The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2023

50 JULY-AUGUST 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL On the EEO Track We then entered the equal employment opportunity (EEO) process and were assigned a counselor, who attempted to medi- ate a resolution. Our counselor spent hours discussing the case with the parties involved, as well as with various officials in the EEO office. The issue of “reasonable accommodation” under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 often came up. Senior officials in HR’s recruitment office believed that the ERC process itself was evidence of the department’s efforts to offer reasonable accommodation. Others argued that the potential expense of the medevac of our chil- dren, if that ever became necessary, was beyond what could be considered reasonable. The case was eventually brought before the ERC for a third time, in August 1995, with the same negative result (the four FSOs on the panel voted no, while the EEO lawyer and the handicap coordinator voted yes). The director of the recruitment office sent me a letter in September 1995 informing me of the ERC result and adding that my FSO candidacy would be terminated. Down but not out, I filed an EEO complaint, which was accepted for investigation. It was around this time that we sought legal counsel. I was not a regular reader of the Metro Section of The Washington Post , but one day, by a happenstance that in hindsight seems providential, I read an article on the case of female guards at Lorton Prison and their representation by the D.C. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. We called the Lawyers’ Committee to request assistance. They evaluated the case and put us in touch with attorney Warren Asher, a skillful, methodical, and fervent advocate of disability rights with the prestigious firm of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering. Mr. Asher agreed to take the case pro bono in December 1995. With Mr. Asher on board as representation, our role in manag- ing the case decreased. We had to provide testimony; but, other- wise, the case slowly wound its way through the Equal Employ- ment Opportunity Commission and reached the top of the Justice Department. Then, after months of alternating apprehension and cautious hope, we got a call fromMr. Asher in July 1996 with news that the department wanted to settle. He said the Justice Department had told State its case was very weak, and it needed to resolve the issue. Papers were quickly drawn up for signature. I agreed to keep the terms of the settlement confidential, but I can say that we never asked for anything other than the job. I was assigned to the 80th A-100 class for incoming officers, which convened in September 1996—almost three years after I had passed the written exam. While I prepared to enter the class, we learned that a memo circulated in the department after our settlement changing the hiring policy: candidates’ employment no longer would be contingent on the medical conditions of family members. In addition, family members could henceforth receive Class 2 clearances during preemployment medical exams, though FSO candidates were still required to receive Class 1. The Process of Historic Change Although we had prevailed, Mr. Asher was disappointed that the State Department was not required to eliminate preemploy- ment medical exams for candidates, as well as family members. Tragically, he succumbed to cancer within a year of the conclu- sion of our case. His efforts, however, though not meeting his own high standard of success, contributed to a historic change in how the State Department treated the family members of incoming officers. Almost 27 years later, the Meyer, et al. settlement reform- ing the policy of worldwide availability to accommodate persons with medical conditions goes a long way toward reaching his goal. The case was a long, hard battle. Reading through the records while drafting this article, I was reminded how hopeless our predicament at times appeared. I also relived some of the stress and self-doubt my wife and I suffered as State MED and HR questioned our judgment and stonewalled our quest for fair and equal treatment. But it reminded us, too, of the people who saw the injustice in our case and provided us with so much help. I realized, as well, that the confidentiality agreement I signed as part of the settlement created a psychological barrier to my shar- ing the story all these years. As I now approach age-out retirement as a Senior FSO, I can look back on a successful, productive, and rewarding career serv- ing my country. Were it not for some luck, determination, and the help of a few intrepid allies, however, my opportunity to serve may have been snuffed out by discrimination, arrogance, and bureau- cratic inertia. I will note in closing that, contrary to the depart- ment’s grave warnings, we only ever served at hardship posts; our children never had to be medevac’d for their eye conditions; and, now approaching middle age, they still enjoy healthy eyesight. n Indeed, as far as I know, our case was the first to crack open the department’s rigid position on worldwide availability for career candidates and their family members.