Employers Don't Get to Rewrite History!

“Even if higher management proves that evidence it discovered after-the-fact would have justified a supervisor’s action, such evidence can only limit remedies, not eliminate liability.”

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513, U.S. 352, 360-62 (1995).

So, an employer cannot go back and try to retroactively uncover incriminating evidence against an employee as a means of denying all liability for some violation that took place on the job.

At the time employment decisions were made any new facts were unknown and, therefore, had no impact on the decision-making process.

If an employer argues that newly uncovered information justified a past employment decision, then they need to explain how they took the action in the first place. Employers can't have it both ways. Either they had enough evidence to justify their actions or they didn't. What would they still be looking for at the 11th hour and how could anyone look at such late-breaking evidence as credible?

Employers may still be liable , even if they find new evidence that allegedly supports their position.

Keeping Copies of Timesheets Could Prove Elements of Your Case Against An Employer

If you are filing a grievance against your employer (and just as a general rule of thumb) you should always maintain copies of your timesheets. Even if you record your hours on an electronic timesheet, you should print your timesheets and place them in a file folder for safe keeping. If you have filed a grievance, you definitely want to keep a copy of your timesheets for the period of time covered in your complaint.

I’ve worked for an employer that falsified and manufactured timesheets to try to disprove a case against them that was being investigated by a state government agency. The reason this employer was unsuccessful in getting away with their submission of falsified documents was because the employee maintained a copy of all of her timesheets for that period and could show that new timesheets had suddenly “appeared” in her file (with completely different hours recorded). It would have been beyond her capacity to doctor an exact copy of the corporate timesheets, but much easier for her employers to do so. Keep this example in mind, when it comes to your own timesheets.

Keeping your timesheets will prove the amount of leave you used, if any, as a result of stress-related ailments due to harassment, discrimination or other illegal activities committed by your employer. You can use these timesheets to request a restoration of your sick leave used while you were being harassed and tormented at work. Timesheets will also show your general sick and vacation leave used, in case there is some later dispute about your attendance at work.

Keep in mind, when employers are being investigated or questioned, they want to show negative past behavior on your part. Leave is one area for employer’s to attack and is often one of the first targets they will hit. If you are being targeted at work, the torment is designed to cause you to lose your focus, make errors, force you to resign, and to cause any other side effects that will play into your employer's hands. Your employer wants to drive you to drinking and to the verge of a nervous breakdown, but will question your sick leave during these attacks. Your employer will also attack legitimate reasons for being out of the office.

In my case, on the first day of an attack by my supervisor, my supervisor falsely stated that everyone questioned my hours in and out of the office and everyone wondered where I was. She told me, “We want you to come to work.” And, she said it as if I had been out of the office on a routine basis. The only absences I had from the office were pre-approved and involved work-related travel (out of state) and client meetings that took place off site. Yet, my supervisor was declaring that no one knew where I was, what I was working on, and wondered when I got anything done—because I was supposedly chronically out the office.

I have a copy of all my timesheets to prove that this statement was an obvious and intentional lie. But, it didn’t change the fact that my employer gave it the good old fashioned college try in order to justify their unjustified attacks against me. That’s why I am passing this warning on to you. Don’t let your employer have the only copy of your timesheets. It could come back to haunt you.

Finally, you may want to maintain a copy of your previous year’s timesheets as added insurance against manipulation by your employer. If your employer feels the need to create long-term problems with your employment, they may go well into the past to show so-called performance/attendance issues on your part.

Remember, even your legitimate use of sick leave and vacation leave may come under attack from your employer. When requesting advance leave, make sure your time off is approved, forms are signed by the proper authority, coworkers are notified of your schedule, your assignments are covered during your time out of the office, and that you have a copy of your signed and approved leave form in your personal file.

Final thought: If you’re under attack at work, always get a note from your doctor, if you’re out sick.

Fighting Back Against False Statements

I’ve seen my fair share of false and malicious workplace statements. This includes false statements that were written by coworkers and false statements that were prepared by an employer and signed by a coworker.

Much of what is written about Black employees, when it comes to false documentation, falls into stereotyping the employee, character assassination and personality attacks, and an overreliance on blanket statements that have no supporting documentation or other evidence to back up the claims. For instance:

-- A Black employee may be labeled as a behavior problem that falls into stereotypes of African Americans (e.g., being angry, defensive or unprofessional);

-- A Black employee may be labeled as having communication issues (e.g. being rude,
negative, argumentative, hypersensitive, etc.);

-- A Black employee may be labeled as insubordinate;

-- A Black employee may be labeled as being disliked by a number of people or many
people in their office, department, team, at the company, etc.; and/or

-- A Black employee may be accused of problems they didn’t directly cause or of performance deficiencies that do not exist.

When it comes to race and racism in the workplace, many Black employees may find themselves falsely documented for any variety of reasons. Regardless of the reason for being documented by a supervisor, manager, coworker or the company—as a whole—I’d like to provide you with these tips:

1. Always be as anal as you possibly can, when reading a false statement. Analyze every word that is written. If you have been provided with a false statement, you should remember that great care has gone into preparing the document. Each word was chosen for a reason—on a conscious or subconscious level.

2. Analyze the wording in the documentation and attack, wherever you see an opening. For example, if someone writes that you “appeared” to be angry or you were “perceived” to be argumentative, demand clarification. How exactly did you appear to be angry? The perception of anger is subjective, could be seen differently on a cultural level, etc. Similarly, you should find out what made the person label you as argumentative. How did the individual define that? The person writing the documentation should specifically outline how you supposedly manifested your anger or what specific behavior demonstrated that you were being argumentative or difficult.

3. Always use direct quotes from the false statement in your response and follow the direct quotes with a hard-hitting response that shows the quote to be false. You want to attack the credibility of the person writing the statement. One of the best ways to do that is to attack their basic believability by showing their words can’t be trusted, that they are careless with their words and judgments, and that they will commit things to writing that can’t be substantiated in fact.

4. Do not allow blank statements to go without response! Ask for specifics about questionable or vague accusations—in writing. Make the individual commit to details. Always keep in mind that asking questions often forces people (even very educated people) to commit to telling even more lies. The more lies they tell, the harder it is to continue to keep the story straight. Therefore, it could become easier to refute their claims about you because they’ve strayed from their initial talking points and lies.

5. Provide written evidence that contradicts the false claims in the statement. For instance, if you’re accused of being disliked by coworkers, produce emails from coworkers thanking you for being pleasant to work with and a great team player. If you are being falsely blamed for problems on a project, even though you followed the instructions you were given, provide a copy of the instructions and show how you adhered to those procedures.

6. Point out anyone referenced in the statement, who has an axe to grind or is in some other way falsely accusing you of performance issues. Provide specifics that refute what this person is saying about you.

7. Prepare a response that refutes the false statement against you line-by-line. It is much more powerful to attack your attacker following their warped logic and lies. This also allows a third party to essentially hold the two pieces of documentation (the false statement and your response) side-by-by and to make a judgment on the credibility of the arguments.

8. If you haven’t already done so, DOCUMENT EVERYTHING from the moment you realize you’ve become a target. If someone is willing to put lies to paper and to place an employer at risk, by engaging in illegal behavior, they will likely not let up until they succeed at their goal (forcing you to resign, getting you fired or demoted, etc.) Once it’s been established that you are a target, start thinking of covering your butt and saving all the evidence you need to seek an internal or external remedy to your problems.

Fighting Back Against False Allegations That You Have Communication Issues

Many people we work with are unable to separate their race-based perceptions from reality. As a result, when some people work with Blacks, they may be preconditioned to miscontrue things said or done by a Black worker based on their own racial prejudices and stereotyping. For instance, a person with racial biases may be interacting with a Black worker, who asks several questions about the procedures being used on a project.

The Black worker may be labeled as being difficult to work with, very negative, hostile or may be accused of not being a team player simply because this person has a preconceived notion that Blacks are argumentative and confrontational. Instead of taking the questions as legitimate business and task-related questions, the Black worker may be looked at as being insubordinate, rude or "talking back." This is how race-based prejudices and biases can feed into problems in the workplace.

In the workplace, many Blacks hear about these race-based prejudices and stereotypes with the accusation that they have "communication issues."

Allowing someone to falsely characterize you as being angry, defensive, hostile, pissed off, distant/aloof, unable to take constructive criticism, etc. is a major problem. You could end up constantly trying to erase the negative and false perceptions created about you by those who have labeled you as having a problem communicating with staff. Being labeled as having communication issues will affect your performance evaluations, salary increase, and can significantly decrease your chance to advance within the company. Anytime you are falsely accused of having communication issues, you have to give serious thought about how to respond.

Here are some things you can do:

TIP#1: When it comes to so-called communication issues, try not to let the conversation become about your personality. Let it be known, right up front, that if your personality is to be discussed and dissected, you would expect that the personality of everyone involved (in whatever issue was raised) be discussed and dissected—person by person.

Why? Because, once the conversation goes down the path of discussing a Black person’s personality, it will likely become an all consuming, one-sided affair where the Black person will be expected to accept and acknowledge any list of faults being offered up by White coworkers and managers. If everyone’s personality isn’t being discussed, your personality should not be discussed. Communication is a two-way street. No individual should be held accountable for a conversation taking a perverse turn for the worse.

TIP #2: Check your company’s personnel manual to see what the guidelines are for handling work-based issues and personality-based issues. For instance, I had a former employer that explicitly stated that supervisors should stay away from making personality-based assessments of employees. Find out if there is similar language in your company’s personnel guidelines. Make sure that so-called personality issues, particularly fraudulent personality issues, do not creep into your performance evaluations and are not held against you in some other way.

TIP #3: Be careful approaching a person regarding racial stereotyping and labeling. I can guarantee that conversation will likely go quickly downhill--no matter how delicately you address the issue. All the person will hear is that you are calling them a racist. Even if they are, you have to be careful with a conversation like this. But, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have the conversation. However, before having any sort of conversation about such a sensitive issue, address the problem with your supervisor first to give them a heads up that this is an issue you have to deal with. Trust me, the person you speak to is probably going to run straight to your supervisor anyway. If it's a White woman, she may go to your supervisor crying and blubbering. All of that emotion will take the focus off of what has been happening and you will be in a defensive position about something other than what you intended to discuss. Before you speak to someone about race-based stereotyping, have as many examples as you can about how they are falsely labeling you based on racial perceptions and how they are making race-influenced assessments about your behavior, your speech, the motivation behind your actions, etc. If your supervisor says that you shouldn't discuss the issue with the person, you should contact Human Resources to try to get the matter resolved.

TIP #4: Document how this person has twisted your words and/or intentionally or untentionally misread the motivation of your actions. Document this person, if you know they have similar problems with other minorities. Find out everything you can about these other issues. Try to get statements from people, which will support your allegations that this person may have a problem working with Blacks and other so-called minorities. You can then address any issues with your supervisor. Remember, it’s important to show patterns of negative behavior from this individual. You have to prove that this person’s actions are negatively impacting your ability to do your job and/or your career (e.g., diminishing your promotion potential during performance review time, etc.)

Tip #5: Consider asking coworkers to shoot you an email regarding the quality of your work and your overall job performance/behavior. This should include comments about their working relationship with you. It's always a great weapon to have written statements that contradict someone's false claims about you.

Investigator Q & A

I'm not recovering as quickly as I'd like from this back and neck pain. So, here's a reprint of some of the questions you can expect to be asked by an investigator, when and if you file and external complaint about race-based harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation.

--Who is bullying, intimidating, discriminating or retaliating against you?

--What specifically happened?

--What comments were made?

--What actions were taken?

--Was this a one-time incident? What day and time did this occur?

-- If this happened more than once, how many times were you subjected to this behavior, these actions, etc.? (Describe each situation)

--Is it still continuing?

--If so, what was the most recent incident?

--What was the impact? (State the professional and personal consequences that occurred as a result of the actions taken against you)

Think about tangible employment actions, which are any actions taken by employers or their agents that impact hiring, firing, promotions, transfers, disability etc. Tangible employment actions are negative changes in your employment status.

--Describe how certain actions led to you being denied a promotion or terminated from your job, etc.

--Are you now being subjected to an offensive work environment marked by intimidation, harassment, bullying, disparate/unequal treatment, etc.? If so, describe these conditions.

--How did you respond to the situation?

--Who did you speak to/report the incident to? List dates, times, and responses.

--What specifically did you tell them? Describe fully—this will help you keep track of what authority figures knew and when they knew it.

--Did you correspond with your superiors or Human Resources in writing? If so, list names, dates of correspondence, and responses. (Note: If you participate in face-to-face meetings, you should always follow-up the meetings with a quick email in order to create an undeniable record of what transpired.)

--Did you address the individual who is the perpetrator of this incident? What was their response? Did you come to a solution?

--Who are your witnesses? List their names, titles, and the dates of incidences they observed.

--Who else has been harassed, etc. by this person? List their names and any information that is available regarding their harassment, including dates or the approximate time frame of the mistreatment and illegal activities.

--Does the perpetrator have any outstanding complaints against him/her? List specifics, if available.

--How would you like to resolve this issue?

--What would you like to happen? (Your dream scenario)

--What is the minimum that you would find as an acceptable solution to resolve the problem? For instance, you may only want an apology from the perpetrator or you may want an apology, restitution of your salary, and the perpetrator to be placed in training that is appropriate for the offense they committed (e.g., diversity training).

You will also be asked to answer/refute any allegations your employer mentioned to the investigator. So, there may be a whole host of questions that can't be predicted because the questions will depend on how your employer handles the situation. If your employer wants to hit you hard and wants to discredit you (typical), you may have numerous allegations to respond to that you've never heard of before.

If you have to respond to written employer allegations that were made to an investigator, be sure to READ EVERYTHING CAREFULLY!! You don't want to let any allegation slip through the cracks without having your response/the truth on record with the investigator.

PLEASE NOTE: If you file an internal complaint, your HR department may ask similar questions to those listed here. However, if there is the desire for a cover-up, you shouldn't expect to be asked many questions. You might be subjected to more and new allegations. So, just be mentally prepared for anything!

Be Your Own Detective

If you are dealing with a race-based issue at work, it is best to be your own detective. You should be doing everything possible to prove your case—especially if you know you are building a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Part of being a detective (or private eye) is learning how to be a good snoop. Part of snooping involves eavesdropping. I will be the first to admit that I have put a glass to a wall and listened to conversations in the office next door. I would stand in corridors and listen to conversations until I heard someone approaching. If I thought any conversation could be useful to me, I would do my best to listen in.

Eavesdropping may be one of your best ways to get inside information. Don’t feel guilty about invading someone’s privacy because they could have found a more secure place to speak, if they didn’t want anyone to hear what they had to say.

Quietly loiter near open office doors and listen in on private conversations and phone calls that may seem to shed some insight on your situation or the perpetrator in your case. People are bold. You’d be surprised what they will talk about with an open door, when they are standing at the printer, are in the bathroom or if they are standing in a cubicle where anyone can hear what they have to say.

If you hear any juicy tidbits, write them down and file them away. Later on, determine how you can use the information to your advantage.

Remember, if you are having problems with someone, sometimes there are other people that are also having issues. If you are being harassed by an unpopular coworker or manager, listen in for conversations where other workers are talking about their personal ordeals with this person. This information can help you establish a pattern of negative behavior and can show an out-of-control coworker or manager.

You never know how eavesdropping can help provide you with a lead that can develop into a wealth of information that you can use against a coworker, manager or the company, as a whole.

People Often Reveal More Than They Want To Or Ought To

This is the final post about the importance of reading everything that crosses your desk.

It’s important that you really read everything that comes across your desk, when you are working in a hostile environment. Not only may there be subtle accusations being made about your character, work ethic or job performance, but there may also be information included that can help PROVE your case.

When people are on the attack, they may tip their hand or reveal a bit more than they should have. They are trying so hard to get you in a nasty email or memo that they may slip up and make a confession or even a semi-confession. They may accidentally corroborate something you’ve said about one thing by lying about something else.

For instance, my employer denied engaging in any employment actions against me, when I filed an external complaint. But, when asked to respond in writing they claimed that every employment action they took against me was due to my poor performance and/or negative behavior. Which one was it? Did they or didn’t they take employment actions against me?

Well, in writing, they confessed to taking actions with regard to my employment. Now, they had to answer as to what exact actions they took and they had to justify why they took them. They would have been better off sticking to deniability and saying they had no idea what I was complaining about. They should have stuck to the story of not doing anything to me and forced me to prove that they did.

Instead, my employer acknowledged—in writing—that they did act with regard to my employment. They were so busy trying to blame me for their actions, in order to justify those actions, that they didn’t think about how they were contradicting earlier statements that they didn't do anything to me. It may not seem like a big deal, but credibility is being assessed by investigators. Every little lie exposed to an investigator or lawyer makes an employer look like they would lie about the really big things!

It is important that you become an avid reader at work. You may develop all sorts of defenses to counter your employer’s false claims, just by thoroughly reading the information you have in your possession. So, read the boring stuff (like the personnel manual) and carefully read the explosive stuff (like offensive emails).

Don’t get so caught up in being pissed by an email or memo that you don’t go back and sift through the document word-for-word to see what you can use to your advantage. Prevailing in the workplace often involves using your opponent’s words and actions against them.

Get everything in writing.

And, carefully read everything you receive.

Never allow your frustration with the job prevent you from taking advantage of opportunities to exploit your employer.

Read Between The Lines

This follows yesterday’s post about the importance of reading and documenting everything. Yesterday, I mentioned that some of the documents we should read carefully are emails, memos, instructions on performing work, job descriptions, and the personnel manual.

If you are under attack, those are the documents that are going to be critical in helping to build your case and explain what your issues are at work. That’s why you should get in the habit of dissecting everything someone has sent you in writing.

You don’t want to engage in psychoanalysis of every email or memo, however, you really need to look at the overall message someone is including in a email or memo to you or about you. People can be really sneaky, especially when it comes to composing email and memos. As with any type of writing, there’s much that can be communicated without being expressly written.

You need to develop the habit of really reading emails and memos, not just skimming them. For instance, if someone is writing about a missed deadline, take a good look as to how any information about your work on the project is characterized, if this person has chosen to write about you in the same email. Supervisors, managers, and coworkers come up with lots of sneaky ways to blame other people--particularly those junior to them.

Don’t be complicit in any false perceptions about your job performance, work ethic, punctuality, thoroughness, behaviors, etc.

If you notice something, even not something explicitly stated, address it. But, address it professionally and without calling the person out directly. Just send a clarifying email response that serves the purpose of being helpful, not defensive. When you’re working with The Black Factor, “You’re too defensive” and “You’re unable to take criticism” are words that will flow like water.

Finally, read for the contradictions. Liars always make one move to many and will often massage a story to the point of actually revealing some truth, when they are attempting to conceal it. Liars normally can’t keep all their lies straight. This includes liars with Master’s degrees and Ph.D.s. When they go off the rails, it’s not usually any prettier than when an ordinary pathological liar decides to start fabricating stories.

Always look for opportunities to show how your employer is saying something—in writing—that contradicts what they’ve previously said and/or (even better) contradicts their own written policies, such as the personnel manual.

The art to trapping your employer is to read what they’ve given you and sitting with the documents side-by-side to see where the inconsistencies are. It’s very rare to have direct evidence, such as being called the n-word, so you have to be your first detective and build a circumstantial case that proves your position.

No one will see any merit to your case unless you have gathered documentation that does more than force them to rely on he said/she said with you and an employer. Reading is an important part of getting some resolution at work or in obtaining assistance from an external investigator or lawyer. You have to be able to explain what happened and to prove it/show evidence.

Lawyers want a case to fall into their laps with most of the leg work complete. They don't want to spend time hiring other investigators, etc. You have to make it as easy as possible for someone to see why they should represent you. You can't go to a lawyer making claims you can't prove and then expect they will work for free trying to prove your allegations because you can't provide any documentation or testimonial evidence to support your complaint.

Be a detective and dig out proof of the truth. Much of this will be found in written evidence.

If You Want To Hide Something From a Black Person...

What’s that old expression? “If you want to hide something from a Black person, put it in a book.” (or some say, "write it down")

There’s long been a stereotype that Black people don’t like to read. The thinking is that Black folks prefer to rely on oral communication to document history and to communicate, in general. We supposedly don’t like to write and we don’t like to read.

The harsh reality is that proving racial discrimination, harassment or retaliation at work requires a worker to become a voracious reader, as well as a person who consistently documents everything happening around them.

What are some of the things you should document?

--every race-based incident of discrimination, harassment or retaliation;

--a list of everyone who witnessed your mistreatment or was present for words or actions that demonstrate discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation in the workplace;

--every false allegation of performance deficiencies;

--every false allegation that you have personality deficiencies (e.g., falsely accused of being extremely rude or negative);

--a hostile work environment (e.g., heightened scrutiny and observation, physical or verbal abuse, nasty and offensive emails).


What are some of the documents you should be sure to carefully read?

--emails or memos making false allegations about poor work performance;

--emails making any type of negative claims about your personality;

--instructions for performing work/completing assignments, especially assignments from a difficult/racist coworker or supervisor;

--your job description (you may be accused of failing to do things that aren’t a part of your job or you may be exceeding the requirements of your job by performing work that is at the next level in your career path); and

--your personnel manual (explains your employee rights, contains specifics on discrimination, harassment and retaliation, dictates how your employer should evaluate employees, explains how supervisors should handle workplace disputes, should provide details on internal investigations, etc.).

These are just examples, but they are very important pieces of information to document or to carefully read. When you are in the midst of issues at work, you have to face up to what you are being accused of and you have to immerse yourself in it. You can't ignore what's being written about you because these documents ARE going into your employee file and will likely come back to haunt you before or during your next performance evaluation.

I'll admit that it's hard to read lies about yourself. However, that's what you must do in order to have any chance of prevailing against your employer. You have to know every lie they're telling about you like the back of your hand. And, you have to be able to manipulate that lie into reality--into the truth.

If you seek assistance from an outside investigator or lawyer, how will they be able to tell what is true and what is a lie? They don't work with you. They don't know your character, work ethic, etc. You will have to lead them to the truth and present a compelling version of events that would encourage an investigator to launch a full-scale investigation or a lawyer to accept your case as having merit.

So, you must read every email, memo, etc. And, you must show the lies and half-truths by presenting evidence, testimony, instructions, written policies, org charts, job descriptions, etc. that show you have a basis for your complaint.

Tomorrow, I’ll continue with the importance of really reading documentation you receive because there isn’t a single targeted employee who can afford to go around skimming emails and memos.

The documentation we receive at work may contain lots of places to exploit an employer’s words and actions based on what they’ve written and what they've said in the past.

Lessons from a Reader's Ordeal

This response was submitted on my post on supervisor harassment.

“…I have several (5 in total) charges pending with EEOC and its been well over 2 years at this point I’m just amazed...after filing my initial complaint of discrimination, all forms of retaliation was a result (threats, denial of promotion, termination and ineligibility to rehire) I think what really pisses me off although I never trusted her was that the black HR director (she's no longer in her role) went along w/the program....HR was useless the companies internal EEO process was utterly useless...when you file a internal EEO complaint, the complaint is redirected to Human Resources. Fortunately, their case is unraveling, their written responses are not adding up to the documentation I submitted. I documented everything and interesting enough this same HR director told me no amount of documentation will win over a manager. Of course all of this was reported to EEOC.”

There are some things I’d like to point out about this post:

1) Don’t assume you can trust Black employees.

More importantly, don’t assume you can always trust Black members of management or HR to prevent or end race-based problems at work. We are no different than any other race of people. Each person has their own perceptions, beliefs, motives/personal agendas, etc. It’s disheartening for Black members of management or HR to sit by silently or to work with Whites against an innocent African American employee, but that type of collusion does happen. I’ve seen it happen to a Black coworker and I’ve had it done to me.

2) “HR was useless...”

Yes, HR will often protect the harasser because protecting that person usually helps the company—as a whole. Instead of getting rid of dead weight and those placing a company in legal jeopardy, HR will sometimes take the road to denial. They will often insist nothing happened and dare you to try to prove it. Or, they will say they’ve provided a remedy and sometimes they won’t tell you what the remedy is. I was told, about a harassing supervisor, “Trust me. She got what was coming to her. I can’t tell you what happened. But, she won’t be doing that again.” Apparently, no one told my supervisor because she was doing it again. And, again…

3) “Their written responses are not adding up to the documentation I submitted.”

That is why I am always writing posts recommending people DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!! An employer can lie, but if you have instructions, memos, emails, organizational charts, promotion lists, copies of the personnel manual, etc. that contradict what they are saying, they are usually going to be toast! You have to prove your case. A big part of proving your case is proving your employer is a liar. Documentation can and DOES win the day, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Documentation can show that your employer’s legitimate and non-racially based reasons for actions taken against you are lies. Documentation can prove how things transpired at work and can clarify the chain of command. Documentation can prove that you reported abuse and mistreatment. The benefits of documentation can go on and on.

Thanks to the reader for sharing. I’d love for other readers to share what’s going on with them and any lessons for the rest of us!

Circumstantial Evidence

According to the EEOC, the most common method of proving that retaliation was the reason for an adverse action is through circumstantial evidence. A violation is established if there is circumstantial evidence:

1) raising an inference of retaliation - Because you don't have direct evidence you have to show the implications of your evidence by building a thorough case against your employer and its arguments/positions;

2) if your employer fails to produce evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged action (firing, demotions, suspension, transfer to a hard to reach location, being stripped of assignments, harassment, retaliation, etc.) - Are your employer's reasons for its actions against you plausible/believable? You have to focus on exposing their lies and destroying their cover story; or

3) if the reason advanced by the employer is a pretext to hide the retaliatory motive - You can show pretext by demonstrating that your employer treated you differently than similarly situated employees (similar jobs/titles, location/job site, job levels/classification, etc.).

Also consider that an initial inference of retaliation arises where there is proof that the protected activity and the adverse action were related. Typically, the link is demonstrated by evidence that:

-- the adverse action occurred shortly after the protected activity; and

-- the person who undertook the adverse action was aware of the complainant's protected activity (opposing discrimination, participating in an investigation, etc.) before taking the action.

So, if you file a complaint against your employer, internally or externally, alleging discriminatory practices, retaliation, etc. and you suddenly become targeted with adverse actions like increased surveillance and heightened scrutiny, unjustified negative performance evaluations, denial of a promotion, etc., you should link the timing of filing your complaint with the timing of a quick response by your employer that included adverse actions. Point out that those engaged in executing the performance action knew of your complaint/oppostion to discriminatory practices.

Even if your employer waits to execute adverse actions, you can still prove retaliation, etc. through other circumstantial evidence.

Attack Your Employer's Credibility

One of the tactics you can use to defeat the lies and false accusations of an employer is to attack their credibility—the same as your employer will attack yours!

There are four basic components for looking into who is or isn’t credible: inherent plausibility, corroboration, motive to falsify, and past history. These are the same components that your employer will try to use to show that you—and not they—lack the credibility to be taken seriously.

Here are some of the questions you should ask yourself regarding the four basic components. These components are also helpful in shaping your overall arguments and positions regarding your complaint and any actions taken by your employer.

Inherent plausibility

--Are your employer’s arguments and positions believable at face value? Why or why not?

--Do their statements and evidence (real or fabricated) make sense? Why or why not?

--Are the actions of your employer justified/appropriate based on allegations or has your employer overreached or overreacted? Explain your position in detail.

--Do the actions of your employer adhere with written policies and procedures or are there violations? For instance, does written policy state/suggest that you should have first been placed on oral warning, but your employer jumped 3 phases and suspended you? Or, was your complaint automatically supposed to be internally investigated (based on your complaint), but your employer did not look into the facts/blatantly ignored your complaint? Provide specifics, provide copies of written policies and procedures, and explain how policies and procedures were violated.

When it comes to inherent plausibility, your goal is to shoot holes in every one of your employer’s arguments and positions. You should be thinking of cross examinations at a trial, when the defense is trying to shut down and destroy prosecution witnesses. Attack! Attack! Attack!

Motive to Falsify

--Does your employer have a reason to lie?

If so, show how your employer's cover story is simply designed as a pretext to hide their real motive--discrimination, harassment, etc. Use your employer's arguments against them to expose contradictions, violations of policy, etc. Use circumstantial or direct evidence to show the false case that was built by your employer.

--Do your employer's witnesses have a reason to lie?

I’m sure you’ve heard the expression, ‘If you think they’re out to get you, they probably are?”

Well, I’m aware of a case of race-based retaliation, where an employer tried to cover up activities against a Black manager by essentially bribing the Black staff in her department to make statements against her or to pretend they did not know what was going on within the department.

Suddenly, there was a market review conducted of salaries within the department and all of these underpaid Black employees received increases. Additionally, Black employees that were willing to sign false statements against the manager were also given a separate salary increase. There was suddenly a performance award given out with a $1,000 bonus. Coincidentally, a Black person in the manager’s department won the award. The award was touted as being a new annual award, but the award was NEVER given out again!

In my case, my two main witnesses received harassing treatment and were calling me to tell me about sudden performance issues they were being alleged to have. They both felt that they were being told to shut up about what they witnessed and heard being said to me.

These are the things you should try to expose because they show people’s motive to lie on you. Some people do not need money to lie. They will lie simply to win favor with your employer and they will HOPE that lying provides them a benefit somewhere along the line. These types of people may feel lying just amounts to office politics and smartly playing the corporate game, so they will take down anyone that may present them with a problem and they will do whatever it takes to show they are a team player.

Some people have a motivation to lie in order to protect someone in the workplace that is highly valued, that they have a close relationship with, etc. You can help prove motivation by showing the links between staff, managers, important business deals, etc.

Corroboration

--Is there witness testimony?

--Is there physical evidence?

You need to create and maintain a list of witnesses that can back up your story of workplace events. If employees resign, that have witnessed your mistreatment, get their contact information or—at the very least—snoop around and find out what company they’ve gone to work for. You can always look them up later.

If possible, get your witnesses to write statements about what they’ve seen. Ask them to get the statements notarized. Someone close to you may be willing to do this! If you think someone would be hesitant to provide you a statement or even to write down what happened in an email, trap them. Yes, I hate to go there, but sometimes you have to trick people into telling the truth. Just see if you can get the person to engage in an email conversation with you about the incident. You can be like, “Can you believe she called me a ------ ?” And, keep the conversation going as long as possible to show that you were called an offensive name, as per this example, and that someone else heard the slur.

As far as physical evidence, document everything, save all hard copies of important and relevant paperwork (e.g., administrative forms, timesheets, etc.), forward important email, memos, etc. to your personal internet account, and if there has been physical violence—take pictures. If there has been physical violence, you should also call the police and make a report. You can also secretly tape record conversations and meetings. Even if it’s not admissible in court, you can use it to convince an investigator, lawyer, etc. to understand that your case is with merit and should be investigated.

Past Record

--Does your employer have a history of similar behavior and allegations?

You saw how they did Michael Jackson at his trial. Right or wrong, when there is an accusation, there is also an attempt to show a pattern of bad behavior. If you are under attack by your employer, you already know what I am talking about. In my case, one false allegation led to another and another. Before you knew it, my employer was trolling through my previous performance evaluations from years before and they were taking a sentence or two from the section about improving performance. They added this information to my current review and then wrote, in my latest review, that I was habitually and continually having these problems. This was a lie, but they were smart. They needed to make me a problem employee. They could only do that by pretending that I was consistently engaged in negative behavior. They twisted feedback on minor improvements that any employee could make and made them into a federal case that allegedly warranted me being targeted for HR attention.

This is what employers do, when they’ve committed to a course of action against an employee (e.g., setting a person up for termination, demotion, etc.).

You have to take the same tactic and show how your employer has a past history of engaging in mistreatment, misconduct, not investigating allegations of race-based abuses, or how they’ve previously engaged in discrimination, harassment, retaliation, etc. Ask questions and snoop around. One of your coworkers may have information you can use. Or, you may already know about how someone was dogged out by your employer, but you were uninvolved in the incident. Write down everything you know about that case and any others that are similar or show the same corporate dysfunctions you believe to be a problem in your case. Show the patterns!

Supervisor Harassment - Part 2 (Effective Complaint Procedures)

Yesterday’s post started the discussion about what to do about harassment by a supervisor. Today, we’ll look at what the EEOC has to say about reporting harassment committed by a supervisor. It falls under the category of an employer having an effective complaint procedure.

In a nutshell, the EEOC says that if your supervisor is the harasser, you are entitled to report the harassment to someone other than this supervisor. Otherwise, the complaint process is worthless.

Therefore, if you are being told that you should not have gone over your supervisor’s head with complaints, you shouldn’t buy into that lie. There may be a preference that you don’t go over your supervisor’s head. But, that doesn’t make it a legally defensible request.

It makes no sense to report your supervisor to your supervisor. As I joked with a friend, how’s that investigation going to work? Will they put themselves on suspension or go for a demotion? Maybe a written warning? Of course not! In some cases an employee has no choice, but to circumvent the direct authority of a supervisor. Supervisor harassment is one of those times! This is from the EEOC:

Effective Complaint Procedures

An employer's harassment complaint procedure should be designed to encourage victims to come forward. To that end, it should clearly explain the process and ensure that there are no unreasonable obstacles to complaints. A complaint procedure should not be rigid, since that could defeat the goal of preventing and correcting harassment. When an employee complains to management about alleged harassment, the employer is obligated to investigate the allegation regardless of whether it conforms to a particular format or is made in writing.

The complaint procedure should provide accessible points of contact for the initial complaint. A complaint process is not effective if employees are always required to complain first to their supervisors about alleged harassment, since the supervisor may be a harasser. Moreover, reasonable care in preventing and correcting harassment requires an employer to instruct all supervisors to report complaints of harassment to appropriate officials.

It is advisable for an employer to designate at least one official outside an employee's chain of command to take complaints of harassment. For example, if the employer has an office of human resources, one or more officials in that office could be authorized to take complaints. Allowing an employee to bypass his or her chain of command provides additional assurance that the complaint will be handled in an impartial manner, since an employee who reports harassment by his or her supervisor may feel that officials within the chain of command will more readily believe the supervisor's version of events.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html#IIIA

Can You Circumvent Your Supervisor, If They Are Harassing You?

When employees complain of harassment, it isn’t uncommon for a supervisor to be named as the person committing potentially illegal behavior. Harassment by a supervisor is an extremely tough situation for any employee to deal with.

A supervisor conducts performance evaluations and makes decisions regarding promotions and salary increases. Supervisors also have the power/control over an employee’s daily work assignments and are able to judge an employee’s success and failure at completing any assigned tasks. Supervisors can impact an employee’s work environment, making it pleasant or hostile and offensive.

When things go wrong with a supervisor, an employee has to think about all of the areas that can negatively change based on a deterioration of the relationship. So, if your supervisor begins harassing you or retaliating against you for making complaints about some problem in the office, you may be torn between reporting the problem and remaining silent and just letting the supervisor feel like they’ve won the battle.

For those employees choosing not to remain silent, the issue becomes…

Well, who do I report my supervisor to? Do I have to report the problem to my supervisor’s supervisor? What if they are extremely close and that person is likely to believe the supervisor’s version of events, instead of mine? How far up the chain of command can I go? Should I just go to Human Resources? Will my supervisor be pissed off at me for reporting a problem outside of the department?

These are very real/legitimate questions and concerns.

I’ve been harassed by a supervisor, who was doing so with the approval of our department’s director. I couldn’t possibly report the harassment to my supervisor because she was the culprit. I couldn’t go to my director because I knew she gave her blessings for my supervisor to target me. So, where did that leave me?

Well, I decided to report the issue to my HR Rep. To make a long story short, my supervisor didn’t like that I went over her head and my employer had a vested interest in supporting her because the order to target me came from higher-up within the company. So, I ended up being accused of jumping the chain-of-command and causing “great concern and upset” throughout the company simply because I filed a complaint.

I wasn’t surprised that my employer was trying to conceal the actions they were taking regarding my employment. My supervisor was a mid-level manager and she was being rewarded and protected for towing the company line. So, they accused me of jumping the chain-of-command. But, they should have planned their lies a bit better. Instead, my employer contradicted that claim by saying I should have gone directly to HR with my concerns, which is what I did. Maybe they meant to say I should have gone straight to my director, but they failed to make that assertion. So, their lie confirmed that I took the right action.

Anyway, I decided to look into it and went to the EEOC web site for more information about this issue. What are the guidelines for reporting harassment from a supervisor? Is it ever okay to jump the chain-of-command?

What I found, will be shared in tomorrow’s post, so check back!

Filing Complaints With a Federal Agency

This information is from the EEOC (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-fed.html)

Overview on the process for filing a complaint against a Federal Agency:

Employees or applicants who believe that they have been discriminated against by a federal agency have the right to file a complaint with that agency. The first step is to contact an EEO Counselor at the agency within 45 days of the discriminatory action. The individual may choose to participate in either counseling, or in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)* when the agency offers ADR. Ordinarily, counseling must be completed within 30 days and ADR within 90 days. At the end of counseling, or if ADR is unsuccessful, the individual may then file a complaint with the agency.

If the matter is not resolved in the ADR process within 90 days of the date the individual contacted the agency's EEO office, a Notice of Final Interview must be issued to the individual giving him or her the right to proceed with a formal complaint.

A formal complaint must be filed with the agency that allegedly discriminated against the complainant within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Final Interview. The complaint must be a signed statement from the complainant or the complainant's attorney, containing the complainant's (or representative's) telephone number and address, and must be sufficiently precise to identify the complainant and the agency, and describe generally the action or practice which forms the basis of the complaint.

A complainant may amend a complaint at any time prior to the conclusion of the investigation to include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint. After requesting a hearing, a complainant may file a motion with the AJ to amend a complaint to include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint.

The agency must acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing and inform the complainant of the date on which the complaint was filed, of the address of the EEOC office where a request for a hearing should be sent, that the complainant has the right to appeal the agency's final action or dismissal of a complaint, and that the agency must investigate the complaint within 180 days of the filing date. The agency's acknowledgment must also advise the complainant that when a complaint has been amended, the agency must complete the investigation within the earlier of: (1) 180 days after the last amendment to the complaint; or (2) 360 days after the filing of the original complaint. A complainant may request a hearing from an EEOC AJ on the consolidated complaints any time after 180 days from the date of the first filed complaint.

You Can Appeal to EEOC

A dissatisfied complainant may appeal to EEOC an agency's final action within 30 days of receipt and an agency may appeal a decision by an EEOC administrative judge within 40 days of receiving the administrative judge's decision.


*Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - Beginning January 1, 2000 all agencies were required to establish or make available an ADR program. Such program must be available for both the pre-complaint process and the formal complaint process. At the initial counseling session, counselors must advise individuals that, where an agency agrees to offer ADR in a particular case, the individual may choose between participation in the ADR program and EEO counseling. If the matter is not resolved in the ADR process within 90 days of the date the individual contacted the agency's EEO office, a Notice of Final Interview must be issued to the individual giving him or her the right to proceed with a formal complaint.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/fedprocess.html

Compensation Discrimination - Part 2

When the EEOC is investigating compensation discrimination, they look at a few things that you can examine yourself.

1) What are similarly situated employees (same job, job classification, job level, etc.) being paid? Can you show that your White counterparts are making more money than you?

2) Can your employer reasonably defend the difference in pay status for similar employees? Is there a legitimate non-race related reason for the pay discrepancy being offered by your employer?

3) What do statistics show? This may be hard for an employee to figure out on their own, unless they have access to pay information. However, an investigator may look at statistics related to pay by going through payroll data at your company.

Statistics allows one to determine whether differences between a protected class target group and a comparison group are "statistically significant," i.e., whether the difference could not be expected to have occurred by chance. This differs from the basic comparison of raw numbers or percentages, which is known as descriptive statistics.

Other things to consider with pay discrimination are that employers have long played the education game to explain pay discrepancies. For instance, a White new hire with a college degree and no experience in the field may make $10,000 or more than a Black worker with no degree, but many years of hands-on expertise in the field. Even though the White worker may not be able to perform their job without training and assistance from the non-degreed Black worker, they may make significantly more money. This may or may not be legitimate depending on the nature of the job and the minimum qualifications required for the position.

In fact, minimum objective qualifications, such as specialized licenses or certifications should and can be taken into account. But, the EEOC says that persons in jobs requiring certain minimum objective qualifications should not be grouped together with persons in jobs that do not require those qualifications, even though the jobs otherwise are similar. In other words, employees in similar jobs can’t necessarily be grouped together or divided based on education, licenses, etc. It all depends on the minimum qualifications for those jobs.

While differences in qualifications, experience, and education ultimately may explain a pay differential, it’s not automatic that these are reasons that fully address salary differences. These factors may just be a pretext or cover story to conceal the true motive for pay discrepancies, race-related discrimination.

You can take a look at the first two areas (what are people making in the same or similar jobs and what are your employer's reasons for salary differences) and then see if you are on to something regarding potential pay discrimination.

If you have identified a potential issue, you can talk to your HR department for a detailed explanation of pay differences or you can speak to your supervisor, manager or the director of your department.

You have a right to know why you are making less money than other employees. If a group of Black employees is making less than White employees, who are doing the same job, then that is a legitimate area of concern that should be addressed.

If you ask questions and become subjected to a hostile work environment for rocking the boat (regarding salary), you can contact an agency like EEOC for assistance or you can seek legal counsel to protect yourself and to resolve the issue.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/compensation.html

Force Coworkers To Commit Facts To Writing

One of the saddest things I’ve witnessed in the workplace was how many Black workers were able to just sit back and watch a Black manager (and good friend to all of them) be falsely accused of causing problems in the workplace and how many of them allowed themselves to be used in the false allegations.

When my friend was under attack, her subordinates signed statements written by White managers that accused her of mistreating them. Other Black staff in her department allowed White managers to say that they had made verbal complaints about her, when they did not. They made no moves to correct the statements being attributed to them. Black staff took money, bribes (tickets to sports events), etc. all at the expense of this Black manager.

“I don’t know anything,” was a common remark from many of these staff members. Then, they’d turn around and gossip about what they knew. They had no shame in the fact that they knew they were withholding information that could have exonerated the Black manager.

So, my strategy for dealing with people like this is for you to attempt to engage them in written conversations about what is going on at work. The moment you see that you are engaged in some sort of race-based issue at work, try to force your allies, friends, coworkers, etc. to comment on the issue in writing.

Why do I suggest this?

For the reasons detailed above. Many of these people may never admit to what they know, when they are questioned about what happened in the office. Or, these “friends” and coworkers may lie for professional gain or just because.

So, when something happens, hit a witness with an email asking, “Can you believe what just happened?” Or, “Did you hear what she said?” Obviously, this works well with staff you already have a positive relationship with and with whom you have a history of discussing sensitive or personal issues.

Slip in some discussions about specific events and comments. Let the person go along with it. Later, if the person claims to not know anything, you’ve got contradictory written evidence—from them! If the person lies and/or tries to set you up on behalf of the company, you can also show how they are changing their story. The emails can be included as submissions to EEOC, a lawyer, etc. People can be subpoenaed in a complaint or legal case to provide testimony.

Regardless of what the person says, written exchanges about events can corroborate your version of events.

QUICK TIPS: Don't Ask For Legal Advice Or Referrals At Work!

If you're dealing with race-based discrimination, harassment or retaliation at work, you should avoid trolling around for legal resources at work. Don't ask coworkers if they know a lawyer you can use to go after your employer, don't do Internet searches for employment lawyers at work, and don't ask for legal advice that pertains to filing a complaint against an employer. All of these things will likely get back to your employer because staff may feel they must tell a supervisor, manager, etc. what you are planning to do. Staff may think they can get a reward for disclosing your plans (e.g., a bonus, salary increase, promotion, etc.) Or, staff may just feel like spreading gossip (so and so is getting ready to sue the company).

Don't give your power away by providing fodder for office gossip or by telegraphing to your employer that you plan to file a complaint with EEOC, a lawyer, etc. Your search for a lawyer and guidance on employment issues should be done on your personal time and outside of the office. Many employers use software that records keystrokes and they can also see every web site employees visit.

Maintain a healthy dose of paranoia. When it comes to even the possibility of vindicating your employment rights, keep your plans private!

Be More Specific Than Calling It "Bullying"

When people become a target at work, one of the first words that may cross their mind to describe their mistreatment is "bullying." The only problem with that is that workplace bullying really isn't legislated at this time. A number of states (I believe about 13) have anti-bullying legislation in the pipeline. However, none of the bills have been passed into law.

As African Americans, this doesn't really create a problem for us because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has clear language in it that prohibits what we could call "bullying behavior" against protected classes of people. The actions of racist bullies, which amounts to creating a hostile and offensive work environment for a coworker and to harassing a coworker, falls under discrimination. Discrimination includes not only harassment, but also retaliation. Harassment includes being subjected to a hostile and offensive work environment. But, the mistreatment can't be minor or isolated. The mistreatment must rise to the standard that it has changed your work environment in a negative manner and made it nearly impossible for you to do your job.

If you've become the target of one or more bullies a.k.a. workplace racists, don't focus on calling the actions bullying. Stick to the terminology that exists in Federal law and that has been designed to protect you. So, you want to talk about a hostile work environment and describe what is happening, such as being ignored, when you speak at meetings, being humiliated in front of coworkers, being subjected to threats and job intimidation, etc.

The point is, you want to use specific language that is relevant to the circumstances in your case. Leave the blanket statements to your employer!

LEGAL BRIEF: Co-Worker Rapped Racial Slurs Despite Complaints—Black Worker Awarded $168,000 Settlement

The Legal Brief gives everyone an idea of some of the types of cases that EEOC litigates, as well as an idea about the specific race-based issues that other Blacks have faced and challenged in the workplace. You will also get insight into the arguments presented by EEOC and the defenses offered by employers. This information may be helpful to other workers, who may be considering filing a complaint or seeking legal counsel. In this case, a Black worker was subjected to listening to rap music with offensive language and racial epithets. He was also forced to listen to a coworker rapping along to the music and using racial slang within earshot.


SAN JOSE – A major Silicon Valley manufacturer of semiconductor production equipment will pay $168,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC had charged Novellus Systems, Inc. with subjecting an African American worker to racial harassment.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Michael Cooke had to listen on a regular basis to a 27-year-old Vietnamese American co-worker playing and rapping aloud to music lyrics that included anti-black racial epithets such as the “N-word.”

Although Cooke complained several times to his supervisors and made it clear that the language was offensive to him, the co-worker continued to use slang involving racial slurs and to sing along to these kinds of lyrics within Cooke’s earshot.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that delaying effective corrective action by more than half a year constitutes unlawful harassment, and that Cooke was fired in retaliation for his earlier complaints.

The two-year consent decree (Case No. C-07-4787-JW) signed by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware includes monetary damages of $168,000 as well as specific injunctive relief. While Novellus denied liability and admitted no wrongdoing, it agreed to incorporate a “Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives” in its Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment Policy. Additionally, Novellus agreed to amend its harassment policy to refer specifically to harassment through the playing of music, and to include offensive musical lyrics in its examples of racial harassment.

“The EEOC is not in the business of judging anyone’s musical tastes, but we are concerned when we find that an employer failed to respond promptly after being put on notice of racially offensive language or conduct in the workplace,” said EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “We commend the company for resolving this action and for agreeing to modify its anti-discrimination policies to include a specific prohibition of the playing of music lyrics that contain racially derogatory terms.”

Acting EEOC District Director Michael Baldonado commented, “This is the kind of situation that many Bay Area workplaces, as well as the rest of the country face: How do you manage the culture clash – across generations, race and ethnicity, you name it – in a workplace that gets more diverse every day? I think it’s critical to try to put yourself into the shoes of the other person and take all complaints of discrimination seriously. Together we can try to defuse tensions and prevent situations from developing into discrimination and harassment.”

Baldonado added that the EEOC welcomes employers and advocates to take part in its E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment). Launched early last year by EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp, E-RACE, a national outreach, education, and enforcement campaign focuses on new and emerging race and color issues in the 21st century workplace. Further information about the E-RACE Initiative is available on the EEOC’s website at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/index.html.

According to its website, San Jose, Calif.- headquartered Novellus (NASDAQ: NVLS) maintains engineering facilities in San Jose and Tualatin, Ore., with sales and service operations in 16 countries around the world. Novellus has approximately 3,300 employees worldwide and annual revenues of $1.6 billion.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The San Francisco District’s jurisdiction includes Northern California, Northern Nevada, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-24-08.html