Between June 1, 2008 and June 14, 2008, plaintiff Willie Roberts, a black male and an investigator with the Investigative and Enforcement Services Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, was suspended. On June 16, 2008, the first business day following his suspension, Roberts sent an e-mail to his first line supervisor, requesting that he be promoted to a GS-12 position of senior investigator. The supervisor responded that she did not feel Roberts could perform the work of a senior investigator at that time based on the delinquent nature of his cases. However, she informed Roberts that if he completed the next five cases he was given within the 100-day required time frame, she would re-evaluate him for promotion. On June 30, 2008, Roberts sought Equal Employment Opportunity counseling on the sole basis of “alleged discrimination based upon race.” When his complaints were not resolved during the informal Equal Employment Opportunity process, he filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint on Oct. 20, 2008, alleging race discrimination based on “suspension from Agency (2 weeks), denial of promotion, harassment (non-sexual), and work conditions.” On Nov. 23, 2008, Roberts was promoted by his supervisor to a GS-12 senior investigator position after he timely completed the next five cases. However, Roberts claimed he was not promoted until five months after he applied for the position because of his race. Roberts sued his employer, Tom Vilsack, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. He alleged employment discrimination based on his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defense counsel contended that Roberts had a long history of failing to follow the directions of his direct supervisor and of failing to complete his case investigations within the required time frame. Based on these deficiencies, Roberts was issued a Letter of Caution in December 2005 and a Letter of Reprimand in June 2007. Defense counsel added that on Dec. 6, 2007, Roberts’ supervisor issued a proposal for suspension based on Roberts’ continued failure to follow her instructions and his inability to timely complete his cases. Counsel noted that on March 25, 2008, the Regional Director and deciding official responding to the proposed suspension offered Roberts an Alternative Discipline Agreement that would reduce Roberts’ suspension to two days, but would require him to admit to charges of improper conduct and attend counseling. Counsel further noted that Roberts declined the offer. As a result, on April 30, 2008, the official issued his Decision Letter upholding Roberts’ 14-day suspension. Defense counsel argued that Roberts’ supervisor treated similarly situated employees the same as Roberts and that there were no facts suggesting any of her decisions relating to Roberts’ employment were based on his race. Counsel also argued that Roberts’ supervisor disciplined other Caucasian and Hispanic employees for identical conduct issues and that, other than Roberts, she has not recommended any other black employees for discipline. Defense counsel further contended that Roberts’ supervisor promoted another black employee to a GS-12 investigator position and that the supervisor had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for suspending Roberts in that he failed to follow her instructions in communicating with her regarding his cases. Counsel noted that during the relevant period, Roberts had seven cases that were in excess of 200 days old, even though the Investigative and Enforcement Services Division’s processing guidelines required that his cases be completed between 65 and 100 days of assignment. In addition, counsel noted that the supervisor instructed Roberts to contact her weekly to discuss his cases, but that Roberts admitted that he failed to do so., Roberts sought recovery of an unspecified amount of emotional-distress damages, as well as damages for his past and future compensation. Defense counsel contended that there is no causal link between any distress experienced by Roberts and the alleged acts by the Agency. Counsel argued that if Roberts did suffer from emotional distress, it was caused by other stressors and other issues existing in his life. With respect to Roberts’ alleged economic damages, defense counsel contended that Roberts is not entitled to any of the past or future compensation he claimed.