THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | NOVEMBER 2024 19 against me and was seeking an onward position in our bureau using my supervisor as a reference. That person did not divulge the conflict of interest or recuse themself from my case. • I met with AFSA, but there was nothing they could do until I had a completed EER as evidence of “harm.” My supervisors did not sign off on my EER until post management finally pushed it through in December 2019, after I had retained outside lawyers. Meanwhile, the EEO process requires action within 45 days. • I first attempted to go through the State Department’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism rather than file a legal suit. However, in November 2019, the department declined my request, stating: “It is S/OCR’s policy to decline cases involving agency decisions of curtailments and medical clearances being revoked.” My only alternative at that point was to file a formal complaint. In the summer of 2021, the State Department requested use of the ADR to reach a settlement in my case. Would it have been possible to reach an agreement much earlier (and more cheaply) if we had used ADR in 2019? e The State Department has made progress since my case in many meaningful ways that I hope will prevent further occurrence of cases like mine. I like to think my case helped prompt some of these improvements, but my case alone could not be responsible. I know others in the department have suffered similarly, because I was not the only State Department employee in inpatient and outpatient treatment. I know because there is a support group for victims of bullying in the State Department with nearly 150 members. My main recommendation, based on my experience, concerns accountability. I do not mean accountability to the victim—I have been compensated adequately. I mean accountability to U.S. taxpayers: They are the ones who pay the price for the costs that bullying and mismanagement impose on our ability to further national security interests abroad. Apart from accountability, the department should explicitly state that all EER statements must be truthful and contain no fabricated information, and that willful misrepresentation in an EER will incur strict penalties. As it is, department regulations only specify that EERs should be fair and accurate, but do not state that willful fabrications and inaccuracies are not acceptable. The department should consider incorporating feedback from subordinates into the files of anyone in a managerial position, either through the EER process or some other mechanism. e I share my experience so that other victims know they are not alone and that there is hope. As long as this sort of behavior remains a dirty secret in the State Department, perpetrators will continue to act with impunity. Many of their targets may choose to leave the department altogether, but I hope they remain. I frequently recall the response I received from a psychiatrist while I was in the hospital, struggling to understand what drove my supervisors to their actions. “Sometimes people choose to do the easy wrong thing instead of the hard right thing.” I believe that at State the answers lie in making it easier for people to do the right thing and harder to do the wrong thing. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=