1. The C4C Federal Exchange Newsletter Vol.2 / No.3 (March 2015) ISSN 2375-706X 1 | P a g e
. . .
The Judgment Fund was established to pay
court judgments and Justice Department
compromise settlements of actual or imminent
lawsuits against the government. Federal
agencies are required to reimburse the
Judgment Fund when cases are filed under the
Contract Disputes Act or the No FEAR Act
(Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act). The
statutory authority for the Fund is 31 U.S.C.
1304. "Judgment Fund Transparency" reports
are submitted to Congress detailing agency
activity. The report, which discloses the
amount of administrative and litigative funds,
is sorted alphabetically by the Defendant
Agency Name. CLICK HERE. To learn more
see The Judgment Fund: History,
Administration, and Common Usage
Congressional Research Service (March 7,
2013) By Vivian S. Chu and Brian T.Yeh
Promoting “ADO” Transparency
By
T. Ward Jordan, C4C Founder
Alleged Discriminating Officials (ADOs),
often referred to as "Responsible Management
Officials" are persons alleged to have
discriminated against an individual due to
his/her race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, disability, or in reprisal for prior
EEO activity. Many ADOs, armed with free
legal representation, fail to engage in
mediation to resolve employment complaints
at lowest level thereby increasing cost to the
taxpayers. The Coalition For Change, Inc.
(C4C), a civil rights advocacy group founded to
support present and former federal employees
injured due to workplace race discrimination
and retaliation, seeks an end to the escalating
civil rights violations in the federal
government. Towards this end, C4C promotes
“ADO transparency,” asserting that the names
of public officials identified in formal
complaints, grievances and /or lawsuits should
be disclosed. [According to the most recent
data on the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission website in FY 2012, 15,026
individuals filed 15,837 complaints alleging
employment discrimination against the federal
officials.]
THE C4C FEDERAL EXCHANGE
THE COALITION FOR CHANGE, INC. (C4C)
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
ISSN 2375-706X Volume 2 / No. 3 March 2015
HIGHLIGHTS IN THIS ISSUE:
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATING OFFICIALS 2
CASE: Webster v Rumsfield
EXCELLENT JOB REVIEW CAN STILL
BE CONSIDERED RETALIATION 3
DISCRIMINATING OFFICIALS 4
C4C MEMBERS” CORNER:
ANTHONY PERRY (PERRY v. MSPB) 4
A WORD FROM C4C GREETINGS CHAIR-
TERRI WILLIAMS: A Salute to C4C’s Founder 6

2. 2 | P a g e
JOHNSON, Ted
Commerce
CV-TDC14CV2862
MCGRATH, Brian
Commerce
Civil Action No: DC14CV2862
PATRONSKI, Timothy
Interior
MSPB Docket# CH-3443-14-0264-I-1
TRAXLER, Chuck
Interior
MSPB Docket# CH-3443-14-0264-I-1
VROBEL, Michael
General Services Administration
Case No. 12-5107
RIDGELY, Debbie
Health and Human Services
Civil Action No. 07-2128
MURPHY, Terryne F.
Commerce
Civil Action No: DC14CV2862
RHOADS, Matthew
Agriculture
Case No. RWT 08cv3015
MEERHOLZ, Thomas
Commerce
Case No. 09-CV-02672-AW
TAUBENHEIN, Ann
Health and Human Services-
MSPB Docket No. DC-0432-11-0815-1-2
Visit C4C’s RMO Page for an extended listing of
“Alleged Discriminating Officials.”
Persons listed as “Alleged Discriminating
Officials” may no longer work at the Department
where the alleged discriminatory act occurred;
however, persons have been identified in public
records by an aggrieved party as a person either
violating their or another parties civil rights. No
representation is being made about the case
completeness or culpability of any party.
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRUKONIS, Thomas
Commerce
Case No. 1.04-cv-00756
BEITER, Donna
Veterans Affairs
cv-13-6030-ODW (CW)
CADE, David
Health and Human Services
Civil No.WDQ-02-3533
COY, Curtis
Health and Human Services
Case No. 05-250 GK
HOLLIDAY, Lisa K
Veterans Affairs
cv-13-6030-ODW (CW)
HALL, Lyssa E.
Labor
Civil Action No. 10-2051
HILD, John
Defense
No. 09-2079
JONES, Franklin
Homeland Security
OWCP Docket No. 13-836
Alleged Discriminating Officials

3. 3 | P a g e
(Webster v. Rumsfeld)
No. 04-1739, 4th Cir., 2005
Excellent Job Review Can Still Be
Considered Retaliation.
Kirk Webster, a government employee, filed a
series of race-discrimination complaints that
were settled. When he was moved to another
position, Webster earned an "excellent" job
rating, plus a pay increase. Still, he filed a
retaliation lawsuit because his rating was not
high enough to earn a bonus that year. Webster
alleged that the lower rating was reprisal for
his earlier race-bias complaints. The Court of
Appeals reversed a lower court’s ruling that
Webster failed to establish any adverse
employment action for his discrimination and
retaliation claim. The Court of Appeals found
that Webster had alleged adverse employment
actions sufficient to at least pursue discovery
into his claims. [Retaliation arises when an
employer "takes an adverse action against a
person because he or she is engaged in a
protected activity.” While giving someone an
"excellent" performance rating may appear like
a nondiscriminatory act, the Webster court
case shows even high acclaim can be
considered retaliation if the review is worse
than a previous one and it hurts the employee's
ability to earn a bonus or promotion. READ
MORE CLICK HERE.]
Special Counsel EX REL
Elmers v. Veterans Affairs (VA)
CBb-1208-15-0007-U-1
MSPB Approves Stay Request to Halt
Employee Termination.
In this case the Office of Special Counsel
(OSC) granted Coleen Elmers a 45-day stay of
a proposed termination. Under 5 USC
1214(b)(1)(A)(i), OSC may request any
member of the MSPB to order a stay of any
personal action for 45 days if OSC determined
that they are reasonable grounds to believe that
the personnel action was taken, or is to be taken
as a result of prohibited personnel practice.
In this stay request -- OSC alleges that Coleen
Elmer filed a complaint with the VA office of
Inspector General in July 2014 about a
fraudulently altered performance evaluation
and that just three (3) months later, in October
2014 her supervisor rated her performance as
unsatisfactory charging her with lack of candor,
failure to follow instructions and inappropriate
behavior for a management official resulting in
a notice that she was being terminated. In this
case, the OSC found that Ms. Elmers’
disclosures were protected, relevant agency
officials were aware of those disclosures and
the protected disclosure was a contributing
factor to her termination. MSPB ordered that
the VA reinstate Ms. Elmer to her former
position.
IN THE NEWS
The EEOC has issued an advanced
Notice of Propose Rulemaking on
the Federal EEO complaint process.
The EEOC seeks ways to make the
process more "user friendly" and
"more effective." The C4C has in the
past submitted comments to the
EEOC and will do so again. If you
would like to submit your ideas for
our consolidated input, then please
forward to the c4c email address at
c4c@coalition4change.org by March
20th. You may also send your
comments directly to the EEOC by
April 7th. See specific seven (7)
questions the EEOC has invited the
public to respond to by visiting link
HERE.

4. 4 | P a g e
Bully In the Federal Workplace
“Bullying is not just a stain on our
society; it is, in fact, deeply woven
into the very fabric of our national
being…”
Jim Moore Huffington Post Nov. 7, 2013
C4C MEMBERS’ CORNER . . .
Mr. Anthony Perry
Perry v. MSPB
Before the U.S. Court of Appeals For the
District of Columbia Circuit N0 14-1155
MIXED-CASE A JURISDICTIONAL
MATTER. Anthony Perry, a C4C member,
has a long civil service history and
substantial claims of mistreatment
against his former employing agency, the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of
Census. In 2011 and 2012, according to
Mr. Perry, Census officials suspended and
forced him to resign for reasons that were
unsubstantiated and discriminatory. Since
then, Perry has sought to appeal those
adverse employment actions before the
Merit Systems Protection Board (the
Board). His (mixed-cases) claims have
become lost in the complex maze of
administrative and judicial review the
Civil Service Reform Act created for
federal employees who allege those
serious personnel actions were motivated
by discrimination. Notably, on December
18, 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia ORDERED that the parties address
in their briefs (1) whether the U.S. Court of
Appeals For the District of Columbia Circuit
court has jurisdiction to hear Perry’s case
under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B); and (2) if not,
whether this case should be transferred to the
Federal Circuit or a district court
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) or (2). The
Court further ordered the law firm of Kirkland
& Ellis LLP to do an amicus brief on behalf of
Mr. Perry. The firm argues on p.11 of its
brief that “the Supreme Court recently
and unanimously confirmed that
district court review is the rule for
mixed cases regardless of whether the
Board reached the merits of a
petitioner’s claims.” Click HERE to view
brief.
VETERANS AFFAIRS
JEANETTE BUTLER
Saunders v. VA EEOC 270-2005-00013X
INTERIOR
CRAIG LITTLEJOHN
Pierre v. Interior, EEOC Case No. 570-2008-
00625X
BUREAU OF PRISONS
MICHAEL BRANCH
Brooks v. Holder, EEOC No. 410-2010-0330X
OWENS, JOHN
Coleman v. Holder, BOP-2010-0869
HOMELAND SECURITY
DANNY HALE
PETER IMBROGNO
Spicer v. Chertoff, EEOC No. 140-2003-8108x

5. 5 | P a g e
Just In Case You MISSED It . . .
[Click Article Heading]
Federal Torts Claims Act II, U.S. Attorneys’
Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 1 January. 2011.
Employers Aren’t Mind-Readers and Shouldn’t
Be Forced to Pry Into Employees’ Religious
Beliefs, January 2015. Re: EEOC v Acrombie
& Fitch Case - Whether Title VII requires
employers to ferret out any potential conflicts
between their workplace policies and their
employees’ religious practices, and whether
employers can be held liable even where they
have no knowledge of any such conflicts.
GSA loses appeal in firings of top officials;
appeals board orders them reinstated
By Lisa Rein December 26, 2014.
Plaintiff Brings Suit Against A Federal
Employee In State Court. Linda Jacobs, an
employee of the General Services
Administration sued her supervisor, Michael
Vrobel in the District of Columbia Superior
Court for defamation and interference with her
attempts to secure alternative employment.
The U.S. Attorney General certified that
Vrobel's conduct was within the scope of his
employment, thus removing the case to federal
district court and substituting the United
States as the defendant. Concluding that
Vrobel did in fact act within the scope of his
employment, the district court dismissed the
suit as jurisdictionally barred by the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Mem. Op., Jacobs v.
Vrobel, No. 11–cv–953 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012).
On appeal, Jacobs argued that Vrobel's conduct
was outside the scope of his employment.
However, the Court of Appeals disagreed
and affirmed the district court's dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
According to a New Study, Blacks Are Losing
Out to—Wait for It—African Americans
Roots, Jason Johnson, Feb. 27, 2015
“A group of white study participants were
asked about their view of “blacks” as opposed
to African Americans.” The results might
surprise you.”

6. 6 | P a g e
A WORD FROM …C4C’s Greetings Chair
~Terri L. Williams
In Honor of Women History Month, I want to recognize, Ms. Tanya Ward Jordan who is a great woman of
God, courage, beauty and love. Her story will be told and remembered because she steadfastly pursues what
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ms. Rosa Park and so many other civil right leaders marched and died for –
“equality and justice for all!” Tanya has a passion that burns deep inside of her soul - to stop the injustice
throughout the federal government. She is a fearless “civil rights whistleblower” recognizing that bias
inclinations of public officials filter into decisions related to the dispensation of federal services and costs the
taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Once a lead plaintiff in the Howard, et. al v. Gutierrez race-based
class action lawsuit, involving over 5,000 African Americans, Tanya challenged the discriminatory practices of
Department of Commerce officials. Her painful encounters with inequity as a Black federal employee spurred
her to form the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C). The C4C, a volunteer civil rights organization founded in
2009 and based in Washington, DC, addresses race discrimination and retaliation in the federal government.
The group largely provides informational and spiritual support to Black Americans who challenge civil rights
violations by federal government officials.
In 2005, Ms. Ward Jordan received a “No FEAR” Award from Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for her
input into Public Law 107–174, known as “Notification and Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act
0f 2002, which was the first United States civil rights law of the 21st Century. In February 2013 she received
the Fannie Lou Hammer – Civil Rights Activists of the Year Award from the African American Voice
Newspaper. Presently, she serves as a film advisor for “The Last American Plantation,” a short
documentary by the Arts, Trade & Lifestyle Media Group, Inc. about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
widely known discriminatory practices towards minority farmers and employees. Tanya has authored The
Personnel Demonstration Project--the New Spoils System (1999); Breaking the Invisible Chains: A Guide for
African-Americans to the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process (2001); and The
Denial of a Reality: Obstacles Facing African Americans in the Federal Workplace (2013). She continues to
serve as a panelist at the annual Whistleblower Summit in Washington, D.C. addressing racial inequality in
the federal sector. In the photo below C4C’s President poses with Mr. Michael McCray (organizer of Annual
Whistleblower Summit) and Mr. Matthew Fogg, Founder of Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law
Enforcement.
M. McCray (Left); T. Ward Jordan (Center) and M. Fogg (Right)
Tanya’s favorite bible verse is Romans 8:28. This verse has gotten her through the most difficult times.
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,
to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
We honor and appreciate you, Tanya Ward Jordan! To God be the Glory! ~~ Terri Williams

7. 7 | P a g e
Missed a C4C EXCHANGE
Newsletter? If so click here.
The C4C Federal Exchange monthly
newsletter obtained its ISSN from the Library
of Congress in October 2014. The e-zine covers
everything from employment cases, book
reviews, analyses of current breaking crises to
pithy editorials on stress and wellness
management.
C4C’s New Telephone Number
202-810-5985
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-
Coalition-For-Change-Inc-C4C/115920498448217
Twitter
https://twitter.com/C4CFED
Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheC4C/videos
WELLNESS WATCH
Honey, which has been used both as food and
medicine since ancient times, has been
reported to have an inhibitory effect on around
60 species of bacteria, some species of fungi
and viruses. The antioxidant capacity of honey
is important in many disease conditions. A
National Institute and Health study discusses
the most important uses of natural honey in
human diseases.
MARCH EDITION
C4C Thanks …
Contributors
Ms. Yolanda Bell
Dr. Tiemoko Coulibaly
Mr. Isaac Decatur
Ms. Arthuretta Holmes-Martin
Dr. Keesha Karriem
Ms. Regina Murry
Mr. Anthony Perry
Ms. Paulette Taylor
Ms. Diane Williams
Ms. Terri Williams
Editor
Tanya Ward Jordan
Published by The Coalition For Change,
Inc. (C4C)
c4c@coalition4change.org
Library of Congress
ISSN 2375-706x
Volume 02 /No.3 March 2015
You can send donations to:
The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)
P.O. Box 142,
Washington, DC 20044