EEOC Appeal 2025003079

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Minda W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Keith Sonderling,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Labor,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003079
Hearing No. 440-2024-00181X
Agency No. 23-05-073
DECISION
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
May 13, 2025 final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint of 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., Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.,
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final order.
At the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was a prior
Agency employee previously working as an Equal Opportunity Specialist for the
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.

2025003079	2
Agency's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) from 1997
until 2013.
On May 8, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (Caucasian), national origin (Eastern
European), sex (female), religion (Jewish), color (White), disability (depression,
anxiety, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma/TED), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On March 20, 2023, she learned that she was not selected for the GS-
13 Supervisory Equal Opportunity Specialist Assistant District Director
position advertised under Vacancy Announcement No. DE-23-PHIL-
OFCCP-0021.
2. 	On or about May 22, 2023, she learned that she was not selected for the
GS-11 Equal Opportunity Specialist Regional Outreach Technical
Advisor position advertised under Vacancy Announcement Nos. MS-
23-PHIL-OFCCP-0086 and DE-23-PHIL-OFCCP-0063.
3. 	On June 22, 2023, she learned that she was not selected for the GS-7
and GS-9 Equal Opportunity Specialist position advertised under
Vacancy Announcement No. MS-23-PHIL-OFCCP-0052.
4. 	On unspecified dates, she learned that she was not selected for an Equal
Opportunity 	Specialist 	position 	advertised 	under 	Vacancy
Announcement Nos. MS-23-PHIL-OFCCP-0052 and DE-23-PHIL-
OFCCP-0036.
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). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The
AJ issued a scheduling order which required the Agency to file any dispositive
motion by October 4, 2024, Complainant to respond by October 21, 2024, and the
Agency to reply by October 29, 2024. The Agency timely submitted a motion for
summary judgment (Motion). Complainant filed an opposition brief on October 29,
2024. The Agency responded that Complainant’s opposition brief should be stricken
as untimely. Complainant later submitted another brief on November 27, 2024, to
which the Agency responded with a request to strike.

2025003079	3
Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ issued a summary judgment decision finding
that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal. 	First, the AJ
determined that Complainant’s briefs were untimely and granted the Agency’s
request to strike Complainant’s briefs.
Regarding claim 1, the AJ found that the three-member interview panel asked the
candidates the same questions and each panelist independently gave Complainant
the lowest score. The AJ noted that the panelists explained that the other candidates
gave more thorough, thoughtful, and specific responses concerning supervision,
investigations, case management, and program operations. The AJ determined that
Complainant's belief that her OFCCP experience made her the superior candidate
did not establish that the panel's assessment was pretextual.
Regarding claim 2, the AJ concluded that Complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination or reprisal. The AJ determined that Complainant
presented no evidence contradicting the Selecting Official's testimony that he was
unaware of her protected classes and/or prior EEO activity when he selected the
interviewees.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the AJ found that the Agency decided not to proceed with
the hiring action, returned the certificates of eligible candidates, and neither
interviewed nor selected any applicant. Although recognizing that cancellation of a
vacancy may support a discrimination or reprisal claim, the AJ determined that
Complainant presented no evidence that the cancellation was due to Complainant’s
protected classes or her prior EEO activity. The AJ concluded that Complainant’s
assertion 	that 	the Agency 	canceled 	the 	vacancy 	to 	avoid 	selecting 	her was
unsupported speculation and insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, the AJ determined
that Complainant failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact relevant to her
claims which would warrant a hearing. The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed.
The Commission finds that the AJ did not abuse his discretion in the enforcement of
the scheduling order. Complainant filed her opposition eight days late and did not
seek an extension before the deadline. Her contemporaneous filing stated generally
that she had recently learned information affecting the case, but Complainant did not
provide evidence demonstrating that she was incapacitated during the filing period.

2025003079	4
Under these circumstances, the AJ did not abuse his discretion in striking the
untimely opposition and unauthorized supplemental brief.
Even assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case, we find
that 	the 	Agency 	articulated 	legitimate, 	nondiscriminatory 	reasons 	for 	the
nonselections in claims 1 and 2. The record reflects that Complainant received the
lowest interview scores for claim 1 and was not among the applicants selected for
an interview in claim 2. Although Complainant disputes the assessment of her
qualifications, she has not presented evidence from which a reasonable fact finder
could conclude that the Agency’s explanations were pretextual. Regarding claims 3
and 	4, 	the 	Agency 	cancelled 	the 	hiring 	actions 	and 	selected 	no 	applicants.
Complainant presented no evidence connecting the decision to cancel the hiring
actions to her protected classes or prior EEO activity.
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the
AJ’s decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or
evidence that tend to establish that:
1. 	The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or
2. 	The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 	If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request,
that 	statement 	or 	brief 	must 	be 	filed 	together 	with 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration. 	A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or
statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015).

2025003079	5
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. 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.

2025003079	6
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 22, 2026
Date