EEOC Appeal 2026000240

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Kyoko H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Scott Bessent,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000240
Agency No. IRS-25-0241
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
October 10, 2025, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et
seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Contact Representative (Collections) at the Agency’s Small
Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Campus Collection Operations in Austin, Texas.
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 	2026000240
Complainant held the position until she was terminated during her probationary
period on December 23, 2024. Complainant’s first-level supervisor (Supervisor 1)
was 	a 	Supervisory 	Contact 	Representative; 	and 	her 	second-level 	supervisor
(Supervisor 2) was the Department Manager. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 2 and
99.
Complainant 	described 	her 	medical 	condition 	as 	narcolepsy 	or 	idiopathic
hypersomnolence, first diagnosed on November 1, 2018, and expected to be a
lifelong impairment. Complainant stated that she notified her managers of her
disability on her first day of employment. Complainant could perform all required
duties but needed accommodation. Complainant stated that her sleep worsened with
extreme emotions, anxiety, or excitement, and that driving or sitting for extended
periods posed challenges, especially when experiencing panic.
Complainant 	also 	stated 	that her condition 	made commuting 	unsafe, as she
sometimes fell asleep in traffic or at stoplights. ROI at 99-102. Complainant
identified 	her 	prior 	protected 	EEO 	activity 	as 	submitting 	a 	reasonable
accommodation request on June 5, 2024. Complainant stated that she filed another
complaint of discrimination on December 13, 2024. ROI at 100.
Supervisor 1 acknowledged that Complainant disclosed her medical condition
during 	onboarding 	training. 	Supervisor 	1 	however 	only 	became 	aware 	of
Complainant’s 	disability 	after 	receiving 	several 	reports 	of 	Complainant
disappearing, falling asleep during class, and arriving late to work. Supervisor 1 also
acknowledged 	receiving 	medical 	documentation 	when 	she 	was 	provided
Complainant’s reasonable accommodation packet on June 7, 2024. Supervisor 1
stated that Complainant’s job responsibilities included servicing taxpayers by
receiving incoming phone calls and setting up installment agreements and taking
financial statements.
Supervisor 1 also stated that Collections Representatives attend months-long
training divided into three phases and Collections Representatives were expected to
handle all types of collections calls. Supervisor 1 acknowledged that Complainant
had requested reasonable accommodation but contended that Complainant had no
documented work limitations. Supervisor 1 also asserted that she was unaware of
Complainant engaging in any prior EEO activity. ROI at 440-42.

3 	2026000240
Supervisor 2 confirmed that she was aware of Complainant’s disability and stated
she became aware of Complainant’s medical condition after receiving medical
documentation on July 9, 2024. Supervisor 2 stated that she was not aware of
Complainant’s medical condition hindering her ability to perform assigned work, as
Complainant 	participated 	in 	classroom 	lessons 	without 	issue. 	Supervisor 	2
acknowledged that Complainant submitted a reasonable accommodation request but
contended that Complainant failed to attend three separate meetings arranged by the
Reasonable Accommodation Specialist/Coordinator (RA Coordinator) to discuss the
request. Supervisor 2 also confirmed her awareness of Complainant’s involvement
in prior EEO activity. ROI at 463-65.
RA Coordinator stated that he became aware of Complainant’s medical condition on
June 10, 2024, when he received her medical documentation. According to him, he
could not describe Complainant’s specific duties or how her medical condition may
have impacted her ability to perform her work. RA Coordinator contended that
Complainant did not have a reasonable accommodation in place, as the reasonable
accommodations process was not completed. Nor was he aware of Complainant’s
involvement in prior EEO activity. ROI at 548-50.
Complainant initiated EEO contact on December 9, 2024. On February 13, 2025,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency on the
bases of disability (mental) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when:
1. From June 2024 through December 9, 2024, the Agency failed to provide
Complainant with a reasonable accommodation;
2. On dates between June and December 2024, Agency management did not
approve Complainant’s leave requests, charged her with Absent Without
Leave (AWOL), and would not grant Complainant the same work flexibilities
as other employees (e.g., shift scheduling and telework);
3. On December 17, 2024, the Agency terminated Complainant’s employment,
effective December 23, 2024, during her probationary period; and
4. On unspecified dates, Complainant walked into the building and people would
start making comments about her and nobody would come to her desk.

4 	2026000240
The Agency dismissed Claim 4 in which Complainant described her feeling that
unspecified coworkers in her training class were whispering comments about her
when she arrived late. Complainant did not claim to have heard the content of the
alleged comments, either directly or indirectly. Complainant also alleged coworkers
would not visit her desk. The Agency found, and we affirm the finding, that
Complainant’s allegation failed to involve a set of facts that could, even when
viewed in the light most favorable to Complainant, state an actionable claim of
harassment/hostile work environment. Therefore, Claim 4 was properly dismissed
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
The Agency also asserted, and we affirm the assertion, that Claim 4 was also
dismissed for not having been raised with an EEO counselor prior to filing a formal
complaint. According to 29 C.F.R. 1614.105(a), “Aggrieved persons who believe
they have been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age, disability, or genetic information must state an actionable claim
of harassment and must consult a counselor prior to filing a complaint in order to try
to informally resolve the matter.” However, the record reflects that Complainant did
not raise the issue of “hostility and whispers from classmates” in documents she
provided to the EEO Counselor (and in counseling), prior to filing a formal
complaint. ROI at 59. Therefore, we find Claim 4 was dismissed for failure to raise
the issue in counseling, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1)(2). As such, this
decision will not address Claim 4.
The 	Agency 	conducted 	an 	investigation. 	The 	investigation 	revealed 	that
Complainant submitted a reasonable accommodation request to Supervisor 1 on June
5, 2024. Complainant recalled meeting with RA Coordinator on November 13, 2024,
and again on December 13, 2024, regarding her request. Complainant stated that she
had asked for a later start time for her shift (such as 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m.), an
extended lunch of at least one hour so that she could rest, and the option to work
from home.
Complainant also requested a shorter shift because her medications lasted only six
to seven hours and she otherwise experienced severe sleepiness. Complainant
contended that she was verbally told that her request was denied without any
alternatives having been provided. Complainant alleged that management did not
provide her with a reason for denying the request, only stating that they get more
calls at 8 a.m.

5 	2026000240
Complainant also stated that her managers repeatedly told her the position may not
be appropriate for her if her condition interfered 	with 	her ability to work.
Complainant believed her disability was a factor in her treatment because of these
dismissive remarks. Complainant contended that her protected activity was a factor
because management became aware she was filing an EEO complaint. ROI at 101-
03.
According to Supervisor 1, the Agency did not fail to provide Complainant with a
reasonable accommodation. Supervisor 1 asserted that Complainant’s reasonable
accommodation request was unreasonable for the job duties Complainant had been
hired to perform. Supervisor 1 stated that she and Supervisor 2 attempted to meet
with RA Coordinator to review possible accommodations, but they were unable to
reach Complainant to explore alternative options.
Supervisor 1 explained that her role was only to submit Complainant’s reasonable
accommodation request, while Supervisor 2 and RA Coordinator were responsible
for determining the reasonable accommodation. Supervisor 1 asserted that during
the time of the reasonable accommodation request, Complainant was participating
in Phase I training, which involved classroom reading and trainer-led reviews.
Supervisor 1 also explained that the reasonable accommodation request was for a
flexible schedule of four to six hours, a later start time, extended lunch breaks for
medical appointments or flare-ups, one to two days out for appointments, and breaks
during the day for twenty minutes to take naps. Supervisor 1 stated that she could
not confirm whether this accommodation would have allowed Complainant to
perform her duties because Complainant was rarely at work and was otherwise often
missing during her shift.
Supervisor 1 also stated that Complainant’s requested reasonable accommodation
was denied because she was not certified on phones and was not adhering to her tour
of duty (TOD). Supervisor 1 acknowledged that Complainant stated her medical
condition was the reason she could not arrive on time. Supervisor 1 contended that
granting the accommodation would have caused a hardship for the Agency, as the
call center required full staffing to serve taxpayers. Supervisor 1 denied that
Complainant’s disability or any protected activity was a factor in this decision. ROI
at 442-46.

6 	2026000240
Supervisor 2 provided supporting statements, adding that RA Coordinator made
three attempts to meet with Complainant regarding her reasonable accommodation
but Complainant was a “no show.” ROI at 464-65. RA Coordinator also denied that
the Agency failed to provide Complainant with a reasonable accommodation.
According to him, he was not certain whether the requested accommodation would
have allowed Complainant to perform her required duties.
RA Coordinator confirmed that he met with Complainant on October 15, 2024, to
discuss the reasonable accommodation process. During the meeting, Complainant
described her medical condition and the severe drowsiness she experienced at work.
RA Coordinator stated that he explained to Complainant that he would reach out to
management to discuss her request. He also stated that Supervisor 2 did not grant
Complainant’s request because Complainant was still on 100% review and was
working with a Trainer, who was on a set schedule. ROI at 550-53.
The record includes an October 7, 2024, email from Supervisor 1 to Complainant in
which Supervisor 1 informed Complainant that her RA Coordinator had been trying
to contact her for over a week; and advising that it would be in in Complainant’s
best interest to reach out to him for further assistance in her schedule change needs.
ROI at 32. There are also text messages between Complainant and Supervisor 1 in
which Supervisor 1 repeatedly reminded Complainant to contact RA Coordinator
regarding her requests for accommodation involving telework or schedule changes.
On October 17, 2024, Complainant referred to missing a scheduled meeting with RA
Coordinator because of car troubles. ROI at 303. On November 6, 2024, Supervisor
1 	informed 	Complainant 	that 	she 	submitted 	her 	reasonable 	accommodation
paperwork, 	but 	Complainant 	was 	never 	at 	work 	for 	the 	representative 	to
communicate with her. Supervisor 1 added that even EAP representative contacted
her to see if Complainant was still working because she never was at work when she
was supposed to be. ROI at 349.
On November 15, 2025, Supervisor 1 urged Complainant to contact RA Coordinator
regarding her request for accommodation and stated that if Complainant was not at
work, “how could she contact him?” ROI at 378. On November 29, 2025, Supervisor
1 wrote, “Come to work so you can meet with [RA Coordinator] or stop complaining
because you are not eligible telework currently.” ROI at 392. On December 2, 2025,
Supervisor 1 informed Complainant, “Until your Reasonable Accommodation is
approved you MUST follow your given schedule. . .” ROI at 400. On December 6,

7 	2026000240
2025, Supervisor 1 stated she could not approve telework and reminded Complainant
that RA Coordinator “would be the one you need to talk to concerning telework.”
Complainant responded she would “Ok I will send him an email.” ROI at 424.
Complainant listed multiple dates in 2024 when her leave requests were denied,
specifically June 4-26, July 2-22, August 5-26, September 9-25, October 1-21,
November 4-25, and December 2-17. Complainant attributed her absences to
problems with transportation, in that she had been having mechanical problems with
her car and needed to ride with others. Complainant stated there were also occasions
she was unable to attend work due to feeling ill. Complainant asserted she informed
management of the context for her attendance difficulties, but her circumstances
were disregarded, and her absences were consistently counted as AWOL.
Complainant stated her manager insisted Complainant must report to work despite
her 	circumstances, 	including 	medical 	issues 	and 	issues 	with 	transportation.
Complainant contended her circumstances were extenuating, as she was dealing with
eviction and stressful interactions with her family and the police. Complainant
alleged other employees had received preferential treatment regarding absences,
including two coworkers (Coworkers 1 and 2), who had been granted flexibilities
denied to her, such as adjusted schedules and telework.
Complainant explained that she believed her medical condition was a factor in her
treatment because management repeatedly stated the job’s schedule was not a good
fit for her and suggested Complainant find work elsewhere. Complainant alleged her
protected 	activity 	contributed 	to 	her 	treatment, 	as 	management 	continuously
dismissed her, telling her she just needed to show up for work. ROI at 104-06.
Supervisor 1 confirmed that Complainant was charged with AWOL because she did
not follow leave procedures, had no leave available, and her absences were not due
to a medical condition. Supervisor 1 stated that Complainant was not provided Leave
Without Pay (LWOP) because Complainant did not have leave available, explaining
that Supervisor 2 was responsible for approving LWOP and AWOL charges.
Supervisor 1 recalled that Complainant explained her circumstances but asserted that
Complainant would not call or show up for work, sometimes only texting that she
was on her way but then not arriving until two to three hours later.
Supervisor 1 contended that Complainant did not call within two hours of her TOD,
would take leave for court appearances without having available leave, and would
disappear from the job without seeking permission or informing supervisors where

8 	2026000240
she was going. Supervisor 1 stated that she referred Complainant to the Employee
Assistance Program for support. She asserted that Complainant was not denied
flexibilities 	provided 	to 	other 	employees, 	adding 	that 	Complainant 	was 	a
probationary employee who needed to be certified before she could qualify for
telework, but Complainant was not certified because she was frequently absent.
Supervisor 1 stated that when Complainant requested a TOD change, she was still
in training, and all such employees had the same TOD set by headquarters of 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Supervisor 1 added that employees with forty or more hours of
AWOL were not eligible for telework. Supervisor 1 also asserted that she did not
know Coworker 1 or Coworker 2, as they worked in a different department under
different managers. ROI at 446-50. Supervisor 2 provided supporting statements,
asserting that neither Coworker 1 nor Coworker 2 were assigned to her department,
and she had no knowledge of their employment situation. ROI at 465-69.
According to Complainant, she was charged with AWOL despite having available
leave time. Complainant again contended that management should have made
exceptions in her case due to her extenuating circumstances. ROI at 106-08.
Supervisor 1 stated that Complainant was removed from her position during her
probationary period because she did not adhere to her TOD. Supervisor 1 explained
that Complainant would arrive late to work and then leave early without notifying
management. She also asserted that Complainant had accumulated more than 500
hours of AWOL unrelated to her medical condition.
Supervisor 1 confirmed that Complainant had been counseled on several occasions,
had been told she needed to improve, but ultimately did not come to work. ROI at
450-52. Supervisor 2 provided supporting statements, adding that Complainant
failed to follow proper leave procedures, including not requesting leave when
necessary and taking leave without approval. She also stated that the termination
letter had to be mailed to Complainant because she had not reported for duty. ROI
at 469-71.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, or a final
decision from the agency. After Complainant requested a decision, the Agency
issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).

9 	2026000240
The Agency concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency subjected
her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, reiterates her allegations. We will
address Complainant’s arguments below.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency's 	decision 	is 	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 (EEO MD-110), at 9-16 (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”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. 	Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at
802 n.13. 	The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. 	Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Failure to accommodate (Claim 1)
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of an individual with a disability unless the agency can show
that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o) and
(p). In order to establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined by

10 	2026000240
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is “qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m);
and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under
the 	Americans 	with 	Disabilities 	Act 	(Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable
Accommodation), No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002).
The term “qualified,” with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the
individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related
requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with
or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such
position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).
Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation of an employee’s
disability, the employer may engage in an interactive process with the employee to
identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(o)(3) (2019). An Agency may choose among reasonable accommodations as
long as the chosen accommodation is effective, and while the preference of the
individual with a disability should be given primary consideration, an Agency has
the 	ultimate 	discretion 	to 	choose 	between 	effective 	accommodations. 	See
Enforcement Guidance, supra, at Q. 9.
We find that Complainant is an individual with disability who was not qualified to
perform 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	her 	position 	with 	or 	without 	reasonable
accommodation. Complainant had disabilities that included narcolepsy. Her medical
conditions resulted in limitations that included the inability to function during the
day due to sleepiness from the effects of her medications. Management was aware
of Complainant’s disability because she requested reasonable accommodation.
The record reflects that Complainant’s requested accommodation included daily
tardies; 4-6 hour shifts five days per week, with a possible extended lunch period of
1.5-2 hour for rest; and one or two days to call out for appointments, rest, and flare
ups. However, the medical certification that Complainant submitted in support of
her requested accommodation stated that her limitations from narcolepsy included
sleepiness during the day that affects her ability to function. The recommendations
stated Complainant should avoid standing/sitting in one place for more than one
hour; be allowed to take breaks during the day (e.g. 20 minutes to take a nap if
needed); be excused for late arrivals some mornings; and be provided a shortened
workday (less than six hours). ROI at 513-18.

11 	2026000240
Notably, Complainant’s requested accommodation did not exactly match the
recommended accommodations on her medical certification. Moreover, neither
Complainant’s 	requested 	accommodation 	nor 	her 	medical 	certification
recommendations explained how the accommodation she was requesting would
enable her to perform the essential functions of her position as a full-time Contact
Representative 	or 	to 	handle 	all 	types 	of 	collections 	calls 	as 	a 	Collections
Representative. As such, Complainant’s accommodation request was unreasonable.
As to Complainant’s allegation that the Agency failed to discuss alternative
accommodations with her, there is no evidence that Complainant responded to
Supervisor 1’s email or that she reached out to RA Coordinator as she was repeatedly
advised to do. Therefore, Complainant truncated the interactive process by herself;
and the Agency did not fail to discuss alternative accommodations with her as
alleged. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Agency 	is 	not 	liable 	for 	failure 	to 	accommodate
Complainant, and her claim fails.
Disparate treatment based on disability and reprisal
We find that the Agency provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the
challenged actions in Claims 2 and 3. We also find no evidence of pretext or a nexus
between the challenged actions and Complainant’s disability or any purported prior
protected EEO activity. Importantly, Complainant failed to identify any similarly
situated probationary employees who received more favorable treatment under
similar circumstances. Neither of the two coworkers she identified were similarly
situated because management asserted, and Complainant did not dispute, that
Coworkers 1 and 2 were not employed in her department; and they were not under
the supervision of Supervisors 1 or 2.
As to Claim 2, the record reflects, and Complainant did not dispute, Supervisor 1’s
statements that Complainant was charged with AWOL because she did not follow
leave procedures, had no leave available, and her absences were not due to a medical
condition. See also ROI at 456-58 showing that on September 27 and 30, 2024,
Supervisor 1 notified Complainant that she had been AWOL due to car trouble and
family obligations. Supervisor 1 documented that Complainant had no leave
available. She also informed Complainant that she was a probationary employee and
not eligible for telework until after certification was complete and Complainant was
performing well.

12 	2026000240
Complainant’s Leave Used Record for 2024 also shows her marked as AWOL for
some portion of the day nearly every working day from mid-June 2024 to November
2024. ROI at 462 and 488.
As to Claim 3, the record reflects that consistent with applicable Agency policy, that
Complainant was terminated during her probationary period due to performance or
conduct deficiencies. See ROI at 596-97. Management extensively described
Complainant’s leave and attendance issues which she failed to address despite
discipline and counseling. 	Included in the record is Complainant’s termination
letter, showing that she received a Leave Counseling as a Probationary Employee
memo on June 11, 2024, a Tardy Memo on June 20, 2024, a Leave Counseling
Memo acknowledged on June 28, 2024, a Directive – Attendance Letter on August
1, 2024, and an AWOL Notice of Counsel on November 12, 2024. ROI at 485-87.
Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence that Complainant engaged in any
prior protected activity other than her reasonable accommodation request which was
not the reason for the challenged AWOL charges and subsequent termination. The
record is also devoid of any evidence that management was aware of Complainant’s
December 13, 2024, EEO filing which occurred after the alleged management
actions. Therefore, management could not have been motivated by retaliatory
animus based on that filing.
Therefore, based on our review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
decision finding no discrimination.
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.

13 	2026000240
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.
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.

14 	2026000240
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 23, 2026
Date