GovernmentExecutive.com

Ralph Grayson was promoted to special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Chicago office in 1993, after nearly 19 years of service with the agency. At the time, Grayson was one of only a few blacks holding that position at the agency.

In 1997, a white female special agent accused Grayson of sexual harassment. An agency investigation determined that no action was necessary in regard to the allegations. However, when the female agent was transferred to another office shortly after lodging her complaint, she filed another complaint against Grayson, this time alleging retaliation.

The Secret Service began investigating the female agent's complaint and decided it should be dismissed, but in the course of the investigation the agency uncovered a pattern of improper behavior by Grayson. Among other things, he had accepted gratuities from private organizations, retaliated against employees who complained about him or opposed his policies, harassed and discriminated against female employees, and treated black employees more favorably than others.

The agency decided to conduct a management review of the Chicago field office. The investigators received more than 100 complaints from special agents in that office, the Chicago Police Department, businesses in the area and Secret Service employees who had previously worked under Grayson.

After the managerial review, Grayson received an unsatisfactory rating on his annual performance review and was reassigned to the Washington office because of his history of retaliating against employees who complained about him. Grayson kept his rank, received the same pay and was given a government car and office. The agency also paid for his travel back and forth to Chicago to visit his family. The agency offered Grayson the opportunity to retire, and he left the agency in March 1998.

Grayson then filed several complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging he was discriminated against by the Secret Service. All of his complaints were denied. Grayson also filed a discrimination complaint in federal district court. According to Grayson, "a climate of racism permeated the Secret Service and targeted minorities." In 1999, the court granted a partial judgment to the Secret Service because Grayson was late filing his complaint, but Grayson's other complaints were still pending.

In 2000, the federal district court ruled in favor of the Secret Service after deciding that Grayson had not proved his discrimination claims. Grayson appealed that decision.

"Grayson engaged in a pattern of behavior that was inappropriate, not to mention deplorable, for a special agent in charge of a large field office," the court said in its decision. "Well over 100 complaints were lodged against him detailing his behavior, for which he offers no excuses. In this appeal, Grayson again shamelessly refuses to accept responsibility for his own misguided activity and instead points the finger at those that investigated him."

The Federal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Secret Service.

Ralph Grayson v. Treasury Department, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. #01-3160), October 25, 2002

Full Relief

Dorothy Dillard, an employee of the Health and Human Services Department, claimed her boss retaliated against her when she refused his sexual advances.

Dillard, a doctor at the Indian Health Services Clinic in Fort Totten, N.D., filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the clinic director had sexually harassed her and then retaliated against her by denying her sick leave and refusing to lighten her workload when she injured herself. After an investigation, the EEOC ruled in favor of Dillard and directed the department to pay her attorney's fees and offer her compensatory damages for both tangible and emotional losses she suffered from the harassment.

The commission also ordered HHS to throw out the leave restrictions placed on Dillard, take disciplinary actions against the clinic director and send him to training to correct his behavior.

HHS asked Dillard for an itemized list of damages and attorney's fees, but instead of providing the list, she went ahead and filed a civil suit against the department in federal court.

In turn, HHS requested a summary judgment, claiming that federal employees are not allowed to file lawsuits in federal courts until they have exhausted all administrative remedies. HHS lawyers cited Briley v. Carlon, a 1999 case in which the 8th Circuit Court ruled that employees who reject an offer to recover full damages following administrative proceedings are not allowed to file a suit in federal court.

But the U.S. District Court of North Dakota, Northeastern Division, denied the department's motion for summary judgment. In its decision, the court explained that the Code of Federal Regulations was revised after the Briley case, and as a result, "an aggrieved federal employee is no longer required to accept an offer of full relief." The regulations were changed because it was "virtually impossible" for employees to determine if they had really received an offer for full relief, according to the ruling.

Dorothy Dillard, M.D., v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (No. A2-01-115), Oct. 15, 2002