Table Of ContentWork Force Evolution
One Woman(cid:146)s Contribution to Social Change
at CIA
Dawn Ellison
The CIA workforce that is fight It was not the first such com
ing the war on terrorism is plaint, but it became the first to
much different from the work(cid:151) result in a ciiscrimination law
force that fought the Korean suit against the Agency.
war, the Vietnam war, and the
Cold War. The \\Torkforce of the
Having appropriate academic
21st century is diverse in both
(cid:147) gender and race. credentials, Harritte (cid:145)l(cid:146)hompson
had joined the Agency in 1952
I hope to provide Agency This article is dedicated to the asseraveDdOininsttaeflfligoehnsceinoftfhiceerF.arShe
women with a better wbroomkeenthaenAdgemnincoyr(cid:146)sitigelsaswshcoeil East Division (FE) ~tndI was pro
appreciation for the ing and the enlightened white motecl in the first few years in a
history behind the male managers who helped it manner similar to her male col
professional happen. It specilically recog leagues. After she reached
opportunities that they nizes Harritte Tee(cid:146) Thompson, GS-12, her promotions stoppedt
enjoy today. the first woman to challenge the for ten years, unlike those of
status quo at CIA in court. The her male colleagues perform
details of this case came to my ing similar work. Finally, in
attention while I served as Dep 1967, she was promoted to
uty Inspector General in the late GS-13 and embarked on an
1990s. Through Thompson(cid:146)s odyssey of serving in a series of
story, I hope to provide Agency positions previously held by
women with a better apprecia more senior male colleagues.
tion for the history behind the She performed successfully in
professional opportunities that positions rated one and some
they enjoy today.1 times two grades higher than
her grade level. In 1972, still in
FE, she was promoted to GS-14.
The Story Begins
Four years later she moved to a
Directorate staff, her third con
In October 1977. a feniale
officer filed a formal complaint secutive assignment to a GS-15-
level position. Supervisors
of discrimination against the
Directorate of Operations (DO). repeatedly requested her pro
motion to GS-15, hut the
promotion panels disregarded
I wish to thank the CIAs Oftice ofGener their recommendations. By this
zrileccorrndisnsferlofmorthaessairscthainvceesinInreatdrdiietviionng, the time, the officer was catego
employees ot the research department in rized as a Specialist(cid:151)a staff
ttihne. TLeyxnadso.nheBlapienedsrJaeohlnoscaotneLriwhoiatry(cid:146)hDin the officer not chrectly involved in
Dawn Ellison recently rettred after ses that were insightful on how the Equal clandestine operations(cid:151)and
PayAct and the inclusion ofwomen in the
more than 30 years at CIA. Ci~(cid:146)il Rights Act came about was counseled that without
45
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2002 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2002 to 00-00-2002
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
One Woman’s Contribution to Social Change at CIA
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Center for the Study of Intelligence,Central Intelligence REPORT NUMBER
Agency,Washington,DC,20505
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Studies in Intelligence, Volume 46, No. 3, 2002
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 9
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Workforce Evolution
The investigator never
found anyone who had
dealt with Thompson
operational experience she was profession~il progression. 1-Ic
not competitive with her peers.2 who did not hold her compared her training record
performance in high with seven male officers of sim
In 1977, Thompson moved to a esteem. ilar age and positions of
responsibility.6 From this infor
GS-16-rated DO staff position,
replacing a GS-16 officer. Her mation and affidavits from
supervisor anti even the ADDO managers, the investigator con
recommended her promotion to cludecl that in one division staff
The Investigation position, she had performed in
GS-15. The DO panel that year
placed her ninth on the promo The Agency(cid:146)s Office of Equal an outstanding manner anti was
tion list with authorized Employment Opportunity (EEO) described as indispensable, but
had been cancelled from train
headroom for only three assigned an investigator to the ing courses. Competent hut less
promotions. case. Examining the docu glowingly described males had
mented record, he found that
been rotated to broadening
Thompson(cid:146)s performance evalu
That October, with the encour(cid:151) experiences that resulted in pro
agement of her white male ations had been consistently motions. Senior division
supervisor, she filed a formal high throughout her career. managers confirmed that
Between 1970 and 1977, eight
complaint of discrimination, emphasis had been given to
of 10 difFerent supervisors had
claiming that DO management training operations officers over
was oriented primarily toward given her an overall outstand Specialists because operations
ing(cid:148) evaluation anti the other
male operations officers.(cid:148) The officers were viewed as future
complaint continued: Women, two had rated all individual ele managers.7
ments (cid:147)outstanding(cid:148) and given
as a matter of course, are lim
ited to certain types of posilions a summary rating of strong.(cid:146) Another part of Thompson(cid:146)s
with grade levels seldom Affidavits from senior managers complaint concerned the impact
attested to the fact that she had
higher than GS-13.(cid:148)~ Thomp of mobility on promotion dcci
become virtually indispensable
son also charged that, Because sions. The investigator noted
to FE. Everyone interviewed
of my sex, I have been system that her reviewing officers from
referred to her encyclopedic
atically denied essential training 1963-1965 had repeatedly
knowledge of operations. In
cofofuircseerss fdoersiugpnweadrdtomporbielpiatrye,(cid:146) fact, the investigator never smtorbeislsietdy t(ih.ee.,imopvoerrtsaenacse(cid:146)eoxfperi
which tilted the competition for found anyone who had dealt ence). In her complaint.
promotion toward male col with her(cid:151)as a supervisor, Thompson stated chat she was
leagues (cid:147)ho had received such co-worker, subordinate, or con never offered an overseas
sumer(cid:151)who did not hold her
training She requested promo performance in high esteem.(cid:146) assignment.TM To tesi the impact
tion to GS-15 retroactive to May of this issue, the investigator
1972, the date of assignment to looked at the record for four
Next the investigator gathered
her second GS-15 position, and male officers in similar profes
promotion to GS-16 effective information to assess the valid sionzii circumstances. For these
ity of her contention that she
August 1977, the date of tier employees, he noted that the
assignment to the GS-16 had not been provided training lack of, or limited, operational
appropriate for her
position
11)1(1 p 6
At that time. performanceevaItiacionsdid 7Th,cI, p 8
2 Attachnients to complaint of Discrimina(cid:151) not assign numerical ratings N Thompson told (lie author thai she
non. csc Foi(cid:146)ni 891 HaritteT Thompson. Report ofInvestigation, Equal Employ thought ihe DO never asked because she
i7 October i977. pp 7-12 ment Opportunity cornpl:unt ofHarritte T (cid:147)-as married to a man who (cid:147)as noi an
3 Ibid (cid:149)ilionipsin, 7,fuly 1977. pp 8-9 Agency employee
46
WorkforceEvolution
Because DO culture
considered female
operations officers to be
experience had not prevented torate viewed itself as an
oflimited value,
their advancement.9 women organization of generalists, in
were handicapped in fact it relied extensively on Spe
Satisfied that there was some competing for cialists to meet the mission.
validity to the complaint, the promotions. Specialists were grouped into
investigator went on to exam their own categories for pur
ine the proportional poses of evaluation and ranking
representation of females at for promotion. Thompson was
high grades in the Directorate. described as a Specialist and a
At that time, females comprised female operations officers con Category C employee.(cid:146)3 The
19 percent of the DO(cid:146)s profes tributed to the disparate Directorate career service hand
sional cadre. Looking at grade representation of females at book documented that Category
level statistics, he noted that high grade levels. Interviews of C employees did not have to
there were 6 percent ;i,ore CS- DO officers revealed that the compete with operations gener
14 than CS(cid:151) 12 males, while Directorate viewed itself as an alists for promotion. 1-leaclroom
there were 77 percentfewer GS organization of operations gen was allocated proportionally to
14 than GS-12 females. The eralists. Affidavits that each of the specialist
dropoff of female representa addressed the subject of (cid:145)vomen categories.
tion at the C-I5 level was even in operations ovenvhelmingly
more severe. Between grades voiced the opinion that women DO management refused to
GmaSl-e1s4darnodpCpSe-dis4,8tpheercpeenrtcewnhtiloef actoturlidbuntoedt trounpraegjeundtisc.eTihnisthweas make available to the investiga(cid:151)
tor the names of the Category C
females dropped 92 per cent. (cid:145)(cid:176) cultures of the countries where employees who were ranked
the DO operated. Specifically, it
above the complainant in 1977.
Although the investigator con- was believed that in Latin Amer Unable to make a comparison
chided that in the period 1972- ica, Africa, the Near East, and of qualifications, he relied on
1977 women were not propor Asia. women were second class statements from the members
tionally represented in the citizens. Women in these coun of promotion panel.~5 The panel
senior grades in the DO, the tries seldom have access to was composed of men from
Directorate claimed that aid(cid:151) information of value; hence
diverse professional back
tudes toward women were they are not likely to be grounds. hut all described
changing and that women were selected as agents. Implicit in themselves as operations offic
getting operational assignments these statements was the opin ers. From the interviews with
and doing well. In fact, at the ion that females could only run the panelists and an examina
tinie of the investigation, the female agents, an assumption tion of the ranking form they
Deputy Chief of the then-East that could he challenged These
used, the investigator con
Asia Division was a woman. same people pointed out that in cluded that no matter how
These were encouraging devel such cultures female officers outstanding the performance
opments, but the investigator would not have the freedom of of Category C officers,
concluded that they were not movement enjoyed by m12 specialization was not being
relevant to this particular case.(cid:148)
rewarded as much as opera
Operational experience tional experience. And because
The investigator found that atti
remained a critical factor in pro DO culture considered female
aides in the DO regarding
motions, setting women at a
disadvantage. While the Direc
(cid:145)3 Ar thur rune, Operairons personnel (cid:145)\(cid:145)ere
Report oF in(cid:148)esr,garron. pp 11-iL assigned to cuiegories B and fl
1~ J/~J pp 1-5 Report ofinvestigation, p. 13,
Ib,c/. p~ 10 ibid. pp 9-10 ~(cid:145)JIu(. p. 15
47
Workforce Evolution
(cid:147)
Thompson(cid:146)s response
was, (cid:145)I am not for sale.(cid:146)
operations officers to he of lim earlier that year and one corn(cid:151)
iteci value, those women also pleted in 1971 about the
were handicapped in compet underrepresentation of female
ing for promotions. yesterday. The DDO explained officers at senior levels. Both of
why he disagreed with her posi these studies had outlined plans
In summary, the EEO investiga tion. The Directorate(cid:146)s career for improvement. In a July 1978
tion report found practices in management officer corn(cid:151) dispatch to the field, however,
the DO that constituted discrim mented: (cid:145)If we bought the DO had admitted a lack of
ination against women in the ourselves for wliat we are progress on these plans.2(cid:176)
promotion piocess. In the spe worth and sold ourselves for
cific case of 1-larritte Thompson. what we thought we were Thompson decided to appeal
the report said discrimination worth, we would he rich.(cid:146) her complaint to the Director of
clearly was a factor in prevent Thompson(cid:146)s response was, Central Intelligence (DCI). The
ing her promotion to GS-15 in am not for sale.(cid:148) (cid:145)~ EEO established a Complaints
1977. The investigator(cid:146)s final Advisory Committee to con
observation was that, Com The DDO notified the officer in sider the appeal in January
plainant has been damaged 1979. The Comtilittee found that
September 1978 that he found
primarily by unwitting, sublimi(cid:151) The panel(cid:146)s application of
no evidence that she had been
nal. unconscious discriminatory discriminated against because operational criteria to Specialist
procedures that have hqcome she was female. He thought her candidates for promotion,
institutionalized by practice. training had been appropriate instead of recognizing the spe
Thus, there is no discriminatory for the positions she had held, cialized skills and perfornmnce
official. Most of those involved and pointed out that non-opera for which that category was crc(cid:151)
in the ranking procedures, etc., tional personnel and women ated, svas not only an error
which most affected this without overseas experience which by itself argues for reme
officer(cid:146)s pay status and future, had been promoted to GS-15 or dial action, but has a disparate
did what they are sincerely con higher during the period in effect on women to whom, to a
vinced was the right thing to question. He also noted that she malor extent, the opportunity
do.(cid:148) had been promoted to GS-15 for operational experience has
subsequent to the complaint.(cid:145)~ not been available. There is rea
son to believe that this panel
Seventh Floor Reaction was typical of those which had
In October 1978, Thompson failed to rank her high enough
Thompson carefully and formally advised the director of for her to be promoted in the
patiently followed the require EEO that she found the DDO(cid:146)s past(cid:148)22
ments of the EEO process. In conclustons contradictory to
August 1978, as mandated, she those reached in the investiga The EEO director forwarded
met with the director of the DO tion. She made reference to an Thompson(cid:146)s appeal to the DCI
(the DDO) and other senior Agenq(cid:146) study undertaken
Directorate officials to defend
her case. Even though that 1(cid:146)) CIA De~patch 11525 titili,.ation or Fe
meeting is now many years ago. IA Request ofa Decision lv the Director of male OffIcers in the (cid:147)0(cid:148) Career sen(cid:146)ice,
central Intelligence on the Discrimination 7 July 1978, p]1 1-2
she remembers it like it was complaint off-larritteT Thompson, 2q Oc 11,/cl p 7
tober 1978, p 6 22 CIA \lenioranduin from the Complaints
9CIA Memorandum from DOd) to coin(cid:151) Advisoty Committee to 0/EEC. Recom
phunant NoticeofProposedDisposition of menctations for Final Agency Decision in
11,111, PP. 13-15 Discrimination Complaint. 20 September the Discrimination Complaint of5ublect,
Ibid, p 16 t978, pp 1-2 221:tnuary 1979. pp 2-3
48
WorkforceEvolution
with the Advisory Committee(cid:146)s fair competition with her peers, tions. The remedy requested
findings and recommendations. have been promoted 10 GS-16M was promotion to GS-i6 retro
The Committee(cid:146)s proposed rem active to February 1977, and to
edy was promotion to GS-15 CS-iS retroactive to May 1972,
retroactive to October 1975, a Going Outside with all back pay and cowmen-
date two years prior to her fil surate benefits.26
About the time that the DDCI
ing the complaint as provided
made his decision, an article in
in Civil Service Commission reg Early on, the Agency consid
The Washington Post caught
ulations. It did not recommend ered settling out of court to
Thompson(cid:146)s attention. A district
promotion to GS-16, because judge had recently ruled in avoid a trial that (cid:147)as likely to
committee members believed prove painful to the DO. The
favor of women in an EEO dis
that such decisions should be amount and quality of training
crimination suit. With the
reserved to promotion panels. encouragement of her hus given women in the Director
The EEO director concurred in ate as opposed to men would
band(cid:151)himself a lawyer(cid:151)
the Committee(cid:146)s findings of dis Thompson called the attorney be a key issue. Statistics from
parate treatment, but suggested named in the article. After get the internal investigation re
that the DCI consider promo ting an Agency clearance and garding the relative number of
tion to GS-16 retroactive to reviewing her case, the attor women in each grade and the
October 1977, the date of the ne)(cid:146) met with current and time in grade for women as
formal complaint.23 former supervisors who all opposed to men would lead to
(cid:147)difficult questions.(cid:148) Ultimately,
confirmed her exceptional per
however, the DO decided
In May 1979, the Deputy Direc formance at all levels over the against an out-of-court
tor of Central Intelligence years. The only apparent short settlement.27
(DDCI), on behalf of the DCI, fall in her career was the lack of
operational experience.25 Her
accepted the Advisory Commit
tee(cid:146)s recommendation. He attorney proceeded to file suit By October 1979, the Agency
advised Thompson that he in district court citing the Equal had formulated a strategy to
Pay Act of 1963. The CIA(cid:146)s lessen the burden in respond
approved her promotion to CS- Office of General Counsel ing to the lawsuit. That stra-tegy
15 retroactive to October 1975 (0CC) represented the DCI. included granting the
DDCI decided with the Advi retroactive Cs-IS promotion as
sory Committee(cid:146)s recom requested.
Legal action against the CIA
mendation. He advised Thonip
began in June 1979. The suit
son that lie approved her charged that the Agency had Formal statements ,nacle by the
promotion to CS-is retroactive willfully violated the Equal Pay Agency in response to the
to October 1975. His notifica Act of 1963 by paving Thomp plaintiffs charges convey its
tion stated that he could not in son less than it paid male position, sometimes
good conscience concur in her employees for equal work inadvertently:
promotion to GS-16. He was under similar working condi
not convinced that, even absent A C(cid:146)S- 16office;] A e4~ecIcd
the discriminating effect of the
topossess substantial experi
panel procedures, she would, in CIA Memorandrini from D/EEO to SuF(cid:146)
ccl Notice ol Final Decision ofAgency;
and attachment The Final Decision ofthe
Central IntelligenceAgency in the Sex Dis (cid:151)~ US DiNirict Court ft,i the h)isirici ofCo(cid:151)
24 CIA Memorandum from D/EE0 to DCI, cruninanon Complaint ofSuh1cct. 21 May lunthia, Civil Action File No 79-156(cid:146), Sum(cid:151)
Final Agency Decision in the Discnmina 1979, pp 1-1 finns in Civil Action, 15 June 1979, p. (cid:145)I
tion Complaint ofSubject, 1 March 1979. 24 Author(cid:146)s interview i~(cid:146)irli Thoinp.son. lnfoimatinn dra(cid:145)vn from pii(cid:146)ci Ie~ecl inLet(cid:151)
pp 1-2, 17 june 2000, pp. 1-2, nal records reviewed hs(cid:146) the fluthur,
49
Workforce Evolution
Legal Foundations
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 provided the basis for Thompson(cid:146)s lawsuit. Esther Peterson.
a longtime labor lobbyist, worked effectively behind the scenes for President Kennedy(cid:146)s elec
tion campaign and subsequently was appointed Assistant Secretary of Labor. In her concurrent
capacity as director of the Department of Labors Women(cid:146)s Bureau, she pursued implementa
tion of measures advocated by a number of national women(cid:146)s organizations since the 1940s.
Peterson used her position (as the highest-ranking woman in the administration), her inilu
ence with the president, and her reputation with Congress to achieve passage of key
legislation.
Under the Equal Pay Act, employers could no longer legally pay women less than men for
work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility in similar working conditions. Enforce
ment required complainants to file federal lawsuits. The Act, however, did not address
women(cid:146)s lack of opportunity to compete for many jobs(cid:151)that was addressed by civil rights
legislation the following year.
Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made itunlawful for employers to dis
crhninate against Individuals because oftheir sex, established the LEO process for
Thompson(cid:146)s complaint. In the early 1960s, television brought civil rights clashes into the
nation(cid:146)s living rooms. Responding to public pressure, the Kennedy administration spear
headed legislation to meet many of the demands of the civil rights activists. Title VII of the
compromise bill worked out between the House judiciary Committee and the White House
prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin,
and established a commission to develop federal policies and investigate complaints of dis
crimination. Complainants could pursue enforcement through the federal courts.
Following Kennedy(cid:146)s assassination, President Johnson made the bill a top legislative priority.
When the bill reached the House floor for debate and vote, it became increasingly apparent to
its opponents that it would probably pass. In an effort to defeat the bill, segregationists intro
duced an amendment to prohibit sexual discrimination under Title VII, believing that this
would increase the strength of their arguments about the bill(cid:146)s radical philosophy. The bill
passed the House despite this effort to undermine it. The Senate next took it up and worked
out compromises to ensure the necessary two-thirds vote for passage. In the process, the pro
vision addressing sexual discrimination was retained, in large part clue to the efforts of Senator
Margaret Chase Smith. Thus, without public pressure and with little debate, equal employ
ment opportunity for women became the law of the land as a result of the last minute linkage
of racial and sexual discrimination(cid:151)an ironic twist of legislative and social history.
OntheEqualPayAct,see:CynthiaEllenHarrison,Preludeto1(cid:148)e,nOiisn,(cid:146) ~Si,me,i rOrganirahotis. theFederalGorer,,,nenr.andtheRiseofthe
Women(cid:145)5 Movement, 1942 in 1968(ColumbiaUniversity,Ph.D Thesis, 19821.On theCivilRightsAct, see: PatriciaG Zelman. Wonien, Work,
andNa/tonalPnl,~(cid:146)i(cid:146): Kennedy-Johnson Year,s tOhioStateUniversity. Ph.D.Thesis, 1980).
50
WorkforceEvolution
ence, ability, andpersonal As se/fortI~ in the-~4geii~~(cid:146):~ 1/nw ofPlaint/ffs assign(cid:151)
characteristics which qua/ifi(cid:146) final decision regarding the nient. although it was soon
hiii, to seive in iilzpoilant coinpianit giving rise to this thereafterchanged to a CS-
/nai/agenle)7t ciiidpolicy action, there was reason to 16position The two inclivid(cid:151)
positions iii Heaclquarterc helieve that thepanel nie,,i ucils identified aspreviously
ciiid abroad Tip/cal/v he hems 111)0 cons/c/erectplaintiff per/ornnng similarduties to
-- .
will bate a decided leader(cid:151) /orpionlotiomt tograde CS(cid:151)/S thisposition belonged to a
..
ship and command ta/eu! iii 1977 may havegiven di/fe,(cid:145)cut careerservice than
-
He mill be expected to bane a improper weight to thefactor did Plaintifi: and werepro(cid:151)
.
coiuipiehensive know/edge of ofoperational experience, nioted by theirparent
As he approached more which may haye favored the component 29
s-e.nior levels His earlier males ranked at this time in ,,
...
career willhave been marked this category. Howevei: oper
bj(cid:146)~. ational experience is not an Thompsons attorney Filed a
irrelevantfactor when con(cid:151) pretrial statement that niacte the
sulenngpromotions at the following points to the court:
Iknow ofno facts which caut senior management level at
be said to indicate orslip(cid:151)
pAogretnacycohnacsludsiisocnritmhiantattheed pCrieAc,epatssifioiradperoclmeoatrihoin(cid:146) tthoe (Tihi?e1C9I7A3.))coofntdhuecttreedatamsetnutd)o(cid:146) f
grade GS~1628
against feuiiales siiice March fe,naleproJi(cid:146)ssionals in the
24. 1972. 1have been Operations Directorate
informed that ofthe coil?(cid:151) In March 1980, the Agency This report indicates that
plaints 0/sex discrniiniation responded to additional woiiieui ~c share ofhigh CS
/1/ed with theAgency~c Office documents submitted on behalf graded jobs is zinsatisfac(cid:151)
...
ofEqual Eniplovinent Oppor(cid:151) of the plaintiff: ton(cid:146), ftgenera/I)(cid:146) acknow
titnitysinceMarch 24, 1972, ledges thatJbmaleprofession
Olily 0,/c, apar from this \V~hile the majority ofindivid(cid:151) als are imnderrepreseitted.
case, has resulted in ci final i/a/ssilting on competitive especially in grades CS-14
Agency decision /inding dis eva/nationpanels are white and highei; in theAgency.
crinunation, (The males, thepercentage of Ac/c/itional/~(cid:146), the document
coniplainaitt accepted the jeniales onpanels evaluat(cid:151) indicates that/br the Agency
Agency~c disposition pro ingprofessioncilpersonnel is as a whole, women acre dis
posal.) This case is higher than tenpercent. at advantaged in that the)(cid:146) held
exceptional in the sense that leastforsuchpanels conven a very lowpercentage ofthe
the coiiiplaniant wasgiven ing cliinng andsincefiscal J,(cid:146)ighe grades, especial/v cit
the benefit ofsubstantial year 1977. Thepercentage of the GS-14 and higher levels.
I/lice/taint)? regarding the females onpanels evaluating It alsoJbiuitcl that ulo,nen c/~
ertslence ofunlaw/lil clericalpersonne/is initch the GS-14 levelspent a sub
discriniination. higher stantially longer tii?ie in
grade than males. The report
It ispertinent to note (cid:145)The referenced .. position found that there was a
that none ofthe eight was a CS-ISposition cit the mviclespreact bias toward
employees rankedabove
Plaint//fin the disputedfis
n us Distitt Court forthe District ofColum US District Corin for the District ofGo(cid:151)
cal l977proinotion exercise bia, t-larrittu .1(cid:146) Thompson v Stansficirt hinihi:(cid:146), Flarrirte 2(cid:146) Thompson -- St:iiisi(cid:146)i c)rI
i(cid:146)cis yet beeiipromoted to Turner, CA No 79-1565, Answers to Plain- Turner, CA No 79-1565 Defendant(cid:146)s An
tills Request forAdmissions. November swers to PlaintifFs Request fbi Admissions.
CS-16. 1979, pp 12. 15-16 March 1980, pp 2. 7-8
51
Woridorce Evolution
(cid:147)
The DDCIwas concerned
that letting the case go
forward would, in effect,
against] the operational use interest because of the diFfi
ofwonien hi(cid:146) theAgency. put the Agency(cid:146)s entire culty of presenting a strong
personnel system on defense. On the transmittal doc
TheAgeitcy! utilized criteria trial. ument forwarding the General
for theselection ofindividu Counsel(cid:146)s recomniendation to
alsforproiilotio;zs that had a the DDCI, the DDO wrote: (cid:145)At
disparate impact upon times reality supersedes right
females not /ust(,fled by any and principle(cid:151)in this case the
bits/ness necessity. DDO concurs because the court
was concerned that letting the is stacked against us.(cid:146)32 This is a
The CIA] claims that the d~ffer case go forward would, in profound comment from one of
emnacleessicnitphliagihnetirfgfrsapdaeywvh/so-ah-avd/s epfefrescto,nnpeult styhestAegmenocny(cid:146)striale.ntire tsheenimorosAtgehingchylymarnesapgeecrtsedto this
Therefore, in June 1980. he day, reflecting both his frustra
c/one the same work was the
agreed to a proposed settle tion and, ironically, the cultural
sryessutletm.~fPltahiento(pfe/r(cid:146)satrieobnutotfalatwoetnhits ment, which included accep paradigm shift as Agency man
assertion is thefact that employ tance that for many years agers began to digest the
Thompson had been assigned implications of the revolution
#neiitpracticesfthat the CM]
utilized admittedly had an tporepdoescietsisoonrssheatldabhyighheerrmgaraldee. ary 1960s legislation,
cmdverce impact uponfemales
He noted that she was, that
amid, therefore, the meritsystem Thompson accepted the settle
very month, ranked within what
tins not (cid:147)hona/(cid:146)ide. (cid:147) Pla/nt~ff appeared to be the available ment. She was retroactively
will also show that the went svs headroom for promotion to promoted to GS-16 and
teni nas not honaf/dc because Gs-i6. The terms of the settle received a net payment of
it resulted in females being $3,898.23.~3 She did not request
ment stipulated that
iendergraded in the higherpro dlamages.~~ The Agency paid
Thompson(cid:146)s promotion 10
fessional lectls aitci spending her attorney $13,000 for costs
GS-16 should be retroactive to
more ti/i/c in grade than s/mid(cid:151) and fees. As part of the settle
1 October 1977.
lamij(cid:146) situated mnales.~(cid:176) ment, the DO was required to
revise its promotion criteria.35
(cid:145)fhe DO remained unconvinced
United States Attorney Charles
that the merits of the case war
F. C. Ruff(cid:151)later famous for the ranted the proposed relief Because Thompson was dis
Senate impeachment trial of accorded by the Agency. Nor crete, few people(cid:151)even co
President Clinton(cid:151)notified the workers and close associates(cid:151)
did it like the idea of sacrificing
Agency in early May 1980 that knew about her EFO complaint
the integrity of the panel sys
the trial was scheduled to begin tem to outside pressures. or the legal action. She insisted
27 May~Ruff advised that a Nonetheless, the Directorate that her attorney not talk to the
settlemehi was in the CIA(cid:146)s came to accept that settlement
best interest.(cid:148) As a result, the of the case on the terms
tnreigalotwiaastiopnosstbpeognaend. Tahned DDCI worked out was in the Agency(cid:146)s a4(cid:145)32mTonhutenertnp,,aiylbetdcriafanfuessrmeeintbttiayalltmhoaewnitefidemsewt,aofs6tnhjoeutnleaawl1sa9ur8ig0te
Thompson was already a Sene)r CS(cid:151)IS
(cid:145)~ US Diatrict Cmiit fi~r the District of Co(cid:151)
(cid:145)(cid:145) Menionu duni front Office ofUS Attor junth,a. Harrttte 1 Thompson V. Stansfieid
(cid:145)US District Court U r the District of Go(cid:151) ney. Washington DC to CIA Assistant Gen Turner, CA No, 79-1565, Consent Decree,
liunbia. Harritte1(cid:146), Thompson v Stansfieid era] Counsel(cid:146) 1-tarritre T Thomptun v Novemher 25. 1980, p~ I
Turner, CA No 79-1565 PLant ft(cid:146)s Pretrial Stansfreld Turner, CA No 79-1565. May 13, (cid:145)~ Author(cid:146)s interview with Thompson,
Statement. Match 1950, pp 8, II 1980, PP 1. 5 17 June 2000,
52
Work!orceEvolution
Thompson believed that
the Agency would be
...
better served by
newspapers about her case. I-Icr to pursue her story and look
effectiveiy utilizing and
performance on the job did not into the legislation that enabled
falter. Throughout the painful appropriatelyrewarding her success.
process, her objective remained the talent and
to prove that women can func contributions ofitsentire Thompson believed that the
tion effectively in the DO Agency, particularly the DO,
workforce.
without direct operational expe would be better served by
rience. She believed that ending effectively utilizing and appro
the bias of DO panels against priately rewarding the talent
officers without operational and contributions of its entire
experience would make the workforce(cid:151)specia 11515 and gen
Agency better. When I returned from an over eralists alike. She put her own
seas assignment in 1981, I peace of mind and career on
found the Directorate much the line to make that statement.
Epilogue changed from two years earlier. Based on the tights bestowed
As chief of a DO budget and by the Equal Pay Act and the
Harritte Thompson went on to finance branch, I noted that we Civil Rights Act, her case in the
serve the Agency and the Direc had a stream of new officers in late 1970s undoubtedly helped
torate of Operations (cid:145)veil until training or headed overseas. to focus Agency senior manag
she retired in 1989 as an 515-4. That in itself was not new. ers on the bow wave of social
Her last assignment, which she What was different was that the change coming toward them. I
held for a number of years, was trainees were no longer all have seen many changes occur
as a senior manager of Director white males. Sizeable numbers over the course of my long
ate operational performance of female officers were coming career, hut there is tin doubt
and resources, overseeing the through, although it was not that still more needs to be clone
very personnel processes she until the 1990s that we began to for and by women in the
had worked so hard to see more minorities. I won Agency. Social change moves
improve. In 1985, she was one dered what had prompted the slowly. The war on terrorism
of 35 SIS officers receiving a change in the DO. A chance raises new opportunities and
special stipend, and the only challenges.
hail conversation with Harritte
DO female. She was also Thompson led me, years later,
awarded the Distinguished
Intelligence Medal upon her
retirement in 1989.3 Recently, In recognition of(cid:147)38 years ofsuperior
the DO established a Clmir for performance in critical sensorpositions in
which she demonstrated leadership ability
Resource Management in her and exemplary achtevenienr as an innova
honor at the George Bush Cen tarand managerinthefieldsofoperations,
ter for Intelligence. ianntdelelivgaelnucaet,ioannd resource management
53
