Back to drug information
Betty Rollins
Seventeen DEA employees from one office filed a reprisal and sexual discrimination complaint against a senior manger in December 1992. The EEO office documented its receipt in February 1993. More than ten calls were made to EEO counselor in February, March, and April, seeking investigation of the complaint. Orally in April, and by letter in May complainants were informed;
"The counselor's report was procedurally defective."
The letter stated that the complaint had procedural problems in that a group complaint was not feasible. They were informed each individual should file separate complaints. Employees declined to continue the process citing inaccurate depictions of the employees' problem with management in the counselors report, erroneous information given to them by the counselor, and a lack of responsiveness by EEO staff when employees sought assistance.
A DEA female employee who alleged sexual assault sought assistance from the EEO staff. The staff promised to provide the complainant with an EEO counselor. Only after five follow up phone call over a two month period did her superiors provide the name of a counselor. Although Federal law requires a notice of final interview within 30 days after a matter is brought to the counselors attention, the condition was never met.
Another female DEA employee contacted an EEO counselor to complain of sexual harassment from a male agent who had been previously accused of sexually harassing another female agent.
The employee was told;
"He (the male agent) has already been punished enough"
Four employees in another DEA office contacted a counselor to complain of actions they felt constituted unlawful sexual discrimination by an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC). The EEO counselor informed the group that she never had problems with that particular ASAC. After this discussion two of the employees withdrew their complaint because they believed the counselor had not acted appropriately.
In three offices GAO investigators received complaints about EEO officials who allegedly had made inappropriate comments to accused complainants. In one case a EEO staff member accused male coworkers of soliciting a female complainant to file a sexual harassment complaint. He was questioned as to whether he was having a 'personal relationship with the female complainant.
Between January 7 1989 and May 1993, Office of professional Relations (OPR), opened 684 investigations. Fifteen of these cases involved incidents of sexual harassment. During the same period 100 discrimination complaints were filed with Equal Employment Opportunity office (EEO), Seven were due to alleged sexual harassment.
GAO, Office of Special Investigations was requested by the House of Representatives, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to conduct an investigation. GAO inquired into EEO complaints, with emphasis on Sexual harassment within the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Many factors impeded their research.
Employees who had personally been involved in cases, or had witnessed serious problems were skeptical dissatisfied or fearful of chain of command retaliation.
Employees frequently expressed a lack of confidence in the objectivity of OPR, and EEO who bore responsibility for processing complaints. They often questioned the sensitivity of EEO and OPR investigators. Employees and supervisors alike appeared confused as to what constituted improper behavior, and what action to take when a complaint was received.
GAO's investigation was also hampered when DEA restricted their access to EEO and OPR files, Inspection reports, and certain statistical files. DEA officials cited what they termed as 'document sensitivity'. GAO investigators were offered edited and condensed EEO and OPR files in relation to cases requested. GAO therefore, could not verify the integrity of the files
Reproduction of OPR files and inspection reports was prohibited by DEA. Notes were taken, but a lack of copies greatly affected GAO ability to carry on comprehensive interviews. It was not always possible to confront individuals on potential discrepancies between statements they had made to OPR, and statements made to GAO investigators.
GAO did however, investigate 22 agency identified sexual harassment cases and 37 other EEO complaints. They visited ten offices in nine states, and the District of Columbia. They interviewed 63 current and former DEA personnel. Private attorneys, and other federal employees both male and female.
DEA administrator were seldom cooperative. Investigators often experienced delays of up to six weeks for requested documents. DEA refused to provide a comprehensive list of OPR investigations between 1989, and 1993. Instead, they provided a list of cases 'they' identified as representing all sexual harassment related cases. Subsequent to receiving DEA's comprehensive' list additional cases were discovered thus indicating that what the DEA had provided did not truly represent the total universe of cases.
DEA denied access to data on the current assignment of women agents. Although they initially agreed to allow GAO review of relevant raw data concerning women's job placement, six weeks later they changed their mind, and denied access to the requested information. GAO inspectors held two meetings and wrote three letters to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, the latest in August of 1993. As of March of 1994 response had not been received.
In seven of the ten DEA field offices employees expressed concern over the ability of EEO counselors to conduct their duties. In some cases the EEO counselors themselves related they did not feel they had been adequately trained to conduct official investigations. One EEO counselor stated often counselors are spoon fed information on how to handle cases by headquarters EEO personnel. Some also express concern when junior grade employees presented complaints to senior grade employees.
Two female employees complained that use of male investigators when attempting to discuss embarrassing or sensitive material was extremely difficult. Often the complainant felt intimidated or bullied by the OPR or EEO counselor. Some employees stated that OPR investigators made them feel once more victimized.
In two cases, investigators focused primarily on whether a personal relationship existed between the complainant and the alleged harasser. The investigator to appeared to attempt to characterize the incidents as 'lovers' quarrel'. In several cases OPR investigators disportionately centered on complainant credibility and 'maturity', rather than the details relevant to the complaint.
Establishing credibility of participants in a complaint is essential. However, in one case the OPR investigator appeared to focus more on the complainant's character than on facts surrounding the specific alleged incidents . Similar focus on the alleged harasser was not forth coming.
Objectivity was questioned by some employees. GAO investigators were informed of OPR investigators who socialized with the alleged hasasser.
In one specific case the OPR investigators were seen joking in the office and going to lunch, as well as having drinks after work with the alleged harasser. OPR officials admitted having lunch with the harasser, but denied having drinks with the individual. One OPR official did however meet the harasser at a 'lounge' after work to get some papers 'signed'.
Coworkers are often intimated from acting as witness for complainant or filing complaints after witnessing what happened to complainants. One women was transferred to a new office where her new manger informed coworkers about her 'sexual harassment' complaint. He also made derogatory remarks about her.
In other cases mangers increased scrutiny of complainants time and attendance, work products, and other activities; Removed complainant from enforcement related tasks; transferred the complainant to other states during investigation, while alleged harasser remained in place.
In one case, when a woman reported unwelcome sexual advances to her second line supervisor, his resolution was to curtail her activities on a task force, thereby decreasing her contact with the alleged harasser. The supervisor then issued a general statement to the males allegedly involved, saying he would not tolerate sexual harassment. The male coworkers then berated the alleged victim for what they perceived was a decrease in her work load. One male coworker refused to work with her on any future assignment.
At six sites visited by the GAO, twelve different women related recent unreported incidents of what they term sexual harassment and sexual discrimination by management officials. They refused to report those incidents because reprisal. At two separate offices during GAO interviews , three or more women alleged sexual harassment by agents in charge of their office. Offenses ranged from offensive statements, unwelcome touching to outright propositions.
Richard C. Stiener, Director of Offices of Special Investigations testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Post Office and Civil Service House of Representatives on March 8 1994. Lengthy testimony centered on the investigation by GAO on DEA, and BATF who though more cooperative than DEA had similar problems. Numerous recommendations were made, yet dates and manner of implementation or follow up were not requested. Nor was any request made to encourage adequate cooperation with GAO investigators.
Back to drug information