership in dealing with the very sensitive subject of sexual harassment.
BACKGROUND
In opening, I would like to briefly highlight some facts about sexual harassment. In the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, and sex. There is no mention of sexual harassment in the statute or its legislative history.
Additionally, the 1964 act did not, at the outset, apply to the Federal Government. In 1972, the act was
amended by P.L. 92-261 , marking the first time that discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex.
religion, and national origin in the Federal Government was prohibited by statute. It was not until 1980
that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidelines interpreting the law to
forbid sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination (29 CFR 1604.11), and in 1981 a Federal
appeals court endorsed the EEOC's position that Title VII liability can exist for sexual insults and
propositions that create a sexually hostile environment.
According to the Merit Systems Protection Board, nearly half the women (44%) and one-fifth (19"10) of
the men surveyed in 1994, reported that they had experienced some form of unwanted sexual attention in
the Federal workplace. The October 1995 MSPB study, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace:
Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, reports that Federal agencies have been successful in their
efforts to increase awareness and educate Government workers about sexual harassment. Over 87% of
Federal supervisors and 77% of nonsupervisory personnel have received training in the area of sexual
harassment. Somewhat ironically, MSPB cites the success of education efforts as a factor contributing to
the slight increase in reported incidence in sexual harassment since the Board' s last survey in 1987. This
page -1-
240
Statement ofFMA PRsidcnt, Zone 4 Beny D. Jordan before the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee 4117/97
is mainly due to an evolving definition of sexual harassment that is becoming progressively more
inclusive.
MSPB also estimates that sexua1 harassment cost the Federal Government $327 million between 1992
and 1994 in increased use of sick leave and an increase in employee turnover. At a time when the civil
service has eliminated a quarter million positions and agency budgets are being strained to the limit,
Federal workers, agencies and the American public cannot afford the negative costs of sexual harassment.
ZERO TOLERANCE
FMA's position on sexual harassment, is unequivocal. Harassment on the basis of sex is clearly If
violation of Section 703 of Title VII.
Zero tolerance should not just be an empty phrase. It should mean that Federal agencies will take
immediate corrective action after being put on notice that an employee is being subjected to sexual
harasSment on its premises. Failure to take corrective measures is unacceptable and subordinates the
spirit and intent of the law. FMA supports EEOC's position that employers are required to take prompt
remedial action when sexual harassment occurs and is supported by the evidence.
In addition to the importance of effectively addressing acute cases of sexual harassment, FMA is
concerned that more education and training should be available for managers and supervisors on
understanding their roles in identifYing, preventing, and responding to sexual harassment. Upper levels of
management must understand what sexual harassment is and set the example for others to follow.
page-2-
241
SIaIement ofFMA Pmidcol, Zone 4 Berry D. Jordan bcfo", the Oversighl.t.lnvestigations Subcommittee 4117/97
FMA SUpports the EEOC definition that sexual harassment at work occurs whenever unwelcome conduct
on the basis of gender affects a person's job. This definition is not strictly limited to a traditional notion
of sexual harassment, i.e., "if you don't sleep with me you won't get that promotion you want." It is
defined as any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature. Managers must enforce the law that says any unwelcome sexual conduct or
attention is sexual harassment ifit affects an employee's ability to perform their job.
It is equally important that, just as managers understand their roles in responding to sexual harassment
matters, employees need to receive training focused on: what constitutes sexual harassment; the agencies
position; and, the complaint system procedure for processing allegations of sexual harassment.
FMA supports making sure that everyone from file clerk to political appointee knows: the law on sexual
harassment in clear terms; that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in any form; that agencies will treat
every incident seriously by developing and implementing guidelines; that each employee in the work place
knows prompt corrective action will be taken; and, that supervisors and managers will follow up on
decisions and be alert to possible future problems.
A sound EEO program's mission should be to resolve EEO complaints of discrimination at the lowest
possible level within the organization;
Program ownership should rest under the agency' s head;
pice -3-
242
SIaICmCDt oCFMA PrcsidenI. Zooc 41lcny D. Jordan before the OYenigbt cllmesliplioos Subcommittee 4/17197
A full-time properly trained chiefEEO counselor should be given authority to manage the program;
EEO counselors should be selected and trained to advise employees and managers, conduct limited
fact finding, and be neutral in attempts to resolve employee concems;
EEO program should be structured to identifY problem areas in the agency;
EEO programs should process and resolve complaints in a timely manner in accordance with EEOC
guidelines;
EEO chief counselors should keep senior leaders of the agency informed about EEO issues;
Implementation of an aggressive EEO education program should include some type of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) initiative;
An automated tracking system of EEO complaints should be established;
Key managers should be briefed on EEO complaint data quarterly;
Pamphlets and/or brochures should be developed and distributed to the workforce outlining the steps
in the EEO process including the pre-complaint and complaint stages;
Periodic complainant surveys should be developed and distributed to the workforce to let the agency
know how well complainant's needs are being met;
Monthly reports to directors highlighting departmental EEO activity should be provided for review
and action;
Quarterly EEO meetings chaired by a senior management official and attended by agency heads
should be implemented for an agency-wide prospective ofEEO activity;
ChiefEEO counselors should analyze report data and provide results to senior level management for
review and action;
Chief EEO counselors should develop workshops on conflict resolution;
As is currently the practice in DOD, agencies should establish partnerships between themselves and
an independent investigative body to prevent the perception of conflict of interest.
Agencies implementing these practices enjoy: I) higher resolution rates ofEEO complaints; 2) lower
numbers offormaJ complaints; 3) stability of the EEO counseling program; and, 4) a proactive approach
to complaint resolution.
pace +
243
Stalemelll ofFMA ~ Zone <4 Deny D. Jordan before the Oversight &: Investigations Subcommittee 4117197
RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, FMA recommends:
I. The concept of hostile environment and sexual harassment should be institutionalized through
education and training of both supervisors and employees.
2. When a preponderance of evidence reveals sexual harassment has occurred, immediate corrective
action should be taken.
3. Public agencies should be encouraged to expand the use of alternative dispute resolution to
supplement the current EEO complaint process.
4. Supervisors and managers should be made aware of their rights when identified as principle agency
witnesses in sexual harassment complaints. '
S. That the above listed elements of a successful EEO operation should be implemented
6. Agencies should incorporate clear criteria into their personnel performance evaluations requiring
adherence to EEO principles.
CONCLUSION
I want to thank you again for inviting FMA to present our views to the Subcommittee on sexual
harassment. FMA looks forward to working with you this year to improve the ability ofFederaI
managers and supervisors to take responsibility by acting promptly and taking corrective action to stop
discrimination and ensuring there is not reprisal against the victims.
This concludes my prepared remarks I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
***
FEDERAL GRANTS: FMA has not received any Federal grants or contracts within the last two years.
244
WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES
POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE APRIL 17, 1997
HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA
1. Is the Department satlslled with the way th~ Calhoun rase was handled with respect to
the IG Investigation, the VISN site visit, management actions and dedslons, and human
resources and legal support?
Answer: Overall, the Deparunent accomplished its goal of removing Mr. Jerome Calho'ln as
Director, VA Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC. In retrospect, we believe if the evidence was
further developed with enhanced coordination between the Office of Inspector General, VISN
management, human resources and regional counsel, a removal from Federal service may have
been pUlllued. V A has now established a policy that requires d11 proposed actions against senior
officials be reviewed by the Office of Human Resources Management, Office of General
Counsel, and the Office of the Secretary prior to the action being taken.
2. Why does VA beHeve Mr. Calhoun shoald be considered for re-entry into the SES?
Answer: At this time, VA does not believe Mr. Calhoun should be accepted back into the SES.
However, under existing law, VA does not have the ability to prevent any citizen from applying
for any position in the Senior Executive Service, even if the applicant's lack of qualifications or
negative past employment record make it clear that the applicant is not a credible candidate for
selection. If Mr. Calhoun does apply for re-entry into the SES with the Deparunent of Veterans
Affailll, VA would consider his past performance as a medical center Dire,'tor, iilId whether he
met the rehabilitation terms of his settlement agreement, before making any determination on his
re-entry.
3. waS Dr. Gross receiving confticting advice and case evaluations from VA's attorneys,
personnel advisors and the IG's oMce.
Answer: VA's attorneys, personnel advisors, and the !G's of'ice gave Dr. Gross appropriate
advice and case evaluations on the Calhoun case. However, there were weaknesses in
communication between managers, lawyers and personnel advisors. V A is taking action to
strengthen the communications among all of these parties involved in disciplinary cases,
particularly those concerning senior management employees. On March 28, 1997, the Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, issued a memorandum requiring that all
proposed actions related to conduct or performance involving occupants of positions centralized
to the Secretary (which include all SES and GS-IS positions) be reviewed in V A Central Office
by an appropriate high-level official, who is required to coordinate his or her review with the
Office of Human Resources Management, the Office of General Counsel, and the Secretary's
Office.
4. Do you beHeve that the Whatiey Report was an adequate and accurate portrayal of the
situation at Fayetteville?
Answer: Based on the limited charge that the VISN Director gave to Mr. Whatley. we believe
the report was adequate and accurate.
S. The Committee has Infonnation that Mr. Whatiey was Informed of Ms. Doris Moore-
Russell'. poasIhle concerns about Mr. CalhOWL Why was she not interviewed?
Answer: She was not interviewed because Mr. Whatley's charge was to review the effectiveness
of top management at the Medical Center;'specifically, the effectiveness of the Director. In this
case, individual allegations of sexual harassment were the responsibility of the Inspector General
to investigate.
245
6. Wby was the proposed removal not based on anything other than wbat was In the
Inspector General's report on the three cases 0( alleged sexual bara.sment and abusive
treatment at FayettevlUe?
Answer: At the time, it was VA management's primary goal to remove the fonner Director as
quickly as possible, based on the 10's fmdings and on the personal assessment of the VISN
Director, as continned by the Whatley repon. In retrospect, we believe that the sexual
harassment and the abusive atmosphere, coupled with perfonnance issues, may have made the
case against Mr. Calhoun stronger.
7. Was there ever an "evidence file" to accompany the proposed removal in the Calboun
case?
Answer: No.
8. Did you consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances In Mr. Calhoun's case? If
so, please describe the circumstances.
Answer: There are no mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would serve to excuse
sexual harassment or discrimination, or abusive treatment of employees.
9. Please describe the authority of a network director to issue a letter of proposed removal
for a hospital director.
Answer: The Under Secretary for Health had been delegated authority to effect disciplinary and
adverse action for Senior Executive Service employees. He may further delegate this authority to
propose and decide disciplinary and adverse action to other officials in the supervisory chain. A
Network Director would not have authorily to independently issue a letter of proposed removal
for a hospital director unless this were expressly delegated by the Under Secretary for Health.
10. Did Dr. Gross have the proper authority to issue the letter of proposed removal to Mr.
Calboun?
Answer: No. The Under Secretary for Health had not delegated authority to Dr. Oross to issue
the October 25 letter of proposed removal.
11. If the proposed removal had gone forward, wbo would bave been the deciding official
for the case?
Answer: As noted, no fonnal delegation of authority had been made. However, the most likely
decision would have been to designate the Chief Network Officer as the deciding official, acting
on a proposal from the Network Director.
12. How many other VHA employees with a similar position or responsibillties as Mr.
Calhoun make over $100,000?
Answer: Two.
13. Does Mr. Calhoun make more than bis Immediate supervisor? H so, what Is his
immediate supervisor's salary?
Answer: Yes, Mr. Calhoun does make more than his immediate supervisor. whose annual salary
is $81,429.
14. How many EEO complaints or grievances are pending against Mr. Calhoun at
Fayetteville, and what Is their status and general nature?
Answer: A recent review showed that the EEO complaint files at the V AMC Fayetteville are in
disarray. VA is sending an experienced EEO manager in to Fayetteville to organize these mes
and to put the EEO program back on track. At this time, we know of 11 fonnal EEO complaints,
flied by 9 different complainants. that are currently pending against Mr. Calhoun. There are no
2
246
grievances currently pending. The EEO complaints allege a variety of different things, but are
primarily concerned with general barassment and sexual barassment They are pending at
various stages in the complaint process.
15. How does the "save pay" provision operate, and how did it specifically apply to Mr.
Calhoun's situation?
Answer: In accordance with 5 U.S.c. 5363 and 5 CFR 536.I04(b), an agency may grant pay
retention to an individual whose pay would otherwise be reduced as a result of a management
action. Individuals granted this "saved pay" protection may retain the rate of basic pay they were
earning immediately before the management action, up to 150 percent of the maximum of the
grade of their new position.
In Mr. Calhoun's case, he was earning $101,600 basic pay as an ES-2 immediately before his
reassignment to Bay Pines, Florida. V A granted pay retention to Mr. Calhoun, enabling him to
retain his rate of basic pay at $101,600. He is entitled under the law to one half of any future
increases in the maximum rate of pay for GS-14.
Mr. Calhoun was receiving locality comparability pay (LCP) at Fayetteville, NC, of $4,888, for a
total pay of $106,488. He continues to receive the same amount of LCP in Bay Pines. The LCP
for Bay Pines is the same as for Fayetteville, so there was no change in Mr. Calhoun's pay upon
his reassignment
16. Is "save pay" possible If a member of the Senior Executive Service has been formally
disciplined?
Answer: Although saved pay is not guaranteed in formal disciplinary actions, it may be
appropriate in situations where formal charges are resolved by settlement Saved pay is provided
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3594 and 5 CFR Part 359, Subpart G when a "career" Senior
Executive Service (SES) employee is placed in a position outside the SES at a GS-15 or
equivalent. or higher, as a result of (I) removal during probationary period for performance, (2)
removal for less than a fully successful performance rating, (3) removal for failure to be
recertified, or (4) reduction in force.
In addition, all SES employees are also entitled to saved pay (in accordance with 5 U.S.c. 5363
and 5 CFR 536.104(b), if they are placed in a GS position at any grade level if (I) the placement
is based on a management action and would otherwise result in a reduction in basic pay, (2) the
placement is not for personal cause or at the employee's request. and (3) pay saving under 5
U.S.C. 3594 is not applicable. The saved pay may not exceed 150% of the pay rate of the grade
to which the former executive is assigned.
Answer: No, and a review of Mr. Calhoun's official personnel folder indicates no incidents of
prior disciplinary action.
18. The VA provided the Subcommittee with a chart called "Saved Pay for Former SES
employees." It lists the reasons for which saved pay can be granted. Please state which
reasons VA used In agreeing to Mr. Calhoun's saved pay In the settlement.
Answer: VA retained Mr. Calhoun's pay in accordance with 5 U.S.c. 5363 and 5 CFR
536.104(b), because the placement was based on a management action that would otherwise
result in a reduction in basic pay.
19. Please Identify the Indivldual(s) who actually drafted the settlement agreement In the
Calhoun case.
Answer: Dr. Leroy Gross, Director, VISN 6, dictated the points to be included in the settlement
agreement to Mr. Larry Sullins, Employee Relations Specialist. V A Headquarters. Mr. Sullins
typed the settlement agreement based on the information provided by Dr. Gross. The agreement
was faxed to Kathleen Oddo, a Regional Counsel staff attorney, who provided technical
comments on the agreement Some of those comments were incorporated into the agreement
3
247
20. The lnspector General prepared a three volume case file whldt ronsisIs or traJwaipts
and other related doc:uments complied during the IG Investigation at Fayetteville. A copy
of the ftle was provided by VA to the Subcommittee. At the very beginning of the ftrst
volume, there Is a type written note with the title "CALHOUN CASE". In bold print, It
says, "No quid pro quo sexual harassment", the VA OlG erred". Please describe the
purpose or this doc:ument, identify Its author and the reason for Its presence In the IG case
file.
Answer: The document was prepared for internal discussion purposes only. The document
sbould have been removed prior to being reviewed by external sources. The document was
prepared by Mr. Larry Sullins, Employee Relations Specialist. for the pUJ1lOse of discussing
potential problems/weak points in the IG investigation.
21. There is another statement In the same document which says, "VA Central Office
MCCK omdal encouraged Ms. Force to fabricate sexual harassment charge". Please
explain the basis or this statement.
Answer: This statement was listed as a potential argument that could be made by Mr. Calhoun's
attorney that could possibly weaken VA's case upon a third party review. If the statement was
found to have merit. Ibis could seriously damage any case against Mr. Calhoun.
22. Whose responsibility was II to prepare the "evidence file" for the proposed removal?
Was one prepared? If not, why not?
Answer: Evidence mes are routinely prepared by human resources management staff, regional
counsel, and supervisors/managers. The evidence me should have been prepared prior to
issuance of the proposed removal letter. Generally, the individual(s) who prepare the proposed
action would also prepare the evidence me. In this particular case, the proposed removal letter
was prepared by the office of the VISN 6 Director and the office of Regional Counsel. The
proposed removal letter was erroneously issued prior to the development of the evidence me and
fmali1ing of the. charges.
23. \\-bat remedJai or other training will Mr. Calhoun undergo as a result of his behavior
at Fayetteville?
Answer: Mr. Calhoun will participate in the established training in cultural diversity and the
prevention of sexual harassment required of all employees at the Bay Pines facility. Bay Pines'
management is also identifying other appropriate training in these areas. Mr. Calhoun is also
responsible for identifying and participating in additional training as part of his own efforts at
rehabilitation. Local V A Medical Center management will be monitoring activity and results in
both aspects of Ibis training endeavor.
24. In one of the 12 sexual harassment cases about which V A provided Information to tile
Subcommittee, VA entered a settlement where the alleged harasser received a $25,000
retirement buyout. Please provide the Subcommittee the details and tile chronology of tile
buyout and tile related sexual harassment or hostile environment allegations, Including
when any persons In the EEO or grievance process, and in management first became aware
of tile sexual harassment or hostile environment allegations.
Answer: In March 1995, VHA ,received approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to offer buyouts to selected categories of employees to help restructure and redesign the
organization, while reducing the numbers of managers and supervisors. VHA offered the buyout
to all Medical Center DireclOrS as a class, and did not impose any other criteria for eligibility.
The chart following Ibis answer shows a chronology of the buyout and the related sexual
harassment or hostile environment allegations.
VHA offered buyouts 10 each of the 16 directors who had expressed interest including
one direcoor who had sexual harassment allegations against him. At the time the buyouts were
offered, VHA had no formal basis on which to deny this director the buyout. Based upon the
advice provided by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), these allegations were not a
basis for which to withhold the buyout unless there was an evidence me, a letter of formal
4
248
charges issued to the employee, receipt and consideration of the employee's response, if
provided, and a formal decision letter issued imposing disciplinary or adverse action. VHA had
not reached any of these stages in its review of this case.
The statutory authority to provide buyouts to employees expired on March 31 , 1995. If VHA
declined to offer the buyout to the director pending adjudication of the charges, it would not have
had the authority to subsequently offer the buyout to him. If the charges had been found to be
without merit, he would have been unjustly penalized, wirh no provision to make him whole.
On May 17, 1995, rhe Offiee of rhe General Counsel dismissed rhe EEO complaint med against
this director.
...
_ut __ 1Y
00...
September 1. 1993
EEOc...
IMiaI Contact will
Counaetor
.,r.AcIIoft
Novctmber 30 1993 FlnAl lnt.M.tw with Counnlor
March 22 1994 FiMd FoRnal ComPieinl
Nob of Receipt Sent hm EEO
April 29. 1994
OIfi<r
ltr. from EEO Officer ~
April 29, 1994 ~~":tlnfonnelon for
Complainant Nceiv.:t ..ner
May 3, 1994 NqUeatinq additionaJ Information,
notwaPOff..
Cotnpiainanl ......Ited that an
atttmpt be maca. 10 informally
Ci~ May 16. 1994 ,.soNe iuuea. Too many
~ ahgationa in fonnal
<om "
Ruignodhorn
Janu&rY6 , _
lor"-pLoblity
~ruary 16. 1995
Determination
25. Please describe the Involvement or each or the Department's lawyers both In the
regional rounse!'s oI'ftce and the omce 01 General Counsel In the disciplinary ease
Involving Mr, Calhoun, Including the drafting or the proposed removal, the nqotlatlon 01
the settlement agreement, the drafting of the setUement agreement and the review or the
settlement agreement.
Answer: Materials 'previously furnished to the Committee address the involvement of rhe
attorneys in the Regional Counsel's office in the Calhoun disciplinary case, and specifically
address rhe proeess rhat was followed in connection with the draft removal charges. The
Regional Counsel anorneys consulted an anomey in rhe Offiee of General Counsel, who
reviewed the draft charges and made some suggestions. No VA attorneys were involved in
negotiating the settlement agreemenl An attorney in the Regional Counsel's Office made some
technical and lIubstantive suggestions to a draft of the settlemenl As pan of this process, an
attorney in rhe Offiee of General Counsel infonnally reviewed rhe proposed settlement, but
advised VHA staff rhat it needed additional waiver language and orher modifICations. These
changes were not incorporated in the fmal document, nor was the final document seDt to the
Office of General Counsel for concurrence.
5
249
26. Wbat allegations or charges against Mr. Calhoun did the settlement cover?
Answer: The settlement covers the charges of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and
abusive treatment of subordinates by Mr. Calhoun involved in the rescinded proposed removal
letter and Inspector General investigation.
27. Does the settlement agreement preclude VA from bringing other disciplinary actions
against Mr. Calhoun, If other dlsdpllnary matters are found relating to his conduct In VA
Medical Centers at Fayetteville, NC; Batavia, NY; or elsewhere?
Answer: The settlement agreement would not preclude VA from bringing disciplinary action for
other substantiated offenses at VAMC Fayetteville or other VAMC's. The settlement agreement
would preclude VA from bringing disciplinary action only for offenses related to the charges of
sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and abusive treatment of subordinates by Mr.
Calhoun involved in the rescinded proposed removal letter and Inspector General investigation.
28. Is It correct that a staff attorney In the VA OfIIce of General Counsel In Washington,
DC, only Informally looked at the settlement of the Calhoun case to ascertain whether It
was an enforceable agreement and that your office did not formally review or concur In
this legally binding resolution of cases Involving serious charges against a very senior VA
official? Please clarify the drcumstances of the Involvement of the OfIIce of General
Counsel In the Calhoun case.
29. What Is VA policy regarding General Counsel review and concurrence In Important
VA legal matters?
Answer: VA policy is, and has been, to require General Counsel review and concurrence in all
matters which involve substantive legal issues. Steps have been taken to better identify such
matters, and to ensure appropriate General Counsel participation in all future matters requiring
such review.
6
250
POSTHEARING QUESTIONS
CONCERNING TIlE APRIL 17,1997
HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN TIlE VA
1. In 1993, GAO reported that the Secretary had approved Its recommendation to do an
agencywlde survey to ....... employee concerns about sexual harassment, discrimination
and the handHng of complaints. In your written testimony you stated that a survey was
ronducted In 1996. Why did It take three years to ronduct this stody?
Answer: Initially, there was debate over whether the survey should inclode all VA employees,
or just a scientifically selected representative sample. That required consultations with a
contractor and evaluations of costs and sources of funding. Once that was resolved, the contract
had to he arranged, which took several months, and was concluded on Septem ber 30, 1994.
Thereafter, the contractor had to be given sufficient time to propose questions, test those
questions on focus groups (1/95), conduct pretests (8/95), revise the questions as needed, and
then mail them out (1/96). All surveys were received by the end of April, 1996, and a
preliminary report was prepared at the end of July 1996. That preliminary report was returned
with comments and suggestions for improvement in January of 1997 and the penultimate product
was presented by the contractor for review and approval on March 3 I, 1997. It is now being
reviewed by the Secretary's Ad Hoc Working Group on Sexual Harassment, which was the body
that commissioned the survey. We expect a fmal report in the very near future.
2. Concern has been expressed about the apparent lenient actions taken In cases of
substantiated harassment by senior VA ollldals. How does the VA Co about detennlnlng
the severity of actions It will take In sudt Instan<es? What factors enter Into the decision
maklng process and who has the llnal dedsIon-making authority?
Answer: V A uses a "Table of Examples of Offenses and Penalties" for determining the severity
of actions to be taken against senior offICials. The table is listed in VA's policy, Mp5, Part I,
Chapter 752, dated October 18, 1994, and identifies a range of penalties for specified offenses.
Among other things, the decision official considers the severity of the offense, the individual' s
response and past disciplinary record, and the Douglas Factors. The decision making authority
for disciplinary actions against senior officials has been delegated to Assistant Secretaries,
Administration Heads, and Other Key Officials with the Department.
3. VA recently organized Into 22 veterans Integrated service networks. What role do the
directors of networks play In overseeing the processing of complaints of sexual harassment,
particularly complaints that Involve the medical centers' management triad the director,
chief of starr, and the 8SIIOdate and or assistant directors?
Answer: Network Directors are responsible for fulfilling the role and responsibilities of the EEO
Officer by providing a "Higher Level Review" of all formal complaints of sexual harassment. to
include those involving Medical Center Directors, Chiefs of Staff, and Associate/Assistant
Directors. The Network Directors are required to review the complaints to determine whether
their intervention is appropriate and to monitor the processing until they have received the formal
complaint of investigation from the Office of Equal Opportunity.
4. We have been dealing with executive misconduct. For comparative pu~, can you
provide the Subcommittee with information on the frequency of similar misconduct by
non-executlve personnel and the actions taken in these cases?
A.....er: This information is not readily available, as our personnel database does not distinguish
those disciplinary actions taken for acts of sexual harassment from disciplinary actions taken for
other types of misconduct VA is presently developing a reporting system for allegations of
sexual harassment which will. among other things. report on disciplinary actions. The directive
7
251
is presently in the concurrence process, after which it must be coordinated with VA's emplOyee
unions. VA expects to have it issued by the end of the summer.
S. We have been talking about sexual harassment cases. What has been the VA's
experience with executives found to have been Involved with other forms of mIsronduct
such as the misuse of govenunent property, etc.?
Answer: When allegations of misconduct are sustained, VA has taken corrective action, which
ranges from counseling to demotion. Some individuals have retired before disciplinary action
was taken. Administrative disciplinary proceedings do not survive a resignation and are not a
basis for withholding voluntary retirement, under present law.
Answer: Yes. Mr. Calhoun received training on the prevention of sexual harassment at the
VAMC Buffalo, New York, while serving as the Associate Director. Just prior to, and in
anticipation of his appointment as Director of the VA Medical Center in Fayetteville, he also
received 3 days training at VHA's national BOO conference in Orlando, Florida. As part of his
participation in the training conference, be received training on the recognition and prevention of
sexual harassmenL
7. WID Mr. Calhoun receive any remedial training as a result of his behavior at
FayettevlUe?
Answer: Mr. Calhoun will participate in the established training in cultoral diversity and the
prevention of sexual harassment required of all employees at the Bay Pines facility. Bay Pines'
management is also identifying other appropriate training in these areas. Mr. Calhoun is also
responsible for identifying and participating in additional training as part of his own efforts at
rehabilitation. Local VA Medical Center management will be monitoring activity and results in
both aspects of this training endeavor.
8. Is Mr. Calhoun's current salary being paid out of the Bay Pines medical center budget?
Answer: The Bay Pines facility was allocated funds from VHA Headquarters, so it did not have
to absorb Mr. Calhoun's salary from its bodgeL
9. How many employees who have been found guilty of sexual harassment stili work for
VA. What are their current positions?
Answer: At present, VA has only surveyed actions against senior management officials. Nine
have resigned or retired after having been informed of the allegations against them. Two have
been demoted and reassigned. We cannot report on all disciplinary actions taken as a result of
the zero tolerance policy, with respect to all other employees, unless the employee has been
found guilty of sexual harassment in a fmal agency decision issued on an EEO complainL There
have been 6 fmdings of sexual harassment discrintination, involving 4 different VA employees (3
supervisors who were not senior managers and I co-worker). Only the co-worker still wodes for
VA That co-worker's case involved a sign which another co-worker found offensive. The
employee was required to take the sign down and was counseled.
10. How much money has the VA spent on &exuaI harassment settiements?
11. At our 1m hearing, the Inspector General's omce testlfted that an IG task force
survey of the EEO processes at both Central 0IIIce and at 11 VA fadlltles to review and
resolve &exuaI harassment and other EEO complaints found that:
1. The training requirements for EEO counselors appeared non-spedftc and there
was a Iadt of training plans and documentation that the training had In fact taken
pIIa.
8
252
Answer: All EEO Counselors, by regulation, must now be trained at an approved course before
they assume their counseling responsibilities. A new training course was developed to ensure
that the training was appropriate. Reporting requirements were strengthened in an interim
regulatory issuance, and more changes are pending. In addition, VA revised its EEO complaint
form to include, among other things, a separate category for sexual harassment.
12. As I understand It, under Ute terms of Ute settiement, Mr. Calhoun may be considered
for re-entry Into Ute Seuior Executive Service (SES) nfter Utree years. Is Utls correct?
Answer: Any individual may apply for appointment to the SES at any time in response to a
notice of potential vacancy. This includes individuals previously removed from the SES. Mr.
Calhoun can reapply to the SES after 3 years of the date of the settlement agreement Without
this provision, Mr. Calhoun could have re-applied to the SES immediately. Additionally Mr.
Calhoun would also have to be recertified for the SES by the Office of Personnel Management,
which would also consider his past record.
13. Under Ute terms of Ute settiement, Mr. Calhoun was not admitting guilt to any of Ute
allegations of sexual harassment, Isn't Utat correct?
14. Based on Ute Inspector General's Investigation into Ute sexual harassment complaints
and Ute oUter management Issues at Ute Fayettevme Medical Center, It seems to me Utat Ute
Department should have been taklng steps to remove Mr. Calhoun from Federal service.
Why did Ute Department negotiate a setUement wlUt him Instead?
Answer: VA reviewed the evidence against Mr. Calhoun which was developed by the Inspector
General. V A was not convinced it would have prevailed in either the Merit System Protection
Board or the courts upon appeal. VA determined that its overwhelming priority was to remove
Mr. Calhoun from his role as medical center Director, and place him in a setting where he had no
supervisory or managerial duties. The settlement achieved those objectives.
Answer: Mr. Calhoun retained his Senior Executive rate of pay under the provisions of 5 CPR
536.104(b) as provided in the settlement agreement
Answer: The maximum rate for a GS-14 employee in the Bay Pines locality would be $82,120
per annum.
9
253
POSTHEARING QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE APRIL 17, 1997
HEARING ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE VA
1. What obstacles have prevented the Department from fully implementing the EEO
program recommendations made by the Omce of Inspector General in March, 1993?
Answer: All recommendations have been implemented, with the exception of issuance of
revised Departmental directives and handbooks, which are presently in the concurrence process
in VA Central Office. However, those may be delayed or significantly revised, as a result of a
comprehensive review of the Depanment's EEO complaint processing program, which is
currently underway and which wiU be completed in the near future.
Answer: A task force has been convened to review the current EEO process. The members of
the task force are Eugene Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and
Administration; Linda Belton, Network Director, VlSN II; Art Goff, Civil Rights Advisor to the
Under Secretary for Health; Patricia Grysavage, Director, External Management and
Communications, Office of the Under Secretary for Benefits; C. Faye Norred, Director, VA
Regional Office, Washington, DC; Caren Eirkson, Chief, Personnel Division, National Cemetery
System; Patricia Novak, Director, Quantico National Cemetery; Neal Lawson, Assist General
Counsel; Beatrice Pacheco, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel; Shirley Carozza. Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Budget; Joe Schumacher, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Information Resources Management; Patricia O' Neil, Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning; Gerald K. Hinch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Equal Opponunity; Joyce Felder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources
Management; Alma Lee , President, National V A Council, AFGE; and Lorraine Payton,
President, VA Council, NFFE.
The task force will review all aspects of VA's EEO complaint process and prepare
recommendations for the Secretary. The first task force meeting was May 28,1997. Their repon
will be submitted to the Secretary witltin 60 days.
3. Regarding the December 6, 1996 rescission by the VISN 6 director of proposed adverse
action, have you determined why the evidence file was not included with the letter
proposing disciplinary action? What disclpUnary action was proposed in the letter
resdnded by the VlSN 6 director on December 6, 1996?
Answer: The evidence file was not included because the VISN Director did not know that an
evidence file must be prepared and included with a notice of proposed adverse action. That was
one of the reasons why the notice of proposed adverse action was rescinded. The notice
proposed Mr. Calhoun's removal from Federal service.
4. Why are V A employees who are victims of sexual harassment, a hostile work
environment and/or discrimination not filing EEO complaints? What changes would
encourage more employees to file a complaint?
Answer: We are not sure. It has been noted by the MSPB, in several of their surveys on sexual
harassment, as well as in statistics reponed by the EEOC, that formal complaints of sexual
harassment are significantly lower than the incidence of sexual harassment reponed in surveys.
Anecdotal evidence from some of the victims of sexual harassment suggests that removing the
local field facility Director from his or her role as the facility's EEO Officer would encourage
more employees to come forward with sexual harassment claims.
40881 97 - 9
254
5. How and wben did Mr. Calhoun's superiors Drst become aware of his Inappropriate
and unacceptable behavior?
Answer: Mr. Calhoun was appointed Direclor of the Fayelteville, NC, VA Medical Center on
April 3, 1994. AI thaI time, his immediate supervisor was the Regional Director, Southern
Region. Subsequently, the Fayelleville VA Medical Center was incorporated into the new VISN
struClure and, as a resull, formal managemenl supervisory control was transferred 10 the DireClor,
VISN 6, Durham, NC, on February 11, 1996.
During the time thaI Mr. Calhoun reported to the Southern Region, the Regional Director
intervened on one occasion in the Spring of 199510 review strained relations between the local
union, AFGE Local 2080, and VAMC managemenl officials. Through collaborative efforts,
suggestions were made on ways 10 improve the labor-managemenl relationship resulting in Ibe
establishment of a partnership agreement.
There were no other allegations about Mr. Calhoun's inappropriate or unacceptable behavior
(excepting the complaints about his "excessively aggressive management demands and slyle"
made by the VAMC's MCCR Coordinators 10 the Regional MCCR Office) which surfaced to the
Regional Director, Southern Region, during this period.
The Direclor, VISN 6 became aware of allegations that there were problems shortly after his
appoinunent in March of 1996.
6. How I'requently, and by whom, are senior VA managers evaluated and does this
evaluation include the manager's behavior and treatment of employee's?
Physician, Nurse and Dentist senior managers are evaluated annually under Ibe Proficiency
Rating System covering individuals employed under the provisions of Title 38. The initial rating
is recommended by Ibe manager's immediate supervisor and approved by an official al a higber
level. The proficiency rating elements for these individuals take into consideration their
management assignments, and provide for evaluation of such aspects of their performance as
administrative competence and personal qualities. In addition, the performance standards for
Chiefs of Staff specifically require a demonstrated commitment to achieving EEO goals and
objectives.
All other senior managers (nol covered by SES or Title 38) are rated under VA's Performance
Managemenl Syslem on an annual basis. The initial rating is recommended by Ibe manager's
immediate supervisor and approved by an official al a higher level. The manager's performance
plan must have standards IlIat relate to equal employment opportunity and affmnative action.
If the manager's behavior becomes a conducl issue, corrective action would be processed through
disciplinary channels.
7. Ho.. many dlsdpUnary actions have been taken by VA as a result 01 the zero toIenmce
policy?
Answer: At present, VA has only surveyed actions against senior management officials. Nine
have resigned or retired after having been informed of the allegations againsl them. Two have
been demoted and reassigned. We do nOl have a report of all disciplinary actions taken as a
result of the zero tolerance policy, with respect 10 all other employees. We are developing a
semi-annual report IlIaI will allow VA to capture Ibis information.
8. What actions can VA take to dIange employee perceptions that tile EEO process Is
biased toward l1l8IUIgement? What actions will VA take and when will these actions be
taken?
2
255
Answer: VA is currently studying reform of the EEO complaint process. We expect to have our
review completed and reforms proposed in the near future.
9. How many EEO Investigators are employed by VA and how many are full-time EEO
investigators? How long does it take an EEO investigator to complete an investigation and
wbat is the duration of the longest ongoing current Investigation?
10. Have Secretary Brown's policies to reduce, If not eliminate, sexual harassment and
other forms of discrimination in the VA workplace been implemented fully and effectively?
As a result, is the VA workplace safer, less hostile and less discriminatory?
Answer: In our view, the policies and the awareness campaign that were implemented to reduce
sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination in the VA workplace have been successful.
There are indications that VA employees and managers are receiving the message that these types
of behaviors will not be tolerated. For example, the three Merit Systems Protection Board
surveys of sexual harassment show a decrease in incidents of sexual harassment in VA between
1981 and 1995.
Sexual harassment and discrimination are very difficult topics to deal with and we hope change
in the culture will continue. The results of the V A sexual harassment survey will assist us in
determining how weD we are doing and where our focus should be to continue zero tolerance.
11. According to testimony by the office of the VA Inspector General, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) recommended in 1993 that an agency-wide sexual harassment
survey be conducted at the VA. The testimony further indicates that the VA did not
conduct the survey until the nrst six months of 1996. Is this information correct, and if so,
why did the VA take SO long to conduct the survey, and why don't you have the nual
results and analysis almost a year after the data was collected?
Answer: Initially, there was debate over whether the survey should include aU VA employees,
or just a scientifically selected representative sample. That required consultations with a
contractor and evaluations of costs and sources of funding. Once that was resolved, the contract
had to be arranged, which took several months, and was concluded on September 30, 1994.
Thereafter, the contractor had to be given sufficient time to propose questions, test those
questions on focus groups (1/95), conduct pretests (8/95), revise the questions as needed, and
then mail them out (1/96) . AU surveys were received by the end of April, 1996, and a
preliminary repon was prepared at the end of July 1996. That preliminary repon was returned
with comments and suggestions for improvement in January of 1997 and the penultimate product
was presented by the contractor for review and approval on March 31 , 1997. It is now being
reviewed by the Secretary' s Ad Hoc Working Group on Sexual Harassmen~ which was the body
that commissioned the survey. We expect a final repon in the very near future.
12. During hearings on this identical issue live years ago, former representative Jill Long
(D-IN), concluded that the VA's sexual harassment policy essentially boiled down to this:
"If you are sexually harassed, you get demoted, but if you harass, you get transferred, and
the taxpayers support your defense as well as your salary." Given the recent incident
Involving Director Calhoun, how has your zero tolerance policy changed since Ms. Long
made such observations? What steps is the Department taking presently to toughen Its
policy and keep, as )\Ir. Clyburn stated during the hearing, another Fayetteville from
occurring?
Answer: VA did not have a zero tolerance policy five years ago. It does now. Where an
individual is proven guilty, be or she is disciplined appropriately, if he or she does not resign or
3
256
retire first. In every proven incident of sexual harassment, that is exactly what happened. Mr.
Calhoun is still under investigation for other allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct If
evidence warrants additional charges, he will be disciplined. In addition, as mentioned before,
VA is currently studying reform of its EEO complaint process, in order, among oth~.r things, to
keep another Fayetteville from occurring.
13. As you know, the Committee staff has had the opportunity to review the case nle
regarding the charges against Mr. Calhoun. In her statement alleging harassment by Mr.
Calhoun, Ms. Force Indicated that she contacted the VA's Regional MCCR Coordinator
concerning Mr. Calhoun's attempt to relieve her of her MCCR duties, as well as her sexual
harassment complaints against Mr. Calhoun. According to Ms. Force, the regional
coordinator told her she should accept a lateral transfer because there was "no way [you]
could fight a Director." The regional coordinator allegedly went on to say that the "only
way to win against someone like [Mr. Calhoun) was If 5-6 people went to the medta and
caused a sUr." To your knowledge, did anyone at the V A or the Inspector General's omce
investigate these claims?
Answer: No.
Has anyone attempted to determine whether the (southern MCCK) regional coordinator
expressed such views?
In summary, the then-Regional MCCR Coordinator (Mr. Andy Enos) states that to his
recollection of events occurring on this issue during the time period in question, Ms. Force's first
quote in the above question is essentially correct However, the second quote is not something
he recalls ever making. In fact, he distinctly remembers no discussion at all by Ms. Force with
him concerning her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Calhoun; all conversations
revolved around Mr. Calhoun's attempts to coerce her to work surreptitiously against Mr. Jim
Crocker (one of her bosses). Apparently. when she told Mr. Calboun that she couldlwould not do
that, he then began to make her work life miserable.
Background Information: Mr. Enos and the Assistant Regional Coordinator at that time (Ms. Pat
Barker) both recall telephonic andlor in-person conversations with Ms. Force and her V AMC
replacement (in April 1996), both of whom recounted tales of Mr. Calhoun's "excessive and
profane management style" toward their individual administration of the V AMC's MCCR
program and their alleged failure to cooperate with him in various aspects of its overall
management. At one point during the period that Ms. Force was beginning to recount her initial
difficulties with Mr. Calhoun, Ms. Barker received a call from Mr. Calhoun asking her to
conduct an on-site review of the V AMC's MCCR program, so that he could supposedly verify all
the bad things going on within its administration and get the Region's help in making changes.
Upon completion of her review---during which she found no real indications of any significant
problems with the local MCCR program---she so informed Mr. Calhoun. who Was reportedly not
pleased with her report.
14. During the course of the VA's Investigation, did the Department take a look at Mr.
Calhoun's previous employment record to see ....hether any similar harassment claims had
heen made against Mr. Calhoun In the past? U so, what did the Department lind out? U
not, ....hat has the V A found out since that time concerning prior complaints against Mr.
Calhoun?
Ans....er: The Inspector General conducted the VA's investigation at the time. The Inspector
General investigated Mr. Calhoun's previous employment record. We have since double-
checked his record, and have found no report of previous complaints of sexual harassment
against Mr. Calhoun.
15. In 1\193, Senator Barbara Mlkulsld, expressed concern with the VA's bandIIng of
sexual harassment compllllnu against a hospital director In Atlanta. In Senator Mlkulsld's
view, the VA Ipored complaints against the Atlanta Director that had beeD festerl"l for
years at that fadUty. III responoe to Senator MIIwIsId's c:rItIcIsm, the VA IIIIIIOIl1Ieed an
overhaul oflts sexual ~t poIIdes. SpedJIcaIly, the Secretary announced his "zero
4
257
tolerimce" policy against sexual harassment; called for the institution of mandatory
training on the Issue for all VA employees; created a Departmental Task Force on
Harassment; and called for simultaneous review of sexual harassment complaints by the
individual hospital and by regional omclals. Please explain in detail how such changes
have been implemented and the status of these poUcies. Has V A Implemented these
changes? How has the V A measured the success or failure of its "zero tolerance" policy?
Answer: V A has implemented all of these changes. The following chronology explains the
actions taken by the Secretary in detail:
February 2. 1993 The Secretary notified the White House of his review of the
Department's EEO program, with special atter.tion to sexual
harassment.
February 10, 1993 Sent Depury Secretary Gober to Atlanta, GA, for an on-site review of
sexual harassment issues and the employment situation in general.
February 25, 1993 Issued a Circular which suspended the decentralization of discrimination
and sexual harassment complaint processing; delegated centralized
responsibilities to the Office of Equal Opportunity; and established a
requirement for higher-level reviews of all sexual harassment complaints,
by a level ahove that of the field facility in which the complaint arose, in
order to determine whether intervention is required.
March 10, 1993 Authorized the establishment of an EEO Information Line (Hotline), to
provide employees and others a means of obtaining information and
advice ahout sexual harassment and discrimination, and how to report it
March II, 1993 Established the Secretary's Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment, to
5
258
April 6, 1993 Met with Harriet Woods, President of the National Womens' Political
Caucus, to discuss their legislative agenda for women and to discuss the
Department's plans for ensuring non-discrimination and advancement of
women in VA.
April 22, 1993 Met with his Ad Hoc Work Group on Sexual Harassment to share his
concerns and ask for formal recommendations. The Secretary directed that
the following recommendations of the Ad Hoc Work Group be
implemented:
May 18,1993 Met with Carolyn Kroon, President, and Brigadier General Pat Foote
(Ret.), Military Advisor, from Federally Employed Women (FEW), to
discuss issues of concern to women employed in the Federal Government
and VA.
June I, 1993 Issued a Circular which reported on problem areas related to sexual
harassment and discrimination complaints, as reported by the General
Accounting Office, and which required field facilities to review those
problem areas and report on what procedures were either in place or would
be put in place to correct those problems.
6
259
May 27, 1994 Issued EEO performance standards for senior executives, which required
specific and measurable achievements in meeting affirmative employment
goals and in preventing discrimination and sexual harassment.
June 13, 1994 Circulated the Secretary's Performance Agreement with the President,
which included, as a major goal, becoming an employer of choice by
ensuring a work environment free from discrimination. Also established a
requirement that all managers and employees receive 4 hours of training
on managing and recognizing diversity.
October 18, 1994 Issued new VA policy on Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, which
specified that sexual harassment and discrimination was actionable
misconduct, and provided for reprimand to removal for a first offense,
depending on the seriousness of the misconduct.
August 16, 1995 Issued an "All Employee Letter," which reaffirmed the Department's
7
260
March 27,1997 Established a committee of senior staff in V A Central Office to review all
allegations of misconduct against senior managers and executives, to
ensure that all of them are treated consistently and in accordance with the
Secretary's "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual harassment and
discrimination, before any action is negotiated or finalized.
May 13, 1997 Established a Task Force to conduct a thorough review of V A' s sexual
harassment and discrimination complaints system.
Ongoing V A has several initiatives underway in the area of sexual harassment and
discrimination complaints processing. These initiatives include:
16. Have all VA employees been trained on sexual harassment Issues? Can you describe
for us the nature of the training that has been provided? Does the VA feel such training
has been useful in curbing harassment? What has been employee reaction to the training?
Answer: Almost all V A employees have received the mandatory 4 hours initial, and mandatory
2 hours of refresber training since 1993. Due to unusual circumstances, a few employees may
not have attended one training module or the other. The attached training module describes the
training in detail, and was used with the vast majority of V A employees. V A believes that this
training!tas been useful in curbing sexual harassment. Employee reaction to the training has
generally been positive.
17. Can you summarize for us the work of the Departmental Task Force on Harassment?
How many members are on the Task Force? Who are the members of the Task Force?
Have rank and file employees been Included in the Task Force and what is the gender
breakdown of the Task Force?
Was the Task Force consulted with regard to the allegations against Mr. Calhoun? Is the
Task Force generally consulted when allegations are made against high level V A officials?
Has the Task Force made any formal recommendations concerning VA's sexual
harassment poIicles and procedures?
Answer: The Task Force is officially called the Secretary's Ad Hoc Working Group on Sexual
Harassment. They have met on several occasions since 1993, to discuss sexual harassment and
the Department's survey on sexual harassment. Their focus has been on issues related to that
survey. Rank and file members were not included on the Working Group.
The Working Group consists of 14 members; 8 women and 6 men. The Chairperson is Patricia
McKlem, Director VA Medical Center, Prescott, AZ, and the members are Diana Bloss, Staff
8
261
Attorney. Office of General Counsel. Pittsburgh. PA; Patticia Carrington. Special Assistant to the
Secretary. V A Central Office; Jose Coronado. Director. V A Medical Center. San Antonio. TX;
Harold Gracey. Chief of Staff. Office of the Secretary. VA Central Office; Gerald K. Hinch.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity. VA Central Office; R. LaMont Johnson.
Associate Director. Discrimination Complaint Service. Office of Equal Opportunity. V A Central
Office; Dorothy MacKay. Veterans Benefits Administration. VA Central Office; AIline Norman.
Director. VA Medical Center. Lake City. FL; Robert Perreault. Director. V A Medical Center.
Decatur. GA; Catherine Smith. Director. V A Regional Office. Denver. CO; Eloise Tamez. Chief.
Nursing Service. V A Medical Center. Brecksville. OH; Julius Williams. Assistant Director. VA
Regional Office. Washington. DC; Patticia Grysavage. Director. Office of Executive
Management and Communication. Veterans Benefits Administration. VA Central Office; Ellis
Jones-Hodges. Director. Affirmative Employment Service. Office of Equal Opportunity. VA
Central Office; and Fred L. Watson. Director. Field Programs Service. National Cemetery
System. V A Central Office.
The Worlting Group was not consulted about the Calhoun matter. nor is it routinely consulted
about individual cases. The Working Group's made recommendations concerning sexual
harassment policies and procedures. and they are included in the response to question 15 (see
April 22).
18. How ha'l the V A Implemented Its dual processing system for handling complaints? Are
all complaints investigated at both the fadlity and the regional level?
Answer: The "dual processing system" does not require any investigations. VA's policy is that
all complaints of sexual harassment are to be referred for higher-level review above the facility
level. to determine whether or not intervention is required to protect the complainant or V A until
such time as an investigation is completed. There is usually only one investigation; either by an
Administrative Board. or by an EEO investigator. depending on wbether the complainant has
chosen to file a formal EEO complaint.
19. Ha'l the VA had a policy in place that sets forth the criteria used to appoint EEO
Officers at the individual facilities? U so, what criteria is used to decide the EEO Oflkers?
Answer: By current internal regulations. the EEO Officer is always the field facility Director.
20. In cases where a senior manager has heen accused of harassment, please explain how
the V A will conduct Its Initial Investigation Into the allegations? Will these allegations
always be pa'lSed on to EEO or Human Resources personnel outside the facility, or will
some investigations stili be conducted by individuals employed at the facility?
Answer: Where a senior manager has been accused of harassment. it will always be repotted to
the next higher level of supervision (VISN Directors for VHA or Area Managers for VBA and
NCS). If a formal EEO complaint has been filed. an outside investigator will always be
appointed by the Office of Equal Opportunity in V A Central Office. The complainant
determines whether or not a formal complaint will be filed. If one is not filed, an Administrative
Board. composed of outside employees will be convened. if the Director is involved. If the
Associate Director or the Chief of Staff is involved. there may be some local members appointed
to the Administrative Board who do not work under the supervision of the alleged harasser.
21. The EEOC ha'l testified that Its gnidelines require the VA to complete its Investigation
of a sexual harassment complaint within 180 days. What has been the VA's record with
regard to this l8O-day reqnirement? Has the V A typically completed its investigation at
the conclusion of the l8O-day period?
Answer: For the 12-month period ending April 30. 1997. the VA-wide average for all reports of
investigations containing allegations of sexual harassment was 199 days.
22. Secretary Gober, ha'l indicated in hioi testimony that the VA seriously considered
removal of Director Calhoun from the federal service, but decided not to pursue this course
because of concerns that the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Courts would not
uphold the removal. What message does that send to V A employees regarding VA's zero
tolerance" policy? Does "zero tolerance" truly mean that the V A will tolerate
9
262
Answer: No. However, in this case, V A determined that the risk of not prevailing made it
necessary to negotiate a settlement which assured Mr. Calhoun's removal from the Director's
position in Fayetteville, and from the SES. In every substantiated case of sexual harassment, VA
will pursue the most appropriate discipline. In retrospect, considering all of the evidence of
misconduct, including the sexual harassment charges, VA may have been incorrect in its
assessment that disciplinary action could not have been sustained on appeal.
23. In spite of the fact that she transferred to the Durham VA Medical Center and was
unhappy with her Job responsibilities at Durham, Mr. Calhoun stated in an interview with
the OIG that Ms. Force had not suffered because her pay had not been reduced. Does the
Department agree with Mr. Calhoun's stated opinlon that Ms. Force did not suffer? (As a
result of her transfer and assumption of new Job responsibilities she didn't enjoy?)
In view of Mr. Calhoun's views, does the Department believe the reassignment of Mr.
Calhoun with no reduction in pay was a disciplinary measure? Based on hls attitude
expressed to the OIG, do you believe Mr. Calhoun considered his reassignment at the same
pay a disciplinary measure?
Answer: VA does not believe that the retention of existing salary levels is the sole criterion for
determining an employee's level of satisfaction in their employment VA recognize:; that Ms.
Force's transfer to Durham and assumption of new duties may have significantly reduced her job
satisfaction and caused dislocation in her personal life. Therefore, VA does not agree with
Mr. Calhoun's opinion that she did not suffer.
VA believes that the fact that Mr. Calhoun had to resign from the Senior Executive Service, and
give up the prestige, influence, authority and autonomy associated with being a medical center
Director was a severe degradation of his employment situation, even though he did not suffer an
immediate reduction in his pay.
10
----263
Congratulations!
You have been selected to assist in a very important training
initiative - entitled "The Secretary's Initiative on The Prevention of
Sexual Harassment and The Discrimination Complaints ProcesS.
The Secretary o(Veterans Affairs has required 4 hours of training for
every VA employee In these two EEO program areas by December 31,
1993. In addition he has required that all employees receive a
minimum o( two hours refresher training every two years, and new
employees must receive training within 60 days of employment. This
training module has been designed to assist you in providing two
hours of training at your facility. It may be used in total, in part, or be
tailored to meet any specl~c requirements that your factltty may have.
This module Is also a supplement to a two-hour videoconference to
be broadcast on August 24, 1993, that will provide the latest J
in(onnation on Identifying and dealing with sexual harassment as wel~
as detailed steps (or processing EEO complaints of discrimination. '
This videoconference and the presentation o( the in(onnation
contained In this module will complete the Secretary's Initial
reqUirement (or trainIng. Detailed in(onnatlon has also been provided
to help you prepare for the broadcast.
1am very appreciative o( your efforts to assist the Veterans Health
Administration In this malor training program.
Sincerely,
CREDITS
Robert Nooner
Regional EEO Manager
Southern Region
Douglas Stewart
Human Resources Manager
Western Region
Janet Thompson
EEO Speclanst. Management Support Office
VACO. Washington. DC
265
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Facilitator's Instructions
Additions
266
on
}>
(')
-
r-
-f
}>
-f
o
::c
(f)
z
(f)
-f
::c
c:
(')
-f
o
Z
(f)
267
This training course has been designed to assist clarity and explain the pOints being mode. All
you In providing two hours of training In 'The or some of the supportive Information may be
Secretory's Initiative on the Prevention of Sexual used at the facilitatar's discretion: the faCilitator
Harassment and the Discrimination Complaints should feel free to odd additional studies,
Process' at your health care facility. The course illustrations, or anecdotes to help get these
may be used to provide two of the four hours of pOints across.
mandated training and/or may be used In
total, In port, or may be tailored to meet any 3. Four Reproducible Handouts
specific needs for training. We strongly suggest These are activities designed to stimulate
that you do a 'dry run' With your colleagues discussion and participation In your training.
before your first session. ThIS will allow you to The four acllvltles should be photocopied for
become familiar with the manual, the different distribution to attendees at the beginning or
materials, and the length of time required to end of each section. An annotated facilitator's
complete the session. copy remains In the book, for your reference
during the discussion.
The cour.e I. organized Into 4 pari.:
-Part 1: Background, Policy, and Definition of Before each training leilion. do the following:
Sexual Harassment (1-13) 1. Reserve a room and an overhead projector
-Port 2: Identltylng Sexual Harassment: lis for the training. You will need 2 1/2 hours,
Effects and Consequences (14-25) Including set up time.
-Pori 3: The Discrimination Complaints
Process: Steps In the Informal Process 2. Make the transparencies. There Is a large
(26-42) number of them (almost half the bOOk), so be
-Part 4: Discrimination Complaints: Steps In sure they are mode In advance. You need to
the Formal Process, and How to do thIS only before the very first session because
Prevent Sexual Harassment (43-47). they can be reused for each successive
training. After the transparencies are mode,
Within each .ecllon there are: replace the masters In their positions In the
1. Transparency Masters book (they are numbered; place them before
These Illustrate the facilitator's notes and the corresponding facilitator's notes), for
statement.. To use them, they must be reference durtng the sessions.
removed from this book and photocopied onto
transparency film suitable for overhead 3. Set up an overhead projector to show the
prolectors. If you need assistance to produce transparencies.
the transparencies, you should be able to get
help from your VAMC Medical Media. We have 4. Photocopy the sign-up sheet from this
Included In this section 2 blank transparency section. Make enough caples to lISt all the
master. to use at your discretion. attendees' names. Put It on a clip board so It Is
easily seen and doesn't get lost.
2. Accompanying Facilitator's Notes
These notes accompany each transparency 5. Photocopy the activity pages. Make
master and reference them by number. They enough for each trainee to receive one of
Include supportive background Information to each.
268
Have each trainee sign In as he or she enters. If you have more questions. contact your
Note that employees will be given credit on Regional EEO Manager. Keep Ihls book. As
their official training record for attending the changes are mode In policy, revisions will be
course, and that the sign-up sheet will be used senl oullo lacililalors to keep Ihe course as
by Medical Center directors to certify that current as possible. 8e alerllo events In the
employees have attended the training. news; Ihese can help you lIIuslrate pOints
presenled In Ihe book .
Greet the tralneel and begin the session with
facilitator's note 111. Thank you for laking Ihe lime 10 be a tacilitalor.
Good lUCk.
Continue with subsequent transparencies and
notes, following any Instructions. You can
control the presentation of Information by
FaCilitator'. Nol. aboul Ihe naltonal
covering a transparency with paper, exposing
vld.oconfer.nc. The Secrelary'.
data when you are ready to discuss each
tnillatlve; Th. Pr.ventlon 01 S."ual
point. In the Instances where there are lengthy
Haraum.nl and Ihe Dt.crlmlnatlon
illustrative notes, you may summarize the Complalnl. Proc ;
contents as long as the Important points are
mode. You are encouraged to supplement
On Augusl 24, 1993, from 1:30-3:30 pm
Ihe materials with relevant anecdoles and
ET. The Velerans Heallh Admlnlslrallon will
Information of your choice.
hold a Iwo hour vldeoconference,
lealurlng Secretory Jesse 8rown . II will
As Ihe session progresses, show each
locus on Ihe Prevenllon of Sexual
transparency and follow corresponding
Harassmenl and Ihe Dlscrlmlnallon
facllalor '. nolea.
Complolnl. Process.
Sign-up Sheet
PAGE _ _ Of _ _
MEDICAL FACilITY LOCATlON DATE OF TRAtNlNG FACllnATOR'S NAME
All ATTENDEES WILL RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ATTENDING THIS TRAINING. PLEASE
SIGN IN TO ENSURE YOU GET THIS CREDII
NAMI ISN , (OmONAl) IECnON ROII11NG IYMIOl
270
271
07
o
"G)::c
oc:
Z
C
I"'"
m
:::I
m
;0
en
z
c
s:en
-a
07
en
-t
c:
C
-<
en
c:
s:
s:
;0
-<
272
FEB 16 1991
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
MAR 91993
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Several slgnlftcant cbsnges bave been proposed In the pollciles wblch govern
VA's discrlmlnatlon complsInt program. Subject to approprtate unlon negotiations
these changes wtn be Incorporated In VA polley. 'lbe key propoSals are descrtbed
below:
All EEO counselors must receive training certIfted as adequate by the Office
of Equal Opponunll berore counseling an;y employees. Both full-time and
part-time EEO counselors must receive cerUfled refresher training at least
once every 2 years.
As we take other steps to Improve the VA work environment. I wtIl report what
Is being done. Agaln. I ask for your support and active part1c1patlon In thls Important
effort.
Attaclunent
'!be admIDIsIntIve complalDt process Is aadaorIzaI by the QvD RJabII Act of 1964, as UIeIIIIed; the Ale
. DiscrImIDadoa III Employmeat Act of 1967, as llllellded; IIId the ItebabDItIdoa Act of 1973, as llllellded.
AD Ac:cs delepte respoaslbllity 110 the Eqaa1 EaIpIo,meat ()pporIaDIty ConnnJssion (EEOC) 110 ~
replatioas .midlld forth the panIca1m of the CDIIIpIaiDt process. '!be EEOC repllItioas Ire pubUshed III
Tille 29, Code of Federal RepJadoas, Part 1614.
The bases for filing compbiDIs Ire oadlDed In those replatioas. They provide for the KCqICaDce of
complliDls from uy empIcIyee. or Ippllclllt for ~ wbo belieeldml he or she has beeD
discriminated apiDst on the basis of nee. color, n1JpJa, MIt, IIIIioaII oricID. lie, disability or III nprisaI
for baviJII opposed sudl discrimiDadoD.
B. Processing Stages
I. InfonnaJ StaR The aur\eed perma mast first leek --iDa rz-ID EEO CoauseIor moat the
_ c:aasID& him or her 110 believe dml he or IIIe his beeD diIcrImIIIIted . . . . . wIthID G aIeacIar u,s of
the dille of oc:curreaee. '!be EEO CoaDseIor wDI thea make 1IIIIlever1DqalrJ Is ~ II1II wDJ IIIeIIIpt to
leelc a lOIutiOD 110 the DIllIei' on ID IDformI1 basis. The CIOIIIIIeIor Is required 110 keep a record of bIs or her
activities IDd to complete counseling withID 30 c:aleadar da,. of IDIdaJ 00IIIaCt with the aurieYed pezma. If
counseling c:annoI be completed withlll 30 cslendar daJl, the CIOIIIIIeIor amst obtaID the wrIUeo pennIssIoa of
the aggrieved person for an extensiOD. The requested extension may DO( uceed 60 calendar . , . (for a toW
of!lO calendar days after inltill c:omact) under allY cin:u1llSWlCes. Additionally, the wriuen permission of
the aggrieved person regarding an ext_Ion mast be obcaIDed prior to the ea4 of the 30th c:aIenclIr da,. If
the written permission of the aggrieved penoa to exteDcI this period Is DO( obtaIDed before the ea4 of the 30th
cslendar da, after Initill contact. the counselor mast Issue a Notice of FIDIIlDterview to ebe complalnmc on
the 30th calendar da,. Should counsel ill, acdvItIes be completed prior to eKplratlon of the 30 cslendar da,
time limit, the counselor Ihlllissue Ihe Notice of FiDIIlnterview to the complainant at that time.
2. fonnll Complaint $taR, The complaint mast be reduced 110 writlDa, liped by the complalaant and
submitted to either the EEO Officer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for EquII ()pporbmIty or the Secnwy
of Veterans Aftain, w1thill15 calendar da,. of receipt ofebe wrIaea Notice ofFmallalervlew. Complaints
are usually IUbmitted on VA Form 4939, but any written document CODtaiDID& ebe lame lDformation Is
acceptable. Authority to accept a complaint Is delegated to EEO Officen at VA field instaIllItioas.
However, in ebe VA, only the Office of Gena Counsel Is autborlz.ed to dlsmlss or reject a complaint.
3. Investigative SIIR If a complaint Is accepted, ID IDvestiptor will be asslped to ebe ease. The
penon assigned may not be ID employee of the instillation .mere ebe complaint UOIe. The IIIvesti,lIOr Is
authorized to talce llatemeDlS from witnesses, under oath and without pled,e of confidence, ,ather pertineDl
documents and records and conduct whatever other illquiry may be Decessary. An investigation of
complaint must be completed within ISO cslmdar da,. of Its filing. unless the parties agree In wrItillg to
extend this period. The investigator must wemble the file aOC prepare ID investigative report, which
summarizes the evidence gathered.
275
5. Hearing Slue. 'If the eomplailllllt eIecIs I""'. the comptaillt wflllIe tnIISIIIlued 10 die _ _
office of Ibe EEOC for asslJlll1leat 10111 ~ Judp. 'DIe AdmiDIs1ndYe Jud,e wUl nv\ew the file
ID derermine If furIber investigation Is~. If DOlle Is - , (USUIIly _ wDl DOt lie), the
AdministntiYe Jud,e will schedule !he beMiIt& for a -.leal time and place.
A1tbouab more Informal. die beMiIt& wDllIe CIDDIIucced .. I _1imIIar 101 COUft trail. WiIDeae5 will
be called to testify and -r lie _IIIIiDed by die comptl" II1II I npnIeIIJlIYe of the VA. 'I1Ie
bearing will be recorded and trIIISaibed -wm. All ~ aabmIaed by the paniellIIIIlCCIipIed by
the AdministnliYe Jud,e will be eaund InIO the ncord. Upon compIedoa Of the 1tearIn&. the AdmIaistrativel
Jud,e will prepare III anaJysls. findlnp. and l6COIiUiiended clec:ision "ludina !he eompIaiat, wbida will be i
forwarded to \be VA OffICe of GenenI Couasel foI' I fiaallleaey decision. '
6. Flnll Agency Dec!s!op Stue 'DIe VA 0IIIce of a-aI CouDIeI wDl prepue die fIIIa\ aaeacr
decision on the complaint. If there bas II.- a bearlaa. the Office of a-aI CoUIIseIlllly epee or dlsapee
wllb Ibe recoaunencled decision of the AdmiJIlstraIm Jud,e. The fiaaI cleclslon of the Aacaey wUl acldnss
all Issues in the complaint; find diserimllladoo or find 110 dlscrillllllllion; and IIIvIse the CIOIIIpIoIoant Ofbis or
~
~~~c':u~ \be decision to the 0IIIce of Federal ()penlIons. EEOC. or to file a dvIJ ICIIoa In Federal
7. Appeal Stage. If the complainant dlslar- wltb the fiaallleaey cleclslon, be or abe l1li)' filelD appeal
lib the 0IIIee of Federal OperatIons. EEOC within 30 alendU' da" of receipt of 11M fiaaI apacy
declsion. If !he appalls timel,. the EEOC wUl llljuclicae the -.plaint. The appetiate decision Of the
IEEOC Is (mal and bindine on both panieI, ualesa ellber put)' limeIy requests reopeIIIne ud rec:oasIderaIio
by the members of lIIe Commission (i.e:. the Presidattillly appoinIed Conunisslooal Of the EEOC).
8. Reopening and Recaosjdmt!og Slue If eitIter die complainant or VA disaar- wlda the appellate
clecision of the OffICe of Federal Operadoas. OPe or boch -r request reopenin& II1II reCIOIIIIderado by the
Commissioners of lIIe EEOC wllhiD 30 alendU' da,. of receipt of III appellate decision by 11M EEOC. or
wllhin 20 alendU' da" of receipt of III OPPOSIa& party', request for reopenln& II1II _1deraI.ioa. The
pany requesting reopenine must clemomtrale IbaIlbere is _II1II material evJcIeece wbic:h _ DOt reIIIlly
IVIlIabie II Ibe time of lIIe appellate cleclsioa; or lite appelille decision involved III erroneous lnIerprerllion
of llw or reaul'lions or misapplication of established policy; or lIIe appelille decision Is of sudI u~ional
nature IS to have etrect beyond the case at band.
The decision of the Commissioners compleres the IIIministnlive process. The complalnam, however, -r
file a civil action I. US. DistJic:t Court. Also, civil aclioa ripu accrue IIIII)' time lfIer 110 alendU' da)'S
from \be dIIe lIIe c:omplaint _ flied, If there bu II.- DO finalllcaey decision or 110 alendU' da,. efler
filin,M appal wIIb EEOC, If lIIere bu bet~ DO appeliate decisioo. A dvIJ aclloft my IIso be filed withiD
90 calend.r dl1l of receipl of III appelille decision from EEOC (or from the Coaunissionen of EEOC afIa
a rC4Ut51 to reopen).
276
MayU,1993
11~f
DISTRlBU110N: CO: E-mailed 6112/13
FLO: RD. MA, DO. ae, aeRO IIIId 200 - FAX &/t2/113
EX: Boxes 104, 88, 83, 80, 64, 52, 47 and 44 - FAX &/12/93
278
11.10-12-030
","'-lIeforTo: 163
October 23, 1992
CHIEF MEDICAL D~CTOR'S INPORMAmN LETTER
TO: Regional Directors; Directors. VA Mec1lcal Center Actl"'tfes. Domiciliary.
Outpatient Clinics. and Regional Offices with Outpatient Clinics
SUBI: Sexual Harassment in the WorIcpIace
M"_tl~~. 4--.J.~D.
({c~~~~iCaI Director
DISTRIBUTION: CO; &-mailed 10123/92
FLO: RO, MA, 00. OC, aeRO and 200 - FAX 10/23/92
EX: Boxes 104, 88. 63, 60, 54. 52, 41 and 44 - FAX 10/23/92
279
280
Exe~utive Summary
This report discusses the results q{ a moJur 1987 survey and study
dealing with sexual harassment in the 1'lIderal workplace. It
marks the second time the U.S Merit Systems Protection Board
hasfocused on this important topic. As an u~ the n1J)OTt pr0-
vides some contrasts and comparisons with data gtJ/JIsmd in the
Boards first landmark study q{ sexual harassment in 1980. It
details findings on employee attitudes toward and experiences
with uninvited behavior q{ a sexual natu.... It also describes the
actions FI1deml agencies have taken in their tdJurts to reduce sex
ual harassment, and the finaru:ial as weU as human costs when
those tdJorts fatt shurt. The n1J)OTt reviews relevant case law that
has developed. over the last 7 yean; as the Board and the courts
have SOU!Jht to dlifine the legal rights and redress for victims of
sexual harassment. It concludes with recommendations fur future
action within the Government.
Background
In late 1979, the Subcommittee on kind" broad-scale survey of the at
Investigations of the U.S. House of titudes and experiences of a
Representatives' Committee on representative cross-section of
Post Office and Civil Service re- both selfidentified victims and
quested that the U.S. Merit nonvictims within the Federal
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Government.
conduct a thorough and In 1986, on its own initiative,
authoritative study of sexual the Board decided to conduct a
harassment in the Federal followup study on sexual harass-
workplace. The Board was asked ment to detennine what changes,
to carry out the study since it is if any. had occurred in the Federal
an independent, quasi-judicial Government since the time of the
agency that decides appeals from first study. As part of this
pel'9Onnel actions taken against followup study, which was con-
Federal employees and conducts ducted in 1987, a Questionnaire
studies of the civil service and that replicated much of the
other merit systems. It is responsi- original survey was used so
ble for protecting the integrity of responses for 1987 could be com
the Federal civil service system pared with the 1980 data. The
from abuse. Questionnaire was sent to a
The initial study of sexual representative cross-section of ap-
harassment conducted by MSPB in proximately 13,000 Federal
1980, with a final report issued in employees, and 8,623 employees
early 1981, was a "first of its responded.
281
Background,
Policy, and
Definition
of Sexual
Harassment
40-881 97 - 10
Obiectives
At the conclusion of this program, the participant
should understand:
The importance of a work environment free from
discrimination and sexual harassment.
The definition of sexual harassment. ~
Examples and effects of sexual harassment.
Actions to take if sexual harassment occurs.
How to use the EEO complaints process: formal and
informal steps.
The rights and responsibilities of all parties in the
complaints process.
How to prevent sexual harassment.
287
Facilitator's notes
1
Leave on .creen during registration
and leatlng.
THE 1'liI vr IJTION OF SEXUAl HARASSMUJT MJrJ THF DISCRlt/llJATION COMPLAINTS I'IIOCESS
288
-
C
0> ......
E 0
(.1)-
(.I)C
o 0>
o E
..c.1::
-0
00.
::::J 0>
~o
(.I) 0>
"-
0_ ..c
c-o
.Q C
I: cO
.....-o
~
0>
0>
ao E
c-.::::J
> 0>-.=:
--
(.I)
=- 0>""'
......
..c
-oc
Ccn
-a .!:2 1:::
>-o~
0
o ..c o.~
3:.~ ~
- I:
289
Facilitator's notes
2
Open with this question. Then answer
using the following Information:
THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINA liON COMPLAINTS PROCESS
Recent Events
1980 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Study
Facilitator's notes
3
Recent events have brought this Issue to the
forefront:
Facilitator's notes':
4
Our commitment to the EEO program starts
at the top with Secretary Jesse Brown. The
"quote' shown Is from his February 16, 1993,
letter to all employees regarding his personal
commitment to this program. You have all
received a copy of this letter.
Facilitator's notes
5
Read through obJectives on
transparency.
THE PREVENTION OF SfXUi\l HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMI~IATION CO'lPI AINTS PROCESS
MSPB Study
The Department of Veterans (VA) was second
among all federal agencies in the percentage of
women experiencing sexual harassment (49%).
~
297
Facilitator's notes
6
In deanng with sexual harassment In the
Department of Veterans Affairs. It Is useful to
look at some background from the 1987
study mentioned earMer.
NOTE:
The study found that the 1# 1 lederal agency In
which women experienced sexual
harassment was the State Department.
THE PREVE NTION OF SEXU!IL H!, 0 ASSi!"!I! AI JD T'"E DISCRI\;~INA TION COMPLAINTS PROCESS
MSPB Study
The VA was first among all federal agencies in
the percentage of men experiencing sexual
harassment (21%).
t\:)
~
299
Facilitator's notes
7
Requires no additional Information.
~
g
301
Facilitator'S notes,
8
Unreported can mean that:
Sexual Favoritism
303
Facilitator's notes
9
Point out that the 1980 study showed circumstances under which this type of claim
that the majority ot sexual harassment will lie.
was by a supervisor toward a
Consensual Relationships: The most typical
subordinate. The 1987 study revealed
situation Involves Instances of preferential
that most sexual harassment was treatment based upon a consensual
committed by co-workers. romantic relationship between a supervisor
and a subordinate. Preferential treatment
Explain that sexual harassment takes given to one's spouse, mistress. or special
on distinct forms: friend may be unfair to other employees In
the unit. and Is obviously Inconsistent with
1. Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo sexual merit principles. Nevertheless. the
harassment occurs when submission to sexual Commission now believes that such
conduct Is made an express or Implied preferential treatment. provided the
condition of employment or when submission relationship Is consensual (I.e .. welcome)
to or relectlon of such conduct Is used as a does not discriminate against men or women
basis for an employment decision. since all employees In the unit. regardless of
gender. are equally disadvantaged. In other
2. Hosllie environment. The hostile work words, a female who Is denied an
environment claim generally arises when employment benefit under such
sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of circumstances would not have been treated
creating an Intimidating. hostile. or offensive more favorably had she been a male nor.
working environment. or of unreasonably canversely. was she treated less favorably
Interfering with an employee's work because she Is a woman. Hence. such
performance. preferential treatment will not give rise to a
sexual harassment claim by other employees
3. Sexual Favorillsm. A relatively new theory In the unit.
that Is accepted by some courts and
relected by others. EEOC recently Issued Caerced Relatlonshlp(s): The Commission
Interpretive policy guidance clarifying the takes the position that If a female employee
rules on sexual favoritism found In Its Is coerced Into submitting to a sexual
Guidelines. Previously. the Commission and a relationship In return for a Job benefit. other
few courts had ruled that sexual favoritism femaie employees may be able to establish
cauld. regardless af the circumstances. give quid pro quo sexual harassment If there Is
rise to a claim of sexual harassment by evidence that the harasser publicized or
employees who. although not themselves boasted about hiS conquest or regularly
harassed. were allegedly denied benefits harassed the victim In the presence of other
given ta other employees who submitted to employees. The theory Is that such evidence
a supervlsar's sexual advances. Several would support a conclusion that sex was
courts refused ta recognize such a claim and generally a condition to receipt of lob
the Commlsslon's recent Interpretive benefits. Even absent such evidence.
guidance on the Issue somewhat limits the however. the Commission believes that both
Facilitator's notes
continued
9
male and female employees will have
standing to challenge the favoritism If they
can demonstrate a specifIc personal loss or
InJury as a result of the dlscrlmlnatlon directed
against the woman who was coerced.
o
PRESSURE TOUCHING LmERS PRESSURE SUGGESllVE SEXUAL
FOR AND FOR LOOKS REMARKS
SEXUAL CAUS DATES
FAVORS
Facilitator's notes
10
Sexual harassment Involves on Interaction ThIS new standard lor evaluating the
between two people. The perceptions 01 the evidence In sexual harassment cases could
person being harassed are often quite possibly have an Impact on the number of
dllferent fram those 01 the person accused of incidents necessary to demonstrate severity
doIng the haraSSIng. likewise. the perception and pervaSiveness. In other words. prevIOus
of certain behavIor as sexual harassment wI cases defined these concepts based on the
vary from person to person. reasonable man standard and reasonable
men might consider certain types of conduct
The definition of sexual harassment does not as harmless or common social Interaction
rely solely on the perspectives cif the parties rather than harassment (e.g., campRmentlng
Involved. It also conSiderathe Circumstances a woman for having a "great figure" or 'nice
surrounding the event. legs"). A reasonable woman (defined by the
courts and the EEOC as one who Is not
Reasonable Woman Standard: Recent hypersensitIve), on the other hand. might
decisions by several circuit court. of appeal view such actions as harassment and be
have held that employers must focus on the willing to tOlerate far lewer of them than a
perspective of the Victim when evaluating male might consider necessary to
the severity or pervaSIveness of the sexual demonstrate pervasiveness.
harassment. ThIS new standard holds that
conduct will constitute sexual harassment If a
reasonable woman In the victim's shoes
would consider If as such. notwithstanding the
lact that a reasonable man might
conceIvably coNider the conduct as
harmless or even amusing.
THE PRE VENTION OF SEXU!<L HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS
Definition of Sexual
Harassment
Sexual Harassment is a form of sex discrimination.
Co:!
Sexual Harassment is deliberate or repeated S
unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, or
physical conduct of a sexual nature which
are unwelcome.
308
'(facilitator's notes .
11
Sex discrimination occurs when Individuals
ore treated or Impacted In a dlffe;ent
manner because of sex (gender) distinctions.
Although sexual harassment Is a form of sex
discrimination, It Is concerned only with
unwelcome sexual behavior that Interferes
with an Individual's employment, benefits, or
ability to work effectively.
THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PI AINTS PROCESS
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when ....
Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly
or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's
employment,
CI:)
o
c.c
Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used as the basis for employment decisions
affecting such individual.
Facilitator's notes
12
Read this statement:
TIJ( rr<! \'t NT' C) '] (). ',I \,JI\I II/\P/\1 \)~V'" ~,r Ai f) ilH
DlscrW/'I"JATIO~. COVI'Lf,I' HS PfIOCI:'3
Brenda Is a lab .techniCian In a VA MedICal Chief questions whether Brenda can 'handle"
Center. She has excellent Job perfor- that responsibility. since She has no such
mance evaluations and on outstanding experience. He mentions a conference
academIC background. When the Chief of coming Up In the next week. where he will be a
laboratory services rellres .the new mole Chief contr "utor. He suggests that she accompany
reorganize. the lob structure. creating a new hi n order to observe what goes on and assist
supervisory position. . with his activities. He also reminds her that
the experience would help strengthen her bid
One evening. the Chief flnd. Brenda working for the new posttlon. Brenda declines to
late to flnlstl up a project. He Invite. her to /Oin accompany him. Subsequently. the supervisory
him for a quICk dinner. and Brenda accepts. At position Is awarded to another lab technician.
dtnner. the Chief encourages Brenda to apply
for the supervisory postllon. The next morning.
he sends flowers to her lob stallon. along with a
note thanking her for a 'speclal evening." The DISCUSS Conclusions
next day. he Invites Brenda to again JoIn him for
dinner. She refuses. indICating She has to go
directly home. He later offers her a ride home.
which ahe olio refuses. That night. the Chief
calls Brenda at home and asks her for a date.
She again refuses.
Facilitator's notes
13
The participant's copy of Activity One
(Handout) Is to be duplicated and The Chief's overtures are unwelcome -
-after the Initial dinner, Brenda refuses the
distributed to each participant at this
lob Chief's requests for dates or ttme
point In your presentation. together
Facilitator s notes 1
continued
13
applcotlon for the supervisory potItton.
Shortly otter, the Chief begins to leave notes
at Brenda'. desk and frequently calis her
home. She continues to refuse his overtures.
DIscUII Conclullonl.
Thf ppr vi rJTIor~ or seVUM 1I.\riAS3MEcJj NFl TIIF D:SCR'M"iATlor~ COMPLAINTS PROCESS
315
Identifying ."
::0
-I
Sexual N
Harassment:
Its Effects
and
Consequences
Pari Two Obieclives
At the conclusion of this section, you should
understand:
Examples and effects of sexual harassment.
Co:)
.....
0)
Actions to take if sexual harassment occurs.
317
, Facilitator's notes
14
ThiS second port of the trolnlng module will
continue to focus on behavior. that
constitute sexual harassment.
THE PRE 'It NTIOI" OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT A~ID THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS
Examples of Sexual
Harassment
Verbal
Sexual innuendoes ~
......
Suggestive remarks 00
Insults
Humor and jokes about sex or gender-specific traits
Sexual propositions
Threats
319
Facilitator's notes
15
Expand on the transparency list with
the following examples:
COMMENTS:
-Sexual comments about a person's body,
clothing or looks
SUGGESTIVE REMARKS:
-Conversations about sexual fantasies,
preferences, or history
-Personal questions about a person's social or
sexual life
PROPOSITIONS:
-Repeatedly asking out a person who Is not
Interested
INSULTS:
-Telling lies or spreading rumors about a
person's personal sex life
-II
::t
.>C
CD
v.
.........
01:
",CD
..!!E
a. '"
E;
II"
>ell
... :z:
321
Facilitator's notes
16
Expand on the transparency list wIth
the followIng examples:
LEERING
-Staring In general or at a particular part o f
the anatomy
OGLING
-Looking up and down (elevator eyes)
OBSCENE GESTURES
-Suggestive facial expressions or sexual
gestures
OBSCENE MATERIALS
-Displaying sexually suggestive visuals of any
kind
Facilitatorls notes
17
Expand on the transparency list with
the following:
TOUCHING:
-Touching a person's clothing. hair or body
-Hugging. kissing. palling. pinching. or
stroking
-Touching or rubbing oneself sexuany while
around another person
BRUSHING:
-Standing close to or brushing up against a
person
CORNERING :
-Blocking a person's path
THE prlEVENTION OF SEXUAl HARASSMEr~T AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PI AINTS PROCESS
Effects of Sexual Harassment
on the Victim
Mental anguish and stress
Uncomfortable working environment
~
Facilitator's notes .
18
Read through list on transparency
and explClln:
THE PREVErJTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PLAINTS PROCESS
Effects of Sexual Harassment
on the Organization
loss of morale, productivity, and efficiency
Increased absenteeism and turnover CA:)
Potential litigation
Adverse publicity
327
Facilitator's notes
19
Read the list on transparency, then
add:
Facilitator's notes
20
Read the list on transparency. then: Generally. before a federal court wll allow a
victim to raise a state tort claim In
Explain that sexual harassment IS an Issue of connection with the federal claim of
conduct. Therefore. It IS handled through a harassment. the case must usually be one
progression of disciplinary actions. The Involving Indecent touching or some other
degree of discipline IS based upon the obJectlanable conduct. Judgments In these
seriousness and repelltlveness of the state tort claims have somellmes resutted In
conduct. compensatory and punitive damage awards
against the Individual harasser In excess of
NOTE: one million dollars. The Federal Government
Personal Tort LIability: In the past. federal will not pay such Judgments on behalf of the
employees. If found by a court to have employee Since the emplayee was clearly
engaged In sexual harassment. could rest not acting within the scope of emplayment
assured that they would not be held while engaging In the IdenHfled conduct.
personally liable for any monetary Judgment.
This IS because. under federal Civil rights laws. It Is Important to mention the landmark case
only the head of the department or agency that was decided against the former Chief.
Involved can be named In the suit. Any Fiscal Servtce. VAMC lyons. NJ (This article
Judgment handed down Is a Judgment was published In The (Newark. NJ) Star-
against the agency payable out of the ledger. 11/26/92):
governments Judgment Fund. This Is stili true
Insofar as federal civil rights laws are Former Top Official at VA Hospital Admits
concerned. This Includes the recently- Guilt In Sexual Harassment Case - A
enacted CMI Rights Act of 1991 which former top official at the VAMC In lyons.
provides for compensatory damages of up to N.J .. pleaded guHtv In federal court In
$300.000 over and above any backpay Trenton. NJ. to sexually harassing a female
which may be owing. employee. Chauncy W.lewls. 55. Chief of
the Fiscal Service. pleaded before U.S.
However. with Increasing frequency. federal Magistrate John J. Hughes to one count of
courts are beginning to permit victims "abusive sexual contact.' according to
bringing sexual harassment claims to add. Assistant U.S. Attorney Dyana lee. lewis'
under certain circumstances. state tort law case was the flm In New Jersey and
claims to their federal claims. This permits possibly the nallan In which federal
them to hold the harasser personally liable for authorities brought criminal charges
damages. A tort Is a civil wrong for which against a government offICial for aleged
compensatory and punitive damages may sexual abuse. SentenCing for lewis IS
be asseaed against the wrongdoer. Typical scheduled to take place before Hughes on
state tort claims being raised by plaintiffs In January 15. lewIS faces a maximum of Six
sexual harassment cases Include. but are not months In federal prISon and $5.000 In fines.
limited to. assault. battery. Intentlanal
Infliction of emotional distress. outrageous
conduct. and false ImprISonment.
Employee Responsibility and
Conduct
Title V, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 735
The maintenance of unusually high standards of honesty,
~
integrity, impartiality, and conduct by government ~
employees is essential to assure the proper performance
of the government business and the maintenance of
confidence by citizens in their government.
Facilitator's notes
21
Federal employee and employer
responsibilities for conduct while acting within
the scope of employment are set forth In the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Facilitator's notes
22
Read transparency and explaIn: the victim flies a formal complaint of
discrimination.
An employer Is responsible for acts of sexual
harassment In the workplace where the 'Constructlve knowledge" Is present when
employer (Its agents or supervisory management officials should have known of
employees) knows or should have known of the harassment. For example, a supervisor
the conduct. may claim lack of actual knowledge; that Is
that he or she never observed any
Implicit In this statement Is management's misconduct and was never Informed of It.
responsibility to toke action based on On the other hand. If the facts In the case
awareness of sexual harassment activity clearly demonstrate that the harassment was
regardless of whether a complaint has been widespread and well-known among
flied. employees. the supervlsar cannot shield his or
her employer from liability simply by arguing
Management must respond to all allegations that he or ahe was oblivious to what was
of sexual harassment with an Inquiry and happening. This situation often occurs when
Intervention designed to end. and to repair there Is more than one harasser and/or more
the effects of, the harassment. Where the than one victim. Under these circumstances.
employee alleges hostile environment sexual the employer will be deemed to have
harassment. the v A may ovoid liability by constructive knowledge of the harassment
showing that there was immediate and and will be liable If It falls to toke Immediate
appropriate corrective action as soon as and corrective action.
management was put on notice of the
harassment. Where the employee alleges Quid pro quo
sexual harassment, the VA cannot avoid all
In a hostile environment claim. the first step In liability. Supervisory employees represent the
fixing an employer's liability Is to determine V A and/or are authorized to oct on behalf of
whether the misconduct was committed by the V A such that the V A Is strictly liable for
a co-worker or a supervisor. In general. /I the their actions. This means that the V A Is held
hostile environment Is created by a co- accountable for sexual harassment by a
worker. IIabmty will attach only /I the supervisor In the course Of employment even
employer knew (actual knowledge), or where no other management official hod
reasonably should have known (constructive knowledge of the sexual harassment.
knowledge). of the harassment and failed to Although a prompt appropriate
take Immediate and appropriate corrective management response will not reduce the
action . 'Actual knowledge" Is usally present VA's liability for the sexually harassing
when the employer's supervisors/managers conduct of Its supervisory employees.
become aware of the abusive environment management stili has a duty to respond .
through first-hand observation, or when the Intervention by management will minimize
victim Informally complains to his or her the ellects of the harassment on the
supervisors. or when an EEO Counselor Individual victim, and will support
discusses the victim's allegations with managements goal of preventing further
management officials. and. of course. when harassment In the workplace.
n't PiEVE CJl10N OF SEXLlI\L HI\RI\SSMENl AND THE DISCRIMINI\ TION COMP LAINTS PROCESS
Note That:
The harasser is most frequently a coworker,
Facilitator's notes
23
While we have already Identified that the
harasser Is most frequently a co-worker. we
need to be aware that the harasser may
Include people who are not dlreclly
employed by the Agency. For example.
vendors and outside contract personnel may
be Involved In sexual horassmenl. These
Incidents also need to be brought to the
Immediate attention of management.
Facilitator's notes
24
Read:
When on Individual "feelS he or she has been
the vICtim of sexual harassment. the following
actions should be token :
THE PREVE NTION OF SEXUI\I HI\RI\SSMENT I\N D THE DISCRIMINATION COMPl/IINTS PROCESS
338
-
"--
z::.
~
E
~
~
'=
--=
'=
::I
~
">
---
~
~
z::
~
0 ~
--
~ --
~
z::
....
>-
--:-
~
-~
..c
.......
--
..
Q
~
339
1. A representative af a hospital supply vendor routinely visits the Procurement Office. ThiS "rep"
considers himself a "ladles man" and always makes suggestive remarks to the two lemale clerks In
the office. He addresses them as "Sweetie" and "Honey," and comments on their appearance,
with specific references to parts of their anatomy. At the end of each visit, he always asks the
unmarried clerk for a date, and leaves her his personal phone number, written on his business card.
The clerk repeatedly turns down his request for dates and tries to refuse the phone number, but the
"rep" always forces the Issue. Fearful of creallng bod feelings, the clerk takes the business card,
smiles politely, and promises to "think about It." This clerk Is very uncomfortable with the man 's
behavior and confides her feelings to the other clerk. The second clerk tells the supervisor that
both women find the rep's behavior obJectionable. The supervisor responds, "Yeah-he's a real
smooth talker. But he's Just trying to be friendly to his customers. Ignore him and he probablv
won ' t bother you." Shortly thereafter, the unmarried clerk contacts an EEO counselor with a
complaint 01 sexual harassment.
2. A woman member of the housekeeping ataff at a Medical Center Is assigned to a work team
comprised of men and women. Members of the team work together on tasks. ond since the work
Is physical, they usually talk as they work. In addition, team members often take breaks together,
so the team Is a social group as well as a work team. They feel comfortable with each other and
are on friendly terms. The new woman member 01 the team seems to fit In Quickly, making friends
with the other workers and Joining In their conversallons. She uses vulgar language freely In her
speech and often Initiates sexually oriented conversallons with her co-workers. She asks male
team members about their marital aex lives and whether they engage In extramarital affairs. She
freely discusses her own sexual encounters In conversations with both mole and female co-workers.
A few weeks after she Joined the work team, the woman alerts her supervisor to the fact that she
has be9n propositioned by male co-workers and subjected to sexual remarks. She claims sexual
harassment.
3, A resident physician at a VA hospital routinely stops by the nurses stallon on his ward. He always
greets the nurses by hugging tham or touching them In some sexual way. Some of the nurses laugh
and go along with his "playfulness,' while others genlly push him away and dismiss his forwardness.
Those nurses who object to his behavior move away to avoid him. The doctor does not force his
otten lions on the nurses who ovoid him, and he does not pursue the others beyond the physical
contact he Initiates. One of the nurses finds this dally scene to be very upsetting, although she has
always mode her displeasure obviOUS and has never been approached by the doctor. Even so,
she claims that she Is a vlcllm of sexual harassment because of the environment created by the
doctor.
Discuss Responses
340
';facilitator's notes
25
The partiCipant', copy of Activity Two -Does the conduct Interfere with the victim's
(Handout) I, to be duplicated and work performance or create a hostile
enVironment?
distributed. to each participant at this
-Hal the victim let the harasser know the
point In your presentation. behavtor Is unwelcome?
-Has the victim recorded or reported the
Leave transparency #25 on the Incident?
screen and distribute the handout. -Old the emp/oyer know of the alleged
conduct?
Give participants at least 4 minutes to -Has the employer taken Immediate and
appropriate corrective action?
read the handout, keeping In mind
that they will discuss the following Incident 111: (Key pOints)
question: ApplyIng terms from the -The vendor's behavior Is deliberate,
definition of sexual harassment, EEOC repeated, unsolicited.
guIdeline" and other InformatIon -The vendor verbally harassed the unmarried
received, determIne whether these clerk with terms of endearment and
suggestive comments. He continues to ask
IncIdents Involve sexual harassment.
her out, even though she has turned him
down repeatedly.
You may break Into smaller groups for -Management may be responsible for the
dIscussIon purposes. Select a leader actions of people who are not directly
from each group to summarize Its employed by the agency, such as vendors,
discussion. Be sure everyone has had when they know of their behavior. This
enough time to read the Incident and supervisor was Informed about the behavior,
but did not take Immediate and corrective
to discuss It as a group. action.
Facilitator's notes
continued
25
Incident 113: (Key points) man's behavior and confides her feelings to
Even though the doctor In question does not the other clerk. The second clerk tells the
have direct verbal or physical contact with supervisor that both women find the rep's
the nurse/Vlctlm. his behavior may Indeed behavior obJectionable. The supervisor
create a hostile environment. The nurse feels responds. 'Yeah-he's a real smooth talker.
that If she does not continually make a But he's Just trying to be friendly to his
definite effort to avoid him and discourage customers. Ignore him and he probably
him. she will be subjected to the same wont bother you." Shortly thereafter. the
behavior. This Is subtle harassment. but very unmarried clerk contacts an EEO counselor
real to the victim. and It may Interfere with with a complaint of sexual harassment.
her work performance. By not participating
In this behavior. the nurse has Indicated to 2. A woman member of the housekeeping
the doctor that It Is unwelcome. We do not staff at a Medical Center Is assigned to a
know whether she has shared her feelings work team comprised of men and women.
with the other nurses or her supervisor. We Members of the team work together on tasks.
also do not know whether the supervisor and Since the work Is physical. they usually
knows about these Incidents; however. since talk as they work. In addition. team members
they ore repeated on a routine basis. It might often take breaks together. so the team Is a
be expected that the head nurse would be social group as well as a work team. They
aware of the situation or present during their feel comfortable with each other and are on
occurrence. friendly terms. The new woman member of
the team seems to fit In quickly. making
friends with the other workers and Joining In
INCIDENTS: their conversations. She uses VUlgar
1. A representative of a hospital supply language freely In her speech and otten
vendor routinely visits the Procurement Initiates sexually o~ented conversations with
Ottlce. This 'rep' considers himself a 'ladles her co-workers. She asks male team
man' and always makes suggestive remarks members about their marital sex lives and
to the two female clerks In the ottlce. He whether they engaged In extramarital affairs.
addresses them as ' Sweetie" and 'Honey.' She freely discusses her own sexual
and comments on their appearance. with encounters In conversations with both male
specific references to parts of their anatomy. and female co-workers. A few weeks after
At the end of each visit. he always asks the she Joins the work-team. the womon alerts
unmarried clerk for a date. and leaves her his her supervisor to the fact that she has been
personal phone number. wrillen on his propositioned by male co-workers and
business card. The clerk repeatedly turns subjected to sexual remarks. She claims
down his request for dates and tries to refuse sexual harassment.
the phone number. but the 'rep' always
forces the Issue. Fearful of creating bad 3. A resident physician at a VA hospital
feelings. the clerk takes the business card. routinely stops by the nurses statlan on his
smiles pOlitely. and promises to 'think about ward. He always greets the nurses by
It.' This clerk Is very uncomfortable with the hugging them or touching them In some
Facilitator's notes
continued
25
sexual way. Some of the nurses laugh and
go along with his playfulness while others
gently push him away and dismiss his
forwardness. Those nurses who object to his
behavior move away to avoid him. The
doctor does not force his attentions on the
nurses who avoid him. and he does not
pursue the others beyond the phy&lcal
contact he Initiates. One of the nurses finds
this dolly scene to be very upsetting.
although she has alway. made her
displeasure obvious and has never been
approached by the doctor. Even so. she
claims that she Is a victim of sexual
harassment because of the environment
created by the doctor.
THE PREVE NTION OF SEXUAL HARASSME ~J1 AND THE DISCRIMI~JA TION COM PLAINTS PROCESS
343
The o
Discrimination
Complaints
Process: Steps
in the
Inf,orrnal
Process
Part Three Obiectives
At the conclusion of this section, you should
understand:
How to use the EEO informal complaints process.
~
~
Facilitator'S notes
26
Read through objectives on
transparency.
Facilitator's notes
27
Duplicate the handout for Activity
Three. Before you begin section three. 6. A complainant's fight to remain
distribute the handouts to partiCipants anonymous expires when he or she flies a
and give them a few minutes to formal complaint. (True) (False)
answer the questions. You will discuss 7. An aggrieved person Is responsible for
the answers at the end of the section. using the complaints process only as a means
to ensure equal employment opportunity,
Read: and not to pursue resolution of other
problems at the work-site. (True) (False)
Before we explore the details of the
complaints process, let's determine what we 8. The responsible management official does
know about how the process workS. Take a not have to be given access to all case
few minutes to answer these True/False materials If the counselor believes that
statements. Then, at the conclusion of this certain Information would be an Invasion of
section, see If you agree with your original the victim's privacy. (True) (False)
choices.
9. While the complolnant Is entitled to official
Read through True/False statements: time off In order to purse counseling, he or
she must have the supervisor's permission to
1. A complaint of sexual harassment must be absent from the work-site. (True) (False)
also show evidence of disparate treatment,
reprisal, non-accommodation, adverse 10. The responsible management official
Impact, or perpetuation of past should withhold relevant case Information If It
discrimination. (True) (False) would leopardlze his or her present and
future employment status. (True) (False)
2. The complaint system Is designed to
Informany resolve a discrimination dispute,
where possible, without deciding who Is right
or wrong. (True) (False)
Facilitator's notes' .
28
Please explain the following: (2) Submission to or relectlon of such
conduct by an Individual Is used as the basis
BASIS FOR FILING A COMPLAINT for employment decisions affecting the
The law states that If a person feels that he or Individual; or.
she has been discriminated against they may
file an EEO complaint. However. to file a (3) Such conduct has the purpose of
complaint the action must fall within eight unreasonably Interfering with an Indlvldual's
protected categories. Each of the work performance or creating an
catego~es has specific criteria which help Intimidating. hostile or offensive working
determine discriminatory actions, environment.
THE PREVE NTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS
350
Facilitator's J10tes
continued
28
(3) II regarded al having an impairment (this
means that; (a) a persan might have a
physical or mental impairment that does not
substanl1al1y ImIt major Ufe activities but 18
treated by an employer as havfng such
limitations or (b) a pelIOn has a phystcal or
mental impairment that substantlally limits
major lite actlvillel only as a result of the
attltude of an employer toward the
Impairment; or (c) a pelIOn might not have
a phystcal or mental Impairment but II
treated by an employer as having such
an impairment,
REPRISAL
Because of participation In a process
protesting discrimination oncludea
negol1ated grievance). the Indlvldual feels
that management 18 taking action against
them, Participation can be: IRIng a
complaint; being a wltn_. on EEO
Counselor. EEO Investigator ar anyone
associated with the program; and those
who express a belief In the program,
lHF PRE \ F111101~ OF SEXUI\L HI\RI\SSIv1F N i I\t I[) lHE DISC PI~ 11t~A 1101'1 ( OIM'll\lt~lS PllOCESS
Theories of D-iscrimination
Disparate Treatment
Reprisal
Accommodation
CA:I
01
Adverse Impact .....
Perpetuation of Past Discrimination
352
Faciljtator!s notes
29
Acts of discrimination can be further
claSllfled according to these theories of
discrimination .
Facilitator's notes
31
The ReprIsal Theory of DIscrimInation
Facilitator's notes -
32
The Accommodation Theory of
Discrimination
Facilitator'S notes
33
The Adverse Impact Theory of
Discrimination
THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSM ENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COM PL AIN TS PROCESS
Perpetuation of Past
Discrimination
A practice or policy which serves to continue past
disc rimination ~
0)
~
362
Facilitator'S notes
34
The Perpetuation of Past
Discrimination Theory of
Discrimination
THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PRO CESS
EEO Complaints
Most allegations of discrimination are based on race
and/or sex in connection with personnel actions.
~
Complaints based on sexual harassment have &5
increased over 100% since 1987.
364
Facilitator's notes
35
Promotion. termination. appointment. and
dl.clpllnary action. are the most common
personnel actions that result In the filing of
formal EEO complaints.
THE PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE QISCRIMINA TION COM PI AINTS PROCESS
365
VI
VI
0
~
..--
~
A.
I:
0
E
--
(5
c
0
E
(5
u....
-Ea-
II
-..
CD
-
0)
0
en
N
CD
0)
.!2
en
0
'-'
366
iFacilitator s notes 1
36
Many think of the complaint sysfem 01 a Administrative Board of
means of deciding who Is right or wrong. This Investigation
Is called adJudlcatlon. buf It Is only one way
to resolve a complaint. and not the goal of Some medical center directors appoint
the complaint process. Actually. the system AdminIStrative Boards of Investigation to
Is carefully designed to Informally resolve Investigate allegations of sexual harassment
disputes at the lowest level possible (the because the process moves foster than the
Informal complaint process) . EEO complaints process. It an administrative
Investigation Is conducted. It Is Important to
'AdJudication' (the formal complaint understand the tollowlng :
process) - In the form of on agency decision
as to who Is right and who Is wrong-takes - The administration Investigation and the
place only when good faith efforts towards EEO complaints process are separate
Informal resolution fall. processes that can occur at the lome time.
~
Right to reasonable on-the-job time to pursue
complaint process
Right to remain anonymous
Right to freedom from restraint, interference, coercion
and reprisal
Right to file a formal complaint
370
Facilitator's notes
38
The aggrieved pelllon's most basic right Is to EEO counselors. EEO ollicers. and EEO
use the complaint process to protest any program managers have vital roles In the
employment action or Inaction which he or resolution of discrimination complaints. To
she believes to have been discriminatory. " operate effectively they must have the
the allegation 01 dISCrimination Is sustained. confidence of both the agency and the
the victim has the right to be 'made whole'. employees. It Is Inconsistent with their neutral
That means he or she Is entitled to receive roles for EEO counselors. EEO officers. and
corrective action which restores him or her to EEO program managers to serve as
the status that would have been enjoyed If representatives for agencies or
the discrimination had not occurred. complainants. Therefore. EEO counselors.
EEO officers. and EEO managers cannot
The victim has the qualilled right to select on serve as representatives for complainants
EEO Counselor 01 his or her choice among or for agencies In connection with the
those deSignated to serve the partICular procesSIng of discrimination complaints.
lacillty. This right. under VA Policy. Is (See generally. 29 C.F.R.. 1614.605(c)-
considered 'qualified' because It Is not disqualification of representatives for
absolute. In Instances where a popular conflict of duties).
counselor Is vastly overburdened with
counseling while another counselor IS under- The right to remain anonymous exists only
utilized. the Ilrst EEO Counselor may direct the during the Informal counseling stage 01 the
aggrieved person to another EEO Counselor. process. After a formal complaint Is flied. the
or to the EEO Ollicer for assistance In finding aggrieved person becomes a complainant
another available EEO Counselor. and no longer has the right to anonymity.
Additionally. there are other circumstances
under which It would be Inappropriate lor a The aggrieved person has the right to a
selected EEO Counselor to accept a reasonable amount of olliciol time away
particular counseling asSIgnment. from the Job to develop and present his or
her complaint. Including time lor pre-
The aggrieved person has the right to be complaint counseling. What Is "reasonable"
represented by an Individual of his or her Is up to the Judgment of the EEO Officer.
choice. provided that person. If a VA depending on the complexity of the case.
employee. does not occupy a position "Reasonable" Is usually defined In terms of
where a conlilct 01 Interest could be hours. however. not In terms of days. weeks.
presented. A management official. an or months. While the aggrieved person's
EEO practitioner. or a personnel specialist right to official time to prepare and present
employed In the some facility as the the case Is absolute. he or she does not have
complainant and serving as representative Is the right to leave his or her work site lor this
on example where such a conflict would purpose without the permission of his or her
arise. The repiesentatlve may be. but Is not supervisor.
required to be. an attorney. Frequently. It
will be a union shop steward or other union
official.
FaGilitator's notes
39
Above all, the victim/aggrieved person Is -Providing sufficient specific details about the
responsible for using the discrimination harassment Incident so that It can be
complaints system for the purpose for which It Investigated. This Includes providing the
was established: to provide a mechar-Ism for names of people having knowledge of the
ensu~ng equal employment opportunity. The events In question.
process should not be used for purposes of
pursing a personal vendetta, harassment. -Keeping the agency Informed of his or her
and other abuses. Such uses limit the current address, and his or her whereabouts
system's availability to respond to the If away from that address for any significant
legitimate concerns of those who truly period of time.
believe they have been discriminated
against. -Not misusing Information gained In the
course of pre-complaint counseling or the
Other complainant responsibilities Include: Investigation.
Responsibilities:
To cooperate with ongoing investigations
To provide all relevant and material information
374
Facilitator's notes
40
RMO Ia the term now Uled to replace ADO
(Aneged Dlacrlmlnatlng Official). Another
term you may hear that Ia synonymous with
Respondent Management Offlclalla
ResponSIble Management Otflclal.
Facilitator'S notes
41
Read through lilt on tranlparency.
THE PRE. EI FICIJ OF S: XUfIL H!\'iI\SSI;UJT !-1m THr DIScrW.'I~JI\ liON CO~~PII\INTS PROCESS
377
......
CD
CD
...I:
~ I!II;]
--
:-
.......
--
c
378
3. A complainant does not have to leek counseling II he or she Intend. to TRUE FALSE
file a formal complaint of employment dlaCrlmlnation.
I. No further .tePI In the complaint procell ore pursued once the TRUE FALSE
complaint has been resolved Inlormally.
6. A complainant. rtght to remain anonymous expires when he or ahe fhea TRUE FALSE
a lormal complaint.
7. An aggrteved perlOn II reapon.IDle for ulfng the complaints proce.. TRUE FALSE
only as a mean. to ensure equal employment opportunity. and not to
pursue resolution of other probtems at the workslte.
I. The responlfble management offiCial does not have to be given TRUE FALSE
acce.. to all case matertalslf the counselor believes that certain
Information would De on Invaston 01 the victim's prtvacy.
9. Whne the complainant Is entitled to o,"clal time olf In order to pursue TRUE FALSE
counseling. he or ahe must have the supervlaor' , permiSSIon to De
absent Irom the workslte.
10. The responlfble management olflclalshould wHhhold relevant case TRUE FALSE
Information" H would Jeopardize his or her present and luture
employment statu .
379
Facilitator's notes
42
At this point, you have reviewed the 7. An aggrieved person Is responsible for
steps In the Informal complaints uSing the complaints process only as a means
process and the rights and to ensure equal employment opportunity.
and not to pursue resolution of other
responsibilities of all parties Involved. problems at the work-site. TRUE
Now, go through the True/False
questionnaire, revealing one question 8. The responsible management official does
at a time. Ask partiCipants to correct not have to be given access to all case
their original response.. Answer any materials If the counselor believes that
questions. certain Information would be an Invasion of
the victim's privacy. TRUE
THE PROVE NTIO'J OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCESS
380
Discrimination
Complaints:
Steps in the
Formal Process
How to
Prevent Sexual
Harassment
Part Four Obiectives
At the conclusion of this section, you should
understand:
C
How to use the EEO formal complaints process. 00
I-'
Facilitator's notes
43
Read through objectives on
transparency.
Steps in Formal Complaint
Process
Step 1: Complainant files formal complaint with one of
the following:
-EEO Officer/Medical Center -Federal Women's Program
Director Manager
gg
-Secretary of Veterans -Deputy Assistant Secretary
Affairs for Equal Opportunity
Step 2: EEO Officer reviews for acceptability determination
-Submits to Office of Equal Opportunity for assignment of investigator
-Refers to Office of General Counsel for acceptability decision
Step 3: Investigation conducted
384
Facilitator's notes
44
Complalnll are considered flied when
delivered to an appropriate official. If the
complaint II mailed and addr_d to an
appropriate official, the postmark Indicates
the complaint hal been flied. The
complainant Is not required to Identify a
responSible management official on the
complaint form.
THE PREVE~,1101, Cc SFXUAL f',\RASSMEI n Aim THE DISCRiMINA TION COMPLAINTS PROCESS
Steps in Formal Complaint
Process
Step 4: Investigative report is issued to the EEO Officer,
complainant and complainant's representative, along
with an advisement of rights letter 8c5
Q1
Facilitator's notes
45
The EEO Officer has the authortty to accept
formal complaints but not dl1lmfll them. Onlv
the Offlce of General Counsel has the
autho~tv to dtamlss complaints.
THE PR[VF\ TIO~, OF SEXUJ\I '1ARAS5~',f'~T iii JD lYE DISC RIf,.' INA liON COMPlAINTS PROCESS
Preventing Sexual
Harassment
Communicate VA policy
eo"
Enforce the policy
~
Train employees
Encourage compliance by personal example
Report unacceptable behavior
Facilitator's notes
46
Our goolls a work environment free of sexual In addition:
harassment. Prevention Is the best method for
achieving this goal. Cooperate fully with any ongoing
Investigation.
The V A has established an explicit policy
against sexual harassment. It relies on Include compliance with the policy on
managers and employees to put the policy sexual harassment as a component of
Into practice. perlormance appraisal.
Co
Complaint filed
Counselor contacted
Hearing if requested, with findings and conclusions
Occurrence (of Sexual Harassment)
Agencyfinaldec~on
Notice of right to file
Complaint investigated and notice issued
390
COMPLAINT FILED
COUNSELOR CONTACTED
Facilitator's notes
47
ACTIVITY FOUR ANSWER SHEET Distribute copies of "Handout for
Activity 4. Review the chart
This chart shows the progressive steps In the Overvlew of the Complaint Process,
EEO Complaint Process (under 29 C.F.R. Part
1614).
revealing each step on the screen,
one by one. SollcR answer. from the
participants. Answer any questions.
Conclude by explainIng:
c
o
:3
oz
en
393
When neither the accused nor the alleged v i ctim can provide
evidence to corroborate or refute the allegations, the
creditability of the two witnesses becomes the key
ingredient in a "he said, she said" type of case . If it can
be established through testimony on related issues that one
or the other witness is not creditable, then we may be able
to conclude that the unreliable witness is not being
entirely truthful with us and the other person is the more
creditable of the two witnesses .
o
ISBN 0 16 0556716
90000
9 780160 556715