1. 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

2. Trends
FY 2004-FY 2012
1600
1400 1379
Cases Closed and Remands
1200
1236
1036
1000 995
868 998
921
800 # of Cases Closed
843
# of Remands
600 Percentages
570
400
200
52 89 52 53 71 51 52 81 39
0 4% 6% 6% 6% 8% 5% 5% 8% 7%
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
(April 30th)

3. Statistical Analysis
(Raw Numbers)
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
• Remands: 52 • Remands: 81 • Remands: 39
• Cases Closed: 998 • Cases Closed: 1036 • Cases Closed: 570

4. Statistical Analysis of Remands
Remanded Cases
9%
8%
Percentage of Cases Remanded
8%
7% 7%
6%
5%
5%
4% Remanded Cases
3%
2%
1%
0%
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Fiscal Year

5. ATTORNEY FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Attorney 1 Remands: N/A Remands: 15 Remands: 7
Cases Closed: N/A Cases Closed: 44 Cases Closed: 31
Attorney 2 Remands: 2 Remands: 2 Remands: 3
Cases Closed: 62 Cases Closed: 56 Cases Closed: 22
Attorney 3 Remands: 0 Remands: 4 Remands: 1
Cases Closed: 74 Cases Closed: 63 Cases Closed: 35
Attorney 4 Remands: 5 Remands: 2 Remands: 2
Cases Closed: 68 Cases Closed: 66 Cases Closed: 33
Attorney 5 Remands: N/A Remands: 4 Remands: 4
Cases Closed: N/A Cases Closed: 48 Cases Closed: 23
Attorney 6 Remands: 3 Remands: 4 Remands: 2
Cases Closed: 68 Cases Closed: 68 Cases Closed: 31
Attorney 7 Remands: 8 Remands: 11 Remands: 4
Cased Closed: 61 Cases Closed: 69 Cases Closed: 30
Attorney 8 Remands: 8 Remands: 5 Remands: N/A
Cases Closed: 111 Cases Closed: 105 Cases Closed: N/A
Attorney 9 Remands: 4 Remands: 12 Remands: 5
Cases Closed: 59 Cases Closed: 50 Cases Closed: 28
Attorney 10 Remands: 3 Remands: 4 Remands: 2
Cases Closed: 57 Cases Closed: 51 Cases Closed: 20
Attorney 11 Remands: 0 Remands: 1 Remands: 0
Cases Closed: 41 Cases Closed: 52 Cases Closed: 13
Attorney 12 Remands: 5 Remands: 8 Remands: 5
Cases Closed: 75 Cases Closed: 65 Cases Closed: 22
Attorney 13 Remands: 8 Remands: 8 Remands: N/A
Cases Closed: 65 Cases Closed: 58 Cases Closed: N/A
Attorney 14 Remands: N/A Remands: N/A Remands: 2
Cases Closed: N/A Cases Closed: N/A Cases Closed: 29
Attorney 15 Remands: N/A Remands: N/A Remands: 3
Cases Closed: N/A Cases Closed: N/A Cases Closed: 24

6. Statistical Analysis
Breakdown by Attorney
REMANDS
40%
34%
35%
30%
25% 24% 23%
Percentage
20% 18%
17%
16%
15% 13%
13% FY 2010
12%12% 13% 12%
10% 8%
10%
8% 7% FY 2011
7% 6% 6%
6% 7% 7% 5% 7%
5% 6%
5% 3%
4% 3% 4%
3% 2% FY 2012
0
0% 0%
Attorney

7. 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.

8. TEMPLATES
FY 2010
Complainant's Name Reason Remanded Issue Attorney
Clarification of
Complainant 1 Claim/Issue Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1
Missing information from document
Complainant 2 (dates) Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 3
Removal
Missing
Complainant 3 Documents Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1
Request for additional documents
Clarification of
Complainant 4 Claim/Issue Termination Attorney 4
Insufficient Testimony-more
Complainant 5 detailed Harassment (sexual) Attorney 7
Complainant 6 Request for additional documents Non-selection Attorney 3
Follow-Up Questions

9. TEMPLATES
STATISTICAL 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

10. Statistical Analysis
A 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

11. Statistical Analysis
A 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%

12. Statistical Analysis
Frequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved
FY 2010
1%0% 1%0% 0%0%
1% 0% 1% Non-Selection
Harassment (non-sexual)
0% 1% Reasonable Accommodation
1% 3% Reassignment
3% Removal
26% Suspension
Harassment (sexual)
Termination
13% Time & Attendance
Performance Appraisal
Duties
Pay
3% Constructive Discharge
Promotion
11% Written Counseling
Training
13% Appointment/Hire
Admonishment
Duty Hours
3% 11% Demotion
8% PIP
Reprimand

13. Statistical Analysis
Frequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved
FY 2011
Non-Selection
2% 2% 1% 0% 1%1% 1%0% Harassment (non-sexual)
2% 2% Reasonable Accommodation
Reassignment
1% Removal
21%
Suspension
4% Harassment (sexual)
Termination
5% Time & Attendance
Performance Appraisal
4% Duties
Pay
6% Constructive Discharge
19% Promotion
Written Counseling
5% Training
Appointment/Hire
4% Admonishment
6% 12% Duty Hours
Demotion
1% PIP
Reprimand

14. Statistical Analysis
Frequency of Remands based on Issue(s) Involved
FY 2012
0% Non-Selection
1% 1% 1% 1%0% 0% 0% 0%
Harassment (non-sexual)
3% 11% Reasonable Accommodation
3% Reassignment
3% Removal
3% Suspension
Harassment (sexual)
4% Termination
Time & Attendance
23% Performance Appraisal
6%
Duties
Pay
2% Constructive Discharge
Promotion
6% Written Counseling
Training
Appointment/Hire
2% Admonishment
12% Duty Hours
18% Demotion
PIP
Reprimand

15. Statistical Analysis
Cases Remanded Twice
0.5%
0.4%
0.4% 0.4%
Percentage of Cases
0.3%
0.3% 0.3%
0.2% Cases Remanded Twice
0.2% 0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Fiscal Year

16. 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.