Introduction

• The remand project was commissioned by the Director of OEDCA and was overseen by the Associate Director

• Purpose: Gain incite on how many cases were being remanded to ORM and at what rate our attorneys issued these remands– Gain an understanding for the most common

reason(s) for why cases were being remanded – Assess trends of remands over the course of FY

2010, FY 2011 & FY2012– Develop suggestions / strategies for more thorough

investigations

TrendsFY 2004-FY 2012

1236

1379

921 868

843

995998

1036

570

52 89 52 53 71 51 52 81 394% 6% 6% 6% 8% 5% 5% 8% 7%0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 (April 30th)

# of Cases Closed

# of Remands

Percentages

Cases Closed and Remands

Statistical Analysis(Raw Numbers)

FY 2010• Remands: 52

• Cases Closed: 998

FY 2011• Remands: 81

• Cases Closed: 1036

FY 2012• Remands: 39

• Cases Closed: 570

Statistical Analysis of Remands

5%

8%

7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Remanded Cases

Remanded Cases

Fiscal Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f C

ases

Rem

and

ed

ATTORNEY FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Attorney 1 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Remands: 15Cases Closed: 44

Remands: 7Cases Closed: 31

Attorney 2 Remands: 2Cases Closed: 62

Remands: 2Cases Closed: 56

Remands: 3Cases Closed: 22

Attorney 3 Remands: 0 Cases Closed: 74

Remands: 4Cases Closed: 63

Remands: 1Cases Closed: 35

Attorney 4 Remands: 5Cases Closed: 68

Remands: 2Cases Closed: 66

Remands: 2Cases Closed: 33

Attorney 5 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Remands: 4Cases Closed: 48

Remands: 4Cases Closed: 23

Attorney 6 Remands: 3Cases Closed: 68

Remands: 4Cases Closed: 68

Remands: 2Cases Closed: 31

Attorney 7 Remands: 8Cased Closed: 61

Remands: 11Cases Closed: 69

Remands: 4Cases Closed: 30

Attorney 8 Remands: 8Cases Closed: 111

Remands: 5Cases Closed: 105

Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Attorney 9 Remands: 4Cases Closed: 59

Remands: 12Cases Closed: 50

Remands: 5Cases Closed: 28

Attorney 10 Remands: 3Cases Closed: 57

Remands: 4Cases Closed: 51

Remands: 2Cases Closed: 20

Attorney 11 Remands: 0Cases Closed: 41

Remands: 1Cases Closed: 52

Remands: 0Cases Closed: 13

Attorney 12 Remands: 5Cases Closed: 75

Remands: 8Cases Closed: 65

Remands: 5Cases Closed: 22

Attorney 13 Remands: 8Cases Closed: 65

Remands: 8Cases Closed: 58

Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Attorney 14 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Remands: 2Cases Closed: 29

Attorney 15 Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Remands: N/ACases Closed: N/A

Remands: 3Cases Closed: 24

Statistical AnalysisBreakdown by Attorney

12%

3%

7%

4%

13%

7% 7% 5% 7%

0%

12%

4% 3%6%

16%

5%

24%

8%

12%

6%

2%

34%

8%6% 6%

13%

18%

10%

23%

3%

0

17%13%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

REMANDS

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012

Attorney

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Reason for Remands Key

• FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS- General questions usually directed toward the investigator to clarify certain issues.• INSUFFICIENT TESTIMONY• More Detailed Responses-the information provided by those involved in the case was not sufficient. More

information is needed to render a decision.• Failure to Interview all Witnesses- Those whose testimony plays an integral part in the case were not interviewed

by the investigator.• Re-Interview Witness-Those involved in the case were initially interviewed, but must be re-interviewed so that the

investigator can ask further questions.• MISSING DOCUMENTS- Certain documents were excluded from the Complainant’s case file.• REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS- Additional documents that were not initially provided are needed for

the attorney to render a decision.• MISSING INFO. FROM DOCUMENTS- Investigators provided the proper documentation, but certain information

was missing or redacted from the document (i.e a complainant’s disability, dates that certain events occurred, or information that indicates a person’s age)

• CLARIFICATION OF CLAIM/ISSUE- Based on the written investigation, the issue(s)/claim(s) that the Complainant is alleging are not clear or may not fall under a protected bases, based on the way the claim is worded.

• PROCEDURAL• Claims Erroneously Dismissed-ORM improperly dismissed claims that did not warrant dismissal or ORM dismissed

claims without consideration to certain documents and criteria.• Failure to Investigate/Process Claim(s)- Certain claims that were alleged were not investigated at all; claims were

not investigated on the bases alleged; Cases were processed as mixed cases and shouldn’t have been; Certain claims that should have been investigated as independent were investigated as disparate treatment, reasonable accommodation or under the wrong standard.

TEMPLATESFY 2010

Complainant's Name Reason Remanded Issue Attorney

Complainant 1Clarification of Claim/Issue Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1

Complainant 2Missing information from document (dates) Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 3

Removal

Complainant 3Missing Documents Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1

Request for additional documents

Complainant 4Clarification of Claim/Issue Termination Attorney 4

Complainant 5Insufficient Testimony-more detailed Harassment (sexual) Attorney 7

Complainant 6 Request for additional documents Non-selection Attorney 3

Follow-Up Questions

TEMPLATESSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF REMANDS

Attorney's Name: SAMPLE

REASON REMANDED FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total

Follow Up Questions

Insufficient Testimony (all)More detailed responses

Failure to Interview all witnesses

Re-interview Witness

Missing Documents

Request for Additional Documents

Missing Info. From documents

Clarification of Claim/Issue

Procedural (all)Claims Erroneously Dismissed

Failure to Investigate/Process claims

Claims Erroneously Accepted

Statistical AnalysisA number of cases were remanded for several reasons therefore the amount s below exceed the actual total

of cases that were remanded*

REASON REMANDED FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total

RAW NUMBERS

Follow Up Questions 22 22 25 69

Insufficient Testimony (all) 24 36 19 79

More detailed responses 12 10 2 24

Failure to Interview all witnesses 11 19 10 40

Re-interview Witness 1 7 7 15

Missing Documents 15 32 11 58

Request for Additional Documents 13 13 8 34

Missing Info. From documents 2 2 2 6

Clarification of Claim/Issue 3 10 5 18

Procedural (all) 6 11 7 24

Claims Erroneously Dismissed 1 5 4 10

Failure to Investigate/Process claims 5 6 2 13

Claims Erroneously Accepted 0 0 1 1

TOTAL 85 126 77 288

Statistical AnalysisA number of cases were remanded for several reasons therefore the percentages below exceed the actual percentage of cases

that were remanded*

PERCENTAGES-Out of the reasons why cases were remanded*

REASON REMANDED FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Follow Up Questions 26% 17% 32%

Insufficient Testimony (all) 28% 29% 25%

More detailed responses 14% 8% 3%

Failure to Interview all witnesses 13% 15% 13%

Re-interview Witness 1% 6% 9%

Missing Documents 18% 25% 14%

Request for Additional Documents 15% 10% 10%

Missing Info. From documents 2% 2% 3%

Clarification of Claim/Issue 4% 8% 6%

Procedural (all) 7% 9% 9%

Claims Erroneously Dismissed 1% 4% 5%

Failure to Investigate/Process claims 6% 5% 3%

Claims Erroneously Accepted 0% 0% 1%

Statistical AnalysisFrequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved

FY 2010

26%

11%

11%8%

3%

13%

3%

13%

3%

1%0%

3%

1%

1% 0% 0%1% 1%0%0% 0% 1% Non-SelectionHarassment (non-sexual)Reasonable AccommodationReassignmentRemovalSuspensionHarassment (sexual)TerminationTime & AttendancePerformance AppraisalDutiesPayConstructive DischargePromotion Written CounselingTrainingAppointment/HireAdmonishmentDuty HoursDemotion PIPReprimand

Statistical AnalysisFrequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved

FY 2011

21%

19%

12%

1%

6%

4%

5%

6%

4%

5%

4%

1%

2% 2%

2% 2% 1% 0%1%1% 1%0%Non-SelectionHarassment (non-sexual)Reasonable AccommodationReassignmentRemovalSuspensionHarassment (sexual)TerminationTime & AttendancePerformance AppraisalDutiesPayConstructive DischargePromotion Written CounselingTrainingAppointment/HireAdmonishmentDuty HoursDemotion PIPReprimand

Statistical AnalysisFrequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved

FY 2012

11%

23%

18%12%

2%

6%

2%

6%

4%

3%

3%

3%

1% 1%

3%

1%0%1%0% 0% 0% 0% Non-SelectionHarassment (non-sexual)Reasonable AccommodationReassignmentRemovalSuspensionHarassment (sexual)TerminationTime & AttendancePerformance AppraisalDutiesPayConstructive DischargePromotion Written CounselingTrainingAppointment/HireAdmonishmentDuty HoursDemotion PIPReprimand

Statistical Analysis

0.3%

0.2%

0.4%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Cases Remanded Twice

Cases Remanded Twice

Fiscal Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f C

ase

s

Recommendations

• Request that complainant and witnesses be explicit in the manner in which they answer questions

• Present questions in a different manner until you get the information needed

• Ask follow up questions; require specificity• Interview all witnesses, including RMOs and essentially anyone involved in

the case• Remember to request all information/documents i.e. vacancy

announcements, medical documentation etc.• Review all documents that are submitted thoroughly to make sure no info

is missing i.e. dates, names of officials, etc.• Be clear when articulating claims and issues • When considering whether or not a claim should be accepted determine

whether the claim/issue pertains to a protected basis• Review and understand criteria that warrants when a claim should be

dismissed.