EEOC Appeal 2024004890, 2026001713

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Barrett V.,1
Complainant,
v.
Mitch Graves,
Chair,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Appeal Nos. 2024004890 & 2026001713
Agency No. TVA-2022-0055
DECISION
Complainant filed appeals2 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
final decisions concerning his entitlement to compensatory damages and attorney’s
fees following a violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Senior
Nuclear Security Officer at the Agency’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens,
Alabama. On November 30, 2022, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of disability (physical) and
in reprisal for prior opposition to discrimination when:
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 Commission accepts and consolidates the appeals pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.606, as they involve the same matter.

2024004890; 2026001713	2
1. His reasonable accommodation request was denied on September 15,
2022;
2. On October 4, 2022, management denied Complainant’s appeal for
reasonable accommodation;
3. On December 2, 2022, the Agency removed Complainant’s S-11 clearance
and placed Complainant in a non-work-pay status on the Duty Restriction
List (DLR);
4. On May 15, 2023, Complainant said he was subjected to reprisal for doing
things the correct way according to the Labor Relations ruling; and
5. On May 15, 2023, Agency management removed Complainant’s S-11
clearance after reinstating it on the same date.
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 EEOC Administrative Judge. In accordance with Complainant’s request, the
Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).
On April 1, 2024, the Agency issued a final decision finding that Complainant had
been discriminated against based on his disability when he was denied reasonable
accommodation in his role as a Senior Nuclear Security Officer. The Agency did not
find Complainant was subject to reprisal. To remedy the discrimination, the Agency
was ordered to, among other things, conduct a supplemental investigation into
Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.
On August 2, 2024, the Agency issued its final decision on damages and attorney’s
fees (FAD1). The Agency awarded $10,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory
damages but did not award any pecuniary damages. The Agency also awarded
$17,452.40 	in 	attorney’s 	fees. As 	to attorney’s 	fees, FAD1 determined 	that
Complainant’s attorney’s requested hourly rate of $542.00 per hour and the 32.2
hours of work on Complainant’s behalf were reasonable.

2024004890; 2026001713	3
On 	August 	30, 	2024, 	Complainant 	filed 	a 	notice 	of 	appeal 	related 	to 	the
compensatory 	damages awarded in 	FAD1. Complainant 	seeks $46,602.00 in
pecuniary damages (i.e., $38,069.00 related to early withdrawals from his 401K and
retirement accounts; $7,152.00 related to past and future medical expenses and
mileage; and $1,381.00 related to credit card interest). Complainant also seeks
$120,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages.
On April 25, 2025, Complainant submitted a supplemental attorney’s fee application
to the Agency pertaining to work performed between May 17, 2024 and April 21,
2025. In the request for supplemental attorney’s fees, Complainant’s attorney
requested reimbursement of 31.7 hours of work at the hourly rate of $542.00.
On May 30, 2025, the Agency issued its final decision on Complainant’s request for
supplemental attorney’s fees (FAD2). In FAD2, the Agency awarded Complainant
$12,480.00 in attorney’s fees. The Agency concluded that the hourly rate of $542.00
was not reasonable and reduced the hourly rate to $400.00 per hour. The Agency
also reduced the number of hours reimbursed to 31.2.
On June 23, 2025, Complainant then filed his notice of appeal as it relates to FAD2,
by electronically uploading it to the EEOC portal under his original appeal (EEOC
Appeal No. 2024004890).3 Complainant thereafter filed his appeal brief which only
contests the reduction of his attorney’s hourly rate.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from decisions issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decisions are subject to de novo review by the
Commission. 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 1614.405(a). 	See 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015)
(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”).
3 We docketed the matter as a new appeal under EEOC Appeal No. 2026001713.

2024004890; 2026001713	4
ANALYSIS
Nonpecuniary Damages
Nonpecuniary compensatory damages cover losses that are not subject to precise
quantification, i.e., emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss
of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character and
reputation, injury to credit standing, and loss of health. See Compensatory and
Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
EEOC Notice No. 915.302 at 10 (July 14, 1992). There are no specific guidelines
for determining the amount of damages for nonpecuniary losses except that the
award should reflect the nature and severity of the harm and the duration or expected
duration of the harm. See Loving v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No.
01955789 (Aug. 29, 1997). The Commission notes that nonpecuniary compensatory
damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the discriminatory event rather
than punish the Agency for the discriminatory action.
Complainant has the burden of proving the existence, nature and severity of the
alleged emotional harm. Man H. v. Dep't. of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No.
0120161218 (May 2, 2017). Complainant must also establish a causal relationship
between the alleged harm and the discrimination. Id. Absent such proof of harm and
causation, a complainant is not entitled to compensatory damages, even if there were
a finding of unlawful discrimination. Id; Wilda M. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120141087 (Jan. 12, 2017) (awards for emotional harm are warranted
only if complainant establishes a sufficient causal connection between the agency's
illegal actions and her injury).
Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory prerequisite
for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. See Complainant v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (Apr. 18, 1996) (citing Complainant v.
Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993)). Objective evidence
of compensatory damages can include statements from a complainant concerning his
emotional pain or suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of
life, injury to professional standing, injury to character or reputation, injury to credit
standing, loss of health, and any other nonpecuniary losses that are incurred as a
result of discriminatory conduct. Id.

2024004890; 2026001713	5
Furthermore, nonpecuniary compensatory damages should not be motivated by
passion or prejudice or “monstrously excessive” standing alone but should be
consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases. See Ward-Jenkins v. Dep't of
the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483 (Mar. 4, 1999).
After a thorough review of the record and given the severity, nature, and duration of
the Agency's discriminatory actions, we find it appropriate to increase the Agency's
award of nonpecuniary damages to $40,000.00.
The record establishes that Complainant could not shave due to a skin condition. In
late summer 2022, the Agency removed Complainant’s waiver of the shaving
requirement and forced him to reapply for accommodation, which it later denied. On
December 1, 2022, he was placed on non-work status indefinitely without pay. On
May 15, 2023, the Agency removed his security medical clearance and terminated
his employment.
Complainant’s testimony in support of compensatory damages is corroborated by
his wife. The record also contains medical notes from 17 visits that Complainant
made to his primary care physician between November 2022 and May 2024.
Complainant asserted that he gained a lot of weight after the waiver was removed
due to anxiety. The record shows that Complainant first saw a physician on
November 28, 2022, for help with weight loss. Complainant’s current weight at that
time was 368 pounds.4 Complainant was prescribed medication for weight loss
which helped. However, as of June 2023, Complainant’s insurance was removed and
he had to stop taking weight loss medication, which resulted in his regaining the
weight he lost, in addition to gaining even more weight. Complainant asserts that his
weight increased to 425 pounds.
Complainant testified that after being placed in a non-work status, his financial status
drastically changed. Complainant testified that he was forced to live on credit cards
which added to his anxiety. Complainant further testified that before being placed
off work, he was able to pay his bills without any interest. Because of the new
financial burdens, in late December 2022, Complainant was forced to sell items that
were dear to him and which he would not have otherwise sold (ex., two calves and
a gift from his late grandfather).
4 There is no indication what his weight was prior to July 2022.

2024004890; 2026001713	6
Complainant also testified that because of his new financial burden, he had to cash
out his 401K account and retirement fund that resulted in taxes and fees that he never
would have incurred had it not been for his termination.
According to Complainant, in February 2023, he received treatment for depression
and was prescribed Wellbutrin, which helped. However, Complainant testified that
even with medication he is not the same as he was before. Complainant testified that
he remains withdrawn and sleeps more than usual. In addition, he has lost interest in
things he used to enjoy. He also feels like a failure, in that he is unable to provide
financially for his family.
Complainant’s April 2024 medical records indicate that he has been diagnosed with
“Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Mild.” The documentary evidence also
shows that on May 16, 2024, Complainant was seen by his doctor for a follow up
appointment and was prescribed an increased dosage of Wellbutrin XL. As of May
16, 2024, Complainant’s doctor notes that he is “unable to determine any projected
end date for any condition with which Complainant has been diagnosed.”
We 	find 	$40,000.00 	in 	nonpecuniary 	compensatory 	damages 	adequately
compensates Complainant for the harm he suffered as a result of the July 2022 denial
of accommodation and December 2022 removal actions. This amount is not
“monstrously excessive” standing alone and is consistent with prior Commission
precedent. See Carol P. v. Small Bus. Admin, EEOC Appeal No. 2021004687 (Mar.
9, 2022) ($50,000.00 in nonpecuniary damages awarded when complainant suffered
loss of job, mood swings, emotional distress, marital discord, and loss of self-esteem
after agency failed to process reasonable accommodation request resulting in
complainant's separation); Tyson A. v. Dep’t. of Agric., EEOC Appeal No.
2022003346 (Jan. 3, 2024) (award of $50,000.00 for Complainant who was denied
reasonable 	accommodation 	and 	forced 	out 	of 	position 	resulting 	in 	anxiety,
depression, a decline in overall health, marital stress, difficulty focusing, insomnia,
strained relationships with family members and feelings of failure since he has been
unable to provide for his family for the first time in his life); Stanton S. v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019004097 (Apr. 15, 2021) (award of $30,000.00 in
nonpecuniary damages to remedy hair and weight loss, increased alcohol intake,
anxiety due to financial strain, depression, mental anguish, trouble sleeping,
humiliation, embarrassment, loss of interest in outside activities, and conflict with
wife that resulted in a September 2014 denial of accommodation and October 2014
removal); Cecille W. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2021001542 (Sept. 28,

2024004890; 2026001713	7
2022) (awarded $30,000.00 in nonpecuniary, compensatory damages where the
agency failed to reasonably accommodate complainant; complainant reported
experiencing stress, depression, fear, and loss of income, realized she was going to
lose her house and had to move into parents' basement, and complainant's friend and
children described Complainant having negatively altered spirit); Utt v. U.S. Postal
Serv., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No. 	0720070001 	(March 	26, 	2009) 	($25,000.00 	in
nonpecuniary, compensatory damages awarded to Complainant for emotional
distress, low self-esteem, financial stress, difficulty sleeping, weight gain, and loss
of enjoyment in extracurricular activities he experienced as a direct result of the
Agency's discriminatory termination).
Pecuniary Damages
Pecuniary losses are quantifiable expenses that are incurred as a result of the
Agency's 	unlawful 	action, 	including 	job-hunting 	expenses, moving 	expenses,
medical 	expenses, 	psychiatric 	expenses, 	and 	physical 	therapy 	expenses.
Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (July 14, 1992), at 11-12, 14.
In a claim for pecuniary compensatory damages, a complainant must do two things.
First, a complainant must present appropriate objective evidence to demonstrate the
harm suffered. Evidence is appropriate when it shows an actual expense with an
explanation of the expenditure. “For claims seeking pecuniary damages, objective
evidence should include documentation of out-of-pocket expenses for all actual costs
and an explanation of the expense, e.g., medical billings, other costs associated with
the injury caused by the agency's actions, and an explanation for the expenditure.”
Helen St. Lois, Complainant v. Dep’t. of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24586 (Dec.
12, 2003). Second, a complainant must prove that the agency's discriminatory
conduct caused the pecuniary loss. EEO MD-110, Chap. 11, VII.B.2.
Early Withdrawal from 401K and Retirement Fund
Complainant contends that he is entitled to recover losses related to his Agency
Fidelity 401K ($20,239.00) and Agency retirement account ($12,359.00), which
includes the respective early withdrawal penalties and estimated tax consequences
related to Complainant’s early withdrawals from said accounts. The Agency asserts
that 	Complainant 	provided 	insufficient, 	conflicting, 	and 	unreliable 	evidence
concerning these accounts.

2024004890; 2026001713	8
For example, the Agency asserts that in a letter dated May 15, 2024, Complainant
provided figures that are purported to show the negative financial impacts of his
early withdrawal from his 401K and his retirement accounts totaling $38,069.00.
The Agency argues that Complainant, however, provided no explanation as to how
he arrived at those figures, nor did he provide documentation to substantiate these
figures. In addition, the Agency asserts that the only evidence Complainant
submitted to substantiate his calculations for both his Fidelity 401K account and his
retirement account (i.e., a screenshot that purports to show that he withdrew
$39,490.32 from his 401K Fidelity account), was not conclusive as it does not show
that Complainant in fact deposited this amount into his bank account and was
inconsistent with the figure provided in his correspondence on May 15, 2024.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the $38,069.00 figure was not meant to be
construed as a withdrawal figure and that during the EEO investigation the Agency
should have asked more questions before denying such compensation. We agree
with the Agency and find that Complainant’s failure to clearly and adequately
explain the documentation that was submitted in regard to his Fidelity 401K account
(and his failure to submit documentation to support his alleged expenses or losses
related to his retirement account), is his burden, not that of the Agency. Tuala v.
Dep’t of the Navy, Appeal No. 01A13645 (Aug. 3, 2002).
We agree with the Agency that Complainant’s attempt on appeal to show and explain
the damage that resulted from his alleged early withdrawal from his 401K and
retirement account still falls short of meeting his burden. On appeal, Complainant
attempts to provide a calculation of the early withdrawal and tax penalties on
Complainant’s 401K and retirement accounts, something Complainant should have
done initially. Nevertheless, Complainant’s calculation assumes certain penalty fee
percentages and tax impacts without providing any documentation to support those
figures. As Complainant failed to provide evidence to support such damages and
calculations, Complainant’s request for his alleged losses to his 401K Fidelity
account and retirement account are denied.5
5 We have not considered any “new” evidence that Complainant produced in his
appeal, as we find such evidence was reasonably available prior to the appeal. See
EEO Management Directive 110, Chap. 9, § VI.A.3; see 	also 	29 C.F.R. §
1614.404(b). The Commission has long held that, as a general rule, no new evidence
will be considered on appeal unless there is an affirmative showing that the evidence

2024004890; 2026001713	9
We also find that Complainant has not provided sufficient evidence explaining the
$5,471.00 requested in lost Agency matching 401K contributions. Accordingly, such
request is denied.
Medical Expenses, Mileage, and Future Pecuniary Damages
Complainant contends that he is entitled to recover: (1) $1,678.00 for out-of-pocket
medical expenses related to 17 medical appointments between November 2022 and
May 2024; (2) $706.00 for the mileage he incurred traveling to these appointments;
and (3) $4,768.00 for three years of future medical expenses.
The Agency asserts that Complainant did not explain how each of these doctor’s
visits were related to the Agency’s discrimination and did not explain the nature or
necessity of each doctor’s visit. However, we find sufficient evidence establishing
that the medical visits between November 2022 through May 2024 were related to
his struggle with weight gain and the need for medication to alleviate symptoms of
depression which Complainant’s testimony sufficiently ties to the discrimination.
The record contains Complainant’s medical bills to establish that he incurred
$1,678.00 for these appointments. We also find sufficient evidence in the record to
support mileage reimbursement for 17 round trip medical visits (i.e., 62 miles round
trip x 17 visits (1054 miles) x .67 per mile = $706.00). Accordingly, we find he is
entitled 	to 	reimbursement 	of 	these 	past 	costs 	associated 	with 	his 	medical
appointments.
The record does not support the need for a specific number of future medical
appointments, 	however. 	The 	only 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	to 	suggest 	future
appointments is a note dated May 16, 2024, by Complainant’s doctor stating: “At
this time I am unable to determine any projected end date for any condition with
which [Complainant] has been diagnosed.” We find this statement insufficient to
support the need for any number of future appointments, let alone three years’ worth.
Accordingly, we do not find sufficient evidence in the record to support future
medical expenses.
was not reasonably available prior to or during the investigation or during the hearing
process.

2024004890; 2026001713	10
Credit Card Interest
Complainant alleges he is entitled to $1,381.00 in credit card interest that he incurred
because of the Agency’s discrimination. To support this figure, Complainant
provided screenshots of various credit card balances from late 2023 and 2024. The
Agency asserts that he is not entitled to such reimbursement because Complainant
did not provide documentation concerning whether he had substantial balances on
his credit cards prior to the Agency’s alleged discriminatory acts in 2022, or
documentation giving some indication of what he purchased. We disagree with the
Agency, in part. We find that Complainant provided testimony that prior to losing
his job, he never incurred interest on his credit cards. However, due to the loss of
income, he was forced to use his credit cards for everyday expenses and did not have
sufficient funds to pay them in full.
Based on the above, it is presumable that Complainant accrued credit card interest
purchasing necessities that he would have been able to pay for with cash or without
accruing interest charges had the Agency not terminated him from his position.
However, the Commission notes that Complainant had an obligation to provide
documentation giving some indication of what he purchased, and the amount of
interest charged for said purchases. As he did not provide detailed documentation of
what he purchased but did provide some documentation that indicates he accrued
interest charges, the Commission finds that 10 percent of the finance charges
Complainant alleges he incurred on his debt should be reimbursed. Thus, we award
Complainant $138.01 for credit card interest. See Complainant v. Dep’t. of Housing
& Urban Dev’l., EEOC DOC 01A53933 (Mar. 24, 2006).
Attorney’s Fees
The attorney's fees award is ordinarily determined by multiplying a reasonable
number of hours expended on the case by a reasonable hourly rate, also known as a
“lodestar.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.50 l(e)(2)(ii)(B); Bernard v. Dep't of Veterans
Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 01966861 (July 17, 1998).
The reasonable hourly rate is generally determined by the prevailing market rate in
the relevant 	legal 	community 	for similar services 	by 	lawyers 	of reasonably
comparable skill, experience and reputation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984).

2024004890; 2026001713	11
An application for attorney's fees must include a verified petition accompanied by
an affidavit executed by the attorney of record itemizing each expense comprising
the attorney's charges for legal services, together with bills, receipts, or other
appropriate documentation. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(B); MD-110, at Chap.
11, § VI(F)(1).
In this case, we are not persuaded by the Agency's arguments that the hourly rates
were not properly supported. Documentary evidence to show the reasonableness of
an hourly rate may include the following: an affidavit stating that the requested rate
is the attorney’s normal billing rate; a detailed affidavit of another attorney in the
community familiar with prevailing community rates for attorneys of comparable
experience and expertise; a resume; a list of cases handled; or a list of comparable
cases where a similar rate was accepted. Iliana S. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 2021000595 (Dec. 7, 2020) (citing EEO MD-110, Chap.11, § VI.G.)
The record establishes that Complainant’s attorney (Attorney) has 19 years of
experience specializing in employment law. Attorney’s hourly rate is $542.00. The
Agency cites to one Birmingham, Alabama EEOC Administrative Judge’s (AJ)
decision where Attorney was awarded a $400.00 hourly rate on November 20, 2024.
In response, Attorney cites the following decisions: (1) Agency’s August 2, 2024,
decision (i.e., FAD1) awarding Attorney the hourly rate of $542.00; (2) a March 15,
2024, Agency decision awarding Attorney the hourly rate of $542.00; and (3) a
Birmingham, Alabama EEOC AJ decision dated August 7, 2025, concluding that
$550.00 was the prevailing rate for Attorney.
We find that the November 2024 AJ decision cited by the Agency is not sufficient
to reduce Attorney’s hourly rate. The preponderance of the evidence supports
Attorney’s hourly rate of $542.00. While Attorney now seeks the hourly rate of
$550, she is not entitled to more than she originally requested. Accordingly, we find
that Complainant is entitled to a supplemental attorney’s fee award of $16,910.40
($542.00 hourly rate x 31.2 hours).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we MODIFY FAD1 and FAD2 as set forth
above.

2024004890; 2026001713	12
ORDER
To the extent it has not already done so, the Agency shall undertake the following
remedial actions within 60 days of the date this decision is issued:
1. Pay Complainant a $40,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages;
2. Pay Complainant $2,522.10.00 in pecuniary damages; and
3. Pay Complainant a total of $34,362.80 in attorney’s fees ($17,452.40
related to FAD1 + $16,910.40 related to Supplemental Fee Petition in
FAD2).
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
that the corrective action has been implemented.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0124)
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
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 Operations -- 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.

2024004890; 2026001713	13
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.
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.

2024004890; 2026001713	14
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 (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.

2024004890; 2026001713	15
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
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 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date