| Site Index:  |
Case
16 - Diersen's Ongoing Quest for
Colorblind Justice |
 |
Complete text of Diersen's comments to OPM, re: protections against reverse discrimination and age discrimination in OPM policies. |
DAVID JOHN DIERSEN Phone: 630-653-0462 Fax: 630-653-9665 August 10, 1999 Mr. Gregory Zygiel Dear Mr. Zygiel: RE: Comments on Interim OPM Criteria for IRS Broadbanding System
The following criteria should be added under Part V of the above referenced proposal:
Underlying assumptions of this comment letter include that a) giving preference to any group of employees because of their demographics means that another group of employees is being discriminated against, b) all forms of preference giving in the workplace based on demographics is divisive and illegal, and c) all employment decisions should be based solely on merit principles and equal employment opportunity. If IRS’s experience with broadbanding (BB) and pay-for-performance (PFP) follows the experience that GAO has had with those systems, a) the careers of IRS’s minorities and females, especially those who are younger, and employees who help IRS managers give preference to those groups will advance significantly and b) the careers of IRS’s whites and males, especially older employees at the lower GS levels, and employees who complain about age discrimination or reverse discrimination will fall behind significantly. Sadly, advocates of demographics based preference giving would applaud such developments. At a minimum, IRS should be required to keep, analyze, and report sufficient employment data so that it, its oversight board, Congress, and the public can determine if implementation of BB and PFP causes the careers of IRS employees to advance or fall behind because a) of their demographics, b) they help IRS managers give preference to certain groups, or c) they complain about age discrimination or reverse discrimination. This data should include job assignment, developmental opportunity, leadership role, bonus, pay increase, promotion, demographic, and complaint data. I worked under BB and PFP for 9 years at GAO. Because I am an older white male who complained about age discrimination and reverse discrimination, GAO abused the flexibility in BB and PFP to a) deny me job assignments, developmental opportunities, leadership roles, bonuses, pay increases, and promotions and b) retaliate against me for complaining. Basically, GAO wasted my career because of my demographics. GAO employment data shows that the careers of its employees who share my demographics, especially those who complained about age discrimination or reverse discrimination, fell behind significantly and many have retired early or otherwise left the agency. By way of background, in 1970 I earned a bachelor of science degree in personnel management from Northern Illinois University and in 1976 I earned an MBA with personnel management as my area of concentration from Loyola University. I have always been a close observer of the employment decisions that my superiors have made. In 1980, after working for IRS’s Chicago District Collection Division as a Revenue Officer and Special Procedures Staff Advisor for 9 years, I transferred to GAO’s Chicago Field Office as an Evaluator. I left IRS primarily because promotion opportunities there were very limited, especially for employees with my demographics (white, male, non-veteran). However, at GAO, I soon learned that those demographics also worked against me, and in addition, my age was also viewed as being a major problem. At age 31, just about everyone in GAO’s Chicago Field Office, except the older white male who hired me, considered me to be too old to have a successful career at GAO. It was not until early 1986 that the individual who hired me was able to assign me to an audit of IRS. For the first time, I could use my knowledge of IRS policies and procedures to help GAO accomplish its mission. That led directly to my promotion to GS-13 in late 1986 and my being given an Evaluator-In-Charge role on a follow up audit of IRS in 1987. However, in late 1987, GAO succeeded in forcing the individual who hired me to retire early and the limited protection that he had been able to provide me against age discrimination and reverse discrimination was gone. Since at least the early 1980s, pressure has steadily increased on GAO managers to give preferential treatment to its younger employees, minorities, and females. Factors aggravating this pressure included former Comptroller General (CG) Bowsher’s application of Arthur Andersen’s "up or out" philosophy to the agency’s white males, his mandate to give preference to younger employees, his admission that the previous CG had discriminated against blacks, affirmative action, diversity, and downsizing. Of course, this pressure necessarily resulted in discrimination against GAO’s older employees, whites, and males, especially at the Band I (GS-5/7/9/11/12) and Band II (GS-13/14) levels. In 1987, attorney Walter T. Charlton filed a class action age discrimination lawsuit against GAO, Chennareddy, et al v. Bowsher, Case No. 87-3538, in the District Court for the District of Columbia. My superiors have always been fully aware of my active support for that lawsuit. While Bowsher’s, former Acting CG Hinchman’s, and current CG Walker’s strenuous efforts to stonewall and delay Chennareddy have been successful, their efforts to have it dismissed have not. The lawsuit is still pending before Judge Penn and recently, he ordered the parties to consider settlement. Since 1988, I increasingly saw GAO give preferential treatment to its younger employees, especially to minorities and females, who were significantly less qualified than I was in terms of education, professional certifications, and/or work experience. Because of that, I made oral and written complaints about age discrimination and reverse discrimination to my superiors, to my Representative Henry Hyde, to GAO’s oversight committees, and to the media. GAO employees who received preferential treatment received preferred audit assignments; more and better developmental opportunities and leadership roles; more and larger bonuses and pay increases; and more and faster promotions. My superiors made it clear to me that I should not apply for promotions and that if I did, retaliation against me would increase. For a white male to have a chance of being promoted beyond Band II, he had to convince his superiors that he could and would do an exceptional job of giving preferential treatment to younger employees, minorities, and females. In 1989, notwithstanding strenuous objections from GAO Evaluators, especially from those at the GS-14 level, Bowsher imposed BB and PFP. It was clear from the onset that he imposed those systems to better help GAO managers a) give preference to younger Band I and II Evaluators, especially to minorities, females, and to those employees who helped them give preference to those groups and b) drive out its older Band II Evaluators, especially those who are white, male, and who had complained about age discrimination or reverse discrimination. GAO has consistently abused the flexibility in its BB and PFP systems to achieve those purposes. Analysis of the demographics of those GAO employees who advanced and those GAO employees who fell behind since 1989 shows the preferential treatment and discrimination that took place. That preferential treatment and discrimination is evidenced in a) the job assignments, developmental opportunities, and leadership roles GAO gave out under BB; b) the bonuses and pay increases GAO gave out under PFP; c) the promotion decisions GAO made; d) who GAO hired; and e) who left GAO. Since 1989, because I was over age 40, white, male, and had complained about age discrimination and reverse discrimination, GAO Chicago Field Office managers flagrantly abused the flexibility given them by BB and PFP to punitively keep me off assignments, including IRS assignments, in which I could contribute the most to GAO. They denied me developmental opportunities, leadership roles, and the bonuses and pay increases that I deserved. They discouraged me from applying for promotions. On October 1, 1993, at age 45, I first became eligible for early retirement and on September 30, 1997, at age 49, under threat of constructive demotion and adverse transfer, they succeeded in forcing me into early retirement. GAO’s investigation of my formal discrimination complaint was a sham. GAO continues to retaliate against me by sabotaging my efforts to find professional work. From the beginning, because my wife had a good job, we did not have any children, and we had savings, many at GAO characterized me as someone who was "born with a silver spoon in his mouth," as someone who did not deserve what he had, and as someone who was far better able than they were to pay the price of affirmative action. They cared nothing that my father was the first and only of my ancestors to attend high school and that I was the first to attend college, that I worked my way through college, that my score on the Federal Service Entrance Examination was the primary reason IRS offered me a job, and that my having passed all four parts of the CPA examination on my first attempt was the primary reason GAO offered me a job. After I complained about age discrimination and reverse discrimination, they characterized me as someone whose career fell behind solely because of serious performance problems. On July 30, 1998, attorney Charlton filed a second class action lawsuit against GAO, Diersen v. Hinchman, Case No. 98-1887, in the District Court for the District of Columbia charging it with age discrimination, reverse discrimination, and retaliation. Despite Walker’s strenuous efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed, it is still pending before Judge Robertson. GAO’s continuing efforts to sabotage my efforts to find professional work, as documented by three different reference checking companies on five different occasions, will soon be included in a second amended complaint. Chennareddy and Diersen are cited The Federal Employee News Digest, Federal Times, and Accounting Today in articles published on November 23, 1992, September 21, 1998, and December 14, 1998 respectively. Also, see Horror Story Number 5 concerning IRS and Number 16 concerning GAO posted at www.Adversity.Net. Just like their predecessors, Walker and IRS Commissioner Rossotti are under tremendous pressure to give preferential treatment to minorities and to females, especially to those who are younger. Pressure to give preferential treatment to gays and lesbians is increasing. Both Bowsher and Walker came from Arthur Andersen. Sadly, Walker has not said or done anything to repudiate Arthur Andersen’s "up or out" philosophy which is little more than age discrimination. Sadly, it seems that Walker is pleased that lawsuits are pending against GAO that allege age discrimination, reverse discrimination, and retaliation. Those lawsuits and his fighting them a) helps him persuade advocates of demographics based preference giving that he is doing everything he can to give preference to minorities and to females, especially to those who are young; b) encourages minorities and females, especially those who are young, to apply for jobs at GAO; c) encourages whites and males who will help GAO managers give preferential treatment to apply for jobs at GAO; d) encourages GAO’s whites and males, especially those who have complained about age discrimination or reverse discrimination, to leave GAO and to retire as soon as they are eligible; and e) encourages minorities and females to stay at GAO. Many believe that GAO’s personnel management policies and procedures either do serve or should serve as a model for the rest of the federal government. OPM should not take any final action on its proposal at least until Chennareddy and Diersen are resolved because those lawsuits include allegations that GAO abused its BB and PFP systems to give preferential treatment to its younger employees, minorities, and females; because those lawsuits allege that such preferential treatment resulted in age discrimination, reverse discrimination, and retaliation; and because of the direct relevance of those lawsuits to OPM’s proposal. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Charlton (410-571-8764) and please consider Mr. Charlton, Mr. Chennareddy, and me to be potential witnesses at any hearings that OPM might hold on its proposal. I look forward to learning OPM’s views on these very important issues. Sincerely, cc: J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives End Case 16 Attachment: Aug. 10, 1999 Diersen Letter to OPM |
Use your Browser's BACK button to return, or make another selection:
| Case 16: May 12, 1999 Letter to U.S. Attorney |
Case
16: Aug. 10, 1999 Letter to U.S. OPM |
Case 16: Additional Documents Diersen v. GAO (requires frames) |
Horror Stories (Case studies) MAIN Menu |
Main Site Index:
