EEOC Appeal 2026002375

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Renaldo V.,1
Complainant,
v.
Marco Rubio,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002375
Hearing No. 570-2025-00545X
Agency No. DOS-0173-24
DECISION
On May 9, 2026, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment
Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or 	Commission), 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.403(a), from the Agency’s April 9, 2026, final order concerning his equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission
VACATES the Agency’s final order and REMANDS the matter.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an
Operations Transition Coordinator/Contractor for ESPIRE, a subcontractor of
Alutiiq 	Essential 	Services 	for 	the 	Agency’s 	Bureau 	of 	Overseas 	Building
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.

2026002375	2
Operations 	at 	the 	embassy 	in 	Mexico 	City, 	Mexico, 	and 	subsequently 	in
Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
On an unspecified date in May 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of age (71) and reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 when:
1. 	On February 12, 2024, Complainant’s duty station was transferred to
another location against his will;
2. 	On February 27, 2024, Complainant was subjected to a retaliatory
Letter of Concern sent to his employer, ESPIRE, because he opposed
his duty station transfer; and
3. 	On August 15, 2024, Complainant’s position was terminated.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing
before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant timely requested a hearing.
The Agency submitted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, on the
grounds that Complainant was not a federal employee but a contractor, and
Complainant filed an opposing motion. The AJ assigned to the case denied the
Agency’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Agency was a joint employer for
purposes of this complaint. In that same decision, the AJ further determined sua
sponte that the complaint did not warrant a hearing and issued a decision without a
hearing 	(summary 	judgment) 	on 	April 	7, 	2026, 	concluding 	“Accordingly, 	I
GRANT the Agency’s Motion for decision without a hearing.” The Agency
subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed
to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the AJ erred in issuing summary judgment,
on the grounds that the Agency did not file a motion for summary judgement, and
further, the AJ did not provide the required notice to permit a response before
issuing summary judgment.
In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual
conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo.

2026002375	3
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) (stating that a “decision on an appeal from an
Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review . . .”); see also Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO
MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative
judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself,
will both be reviewed de novo). 	This essentially means that we should look at this
case with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if
erroneous) the AJ’s, and Agency’s, factual conclusions and legal analysis –
including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional discrimination occurred, and
on the legal issue of whether any federal employment discrimination statute was
violated. 	See id. at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (explaining that the de novo standard of
review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the
factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC
“review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely
and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the
Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
We determine whether the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing.
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing
upon 	finding 	that 	there 	is 	no 	genuine 	issue 	of 	material 	fact. 	29 	C.F.R.
§ 1614.109(g). 	EEOC’s 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing 	regulation 	follows 	the
summary judgment procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The U.S.
Supreme Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines
no genuine issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 	477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a
summary judgment motion, the judge is to determine whether there are genuine
issues for trial, as opposed to weighing the evidence. Id. at 249. At the summary
judgment stage, the judge must believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must
draw justifiable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. A “genuine
issue of fact” is one that a reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving
party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip.
Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A “material” fact has the potential to
affect the outcome of a case.
An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the
record has been adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal
No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).

2026002375	4
However, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding a hearing
unless the AJ ensures that the party opposing the ruling is given: (1) ample notice
of the proposal to issue a decision without a hearing, (2) a comprehensive
statement of the allegedly undisputed material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond
to such a statement, and (4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if
necessary. Id. Further, EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(3) provides that
if the AJ determines upon her own initiative that some or all facts are not in
genuine dispute, she may, after giving notice to the parties and providing them an
opportunity to respond in writing within 15 calendar days, issue a decision without
holding a hearing.
The record supports a finding that the AJ sua sponte issued the decision without a
hearing in favor of the Agency without providing the parties with adequate notice,
as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(3) and the Commission in Petty. Upon
review of the record, the Commission could not find any notice by the AJ of a sua
sponte proposal to issue a decision without a hearing or a comprehensive statement
issued to the parties of the purported undisputed material facts. Additionally, we
agree 	with 	Complainant 	that 	the 	Agency’s 	motion 	sought 	dismissal 	of 	the
complaint on the grounds Complainant was a contractor, not a decision without a
hearing. As such, it appears Complainant was not provided with an opportunity to
file a written response opposing the AJ's proposal to issue a decision without a
hearing. We therefore determine that the AJ erred in issuing a decision without a
hearing without affording Complainant the procedural safeguards required by 29
C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(3) and Commission precedent. See Gurley v. Dep't of
Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120093479 (Mar. 8, 2010).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we VACATE the AJ’s decision without a
hearing and the Agency’s final order implementing that decision’s finding of no
discrimination. This case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance
with the ORDER below.
ORDER
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency
shall resubmit Complainant's request for a hearing, a copy of this decision, and a

2026002375	5
copy of the complaint file to the Hearings Unit of the EEOC's Washington Field
Office. The Agency shall provide written notification to the Compliance Officer at
the address set forth below that the complaint file has been transmitted to the
Hearings Unit. Thereafter, the AJ shall process 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 (K0719)
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s
corrective action is mandatory. 	Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion
of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector
EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the
Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance
was being monitored. 	Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit
via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the
Commission. 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 	The Agency’s final report must
contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency
must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative.
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.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.

2026002375	6
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, 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.

2026002375	7
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 (R0124)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of
your complaint. 	However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to
file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90)
calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. 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 filed your appeal with the
Commission. 	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. 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.

2026002375	8
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 _________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 23, 2026
Date