EEOC Appeal 2025003799

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Kasie L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003799
Agency No. 2003-589A7-2023-152180
DECISION
On August 1, 2025, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment
Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or 	Commission), 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.403(a), from the Agency’s July 21, 2025, final decision on compensatory
damages 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 MODIFIES the Agency’s final decision on compensatory damages.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-
0679-8 Advanced Medical Support Assistant at the Agency’s Community Based
Outpatient Clinic in Salina, Kansas. Complainant’s employment was subject to
completion of a one-year probationary period beginning on November 20, 2022.
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.

2025003799	2
Complainant alleged that, beginning in or around February 2023, a male coworker
(Coworker-1) subjected her to sexual harassment and that management failed to
take action when she reported the sexual harassment. Complainant also alleged that
Coworker-1 disclosed her protected EEO activity to coworkers and to veterans.
Finally, Complainant alleged discrimination with respect to being subjected to a
fact-finding investigation for allegedly accepting gifts from a patient and being
terminated during her probationary period, effective October 24, 2023.
On February 15, 2023, Complainant initiated contact with an EEO counselor. On
June 22, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, which she subsequently
amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex
(female) 	and 	reprisal 	for 	prior 	protected 	EEO 	activity. 	The 	complaint 	was
comprised of 11 allegations.
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 Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a
hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency
issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b) on September 18, 2024.
In its final decision, the Agency found that Complainant proved that she was
subjected to sexual harassment as alleged. Specifically, the Agency found that
Complainant established that she was subjected to unwanted verbal and physical
conduct of a sexual nature by Coworker-1 that was both severe and pervasive from
January 19, 2023, through October 24, 2023. The final decision found that the
Agency was liable for the sexual harassment because management did not take
prompt effective action to stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence.
The Agency found that Complainant did not establish discrimination based on sex
or in reprisal for protected EEO activity with respect to the initiation of the fact-
finding investigation or her termination. The Agency’s final decision on liability
did not address Complainant’s claim that Coworker-1 disclosed her protected EEO
activity to coworkers and to veterans.
Pursuant to the finding of discrimination, the Agency ordered various forms of
relief, including ordering a supplemental investigation concerning Complainant’s
entitlement to compensatory damages.

2025003799	3
Complainant requested $500,000 to $700,000 in compensatory damages. In an
affidavit, Complainant stated that getting fired had taken a toll on her physical,
emotional, and mental health and caused financial problems. Complainant stated
that the sexual harassment started in January 2022 and that she reported it to her
supervisor in March 2022.2 Supplemental Report of Investigation (SROI) at 32.
According to Complainant, as a result of her supervisor ignoring her when she
reported the sexual harassment, she found it very hard to trust anyone, including
managers. Complainant stated that she felt ashamed, second guessed herself,
isolated herself, lost about 40 pounds due to lack of appetite, was constantly
stressed, and had trouble sleeping.
Complainant’s daughter stated that a man at her mother’s job made her feel
extremely uncomfortable and that his behavior escalated to the point where he was
driving past their house and exhibiting stalker-like tendencies, which caused
unimaginable stress. According to her daughter, Complainant lost a lot of weight,
was 	exhausted, 	and 	became 	anxious, 	quiet, 	and 	withdrawn. 	Complainant’s
daughter stated that her mother lost her job as a result of the man’s actions.
Complainant’s spouse stated that Complainant was sad, distant, and started to lose
weight 	as 	a 	result 	of 	her 	coworker’s 	behavior. 	According 	to 	her 	spouse,
Complainant felt betrayed by the Agency’s lack of action and was scared about
having to work next to the coworker. Complainant’s spouse stated that she
experienced depression, anxiety, and loss of self-esteem, and she was always
looking over her shoulder and second-guessing herself.
Complainant’s friend of 20 years stated that she noticed that Complainant became
more distant and kept to herself more. A coworker stated that she observed
Complainant 	being 	watchful 	and 	shaking 	and 	saw 	her 	cry 	multiple 	times.
According to the coworker, Complainant had been outgoing and happy but became
much more withdrawn. The coworker stated that she noticed Complainant trying to
keep her distance from the coworker that she reported for harassment and that
Complainant was upset that she had to work with this coworker.
The record contains a doctor’s note dated December 4, 2024, which states that
Complainant reported weight loss and depression, stating that, since January 2023,
2 The January 2022 and March 2022 dates appear to be a typo, as Complainant’s
employment with the Agency began on November 20, 2022.

2025003799	4
she had increasingly experienced loss of appetite, inability to sleep, no energy, and
lots of crying. The doctor diagnosed Complainant with major depressive disorder
and prescribed Lexapro. A doctor’s note dated December 31, 2024, states that the
doctor increased the dose of Lexapro and referred Complainant to therapy because
she indicated that things had not improved since her previous 	appointment.
Complainant provided an invoice for $76.63 for the December 31, 2024, doctor
visit.
The record also contains notes from a therapist. During a February 17, 2025,
session, the therapist diagnosed Complainant with post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), 	anxiety, 	and 	depression. 	The 	goals 	for 	treatment 	were 	to 	reduce
depression, anxiety, and stress, improve relationships, work, and self-esteem, and
reduce the impact of trauma. Complainant provided a receipt showing she paid
$167.07 for the February 17, 2025, therapy appointment.
On July 21, 2025, the Agency issued its final decision on compensatory damages.
The Agency denied Complainant’s request for pecuniary damages. The Agency
noted that Complainant’s medical appointments were more than a year after the
sexual harassment ended in October 2023 and that there was no mention of sexual
harassment in the medical documentation. According to the Agency, evidence
suggested that Complainant may have sought treatment due to the termination,
which was not found to be discriminatory. The Agency found that Complainant
failed to establish a link between the claimed pecuniary losses and the sexual
harassment.
Considering Complainant’s claim for non-pecuniary losses, the Agency observed
that Complainant testified that she experienced sleeplessness, lack of trust, weight
loss, depression, stress, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, isolation, and shame as a result
of 	the 	sexual 	harassment. 	The 	Agency 	noted 	that 	Complainant’s 	daughter’s
statement focused more on the harm her mother experienced as a result of losing
her job. The Agency determined, however, that Complainant’s testimony that she
experienced depression, stress, anxiety, sleeplessness, and weight loss throughout
2023 and 2024 due to the sexual harassment was corroborated by the witness
statements. The Agency found that the medical documentation did not contain
information showing a nexus between the medical appointments and the sexual
harassment. The Agency determined that Complainant endured sexual harassment,
including unwelcome touching and hugging, for nine months, and that she felt
trapped when management failed to take action.

2025003799	5
The Agency found that the inherently degrading nature of the conduct supported
Complainant’s claim that she suffered severe emotional harm. The Agency noted,
however, 	that 	a 	portion 	of 	the 	emotional 	harm 	suffered 	resulted 	from
Complainant’s termination, which was not found to constitute discrimination.
The 	Agency 	awarded 	Complainant 	$45,000 	in 	non-pecuniary 	compensatory
damages. The Agency determined that, based on Commission precedent, an award
of $40,000 to $50,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages was appropriate,
citing Lelah T. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2021001401 (Aug.
16, 2022), Simone G. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 2023001336 (May 2,
2024), Irvin M. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2020005333 (June
8, 	2022), 	and 	Claude 	A. 	v. 	Dep’t 	of 	Veterans 	Affs., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
2022000963 (Oct. 16, 2023). The Agency found that an amount in the middle of
the range was appropriate based on cases with similar emotional harm, the duration
of 	the 	harm, 	and 	the 	fact 	that 	there 	was 	another 	contributing 	factor 	to
Complainant’s emotional harm.
The instant appeal followed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant did not submit a statement or brief on appeal. The Agency argues, in
pertinent part, that its final decision should be affirmed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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, 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”).

2025003799	6
ANALYSIS
When discrimination is found, the agency must provide the complainant with a
remedy that constitutes full, make-whole relief to restore her as nearly as possible
to the position she would have occupied absent the discrimination. See, e.g.,
Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 764 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co. v.
Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19 (1975); Adesanya v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 01933395 (July 21, 1994). Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil
Rights 	Act 	of 	1991, 	a 	complainant 	who 	establishes 	unlawful 	intentional
discrimination under either Title VII or Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. may receive
compensatory damages for past and future pecuniary losses (i.e., out-of-pocket
expenses) and non-pecuniary losses (e.g., pain and suffering, mental anguish) as
part of this “make whole” relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). For an employer with
more than 500 employees, such as the agency, the limit of liability for future
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is $300,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)
To receive an award of compensatory damages, a complainant must demonstrate
that he or she has been harmed as a result of the agency’s discriminatory action;
the extent, nature, and severity of the harm; and the duration or expected duration
of the harm. Rivera v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01934157 (July 22,
1994), req. for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05940927 (Dec. 11,
1995); 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.
Compensatory 	damages 	may 	be 	awarded 	for 	past 	pecuniary 	losses, 	future
pecuniary losses, and non-pecuniary losses that are directly or proximately caused
by the agency’s discriminatory conduct. EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 8. Objective
evidence of compensatory damages can include statements from the complainant
concerning his or her 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 the discriminatory conduct. Statements from
others, including family members, friends, health care providers, other counselors
(including 	clergy) 	could 	address 	the 	outward 	manifestations 	or 	physical
consequences 	of 	emotional 	distress, 	including 	sleeplessness, 	anxiety, 	stress,
depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem,
excessive fatigue, or a nervous breakdown.

2025003799	7
See Lawrence v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (Apr. 18, 1996),
citing Carle v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993).
Pecuniary Damages
Pecuniary losses are out-of-pocket expenses that are incurred as a result of the
employer’s unlawful action, including job-hunting expenses, moving expenses,
medical expenses, psychiatric expenses, physical therapy expenses, and other
quantifiable 	out-of-pocket 	expenses. 	EEOC 	Notice 	No. 	915.002 	at 	14. 	Past
pecuniary losses are losses incurred prior to the resolution of a complaint through a
finding 	of discrimination, the issuance of a full-relief offer, or a voluntary
settlement. Id. at 8-9. Future pecuniary losses are losses that are likely to occur
after resolution of a complaint. Id. at 9. For claims seeking pecuniary damages,
such objective evidence should include documentation of out-of-pocket expenses
for 	all 	actual 	costs 	and 	an 	explanation 	of 	the 	expense, 	e.g., 	medical 	and
psychological 	billings, 	other 	costs 	associated 	with 	the injury 	caused 	by 	the
agency’s actions, and an explanation for the expenditure. Id. at 9.
In 	denying 	Complainant’s 	request 	for 	past 	pecuniary 	damages, 	the 	Agency
determined that there was no evidence of a nexus between Complainant’s medical
expenses and the sexual harassment. The Agency stated in its final decision that
evidence suggested that Complainant sought treatment due to her termination
rather than the sexual harassment. However, this is not supported by the record. On
December 4, 2024, Complainant reported experiencing worsening symptoms of
weight loss, depression, lack of appetite, and trouble sleeping since January 2023.
SROI at 76. Complainant was not terminated until October 24, 2023. In the
February 17, 2025, notes the therapist stated that Complainant reported that she
lost 	her job 	due to 	sexual 	harassment, that 	the 	sexual 	harassment 	was 	not
investigated for months after she reported it, and that it was very hard for her and
traumatic. SROI at 87. Under social history, the therapist listed “Sexual harassment
at former job.” SROI at 88.
Complainant incurred medical expenses in the amount of $243.70, $76.63 for the
December 31, 2024, doctor visit and $167.07 for the February 17, 2025, therapy
appointment. Given that the record reflects that Complainant sought treatment for
the emotional harm caused by the sexual harassment as well as her termination, we
find that she is entitled to reimbursement for half of this amount.

2025003799	8
Complainant has not claimed future pecuniary losses. Accordingly, Complainant is
entitled to past pecuniary damages in the amount of $121.85.
Non-Pecuniary Damages
Non-pecuniary losses are 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 EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 10. There is
no precise formula for determining the amount of damages for non-pecuniary
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 non-
pecuniary compensatory damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the
discriminatory event rather than punish the Agency for the discriminatory action.
Furthermore, compensatory damages should not be motivated by passion or
prejudice or be “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).
Evidence 	from 	a 	health 	care 	provider 	or 	other 	expert 	is 	not 	a 	mandatory
prerequisite 	for 	recovery 	of 	compensatory 	damages 	for 	emotional 	harm. 	A
complainant's own testimony, along with the circumstances of a particular case,
can suffice to sustain his or her burden in this regard. The more inherently
degrading or humiliating the defendant's action is, the more reasonable it is to infer
that a person would suffer humiliation or distress from that action. The absence of
supporting evidence, however, may affect the amount of damages appropriate in
specific cases. Lawrence, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288.
The Commission has held that, when determining an award of non-pecuniary
compensatory damages, the Commission may consider the present-day value of
comparable awards. Lara G. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 0520130618
(June 9, 2017). The Commission has used the Consumer Price Index Inflation
Calculator3 to calculate the present value of past compensatory damages awards.
3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI [Consumer Price Index] Inflation Calculator,
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.

2025003799	9
Colene M. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2019005810 (July 19,
2021).
Here, 	Complainant 	was 	subjected 	to 	sexual 	harassment 	by 	Coworker-1 	for
approximately nine months. The sexual harassment included unwelcome touching
such as hugging, pressing himself against Complainant, and attempting to massage
her, inappropriate comments about her appearance, asking her out on a date
multiple times, aggressively asking her for her address, harassing messages, and
texting her when he drove past her house. The Agency did not take prompt or
effective 	action 	when 	Complainant 	reported 	the 	sexual 	harassment, 	and 	the
harassment continued. Towards the end of the fact-finding investigation, the
Agency offered to let Complainant telework in early June 2023 after she reported
that she was uncomfortable working alone next to Coworker-1. The Agency did
not remove Coworker-1, the alleged harasser, from the workplace.
The Agency’s fact-finding investigation determined that Coworker-1 had subjected
Complainant to sexual harassment as alleged. On July 11, 2023, the Agency issued
Coworker-1 a proposed reprimand for inappropriate conduct and lack of candor
based on his conduct towards Complainant and his statement to the fact-finding
investigator. On July 26, 2023, the Deputy Chief of Medical Administration
Services found that the charges were not sustained and decided not to reprimand
Coworker-1. On or about August 9, 2023, the Agency returned Complainant to the
workplace, where she was required to work in the same area as Coworker-1.
Although the Agency’s final decision on liability did not address this claim,
Complainant alleged that, while she was teleworking, Coworker-1 began telling
coworkers and patients that Complainant had filed a false sexual harassment
complaint 	against 	him. 	Complainant 	also 	alleged 	that 	Coworker-1 	retaliated
against her by reporting her for accepting gifts from a patient, which led to the
initiation 	of 	a 	fact-finding 	investigation 	and 	her 	termination. 	However,
Complainant did not appeal the Agency’s determination that she did not establish
that the initiation of the fact-finding and her termination during her probationary
period were discriminatory.
Complainant testified that she experienced sleeplessness, lack of trust, lack of
appetite, depression, stress, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, isolation, and shame.
Complainant 	lost 	40 	pounds. 	Complainant’s 	daughter, 	spouse, 	friend, 	and
coworker provided statements confirming that she experienced emotional harm.

2025003799	10
Both Complainant and her daughter attributed part of the emotional harm to her
termination. Complainant told her doctor that the symptoms began in January 2023
and 	her 	therapist 	that 	she 	was 	sexually 	harassed 	by 	a 	coworker. 	Although
Complainant did not seek medical treatment until after the Agency issued the final
decision on liability, the medical documentation provided shows that she was
diagnosed with depression and PTSD and was prescribed Lexapro. We find that
the preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that both the sexual
harassment and Complainant’s termination contributed to her emotional harm. We
agree 	with 	the 	Agency’s 	determination 	that 	the 	length 	of 	time 	to 	which
Complainant was subjected to the harassment and the inherently degrading nature
of the harassment support Complainant’s claim that she suffered from severe
emotional harm due to the sexual harassment.
We find that an award of $95,000 in non-pecuniary damages is more appropriate.
This 	amount is not motivated by passion or prejudice, is not “monstrously
excessive” standing alone, and is consistent with the amounts awarded in prior
Commission decisions, adjusted to reflect present day values using the CPI
Inflation Calculator. See Brenton W. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No.
2020002329 (Aug. 4, 2021) ($70,000 in non-pecuniary damages where agency
failed to address the hostile work environment that caused stress, anxiety, chest
pain, 	elevated 	heart 	rate, 	and 	worsening 	PTSD, 	and 	the 	only 	medical
documentation 	was 	from evaluation 	sought 	for the sole purpose of proving
compensatory damages (present day value of $85,714.29)); Roman G. v. Dep’t of
Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2019005894 (Aug. 31, 2020) ($75,000 in non-
pecuniary damages where complainant subjected to sexual harassment five to six
times per month over four years, resulting in an increase in smoking and drinking
and causing him to be angry, short-tempered, depressed, and socially distant
($96,659.33)); Jenna P. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2019001896
(Aug. 11, 2020) ($85,000 in non-pecuniary damages where, after nine months of
sexual 	harassment, 	complainant 	experienced 	depression, 	thoughts 	of 	suicide,
weight changes, trouble sleeping, and migraines and submitted statements from
family 	members, 	friends, 	and 	her 	pastor 	but 	did 	not 	provide 	any 	medical
documentation ($109,547.24)); Sonia B. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., EEOC Appeal
No. 2019004252 (Aug. 10, 2020) ($75,000 in non-pecuniary damages where
complainant 	was 	subjected 	to 	near-daily 	sexual 	harassment 	and 	experienced
anxiety, low energy, chronic migraines, upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, hair loss,
and insomnia, and her doctor stated that the harassment was the only identifiable
cause or trigger of the anxiety ($96,659.33)).

2025003799	11
Accordingly, we modify the Agency’s award of non-pecuniary compensatory
damages from $45,000 to $95,000.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we MODIFY the Agency’s final decision
on compensatory damages and REMAND the matter to the Agency for further
action in accordance with this decision and the ORDER below.
ORDER
Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency
shall take the following remedial actions:
1. Pay Complainant $121.85 in past pecuniary compensatory damages.
2. Pay Complainant $95,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, less any
amount(s) already paid to Complainant as non-pecuniary compensatory
damages.
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 evidence
that the corrective action has been implemented.
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

2025003799	12
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.

2025003799	13
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.

2025003799	14
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 29, 2026
Date