EEOC Appeal 2026001946

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Angelique H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001946
Agency No. 200I-614-2026-168987
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated February 27, 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), for untimely EEO
Counselor contact.
During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Food Service Worker (Laundry),
WG-2, at the Agency’s Memphis VA Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee.
On December 12, 2025, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact. 	Informal
efforts at resolution were not successful.
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 	2026001946
On January 22, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected her to a hostile work environment based on sex (female), from October 1,
2023, to September 30, 2025.
Complainant’s claim included a claim of discrimination on September 30, 2025,
when Complainant was issued a performance appraisal with a rating of “Fully
Successful.”
Thereafter, the Agency issued a final decision dismissing the formal complaint
pursuant to 29 CFR §§ 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO contact. The Agency found
Complainant did not contact an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the alleged
discrimination per the regulatory time limitation. Additionally, the Agency found an
additional claim regarding her performance appraisal was not brought to the
attention of the EEO Counselor during counseling and was not like or related to the
counseled claims.
Complainant filed the instant appeal. Complainant argued her justification for
untimeliness was that she was on vacation and “was sick.”
In opposition to the appeal, the Agency maintained the dismissal was proper and
Complainant fails to support a basis for equitable relief. The Agency noted
Complainant had actual and constructive knowledge of the 45-day requirement
based on her training records and postings at her office.
The Agency’s decision to dismiss a complaint is subject to de novo review by the
Commission, which requires the Commission to examine the record without regard
to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker and issue its
decision 	based 	on 	the Commission’s 	own 	assessment 	of the record 	and 	its
interpretation of the law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). The Commission should construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the complainant and take the complaint’s
allegations as true. 	See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No.
05970077 (March 13, 1997). Thus, all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from
the complaint’s allegations must be made in favor of the complainant.
The Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint for untimely EEO Counselor
contact. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, that
the Agency shall dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with the applicable time
limits. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of

3 	2026001946
discrimination be brought to the attention of an EEO Counselor within forty-five
(45) days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a
personnel action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action. The
Commission has long adopted a “reasonable suspicion” standard to determine when
the forty-five (45) day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time
limitation is not triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,
but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have become apparent.
Unless stated otherwise, EEOC’s time limits are in calendar days. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.604(a). To be deemed timely filed, a document must be received or postmarked
before the time limit expires. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(b). Time limits are subject to
waiver, estoppel or equitable tolling. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). Time limits start the
first day after notice and include weekends or holidays; if the last day falls on a
weekend or holiday, then the time limit extends to the next business day. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.604(d).
Here, we look to the most recent discriminatory event to determine timeliness. The
record discloses that the alleged discriminatory event occurred on September 30,
2025. However, Complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until
December 12, 2025, which is beyond the forty-five (45) day limitation period.
Complainant noted in her formal complaint that her justification for untimeliness
was: “I was on vacation and was sick.” However, we have consistently held that, in
cases involving physical or mental health disabilities, an extension is warranted only
where a complainant is so incapacitated by her condition that she is unable to meet
the regulatory time limits. See Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No.
05980475 (Aug. 6, 1998). Claims of incapacity must be supported by medical
evidence of mental incapacity. See Crear v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No.
05920700 (Oct. 29, 1992). Here, Complainant failed to provide sufficient medical
documentary evidence to confirm mental or physical incapacity. Complainant has
not presented persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension of the time
limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact.2
The Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
2 As we find the dismissal for untimely EEO contact was proper, we need not address
the Agency’s alternative grounds for dismissal herein.

4 	2026001946
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).
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.

5 	2026001946
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.
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.

6 	2026001946
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 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date