EEOC Appeal 2024003528

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Marvella B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Adam Telle,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2024003528
Hearing No. 420-2019-00414X
Agency No. ARHQOSA18MAY02256
DECISION
On May 15, 2024, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment
Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or 	Commission), 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.403(a), regarding the Agency’s compliance with its October 18, 2022, final
order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
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. For the following reasons, the
Commission finds that the Agency has not yet established that it is in full
compliance with its final order fully implementing an EEOC Administrative
Judge’s (AJ) decision and order of relief, and we REMAND the matter to the
Agency.
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.

2024003528	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-
1530-13 Statistician at the Agency’s U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center facility
in Fort Rucker, Alabama. On August 22, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race
(White), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing
before an EEOC AJ. Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency filed a
motion for summary judgment, and Complainant filed a response to the Agency’s
motion. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment in part.
In the claims remaining for hearing, Complainant alleged discrimination and
harassment based on sex and reprisal when she was not selected for a Supervisory
Operations Research and Systems Analyst (ORSA), GS-1515-14, position2 in May
2018, when she received a written counseling for leaving the workplace without
authorization in June 2018, when she was told by the Chief of Staff that she was
the only employee who disputed her performance appraisal and that she was “the
problem” in June 2018, and when she was singled out regarding the dress code in a
sex-based manner in June 2018. Complainant further alleged per se retaliation
when the Director of Assessment and Preventions publicly attributed negative
perceptions of the department to Complainant’s EEO complaint in August 2018
and 	when 	she 	was 	informed 	that 	senior 	leadership, 	including 	the 	Deputy
Commanding Officer and the Chief of Staff, told the Director of Research, Studies
and Analysis that Complainant was a “problem employee” and referenced her EEO
activity in January 2019.
The AJ held a hearing on April 25-26, 2022. On June 15, 2022, the AJ issued an
interim decision on liability, finding that Complainant established that she was
subjected to discrimination and harassment based on reprisal and sex and per se
retaliation as alleged. The AJ did not make specific findings identifying the
2 In the position description and the vacancy announcement, the position was listed
as Supervisory Operations Research Analyst, GS-1514-14. Report of Investigation
(ROI) at 155, 267.

2024003528	3
responsible management officials. The AJ ordered Complainant to submit a request
for damages and a verified petition for attorney’s fees.
On September 8, 2022, the AJ issued a final order on damages and attorney’s fees.
The AJ awarded Complainant $50,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages,
$1,233.02 in pecuniary compensatory damages, $156,084.00 in attorney’s fees, and
$1,937.67 in costs. The AJ ordered the Agency to place Complainant into the
Supervisory ORSA position with back pay and other benefits pursuant to the Back
Pay Act within 60 days of the issuance of its final order. The AJ also ordered the
Agency to provide training to managers and supervisors at Fort Rucker, to post a
notice, and to take appropriate preventive steps to ensure that no employee,
including Complainant, was subjected to retaliation.
On October 18, 2022, the Agency issued a final order, adopting the AJ’s finding of
discrimination based on sex and reprisal and the order of remedial relief. The
Agency 	also 	ordered 	additional 	remedial 	relief 	in 	the 	form 	of 	increasing
Complainant’s 2018 performance rating to Outstanding and providing her with the
appropriate performance award.
On 	December 	14, 	2022, 	the 	Agency 	offered 	Complainant 	a 	GS-1515-14
Supervisory Operations Research Analyst position at the U.S. Army Combat
Readiness Center in Fort Rucker, with an effective date of May 13, 2018. The
Agency requested that Complainant accept or decline the position by December
28, 2022. On December 19, 2022, Complainant emailed the Civilian Personnel
Advisory Center (CPAC) with questions including where the position fell within
the organization, who her supervisor would be, the office location, and telework
options. On December 21, 2022, the Fort Rucker CPAC Director responded that
Supervisory Operations Research Analyst would supervise six employees, the first-
line supervisor would be the Chief, ORSA, and the second-line supervisor would
be the Director of Assessments and Prevention (DAP). The CPAC Director stated
that telework was not authorized for DAP supervisors.
On December 29, 2022, the CPAC Director emailed Complainant, noting the
deadline to accept or decline the position had passed and requesting a response.
The CPAC Director also asked Complainant to complete a form regarding back
pay. Complainant replied on December 29, 2022, that she was waiting for guidance
from her attorney. According to the record, Complainant completed the back pay
form on December 30, 2022.

2024003528	4
On January 4, 2023, Complainant responded that, after speaking with her attorney,
the position offered was not the same Supervisory ORSA position she had
previously occupied, or the one accepted by the selectee. Complainant stated that,
when she held and applied for the position, RSA was a separate directorate from
DAP, 	and 	she 	reported 	directly 	to 	the 	Deputy 	Commanding 	Officer 	and
subsequently 	the 	Chief 	of 	Staff, 	and 	her 	second-line 	supervisor 	was 	the
Commanding General. According to Complainant, the position she was offered
was working directly for the DAP Executive Director and the Chief of Staff who
were found to have discriminated against her. Complainant noted that the ORSA
Chief position did not exist when she was a Supervisory ORSA. Complainant also
stated that U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center allowed supervisors to telework,
but DAP applied its own policy. There is no indication in the record that the
Agency responded to Complainant’s January 4, 2023, email.
On April 26, 2023, Complainant sent a follow up email to the CPAC Director on
back pay, requesting an update on calculating back pay and noting that it continued
to affect her grade and step at her new agency. Complainant sent similar follow up
emails on June 16, 2023, June 21, 2023, June 27, 2023, and August 11, 2023. On
August 14, 2023, the CPAC Director responded, stating that the Defense Finance
Accounting Service (DFAS) was “extremely behind” and that Complainant’s ticket
had not been worked. The record contains a May 10, 2024, email from a Senior
Human 	Resources 	Specialist 	with 	a 	timeline 	of 	Complainant’s 	back 	pay.
According to the timeline, the remedy ticket was submitted on May 25, 2023,
DFAS responded on October 24, 2023, requesting additional SF50s, and the ticket
auto closed on November 7, 2023. The email stated that on February 17, 2024,
DFAS responded that the corrected SF50s did not show the increase in salary, but
SF50s were provided that showed the corrected salary amounts. Finally, a remedy
ticket 	was 	submitted 	on 	May 	10, 	2024, 	referencing 	the 	closed 	tickets 	and
additional action that needed to be taken, and the Senior Human Resources
Specialist noted that the turnaround time for the ticket was 15 business days.
On February 16, 2024, Complainant emailed the Agency Headquarters EEO Office
and the local EEO Office, stating that she had only received back pay for May 21,
2022, to August 27, 2022, and she did not believe that the partial back pay
payment had been calculated properly. Complainant stated that, while the Agency
had continuously told her that they were “working on it,” she no longer believed
the Agency was making reasonable efforts to implement and comply with the relief

2024003528	5
ordered 	by 	the 	AJ. 	Complainant 	stated 	that 	she 	would 	file 	a 	petition 	for
enforcement with the Commission if the Agency did not resolve the matter within
35 calendar days.
On April 29, 2024, Complainant replied all to her February 16, 2024, email, stating
that she had not received a response.
The instant appeal followed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argues, among other things, that the Agency has failed to
provide her with make whole relief. According to Complainant, while the Agency
offered her a Supervisory ORSA position, it was not at the same level within the
organization as the position for which she was not selected. Complainant also
contends that the Agency’s offer also did not comply with the order to take
appropriate preventative steps to ensure she was not subjected to retaliation, as she
would be working directly under two of the principal individuals involved in the
discriminatory and retaliatory acts against her. Complainant avers that the Agency
failed to respond to these objections or to her numerous requests for follow-up on
back pay. We will address Complainant’s arguments below.
In its June 14, 2024, response, the Agency argues that it repeatedly requested
processing of its request for back pay by DFAS, which is not subject to Agency
control. The Agency asserts that DFAS informed the Agency that a paper check for
Complainant’s back pay would be issued on or about June 15, 2024, which would
make Complainant whole and satisfy the terms of the final order on damages. The
Agency attached screenshots from the processor and email correspondence as
evidence that the check would quickly be issued to Complainant. The Agency
maintains that it offered Complainant a Supervisory ORSA position as ordered by
the AJ. According to the Agency, Complainant indicated in her brief that she
accepted a position at a different agency, which ended the Agency’s responsibility
for back pay.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will
be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence

2024003528	6
is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding
whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-
Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are
subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
ANALYSIS
Agency’s Job Offer
Complainant 	argues 	that 	the 	position 	offered 	to 	her 	was 	not 	substantially
equivalent to the position for which she was not selected and that the Agency
therefore has not provided her with make whole relief. Commission regulations
provide that full relief includes an unconditional offer to an identified victim of
discrimination of placement in the position the person would have occupied absent
discrimination, or a substantially equivalent position. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(a)(3).
A 	substantially 	equivalent 	position 	is 	one 	with 	compensation, 	promotional
opportunities, 	job 	responsibilities, 	working 	conditions, 	location 	(reasonable
commuting distance), and job status that are similar to the position discriminatorily
lost. Hernandez v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Request No. 05A60218 (Dec. 29,
2005); Spicer v. Dep’t of the Interior, Petition No. 04980007 (Sept. 24, 1998);
Myers v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04950028 (May 2, 1996); Patterson
v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Request No. 05940079 (Oct. 21, 1994); Kerschner v.
Dep’t of Labor, EEOC Appeal No. 01933023 (Mar. 15, 1994). We note that the
burden is on the agency to establish that the position offered to complainant is in
fact substantially equivalent to the position lost. Peterson v. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., EEOC Petition No. 0420070029 (Aug. 18, 2008); Rai v. Dep’t of
the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01901186 (May 17, 1990). If there is a dispute
concerning the position offered to complainant, the agency must provide evidence
that it is substantially equivalent to the one for which she was not selected. Velda
F. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 0120181190 n.3 (Aug. 15, 2019).
Upon review, we find that the Agency has not provided sufficient evidence to
show that the position offered to Complainant was substantially equivalent to the
one for which she was not selected. The Agency did not respond to Complainant’s
objection that the reporting structure for the position was different than the one for
which she was not selected. Moreover, the Agency has not provided documents

2024003528	7
such as the position description for the position offered to Complainant so we can
evaluate whether the job responsibilities were similar. Based on the limited
documentation in the record, we are unable to determine whether the position
offered is substantially equivalent to the one for which Complainant was not
selected. Accordingly, we find that the Agency has not demonstrated that it is in
substantial compliance with this element of the ordered relief.
Complainant also objected that, if she accepted the position offered by the Agency,
she would have reported to two individuals who subjected her to discrimination.
Although 	the AJ 	did 	not 	make specific findings 	identifying 	the responsible
management officials, there is ample evidence that four management officials were
involved in the claims that were part of the AJ’s finding of discrimination based on
reprisal for prior protected activity and sex: the Chief of Staff, the Director of
Assessment and Preventions, the Deputy Commanding Officer, and the Director of
Research, Studies and Analysis. The Chief of Staff was named in several of the
claims, was involved in the nonselection that was found to be discriminatory, and
issued Complainant the written counseling that was found to be discriminatory.3
The Director of Assessment and Preventions was named in one claim.4 The Deputy
Commanding Officer was named in the claim that she was a problem employee ,
and he was involved in the nonselection that was found to be discriminatory.5 The
Director of Research, Studies and Analysis was also named in the claim that she
was a problem employee.6
Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to ensure that Complainant will not
be supervised by the responsible management officials who subjected her to
discrimination and retaliation. See Complainant v. Dep’t of the Interior, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120131556 (Oct. 9, 2014) (finding it appropriate to require that the
complainant be placed in a position where he would receive appropriate training
and reported to different supervisors than those who the AJ found to have engaged
in discrimination). If one or more of these individuals would be Complainant’s
first- or second-line supervisor in the position offered to her, the Agency shall
assign Complainant a different first- and/or second-line supervisor. Given the
passage of time, the identified individuals may no longer hold the same positions.
3 The Chief of Staff is identified in the ROI at 483.
4 The Director of Assessment and Preventions is identified in the ROI at 694.
5 The Deputy Commanding Officer is identified in the ROI at 542.
6 The Director of Research, Studies and Analysis is identified in the ROI at 535.

2024003528	8
If it is not possible to assign Complainant first- and second-line supervisors other
than the Chief of Staff, the Director of Assessment and Preventions, the Deputy
Commanding Officer, and the Director of Research, Studies and Analysis, the
Agency shall offer Complainant the choice between a substantially equivalent
position at Fort Rucker and a substantially equivalent position at a separate Agency
facility where her first- and second-line supervisors would not be any of the
identified responsible management officials.
Back Pay
Complainant 	contends 	that 	the 	Agency 	failed 	to 	pay 	her 	back 	pay 	for 	the
appropriate time period. Complainant argues that, while she received back pay for
May 21, 2022, to August 27, 2022, it was not calculated correctly. In response to
Complainant’s 	appeal, 	the 	Agency 	asserts 	that 	DFAS 	would 	be 	sending
Complainant a check to cover back pay the day after June 14, 2024, attaching some
screenshots 	and 	emails 	as 	documentation. 	The 	Agency 	did 	not 	address
Complainant’s argument that the partial payment she received was not calculated
correctly. Neither party 	has 	provided 	an 	update 	as 	to 	whether 	Complainant
received this check or whether the back pay calculations were correct.
There is no evidence in the record regarding the partial payment for back pay.
Although the Agency has submitted screenshots regarding the computation of
Petitioner’s back pay and interest for the check that was to be issued on June 15,
2024, we find that it has failed to clearly and sufficiently explain its calculations.
That is, while the Agency has submitted some screenshots and emails, it fails to
clearly explain how the Agency (or DFAS) came to the ultimate determination of
how much is owed to Complainant. Therefore, we agree with Complainant that the
Agency has yet to fully comply with our order, specifically with respect to
providing its specific reasoning and calculations on how it reached the amount
owed for lost wages and interest. We also note that there is no evidence of the
Agency’s calculation of other benefits to which Complainant would be entitled,
such as retroactive contributions to Complainant’s Thrift Savings Plan. While
Complainant did not provide her own calculations of the amount of back pay and
interest for the partial payment, she seeks to know how the Agency arrived at its
amount.
The Commission recognizes that precise measurements cannot always be used to
remedy the wrong inflicted, and therefore, the computation of back pay awards

2024003528	9
inherently involves some speculation. Hanns v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition
No. 04960030 (Sept. 18, 1997). However, uncertainties involved in a back pay
determination should be resolved against the agency which has already been found
to have committed the acts of discrimination. Id. The Commission finds that it is
reasonable to require the agency to provide a clear and concise “plain language”
statement of the formulas and methods it used to calculate petitioner's back
pay. See Vashi v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 0420060009 (Dec. 5,
2007) (noting 	that 	it is 	the agency’s 	obligation 	to 	ensure that 	its back 	pay
calculations are clear, supported in the record, and in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501).
Moreover, we note that a statement in the Agency’s brief suggests that the Agency
(or DFAS) may have terminated the back pay period prematurely. The Agency
asserts that its back pay obligation to Complainant terminated when she accepted a
position with a different agency. However, the earliest date that the back pay
period would end would have been the date on which Complainant declined the
offer or the date on which the period for her to accept or decline the offer expired.
According to the record, Complainant had already accepted the position with the
other agency when the Agency made the offer in December 2022. Therefore, even
if the Agency had provided evidence that its December 2022 job offer complied
with its final order and that it had correctly calculated the appropriate amount of
back pay, with interest, and other benefits, through the date Complainant began
working 	for 	the 	other 	agency, 	these 	calculations 	would 	be 	incorrect. 	The
calculations would be incorrect because the back pay period extended beyond the
date when Complainant began working for the other agency. Moreover, because
we find that the Agency has not shown that it offered Complainant a substantially
equivalent position and that the Agency must issue a new offer, the period for back
pay, 	with 	interest, 	and 	other 	benefits 	is 	ongoing 	and 	will 	continue 	until
Complainant is placed in the position, she rejects the new offer, or the period for
her to accept or decline the new offer expires. We note that Complainant’s
earnings from accepting the position with the other agency will serve to mitigate
the amount of back pay owed. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).
We find that the Agency has not shown that it is in compliance with the order
regarding back pay, and the Agency shall comply with our Order below, which
provides details regarding the calculation of back pay, including the appropriate
dates for the back pay period.

2024003528	10
Other Relief
The Agency has provided documentation showing that it complied with the
provisions of the order to pay Complainant nonpecuniary compensatory damages,
pecuniary compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees, and costs. The Agency also
provided documentation that it provided training to the managers and supervisors
at Fort Rucker, posted a notice, and increased Complainant’s 2018 performance
rating to Outstanding.7
We shall modify the Agency’s order of relief to include provisions regarding
expungement of the written counseling and consideration of discipline for the
responsible management officials.
While the record reflects that Complainant is not represented by an attorney on
appeal, Complainant stated that she consulted her attorney about whether the job
offer was for a substantially similar position. As a prevailing party on the instant
appeal, Complainant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, if any, that were
incurred 	attempting 	to 	obtain 	compliance 	with 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order.
Complainant is directed to the statement below entitled “Attorney’s Fees.”
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we conclude that the Agency has not yet
established that it is in full compliance with its own October 18, 2022, final order
and REMAND the matter for further action in accordance with this decision and
the ORDER below.
ORDER
The Agency shall take the following remedial actions:
1. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall issue a written offer to Complainant for the position of
7 There is no documentation in the compliance report showing that the Agency
provided Complainant with the appropriate performance award for her Outstanding
performance rating for 2018, but Complainant has not raised this issue on appeal.

2024003528	11
Supervisory Operations Research Analyst, GS-1514-14, 	at Fort Rucker,
Alabama as provided in vacancy announcement SCEG186623572196 or a
substantially equivalent position, retroactive to the date of Complainant’s
nonselection, May 7, 2018. This position shall not have the individuals
identified in this decision as the Chief of Staff, the Director of Assessment
and Preventions, the Deputy Commanding Officer, and the Director of
Research, Studies and Analysis who were found to have discriminated
against Complainant as the first- or second-line supervisors. If it is not
possible 	for 	the 	Agency 	to 	assign 	Complainant 	first- 	and 	second-line
supervisors at Fort Rucker other than the identified responsible management
officials, 	the 	Agency 	shall 	offer 	Complainant 	the 	choice 	between 	a
Supervisory 	Operations 	Research 	Analyst, 	GS-1514-14, 	position 	or 	a
substantially 	equivalent 	position 	at 	Fort 	Rucker 	and 	a 	Supervisory
Operations 	Research 	Analyst, 	GS-1514-14, 	position 	or 	a 	substantially
equivalent position at a separate Agency facility where her first- and second-
line 	supervisors 	would 	not 	be 	the 	identified 	responsible 	management
officials. The Agency’s offer shall provide Complainant with fifteen (15)
calendar days from receipt of the offer to notify the Agency of whether she
accepts or declines the offer. Failure to accept the offer within fifteen (15)
calendar 	days 	will 	be 	considered 	a 	declination 	of 	the 	offer, 	unless
Complainant can show that circumstances beyond her control prevented a
response within the time limit. Any back pay liability shall cease to accrue
with either the actual placement of Complainant into the position or with the
date the offer was declined.
2. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest,
and other benefits due Complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501. The
back pay amount shall be computed in the manner prescribed by 5 C.F.R. §
550.805. The back pay period will assume Complainant held the position of
Supervisory Operations Research Analyst, GS-1514-14, and shall begin on
May 7, 2018, and end on either the date Complainant is placed into the
position, the date Complainant declines the position, or the expiration of the
15-calendar-day period for Complainant to notify the Agency whether she
accepts or declines the position.
Complainant shall cooperate with the Agency’s efforts to compute the
amount 	of 	back 	pay 	and 	benefits 	due 	and 	shall 	provide 	all 	relevant

2024003528	12
information requested by the Agency within thirty (30) calendar days of
the Agency’s request.
If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay, interest, and/or
benefits, 	Complainant 	may 	file 	a 	Petition 	for 	Enforcement 	with 	the
Commission. The Agency shall still pay Complainant the undisputed amount
of back pay owed within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the amount is
determined. The back pay calculation and payment period should not exceed
one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days.
Complainant may, within thirty (30) calendar days of filing her tax return
for the year in which she received the lump sum back pay amount, submit a
request for reimbursement to the Agency (not the EEOC Office of Federal
Sector). Complainant has the burden of establishing the amount of increased
tax liability, if any. The issue of adverse tax consequences (if applicable)
shall be resolved within 120 days of the date Complainant submits her
request for reimbursement.
Complainant is advised that any claim for reimbursement should include the
tax 	documentation 	and 	calculations 	showing 	the 	tax 	liability 	that
Complainant actually incurred for each year of the back-pay period, the tax
liability that Complainant would have incurred in each of those years if
Complainant had received the back pay in the form of a regular salary, and
the difference in the amounts (i.e. tax liability that Complainant incurred
solely as a result of Complainant’s receipt of the lump-sum back-pay
award). 	If applicable, Complainant may provide documentation to support
reimbursement of any costs and fees incurred from hiring a certified public
accountant to calculate the amount of increased tax liability.
Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of Complainant’s claim and
supporting documents, the Agency shall pay the amount of adverse tax
consequences and associated attorney or CPA costs and fees.
3. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency 	shall 	rescind 	and 	expunge 	the 	written 	counseling 	issued 	to

2024003528	13
Complainant 	on 	June 	4, 	2018,8 and 	any 	reference 	thereto, 	from
Complainant’s official personnel file and any other associated records.
The Agency shall issue written notice to Complainant that it rescinded the
written counseling and expunged all references to the written counseling.
4. Within 	one hundred twenty (120) calendar days 	from the date this
decision is issued, the Agency shall consider disciplining the Chief of Staff
and the Director of Assessment and Preventions9 for their role in the
retaliatory nonselection, the retaliatory written counseling, the retaliatory
and discriminatory harassment, and the per se reprisal in violation of Title
VII found to have occurred in this decision. The Commission does not
consider training to be disciplinary action. The Agency shall report its
decision 	to 	the 	Compliance 	Officer. 	If 	the 	Agency 	decides 	to 	take
disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the Agency decides
not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision
not to impose discipline. If these individuals have left the Agency’s employ,
the Agency shall furnish documentation of their departure dates.
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as
provided 	in 	the 	statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of 	the 	Commission’s
Decision.” The report shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.403(g). 	Further, 	the 	report 	must 	include
supporting documentation of the Agency’s calculation of back pay and other
benefits due Complainant, including evidence that the corrective action has been
implemented.
ATTORNEY’S FEES (H1125)
If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), they are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees
incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e). The award of
8 The written counseling appears in the investigative record at ROI 27.
9 According to the record, the Deputy Commanding Officer and the Director of
Research, Studies and Analysis were active-duty military personnel during the
relevant time period. The Commission cannot order the Agency to consider
disciplinary action for active-duty military personnel. See Rosamaria F. v. Dep’t of
the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120181068 n.8 (Feb. 14, 2020).

2024003528	14
attorney’s fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified
statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Office of Federal Sector -- within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt
of this decision. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney’s fees in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501.
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.

2024003528	15
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.

2024003528	16
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 (T0124)
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 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. 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

2024003528	17
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
________________________l Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
9/21/2026
Date