Civil Action No, 17-1472 (DLF) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. KATRINAL, WEBSTER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIF MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘The Defendant has requested that agency case Nos. DON 09-00030-0674 and 10-00030-00266 are dismissed. Plaintiff is invoking the “continuing violation” doctrine, which overrides the statute of limitations for actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to prevents these claims from being dismissed. In addition, Plaintiff will also provide factual information that perjury was committed by CAPT Robert Vince in his Sworn declaration and this also factors into why this claim should not be dismissed or granted summary judgment, as will be further explained in this opposition motion. ; yyCivil Action No, 17-1472 (DLF) ‘The Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) Office’s former Human Resource (HR) Director, Ms. Jeanne Walls stated, “My reason for submitting this affidavit is to demonstrate the strong culture within the Department of Navy/Strategic Systems Program organization to obtain what the managers/supervisors want without any regard for the personnel management/EEO rules and regulations. It has been and continues to be built into the institution from the inception of the office because of it high-value mission. I personally experienced it and believe that is what has happened with Katrina Webster. I witnessed the same discriminatory behavior and tried to do something about it, and I was severely punished for my efforts” (ex.1). This statement alone, from the SSP’s own Human Resource Director, is sufficient to withstand the Defendant's summary judgement request. In addition, SSP’s former HR Director, Ms. Brenda Horne stated, in regards to CAPT Gill, “During the performance review board, I did discuss with Capt Gill the rating was he looking to give Ms. Webster, Based on that conversation, he realized that he needed to give her an acceptable rating. When he moved from performance rating to awards when he looked at each critical element he determined that Katrina eamed a level two for the second critical element which brought her award average to a 1.33.” 1, Plaintiff began working at SSP on June 22, 1998 as a GS-0318-05 Secretary in SSP’s Technical Division, Navigation Branch $P-24 and remained here for a period of three months. 2. Approximately September 1998, I was assigned to SP23, Fire control and Guidance, to help them because their Secretary had abruptly left the agency. In the year 2000, my position was upgraded/promoted to a Target GS-0318-06 while serving in the same Secretarial position and heCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) performing the same duties for the past 21 years to this day. I The only difference is that currently, I fall within the pay band NK-02, which comprises the GS-05 to GS-07 pay scales (exhibit 12, p. 2/7). I am not listed as a General Schedule (GS), but as a pay band NK-02 employee, equivalent to a GS-07 between steps 5 and 7. 3. Atal times relevant to this Complaint, I have fluctuated between the General Schedule (GS), NSPS Pay Band, and Acq Demo Pay Band and am today an Aeq Demo NK-02 Pay Band equivalent to a GS-07, between steps 5 and 7. 4. SP10S was and amended with DON 12-00030-03671 This position was later filled and Plaintiff filed an EEO claim that was amended with DON 12-00030-03671. SSP Management Officials Juanita “Johnny” Hager, Jeffrey Mathis, James Howard, and Patrick Croley have stated that they were informed at SSP that my husband and I filed EEO complaints. Juanita Hager stated, “she heard about Ms. And Mr. Webster's EEO filings through the SSP rumor mill. She stated SSP is a small agency and rumors get around” (ex. 8, p 1 of 2).” Jeffrey Mathis stated on the 1" page of his declaration, “as in any Command or organization there are always rumors going around, and I heard rumors that Ms, Webster and her husband filed EEO complaints” (ex.9, p | of 3). James Howard stated he “probably Kevin [Keefe]” was the member of legal Counsel who informed him about Plaintiff"s husband's EEO activity (Ex 10, p. 1 of 15). On page 29 of the Patrick Croley deposition, Plaintiff asked CAPT Croley, “Was my husband's EEO activities ever discussed with you or any other SSP employees? CAPT Croley responded “Yes in the past” (ex. 11, pp 29-30). Later, on page 31 of the Patrick Croley deposition, U.S. Attorney Marina Braswell asked “can we take a quick break, I need to consult for one second?” EY leyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Then Ms. Braswell, CAPT Croley and SSP Attomey, Sarah McKenzie left the conference room with CAPT Croley to talk in private. Upon returning from a “quick break,” Page 31 from line 10 to page 32 line 18 is where Mr. Croley and U.S. Attomey, Ms. Braswell changed CAPT Patrick Croley’s initial testimony for the Monday, 31 March 2019 deposition, and SSP Attorney Sarah McKenzie was there the entire time (ex 11, p 2). I am objecting to CAPT Croley’s changed testimony, it must be stricken from the record because what he stated initially was consistent with ‘what was stated by LCD Jefferey Mathes, Juanita Hager, and James Howard and is consistent with what Ms. Jeanne Walls stated happens after a person files an EEO at SSP, This is how I know my. prior EEO activity at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency-NIMA [predecessor agency of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency-NGA, which is where my EEO aetivity began prior to my employment beginning with SSP] was leaked to SSP. I have also never been promoted since I engaged in EEO activity at NIMA/NGA, with exception of going from a GS-0318-05 to a Target GS-0318-06 Secretary in the year 2000. I was non-selected for 2 “upward mobility” positions by Admirals Shipway and Dwyer (ex. 16, p 8/12; ex. 43, p 7/24) before I engaged in EEO activity at SSP, losing out to Selectees who were only high school graduates. I have never received a promotion to another position in the 21 and a half years I have been employed at SSP. Everything is pertinent to my opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, DON No. 11-01 576 A. 2010 Performance Appraisal and Bonus 1, Plaintiff received a FY2010 GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) “performance plan” (06 June-30 Sept 2010) from CAPT Gill, in which I included narrative statements that heCivil Action No, 17-1472 (DLF) CAPT Gill was giving my work to contractor Marchel Smith and that Many SSP employees did their own Travel arrangement (ex. 92, 3-4/5). 2. CAPT Gill did not include the “performance plan” narrative that Plaintiff completed because the narrative statements revealed how he was discriminating against me by giving my work to contractors (see and compare ex. 92 with ex. 91) then would say Plaintiff didn’t know what I was doing. 3. Plaintiff did not receive a mandatory NSPS FY2010 “performance plan” from CAPT Gill, which would have covered the period 01 OCT 2009 to 05 JUNE 2010, prior to SSP transitioning to GS. 4, Plaintiff did not get a mandatory NSPS 2010 “close-out” Appraisal from CAPT Gill, which would have covered the period 01 OCT 2009 to 05 JUNE 2010, prior to SSP transitioning to GS. 5. CAPT Gill intentionally omitted the GS FY2010 “performance plan” from my FY2010 annual appraisal rating because again, I included the narrative in my self-assessment that he was giving my work to contractor Marchel Smith. The document was electronically signed by Plaintiff on 8/3/2010 at 14:13 hours (ex. 92, pp 1-4/5) and then he would lie by stating in my final evaluation that I did know what I was doing and that I didn’t document my work in my self-assessment. 6. Although he did not, it was mandatory that CAPT Gill issue Plaintiff a NSPS FY2010 “close-out” appraisal. 7. According to SSP HR guidance, issuing “the mid-year performance review is mandatory” (ex. 3, pp 1/4). dhCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) 8. An employee has to be under the new performance plan for a minimum of 90-days to be rated on that performance plan. 9. Therefore, Plaintiff was NOT under the GS performance plan long enough for CAPT Gill to even give me a FY 2010 appraisal for the GS performance plan. 10. CAPT Gill based Plaintiff's entire FY 2010 appraisal on a 06 June to 30 September 2010 window, when it should have included a NSPS 2010 “close-out” from 01 OCT 2009 to 05 June 2010 (over 8 months of FY 2010 intentionally left off my FY2010 annual appraisal). 11.He did not include a NSPS rating from 01 OCT 2009 to 05 June 2010 in my FY2010 annual appraisal so he could continue to make negative and demeaning comments about my performance & self-assessment, so he could continue to discriminate and retaliate against me. 12, CAPT Gill falsified the date he issued Plaintiff the GS performance plan so he could rate me under it. He manually backdated the performance plan to 01 July 2010 when it was actually electronically dated when he initially signed it on 8/3/2010 at 13:55, but one could barely see it because of the tiny print on the General Schedule FY2010 appraisal and performance plan form (sce ex. 91, p 1/20; ex. 92, p 1/5). Idon't believe CAPT Gill intentionally sent me the performance plan to sign on 8/3/2010. The computer program was designed to do this. Therefore, when he manually dated the form, little did he know, he was documenting a lie, 13. Then the computer program sent it to me to sign; this is why my signature is on 8/3/2010 but at a later time (in tiny print); this is another concrete example of CAPT 44Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Gill’s lies and deceit against Plaintiff. 14. This is also a “blueprint” of how CAPT Gill lied about my performance from the time he became my supervisor in October 2008 and how he discriminated against me in bonuses, awards, and leave usage while under his supervision. 15, CAPT Gill intentionally deleted these comments off the “performance plan documentation” Plaintiff completed on 8/3/2010 because my comments were not included on the document CAPT Gill attached to my FY2010 annual appraisal. 16. CAPT Gill’s reward recommendation and narrative statements of my performance ‘were unfavorable and discriminatory 17. Knowingly falsifying federal government forms is a federal crime. 18, CAPT Gill didn’t give Plaintiff a mandatory NSPS 2009 mid-point appraisal or NSPS 2010 “close-out” appraisal. He never stated yes to “mid-year review.” (ex. 53, p. 5/12, question No. 3), 19. The FY2010 bonus was unfair and discriminatory just like the appraisal. DON No. 12-00030-00282 A. 2011 Performance Appraisal B. Performance Award The discrimination that plaintiff experienced regarding her 2010 Performance Appraisal and Bonus continued into the next performance period but got worse. CAPT Gill wanted to give me a failing rating until HR Director Brenda Home talked him out of it. This is a “blueprint” of how CAPT Gill lied about my performance from nyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) the time he became my supervisor and how he discriminated against me in bonuses, awards and leave usage while under his supervision. He also didn’t include my 2010 GS performance plan because I documented that he was giving my work to Marchel Smith and Laura Sicks. (ex. 92, pp 1-5; ex. 61, page 4/7; ex. 3 pp 1-4; and see page 12 of this document). According to a sworn statement made in the declaration of Human Resources Director, Brenda Horne, CAPT Gill was trying to fire Plaintiff. Under the pass/fail system, I believe a person could be terminated if they received a rating of “fail.” From my understanding of the pass/fail system, I believe a person could also be demoted and/or get no bonus or salary increase. This is all relevant to what came out of SSP’s HR. Director Brenda Home’s declaration when she made the following statement: “During the performance review board, I did discuss with Capt Gill the rating was he looking to give Ms. Webster. Based on that conversation, he realized that he needed to give her an acceptable rating. When he moved from performance rating to awards when he looked at each critical element he determined that Katrina eamed a level two for the second critical element which brought her award average to a 1.33.” Based on what Ms. Horne stated, CAPT Gill was prepared to give me the lowest rating, a “fail, which would have again resulted in Plaintiff getting no bonus and salary increase. There were only two choices available to Gill and the conversation she had with him, made “[CAPT Gill] realized that he needed to give [Plaintiff] an aceeptable rating (ex. 61, p.4 of 7).” ‘There was nothing good enough that any person could have said about me that ayCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) would have justified giving me an award, in his opinion. I provided information that ‘would support an on the spot award/bonus when I submitted letters of compliment that I received from LT Nylander, Ms. Cummings, and ete. CAPT Gill was also well aware that I provided support to outside branches when they had a reduction in manpower. CAPT Gill’s statement is to bide discrimination and retaliation because he gave my work to Laura Sicks and Marchel Smith to keep from giving mean award. Laura and Marchel were both Contractors employees that were put in my branch to deprive me of promotion opportunities and bonuses, their titles (program analysts) are filled by government workers in other branches, like for example Mr. Carl Shields in $P27. I strongly believe Marche! Smith and Laura Sicks received on-the-spot awards and/or bonuses for doing work that was typically assigned to me (ex. 57, p. 4). As of June 2013, I have been working with the Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) of the U.S Navy for 15-years. Several years ago, the command hired a traveler research company to see how the SSP could better perform travel. I was interviewed by an employee of the traveler research company and suggested it would be better if the command would go to electronic travel. Approximately the year 2006, the command used my branch, SP23, as a pilot, while under the leadership of CAPT Johnny Wolfe, to implement Defense Travel Systems (DTS) throughout the command. DTS has been a great success at my command, DT'S was created to aid individuals in processing his or her own travel and vouchers, With DTS, the traveler gets reimbursed faster than he or she did with the previous travel process; and travel orders are processed much faster with DTS too. Since my branch was the pilot under the leadership of CAPT Johnny Wolfe in 2006, we ‘were tasked to assist in training the entire command. As a result of being tasked to teach others how to use DTS in 2006, I have become a leader and go-to-person for processing travel claims thyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) using the DTS. DTS was designed for travelers to execute and process his or her own travel so one could process their own travel claims and reimbursements faster than the previous, more time-consuming method, For these reasons, I know Captain Gill has falsely stated that I do not know how to process travel claims. I also believe the positive statements by Ms. Cummings and others (exhibits 42 and 48), regardless of the performance period, supports the fact, that I do know how to process travel claims. I did not all of a sudden stop knowing bow to process travel claims when CAPT Gill became my supervisor. He has made this false statement against me to hide his discriminatory motives. In addition, letters and memos were done by different people in the branch and then taken to the director’s office without my knowledge. Later, the director's office would contact me or the writer for corrections. I found myself correcting errors made by other people, but nothing positive was ever said about my correcting other people’s errors. CAPT Gill has continuously made these kinds of false statement without ever producing any documented evidence of what I did incorrectly (ex.57, p. 3 of 5). In my rebuttal the Investigator asked CAPT Gill, Q: “{Plaintiff] mentioned Mary Cummings and James Daigle.” CAPT Gill Replied, “I did not hear anything from Jim Daigle about Complainant’s performance. Ihave just reviewed the email from Mary Ann Cummings thats in the EEO file, and I notice it was outside the rating period, It’s from 2009 [but Gill made the same statement about my ability to do DTS in 2009]. Mary Ann Cummings did not even work at SSP during the reporting period, she left the command sometime in 2010.” “Captain Gill’s statement is to hide discrimination because it does not matter whether Ms, Cummings positive statements about my performance in DTS were inside or outside of the rating % 1Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) period, that is irrelevant, What matters is that she stated, you are the best” when I completed her DTS. CAPT Gill has stated from the time he first rated me to when he completed my out-of-cycle appraisal upon his departure, that I don't know how to process travel arrangement independently. ‘The fact is that I have processed DTS independently well before he arrived in SP23. I didn’t forget when became my supervisor. If anything, Ms. Cummings e-mail complimenting me on completing her DTS in a timely and accurate fashion proves him to be a liar and his statements discriminatory (ex. 57” pp. 3-4). have received on the spot awards In the past (ex, 42) for doing travel-DTS. They are usually Justified by positive feedback from others like LT Nylander. Many compliments were forwarded to CAPT Gill on my behalf to justify an on-the-spot award, He just didn’t want to give it because hhe was mean and discriminatory to me. There was nothing good enough that any person could have said about me that would have justified giving me an award, in his opinion. I provided information that would support an on the spot award/bonus when I submitted the letters of compliment from LT Nylander, Ms, Cummings, and etc. He was also well aware that I provided support to outside branches when they had a reduction in manpower, CAPT Gill's statement is to hide discrimination and retaliation because he gave my work to Laura Sicks and Marchel Smith to keep from giving me an award. On page 725 of the Investigative File (IF) for agency ease number 11-00030-02576 (ex. 53, pp. 11 of 12), the investigator asked CAPT Gill, “In regards to claims 1-5, did the [Plaintiff] express to you that she was harassed and in a hostile work environment?" CAPT Gill gave the following response: “No, Every time I sat down with Katrina she never expressed to me that she was harassed or in a hostile work environment. The only time she expressed anything like that to me 1, NyAction No. 17-1472 (DLF) was after I gave her the Letter of Reprimand. She told me that she wished our relationship could be better, I told her that she was making false accusations against me to my superiors, and that is what she needed to correct if she wanted our relationship to be better (ex. 53, pp. 11 of 12).” Captain Gill issued Plaintiff a Letter of Reprimand on 08 June 2011. The letter of Reprimand was given to Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's email to CAPT Lewia, dated 11 May 2011, which indicated that CAPT Gill had twice denied her request for leave in May 2011 (DON-1 1-00030-02576, IF, page 552) (ex. 52, p 3 of 8). CAPT Gill was discrimi ting against Plaintiff because she used SSP management’s “open door policy” to report to his Superiors that he was denying her leave requests. The “open door policy” did not have any exceptions to leave issues; this is only CAPT Gill’s erroneous perception of his superiors “open door policy” because when the agency was asked during discovery to produce SSP's Official “open door policy,” and identify where it states that issues regarding leave discussions are prohibited/not permitted, the agency responded by stating, “no responsive documents.” CAPT Gill placed Plaintiff on a letter of reprimand to intimidate her into keeping his disapproval of her leave requests between them only. This creates a chilling effect on the Plaintiff bringing forth allegations of discrimination, The investigator asked CAPT Gill the following: “Did you receive input from others that you considered when preparing Complainant's performance rating? If so, from whom and what was their input?” CAPT Gill stated, “Yes, it was based on the inputs that I received from all four section heads, the executive officer (XO) and the Senior Executive Officer (SES) in the branch.” The agency produce discovery relating to input CAPT Gill statement that he received from “all four section heads” to rate Plaintiff, but the agency stated, “no documents exist; the inputs were hyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) verbal (#15 of IF, page 280 DON-12-00030-00282) (ex. 52, p. 5). Plaintiff believes CAPT Gill’s statement that “the inputs were verbal,” was to hide discrimination and retaliation. Surely, CAPT Gills words cannot be trusted because he has no credibility, as proven by the following examples: He did not give Plaintiff a NSPS 2010 “close-out;” He dated the General Schedule 01 July 2010, but actually signed it on 8/3/2010; He later issued Plaintiff'a FY2010 appraisal based on a performance plan she had only been on for less than 2 months of the 2010 FY; He didn’t include her performance from 01 October 2010 to 05 June 2010 in her FY2010 appraisal; he tried to give Plaintiff'a “failed” rating. Also, this is a man who, when asked by investigator, “prior to this " allegation on May 2011, have you ever denied Complainant’s request for leave?” CAPT Gill responded, “No,” which was an outright and deliberate lie (ex. 53, pp. 7 and 8 of 12). Page 17 of the IF for DON-00030-00282, is documented proof that CAPT Gill had denied Plaintiff's leave “prior to this allegation on May 2011,” in that it is dated 03/04/2011 by Plaintiff, and dated 03/24/2011, by CAPT Gill (ex.52), Moreover, the agency could not produce mid-point appraisals, which are required by the agency to provide performance status to employees in-order-to inform an employee of an area that he or she needs to improve in. Plaintiff, through her EEO representative asked the agency to “provide a copy of all mid-point appraisals and performance plans that were issued by Captain Gill to Plaintiff, Mrs. Katrina L. Webster,” but the agency responded by stating, “[PlaintifY's] 2009, 2010, and 2011 performance appraisals appear in the investigative file”. ‘The agency never stated where Plaintiff"s mid-point appraisals could be found in the IF because they do not exist. CAPT Gill never provided Plaintiff with a mid-point appraisal of record, he just waited until the end of each appraisal period to unfairly lodge complaints about my performance, with the intention to 1 “hyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLE) harass, discriminate, and retaliate against Plaintiff and subject me to a hostile work environment. He never used the agency's own mandatory method, mid-point appraisals, of addressing and correcting performance issues early in the appraisal process (ex. 3, pp 1-4). CAPT Gill waited until the end of the performance period to launch an attack on my performance because he knew Plaintiff had no performance issues that would support the negative and demeaning statements he made which were intended to discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff because of my EEO activity, and create a hostile environment for Plaintiff to work in. According to the investigative File on page-280; “Documentation of performance discussions held with Complainant, or other performance feedback provided, during rating period, “None” (IF, page 280 DONI2-00030-00282, #15) & (ex. 52, p 6/9). CAPT Gill also stated, “no one in the branch in SP23 got a performance award for 2011 because of funding cuts across the Navy" (IF, DON12-00030-00282, page 338 claim C) & (ex. 60, pp. 7/10). The record shows that his statement was a lie because Dionicia Rodriquez received a performance “ratings-based award” from CAPT Gill on 05/24/2011 of $750.00 (IF for DON 12-00030-00282, page 285, SP23 awards 01 Jan 2010 to 31 May 2012) & (ex. 52, p. 8). Ms. Rodriguez. was asked by the investigator, “what was your work relationship with Complainant at the time of this complaint?” (IF for DON-11-00030-02576, page 749a). Ms. Rodriguez. replies, “I did not know her at that point, because 1 worked in another branch. I did not have a work relationship with the Complainant.” Ms. Rodriguez went on to state that she had a work relationship with CAPT Gill “since August 2011 to present,” a total of 7 months to the date of 03/13/2012 (ex. 58 p. 3/3). Yet, Ms, Rodriguez received, “Regarding claim c: The agency provide aggregated data of personnel on awards at AF p 285, CAPT Gill awarded Complainant a Rating Based Award December 15, 2010 for hywil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) $243.00; and awarded Ms. Rodriguez two Rating Based Awards, December 5, 2010 ($839.00), and May 24, 2011 ($750.00); two Individual Cash Awards Not Rating Based, December 10, 2010 ($500.00) and December 13, 2010 ($750.00); and one Group Award September 15, 2011 ($1,371.00). Plaintiff, who CAPT Gill would never invite to branch meetings, never received a “Group Award,” and at all times I was a member of the Group/Branch (ex. 69, pp 1 and 2) Ifthis isn’t discrimination and retaliation, then I don’t know what is. The agency knows it is discrimination, this is why Mr. Keefe wanted to settle this claim DON 12-00030-00282 only, but this claim validates all other claims Plaintiff has filed against CAPT Michael Gill. Ms. Rodriquez, according to her sworn declaration was with CAPT Gill for 7 months and received the above awards and Plaintiff who has been under his supervision and in the same branch, SP23, since 01 October 2009 received nothing in salary and awards to include nothing in group awards since I have been under his supervision. Ms. Rodriguez. went on to state that she had a work relationship with CAPT Gill “since August 2011 to present,” so how could CAPT Gill give her a performance “ratings based award” 3 months before she was under his Supervision-May 24, 2011, unless it was placed in the record to hide discrimination (ex. 56 9, pp | and 2). Ms, Rodriguez’s race was also listed as Black, but Ms. Rodriguez states on page 2of 3 of her declaration for DON-11-00030-02576 that “[her] race for the record” is “Hispanic,” which shows that this was deliberate erroneous information listed to hide discrimination and make it appear that another black employee with EEO activity (despite the fact it was as a witness to a complaint that was filed before she was even assigned to SP23) was being given bonuses by CAPT Gill to make yyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) him appear fair-minded, Plaintiff wishes to note that the agency has used Ms. Dionicia Rodriguez. to hide discrimination. Ms. Rodriguez should not have been listed as a witness in agency case number DON 11-00030-02576 because she was not in SP23 nor did she even know Plaintiff, as she stated, “I did not know her at that point, because I worked in another branch (ex. 58, p 2 of 3) “[did not have a work relationship with the Complainant.” Ms, Rodriguez has been used by the agency to mask the discrimination that CAPT Gill subjected Plaintiff to, Ms. Rodriguez was hired by SSP as a contractor employee well after Mrs, Webster was a tenured federal employee in SP23, Ms, Rodriguez was transferred from another branch in August 2011 to CAPT Gills leadership and was promoted to a GS13 or GS14 “Financial Management Analyst” Supervisor in branch SP23 Plaintiff, who came into the agency as a federal employee in SP23 back June of 1998, is a low grade Secretary NK-02, but would more than likely still be a GS-06 step 10, if it were not for AcqDemo pay banding. Today, I am equivalent in salary to a GS-07, between steps 5 and 7. How could CAPT Gill give her a performance “ratings based award” 3 months before she was under his Supervision-May 24, 2011, unless it was placed in the record to hide discrimination? Ms. Rodriguez's race was also listed as Black, but Ms. Rodriguez states on page 749a of DON-11-00030-02576 & (ex. 58, p. 2 of 3) that “[her] race for the record” is “Hispanic,” which shows that this was erroneous information which was listed to hide discrimination and make it appear that another black employee with EEO activity (despite the fact it was as a witness to a complaint that was filed before she was even assigned to SP23) was being given bonuses by CAPT Gill to make him appear fair-minded. Plaintiff wishes to note that the agency has used Ms. 4 4Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Dionicia Rodriguez to hide discrimination. Ms. Rodriguez should not have been listed as a witness in agency case number DON 11-00030-02576 because she was not in SP23 nor did she even know Plaintiff, as she stated, “I did not know her at that point, because I worked in another branch (ex. 58,p. 1 0f3), “I did not have a work relationship with the Complainant.” Ms. Rodriguez has been used by the agency to mask the discrimination that CAPT Gill subjected Mrs. Webster to. Ms. Rodriguez was hired by SSP as a contractor employee well after Mrs, Webster was a tenured federal employee in SP23, Ms. Ruby Thomas, the witness, stated “Yes” in response to the question that “[she has] reason to believe that Captain Gill subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment, harassment, and discrimination based on [Plaintiff's] race and/or participating in protected EEO activity when Plaintiff was subjected to the incidences of harassment as she alleged and described in the claims at issue?” The witness made this swom statement in agency case number DON-12-00030-00282, page 350 (cx.56, p. 4 of 5). This is why Plaintiff submitted a motion requesting that agency gase_ number DON-12-00030-00282_be consolidated with DON-11-00030-02576 and the agency agreed. The issues are like and related and the Responsible Management Official (RMO) is the same person, CAPT Gill Investigator, Blandina Petersen, asked Ms. Thomas the following question: “Do you have any reason to believe that Captain Gill subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment, harassment, and discrimination based on her race and/or participating in protected EEO activity when Plaintiff was subjected to the incidences of harassment as she alleged and described in the claims at issue?” (IF for DON-12-00030-00282, page 350) & (ex.56, p. 4 of 5). [The claims at ToyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) issue are similar to those found in agency case number DON-12- 00030-00282 and can be found on page 349 and 350 of the IF] (ex. 56 pp. 3 of 5 & 4 of 5). Investigator Peterson went on to asked Ms. Thomas: During the time of the complaint from November through December 2011, Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment; do you believe this to be true? She responded “Yes,” (page 349 of IF for DON-I 2-00030-00282) and (ex. 56, p. 3 of Investigator Peterson went on to asked Ms. Thomas: “If so, what knowledge do you have of Complainant being subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment?” (ex. 56, p. 3 of Ms. Ruby Thomas responded: “She is a good person and she would not tell no fibs on anybody. I've known her for years. She told me how bad he treats her. I would go to her office and visit her and that’s when she would tell me about how nasty Captain Gill treated her.” (page 349 of IF for DON-12- 00030-00282) & (ex. 56, p. 3 of'5). The Investigator, Ms. Peterson, went on to asked of Ms. Ruby Thomas: “How did you learn about the harassment and hostile work environment?” Ms. Thomas responded, “From her and I heard other people talking about it.” (ex. 56, p. 3 of 5). The following exchanges between the Investigator of DON-12-00030-00282, Ms. Peterson, and Ms. Ruby Thomas continued, thusly: Q. “Do you have any reason to believe that Captain Gill subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment, harassment, and discrimination based on her race and/or participating in protected EEO activity when Complainant was subjected to the incidences of harassment as she alleged and described in the claims at issue?” (ex. 56, p.3 of 5). A. Yes, I think so because everyone was saying how nasty he was to her. I didn't understand why “yyivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) he treated her that way. Q. “Do you have any reason to believe that Captain Gill treated the Complainant less favorably when Complainant was subjected to the incidences of harassment, hostile work environment, and discrimination based on her race and/or participating in protected EEO activity as she alleged and described in the claims at issue?” (ex. 56,p.4 of 5). Yes, because I heard others talking about how bad he treated her (page 351 of IF for DON-12- 00030-00282) & (ex. 56, p. 5 of 5), ‘The investigator went on to ask of Ms. Ruby Thomas: Q. “Based on your testimony thus far, what are the names of the individuals that told you about how Captain Gill treated the Complainant?” (page 351 of If for DON-12-00030-00282) & (ex. 56, p. 5 of 5). Ms. Thomas responded: “They don't work here anymore and most of them are retired. It’s been so long ago, so I don't remember.” (page 351 of IF for DON-12- 00030-00282) & (ex. 56, p. 5 of 5), 5. DON No. 12-00030-03671 & 13-00030-03295 (Consolidated Cases} A. 2012 Close-Out Appraisal (01 October 2011 to 30 April 2012) The SP1OS claim amended with DON 12-00030-03671 per letter dated 27 June 2013 from Acting Command Deputy EEO Officer, DONALD S. LUPTON, JR. This claim is similar, but not the claim found within 09-00030-00674. This is explained in the Donald Lupton letter at exhibit 25, p 1. ‘The agency has tried their best to avoid this claim because it exposes blatant race discrimination (black) and retaliation against Plaintiff (exhibits 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27). Regarding the close-out from CAPT Gill, he gave Plaintiff the same rating in the General Scale (GS), FY2012 “close-out” (ex. that he issued me the previous fiscal years, which was discriminatory because he wanted to give Plaintiff a “fail” before he was convinced otherwise by HR Director, Brenda Home (61, page 4 of 7). The narrative statements were again MuyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) discriminatory and retaliatory in the 2012 General Schedule “close-out” for the same reasons stated in the previous annual rating. Plaintiff should have been given a NSPS 2010 “close-out” for FY2010, but CAPT Gill failed to for discriminatory reasons. He later failed to give Plaintiffa timely General Scale (GS) performance plan within 30-days of the transition to the new pay plan. In fact, he gave plaintiff her payment plan on 8/3/2010 then falsified the performance plan document by signing it 07/01/2010, to make it appear that he gave it to plaintiff in a timely enough fashion to rate her it. Gill then later used the period of the newly transition GS performance plan which spanned from 06/06/2010 to 09/30/2010 to rate plaintiff on a performance plan that was illegal according to Human Resource Rules, in that Plaintiff wasn’t under GS performance for at least 90-days to be rated on them. In fact, it proves CAPT Gill is a liar and falsified documents because the actual date that he electronically signed Plaintiff's GS-performance plan was 8/3/2010 at 13:55, but little did he know, the system sent Plaintiff'a copy and she signed hers on 8/3/2010 at 14:13. This is in very tiny print. Plaintiff believes the agency is aware that CAPT Gill falsified these documents. Plaintiff also believe the agency is aware that Plaintiff notated in her performance plan that CAPT Gill was giving her work to contractor Marchel Smith and Laura Sicks, and also that most people in our branch did their own Travel arrangements. CAPT Gill made a big mistake when he included the falsified performance plan as an attachment to my GS-2010 performance plan, but the performance plan didn’t have a copy of my comments. He would again state that I didn’t know what [ was doing and made negative comments about my performance and self-assessment, knowing all the while that my ability to write an affective self-assessment was adversely affected by him giving my work to the two named contractors to complete. In my 2011 annual appraisal, CAPT Gill did the same as in 2010, but denied me “yyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) bonuses, awards, and even a group award. He would even invite me to team meetings. CAPT proved that the Letter of Requirements/Restriction, Letter of Direction, and Letter of Reprimand were all for the purpose of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and to subject me to a hostile work environment in that all were left in place when CAPT Gill retired. He left SSP without officially removing me from these letters. When CAPT Gill left SP23, Contractors Marchel Smith and Laura Sicks left $P23 also, CAPT Gill had taken my work and gave it to these contractors to complete when I was under his supervision, The contractors did not even work for CAPT Gill. When CDR Gerken became my new supervisor, all work came back to me. CAPT Gill gave my work to the contractors to give me unfavorable appraisals. (ex. 65, p. 6 of 8) CAPT Gill states that “he took inputs from the SP-23 Section Heads and the $P-23 Executive Officer (his Deputy). Essentially, I received from every person in a leadership position in SP-23 before putting together the close-out assessment for Katrina, All concurred with my individual assessment (ex. 59, P. 422).” CAPT Gill has never produced anything in writing with comments about my performance from these individuals because he has lied about these individuals coneurring with him. I am sure, for a matter as important as this is, if CAPT Gill had anything in writing from these individuals who supposedly agreed with his assessment of my performance, he would have gladly provided it CAPT Gill presented me with a “close-out” in the company of my new Branch Chief CDR Gerken in an effort to pass on his comments and feelings about my performance to CDR Gerken. I believe SSP Management was aware that CAPT Gill didn’t give me an NSPS FY2010 “close-out.” I believe this is one of the reasons he was forced to retire. yyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) My 2012 annual performance appraisal comprises the 30 April 2012 “close-out” rating from CAPT Gill, was exactly 7 months (ex. 70, p. 2 of 18), and the annual rating from CDR Gerken, which ran from 01 May 2012 to 30 September 2012 (exactly 5 months). ‘This is exactly what should have been done when SSP transitioned from NSPS to General Schedule on 06 June 2010. On “Part D-critical element performance standard,” for FY 2012, Plaintiff is rated at the “expert” level, which is consistent with the ratings that I received in FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011.5 this important fact will be revisited later. Regarding the FY 2012 rating, one main thing that immediately stands out is that even CAPT Gerken states, regarding Critical Element | Travel, “for this reporting period, most Branch personnel processed their own travel orders and vouchers” (ex. 70, p 13/18); I have repeatedly stated this! DTS was designed for the employee to do his or her own travel orders and vouchers for the sake of efficiency. It was never that I wasn’t called upon to do vouchers because [had trouble performing this critical element, This was CAPT Gill’s concocted lie so he could give me a low rating for this critical element. ‘The “face to face” annual performance review with CDR Gerken, CDR Gerken stated to Plaintiff, “I didn’t see what Gill saw.” Plaintiff began getting negative and demeaning comments in my annual assessments from CAPT Gill on the same critical elements I had performed well, for over 10-years before CAPT Gill’s arrival as the Branch Head of SP23. From FY2009 through the “close-out” of 2012, Plaintiff received negative and demeaning comments from CAPT Gill that raters prior and subsequent to CAPT Gill never stated about my performance. This fact alone proves Plaintiff has been discriminated and retaliated against by CAPT Gill in the comments made in the 2012 “close-out,” which is a continuation of the ratings I received from CAPT Gill in her FY2009, hyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) FY 2010, and FY2011 annual assessments. CAPT Gill was Plaintiff's rater for the “close-out” appraisal I received for FY2012._ The negative and demeaning comments he made concerning the Plaintiff's performance in the FY2012 “close-out” were consistent with ratings she received from CAPT Gill in FY 2009, 2010, 2011 (exhibits 46, 91, 95, 70). CAPT Gill never produce any documents from rater’s input as identified on page 22 of the IF, because “no documents exist.” Plaintiff believes the negative and demeaning comments on Plaintif?’s performance were Captain Gill’s assessment and his alone. Moreover, CAPT Gill stated that he received input from the SES (IF, page 422), which at this time was Mr. Robert Krum, Mr. Krum was Plaintiff's 2009 rater and had rated Plaintiff3 in Travel Critical element, 4 in classified materials and 3 in’Taskings, with no negative and demeaning comments. Moreover, Mr. Krum had his own Executive Assistant, a contractor by the name of Marchel Smith, who Gill would also give my work to. Ms, Smith performed all of Mr. Krum’s secretarial duties including his travel arrangements. So why would CAPT Gill solicit input from Mr. Krum, who obviously is a person that didn’t need Plaintiff's services for the rating period because Ms. Smith performed these duties for Mr, Krum. Obviously, CAPT Gill’s statement that he solicited input from Mr. Krum was not true, so Plai believes this serves as evidence that none of the other branch employees’ input, that he is said to have solicited, should be considered valid, Plaintiff has produced comments from each of her raters that were immediately prior to CAPT Gill’s arrival-Mr. Krum’s, and subsequent to CAPT Gill’s arrival-CDR Gerken, as the Branch Head of SP23, to include the 2015 “close-out” assessment for FY2015 of CDR Doug Williams CAPT Gill was the only Branch Head to make negative and demeaning statements about Plaintiff in all her years as the Secretary of SP23. Mr. Robert Krum was Plaintiff Supervisor for FY2008, HyAction No, 17-1472 (DLF) which was prior to CAPT Gill's arrival as Branch Head of SP23._ It is important to note that Mr. Krum rated the Plaintiff on the very same objectives prior to the arrival of CAPT Gill and made no negative or demeaning statements. ‘Therefore, none of Plaintiff’ supervisors prior or subsequent to CAPT Gill made negative or demeaning statements about the Plaintiff's performance. CAPT Gill was replaced by CDR Gerkin, for the second half of the rating period, which ran from 01 May 2012 to 30 September 2012 and concluded the 2012 annual performance period. ‘There were derogatory comments made in Plaintifi’s annual assessment, but it was by CAPT Gill because CAPT Gill's “close-out” assessment was incorporated with the annual assessment Plaintiff received from CDR Gerken. There were no derogatory comments made about Plaintiff's performance in my FY 2013, FY 2014, or FY 2015 performance appraisals, Refer to the following exhibits to see how Plaintiff's Branch Chiefs prior and subsequent to CAPT Gill rated Plaintiff: (see Court compl. @ ECF 47, pp 42-52 230-282) & (exs. 46, 70, 72, 73, 76, 84, 89, 91, 95). Plaintiff has produced performance appraisal comments from each of her raters that were immediately prior to CAPT Gill's arrival-Mr. Krum’s, and subsequent to CAPT Gill’s arrival-CDR Gerken’s, as the Branch Head of SP23, through the 2015 “close-out” assessment CDR Doug Williams (see Court compl. @ ECF 47, pp 42-52 230-282). CAPT Gill was the only Branch Head to make negative and demeaning statements about Plaintiff in all her years as the Secretary of SP23. Mr. Robert Krum was Plaintiff’s Supervisor for FY2008, which was prior to CAPT Gill’s arrival as Branch Head of SP23 in October 2008, FY2009 (Amended Complaint @ ECF 47 pp 43-52). 2013 Security Clearance Issue iyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) The agency is trying to make LCDR Plummer the Responsible Management Official (RMO) here to hide discrimination. LCDR Plummer was the conduit the agency used to create a security issue for Plaintiff. The main SSP RMOs are Agency Attorney Kevin Keefe and Acting Security Manager Joe Graf who were knowledgeable of Plaintiff's prior EEO activity. Mr. Graf stated to Plaintiff, “It has been brought to my attention, the reason why Kirk Webster isn’t working is because his clearance was revoked,” Mrs. Webster asked, “where did you get that information from?” Mr. Graf stated, “fiom Kevin Keefe.” Mr. Graf went on to say that “Kevin Keefe informed him about [Plaintifi"'s] husband’s clearance situation back in April of 2013” (ex. 67, p.3 of 6). Mr. Graf has been used by SSP before to aid SSP’s management in discriminating against Plaintiff. Mr. Graf served as the Deputy Director to James Howard in SP10. SP10 is a huge “umbrella"/Division within the Strategic Systems Programs Office that is called the Plans and Programs Division. The Plans and Programs Division has under its “umbrella,” the SSP Security Office (SP162), the SSP Human Resources Office (SP14), and SSP Management Information Services Office (SP16). Mr. Graf was the Deputy to the Director of the entire Plans and Programs Division and was the Selecting Official who selected Holly Ramirez to mask discrimination for his boss, James Howard, who was at this time, the Director of SP10 (the Plans and Programs Division). ‘The second “hat” Mr. Graf wore was as the Acting Director of the SSP Security Office. discriminated against Plaintiff because he didn’t her on the certificate for the SP1OS Secretary position. As the Acting Head of Security Mr. Graf wore “two hats,” Deputy to James Howard as previously mentioned, and hyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Acting Security Director. The Investigator asked Mr. Graf, “Are you aware of any prior EEO protected activity on the part of Complainant? If yes, how and when leamed?”. Mr. Graf replied, “Yes” and went on to say, “Lam the Deputy in the Plans and Programs Division, SP10. Our EEO office is under the cognizance of the Plans and Programs Division, Therefore, by nature of my position as the Deputy Director, Plans and Programs Division and routine oversight of the EEO office, I became aware a few years ago of complainant's prior EEO activity. “Q Are you aware of any EEO protected activity on the part of Complainant's spouse? “Q: If yes, how and when leaned?” R:_ I was Acting Security Manager from March-June 2013 when it was brought to my attention, I was provided public information in published decisions of the FEOC about the revocation of complainant's spouse's security clearance due to bankruptcy/financial concems.” According to Mr. Joe Graf, Deputy of Plans and Programs, Mr. Kevin Keefe had him question Mrs. Webster about her husband’s clearance situation, on 06 June 2013, the day immediately following a telephonic meeting between Mr. Keefe, Ms. McKenzie; and Plaintif?’s husband and EEO Representative, Kirk E. Webster, Sr., which took place on 05 June 2013 (ex. 84, p. 4). During the 05 June 2013 meeting, Mrs. Webster’s Representative (Kirk Webster, Sr.) refused to accept the agency’s settlement offer. ‘The following day, Mrs, Webster was called in to a meeting with Mr, Joe Graf and Ms. Lisa Hargrove (ex. 84, p. 5). During the 06 June 2013 meeting, Mr. Joe Graf stated to Mrs. Webster the following: “It has been brought to my attention, the reason why Kirk Webster isn’t working is because his clearance was revoked.” Mrs. Webster asked, “where did you get that information from?” Mr. Graf stated, from “Kevin Keefe.” Mr. Graf went 26 a 44Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) on to say that Kevin Keefe informed him about Complainant’s husband’s clearance situation back in April of 2013. Mr. Graf went on to state that he (Joe Graf) was “dragging his feet” about bringing the information to Plaintiff's attention. This claim Plaintiff filed includes retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment when my security clearance was removed from JPAS and I was sent home on administrative leave on Monday, 19 AUG 2013, shortly after I arrived for work (ex. 84, pp.l-2). Plaintiff was forced to give up my security badges, Common Access (CAC) card, and SSP badges. On 19 August 2013, Plaintiff was placed on indefinite paid administrative leave because I was informed “that I do not have current security access” in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), see (ex. 84, pp.l-2). Plaintiff perceives this situation regarding her security clearance as further evidence of the retaliation, harassment, and hostile work environment she has been in the midst of for well over 10-years. Plaintiff believed then as I do now that agency officials were trying to discourage me from filing EEO complaints when I believe my statutorily protected rights are being violated. Plaintiff believes NGA officials and SSP officials colluded to remove my security access from JPAS just to look into my credit to see if there were credit issues that SSP could use to revoke Plaintiff's security clearance. ‘Then LCDR Travis Plummer was just doing his job, when he discovered something that Kevin Keefe, Joe Graf and other SSP management officials already knew, and that is my Security access was no longer in JPAS because NGA had removed it in a plot to get Plaintiff fired from her job. Plaintiff was an applicant with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s predecessor agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). NIMA sponsored Plaintiff's security clearance and granted Plaintiff SCI access. Plaintiff did not need that high of a security clearance to work as an SSP Secretary, so my security clearance was downgraded. em 4Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Plaintiff believes NIMA, who had sponsored her security clearance, removed her security clearance from the Joint Personne! Adjudication System and this is why it was missing from JPAS. After Plaintiff was sent home by SSP management due to her security clearance missing from JPAS, “NCIS PROCUREMENT & LOGISTICS at 27130 TELEGRAPH ROAD, QUANTICO, VA 22134-2253” pulled Plaintiff's credit report for SSP Security (ex. 83), Plaintiff believes these are evil racist people who were trying to force my husband and me and our grade school children into unemployment and financial hardship because we filed two EEO complaints at NIMA/NGA that exposed corruption and collusion on the parts of NGA and EEO officials. In fact, Mr. Rickert lied and stated to the Court that Plaintiff had no EEO activity at NGA and Plaintiff provided documents that proved he is a liar (See Webster et al v. Esper et al 1:19-cv-02231, at ECF 8 and ECF 12). SSP aided NGA in revoke my husband’s security clearance for “financial consideration” and kept me in a low-grade secretary job for over 20 years by denying me every promotion I applied for during the entire 21 years of my career with SSP. Ms. McKenzie, who was being Supervised by SSO Supervisory Attorney, Kevin Keefe stated, the missing clearance in JPAS had nothing to do with finanees, but this was not true. It had everything to do with finances; this was a “fishing expedition. Plaintiff's credit report was first pulled by Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and secondly by OPM for an actual “employment background investigation being processed by their office” (ex. 83). Therefore, if Plaintiff's credit report was pulled by OPM for an actual security clearance update, then why was it pulled by Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) on or about 9-24-2013. DON No. 15-00030-01985 GS-0318-08 Secretary Position 28 4Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Generally, when an Agency cancels a vacancy announcement without making a selection, the complainant suffers no personal harm that would render her “aggrieved.” See Complainant v Department of the Army EEOC Request No. 05960752 (November 20, 1998, However, when a ‘Complainant claims that the vacancy announcement was cancelled for a discriminatory motive, and that the cancellation was to avoid giving a Complainant the position, she does state a claim. See Complainant v. Department of the Navy EEOC Request No. 05400064 (April 24, 2000), Complainant v. United States Postal Service. EEOC Appeal No. 0120114263 (February 24, 2012). This is relevant to the claim at hand and is the reason why the EEOC’s OFO remanded the case back to the SSP to be investigated. Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be promoted to Secretary, GS-0318-08, by CDR Croley and Mr. Maglich because the position was not announced, and I believe CDR Croley and Mr. Maglich did not want Plaintiff to apply. On April 23, 2015, the SSP was notified by email that Ms. China Wright, a contractor, was non-competitively promoted to fill the position Plaintiff believes Ms. Wright was non-competitively placed in the position to keep her me from being promoted (IF pp 312-313) & (ex. 71, p.p. 4 of 8 and 5 of 8), Plaintiff believes 1 should have been given the opportunity to be promoted because of my performance record, vast amount of federal experience as a SSP Branch secretary, my length of service and the fact that I am in a dead end position that has no promotion potential. Plaintiff feels riper for promotion than a contractor who has worked for SSP for only four years (IF p 313) & (ex. 71, p. 5 of 8) 2014 Mid-Year Appraisal and 2015 Performance Appraisal and Award On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff received her annual performance appraisal from CDR Croley : ooCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) that was right in the middle of the 37 to 44 range of Plaintiff's expected contribution range (ex. 76). CDR Coley’s score was comparable to a “successful” appraisal rating and an unfair downgrade from Plaintiff's higher “close-out” rating. Plaintiff believes she merited a higher annual rating because I received a “glowing” “close-out” performance appraisal from CDR Doug Williams for the period October 1, 2014 to May 17, 2015, which comprised 7.5 months of the FY2015 rating period, compared to the 4.5 months of the rating period under the Supervision of CDR Croley. Plaintiff also received a bonus of $750.00 for my performance the previous FY2014 annual performance period (IF p 313) & (ex. 71); see close-out appraisal for period October 1, 2014 to May 17, 2015 at IF pp. 565-582) & (ex. 73). The annual appraisal of 2014 is the first time that Plaintiff's “part D critical element performance standards” was changed to “entry” to reflect negatively on the favorable appraisal that I received from CDR Williams and is the first time Plaintiff received an acceptable with “glowing” comments and an accurate description of my performance. My 2015 “close-out” appraisal’s performance standard was changed from “entry” to “expert” (ex. after Plaintiff asked CDR Williams to change the “part D critical element performance standard” of my performance standard to where it should be, which is at the “expert” level; this is consistent with my previous appraisals dating back to FY2008 under Mr. Robert Krum, Plaintiff believes the entry rating was to make me appear less worthy of promotion to the NK-0318-03 (GS-0318-08 equivalent position) that China Wright was non-competitively selected for. This is the same thing that was done with the vacancy left by Holly Ramirez in the Plans and Programs Department. Since 1998, I have been non-selected for each and every GS-08/Pay Band 0318-08 position I have applied for. 0. ai uyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Plaintiff believes the “entry” level standard I was rated on was discriminatory. CDR Croley, who selected Contractor Ms. China Wright for Secretarial job in $P20, the Technical Director's office, was same person who downgraded Plaintiff's 2015 “close-out” performance appraisal after having Plaintiff under his supervision for only 4.5 months of the FY2015 rating period (compare dates of ex. 73, p.1 and ex. 76, p. 1), CDR Croley should have dated Plaintiff"s appraisal 18 May in. Plaintiff does not believe 2015 to accurately reflect the time Plaintiff was under his supervi it is a coincidence that CDR Croley gave Plaintiff an unfavorable appraisal to make Plaintiff's 17-years of experience at the time he Selected a contractor to fill the NK-0318-03/GS-08 position, appear as if | am just an “entry” level employee. Plaintiff believes this was done by CDR Croley ‘0 appear to justify his selection of Ms. Wright to fill the NK-03/GS-0318-08 equivalent position with a contractor who had only worked for SSP for 4-years. CDR Croley stated it was a Board of Directors decision to fill the SP20S position with a contractor. Plaintiff believes this decision to be discriminator in that this was Plaintif’s only chance for promotion out of a dead end 6 position she has been in since 1998 is highly discriminatory and retaliatory. Moreover, every member of the Board of Directors was aware of Plaintiff's EEO activity. Plaintiff believes I should have received a 43 or 44 because I had been doing the same job for 17 years; this would have been consistent with what I received from CDR Doug Williams who supervised me 7.5 months of the rating period-4.5 months longer than CDR Croley. CDR Croley rated Plaintiff for four and half months and his rating pales in comparison to her 2014 annual assessment and Plaintif?"s 2015 “close-out” that I received from CDR Williams, Plaintiff also believes the close-out rating that I received from CDR Williams should have merited a substantially higher salary increase and bonus. CDR Croley stated several times that he 31 2 44Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) would go over my appraisal with me, but we never did (IF p 314, #35) & (ex. 78, p.6 of 8). CDR Croley stated to Plaintiff that he changed my performance standards on April 16, 2015, because of the new performance system, but Plaintiff feels her performance standards were deliberately changed to give her an unfavorable performance appraisal that would justify no increase in salary and that is exactly what happened (IF p 315; see performance standards at IF pp 664-668)& (ex. 79). On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff received a mid-year performance review from CDR Williams that reflected a career stage of “Entry” rather than “Expert.” She asked CDR Williams to change the career stage to “Expert” and he did, but she believes it is because she caught it and brought it to his attention as he stated in the EEO Counselor's Report (IF pp 315-316). She believes that the actions at issue are motivated by her EEO activity because she and her husband filed a joint EEO complaint in February of 2002 against another Department of Defense (DoD) agency and she believes SSP was informed of this complaint which has led to many years of discrimination and retaliation at SSP. She also stated that she is one of three Black women in dead end secretarial positions who were better qualified to fill the position at issue than a contractor with four year of experience (IF p 316). Plaintiff's “entry” level rating was later changed to “expert” by CDR Doug Williams and for Plaintiff under “performance standards” was accurately changed and applied by CDR Douglas Williams. According to the “Career Stages Crosswalk” guidance (ex. 79, pp 1-2), Plaintiffs position falls under “clerical” not “administrative work.” The Administrative Assistant title/vork first appeared on Plaintiff's FY2013 annual appraisal that I received from CDR Douglas Williams in fiscal year (FY) 2013 (ex. 78). Plaintiff's personnel action form 50 (ex. 80), then as well as currently, has Plaintiff listed as a Secretary because “it follows a one-grade interval pattern.” Secretary falls under “clerical work,” z “a4Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) in that it “involves structured work in support of office, business, or fiscal operations (ex. 79, p.2) Clerical work is performed in accordance with established policies, procedures, or techniques; and requires training, experience, or working knowledge related to the tasks to be performed. Clerical occupation series follows a one-graded interval pattern, Examples include Correspondence Clerk (0309), Legal Assistant (0986), and Equipment Operator (0350),” see exhibit 79, p.2. Plaintiff's Secretary series is (0318), started as a GS-0318-05 and capped out at one grade above GS-05 or GS-0318-06. Clerical has levels “entry,” “Journey,” and Expert, that range from GS-03, GS-10, but since Plaintiff's position caps out at the GS-06 Target Level; this caption applies: Clerical “may be considered an expert for those series that normally are not graded above the GS-07 level. Therefore, CDR Williams was correct to change Plaintiff's “Part D-Critical Element Performance Standard” from “entry” to “expert.” Plaintiff believes she was place at the entry to make her appear less qualified than the contractor, Ms. Wright, for the YB-0318-03/ (GS-08) equivalent Secretarial position. ‘The agency very well knew the 17 May 2015 appraisal Plaintiff received from CDR Williams was a “close-out” and not a mid-point appraisal. Upon bringing the “entry” level rating to CDR Williams's attention, CDR Williams changed Mrs. Webster's rating to “expert,” which is consistent with a person who has worked in the same Branch (SP23) in SSP for the past 17-years (ex. 79) CDR Croley has, years later, admitted to EEO Counselor, Deborah Jenkins, that he was indeed the selecting official who selected Mr. Shields in agency case number DON 09- 00030-00674. Plaintiff stated to the EEO counselor, by email, that upon review of the 2014 appraisal being at the “entry” level, Mrs. Webster was moving forward with her claim with respect to the “out-of-cycle” she received from CAPT Select Williams because she believes the “entry” rating was a deliberate 3 oHCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) act to sabotage her career and lead to future non-selecti s for promotion and no, to low, increases in salary and bonus. Plaintiff has also made it clear in an e-mail to the EEO Counselor, Mrs. Jenkins, that she no longer believed the Responsible Management Official (RMO) was the work of CAPT Select Douglass Williams, but that of SES Mike Maglich, CAPT Select Williams never communicated to the Plaintiff at any time that she would be rated at the “entry” level, such a decision to rate a person at the “entry” level who has been working in the same Branch and performing the same duties for 17-years is unheard of. One would have to go back to over 15-years to find a time when Mrs, Webster was rated at the entry level on an annual assessment of her performance. Moreover, CAPT Select Williams gave Plaintiff favorable appraisal with “glowing” comments about her performance that would not have been consistent with someone who was trying to give her an unfavorable performance appraisal; he also gave Plaintiff a bonus of $750 for the previous FY2014 performance period. Due to the fact that Mr. Maglich was the Plaintiff's Senior rating official, she believes the “entry” level rating was done by Mr. Maglich due to the issues she had with him and CDR Croley with respect to the SP27 Secretarial complaint in agency No. 09-00030-00674, The appraisal page 3 of 19 was not signed by the Plaintiff or CDR Williams and could have easily been copied and inserted as a replacement page. The Plaintiff believes Technical Director Mike Maglich is the main RMO behind changing her appraisal. Plaintiff believes the GS-08 Secretarial position in SP20 (Barbara Nystrom's vacancy) was non-competitively filled by Contractor China Wright for a discriminatory motive, and that motive was to keep Plaintiff, from being promoted because of her prior EEO activity. ‘The “entry” level rating is reserved for individuals who are just starting a new position, Plaintiff believes the “entry” level rating on her 2014 annual appraisal is evidence that the same 3a. yyCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) “entry” level rating on her “close-out” was not done in error but, was deliberately carried over from her 2014 rating to adversely affect her chances of promotion and bonuses. It was only changed because she caught it! Plaintiff also believes the “entry” rating was a factor in her not being selected for the GS-08 vacaney, which is the Secretary to the Technical Director, Mike Maglich. In claim b, Plaintiff believes that the objectives she received from CDR Croley that included 6 factors that she would be rated on are meant to disadvantage her in future promotions and bonuses because the objectives are different from the objectives she has been working under during her ‘lian Acquisition Workforce 17-years as a Secretary in SSP23, Plaintiff believes the new Ci Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo) is being used to mask discrimination. Plaintiff received an unfair contribution award from CDR Croley, in that he gave Plaintiff a ‘$403.00 contribution award and I had been under his supervision for only 4.5 months. He also gave Plaintiff an appraisal that was less favorable than the “close-out” Plaintiff had received from CDR Douglas Williams for 7.5 months of the rating period. Moreover, CDR Williams had given Plaintiff a contribution award of $750.00 for FY2014 (ex. 72). Therefore, Plaintiff had expected contribution award that would equal or exceed the contribution award she received in FY2014, Plaintiff has been discriminated and retaliated against by CDR Croley in that he became Plaintiff ‘s supervisor for only 4.5 months of the FY2015 rating period compared to the 7.5 months Plaintiff was under CDR Williams’ supervision and gave Plaintiff a less favorable appraisal rating and contribution award. CDR Croley also intentionally falsified how long he had been Plaintiff's supervisor, in that he dated Plaintiff's performance appraisal 19 Aptil 2015 (ex.76, p. | of 7) to 30 September 2015, but a look at CDR Williams’ “close-out” appraisal shows that Croley should , 74Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) have started Plaintiff's rating period on 18 May 2015 (ex. 73, p. 1 of 18). CDR Croley was trying to make it appear that he was Plaintiff's supervisor for 5.5 months instead of the actual 4.5 months of the 2015 rating period, to justify giving Plaintiff a lower rating than CDR Williams, inferior performance narrative, and unfavorable Contribution-Based Compensation (CCAS) award, CDR Croley gave a lower appraisal rating, less favorable performance appraisal narrative, and lower CCAS award for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons DON No. 15-00030-03003 A Management Analyst Position DON No. 15-00030-03003 1. “Judi $" in the notepad below is Judith Stout. 2. “jstout” refers to Judith Stout. 3. “Debarred List: Cleared by EIC (jstout).” 4. The phrase “clear matches” means to delete names that resulted from a database query? 5. To Closed cert as unused Email to PPP to clear matches accordingly.” 6. Closing a cert or certificate of eligible candidates as “unsued” is a very illegal or unethical Human Resources process, 7. Notepad content shows discriminatory activity (ex. 105, pp 4-5/5). ‘A. Management Analyst Position “A few of the comments from the “Part D-Remarks from the requesting Office is below. Many other comments are found on the “notepad.” These two sections of the 3-page Request for Personnel Action (RPA) can be found at exhibit 105. Below, one can see that ‘Human Resoure Specialist (HR) Judith Stout has cleared several database query “matches.” 36, ayCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Some of these matches Plaintiff name, I believe, appeared on. See the “Debarred List: Cleared by EIC (jstout).” Also certificates eligible candidates were “closed as unused” because “no selection made from cert. Closed as unused. Email to PPP to clear matches.” These notes and messages point to very unethical/illegal practices by HR staff that Plaintiff believes kept her from being listed on the cert. that Mike Mendoza was selected from.” PPP: Req #5115700 input 5/18/15. 7 matehes, 1 additional match received 6/29. Req closed 7/27/15, Code F. Req#A115700 Input 9/14/15, 1xCIr. 22 matches received. All matches cleared 10/16/15. (jstout) ICTAP: Cleared under Annet #NW50343-03-1438279LP115700 (jstout)” (ex. 105 pp 4-5/5). Plaintiff applied for| the Management Analyst, NH-0343-03, position and completed the occupational questionnaire, and Judith Stout, HR Specialist in Washington State, was the Staffing Specialist who worked on the Management Analyst, NH-0343-03, recruitment, but Judith Stout colluded with SSP management Selecting Officials Louis Loman (ex. 7, p 2/5) and Bill Hyre, who were aware of Plaintif?’s prior EEO activity, race and gender to discriminate against Plaintiff as can be seen on the “notepad content to be discussed below (ex. 7, p 1/5; ex. 8, p 1/5 ): 37 4Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Ms. Stout (“Judi S”) stated, the list of those applicants who were deemed best qualified based on their answers to the occupational questionnaire and a review of their resumes was used to determine whether they met minimum qualification requirements, but she opened and closed certificates and cleared searches until SSP management got a list with the person they wanted to choose, Mr. Mendoza, and a cert that did not include Plaintiff. ‘Then She (Judith Stout) sent the certificate of eligible candidates, that was “cleared” until it didn’t have Plaintiff on it, to SSP and, once SSP chose a candidate, processed the selection of Mr. Mendoza was made: “management would like to make selection. Initiated a one-time clear of PPP and issued a new cert.” Candidates were determined to be “best qualified” based on their self-reported answers to an occupational questionnaire contained in the appli ion they completed through USAJOBS, but SSP Management got Judith Stout to clear matches and issue new certs until they got who they wanted through a very discriminatory and reprisal process; please see exhibit 105, pp 4-5/5 Clos{ing] certificates (certs as they are called) as unused” played a huge part in keeping the “best qualified,” like Plaintiff off the cert. I believe SSP Management knows that Bill Hyre and Louis Loman discriminated against Plaintiff. Instead of doing the right thing and by making Plaintiff whole for the wrong that’s been delved out to her, Bill Hyre was allowed fo leave SSP unscathed (cx. 75, p 1/5) Louis Loman was moved to another position (ex. 7, p 1/5 @ #2), and Elaine Blair, I believe, has retired. Bill Hyre has stated in his declaration that he didn’t know about Plaintiff's EEO activity, Upon review of Ms. Hargrove’s testimony, she stated her 2" level Supervisor is was Bill Hyre and second level is Ms, Karen Joyner-Brown (ex. 64, p 2/6). There is no way that Ms. Karen Joyner-Brown would not have notified her superior, Mr. Hyre, that Ms. Hargrove was participating in an EEO investigation (cx. 90, pp 2-3). we 35Civil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Judith Stout stated “the cut-off numerical score to be deemed “best qualified” for the Management Analyst position was 90, consistent with OCHR policy, but this was not true, the clearing of searches and opening and closing of cert. and marking certs as unused puts this statement in serious doubt. Plaintiff completed the occupational questionnaire, but it didn’t matter because Bill Hyre and Louis Loman had already made it clear to Ms. Stout the “best qualifying criteria” and person they wanted for this position. Certs were opened and close as “unused” and queries for persons matching the criteria were “cleared” until a cert was produced that Plaintiff was not on and Mr. Mendoza was on. Because SSP Managers Bill Hyre and Louis Loman, and Theresa Sidbury colluded with Ju Stout to keep plaintiff off the cert that was used to make the selection. SSP Management did this, when they stated to HR Specialist Ms, Stout, “management would like to make a selection. Initiated a one-time clear of PPP and issued a new cert;” this is unlaw discrimination and retaliation. 126. Plaintiff did not make the certifieate of eligible candidates and she was not referred to anyone at SSP for consideration. Due to “notepad content, Plaintiff was not considered,” Mr. Mendoza was under Louis Loman and Bill Hyre obtaining from them “the best qualifying criteria,” also not a college graduate like Plaintiff who was rated a GS-09 Management Analyst by an unbiased Custom and Border Patrol Human Resources Office, and she was continually non-selected by SSP for 21-years. Moreover, according to Wendy Brooks and Johnny Hager, Management tells the HR Specialist the criteria they are looking for, and this was communicated to Judith Stout by Bill Hyre and Louis Loman. ‘They gave Ms, Stout best qualified criteria that Mike Mendoza was gaining by sitting in the position, that Plaintiff was not acquiring. Still yet, searches were “cleared and open certs closed and marked as “unused” to eliminate 2 ayCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Plaintiff from the certificate of eligibles. ‘Ms. Stout worked in Washington State and did not have a work relationship with Plaintiff but the SSP employces she colluded with, Louis Loman and Bill Hyre knew about Plaintiff's prior EEO activity, her race, age, and sex. Bill Hyre and Louis Loman were the actual Selecting Official and Alternate Selecting Official (see ex. 105, p 1/5), SSP management was involved with plaintiff's non-referral and the “notepad content” serves as compelling evidence to support this. Ms. Stout Closing] certificates (certs as they are called) as unused” and “cleared searches” for SSP management and the “notepad” proves this. A few of the comments from the “Part D-Remarks from the requesting Office is below. Many other comments are found on the “notepad.” These two sections of the 3-page Request for Personnel Action (RPA) can be found at exhibit 105, p 4/5-part D. One can see that Human Resouree Center (HRC Northwest) Specialist Judith Stout, has cleared several database query “matches.” Plaintiff believes her name appeared on some of these “debarred” matches, but was later removed when “matches were cleared” and “Closed cert as unused” was directed. See the “Debarred Cleared by EIC (jstout).” Also certificates eligible candidates were “closed as unused” because “no selection made from cert. Closed as unused. Email to PPP to clear matches.” These notes and messages point to very unethical/illegal practices by HR staff that Plaintiff believes kept her from being listed on the cert. that Mike Mendoza was selected from (ex. 105 pp 4-5/5), Plaintiff applied for the Management Analyst, NH-0343-03, position and completed the occupational questionnaire, but Plaintiff was discriminated by Bill Hyre (Selecting Official), « ayCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Louis Loman (Alternate Selecting Official), Theresa Sidbury (SSP HR), and Human Resource Staffing Specialist Judith Stout (HRSC Northwest). HRSC Northwest Specialist, Ms. Stout, assisted SSP Selecting Officials Bill Hyre, and Alternate Selecting Official Louis Loman in the opening and closing of certificates and “clearing” searches until SSP management/Selecting Official Louis Loman got a certificate to their liking (ex. ?? Ms. Stout does not have to know Plaintiff, She assisted SSP management who were aware of Plaintiff's EEO activity to keep her of the certificate of eligible candidates by clearing searches Plaintiff's name appeared on, then “Closed cert as unused” until a certificate of eligible is achieved that SSP can make their selection from: “management would like to make a selection. Initiated a one-time clear of PPP and issued a new cert.” Moreover, this is compelling evidence that Bill Hyre lied under oath when he stated that he did not discriminate against Plaintiff. This is also compelling evidence why Mr. Hyre left SSP after working there for 25 years to take another GS-15 job at the Department of ‘Transportation. Mr. Hyre stated that he left SSP for career advancement, but he was still a GS-15 when he was deposed on 03/25/2019. Mr. Hyre stood a better chance of advancement at SSP afier working there for 25 years instead of going tom another agency for another GS-15 management position. Plaintiff believes Mr. Hyre left SSP because the language under notes is compelling evidence that he had discriminated against Plaintiff and he left to protect his job and retirement. ‘The “notepad content” serves as compelling evidence of well documented discrimination and reveals why Plaintiff has been non-selected for every promotion she has applied for over the entire 21 years of her career. ‘The document Plaintiff's referring to is the “notepad” section of a Request for Personnel Action (RPA) for the Management Analyst Plaintiff was non-selected for in DON-15-00303-03003. The “notepad content” below clearly shows collusion between Human aL mHCivil Action No. 17-1472 (DLF) Resource Center (HRSC Northwest) Specialist Judith Stout (“Judi S” on “notepad content”) and SSP Selecting Officials Bill Hyre and Louis Loman to disadvantage Plaintiff in appearing on a certificate of eligible candidates for the Management Analyst position by “Closfing] certificates fo command to see (certs as they are called) as unused” and messages being forwarded such as “Em: if they want the matches cleared now or after the certificate is issued/worked,” and “No selection made from Cert, Closed cert as unused Email to PPP to clear matches accordingly.” This is clear evidence that certificates were opened and closed at will to non-select Plaintiff; database queries Plaintiff appeared on as a “match” were “cleared” and re-queried until SSP Management got a database query to their liking, which supports a message such as: “management would like to make a selection. Initiated a one-time clear of PPP and issued a new cert.” ‘There are other highly discriminatory notes and messages that would lead a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Plaintiff has been boldly discriminated against by SSP management in like fashion for decades, There is a pattern of opening and closing certs for every one of Plaintiff's non-selection that will ‘be addressed in the enclosed documents, but those left behind in the Management Analyst RPA are bold and blatant and paint a clear picture of what I have been subjected to for 21-years of my career and is in consistent with the declaration of SSP HR Director, Ms. Jeanne Walls. Very respectfully, Ae fF wh Katrina L. Webster He kalrinawebst@aol.com 1% { 9f2214 Plaintiff Pro Se a217-1472-DLP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KATRINA L. WEBSTER, Plaintiff Civil Action No, 17-1472-DLF v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, U.S. Department of the Navy, et al., Defendant. ORDER UPON CONSIDRATION OF PLA it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is Granted. SO ORDERED this day of, 52019. Date: Dabney L. Friedrich United States JudgeCase No. 17-1472-DLF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this Monday the 2nd day of December 2019, the foregoing PRO SE PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. AND. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE Have both, in addition to exhibits in pdf format, been served on Defendant by email, MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL D.C. Bar # 416587 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 555 4th Street, N.W. — Civil Division Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2561 Marina.Braswell@usdoj.gov bud Counsel for Defendant Katrina L. Webster Date: Monday, 12/02/2019 Plaintiff, Pro Se katrinawebst@aol.com