GAO downsizing:   Get rid of older, white males but keep minorities and women.  GAO accomplishes Race, Age and Sex Discrimination all in one fell swoop -- against older, white males.

Racial Preferences = Discrimination!

UPDATED Dec. 17, 2004


Site Index / Menu.

Case 16 - Older, White Male Versus U.S. General Accounting Office
Updated December 22, 2004

Racial Preferences Cost!

The egregious nature of GAO’s continued retaliation against one white male plaintiff prompts Judge Robertson to rule that Diersen's individual claims should go to trial.

          If you are over age 40, especially if you are a white male, and your application for employment at GAO was denied or if you were hired and your career stalled, please read this case.  You may very well be a victim of reverse discrimination and/or age discrimination.

GO:  Details of Diersen v. GAO Diersen v. GAO:  Current and former white, male employees of GAO over age 40 represented in class action lawsuit.

Go:  Horror Stories Menu.

Return to Horror Stories Menu.

See 5th Amended Complaint (filed 4/25/01)
See Also Index of Related Documents at the bottom of this page.

Update Dec. 17, 2004

Diersen files petition for rehearing in discrimination/retaliation lawsuit against GAO

[Adversity.Net Report Dec. 17, 2004] -- By David John Diersen

          On December 17, 2004 I, David John Diersen, filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in my 6 1/2 year employment lawsuit against the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO).  My lawsuit, Case No. 04-1012, includes claims of reverse discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation.

          According to the National Republican Party Platform ( at page 75, "Because we are opposed to discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender, which perpetuate divisions and can lead people to question the accomplishments of successful minorities and women."

          To give preference to one group is to discriminate against another.

          To meet the "goals" of GAO's unjustified affirmative action (AA) plans, its managers had to give preference to young minorities and to young females in a way that constituted illegal quotas.  Throughout my 18 years of employment in GAO's Chicago office, I opposed GAO's AA plans and since 1988, I have participated in a class action lawsuit against GAO in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that claims that GAO's AA plans are illegal quotas.  Because of my opposition and participation, GAO wasted my career and forced me to take early retirement in 1997.

          In my petition, I have asked all fifteen of the appellate court judges to reverse a decision that three of them (Posner, Bauer, & Easterbrook) made on November 4, 2004 that affirmed the summary judgment that Judge Amy St. Eve granted GAO on November 3, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

          The following are my most recent court filings in this matter, and they are available in PDF format:

          Again, to give preference to one group is to discriminate against another.

          Tragically, if the appeals court denies my petition, it will be legal for employers in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) to:

  • Give preference to young minorities and to young females and therefore discriminate against older white males,
  • Retaliate against older white males who oppose that preference giving, and
  • Retaliate vigorously against older white males who participate in class action litigation that claims that such preference giving resulted in age discrimination.

          Both the attorney who represents GAO (Patrick Fitzgerald) and judge who granted GAO summary judgment in my case (Amy St. Eve) were nominated by Senator Peter Fitzgerald.   Senator Fitzgerald is on record that be believes that the 20-point admission preference that the University of Michigan used to give African-Americans did not constitute illegal quotas.

-- By David John Diersen, former GAO employee and current Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors of Adversity.Net, Inc.

Judge Orders Trial for Diersen's Reverse and Age Discrimination Claims After Evidence of GAO's Continuing Retaliation is Presented

Summary:  Congress’ investigative arm, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), was headed by Comptroller General (CG) Charles Bowsher between 1981 and 1996 and then by Acting Comptroller General James Hinchman during 1997 and 1998.

UP:  Top of page.
NEXT:  Details and Background.

          Under both Bowsher and Hinchman, GAO was put under tremendous pressure to give preferential treatment to its younger professional employees, especially to its minorities and females. GAO’s personnel records show that those employees received disproportionately more high-profile assignments, developmental opportunities and leadership roles, higher performance ratings, bonuses, larger pay increases, and promotions than their white, male counterparts.

          When GAO was forced to undergo a major downsizing during the mid-1990s, agency management ensured that a disproportionate number of GAO’s newly hired young minorities and females would be retained and that a complementary, disproportionate number of its older white males would be forced out.

          All this resulted in discrimination against GAO’s older employees, especially against its white males at the Band II (GS-13 and GS-14) level. Diersen et al maintain that GAO retaliated against those white males who lodged legitimate complaints about this reverse discrimination.

          Adversity.Net officer/director Dave Diersen, a CPA and Certified Internal Auditor who transferred from IRS to GAO in 1980, is an older, white, male who was discriminated against by these GAO policies, and he had the moral courage to file constructive complaints about the discriminatory treatment he was receiving. He believed (falsely) that GAO management would treat him fairly, and would accept his constructive criticism, and would seek to end reverse discrimination at the agency. Diersen could not have been more wrong in this assumption.

          The record clearly indicates that GAO sidetracked Diersen’s career from a very early date because he had the wrong demographics (age, sex, race). The record also shows that GAO retaliated against Diersen for complaining about reverse and age discrimination. Using threats of constructive demotion and adverse transfer, GAO succeeded in forcing him to take early retirement at age 49 in September of 1997. Diersen filed a discrimination complaint, but GAO denied it in April of 1998 after conducting a sham investigation.

          The age discrimination, reverse discrimination, and retaliation at GAO was so egregious that it resulted in two multi-million dollar class action lawsuits being filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Chennareddy v. Bowsher, Case No. 87-3538, was filed in 1987 charging age discrimination and Diersen v. Hinchman, Case No. 98-1887, was filed on July 30, 1998 charging reverse and age discrimination and retaliation.

          While GAO continues to stonewall and delay both lawsuits under the new CG David Walker, GAO recently lost a major battle. Days after evidence of the egregious nature of GAO’s continuing retaliation against Diersen was presented in a motion, the Judge ruled that Diersen’s individual claims of reverse and age discrimination and retaliation should go to trial.

Detailed Background and History:   The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is the audit and investigative arm of Congress.   It is headed by the Comptroller General (CG) of the United States.  It employs over 2,000 "Evaluators" in the District of Columbia and major cities across the country and its annual budget approaches $400 million. Because GAO has the authority to audit and investigate virtually everything the federal government does, it is one of the most powerful agencies in the federal government. Its personnel policies serve as the de facto model for the entire federal government.

PREV:  Diersen Case Summary.
NEXT:  Contact Info.

          GAO is supposed to be a model of real equal employment opportunity and all its hiring, advancement, and retention decisions should be based on objective criteria and merit principles.

          However, sadly, since at least the early 1980s, the Democratic Party has put tremendous pressure on GAO to give preferential treatment to its minority and female Evaluators.   In addition, GAO was under similar pressure from CG Charles Bowsher between 1981 and 1996 and from Acting CG James Hinchman during 1997 and 1998 to give preferential treatment to its younger Evaluators.   As a result, GAO’s minority, female, and younger Evaluators received disproportionately more high-profile assignments, developmental opportunities and leadership roles, higher performance ratings, bonuses, larger merit pay increases, and promotions.

          In 1989, to further help its managers give preferential treatment to its minority, female, and younger Evaluators, GAO imposed personnel systems called broadbanding (BB) and pay-for-performance (PFP).   GAO converted its GS-7 through GS-12 Evaluators to Band I, its GS-13 and GS-14 Evaluators to Band II, and its GS-15 Evaluators to Band III. 

          To meet the official and unofficial promotion quotas given them, GAO managers flagrantly abused the flexibility in BB and PFP to advance GAO’s minority, female, and younger Evaluators and to drive out older Evaluators, especially white males.  GAO has always expected its Evaluators who it did not promote beyond Band II to retire as soon as they become eligible, typically at age 55, and virtually all of them do.

          In addition, since the early 1980s, GAO revised its performance appraisal and promotion procedures several times in ways that introduced even more subjectivity.  While the criteria GAO uses to appraise the performance of its Evaluators for bonus, merit pay increase, and promotion decisions appears to be objective, in fact, it is extremely subjective. GAO managers use that subjectivity to give preferential treatment to minority, female, and younger Evaluators; to drive out older Evaluators, especially white males; and to retaliate against Evaluators who complain about preferential treatment and reverse discrimination

          In almost all cases, the Evaluators who received preferential treatment were demonstrably less qualified in terms of work experience, performance, education, and/or professional certifications.  While GAO put elaborate procedures in place to deter and detect discrimination against minorities and females, it consistently refused to put similar procedures in place to deter and detect reverse and age discrimination and retaliation for complaining about such discrimination.  Many white male Evaluators believe that to have a chance of being promoted beyond Band II, they have to convince their superiors that they could and would do an exceptional job of giving preferential treatment to minority, female, and younger Evaluators.

          During the early and mid 1990s, many conservative Republican Senators and Representatives became increasingly convinced that GAO was dominated by liberal Democrats and that GAO’s quota driven preference giving, discrimination, and retaliation had to stop.  They succeeded in forcing GAO to undergo a major downsizing. However, the downsizing did not have its intended effect.   It now seems clear that liberal Democratic Senators and Representatives went along with the downsizing because they saw that downsizing could be used to their own advantage.   They saw that downsizing could be used to drive out GAO’s older white males, especially those who complained about reverse and age discrimination; to drive out GAO’s few remaining Republicans; and to improve advancement opportunities for GAO’s new hires. In fact, that is exactly what happened as GAO went from approximately 5,000 down to 3,000 employees between 1993 and 1997 -- a loss of 2,000 employees!

          Virtually all the Evaluators hired under Bowsher were minority, female, young, and/or Democrat.  Few had prior work experience, let alone relevant experience working for an executive branch agency.   While few had degrees in accounting, many had degrees in less relevant areas such as "public policy."  Few had passed the CPA or Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) examinations.  Nevertheless, during the downsizing, GAO retained almost all of its new hires because instead of using seniority-based RIF (reduction-in-force) procedures, GAO used buyouts, earlyouts, and selected office closures. As a result, virtually all the Evaluators who left GAO because of downsizing were white, male, older, and/or Republican.  Virtually all of those who left were demonstrably better qualified to do GAO’s work in terms of experience, performance, education, and professional certifications.

One Victim’s Story:  Victims of GAO’s reverse and age discrimination and retaliation include Adversity.Net officer/director Dave Diersen.

          Diersen transferred to GAO’s Chicago Field Office as an Evaluator in January of 1980 after acquiring 9 years of relevant work experience at IRS, the last 6 years as a GS-12 Revenue Officer and Special Procedures Staff Advisor.  Diersen, who is a white male and a conservative Republican, has three job-related masters degrees and he passed the CPA and CIA examinations on his first attempt.  Nevertheless, GAO wasted his career because his demographics were wrong and because he complained about reverse and age discrimination.

          As a condition of being transferred, GAO forced Diersen to accept a temporary downgrade to GS-9 (a $6,000 pay cut), something it did not require similarly qualified minority and female transferees to do.  Even though Diersen was only 31 years old when he transferred to GAO, he soon began receiving feedback and comments from his coworkers and superiors that he was considered to be "too old" to advance very far within the agency.

          As a white, Diersen could not have picked a worse time to transfer to GAO because within days of his transfer, GAO’s black Evaluators filed a class action race discrimination complaint alleging that GAO had discriminated against them in virtually every aspect of its personnel practices, especially in its promotion practices.  While it was not until October 16, 1984 that Bowsher officially admitted that the prior CG had discriminated against blacks, the steps that GAO took to respond to the complaint after it was filed assured that at a minimum, Diersen’s promotions would be delayed.

          Diersen’s coworkers and superiors were adamant that they had not discriminated against anyone and that they had not benefited from any discrimination and that therefore, they should not have to pay the price for remedying any past discrimination. Consequently, Diersen, and other new hires and transferees who had similar demographics, were targeted to pay as much of the price as possible.  While many of them left GAO because of that, Diersen stayed hoping that the pressure to give preferential treatment to minorities, females, and younger Evaluators would fade.  However, instead, things just got worse.

          Before long, it became clear to Diersen that he had more wrong demographics than anyone else in the office – he was considered to be too old to advance very far in the agency, a white, a male, a conservative Republican who lived in city known as the heart of conservative religious Republicanism in America, a Lutheran, of German national origin, and a non-veteran. 

          Additionally, Diersen's financial status (middle class, second income from his wife's career, pension benefits from his forced early retirement from GAO, and no dependent children) worked against him at GAO -- It was almost as if GAO's policies explicitly stated "Here's a guy won't end up in the poor house if we sacrifice his career to meet our race, gender and age quotas (or targets)."   It appears likely that GAO took into account all of these factors when it decided to end Diersen's career in order to advance the careers of preferred race, gender and age groups within the agency.

          It is apparent that GAO perceived it would be easy to get rid of Diersen, and that Diersen would see the wisdom in keeping his mouth shut about this reverse discrimination.  (GAO was obviously mistaken on this point.)  But it all begs the question:  How many other "Dave Diersens" did GAO sacrifice to salve the Democrats' unsubstantiated and legally indefensible allegations that all white males have enjoyed prior racist advantage due to historic discrimination against minorities?

          Soon after Diersen turned 40 in 1988 and began complaining about age discrimination in addition to reverse discrimination, things went from bad to worse.  His superiors forced him to accept an adverse transfer and constructive demotion.  Six months later, they gave him a performance appraisal that was so unfair that he had no choice but to file a grievance.  Of course, that grievance was denied.

          Because GAO had to give preference to its minority, female, and younger Evaluators, GAO wasted the relevant work experience that Diersen gained at IRS as well as the relevant knowledge that he acquired studying for the CPA and CIA examinations and graduate courses.  GAO denied Diersen job assignments in which he could contribute the most to accomplishing GAO’s mission, including audits of IRS’s collection activities. 

          GAO denied Diersen developmental opportunities and leadership roles.  GAO gave him lower performance ratings, no bonuses, and either no or minimal merit pay increases.  GAO did not promote him back to GS-12 until 1982, did not promote him to GS-13 until 1986, and made it clear to him that he should not apply for any additional promotions. 

          Diersen feels that court documents and agency records support his contention that all this was done so that preference could be given to minority, female, and younger Evaluators.  Under Bowsher and Hinchman, rather than helping other federal agencies operate more efficiently, effectively, and economically and helping Congress eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in federal spending, GAO saw its primary mission as hiring, advancing, and retaining minority, female, and young Evaluators.

          By 1997, Diersen had endured almost 18 years of watching GAO give less-qualified minorities, females, and younger Evaluators bonuses, significantly larger merit pay increases, and promotions that he and other Evaluators who shared his demographics should have received.  He had endured over 10 years of having his complaints about reverse and age discrimination being ignored.   During September of 1997, Diersen’s superiors gave him an unfair performance appraisal and threatened him with a number of adverse employment actions including a constructive demotion and an adverse transfer.  On September 30, 1997, the day after his 49th birthday, and the last day that Diersen could take early retirement, GAO succeeded in forcing him to retire. 

          Diersen's court filings and agency records strongly suggest that GAO forced him into rearly retirement because he had freqently registered complaints about documented cases of age, gender and race discrimination directed against him by GAO.

          On the same day that Diersen retired, he filed an administrative discrimination complaint with GAO.  GAO’s investigation of that complaint was a blatant sham. 

          The affidavits that Diersen’s superiors submitted in defense of their actions (in response to GAO’s investigation) contained many documented false and unjustified negative statements about Diersen's performance.  GAO denigrated Diersen’s abilities, his judgment, his performance, his character, and his credibility.  GAO made it very clear that the more Diersen complained about reverse and age discrimination, the more they would retaliate against him.  GAO also arrogantly refused to provide information on its affirmative action and diversity quotas and goals.  GAO refused to provide demographic, bonus, and merit pay increase data.  GAO’s investigator refused to interview relevant witnesses.

          The female GAO investigator asked many leading and biased questions during her interviews. She used erroneous criteria to base her recommendation to deny Diersen’s complaint.  She denied Diersen an opportunity to comment on many documents that she based her recommendation on.  In Diersen’s March 19, 1998 letter to GAO, he identified these and many other serious deficiencies in GAO’s investigation. But GAO refused to correct them and denied Diersen’s complaint on April 29, 1998.

          GAO’s strategy from this point forward is predictable.  It will assert that prior to September 30, 1997, it was unaware that Diersen had made any complaints about reverse or age discrimination and that therefore, it had no motivation to retaliate against him.  However, Diersen has documents that prove otherwise.  Since the late 1980s, Diersen frequently made such complaints orally and in writing to his superiors, to top GAO managers, to his Congressman Henry Hyde, to the staffs of Congressional committees that oversee GAO's operations, and to GAO's Mid-Level Employee Council, the GAO-sponsored organization that represents Band II Evaluators.

          In direct contrast to GAO's defensive cover-up of the facts surrounding Diersen's discrimination complaint, Diersen himself was always constructive in his complaints.  He consistently urged GAO to put internal controls in place that would deter and detect reverse and age discrimination; he urged GAO to stop abusing the flexibility in its BB and PFP systems to give preferential treatment to minorities, females, and younger Evaluators; and he voiced support for litigation that was pending against GAO that charged reverse and age discrimination.   Diersen was completely open and honest in his dealings with GAO:  He never made any effort to conceal these facts from his superiors and consequently, many of them were aware of these facts and committed acts of retaliation based upon that knowledge.

          Since being forced into early retirement, Diersen has sent many letters to elected officials, the media, and others complaining about reverse and age discrimination and retaliation at GAO.  His letters resulted articles that describe his complaints and litigation against GAO in the September 21, 1998 issue of the Federal Times and the December 14, 1998 issue of Accounting Today.   According to court decisions, such activities are federally protected forms of opposition to discriminatory employment practices.  Diersen believes that he deserves to be protected as a "Whistle-Blower" because he blew the whistle on reverse and age discrimination and retaliation at GAO.

Two Lawsuits are Languishing:  Attorney Walter T. Charlton has filed two class action lawsuits against GAO charging it with reverse and age discrimination and with retaliation.

          Chennareddy, et al, v. Bowsher, (Case No. 87-3538), has been languishing since 1987 in the District Court for the District of Columbia before Judge Penn.

          Diersen v. Hinchman, (Case No. 98-1887), has been languishing in the same Court since July 30, 1998 before Judge Robertson.  It is extremely significant that GAO’s strenuous efforts to have these lawsuits dismissed have not been successful.  However, justice delayed is justice denied.  (Note:  On August 3, 1999, Senator Hatch asked Chief Justice Rehnquist to investigate the case assignment procedures used in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  Complaints had been raised that cases important to the Clinton Administration are being assigned to Judges who Clinton had appointed, including Judge Robertson.)

The New Comptroller General is a Major Disappointment:  Many Band I and Band II GAO Evaluators who are victims of reverse and age discrimination and a smaller number who are victims of retaliation, including Diersen, hoped that when a new Comptroller General (CG) was sworn in, GAO would enter into good faith negotiations to settle Chennareddy and Diersen and GAO would stop the preferential treatment, discrimination, and retaliation.  However, and sadly, even though David Walker was sworn in on November 9, 1998, GAO continues to pretend that Diersen's and other lawsuits alleging reverse discrimination are "frivolous" or unfounded, and this mighty government agency continues to retaliate against Diersen and the other plaintiffs.

          Walker’s actions, his public statements, the actions taken and the statements made by his attorneys, and his responses to Diersen’s correspondence indicate that he has no sympathy for over age 40 white male Evaluators who Bowsher or Hinchman did not promote beyond Band II.  His lack of sympathy is in keeping with Arthur Andersen’s "up or out" philosophy which is little more than age discrimination – both Bowsher and Walker were Partners at Arthur Andersen and Hinchman was hand picked by Bowsher. 

          Walker’s sour attitude toward older white males who are not as successful as he is, who disagree with him, or who are social conservatives, is also in keeping with his self-professed "progressive" attitude on social policies.  While Walker has stated that he opposes quotas, he seems to accept the Democratic Party’s progressive social policy that minorities and females should get preferential treatment -- at the expense of non-minority males.   Inexplicably, Comptroller General Walker seems to believe that sexual harassment is GAO’s biggest personnel problem -- in spite of the rampant age, reverse race and reverse gender discrimination in his agency. 

          Walker's proposals to rate "attitude" and "effort" would only add more subjectivity to GAO’s performance appraisal system.  He seems to believe that reverse and age discrimination and retaliation never happened at GAO, and even if it did happen, the victims deserved what they got and they should keep quiet about it.

Sabotage of Diersen’s Job Search Continues:  GAO’s procedures require its supervisors to respond in a timely manner to inquiries from prospective employers about the character and performance of its former employees. 

          On September 17, 1997, as an inducement to Diersen to take an early retirement (and get him out of their hair), Diersen’s superiors promised him that they would recommend him highly to prospective employers.  However, none of three letters of recommendation that GAO subsequently gave Diersen could be considered "strong." 

          But far worse than that, three different firms that check references for prospective employers have documented that for five separate inquiries between July of 1998 and July of 1999, GAO failed to respond in a timely manner, refused to answer questions about Diersen’s character and performance, refused to recommend Diersen, and/or failed to recommend Diersen highly!  Clearly, by "damning with faint praise", GAO was deliberately sending the message to these faux employers that Diersen should not be hired!

          Diersen sent letters to the new Comptroller General Walker on March 12, 1999 and April 21, 1999 complaining about GAO’s sabotage of his job search.  Predictably, Walker ignored Diersen's complaints.

          On April 21, 1999, and again on April 26, 1999 when he was not aware that Diersen was listening, one of Walker’s attorneys told Diersen’s attorney that Walker and other managers at GAO thought that Diersen was "nuts." 

          On May 12, 1999, Diersen's attorney sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) complaining about GAO’s continuing retaliation against Diersen including its latest effort to imply that he has mental problems, but DOJ rejected that letter.  [See Link: Letter to U.S. Attorney]

          On August 13, 1999, Walker sent an email message to Diersen in response to a copy of an August 10, 1999 letter that Diersen had sent the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) about OPM’s proposal to allow BB and PFP at IRS.   [See Link:  OPM Letter and Comments]    In his email message, Walker severely criticized Diersen’s credibility, but Walker failed to cite any facts to support his criticism. 

          GAO has made it clear that rather than responding to the facts that Diersen has cited, GAO’s strategy is to denigrate Diersen’s abilities and credibility and to imply that he has mental problems – a strategy frequently used by Clinton and his supporters.  Given that strategy, it is not surprising that Diersen has been unable to find professional work subsequent to his forced departure from GAO.

          GAO knows that Diersen’s forced unemployment severely limits the funds that he has available to pay legal fees and the agency thus sends a strong message to other victims of GAO's reverse discrimination that they will most assuredly be subjected to similar retaliation if they complain.

          It is highly probable that GAO will defend itself by arguing that the real reason for Diersen’s career problems at the agency was that he was a poor performer and that is why he has not been able to find professional work after leaving GAO.  Of course, GAO won't let Diersen's sterling personnel record stand in their way -- they will probably attempt to re-write it.

Federal Judge Rules Diersen's Case Should Go To Trial:  After the egregious nature of GAO’s continued retaliation against Diersen was cited in a motion, a federal judge ruled that Diersen’s claims should go to trial.  Even though both Chennareddy and Diersen are supposed to be expedited because they include age discrimination claims, they continue to languish.  Justice delayed is justice denied.  Ever since Walker was nominated by Clinton on October 5, 1998, GAO has continued to strenuously fight both Chennareddy and Diersen.

          In Chennareddy, GAO ignored a March 31, 1999 court order to cooperate with the Charlton’s discovery requests and to enter into good faith settlement negotiations. GAO continues to delay issuance of a GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) report which supports the charges made in both Chennareddy and Diersen. On June 10, 1999, Charlton served the PAB with a notice of intent to sue.

          In Diersen, on October 20, 1998 and again on December 24, 1998, GAO asked Judge Robertson to dismiss both Diersen’s class action and his individual reverse and age discrimination and retaliation claims. GAO asked that as an alternative, Robertson should dismiss Diersen’s class action claims and transfer his individual claims to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Judge Robertson could have ruled on GAO’s request as early as January 27, 1999, but failed to do so.

          Diersen took a number of actions recently to help get things moving. On August 10, 1999, he sent a letter to OPM with copies to many elected officials, the media, and others in which he stated that no action should be taken on OPM’s proposal to allow BB and PFP at IRS until both Chennareddy and Diersen are resolved. On August 12, 1999, he sent a letter to Senator Hatch concerning the investigation the Senator had requested of case assignment procedures in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Diersen asked that his lawsuit be included as one which might have been improperly assigned. On August 16, 1999, Diersen sent a letter to Speaker Hastert complaining about GAO’s continuing retaliatory actions, including its sabotage of his job search, Walker’s attorney badmouthing his mental health, and Walker’s August 13, 1999 email message. On August 26, 1999, at Diersen’s request, Charlton filed a motion citing the egregious nature of GAO’s continuing retaliation against Diersen, including GAO’s continuing sabotage of Diersen’s job search. Charlton asked for injunctive relief in that motion and cited five documented examples of how GAO continues to sabotage Diersen’s job search. On September 1, 1999, Diersen met with Speaker Hastert’s staff concerning his complaints about GAO’s continuing retaliatory actions, GAO’s refusal to enter into good faith settlement negotiations, and the delay in Judge Robertson’s ruling on GAO’s motion to dismiss.

          Finally, on September 3, 1999, Judge Robertson acted on GAO’s October 20, 1998 motion to dismiss and ruled that Diersen’s individual claims should be transferred to Chicago and that they should go to trial. While Judge Robertson dismissed Diersen’s class action claims, significantly, he ruled that the Court in Chicago could reinstate them.  On or before September 20, 1999, attorney Charlton will file a motion asking Judge Robertson to reinstate Diersen’s class action claims and keep the lawsuit in the District of Columbia.

Adverse Impact on GAO, Other Federal Agencies, and Federal Spending:  The Democratic Party wants GAO to be its patronage army and an example of how its "progressive" social policies result in preferential treatment for the Party’s prime constituency -- minorities and females.

          Sadly, in many ways, the Democratic Party has already succeeded.  There are very few Republicans left in GAO and there are virtually no conservatives.  Sadly, Walker either sees no problem with that, has been told to ignore it, or believes that he lacks the power to do anything about it.   Many Republican Senators and Representatives are still concerned that GAO is dominated by liberal Democrats.  Others are concerned about GAO’s ability to do its work because since the 1980s, GAO’s top priority has been hiring, advancing, and retaining Evaluators who are minority, female, and younger.  Many believe that GAO’s top priority should have been hiring, advancing, and retaining Evaluators who are the best qualified to do GAO’s work in terms of experience, demonstrated performance, education, and professional certifications.  Consequently, many Republican Senators and Representatives continue to be reluctant to ask GAO to do important work.  Because GAO is underutilized, many opportunities are being lost for GAO to help other federal agencies operate more efficiently, effectively, and economically.  Many opportunities are being lost for GAO to help Congress eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in federal spending.

If You Are a Victim:  If you are or were a Band II GAO Evaluator or applied for the position, and you believe that GAO discriminated against you because you were white, male, or over age 40, please contact either or both of Attorney Walter T. Charlton and/or Plaintiff Dave Diersen.  (See below.)

PREV:  Diersen Case Details
NEXT:  Site Index, Bottom.

Contact Info for GAO Victims of Reverse and Age Discrimination and Retaliation:

Walter T. Charlton, Attorney
230 Kirkley Road
Annapolis, MD  21401
Phone: (410) 571-8764
Dave Diersen
915 Cove Court
Wheaton, IL  60187
Phone:  (630) 653-0462
Fax:  (630) 653-9665
Director of Adversity.Net:

End Case 16:  Diersen v. GAO Main Page

Use the BACK Button on your browser to return to your originating page; or select another link:

Case 16: Diersen v. GAO MAIN Page

Case 16: May 12, 1999
Letter to U.S. Attorney
Case 16: Aug. 10, 1999
Letter to U.S. OPM
Case 16: Additional Documents
Diersen v. GAO

(requires frames)
Horror Stories
(Case studies)

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact    Last updated: December 22, 2004.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.