EEOC Appeal 2020001700

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Rosie T.,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert Wilkie,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001700
Agency No. 200J-VI12-2020100558
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated December 9, 2019, 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human Resources
Specialist at the Agency’s Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital located in Hines, Illinois.
On November 26, 2019, Complainant filed a formal equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity (April 2019 EEO complaint) when Complainant’s supervisor placed “false
and misleading information” in her Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) record
“to controvert [Complainant’s] claim.”
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a
claim. The instant appeal followed.
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.

2020001700	2
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency
shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any
aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been
discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
disabling condition, genetic information, or reprisal. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). 	The
Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an “aggrieved employee” as one who
suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for
which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21,
1994).
We have previously held that a complainant cannot use the EEO complaint process to challenge
actions which occurred within the OWCP adjudicatory process for workers’ compensation claims.
See Pirozzi v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970146 (October 23, 1998) (allegedly
false 	statements 	made 	by 	agency 	to 	OWCP 	during 	OWCP’s 	processing 	of 	a 	workers’
compensation claim goes to the merits of compensation claim); Hogan v. Dep’t of the Army,
EEOC Request No. 05940407 (September 29, 1994) (reviewing a claim that agency officials
provided misleading statements to OWCP would require the Commission to essentially determine
what workers’ compensation benefits the complainant would likely have received); Reloj v. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960545 (June 15, 1998) (claim that agency’s providing
false information to the OWCP resulted in denial of benefits is a collateral attack on OWCP’s
decision and, thus, fails to state a claim). Dismissal of an EEO complaint is appropriate where the
complainant is attempting to lodge a collateral attack on another proceeding. See Wills v. Dep’t of
Defense, EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993).
The subject of Complainant’s complaint concerns allegedly “false and misleading information”
provided to OWCP by the Agency. The proper forum for Complainant to have raised challenges
to actions which occurred during the OWCP proceeding, was at that proceeding itself, because any
remedial relief available to Complainant would be through the OWCP process. There is no
remedial relief available to Complainant on this matter through the EEO complaint process.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint.

2020001700	3
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 	Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 	In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. 	Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your 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(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
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 his or her 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.

2020001700	4
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:
______________________________ 	Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 9, 2020
Date