Felipa A.,1 Complainant,v.Thomas E. Price, MD., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 8, 2017

0120151692 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 8, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Felipa A.,1
Complainant,

v.

Thomas E. Price, MD.,
Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services,
Agency.

Appeal Nos. 0120150485, 0120150853, 0120151692, 0120170805, 0120151098

Hearing Nos. 570-2010-00824X, 570-2012-00315X, 570-2012-01141X,
570-2013-00078X, 570-2015-00517X

Agency Nos. HHS-OS-0029-2009, HHS-OS-0024-2011,
HHS-OS-0017-20122, HHS-OS-0006-2013, HHS-OS-0036-2014

DECISION

Complainant filed five appeals with this Commission regarding her five complaints of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§1614.606, the Commission exercises its discretion and consolidates the five appeals into this
single decision. For the following reasons, the Commission MODIFIES the Agency’s final
action.

BACKGROUND

Complainant’s EEO complaints concern allegations that she was subjected to various incidents
of discrimination and harassment from 2009 through 2014. Initially the Agency accepted several
of Complainant’s claims and dismissed other claims for failure to state a claim, untimely EEO

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
2 Agency No. HHS-OS-0017-2012 had two Hearing Nos. 570-2012-01141X and 570-013-
00078X.
0120150485 et al.,

2
Counselor contact, mootness, or a collateral attack on another proceeding. Subsequently the
Agency dismissed the remaining claims on the grounds that she raised those claims in a pending
civil action.

The record reveals that on October 3, 2014, Complainant filed a civil action (identified as Civil
Action No. LACV-14-7749) in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Subsequently, Complainant’s civil action was moved to the United States District of
Columbia and was designated with a new case number (identified as Civil Action No. 1:150-cv-
00791-CRC).

In response to the civil action, the Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss or, In Alternative, for
Summary Judgment. On August 3, 2016, the U.S. District Court Judge issued a Memorandum
and Opinion and Order, in which he granted the Agency’s Motion in part and denied it in part.
The Commission’s decision in the present case addresses whether the various claims raised in
Complainant’s five complaints were properly dismissed as part of her civil action.3

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(3) provides that an agency shall dismiss a complaint
that is the basis of a pending civil action in a United States District Court, or that was the basis of
a civil action decided by a United States District Court in which complainant was a party.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120150485/Agency No. HHS-OS-0029-2009

Complainant filed a complaint on April 1, 2009, alleging she was subjected to discrimination on
the basis of her race (Black), sex (female), and disability between January 2009 and May 2009.
Complainant’s complaint consisted of 22 claims. The Agency accepted claims (1) – (19) and
dismissed claims (20) – (22) for untimely EEO Counselor contact. Thereafter, the Agency
dismissed Complainant’s complaint on the grounds that the same claims were raised in a civil
action. Upon review, we find that claim (14) was properly dismissed on the grounds that
Complainant raised the same matter in her civil action.

Based on our review of the civil action and the August 3, 2016 Memorandum and Opinion and
Order, we find the following claims are not encompassed within Complainant’s civil action and
are therefore remanded for continued processing:

1. From January 13 through May 1, 2009, while serving as Acting Deputy Director,
management kept Complainant out of work process by not sending her any

3 We note that on appeal, Complainant does not specifically challenge the Agency’s initial
dismissal of several of her claims for failure to state a claim, untimely EEO Counselor contact,
mootness, or collateral attack on another proceeding. Thus, we will not address those grounds
for dismissal in this decision. This decision will only address those claims dismissed as being
part of a civil action.
0120150485 et al.,

3
information or any work products needed to execute her job as outlined within her
position description and Performance Management Appraisal Plan (PMAP);
2. On January 28, 2009, Complainant informed senior management because of their lack
of intervention:
(a) subordinates decline Complainant's meetings nor participate in briefings and
refuse to provide her with information;
(b) there continue to be 2 teams with distinct differences in duties and
responsibilities; and
(c) some employees are given mounds of overtime and comp time instead of
spreading work to whole team and contractors based on priorities;
3. On February 5, 2009, management:
(a) removed Complainant out of the Management Assurance (MA) process and
placed her in IT and Records Management, areas she did not have a background
in, with little to no direction; and
(b) Complainant was not allowed to take requested and suggested training by OS;
provided with no direction or defined deliverables and no resources;
4. On February 9, 2009, upper management backed Complainant’s immediate
supervisor when he:
(a) denied Complainant’s leave requests even though she had leave;
(b) did not allow Complainant to work from home;
(c) intentionally did not keep Complainant informed to respond to senior
management inquiries;
(d) assigned Complainant analyst duties and work although she is a Team Leader
and have to cover for him when he is out; and
(e) designated lower graded employees to act during his absence causing
Complainant to report to these employees;
5. On February 10, 2009:
(a) Complainant's request for communication w management to discuss the use of
contractors and staff going around Complainant was never held;
(b) management allowed a staff member on Complainant's team to develop and issue
documents without feedback from Complainant as Lead and other staff members;
and
(c) Complainant learned she was not invited to attend meetings for team
development of MITRE;
6. On February 11, 2009, Complainant’s request for greater communication with
management did not result in feedback;
7. On February 12, 2009:
(a) Complainant requested a meeting with management on PMAP as her duties and
expectations had not been explained; however, this meeting was never held; and
(b) management assigned Complainant GS-13 work as a GS-15 although other staff
was available and not doing tasks;
8. On February 17, 2009, Complainant requested an ergonomic chair and gel wrists
from management; however, she had to follow-up on her own CAP needs for
equipment as management would not;
0120150485 et al.,

4
9. From March 2 through May 5, 2009, management assigned Complainant tasks to
complete within short timeframes for which she had no background and without use
of consultants;
10. On March 31, 2009, management assigned Complainant duties other staff members
had sat on and not completed;
11. On March 31, 2009, Complainant requested to have greater awareness of MA
activities on all studies, meetings, testing, etc., to complete OMB A123 process;
however, management did not keep her aware;
12. On April 3, 2009, management usurped Complainant's authority when he forwarded
her email to all subordinates stating it was not appropriate and what people should not
do;
13. On April 10, 2009, management informed Complainant that she could not be certified
as Contracting Officer Technical Representative although this was part of her PMAP;
15. On May 1, 2009, Complainant was requested to follow up and fill in when
management not available to attend meetings; however, Complainant was not given
any dates; attended meetings totally in the dark and had to respond to inquiries
unprepared with no knowledge, in front of other senior managers;
16. On May 6, 2009, Complainant requested to be copied on all documentation relating to
a big meeting at BARDA; however, management stated it was Complainant’s job to
look at staff member calendars;
17. On May 8, 2009, Complainant was not allowed to participate in briefing the Admiral
on OMB A123;
18. On May 13, 2009, Complainant was denied a 15-minute leave request when she
returned late from lunch;
19. On May 26, 2009, Complainant submitted a leave proposal and requested a sit down
meeting with management to offer alternative dates in advance so that she could
make all necessary logistical changes; however, management did not respond.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120150853/Agency No. HHS-OS-0024-2011

Complainant filed a complaint on April 4, 2011, which was subsequently amended, alleging she
was subjected to discrimination and an ongoing hostile work environment on the bases of race,
disability, and in reprisal for protected EEO activity between December 2010 and July 2011.
Complainant’s complaint consisted of 13 claims. Upon review, we find that issues (1), (2), (3),
(4), (6), (7), (8), (10), (12), and (13) were properly dismissed on the grounds that Complainant
raised the same matter in her civil action. Based on our review of the civil action and the August
3, 2016 Memorandum and Opinion and Order, we find the following issues are not encompassed
within Complainant’s civil action and are therefore remanded for continued processing:

5. In January 2011, Complainant received an inaccurate 2010 performance
evaluation.
9. In February 2011, Complainant was assigned duties to complete while on leave
without pay status.
0120150485 et al.,

5
11. On April 15, 2011, Complainant was subjected to disparate treatment when
management failed to investigate an issue regarding a letter from the Department
of Labor.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120151692/Agency No, HHS-OS-0017-2012

Complainant filed a complaint dated March 1, 2012, alleging the Agency discriminated against
her and subjected her to harassment on the bases of sex (female), color (brown), age (57), race
(African-American), and disability from October 2011 – January 2012. Complainant’s
complaint consisted of nine claims. The Agency accepted claims (2)(c), 2(d), and (3) for
processing and dismissed the remaining claims for stating the same claim previously raised,
failure to state a claim, or alleging dissatisfaction with the EEO process. Thereafter, the Agency
dismissed Complainant’s complaint on the grounds that the same claims were raised in a civil
action. Only claims 2(c), 2(d), and (3) are at issue in this appeal. Upon review, we find that the
Agency properly dismissed claims (2)(c), 2(d), and (3) on the grounds that these claims were
raised in Complainant’s her civil action.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120170805/Agency No. HHS-OS-0006-2013

Complainant filed a formal complaint on February 6, 2013, which was subsequently amended,
alleging she was discriminated against and subjected to continuous harassment on the bases of
race (African-American), color (black), disability, age, sex (female), and in reprisal for protected
EEO activity between October 2012 through September 2013. Complainant raised 98 claims.
The Agency accepted claims (1) - (20), (22), (26) – (28), (32) - (38), (42) – (47), (49), (50), (55)
– (57), (59) – (66), (68) - (70), (72), (74) – (78), (80) – (87), (88) - (89), (91), and (93) - (98) for
processing and dismissed the remaining claims on procedural grounds. Thereafter, the Agency
dismissed the previously accepted claims on the grounds that Complainant raised the same
claims in a civil action.

Upon review, we find that issues (2), (4), (8), (11), (13), (18), (20), (26), (37), (47), (50), (55),
(64), (69), (77), (80), (82), (83), (84), (85), (87), (88), (93), (94, and (97) were properly
dismissed on the grounds that Complainant raised the same matter in her civil action. Based on
our review of the civil action and the August 3, 2016 Memorandum and Opinion and Order, we
find the following issues are not encompassed within Complainant’s civil action and are
therefore remanded for continued processing:

1. On October 22, 2012, Complainant received a progress review from her supervisor on
a new job and received little feedback related to expectations.
3. On October 29, 2012, Complainant requested and never received any information
from management which she needed in order to develop a Quality Improvement Plan
to perform her job.
5. On November 2, 2012, Complainant was asked to spend her IDP dollars for training
while other employees were not asked to spend their IDP designated dollars.
0120150485 et al.,

6
6. On November 2, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor did not respond to her comments in
regard to her performance plan which included lengthy absences for which she had
medical documentation.
7. Since November 5, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor has not responded to her request
in over a year for approval of medical care treatment and prior injury information
from the Department.
9. On November 5, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor failed to articulate to her at the
beginning of year, how she rated on her performance rating.
10. On November 6, Complainant’s supervisor shuffled her to someone else for answers
on her work assignments.
12. On November 9, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor denied her training in the career
counseling opportunities.
14. On November 9, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor changed her PMAP date in order
to provide a less than satisfactory rating. There was no clarity or expectations on her
duties.
15. On November 9, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor delayed in submitting her leave
donor application which then caused her to use advanced leave.
16. On November 9, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor would not provide her travel
disability information prior to her travel and he is placing a criterion that she will
need a doctor’s note before her travel vouchers are approved.
17. On November 13, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor inquired about vendors for career
training as an alternative to the training he denied her, but never made certain that the
alternative training was feasible to her.
19. On November 16, 2012, Complainant’s supervisor had not responded to her workers’
compensation claim resulting in her having to take off to take care of her illness and
create more hardship in not receiving workers compensation pay.
22. On January 14, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor has not signed or completed any of
the documentation needed so that she could get paid for workers compensation.
27. On January 31, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor has informed her that she is
responsible for the attainment of information of her assignment after advising him
that she did not have the authority to request or enforce information from others.
28. On February 4, 2013, Complainant informed management that she was having
problems in receiving and being included to the required information to perform her
job.
32. On February 5, 2013, Complainant was not included in discussions that attributed to
projects being selected, working within teams and making contributions as deemed
required of her.
33. On February 6, 2013, Complainant asked for an appeal on her reasonable
accommodation requests.
34. On February 6, 2013, Complainant received an email from management advising her
not to write or reach out to her supervisor’s manager.
35. On February 6, 2013, Complainant was informed that she would be receiving training
from a person that knew nothing about the training.
0120150485 et al.,

7
36. On February 6, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor informed her that her performance
evaluation was unacceptable, which had not been revised or updated to include her
previous position and accomplishments.
38. On February 6, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor requested that she change her AWS
day to attend a meeting although she had previously advised him that this was a day
that she had pre-scheduled her medical appointments.
42. On January 24, 2013, Complainant received no information from Management in
regard to the location of classes and funding in order to complete her IDP.
43. On January 24, 2013, Complainants PMAP did not reflect the right dates and was
given unreasonable target goals.
44. On January 24, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor issued her task with unrealistic
timelines stating that it would be considered as a refusal if task were not completed.
45. On January 24, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor informed her that he would rescind
her mid-term progress review.
46. On January 30, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor continued to threaten her when she
returned from extended medical leave for either a personnel or performance action.
49. On January 30, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor would not specify to her the contents
of his work plan nor offer an example of what he felt would meet his expectations.
The plan was very general and thereby subject to many interpretations.
56. On February 12, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor stated that she was only entitled to
free training.
57. On February 13, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor did not provide her with training in
order to perform and achieve a higher level PMAP.
59. On February 13, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor issued her a Memorandum of
Caution.
60. On February 13, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor did not provide her with specific
instructions that she needed in order to perform and achieve a higher level PMAP.
61. On February 13, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor denied her specific information in
regard to measures for minimally unsuccessful, fully successful and successful.
62. On February 25, 2013, Complainant was advised by her supervisor that her
Performance Evaluation would be based on 5 critical elements in its entirety.
63. On March 4, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor was unfamiliar with his department
and could not explain or express Complainant’s job to her.
66. On March 6, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor stated that she must meet a year’s
goal in 90 days. These requirements are not attainable.
68. On March 6, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor informed her that her mid-term
progress report was not rescinded.
70. On March 13, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor did not specify in her PMAP on
how to perform her job.
72. On March 20, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor denied her request to provide her
claim for workers compensation for 2009 after noting problems with DOL on
workers’ compensation issues.
74. On March 22, 2013, Complainant was informed that she had only one claim for
workers’ compensation which was submitted late and none for 2009.
0120150485 et al.,

8
75. On March 25, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor required her to report to Congress
with no background or experience in this area that required feedback.
76. On April 1, 2013, Complainant informed Management on the lack of feedback on
the Quality Improvement project and received no response. Complainant
continues to be evaluated on the project but is not included in the meetings.
78. On May 13, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor excluded her from emails in regard
to office work or invites to meetings.
81. As of May 22, 2013, Complainant’s 2011 FOIA request has not been completed
thereby placing Complainant in non-compliance with FOIA regulations.
86. On June 27, 2013, Complainant was denied leadership training while being
required to act as Acting Deputy Director.
89. On July 8, 2013, Complainant was denied the opportunity to allow another
employee to act on her behalf while the opportunity was available to other
employees.
91. On July 10, 2013, Complainant’s supervisor demanded she submit a doctor’s note
for three days of scheduled leave.
95. On September 28, 2013, Complainant’s medical documentation concluded that
her injuries were the result of her being placed to work in unsafe working
conditions which caused her injuries to worsen.
96. On September 9, 2013, Complainant was denied “Yellow belt training for Six
Sigma” while other employees were offered the training.
98. On September 25, 2013, Complainant was informed that she had to use her IDP
training dollars to attend the Greenbelt training while other employees were
offered the training.

Additionally, we note the Agency states that it issued a March 12, 2014 revised letter of
acceptance in which it accepted Complainant’s claim that she was denied a within-grade
increase. According to the record, Complainant claimed that she was discriminated against
based on race (African-American), color (black), disability, age, sex (female), and in reprisal for
prior EEO activity and subjected to harassment when:

On May 20, 2013, Complainant was denied a within grade increase.

Upon review, we find Complainant’s claim that she was denied a within grade increase on May
20, 2013 was not part of her civil action. The Agency should process this claim along with the
remanded claims.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120151098/Agency No. HHS-OS-0036-2014

Complainant filed a complaint on June 25, 2014, alleging she was subjected to discrimination
and harassment on the bases of race, color, disability, and in reprisal for protected EEO activity.
Complainant’s complaint consisted of claims (A) – (I). Claim identified 40 separate incidents
which the Agency identified as “evidence supporting claims.” The Agency accepted claims (A),
(E), and (H) for investigation. The Agency dismissed claims (B), (C), (D), (F), and (G) because
0120150485 et al.,

9
those claims were addressed in previous EEO complaints. Additionally, the Agency dismissed
claim (I) because it alleged dissatisfaction of the processing of a previously filed complaint. The
Agency noted that it would not investigate the “evidence of claims” under the following
numbers: (1) – (7), (9) – (12), (14) – (20), (22) - (23), (26), (29) – (30), (32) – (33), (35), and (37)
– (40). Thereafter, the Agency dismissed claims (A), (E), and (H) for raising the same matter in
a civil action.

Complainant also requested a hearing on this complaint. On January 9, 2015, the Hearings Unit
from the EEOC’s Washington Field Office received Complainant’s Request for a Hearing Form.
On February 22, 2016, an EEOC AJ issued an Order Directing the Agency to Produce the
Complaint File and Report of Investigation. On March 7, 2016, the Agency responded and noted
that it dismissed the case because Complainant had filed in a United States District Court. The
Agency further noted that Complainant had appealed the dismissal to the EEOC’s Office of
Federal Operations (OFO). The EEOC AJ determined that because of the appeal to OFO, the
Hearings Unit does not have jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

Based on our review of the civil action and the August 3, 2016 Memorandum and Opinion and
Order, we find the following issues are not encompassed within Complainant’s civil action and
are therefore remanded for continued processing:

A. Complainant was informed on May 7, 2014, that she would be involuntarily
terminated effective May 18, 2014 based on her race (Black), color (dark black),
disability, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity dating back to 2009, and
Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment;

E. Complainant was purposefully rated poorly in order to be denied awards based on her
race (Black), color (dark black), disability, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity
dating back to 2009;

H. Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race (Black),
color (dark black), disability, and in reprisal for participating in EEO activity since
2009, when:
8. Complainant was denied an opportunity to change managers although Coworker
A and Coworker B were provided that opportunity.
13. Other managers who reported to Supervisor A did not provide Complainant
necessary information and/or excluded her from meetings and instructed them to
provide affidavits against her. The managers are Manager 1 (the Deputy
Director), Manager 2, Manager 3, and Manager 4.
21. After receiving the notice of removal on May 7, 2014, Complainant was not
allowed to perform any work and made an outcast even though a decision was not
made. Despite Person B’s legal issues, he was not removed from his position and
his position description changed.
24. Complainant’s supervisor significantly changed and increased her work
requirements (specifically SWIFT duties) during the Performance Improvement
0120150485 et al.,

10
Period. Further, Supervisor A assigned Complainant Person B’s work during
Person B’s absence.
25. Complainant complained about leave. Person B was allowed numerous and
extensive absences for legal reasons but Complainant was denied leave due to
being ill.
27. Complainant’s request for a modification of her position description that would
preclude her from participating in the union was denied. Complainant was told
that no changes could be made to her position description or Performance
Improvement Plan. However, Person B’s position description was modified after
he had legal problems affecting his top secret clearance but not removed from his
position.
28. On May 16, 2014, Complainant noticed that at 5 a.m. that she had no longer had
access to her e-mail. Supervisor A denied her access because she believed she
wanted to prevent her obtaining evidence to challenge her removal.
31. Complainant claimed Supervisor A was aware she lacked the staff support to meet
his demands.
34. The Agency altered the 90-day review period for her PMAP. The Agency did not
include days served in the position when the Agency did not have a PMAP and
position description ready for her reassigned position. Supervisor A prevented
her involvement in activities prior to the reassignment. No other employee was
reassigned and a 90-day PMAP review period would not be as consequential
especially since she was in a new position.
36. The Agency did not provide Complainant enough time to learn the Dragon
software nor address issues with the software.

We note that in response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency argues that several of the claims
in Agency No. HHS-OS-0006-2013 and HS-OS-0036-2014 are “intricately intertwined” with
Complainant’s claim that she was from federal service. Upon review, the record reveals the
District Court Judge determined Complainant did not incorporate any claims regarding her
removal from in her civil action. It appears the Agency contends that the Commission lacks
jurisdiction over these claims as they are mixed case complaints; however, we will not address
new grounds for dismissal on appeal. Moreover, we find that Complainant has not shown that
any other additional claims were not processed.

Thus, the Commission finds the following claims were not part of Complainant’s civil action and
remands the following claims for further processing: (1) – (13) and (15) – (19) in Agency No.
HHS-OS-0029-2009; claims (5), (9), and (11) in Agency No. HHS-0024-2011; claims (1), (3),
(5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (12), (14) – (17), (19), (22), (27), (28), (32) – (36), (38), (42) – (46), (49),
(56), (57), (59), (60) – (63), (66), (68), (70), (72), (74) – (76), (78), (81), (86), (89), (91), (95) –
(96), (98), and the denial of the within grade increase claim in Agency No. HHS-OS-0006-2013;
and claims (A), (E), and (H) (8), (13), (21), (24), (25), (27), (28), (31), (34), and (36) in Agency
No. HHS-OS-0036-2014.
0120150485 et al.,

11

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The
Agency shall process the remanded claims as identified in this decision in accordance with this
decision and the Order herein.

ORDER

The Agency shall submit to the Hearings Unit of the Washington Field Office a request for a
hearing on the remanded claims within 15 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.
The Agency is directed to submit a copy of the complaint file to the EEOC Hearings Unit within
15 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall provide written
notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below that the request and
complaint file have been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. Thereafter, the Administrative Judge
shall issue a decision on the complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109, and the Agency
shall issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)

Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its
compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective
action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The
Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all
submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order,
the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance
with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the
Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with
the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and
1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant
files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
0120150485 et al.,

12

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington,
DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a
legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail
within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The
request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0610)

This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency
to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. You have the right to
file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar
days from the date that you receive this decision on both that portion of your complaint which
the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for
continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one
hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency,
or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on
your complaint. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the
person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her
full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
0120150485 et al.,

13
“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or
department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action,
filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may
request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or
costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may
request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of
court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The
court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to
File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

June 8, 2017
Date