To protect my Mom from further retaliation she is listed as “coworker”, “subordinate”, and “my mom”.

The others are listed as “harassing supervisor”, “PD”, “officer”, “other PDs”, “other supervisors”, etc…

 I cannot stress enough that my mom needs protection from further retaliation,

hostility, and denied opportunity because of all these listed who have abused their authority.

IA revealed the following quick snapshot summary from sworn statements:

Officer “A”

“Nobody should have to deal with the work environment that [my co-worker] is being subjected to here.” Notice the present term “is” being subjected to here because it is still ongoing in January 2011 at the time of the interview.

Officer “A” stated after [my co-worker] filed an EEO complaint against harassing supervisor “After that, I have witnessed a lot of tension in the office.”

IA asked “Has there always been “tension” in your workplace in [duty station]? If not, when did the “tension” begin? Officer “A” responded “It really began in March 2010 when [harassing supervisor] started. Officer “A” continued “No other officers have been asked to do anything like this referencing writing a ‘time analysis’ [my co-worker and Officer “A”] were instructed to produce. Harassing supervisor accused [my co-worker] of not entering notes into the system on [a specialized task]. Officer “A” stated ‘It was like he was trying to get [my co-worker] in trouble with [PD].”

IA stated [co-worker] has been accused of not getting her work done, acting “unilaterally,” and “bad-mouthing” [harassing supervisor]. Have you witnessed any of this? Officer “A” responded “[Co-worker] gets her work done. I think her personality is to ask a lot of questions and she is very assertive. [Co-worker] will argue her point if she thinks she’s right.”

Officer “A” states “I feel that [harassing supervisor] doesn’t like her. He can be overly critical of her.”

Officer “A” stated he thought [PD] was on [co-worker’s] side after the EEO complaint, but it seems like things changed after [harassing supervisor] accused her of assault. There are no pleasantries with [co-worker] like there are with others.”

Officer “A” stated “I thought [co-worker] was being treated unfairly. Additionally, I feel that the assault charge filed by [harassing supervisor] against [co-worker] was a form of retaliation.”

IA report of investigation narrative summary C-750: "Also, to put this to rest, [harassing supervisor] claims Officer "A" was a 'witness.' When questioned, Officer "A" told PD that no assault took place. He responded that if somebody 'cried out in pain' as [harassing supervisor] claimed to have done, [Officer "A"] would have remembered because he would have 'laughed his ass off' and 'told everyone.'"

IA: “It has been reported that on March 30, 2010 [harassing supervisor] told [co-worker] “Shut your mouth, whore, when men are speaking.” Did you witness this event? Please explain what occurred. Officer “A”: “Yes, I witnessed the event he said it twice, …”

IA: “On March 30, 2010 while on an [assignment] with [co-worker] and [harassing supervisor], did you observe [co-worker] assault [harassing supervisor]? If so, what happened?” Officer “A”: “We were in the elevator on the way to [censored], there was a discussion between us and [harassing supervisor] regarding carrying a weapon. [Co-worker] demonstrated a move where she did a pressure point on [harassing supervisor’s] hand pulling it behind his back. I didn’t feel it was an assault.”

IA: “It was reported that [co-worker] physically assaulted [harassing supervisor] on March 30, 2010 by raising his arm behind his back until he ‘cried out in pain’. Did you witness this event? If so, what did you witness?” Officer “A”: [Co-worker] had his arm behind his back demonstrating a move and released him after [harassing supervisor] acknowledged that it works. He did not cry out in pain. He gave no indication that he was hurt or that [he] felt assaulted. It was never mentioned again until July [2010].

IA: “Did you report this event to any supervisor? Why or why not?” Officer “A”: “No, I thought it was just clowning around and didn’t take it seriously and [harassing supervisor’ didn’t seem to either. It was a non-issue and was forgotten about.

Referencing the PD moving co-worker and Officer “A’s” workstations directly outside the PD’s office and directly in front of the harassing officer, Officer “A” stated: “I questioned the timing of the move given the EEO complaint that [co-worker] had filed against [harassing supervisor]. I see no change in our working relationships [within the office]. When [co-worker] is here, it strikes me as hostile. I asked to move my desk… [away from this area] but that didn’t fly.”

IA: “Has there always been ‘tension’ in your workplace in[duty station]? If not, when did the ‘tension’ begin?” Officer “A”: “It really began in March 2010 when [harassing supervisor’ started.

Officer “A” speaking about the PD to IA: “[PD] also asked us to come up with a time sheet showing how much time we spend performing our duties. No other officers have been asked to do anything like this.”

Officer “A” referencing [harassing supervisor] towards [co-worker] “He did ridicule [her] in front of others.”

Officer “C”

Stated “I found out that they were trying to file an assault charge against [co-worker]. It sounded to me as if they were trying to coerce her into not continuing with the EEO complaint.”

“Have you witnessed any discrimination, harassment, or mistreatment of [co-worker] by either [PD] or [harassing supervisor]?” You replied line 30 “I would have to say yes.”

“It was reported that on March 30, 2010 [harassing supervisor] said “Shut your mouth whore when men are speaking” to [co-worker]. Did you witness this statement? If so, explain what occurred.” Officer “C” replied “Yes, I did. I’m not sure what the conversation was about and I caught the tail end. That part caught my attention. The whore statement.”

IA inquired about [harassing supervisor] making comments about “pink socks” and Officer “C” replied “The first time (he said it) I didn’t think it was a big deal. [Harassing supervisor] then asked her again if she knew what it meant. [Co-worker] continued talking and ignored [harassing supervisor’s] questioning. Officer “C” continued. “The second time I became uncomfortable with the question because I knew the meaning of the slang term and felt it inappropriate for [harassing supervisor] to be asking her about this topic, especially after the third time.”

On April 26, 2010 [co-worker] was accused of skipping a muster. Officer “C” said “I was the one who volunteered to go get her and he said, ‘No, I’ll deal with her later.’ The way he said that made me feel uncomfortable as she was nearby in an office and it would have been easy to get her. I felt as if he were trying to reprimand me for volunteering to go and get her.”

IA inquired about [co-worker] completing bank deposit duties. Officer “C” replied “I was concerned that unarmed personnel were transporting money. In [other major U.S. city duty station], even when a technician transported money we were there as armed personnel to protect them. That was procedure.”

You will see numerous instances where procedures were not followed.

IA asked “Have you ever witnessed [co-worker] being treated “differently” than other employees at the [duty station]?” Officer “C” replied “Yes, a few comments have been made such as, PD saying, ‘This would be a good place to work except for one employee.’ I learned by the way she was treating [co-worker] that she was the one she was referring to. [Co-worker] is very unyielding. If she knows she’s right, she’ll follow through. She’ll go head-to-head with the managers and they don’t like her style. Just the way that PD  and [harassing supervisor] speak to her in a demeaning fashion. I have also heard both of them raise their voices to her.”

Internal Affairs lead investigator summary statement:

“While unable to recall or remember instances wherein his [harassing supervisor’s] conduct could be called into question, [harassing supervisor] was able to vividly recall events involving [his subordinate’s] deficiencies or shortcomings citing dates, times, and locations.”

[Harassing supervisor] claims he inquired with [his subordinate] information on the shipment “she yelled at me, “I don’t’ do Customs work” and then left the office. [Harassing supervisor] claimed “he never got the information and completed the notice of detention himself.” For the record, my Mom never yelled at [harassing supervisor.] She is professional and has never raised her voice to anyone in the workplace. It is not her demeanor. She is assertive and especially after being repeatedly falsely accused of failing to perform her duties. The bulk of her work involves “Customs” work so she would never say “I don’t do Customs work” because probably 70% or more of the work she performs is Customs work.

Officer “D”

Stated upon witnessing “[co-worker] was not present at a muster and witnessing Officer “C” offering to go and get her [from the next office space] [harassing supervisor] stopped him and said ‘No, I’ll deal with her later.’ If it had been anyone else, someone would have just gone and gotten them.”

When asked about an incident of [harassing supervisor] taking Officer “D”s words out of context Office “D” stated “I felt that [harassing supervisor] was using things to use against [co-worker] asking what the distances were and if we used a proper F1 stance, etc. I’m pretty sure [co-worker] was never disciplined over this and they just dropped it. I came back in after [harassing supervisor] was gone and told [PD] that this was a non-issue and I didn’t appreciate [harassing supervisor] trying to throw [co-worker] under the bus like that. I also told [harassing supervisor] this personally.”

When IA asked Officer “D” how he reacted when you learned [harassing supervisor] reported this incident to PD. Officer “D” replied “I was angry and upset.”

IA asked “Was it your impression that [harassing supervisor] was trying to get you to report [co-worker] for misconduct or unprofessional behavior?” Officer “D” replied “I didn’t appreciate it and he was trying to get her in trouble.”

Supervisor “W”, then promoted to PD “W” upon original PD paid move to a different state

IA asked “Have you ever witnessed an overt act of reprisal or retaliation against [subordinate] by PD or [harassing supervisor]?” PD “W” replied on line 40 “No, other than moving her closer to the potential problem, [harassing supervisor].” Note: My Mom’s desk was moved from a “specialized office” down the hall to sitting directly outside of the PD’s office and directly in front of the [harassing supervisor’s desk].

[Harassing supervisor]

Admitted saying “Shut your mouth whore when men are speaking” to my Mom, a subordinate female employee- but only admitted to saying it one time, contrary to her and her co-workers sworn statements to Internal Affairs AND the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).

Under sworn statement to IA –and- to the EEOC AJ, [Harassing supervisor] said sex was NOT a factor in his choice of words when he made this statement.

When IA asked “Would you call a male employee a “whore”? [Harassing supervisor] replied “Yes.”

Note: harassing supervisor did not speak this way to any other employee.

Also please note: Even though the harassing supervisor admits in sworn statements that he knows this language in not acceptable under the DHS Guide of Code of Conduct he admits that he would say it to others (male) people/employees. He is claiming to treat everyone equally.
Really?

[Harassing supervisor] could not remember referencing a racial slur, and sexually, degrading term “gunt” he said about a civilian black woman walking on a sidewalk witnessed by Officer “A” but his questioning by IA: “When pressed about witnesses hearing him use the term “gunt” [harassing supervisor] said that he couldn’t recall using the term in [this duty station]” but used it in [his previous duty station.] And this is what DHS promotes to supervisory roles maintaining DHS integrity!

 [Harassing supervisor] sworn statements could not remember repeating the term “pink socks” three times witnessed by Officer “C” who said that HE was uncomfortable with the harassing supervisor’s language after the second time [harassing supervisor] spoke it.

[Harassing supervisor] reported (to the PD) on 7/7/10 that he was assaulted by my Mom on 3/30/10.

Are you noticing the dates here?

See Officers “A” and “C” sworn statements about this alleged claim.

Filing a false claim of assault can be charged with a felony. Sworn officers are held to an even higher standard. Sworn managerial officers are held to an even higher standard than that. But harassing supervisor has not been held for false reporting to his superior, to Internal Affairs, or lying to the EEOC administrative judge in sworn testimony.

Harassing supervisor was caught with his verbal abuse and was trying to “trump” the verbal abuse with a bogus physical assault claim against my Mom.

The harassing supervisor has been rewarded with overseas assignments, assignments working in Washington D.C. and is being awarded another overseas assignment. We cannot trust him to treat DHS employees with respect. We are supposed to trust him as an ambassador in other countries and that he is upholding law to prevent terrorism activities?

In a written memo to PD, harassing supervisor claimed until he “cried out in pain.” PD issued my Mother a “cease and desist memo”.

When IA asked specifically “Were you assaulted by [subordinate] on March 30, 2010?” [Harassing supervisor] replied “Yes.”

[Harassing supervisor] stated “[Subordinate did not follow-up on this shipment as is standard operating procedure” but there was nothing for [subordinate] to follow up on because [harassing supervisor] assigned the inspection to Officers “E” and “F”.

[Harassing supervisor] stated “[Subordinate] did not place a ‘specialized’ hold on the shipment” but [subordinate] could not possibly put a hold on a shipment that is not manifested during her shift. Manifests are not transmitted during her normal working hours. This is why “officers” are required to place holds on these “specialized” manifested shipments but routinely fail to do. See exhibits C-578-598.

My Mom has become a “Whistleblower” in her efforts just to be free of working in this hostile work environment as she exposes the discrimination directed at her. She reveals these intentional, abuse-of-authority, good ‘ol boys, who are failing to follow

United States Department of Homeland Security mandated polices and procedures. Please keep in mind, there are numerous instances that cannot be revealed as they were privy to my Mom’s official duties, but I can assure you, officers and managers failing to perform their official duties that put national security at risk, employee personal information not safeguarded as required, PD personal use of government property, the list goes on…..

Why is the DHS Oversight, Investigations, and Management Subcommittee not investigating, revealing, and taking corrective action?

PD sworn statements:

IA Referencing “inappropriate comments to [subordinate] by [harassing supervisor] IA asked “Did you notify the Joint Intake Center (JIC) in Washington D.C. of this serious allegation of misconduct by [harassing supervisor]?” PD replied “No, I did not.” PD is obligated to report to JIC but she failed.

IA stated “It was reported that another officer offered to remind subordinate] of the scheduled muster, but [harassing supervisor] wouldn’t allow this.” PD replied “[Harassing supervisor] told me that he did not have anyone go get her, because he would give her the muster later that day.” Contrary to multiple witness sworn statements.

PD sworn statement to IA 6/22/11 “Does [subordinate] complete her assigned work in timely fashion and does it meet acceptable standards?” line 111 “Yes, but only after being reminded several times... [Why is PD reminding subordinate several times before work is due if she completes it in a timely fashion?]

Line 114 “she shows little to no initiative in completing work.” Did she not just say that my mom completes her work to an acceptable standard in a timely fashion?

Please notice the date of the above sworn statement by the PD. She claims my Mom needing to be reminded several times to complete assigned work... and little initiative in completing work. (the Agency issued an award in Dec 2011 for my Mom “taking initiative to creating a solution to a problematic report in May 2011. Even after the way my Mom was mistreated by her superiors, she continued to take initiative to doing tasks above and beyond her duties) Award details will be added to the website when EEOC hearing sworn testimony is added at a later date.

In the following example, to protect my Mom’s identity, I am just going to reference the item of “interest” as “SHIPMENT 100”. This example shows numerous examples of the managers failing to follow procedures and numerous false statements made by both harassing supervisor and PD in their attempts to cover-up their failures to follow DHS policies and procedures. Please note dates.

[This is very brief. Many more details revealing numerous false statements by both harassing supervisor and PD will be added to this SHIPMENT 100 debacle example. DHS and IA have failed to hold accountability to any managers making false statements. This is very important because sworn officers must be trustworthy or they violate Giglio, and their word is no longer valid. This is a termination notice to sworn officers who make false statements. Please see “Giglio” definition as this website is constructed.]

IA asked PD to recall the SHIPMENT 100 on approx 06/16/10. PD stated “[Harassing supervisor] asked if I had known about the SHIPMENT 100 and I told him that no one had mentioned it to me.”

***Note, PD states she did not know about this SHIPMENT 100 on 06/16/10

And [harassing supervisor] received “a call from Officer “A” later that day at home.” “[Harassing supervisor] said he told Officer “A” that since he would be at the location he ([Harassing supervisor]) would take care of it.”

***Note PD sworn statement that “Supervisor would take care of it.”

IA had asked [both harassing supervisor and PD] “Are you familiar with any recent memoranda indicating that SHIPMENT 100 shall be inspected by [specialized officer]?” and [harassing supervisor] replied “No, I am not.” [Harassing supervisor and PD both] had received the muster email dated 05/28/10 Exhibit C-110, C-111. [that mandates by Federal law the specialized officers to perform this duty.]

*** Note on 06/16/10 Both PD and harassing supervisor failed to follow mandated procedure even after just receiving the training on 05/28/10