EEOC Appeal 2026001834

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Elmer C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Adam R. Telle,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001834
Agency No. AROAA24AUG003224
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision by the Agency dated
April 2, 2026, finding it did not breach the terms of a November 21, 2024, settlement
agreement. 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405.
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Government Information
Specialist at the Agency’s Fort Belvoir in Virginia.2 Believing that the Agency
subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO
Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. 	On November 21, 2024,
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 The parties set forth that Complainant’s disability retirement was effective March
4, 2026.

2 	2026001834
Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(4) The Agency agrees to do the following:
a. 	To place the Aggrieved on the following tour of duty schedule from
one year from the effective date of the Agreement: Monday through
Friday from 6:00 a.m.to 2:30 p.m., Eastern Time, to include an
uncompensated 30-minute lunch. The action will take place no later
than three days from effective date of this Agreement.
b. 	For the same one-year period described in paragraph 4(a), above,
the 	Agency 	will 	not 	assign 	Aggrieved 	any 	additional 	duty
assignments, to include responsibilities pertaining to Information
Management Officer and Primary Hand Receipt Holder.
6. Aggrieved further acknowledges:
c. 	He may revoke this Agreement within seven days of signing the
Agreement 	and 	the 	Agreement 	will 	not 	become 	effective 	or
enforceable until the revocation period has expired. Revocation can
be made by delivering written notice of revocation to [a named
Attorney Advisor at a specified email address]. For the revocation
to be effective, [the named Attorney Advisor] must receive the
written 	notification 	on 	[or] 	before 	the 	seventh 	day 	after 	the
Aggrieved signs this Agreement (or the next business day if that day
falls on a weekend or Federal holiday)…
7. 	For purposes of this Agreement, the terms “date of execution” and
“effective date” shall mean the date the final signatory to this Agreement signs
it, provided it has not been revoked pursuant to paragraph 6(c), above.
By email to the Agency dated January 29, 2026, Complainant set forth that he was
“resubmitting” his notice that the Agency was in breach of the agreement.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to comply with provision
4(b) by assigning him additional duties. 	Complainant stated that a reasonable
accommodation memorandum issued on January 13, 2026, assigned him “additional
duties that are clerical in nature.”

3 	2026001834
Complainant further alleged that “[s]everal accommodations from my December
2025 request-such as leave flexibility-were not acknowledged, approved, or denied,
and no interactive process occurred.”
In its April 2, 2026 final decision, the Agency found no breach. The Agency found
that Complainant’s breach claim was untimely raised. 	The Agency reasoned that
any claims of breach should have been raised no later than December 21, 2025. The
Agency further found that Complainant’s allegation regarding its processing of his
reasonable accommodation request is a matter not governed by the settlement
agreement.
The instant appeal followed. 	Complainant filed numerous submissions in support
of his appeal. Complainant asserts that, in addition to January 13, 2026 additional
clerical duties assigned to him, the Agency also assigned him “COSMEC” duties
and “NARA badge” responsibilities in violation of provision 4(b) of the agreement.
Complainant also asserts that he initially filed his breach claim with the Agency on
January 21, 2026, after discovering the breach on January 13, 2026, pertaining to
additional clerical duties. 	Finally, Complainant asserts that the Agency’s April 2,
202, final decision was issued beyond the period set forth in the Commission’s
regulations.
In response, the Agency sets forth that the one-year performance period for provision
4(b) expired by November 28, 2025. Thus, the Agency sets forth that Complainant’s
breach claim raised on January 29, 2026, occurred more than thirty days after the
expiration of the performance period. 	Finally, the Agency sets forth that the
Agency’s January 2026 decision on his December 2025 reasonable accommodation
request occurred after the expiration of the performance period for provision 4(b).
Finally, the Agency asserts that while the final decision was issued shortly after the
deadline, due to staffing issues and workload volume, there has been no harm to
Complainant.
We find the performance period for provision 4(b) was between November 30, 2024-
November 30, 2025. 	In reaching this determination, the record reflects that the
settlement agreement was signed by both parties on November 21, 2024. 	While
provision (7) sets forth that that the effective date shall be the date the final, required
signatory signed the agreement, provision 6(c) provides, in pertinent part, that that
Complainant could revoke the agreement within seven days of signing it and that the
agreement would not become effective until the revocation period had expired.

4 	2026001834
Provision 6(c) further sets forth that the notice of revocation had to be received on
or before the seventh date after Complainant signed the agreement or the next
business day if the seventh day fell on a weekend or Federal holiday. Seven days
after November 21, 2024, was November 28, 2024, a federal holiday. 	Therefore,
the revocation period was extended until the next business day, November 29, 2024.
Thus, we find the performance period for provision 4(b) began on November 30,
2024, and ended one year later, on November 30, 2025. Based on the foregoing, we
find that Complainant knew or should have known that he was assigned additional
duties no later than November 30, 2025.3
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a), a complainant must allege noncompliance with
a settlement agreement within thirty days of when complainant knew or should have
known of the alleged noncompliance by notifying the EEO Director, in writing. In
the instant matter, the thirty-day timeframe to allege breach was also set forth in
provision (9) of the settlement agreement.
We find that Complainant did not timely raise his breach claim. The record contains
an email from Complainant to the Agency dated January 29, 2026, alleging breach
of the agreement, which was beyond the applicable period to timely file a breach
claim. 	On appeal, Complainant asserts that he initially filed his breach claim on
January 21, 2026.4 Even assuming arguendo that Complainant filed his initial
breach claim on January 21, 2026, his breach claim would still be untimely raised.
To the extent Complainant asserts that he reasonably suspected a breach of provision
4(b) on January 13, 2026, when he was assigned additional clerical duties, the
performance period for provision 4(b), as discussed above, was from November 30,
3 Complainant makes reference to the 2025 government shutdown with respect to
the time limits. 	However November 30, 2025, occurred after the government
shutdown ended on November 12, 2025. Thus, we need not extend the applicable
thirty-day time limit to file a breach claim. In addition, while part of the performance
period for provision 4(b) occurred during the 2025 government shutdown, which
occurred from October 1, 2025-November 12, 2025, the settlement agreement did
not contain any terms for extending the performance period for provision 4(b) in the
event of a government shutdown.
4 The record does not contain a copy of a January 21, 2026, breach claim from
Complainant.

5 	2026001834
2024-November 30, 2025. Thus, an alleged incident involving Complainant being
assigned additional duties on January 13, 2026, is not covered within the terms of
the agreement.5
To the extent Complainant is alleging that the Agency failed to properly process his
reasonable accommodation request submitted on December 4, 2025, and that the
Agency’s January 13, 2026, reasonable accommodation request was improper,
Commission Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(c) sets forth that allegations that
subsequent acts of discrimination violate a settlement agreement shall be processed
as separate complaints. Thus, if Complainant wishes to pursue these matters through
the EEO administrative process, he should contact an EEO Counselor.
For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final determination,
finding no breach of the agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or
evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 	If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request,
5 To the extent Complainant asserts, on appeal, that the Agency issued the FAD
beyond the applicable time period, we find this matter does not warrant sanctions.
The FAD was issued less than three months after Complainant filed his allegation of
breach and properly set forth Complainant’s appeal rights. In addition, Commission
Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b) provided Complainant an opportunity to file an
appeal 	with 	the 	Commission 	thirty-five 	days 	after 	filing 	his 	allegation 	of
noncompliance if the Agency had not responded to him. 	Based on the foregoing,
we find sanctions are not warranted in this matter.

6 	2026001834
that 	statement 	or 	brief 	must 	be 	filed 	together 	with 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration. 	A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or
statement in opposition. 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).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, Complainant can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20507. 	In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS receives it by mail within
five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the
EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either
party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of
service on the other party, unless Complainant files their request via the EEOC
Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented
the timely filing of the request. 	Any supporting documentation must be
submitted together with the 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(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
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. 	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 their
full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case
in court. 	“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work.

7 	2026001834
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:
T. Gimbrere 	_________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director 	Gul Chaudhry’s Signature
Office of Federal Sector
September 22, 2026
Date