Description of document: Closing documents for eight (8) Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Inspector General (OIG)
investigations, 2013-2016
Requested date: 10-February-2017
Released date: 17-October-2017
Posted date: 01-January-2018
Source of document: FOIA Request
Stephanie D. Garner, Assistant Legal Counsel,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Legal Counsel,
FOIA Programs,
131 M Street, N.E., Suite 5NW22B,
Washington, D.C. 20507
Fax: (202) 653-6034
Email: foia@eeoc.gov
The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials
made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its
principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however,
there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and
its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or
damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the
governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from
government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns
about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question.
GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website.
131 M St, N. E., Fifth Floor
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20507
Toll Free: (877)-895-1802
Office of Legal Counsel TTY (202) 663-7026
FAX (202) 653-6034
Website: www.eeoc.gov
October 17, 2017
Re: FOIA No.: 820-2017-002708
Closed EEOC Office of Inspector General Investigations
Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on February 10, 2017 is processed.
Our search began on March 22, 2017. The initial due date was extended by 10-business days to
March 27, 2017. All agency records in creation as of March 22, 2017 are within the scope of
EEOC's search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked below apply.
[X] Your request is granted in part and denied in part. Portions not released are
withheld pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the end of this
letter. An attachment to this letter explains the use of these exemptions in more
detail.
[X] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison for further assistance or to
discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact the Office of
Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA mediation
services they offer.
The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-
OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at ogis@nara .gov; telephone
at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202)741-5769.
The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison: (see contact information in
the above letterhead or under signature line).
[X] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively
appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted
in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA
Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE,
5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, or by fax to (202) 653-6034, or by email to
FOIA@eeoc.gov. https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx. Your appeal
will be governed by 29 C.F .R. § 1610.11.
Re: FOIA No.: 820-2017-002708
[X] See the attached Comments page for further information.
Sincerely,
Isl SdtarHm
Stephanie D. Garner
Assistant Legal Counsel
(202) 663-4634
FOIA@eeoc.gov
Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b):
Exemption Codes Used:
Exemption (b)(3)(A)(i), (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C)
Exemption (b)(3)(A)(i), as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, states that
disclosure of information is not required for a matter specifically prohibited from
disclosure by another federal statute., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sections
706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII provide that information pertaining to the Commission's
informal endeavors to resolve a charge of unlawful employment discrimination shall not
be made public. Information obtained by the EEOC in the investigation of a charge of
unlawful employment practices shall not be made public by any officer or employee of the
Commission. Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) adopts the
confidentiality provisions of sections 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII, GINA, section 207 of
the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) adopts the confidentiality
provisions of sections 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII.
RECORDS WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE THIRD EXEMPTION TO THE FOIA
1. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-0249) Fraudulent Acceptance of a Mediation
Settlement, one charge number, was redacted.
2. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0512) Memo to Close - Possible Violation of Title 17
U.S.C. § 208, one charge number in four locations, was redacted.
3. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0832) Memo to Close - Possible Violation of
Title 17 U.S.C. § 208, one charge number in three locations and one case name,
were redacted.
4. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-1173) Dallas Conflict of Interest, one charge
number and one case name, were redacted.
5. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0061) Investigative Report Seattle Field Office,
one case number, was redacted.
Re: FOIA No.: 820-2017-002708
Exemption (b)(6) permits withholding of information about individuals in "personnel and
medical files and similar files" if its disclosure "would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy." In addition to personnel records and medical files, the term
"similar files" encompasses all information that "applies to a particular individual." Dep't
of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 599-603 (1982). This exemption
requires that the privacy interests of the individual be balanced against the public interest
in disclosure. Dep't of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372 (1976). In examining
whether there is a "public interest" in disclosure of certain information, the "public interest"
must truly be in the interest of the overall public. Personal details pertaining to an
individual are generally protected under this exemption.
RECORDS WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH EXEMPTION TO THE FOIA
1. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-0249) Fraudulent Acceptance of a Mediation
Settlement, personal mailing address in one location, three non-federal
employees/public names, were redacted.
2. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0061) Investigative Report Seattle Field Office,
thirteen non-federal employees/public names, one personal mailing address and one
personal email address, were redacted
3. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-0248) two non-federal employees/public names,
one personal mailing address, one bank account number, one social security
number, one mail tracking number
Exemption (b)(7)(C) authorizes the Commission to withhold: records or information
compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such
law enforcement records or information ... (C) could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy .... The seventh exemption
applies to civil and criminal investigations conducted by regulatory agencies. Abraham &
Rose, P.L.C. v. United States, 138 F.3d 1075, 1083 (6th Cir. 1998). Release of
statements and identities of witnesses and subjects of an investigation creates the
potential for witness intimidation that could deter their cooperation. National Labor
Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 239 (1978). "Personal
privacy" only encompasses individuals, and does not extend to the privacy interests of
corporations. FCC v. AT&T Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1178 (2011).
RECORDS WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE SEVENTH EXEMPTION TO THE FOIA
1. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-0249) Fraudulent Acceptance of a Mediation
Settlement, one charge number, personal address in one location, four federal
employee names and three non-federal employees/public names were redacted.
2. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0061) Investigative Report Seattle Field Office, two
federal employee names and thirteen non-federal employees/public names were redacted
3. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 15-0317) Complaint against Seattle Field Office, one
federal employee name was redacted.
4. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0512) Memo to Close - Possible Violation of Title 17
U.S.C. § 208, one federal employee name, one charge number in 4 locations were redacted.
Re: FOIA No.: 820-2017-00270
5. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 13-0832) Memo to Close - Possible Violation of
Title 17 U.S.C. § 208, one charge number in three locations, one case name and two
federal employee names were redacted.
6. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 15-0201) Improper Disclosure/Misuse of Position, three
federal employee names were redacted.
7. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-0248) one federal employee name, one personal
mailing address, one bank account number, one social security number, and one mail
tracking number were redacted.
8. OIG Investigation (Complaint No. 14-1173) Dallas Conflict of Interest, four federal employee
names were redacted.
Comments
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), request. You request a
copy of the final Office of Inspector General reports for the complaint numbers below.
Your request is granted in part and denied in part.
OIG 14-0248-C - (4 pages)
OIG 13-0061-C - (14 pages)
OIG 15-0201-C - (1 page)
OIG 14-1173-C - (2 pages)
OIG 15-0317-C- (2 pages)
OIG 14-0249-C - (3 pages)
OIG 13-0512-C - (1 page)
OIG 13-0832-C - (1 page)
For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL:
https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx
This response was prepared by Tracy L. Smalls, Government Information Specialist, who
may be reached at 202-663-4331.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE CASE
CASE: Fraudulent Acceptance of a Mediation Settlement
CASE NUMBER: 14-0249-C
AGENT: Thomas L. Spellman
DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: December 15, 2015
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE CASE:
After conducting interviews with all individuals associated to this case, it is our determination
there is no evidence of criminal intent b an of the arties to defraud Lowes of $5,000 in the
1
EEOC mediation of charge number of the Civi! Ri h~ Act
STATEMENT OF ISSUES, FACTS, AND BASIS FOR OIG DISPOSITION:
Issues:
On January 8, 2014, (b)(7 )(C)
an individual who he e 1eve was
1
caottact wediatac wjth the ETOC conducted mediation with
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) _ On this date (b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
and Lowe 's agreed to a settlement of $5000. Settlement terms were prepared and sent to
everyone involved.
emailed signed copies of the settlement agreements she received to (b)(?)(C) and
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
I
mailed a W-9 tax form to Lowe's as part of the settlement. (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) !provide a name
change, address change and different social security number for the issuance of the check.
l
__
On January 15, 2014, Lowe's issues a check to
,__.....................
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
in the amount of $5000. Lowe's mailed
I
(b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C)
the check
I
via
l at
Unit !e-
l- -ar-c_e_. - er-v-1c_e_t_o_ ....
The check was received by (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on January 27, 2014 was cashed at
the "The Bank" in Jennings LA on January 30, 2014.
The New Orleans Field Office was contacted by (b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C) in late January
2014 questioning the status of her charge of discrimination . When (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) was told her
charge had been settled, she advised that she has not had any contact with anyone from the
EEOC since her charge went to ADR.
1
There is no evidence to dispute that (b)(6),(b)(?)(C) received and cashed a check for $5,000 from
Lowe's after a mediation conducted by (b)(7)(C) . An interview with! (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) I
identified that she had worked for Lowes from February 11, 2012 throu h Ma 16, 2013; this
information was also supported by a search of Lowe's records by _ _ _ ___. who serves as
counsel for Lowe' s.
indicated when she was contacted by (b)(?)(C) and believed it was re arding a
(b)(6),(b)(?)(C)
complaint she had with Lowe' s. (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) stated that she indicated to (b)(7)(C) that her
name was wron on the settlemen agreemen and other documents he emailed her. (b)(?)(C) I
advised (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) this was how her name was listed in the complaint and he was not able to
change it. She should just sign the document as it was printed.
Email records obtained as part of the investigations identify a conversation between (b)(?)(C) I
and~concerning the name change for the check and the name on the W -9. The
agr~Lowe' s, Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims was also
I
signed as (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) I-
I l
In an interview with (b)(?)(C) he advised that it was not his responsibility/nor is he required to
properly identify the charging party in mediations for the EEOC. He does not verify birthdays
for charging parties or signatures of charging parties, and he does not ask for identification from
charging parties.
I(b)(?)(C) !conducted the mediation of this compliant telephonically from his office located in
Benicia, California.
j (b)(7)(C) IADR Coordinator in the Houston District Office advised that I (b)(7)(C) lnever
requested authorization to conduct this particular mediation telephonically.
(b)(?)(C) I
Program Manager for ADR in the Office of Field Programs advised that a
contract mediator should never conduct a telephonic mediation without authorization from the
district coordinator.
Basis for Disposition:
there is no ~vi?ence of criminal intent
EEOC mediation of charge number !0f(~
J&~f,
After conducting interviews with all individuals associated to this case, it is our determination
f
anrj: 0 th~ arties to defraud Lowes of $5,000 in the
8i~~~ ~~1 .
~
1
• I (b)(7)(C) !in an effort to reduce cost in the mediation made a decision to conduct this
particular mediation telephonically and failed to obtain the appropriate authorization from
the ADR Coordinator for the District.
•I (b)(7)(C) !failed to properly identify who he was in contact with.
2
• I I I
!along with (b)(~g~)(I) Counsel for Lowe's, fried ta recagnjze thr indicators as
(b)(7)(C)
to race, age and name in who they were dealing with. (b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C) never
attempted to hide her identity from them or manipulate the process.
• New Orleans Director, {b){?)(C) advised that Lowe 's has since reached a settlement with
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
• Based on our observations made during the interview with {b){6),{b){7)(C) , she does not
have the means to repay the settlement she received.
This appears to be a series of mistakes by the EEOC Mediation Officer, (b)(?)(C) I
land
I
Lowe's Attorney, {b){6),{b){7)(C) !, in the settlement of this charge of discrimination and no
criminal conduct has been noted.
It is recommended this case be closed.
INVESTIGATIVE SUBJECT(S) WITNESS (ES)
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
{b){6),{b){7)(C) Counsel Lowe's
____ Contract Mediator
,__ (b)(7)(C) ..,, EEOC ADR, Houston
{b){7)(C) EEOC New Orleans, Director
(b)(7)(C) OPP, ADR, PM
**************************************************
I recommend this case be closed, and certify that the fi le(s) in this investigation contain(s) a
complete chronology and all documents received during the investigation. My working copies of
such documents are contained in this file, or have been destroyed, and disk files created in this
matter have been deleted.
Special Agent Date
Counsel to the Inspector General Date
Acting Deputy Inspector General Date
Inspector General Date
3
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20507
Office of
Inspector General
February 11 , 2015
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Robert J. Shields, Special Agent in Charge
330 E. Kilbourne A venue Suite 600
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Agent Shields:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Office of Inspector General received
a complaint from our Milwaukee Field Office concerning the falsification of a settlement
agreement in January 2014. The settlement agreement was between! (b)(7)(C) !and the
Department of Treasury, provided by Oasis Legal Finance.
We have conduct a preliminary investigation into the matter and determined the settlement
document was presented to Oasis Legal Finance as proof of a legal settlement between ~
(b)(7)(C) and the Department of Treasury is a forged document. The signatures of EEOC employees
have been forged along with the Agency's seal on the document.
Records obtained during the preliminary investigation show Oasis Legal Finance purchased the
settlement for $35,000 in October 2012. The check issued by Oasis Legal Finance was de osited
in an account at JPMorgan Chase in Madison Wisconsin. The account was registered to a (b)(6 /2t<
7
)
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
(b)(?)(C) appears to be a career criminal currently serving a sentence at Terre Haute,
Federal Correction Institute.
We are forwarding this matter to your office for any action you may deem appropriate. Attached
you will find all documents obtained by the OIG to support our findings.
Should you need any further assistance, please contact me at 202-663-4375.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Spellman
Special Agent
EEOC Office of Inspector General
131 M Streets NE
Washington, DC 20507
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office1 (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(b)(?)(C) Iis an investigator for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
the Seattle Field Office, a position he has held since April 2007.
It has been alleged that I
(b)(?)(C) lhas misused his position, acted inappropriately with a
charging party (Complaint l); and misused his official agency credentials, and generally engaged
in infamous conduct as a federal employee (Complaint 2).
Complaint 1:
The Office of Inspector General finds that I
(b)(?)(C) !conduct violated 5 C.F.R. 735.203
which admonishes employees to avoid engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or
notoriously disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government: when he
engaged in inappropriate conduct with a charging party in a charge of discrimination assigned to
him for investigation.
(b)(7)(C) I
actions are documented in 72 emails between him and the charging party.
Additionally, there were 91 phone calls with the charging party, and testimony from the charging
party stating that these conversations involved comments of a sexual nature.
Complaint 2:
OIG finds that I
(b)(?)(C) !conduct violated 18 U.S.C. §912 1 by impersonating a law
enforcement officer on December 16, 2010, December 21, 2010, and on November 2, 2012,
when he attempted to by-pass normal security procedures in the Seattle-Tacoma Airport, by
stating he was traveling armed and with a prisoner in each of these three instances.
OIG finds that I (b)(?)(C) !violated Title 18 U.S.C. §1001, False Statements2 , when:
1
18 U.S.C. §912 Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the
United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands
or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
2 Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 , Statements or entries generally-(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever,
in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United
States, knowingly and willfully- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false
writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years.
OIG 13-0061-C Page 1
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office~.__ _<b_)<_7)_<c_) _ __. OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
• l I
On December 16, 2010, (b)(?)(C) completed and signed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-In Log
identifying himself as a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) flying armed with a prisoner,
I I
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) from Seattle to Las Vegas, NV ;
• l
On December 21, 2010, (b)(7)(C) !completed and signed the TSA Check oi nt Sign-In Log
identifying himself as a LEO flying armed with a prisoner, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) from Las
Vegas to Seattle, WA. - - - - .
• On November 2, 2012J (b)(?)(C) !completed and signed the TSA Check oi nt Sign-In Log
identifying himself as a LEO flying armed with a prisoner, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) from Seattle to
San Jose, CA; and
(b)(6),(b)(7)
• On November 2, 2012, (b)(?)(C) erous false statements to TSA Officer (C)
1cw~gf 1 !and TSA Office (b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C) concerning the EEOC Unique Federal gency
Number (UFAN), stating he could not remember it, it had changed, and it had been a
while since he had flown, indicating that he knew and implied he was authorized to use
the EEOC UFAN.
The OIG finds that I (b)(?)(C) !conduct violated 5 C.F.R. 735.203 which admonishes
employees to avoid engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously
dis raceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government, when on November 2, 2012,
(b)(7)(C) completed and signed the Alaskan Airlines Notice To Armed Individuals and
1 ent1 1e himself as a law enforcement officer with a low risk prisoner, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) This
instance is distinguished from the above referenced false statements because the Alaskan
Airlines document is not a federal document.
OIG 13-0061-C Page 2
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office1 (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
INTRODUCTION
The subject of this investigation, ! (b)(?)(C) l
is currently employed as a GS-
1810-12 investigator assigned to the Seattle Area Office. He has been employed with the EEOC
since April 15, 2007. (EX:24)
(b)(?)(C) Ibegan his civil service career with the Department of Veterans Affairs
in May of 2002. In June 2003, he joined the De artment of Health and Human Services and
served from June 2003 to April 2007. (b)(7)(C) has 27 years of military service, with the
3
United States Coast Guard . (b)(7)(C) has approximately 12 years and 10 months of civilian
service. (EX:24)
(b)(?)(C) kesides at (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) , with his domestic
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) as a Bachelors' Degrees in Legal Administration and
rom City University in Seattle, WA in 1982. (EX:24)
In January 2015, the OIG received allegations concerning (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) These matters
I
concerned (b)(o/lf)(I) !alleged inappropriate behavior with a charging party. (Complaint 1)
(EX:1)
In November 2012, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was notified by the Seattle Field
Office of the Air Marshal Service that on November 2, 2012,~had been detained and
questioned by the San Jose Police Department officers, and a ~ u r e a u of Investigations
(FBI) agent for allegedly impersonating a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) at the Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport in connection with an Alaskan Airways flight that he took from
Seattle, WA to San Jose, CA. OIG subsequently initiated an investigation of this matter. During
the pendency of the investigation, FBI officials advised OIG that the Assistant United States
Attorney had declined to prosecute the matter; therefore the FBI would not pursue criminal
charges against!lb)~~@:I) 1· Accordingly, the OIG investigation proceeded as an administrative
misconduct invest1gat1on. (Complaint 2) (EX:8)
This investigative report will deal with both the January 2015 allegations and the allegations
brought to our attention in November 2012. Complaint 1 covers the most recent events, and
complaint 2 will deal with the allegations of impersonation of a LEO dating 2012.
3 !
In 1996, (b)(~Mfill 1 !was court-martialed and later convicted of 11 counts of making false statements and one
count of larceny. The court sentenced ! <~1Wt'
~o reduction of pay grade E-4; confinement for 1 year; and a
$5,000.00 fine. Although the conviction was appealed in 2001, the appellate court affirmed the conviction August
16, 2002. (EX:25)
OIG 13-0061-C Page 3
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office1 (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
COMPLAINT I-BACKGROUND
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) I
filed a discrimination complaint against the Siemens Company and
Starbucks Corporation with the Seattle Field Office in February of 2012. Subsequently, an
intake interview was conducted by
assigned to him . (EX:6 & 7) .
I
(b)(?)(C)
.
I
who later requested the charges be
I
In January 2015, (bRo/JfJ(I) !filed a complaint with the San Francisco District Office alleging that
(b)(7)(C) manipulated him. According to (b)<5t )<7) he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) and from a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) which he received while on active
military duty in Iraq. (b)(5<2t <7 5
) alleges (b~ ~ b) manipulated him into performing numerous
sexual acts of self-stimulation while on the phone.4 (EX: 1)
Complaint I-EVIDENCE
asserted thatl (b)(7)(C)
(b)(6),(b)(?)(C) I
requested him to ca11 on a weekly basis. It was during
I
t ese wee y calls that the ma ro nate communications with (b)(7)(C) !occurred. A review of
phone records provided by (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) revealed 91 calls between him and
during the period of May 2012 through August 2012, we're made or received on
(b)(?)(C)
--------
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
I
hone. Eleven of those ca11s were made by (b)(7)(C) to l6Ro/JfR 1) land 80 ca11s were made by
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to I
(b)(7)(C) !personal an o ice phones. t wenty-nine calls were made to
(b)(7)(C) personal phone number. The calls lasted from 1 minute to a maximum of 35
minutes. (EX:5).
OIG conducted an interview with I
(b)(6),(b)(?)(C) Ion January 21 , 2015 in the resence of
his attorney Donna Mack. (EX:4). The following statements are attributed to (b)(7)(C) by
(b)(6),(b)(7) .
C .
(b)(6),
"I know that every one in your life <~~~) has left you, let you down, hurt you .. .I know
.,.,._...-----1 ave no idea what it means to be love , well ...J'm going to love you. " (EX:3)
(b)(?)(C) "Ify ou tell anyone or say anything about me taking your case because I am a Veteran
also, I will.fucking leave you in a heartbeat, one thing that will fuck this case up faster that shit is
showing that I have a cmiflict of interest in this case an in loving y ou. " (EX:3)
"You and I are going to do things that you've probably never done with a man, well a
(b)(?)(C)
man my age. I need you to trust me with everything, that includes the cock between your legs, do
you understand?" (EX:3)
4
March 3, 2015, a complaint was filed in t~e ~J.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington, dfJi~3~~~t,\~:'~t~1~i~%)(
1
•
1
e O !
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) !,
Plamt1ff v. (b)(7)(C) Defendant. (EX:26)
OIG 13-0061-C Page 4
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office~.__ _<b_)<_7)_<c_)_ __, OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
"I swear to god, if it is this hard already, I'm totally fucked with this case! Ifyou call
(b)(7 )(C)
me Sir one more time, I will bend you over a chair and rape you with no.fucking lube, do you
want that?" (EX:3)
(b)(6),(b)(7)
7
(C) states: " (b)( )(C) indicated he found pictures of me as a young person involved in
sexual activity with people. (b)(7)(C) told me that I would not remember because I appeared to
be drugged out. He spoke about images of me with men and women in my twenties, but I
probably don't remember that too. It was about this time (b)(7)(C) asked me to start
masturbating prior to their conversations to help with m stress. (b)(7)(C) had very specific
instruction on what I was to do, (f I did not.follow his { (b)(7)(C) rules, the case would be
over. " (EX: 3 & 4)
(b)(6),(b)(7)
(C)
1
tates: '1 (b)(7)(C)
I
advised me on one occasion t h ~ t o go to Columbia to
interview the prostitutes involving the Secret Service agents." ~ stated further that
! (b)(7)(C) !threatens: "that if I ever disclosed this information to anyone that I { (b)(6),(b)
7
would
get what's coming to me, giving me direct death threats. " (EX:3) < )(C)
According to (b)( )
6
(2f)(
7
I I
(b)(7 )(C) indicated that he had connections that could help him get the
"Purple Heart or 1s BI. This was discussed on many occasions. (EX:3 & 4)
(b)(7 )(C)
hold .__~~,..on numerous occasions, "The hardest thing, and the best thing I do
every day is Love you <g)<~), "(EX:3)
(b)(7 )(C) Itold ~""""'~'"' that there will be what he called the final interview in his EEOC
claim. He asserts t at (b)(7)(C) advised him, he would serve as his attorney and stated that
this day "is going to be one of the fucking worst days ofyour life. I'm going to break you down
and make you my bitch." (EX:3)
6
(b)( <2fl<7)
characterized (b)(7)(C) s stating that if he ever disclosed anything that he was told, he
would be, "fucking with his ( (b)(7)(C) ) badge, commission and right to practice law, and
therefore he 'd ( (b)(6),(b)(7) be fucking with his family ... and nobody fucks with his family. "
(EX:3) (C)
(b )(6),(b )(7) . .
(C) related that after about 8 months everythmg Just came to an end. He stated (b)(7)(C)
was preparing him for this final interview. " I spent a week preparing.for this.final interview,
was comin downtown, we we 're final going to meet, two days prior to the interview he said it's
off (b)(7)(C) said I stuttered too much that no one would ever believe me. I (b)(7)(C) !said he
wou vzo a .e the rules and have the final interview by phone, but I should not tell anyone. "
(EX:3 &4)
OIG 13-0061-C Page 5
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field OfficeJ (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
Emails
Emails supplied by (b)(5),(b)(7)(C) rovide more details into the type of conversations he and
(b)(7)(C) engaged in. 5 (EX: 2)
• (b)(?)(C) Agency computer records identified 72 emails sent by (b)(7)(C) to {b){6),{b){7)(C)
(2fl<
{b){6 7) between February 2012 and August 2012. (EX:23)
An example of the email exchange dated February 23, 2012, from I
(b)(?)(C)
a {b){7)(C) !@eeoc.gov) to ! {b){6),{b){7)(C) !q
{b){6),{b){7)(C) !@gmail.com) stated:
"I swear to gawd that I am going to break you down like a shot gun ... dude ... the last vertiage of
your virginity belongs to me ... ifyou HA VE NOT sent the documents to DOLDO
N OT ... ARGUUH... how did sending stuff to DOL6 get into the equation???????...oh Dude, your
voice mail is full, how the hel is any one suppose to call you, eh? ARGUUH ....... " (EX: 2 & 23)
Complaint 1-ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
At issue in this investigation is whether {b){?)(C) made the alleged comments during the
,--------,---....,...11
course of his investigation of {b){6),{b){7)(C) c arge o discrimination.
W hile the veracity of (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) has not been challenged, his credibility7 can be established
through the consistency of his statements provided in affidavits and sworn testimony, and
supported through email and phone records.
For example : The previously referenced email from (b)(7)(C) to (b)<5t )<7) dated February 23,
{b){7)(C) was profane, mappro riate and intimidating, in
~:rn"l""ll~:,;...;.,;.;.;....;....J
communicating wit c . e emails establish that (b)(7)(C) communicated with
!(b)(~g~)(I) !on matters unre ate to his charge of discrimi nation . There were several emails
I I
obtained by OIG relating to (b)(7)(C) !offering his assistance in helping (u:J1i'1N;1obtain a Purple
Heart for his injuries in Iraq. Finally, the volume of phone calls between[ ~\IJ and I
I (b)(7)(C) ~ particular! the number of calls to {b){7)(C) personnel cell phone, support - {-b)-(6-),{-b)-(?-)(C_)_
percept10n that (b)(7)(C) was a trusted frien an re ated to him as a veteran.
5 All emails obtained in this investigation can be found in exhibit 2 and exhibit 23.
6 DOL (Washington State Department of Licensing) (EX:4)
7
Credibility is dependent upon the willingness of the witness to tell the truth and upon his ability to do so. 1
McCormick on Evidence Ill n.l (4'" ed. 1992). The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any of the following
methods: 1) proof of prior inconsistent statements; 2) proof of witness= bias or self-interest; 3) introduction of
extrinsic evidence that contradicts the witness= testimony; 4) attack upon the character of the witness; 5) showing a
defect in the witness to observe, remember or recount matters testified about.
OIG 13-0061 -C Page 6
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office~.__ _<b_)<_7 )_<c_) _ __. OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
{b){?)(C) I
has not submitted to an OIG interview or provided any other testimonial or
documentar I
to refute (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) !assertions. Despite OIG's ongoing efforts to
interview ______. he has not made himself available for an interview. 8 However the OIG
believes there is sufficient evidence to make a credibility determination involving {b){?)(C) I
I {b){?)(C) !propensity for false and/or misleadin statements undermines his credibility. For
example: Complaint #2 of this report reveals {b){7)(C) propensity for false and/or
misleading statements. Documentary and testimonial evidence adduced during our review of the
allegations contained in Complaint #2 discloses that his various statements were inconsistent and
false (e.g., falsely stating that he was armed while attempting to board a domestic airliner; and
that he was a Federal LEO escorting a prisoner whom he had in custody, etc).
A search of (b)(7)(C) computer also revealed numerous documents and resumes indicating he
was a certifie aw en orcement officer, attorney, etc. (EX: 23) Although there is no evidence to
support his inference that he was in the military in 2010, in February 2010 while working for the
EEOC, he emailed a friend and asserted he had "just received unexpected orders for
Afghanistan," and he would not be seeing him in the foreseeable future. (EX:23)
I I
Additionally, in 2014, (b)(?)(C) related to a charging party that he was an attorney, a war veteran
and carried a badge and a gun. (EX:21) Finally, I
{b){7)(C) I
was subjected to a court-martial
8
The OTG attempted to interview ! (b)(7)(C) !the week of February 2 nd, 20 I 5. OTG contacted the Office of
Field Programs and Seattle Management Officials requesting to interview j (b)(7)(C)
At the time of our request for an interview. ! (b)(7)(C) !submitted two statements from doctors in support of his
request for 300 hours leave, but refused to file appropriate Family and Medical Leave Act documentation in support
of that request.
~L.l..ii~ary I 0, 2015, OTG spoke with Neil Fox, Criminal Defense Attorney, who advised he was representing ~
{b){7)(C) and wanted to know the nature of the interview request. Mr. Fox was advised the interview would involve
e actions of! (b)(7)(C) I
as it relates to his conduct as an employee of the EEOC. Mr. Fox was advised the matter
would not be a criminal case, that the United States Attorney's Office had declined prosecution.
On February 19, 20 I 5, OTG contacted 1
(b)(7)(C) !
to request an interview and was advised by ! {b){7)(C) !, he
wo~ld submit to an interview, but we should work through his Union Representative, I
(b)(?)(C) tto arrange
the interview. · ·
Working through I (b)(7)(C) I
OIG arranged for an interview with I (b)(7)(C) Iand his Union Representative
for March 24, 2015.
OIG arrived in Seattle on March 23, 2015 in preparation of the interview and received notification from ~
{b){7)(C) via his new attorney (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) he was requesting another 60 days of medical leave effecttve
1mme iately, at the request of anot er octor.
I {b){7)(C) I
did not appear for an interview on March 24, 2015.
OIG 13-0061 -C Page 7
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office~.__ _<b_)<_7)_<c_) _ __, OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
and found guilty on 11 counts of false statements in 1997, while serving in the Coast Guard.
(EX:25)
This behavior tends to lend credence to the assertions made by (b)(6),(b)(?)(C) . In sum, we credit
I (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) !characterization of the conduct he attributes to (b)(7)(C)
The OIG finds that I(b)(?)(C) I
conduct violated 5 C.F.R. 735.203 which admonishes
employees to avoid engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously
disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government:
• when he engaged in conversations with a charging party of a sexual or otherwise
inappropriate nature;
• when he misled a charging party regarding his authority;
• when he threatened a charging party;
• when he lied to a charging party;
• when he manipulated a charging party into performing self-stimulating sexual acts; and
• When he misrepresented himself as an attorney.
The OIG further finds I
(b)(7)(C) !violated the basic obligations of public service of 5 C.F.R.
2635.101. 9 His actions related to the charging party are outside any acceptable ethical standard
for a federal employee and the treatment is especially troubling even the fact they involved a
disabled veteran who served this country. It shows a lack of ·ud ment and his ability to maintain
impartiality in carrying out his duties as an investigator. (b)(?)(C) actions with a charging party
created an appearance he was violating the laws of the United States and ethical standards of
employees.
9
PART 2635 - STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
§2635.101 Basic obligation of public service. (a) Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a
responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical
principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the
Federal Government, each employee shall respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this
section, as well as the implementing standards contained in this part and in supplemental agency regulations. (14)
Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical
standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards
have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant
facts.
OIG 13-0061-C Page 8
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office1 (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
COMPLAINT 2:- BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2012, I (b)(?)(C) lalong with his domestic partner flying from Seattle
Washington to San Jose, CA entered the security checkpoint at the Seattle & Tacoma (SEA-
TAC) a· (b)(7)(C) signed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-In Log for those individuals flying
armed . .....,......,._ _,......presented his EEOC credentials to the TSA Officer along with the Alaska
Airlines med Individuals which identified him as flying armed with a low risk
I
(b)(7)(C) (EX:9)
When the TSA Officer requested
-----
(b)(7)(C) provide his Unique Federal Agency Number
(UFAN) I (b)(7)(C) Iprovided a num er t at did not match the one on file for the EEOC. ~
(b)(7)(C) stated the number must have been changed, and advised the TSA Officer he would use
t e regu ar security gate used by the general public. (EX:9)
The TSA Officer advised I(b)(?)(C) I
he could not use the regular gate because he was flying
armed. I (b)(7)(C) I
indicated he would contact his partner who would bring a hard case to
check the weapon into the airlines. (EX:9)
I (b)(7)(C) !then went through the regular security check-in at the airport, and then went to the
Alaskan Airlme gate where he spoke with the gate agent and advised her of his low risk prisoner.
At that time, I (b)(7)(C) land his "prisoner" were escorted for pre-boarding on the plane.
(EX:12)
TSA Officers then confronted I Ion the plane and asked him to step off the plane for
additional questioning. When _ (b)(?)(C) _was questioned about flying armed, he advised the
officers that he was not armed, and advised he did not understand the Alaska Airli nes Flying
Armed document they requested him to fill out. When questioned about the prisoner, he advised
that he was just an acquaintance. ! (b)(7)(C) I advised the TSA Officers that he was wrong for
his rnisrepresent~tion ~nd ~hat it would not happen again. Alaskan Airlines allowed j (b)(7)(C) I
(b)(?)(C) to contmue his flight to San Jose. (EX: 9 & 10)
On arrival at the San Jose airport, I (b)(?)(C) lwas met by a TSA Ins ector and Officers wit ~
the San Jose Police Department. They conducted an interview of (b)(7)(C) at the airport. lJilij
(b)(7)(C) stated he used his agency credentials because he had pac e 1s wa et in his checked
uggage, and Alaska Airlines asked him to fill out the Flyi ng Armed Form, but he did not fully
understand the form. When questioned about the UFAN he presented in Seattle, he advised that
he had not flown recently and he did not remember the current number. (EX: 19)
After an FBI background search and contacting J (b)(?)(C) !
Supervisor, (b)(?)(C)
and San Francisco District Director, I (b)(7)(C) 1- it was determined that ,___ _...,...,....,was
not a Law Enforcement Officer. After determining I (b)(7)(C) !had no weapon, nor 1 e
really have a prisoner, it was determined he was not threat. (b)(7)(C) 1was allowed to leave
the airport. (EX: 19)
OIG 13-0061-C Page 9
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office/ (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
Complaint 2-EVIDENCE
(b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C) Alaskan Airline A ent
Agent (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) advised on Friday November 2, 2012, I
(b)(7)(C) !checked in First Class
with her, showed his official ID and told her he was escorting a prisoner. She asked if he was
flying armed and alone, and ! (b)(7)(C) ~eplied yes and he needed to fill the paperwork out.
(EX:11)
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) ITSA Incident Report
l
a Supervisory Transportation Officer in the Seattle-Tacoma airport, on
(b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C)
November 2, 2012, at 11:15 AM~~~ I (b)(7)(C) !filling out the Checkpoint Log for
individuals flyin a armed. Officer 7 c
provided OIG with her incident report regarding her
interaction with (b)(7)(C) (EX:9)
(b)(?)(C) !presented his EEOC credentials and an Alaska Airlines "Notice to Armed .-----.
Individuals" to Officer I (b)(7)(C) ~ which identified him as flying with a low risk prisoner, (b
{i~{2f)
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) (EX:9) ----
Officer i<~¥~@1 I
requested the UFAN from (b)(7)(C) the number he provided did not match
the one on file. When advised it did not match, (b)(7)(C) advised it was correct unless it had
changed in the past six months. Officer (b{i~{lf) advised the number changes every 6 months.
(EX:9)
(b)(7)(C) I
indicated he would use the reaular checkpoint and Officer (b {i~{lf) advised that he
could not because he was flying armed. (b)(7)(C) stated he would ca 1s partner to bring a
hard case to check in the firearm. When Officer .................... suggested he just call his partner and
get the UFAN, I
(b)(7)(C) I
replied, "it was no problem, we both have our jobs to do. " (EX:9)
I I
Officer {b)(o/Jf>({) next interaction with (b)(?)(C) occurred at Gate C9 in the boarding area for
Alaskan Airlines flight 324 to San Jose, CA. (b)(7)(C) indicated to her that the UFAN had
changed 3 weeks ago, and thanked her for her assistance. (EX:9)
Officer! : ' lad vised (bX6),(bX7XCl , De ut Assistant Federal
actions taken b (b)(7)(C) (b)(6),(~)(7)(C) . or~ered Officer
1
::r '
Director, of the
I
and Officer ....<""'%""' I
hl'""f>...
{~"""'
to remove (b)(7)(C) from the plane for mterv1ewmg. (EX:9)
(b )(6),(b )(7)(C) Alaskan Airline A ents
Gate agent, ! (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) l
stated that ~I_ (b:-)<_7)_<c _) ,==1!_
ch_e_c_k_ed_ in with her and indicated he had a
very low risk prisoner. When pre-boarding began (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) escorted
prisoner down the jet way. (EX: 12)
I .
(b)(?)(C)
.
I
and his
OIG 13-0061-C Page 10
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office;i___
<b_
)<7_)<_
c )_ __. OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
(b)(5 ),(b)(7 )(C) Statement
!
Deputy Assistant Federal Security Director for the Seattle & Bellingham
(b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C)
International Airport, questioned (b)(7)(C) I
lafter he was pulled from the plane. (EX: 10)
He asked (b)(?)(C) if he was attempting to bypass screening and come through the security exit.
I(b)(7)(C) !replied, "Yes ''. (EX: 10)
He asked if he was attempting to bring a prisoner through the exit with him.
(b)(?)(C)
! (b)(7)(C) ! replied, "No. " (EX: 10)
He asked ! (b)(?)(C) ! who! (b)(5),(b)(?)(C) ! was and what their relationship was?
I I
(b)(7)(C) replied, "a friend". (EX: 10)
I
He asked (b)(?)(C) bf he was attempting to bypass screening for himself and his friend.
I(b)(7)(C) !replied, "Yes." (EX: 10)
I I
He asked (b)(7)(C) if he was flying armed.
!
! (b)(7)(C) replied, "No. " (EX: 10)
I I
He asked (b)(?)(C) "didn 't you tell my Supervisor at the exit you were armed?"
I(b)(7)(C) !replied, "yes, I lied". (EX: 10)
After this questioning, Alaskan Airline Officials decided to allow I (b)(7)(C) Ito travel on to his
destination.
had
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) (b)(5 ),(b)(?)(C) notify TSA in San Jose, CA that (b)(?)(C) lwas I
1mpersonatmg himself as a law enforcement officer. All information was forwarded to the TSA
in San Jose, CA, which took the lead on the investigation at that point. (EX: 10)
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) !Statement
l Senior Transportation Manager for the Behavior Detection Program,
(b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C)
accompanied Officer ICDJl~gfi !to Gate C9 to interview I
01 I(EX: 18) (b)(7)(C)
r-""-l.l.l,,ol,"""-',i,.J.LJ!.!..I...Jasked j (b)(?)(C) hf he was flying armed.
--- replied, No. (EX: 18)
7 _C___,
,;;;.;.;.;.;;.;;.;..i......... I I
asked (b)(7)(C) why he told TSA he was flying armed?
--- replied,"/ did not understand what I was being asked". (EX: 18)
OIG 13-0061-C Page 11
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office~___<b_)<_7)_<c_) _ __. OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
___...
!"-'l.&.1.1......._, <b.l!(i~~(E
~fr..).Jadvised
. (b)(?)(C) it stated it across the top of the paperwork in large print.
replied, "I was wrong it won 't happen again ". (EX: 18)
Officer (b I
(i~(lf) examined (b)(?)(C) !credentials and paperwork as Officer (b)(5(Jf )(?)
photograp e t e items. (EX: 18)
An Alaskan Airlines official indicated! (b)(?)(C) lcould board the flight.
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Istatement
I (b)(5),(b)(7)(C) I
Transportation Security Inspector for the Transportation Security
Administration in San Jose, CA, was contacted concerning a suspicious passenger, who had
presented himself as a Law Enforcement Officer flying armed and transporting a prisoner, on
Alaskan Airlines fli ght 324 arriving at Gate 27. (EX:19)
Ins ector accompanied by San Jose Police Officers (b)(5),(b)(7)(C) and (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) met
(b)(7)(C) at Gate 27 upon arrival. I
(b)(7)(C) !was escorted to Terminal B to be
interviewed. (EX: 19)
(b)(?)(C) ! explained that during check-in at the Seattle airport, he realized that he did not
have his wallet, it was in a carry-on bag of another family member. I
(b)(7)(C) Lpresented his
EEOC credentials to the check-in and was given a form to fi11 out. .__ _ _ __. dvised he did
not fu lly understand what the form stated ; he was not wearing his glasses and had trouble reading
I I
the form. When questioned about what happened in Seattle, (b)(7)(C) stated that he was asked if
he was flying armed, and he replied "Right" . He stated that his reply was sarcastic as he was not
~""-"·.1.1.ii..~lothing conducive to concealing a weapon. When asked about not knowing the UFAN,
,___ ___, indicated that he had not flown recently, so the number he remembered was not current.
San Jose Police Officers b 7 ' and jl~1~Mf
1lcontacted l
(b)(?)(C) l
San Francisco District
Director and (b)(7)(C) Seattle Field Office Supervisory Investigator to confirm~
I I
(b)(7)(C) !identity and authority. (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) ~onfirmed that I
(b)(7)(C) !was his employee,
but was not a Law Enforcement Officer; that he had no arrest authonty; no authority to carry a
gun in the course of his duties; and was not involved in any work that involved prisoner
transport. (EX: 19)
TSA Records Search
A record search by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) showed a previous
incident on December 16, 2010,! (b)(7)(C) I
took flight AS606 from Seattle to Las Vegas and
completed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-in Log required for armed law enforcement officials.
Using his EEOC badge #1111 and credentials, (b)(7)(C) I I
identified himself as a Federal
Officer flying armed, and that he had Completed Required LEO Flying Armed Training. He
OIG 13-0061-C Page 12
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Investigative Report Seattle Field Office~ (b)(7)(C) OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
further indicated that he was escorting an individual, identified as I
(b)(6),(b)(?)(C) I!
(b)(7)(C)
provided travel documents identified on the log as Badge, Credenti al, Second Photo ID, Airline
Flying Armed Form, and Boarding Pass. The log contains the statement, "I understand that a
knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or
both (See 18 U.S.C. 1001)." (EX: 16)
The search also revealed I
(b)(?)(C) I
committed the same act on the return fight AS601 from
I
Las Vegas to Seattle on December 21, 2010. (b)(7)(C) !completed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-in
Log required for armed law enforcement officials. Using his EEOC badge #1111 and
credentials, I
(b)(7)(C) I
identified himself as a Federal Officer flying armed, and that he had
Completed Required LEO Fl in Armed Trainin . He further indicated that he was escorting an
individual, identified as (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) (b)(?)(C) provided travel documents identified on
the log as Badge, Credential, Second Photo ID, Airline Flying Armed Form, and Boarding Pass.
The log contains the statement, "I understand that a knowi ng and willful false statement on this
form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or both (See 18 U.S .C. 1001)." (EX:17)
Complaint 2- ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
OIG finds that I
(b)(?)(C) bonduct violated 18 U.S.C. §912 10 with intent to impersonate a
law enforcement officer on December 16, 2010, December 21, 2010, and on November 2, 2012,
when he attempted to by-pass normal security procedures in the Seattle-Tacoma Airport and the
Las Vegas airport, in a self-servi ng fashion so that he and his partner would not be
inconvenienced by standing in normal security lines, by stating he was traveling armed and with
a prisoner in each of these three instances.
Even after being confronted regarding his law enforcement status I (b)(?)(C) I continued in the
deception by lying to the TSA and presenting a false UFAN for the EEOC.
The deception continued after going through the normal security checkpoint, by presenting
himself to Alaskan Airline personnel as a LEO with a prisoner, and was granted pre-boardi ng
access to the plane.
!continued the ruse after being detained in San Jose by TSA and the San Jose
(b)(?)(C)
police, when he related that he had not traveled in a while and could not recall the UFAN. 1I
OIG finds that I (b)(7)(C) !violated Title 18 U.S.C. §1001, False Statements, when:
• On December 16, 2010,I (b)(7)(C) !complete and signed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-In Log
identifying himself as a LEO flying armed with a prisoner, (b)(6),(b)(?)(C) from Seattle
to Las Vegas, NV; (EX: 16)
11
UFAN (Unique Federal Agency Number) is assigned to designated Law Enforcement entities. The only EEOC
UFAN is assigned to the Office oflnspector General.
OIG 13-0061-C Page 13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
(b)(7)(C)
Investigative Report Seattle Field Offic~ OIG Control No. 13-0061-C
• On December 21, 2010, J (b)(7)(C) !completed and signed the TSA Check oi nt Sign-In Log
identifying himself as a LEO flying armed with a prisoner, {b){6),{b){7)(C) , from Las
Vegas to Seattle, WA. (EX: 17)
• !
On November 2, 2012, (b)(7)(C) !completed and signed the TSA Check oint Sign-In Log
identifying himself as a LEO flying armed with a prisoner, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) from Seattle
to San Jose, CA; (EX:15.....,.__....
• On November 2, 2012, (b)(?)(C) made numerous false statements to TSA Officer~
Ilo/~Vif)~nd TSA Officer (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) concerning the EEOC UFAN, stating he could
not remember it, it had changed, and it had been a while since he had flown, indicating
that he knew and implied that he was authorized to use the EEOC UFAN.(EX:9 & 19)
I (b )(7)(C) I
The OIG finds that .__ _ _ __,conduct violated 5 C.F.R. 735.203 which admonishes
employees to avoid engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously
dis raceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government, when on November 2, 2012,
{b){7)(C) completed and signed the Alaskan Airl ines Notice To Armed Individuals, identified
himself as a law enforcement officer with a low risk prisoner, {b){6),{b){7)(C) This instance is
distinguished from the above referenced false statements because m t s mstance the Alaskan
Airlines Notice To Armed Individuals is not a federal document. (EX:14)
In each of the above acts, I
{b){?)(C) !violated the statute by identifying himself as a LEO 12
with the EEOC, when in fact he is not employed as a certified law enforcement officer with the
EEOC. He represented that he was can-ying a firearm, when he was not. He also pretended to
escort a prisoner, when in fact he was traveling for pleasure with his domestic partner.
Furthermore he represented that he had knowledge and presumptive use of the EEOC UFAN,
when in fact he did not.
Recommendations
The OIG has been informed by the FBI that the Assistant United States Attorney has declined
prosecution in this matter, and no further action will be taken by the FBI 13 .
Accordingly, OIG recommends the Seattle Field Office Management, San Francisco District
Office Management, and the Office of Field Programs consult with the EEOC Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer, and the Designated Agency Ethics Official, if appropriate, before
determining appropriate corrective action.
12
5 U.F.C. 550.103, Defines: Criminal Investigator 5 U.S.C 5541(3)
13
Although the United States Attorney Office in San Jose has declined to prosecute this matter, the Agency is not
precluded from pursuing administrative action for this offense.
OIG 13-0061-C Page 14
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPERTY OF THE EEOC-OIG AND CANNOT BE RELEASED, OR FURTHER DISSEMINATED,
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE EEOC-OIG
28MAR2017
15-0317-COther
Complaint Complaint received from USPS/OIG re: Complaint
Summary: against Seattle Field Office Deputy Director by postal
service employee
Current Status: CLOSED FINAL; ASSOC. WITH PRIOR INVEST. OR
COMPLAINT
Current Status Date: 31MAR2016
Current Status Notes: Refer to Case #15-0192 Seattle Conflict of Interest
Case
Date Received: 23MAR2015
Date Initiated: 23MAR2015
Primary Investigator: (b)(7)(C)
Other Investigators:
Type: Complaint
Subject Type: Employee
Special Flags:
Category: Other
Received By: Written
Complaint Source: Federal Agency - Other
Complainant Organization: USPS
Complainant Location: [Other]
Allegation Organization:
''
Allegation Location: SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE
Documents:
No Data Available
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPERTY OF THE EEOC-OIG AND CANNOT BE RELEASED, OR FURTHER DISSEMINATED,
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE EEOC-OIG
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPERTY OF THE EEOC-OIG AND CANNOT BE RELEASED, OR FURTHER DISSEMINATED,
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE EEOC.OIG
Close Actions
Admin Action Checked Date 31MAR2016
Techniques No Data Available
Admln Actions
CLOSED W/0 ACTION LETTER 31MAR2016
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPERTY OF THE EEOC-OIG AND CANNOT BE RELEASED, OR FURTHER DISSEMINATED,
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE EEOC-OIG
Memorandum to Close (Case File: (b)(7 )<c) 13-0512-C)
Case Agent: Lisa G. Lewis
Date: April 01, 2016
On May 2, 2013, Peggy Mastroianni, EEOC {b){7)(C) OIG that a possible
violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 208, had been comrmtte y (b)(?)(C) , Supervisorx Trial
Attorney, on his 2012 Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (CFDF). On said form,~
indicated that he owns stock in Verizon, valued in excess of 15 000.00 in 2012. It has since
1
been learned thatr%;ilreviewed a charge file (Charge No. oftheCivi: Ri h~Ac) involving Verizon
on March 18, 201~ rev· ssessment Form and concun-ed with the
1
categorization of Charge No. 0~b{~~g-~f/)RiTi~~~~ 1 as an " A" charge. Thus, it appears!{b){?)(C) !
participated personally and SU stantl y mt e disposition of Charge No. Iof/g't~f/~j~w~~l~t I
At issue in this investigation is whether the Subject violated criminal regulations by reviewing
the PCHP Assessment Form and concurring with the categorization of Charge No.! (b)(5) I
j (b)(5) 1as an "A" charge. The regulation in question is Title 18 U.S .C. §208 Conflict of Interest,
which "prohibits Government employees from participating "personally and substantially as a
Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the
rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application,
request for ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest,
or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, .. .has a
financial interest."
During the week of August 26, 2015, OIG Special Agents interviewed {b){?)(C) reviewed fi les
and relevant documentation, and interviewed relevant investigators regarding this conflict of
I I
interest allegation. During the interview with (b)(7)(C) on August 26, 2015, he stated that he
inherited the stock from his mother's estate in 2010. He further stated that his Morgan Stanley
financial adviser handled all of his stock transactions, and chose additional stocks for l
{b){7)(C) I
I I
investment. OIG Agent Lewis advised {b){7)(C) that he needed to provide his 2012 financial
statement from his investment broker. He was advised that the documentation would need to
disclose the do11ar value and number of shares he owned in Verizon during the period in
question.
In January 2016, Agent Lewis sent a second written request to {b){7)(C) requesting the financial
statement from his financial broker regarding his Verizon stoc . In February 2016, (b)(7)(C) I I
I
provided his financial statements to Agent Lewis. The documentation revealed that {b){7)(C) !did
not own Verizon stock, valued in excess of $15,000.00, when he filed his 2012 CFDF.
As such, the OIG investigation is closed.
__
Memorandum to Close (Case File: ...._(b)(7)<C) _. 3-0832-C)
Case Agent: Lisa G. Lewis
Date: March 10, 2016
On July 31, 2013 , Peggy Mastroianni, EEOC (b)(7)(C) informed the OIG that a possible
violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 208, had been committed by (b)(7)(C) Re ional Attorney,
on his 2012 Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (CFDF). On said form, {b){7)(C) indicated
that he owns stock in Cisco Systems, valued in excess of $15,000.00 in 2012. It has since been
!
learned that! {b){7)(C) reviewed a charge file (Charge No. of the Civi! Ri 1h~Act
1
•· · -
1
e
involvin Cisco Systems on February 1, 2013 , (which falls ou s1 e o e penod covered by
(b)(7)(C) 2012 CFDF). ! (b)(7)(C) !reviewed the file's contents and concurred with the PCHP
categorization of the case as a "B" during the legal review. On March 19, 2014, OLC presented
the 2013 CFDF to OIG. I {b){7)(C) I
2013 CFDF shows that he maintains stock in Cisco
Systems in excess of $15,000.00. Thus, it a ears participated personally and
0
substantially in the disposition of Charge No. the Civil R/ ht~ Jct ot 19
At issue in this investigation is whether the Subject violated criminal regulations by reviewing
the file's contents and concurring with the PCHP categorization of the case as a "B" during the
legal review for Charge No. 1 !~~'¢'.~X'6%,:~'Zr~~ I
6
1 1'9 The regulation in question, Title 18 U.S.C. §208
Conflict of Interest, "prohibits Government employees from participating "personally and
substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other
proceeding, application, request for ruling or other determination , contract, claim, controversy,
charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse,
minor child, .. .has a financial interest."
During the week of September 3, 2015, OIG Special Agents interviewed...__ ____. reviewed
files and documentation, and interviewed enforcement investigators regar mg t e conflict of
interest allegation. During the interview with I
{b){7)(C) I
on September 3 rd , he stated that he
needed to review the CFDF in question, because he believed he misstated the actual amount of
stock he had in Cisco Systems. Agent Lewis requested that 1 {b){7)(C) I
provide a financial
statement from his stock broker regarding the actual dollar amount and number of shares he
owned in Cisco Systems.
In January 2016, Agent Lewis sent a written request to {b){?)(C)I I
requesting the financial
statement from his stock broker regarding his Cisco Systems stock. In March 2016, (b)(7)(C)
forwarded his financial statement to Agent Lewis. The documentation revealed that e
own Cisco Systems stock, valued in excess of $15,000.00, when he filed his 2012 CFDF.
As such, the OIG investigation is closed.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20507
Office of
Inspector General
Memorandum to the File
Case: Improper Disclosure / Misuse of Position
OIG #15-0201-C
Date: July 1, 2015
Prepared by: Thomas L. Spellman, Special Agent
Subject: Case Closure
On February 4, 2015, the Office of Inspector General was contacted by the Dallas District Office
Director, I (b)(7)(C) L regarding a breach of confidentiality by an employee in the office. An
attorney, Greg Placzek, with the Rob Wiley Law Firm, advised the San Antonio Field Office
Director, I
(b)(7)(C) I
of information received by the Wiley Law Firm regarding employees in
the Dallas District Office.
I (b)(7)(C) lwas requesting an immediate investigation into the release of this information.
I lwas immediately identified as a possible subject of this investigation due to her
(b)(7)(C)
access to the information and her current disciplinary problems (suspension and a PIP) in the
Dallas District Office.
The information sent to the Wiley Law Firm was prepared by l (b)(7)(C) l and was eventually
found in the inbox of her office after a search was conducted.
OIG contacted the Wiley Law Firm and obtained the original documents and envelope used to
mail the information and determined that the mailing occurred outside the office zip code.
OIG also conducted background checks and internet search's involving! (b)(7)(C) Iand her
actions around the time the information was sent to the Wiley Law Firm.
1
During this investigation (b)(7)(C) Ialso had her laptop computer stolen on the DART (Dallas
Area Rapid Transit) system.
I lalso engaged in a physical altercation with an employee in the Dallas District Office
(b)(7)(C)
and was placed on administrative leave during this investigation.
On May 5, 2015, J (b)(?)(C) !was granted disability retirement and retired effectively May 15,
2015, prior to OIG 's opportunity to interview her on this matter.
Base on the retirement of the suspect I recommend this case be closed.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Office of Inspector General
OIG Investigation #14-0248
Complaint:
On January 16, 2014 the Equal Employment O ortunit Commission (EEOC), Office of
Inspector General (OIG) was contacted by (b)(7)(C) , Director of the Milwaukee Area
I
Office. (b)(7)(C) !indicated that she was contacted by Nathan Polum, Attorney for Oasis Legal
Finance, regarding a settlement agreement between 1 (b)(7)(C) I
and the Department of
Treasury.
Mr. Polum stated that Oasis Legal Finance provided pre-settlement funding in the amount of
$34,901.00, to I
(b)(7)(C) lbased on the EEOC Settlement Agreement.
I !reviewed the Settlement Agreement provided by Oasis Legal Finance and determined
(b)(7)(C)
that it was never prepared by the EEOC, and the names of the EEOC employee signatures that
appear on the agreement appeared to be forged. (Fraudulent Settlement Agreement attached)
(b)(?)(C) advised Mr. Polum the Settlement Agreement was not issued by the EEOC, and that
(b)(7)(C) had filed no charges with the EEOC.
Background:
On October 31, 2012, Oasis Legal Finance was contacted by Paul Bookter, Attorney for (b)(7)(C)
I(b)(?)(C) I
in a discrimination matter filed with the EEOC against the Department of Treasury.
Mr. Bookter purported to Oasis Legal Finance there was a $150,000.00 settlement agreement
between his client and the Department of Treasury. On this date Oasis Legal Finance agreed to
purchase a portion of the settlement for $35,000.00.
On Novemeber 1, 2012, Oasis Legal Finance issued a check for $34,901.00 to
and sent the check via FedEx, tracking! (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) I-
I
(b)(7)(C)
,___ _ _ _ __.
On November 2, 2012, the check was osted for deposit in J.P. Morgan Chase Bank account
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) , belonging to (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) DBA Staff on Demand, located at Il~1~Mfi I
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) • I (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) I, ss (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) ,
owner, opened the account on February 24, 2012, as a sole proprietorship.
After several attempts to contact (b)(6 ),(b)(7 )(C) through-out 2013 with no response, Attorney Paul
G. Bookter was placed Oasis Legal Finance's blacklist due to fraud payback status.
1
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Office of Inspector General
OIG Investigation #14-0248
Oasis Legal Finance received a call on November 18, 2013, from Paul Bookter who advised he
worked as a (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) teacher at Green Bay West High School in Wisconsin. He adivise he
was a member of the state bar in Wisconsin but has chosen not to practice law. Mr. Bookter
I
stated he had no involvement in the (b)(7)(C) Iv. Department of Treasury case and if there is
anything with his signature on it, is a forgery.
Findings:
The OIG requested a copy of all documentation in the purchase of the settlement agreement from
Oasis Legal Finance. (All Documents and emails attached)
Oasis Legal Finance provided OIG with the copy of the check issued to! (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) in July !
2014. After obtaining this information the OIG issued a subpoena for records from JPMorgan
Chase Bank on the cashing of the check issued by Oasis Legal Finance. (JPMorgan Chase
Records Attached)
JPMorgan Chase provided the information on the cashing of the check issued to
<~g)in October 2014.
I (b)(7)(C)
Suspect:
Based on the records rovided by JPMOrgan Chase, a suspect was identified as (b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
aka (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) akal (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) ~ aka (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) , with addresses in
Athens Tennessee, Madison Wisconsin, Middleton Wisconsin, Terre Haute, Indiana.
Records obtained from PACER on I (b)(5 ),(b)(?)(C) hndicate a criminal background in
Mail Fraud; False Statements; False Claims; Bank Fraud; Passport Fraud; Aggravated Identity
Theft.
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)is a career criminal from a Tennessee and a gay lifestyle. In the late 90's, (~~{i~{c)
c discovered major security flaws in the payroll systems of large corporations and use a
Trojan program to steal data from corporate websites, then submit payroll request to staffing
agencies, either in his own name or someone else's. In 1999, he was arrested and found guilty,
where he received 8 years.
While serving his prison sentence (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) filed a bogus tax return claiming a $17,155
refund the IRS actual paid. The following year (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) filed for a $1.2 million return,
complete with forged letters on charity letterhead acknowledging enormous contributions. The
IRS caught him this time.
2
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Office of Inspector General
OIG Investigation #14-0248
5 7
(b)( ),(b)( )(C) began Supervised Release in the Western District of Wisconsin in May 27, 2010.
On July 17, 2012, a Petition for Warrant for {b){6),{b){7)(C) was submitted to the Court of the
Western District of Wisconsin, for failing to report for employment, traveling outside the district,
failure to report for required meetings, and failing to submit monthly reports. A warrant was
issued of July 18, 2012.
was arrested on new charges in the Eastern District of Tennessee on March 27,
(b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
2013. On June 5, 2013, {b){6),{b){7)(C) pied guilty to false statements in his application for a
passport and aggravated identity theft. He was sentenced to a total term of 33 months.
Records indicate {b){6),{b){7)(C) is currently serving his sentence in the Terre Huate FCI and is
scheduled for release on September 6, 2016. (All records attached)
3
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE CASE
CASE: I__
Dallas Conflict of Interest - ... <b_
)<_
7)_
<c_) _ __,
CASE NUMBER: 14-1173-C
AGENT: Thomas L. Spellman
DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: July 15, 2015
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE CASE:
Title 18 U.S.C. §208 requires an individual to have substantial participation in a particular
matter, however this provision was not intended to prohibit an employee's involvement in purely
ministerial or procedural acts. Accordingly, the regulations interpreting the meaning of
substantiality expressly exclude such minor activities. A finding requires more than official
responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on administrative or
peripheral issues.
OIG finds thad (b)(?)(C) I
signatory action on the Certification/Attestation of Records, as the
Custodian of Records for the Dallas District Office, was purely an administrative action.
Accordingly, there is no violation of 18 U.S.C. §208.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES, FACTS, AND BASIS FOR OIG DISPOSITION:
On September 16, 2014, the Office of Legal Counsel forwarded a matter for investigation
consistent with 28 U.S.C. 535. A review of the Public Financial Disclosure Report in June
2014 identified (b)(7)(C) , Director, Dallas District Office as an employee who may have
taken an official action in a matter involving an entity in which she had a financial interest.
certificate.
File records indicate the charging party had representation of counsel throughout the process. A
signed drafted charge was not received until Au ust 7, 2013. After a failed mediation process
the file was forwarded to (b)(7)(C) for assignment. Prior to
the assignment for investigation t e c argmg party s attorney requeste a Right-to-Sue. The
1
Right-to-Sue was issued on March 5, 2014 by Investigator~...- -(-b)_<7_)<C_)_ __,l effectively closing
the charge of discrimination.
The charging party's attorney filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request on March 12,
2014 and filed a civil action with the U.S. District Court in Dallas on March 17, 2014. A second
FOIA was received on April 3, 2014 by the respondent in Right;Actof 1964,(b)(3)ADA,(b)
IAll FOIA request in the IDallas District Office is processed by I,. . ____________,
(b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C)
In the processing of this and all FOIA request,! (b)(?)(C) bndependently prepares the request
for documents without supervision or direction. After she has com leted these FOIA packages
! (b)(?)(C)!drafted the FOIA response letters and apply (b)(7)(C) signature in an
electronic format.
The Respondent in this matter requested a Certification/Attestation of Records, which requires
the Custodian of R,r~rds fill: tbe j •llas District Office,!
was then notarized by (b)(7)(C)
(bX7XC) I
to sign. The certification
The action taken in this matter by ~ (b)(7)(C) I
was in her official capacity as Custodian of
Records in the Dallas District Office. There was no substantial participation by l (b)(?)(C) lin
this charge of discrimination.
INVESTIGATIVE SUBJECT(S) WITNESS (ES)
I recommend this case be closed, and certify that the file(s) in this investigation contain(s) a
complete chronology and all documents received during the investigation. My working copies of
such documents are contained in this file, or have been destroyed, and disk files created in this
matter have been deleted.
Special Agent Date
Counsel to the Inspector General Date
2
Deputy Inspector General Date
Inspector General Date
3
Closing documents for eight (8) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Inspector General (OIG) investigations, 2013-2016
Published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Inspector General on 2018-01-01.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)