EEOC Appeal 2026002538

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Remona P.,1
Complainant,
v.
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Customs and Border Protection),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002538
Agency No. HS-CBP-00099-2026
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated May 18,
2026, 	dismissing 	her 	complaint 	of 	unlawful 	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. Upon review, the Commission finds that Complainant's
complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), due to
untimely EEO counselor contact.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Border Patrol Processing Coordinator at the Agency’s Rio Grande Valley Sector,
McAllen Station in McAllen, 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.

2026002538	2
On November 21, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination 	and harassment (sexual and non-sexual)
on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal (opposition) when:
1. 	On July 31, 2024, after Complainant experienced car issues, her Field
Training Officer (FTO) yelled at her and ordered her to get into his
car, repeatedly insisted that she sit in the front seat with him, and told
her, “This isn’t how I imagined being together for the first time would
be”;
2. 	In 	August 	2024, 	the 	FTO 	screamed 	at 	Complainant 	repeatedly,
interfered with her duties, criticized and belittled her, and contradicted
her, making learning impossible;
3. 	In August 2024, the FTO asked Complainant’s male coworkers about
her, often with inferred sexual innuendo, and asked Complainant
things like, “did I push them away from you?”;
4. 	In August 2024, the FTO asked Complainant questions about her
personal life and implied that she belonged to him or needed his
approval to interact with others;
5. 	In August 2024, the FTO lectured Complainant in front of Watch
Commanders 	and 	aggressively 	criticized 	her 	in 	front 	of 	her
classmates;
6. 	On August 5, 2024, the FTO denied Complaint’s shift change request;
7. 	On August 5, 2024, the FTO yelled at Complainant and demanded
that she take her lunch break;
8. 	On August 7, 2024, the FTO showed Complainant a picture of himself
in the gym;
9. 	On 	August 	8, 	2024, 	the 	FTO 	hovered 	over 	Complainant 	and
demanded that she write several memoranda and instructed her to be
careful of the contents;

2026002538	3
10. 	On August 14, 2024, and continuing, after Complainant reported
harassment by the FTO, management did not respond, did not separate
Complainant from the FTO, and allowed coworkers to gossip about
her, labeling her the “girl who reported her FTO” and telling others to
“be careful what you say around her”;
11. 	On or around October 17, 2024, the Deputy Patrol Agent in Charge
pressured her for unnecessary private medical information about her
brother after she submitted a non-per diem hardship request;
12. 	On February 12, 2025, Complainant was interviewed as the subject of
a 	Management 	Inquiry 	Team 	investigation 	and 	aggressively
questioned under oath;
13. 	On March 2, 2025, Complainant was assigned to the swing shift;
14. 	On 	April 	2, 	2025, 	the 	Deputy 	Patrol 	Agent 	in 	Charge 	called
Complainant 	while 	she 	was 	off 	duty 	and 	provided 	false 	and
misleading information; and,
15. 	Effective 	April 	9, 	2025, 	Complainant 	was 	terminated 	from
employment during her one-year probationary period.
The Agency’s final decision dismissed Complainant’s complaint for untimely EEO
counselor 	contact 	noting 	that 	Complainant 	initiated 	contact 	with 	the 	EEO
Counselor on October 22, 2025, 151 days beyond the regulatory 45-day time
period.
The 	instant 	appeal 	followed. 	On 	appeal, 	Complainant 	requests 	that 	the
Commission reverse the Agency’s final decision dismissing her complaint. She
argues that she initiated EEO counselor contact on April 10, 2025, and the Agency
began informal counseling thereafter. She acknowledges she did not complete all
requested intake documentation at that time. Complainant argues she was a
probationary employee unfamiliar with the federal EEO process. Once she realized
the matter had not been fully processed, she reinitiated the informal process and
participated with intake procedures.

2026002538	4
In response to the instant appeal, the Agency requests that the Commission affirm
the Agency’s final decision dismissing the formal complaint for untimely EEO
counselor 	contact. 	The 	Agency 	states 	that 	Complainant 	failed 	to 	attend 	the
scheduled intake interview and failed to respond when she was notified on April
23, 2025, that her EEO contact was closed due to her non-responsiveness. The
Agency argues that Complainant’s April 10th email is not sufficient to show she
consulted with a counselor and her failure to participate and respond to the
counselor 	shows 	an 	intent 	to 	not 	seek 	informal 	counseling. 	Additionally,
Complainant had constructive knowledge of the 45-day time limit because she had
completed the No Fear Act Training, which provided information regarding the
EEO process and applicable time limits.
ANALYSIS
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2) provides, in relevant part,
that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable
time limits, unless the agency extends the time limits in accordance with 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.604(f), which states these time limits are subject to waiver, estoppel and
equitable tolling. Complaints of discrimination should be brought to the attention
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within 45 days of the date of the
matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45
days of the effective date of the action. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). In order to
establish EEO Counselor contact, an individual must contact an agency official
logically connected to the EEO process and exhibit intent to begin the EEO
process. See Breanne H. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 2024002678
(Apr. 21, 2025) citing Allen v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05950933
(July 9, 1996); Isa v. Broadcasting Board of Governors, EEOC Appeal No.
0120063213 (Apr. 2, 2008).
EEOC regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend the time
limits when the individual shows that she was not notified of the time limits and
was not otherwise aware of them, that she did not know and reasonably should not
have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that
despite due diligence she was prevented by circumstances beyond her control from
contacting the Counselor within the time limits, or for other reasons considered
sufficient by the agency or the Commission.

2026002538	5
The Commission finds the Agency properly dismissed Complainant’s complaint
for untimely EEO counselor contact. The most recent alleged discriminatory act
occurred on April 9, 2025. However, Complainant did not initiate contact with an
EEO counselor until October 22, 2025, which is beyond the 45-day time period.
Complainant argues her April 10, 2025, email to the Agency EEO inbox shows she
timely initiated EEO counselor contact. Complainant’s April 10, 2025, email did
not, 	by 	itself, 	constitute 	effective 	initial 	EEO 	Counselor 	contact. 	After
Complainant failed to attend the initial scheduled interview, the EEO Specialist
sent Complainant an email on April 23, 2025, stating it was critical Complainant
respond 	by 	April 	24, 	2025, 	to 	schedule 	an 	informal 	counseling 	interview.
Complainant was warned if she did not respond, her EEO contact would be closed,
and no further action would be taken. Complaint File at 91-93. The next time
Complainant communicated with the EEO office was on October 22, 2025. We
find that Complainant did not initiate EEO contact and pursue her EEO complaint
until October 2025.
Regarding Complainant’s arguments that she was unaware of the 45-day limitation
period, the Complainant’s 	training 	history 	in 	the record shows 	Complainant
completed the No Fear Act Training on August 29, 2024, and on October 17, 2024,
which provided information regarding the EEO process and applicable time limits.
Id. at 95-111. Additionally, the EEO Specialist’s April 23, 2025, email stated that
if Complainant wished to file an informal EEO complaint in the future, she had to
request EEO counseling 45 days from the date of the discriminatory event. Id. at
91. We find Complainant failed to present sufficient evidence or information to
justify the waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling of the applicable time period for
initiating timely EEO Counselor contact.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	decision 	dismissing 	Complainant’s 	formal
complaint for untimely EEO counselor contact is AFFIRMED.
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:

2026002538	6
1. 	The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or
2. 	The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the
request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for
reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or
statement 	in 	opposition. 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405; 	Equal 	Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at
Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, 	Complainant 	can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS receives it by mail within
five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the
EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files their request via the
EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required.
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).

2026002538	7
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. 	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 17, 2026
Date