EEOC Appeal 2020001155

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Carol K.,1
Petitioner,
v.
Matthew P. Donovan,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Petition No. 2020001155
Appeal No. 2019004395
Agency No. 9X1M1900297
DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
On December 12, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission)
docketed a Petition for Enforcement to examine the enforcement of an Order set forth in EEOC
Appeal No. 2019004395 (September 17, 2019). The Commission accepts this petition for
enforcement pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503.
BACKGROUND
During the relevant time, Petitioner worked as a Property Management and UID Lead at the
Agency’s Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland. Complainant was part of the Joint Strike
Fighter Program (JSF), a Department of Defense project responsible for acquiring and developing
the F-35, strike aircraft weapon system. JSF is comprised of military and civilian employees from
multiple federal agencies, including another PMO Functional Lead from the Department of the Air
Force (hereinafter “Lead-AF”).
Believing that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, by Lead-AF’s conduct as well as
management’s failure to respond, Petitioner filed a formal complaint on April 18, 2019 against the
Air Force (hereinafter “Agency-AF”).
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Petitioner’s name when
the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.

2020001155	2
The formal complaint, based on reprisal for her prior protected EEO activity, included various
events in support of the harassment claim (claims (a) – (f)).
The Agency-AF issued a decision dismissing the formal complaint for failure to state a claim. The
Agency-AF reasoned that Petitioner was a Navy employee and therefore lacked standing to file a
formal complaint against Agency-AF. Petitioner filed an appeal with the Commission.
In the prior decision, the Commission observed that the hostile work environment was allegedly
created by an Agency-AF employee. See Complainant v. Dep’t of Air Force EEOC Appeal No.
2019004395 (Sept. 17, 2019). Therefore, liability was to be determined by “examining actions and
decisions made by management at both the Department of Air Force and the Department of the
Navy” (emphasis added). See id. When two agencies bear joint responsibility for an alleged act of
discrimination, both agencies are proper respondents, the Commission reasoned. See id.
Consequently, the Department of the Navy (hereinafter “Agency-Navy”) was joined as a party.
See id. Specifically, the Agency-AF was ordered to contact Agency-Navy to commence joint
processing, including sending Petitioner a joint letter acknowledging receipt of the remanded
complaint within thirty calendar days of the decision. See id. Additionally, following an
investigation by both agencies, Petitioner was to be provided with a Report of Investigation (ROI)
and notice of her right to request a hearing or an immediate final decision. See id. If Petitioner
requested a final decision,
the agencies are ORDERED to jointly issue a final decision, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
1614.110(b), with appeal rights to this Commission, in which each agency
addresses the issue of its respective liability for the discriminatory hostile work
environment. This joint final decision shall be issued within sixty (60) calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final. See id.
The matter was assigned to a Compliance Officer and docketed as Compliance No. 2019005839
on September 19, 2019.
On October 24, 2019, when she had not received a joint acknowledgement letter and the Agencies
were seeking an extension, Petitioner filed a Petition for Enforcement with the Commission. The
next day, the Agency provided the required acknowledgment letter. Soon thereafter, on November
7, 2019, Petitioner submitted a second Petition for Enforcement, arguing that Agency-AF had
ignored her amendments.2
2 The record indicates that prior to the issuance of the Commission’s September 2019 decision,
Agency-N had accepted a hostile work environment complaint from Complainant. The complaint
was comprised of events (claims (a) – (f)) regarding Complainant’s first-level supervisor, a
Department of the Navy employee (hereafter “Supervisor-Navy”). Further, in letters dated June
13, 2019 and August 12, 2019, Agency-Navy accepted Complainant’s amendments and included
claims (k) though (t). In correspondence dated October 9, 2019, the Agency-Navy also included
claim (u).

2020001155	3
The Agencies responded by arguing that it had “substantially complied” because Agency-AF was
currently investigating the matter and the amended claims were not “new claims” but simply
supportive evidence.
In addition to Petitioner’s Petition’s for Enforcement, the Agencies filed a November 14, 2019
Joint Petition for Clarification regarding the sixty-day time limit set forth in the Commission’s
September 17, 2019 order. According to the Agencies, the Order appeared to apply to the deadline
for issuing a joint final decision, in the event Petitioner made such a selection following the
investigation. However, this did not seem to provide sufficient time to not only issue the decision
but also complete the underlying investigation and report. Instead, the Agencies suggest a “more
reasonable interpretation of the Order” would be to require the decision to be issued within sixty
days after the completion of the investigation. According to the Agencies, Agency-Navy’s
investigation was still in progress and the Agency-AF’s investigation had only just started.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner and Agency-Navy have submitted a copy of a February
18, 2020 settlement agreement wherein they have agreed to release Agency-Navy as a party in the
instant matter. The agreement was executed by Petitioner, her attorney, and the Director, Naval
Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division. Because Petitioner has resolved her complaint against
Agency-Navy, the instant case now remains against Agency-AF alone.
Next, as for the Agencies’ Petition for Clarification regarding the time limit for compliance, we
find the issue is now irrelevant. The record reflects that on March 18, 2020 the Agency-AF
provided Petitioner with a copy of the ROI and her opportunity to request a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On March 23, 2020, Petitioner requested a hearing.
Finally, with respect to Petitioner’s challenges to the scope and quality of the ROI,3 as well as her
desire to move the hearing from the Indianapolis Field Office to the Washington Field Office, we
find these matters are more appropriately addressed by the AJ assigned to her case. Where a
hearing is properly requested, and the investigation is incomplete or inadequate, the record shall
be developed under the supervision of the AJ assigned to the case. See Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive (EEO MD-110), at Ch7, § III.A-B (Aug. 5, 2015); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.109(a). The record may be developed through discovery and/or the AJ’s orders for the
production of documents and witnesses. See id.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the instant record, while not in accordance with ordered time limit, we find
Agency-AF to be in substantial compliance with our order in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004395.
3 Complainant asserts that her amendments are not reflected in the ROI, no statements were
obtained from five witnesses, she was not given the opportunity to offer a rebuttal, and the
investigation did not include management’s practices as ordered by the Commission.

2020001155	4
As noted above, Agency-AF issued a joint acknowledgment letter to Petitioner, conducted an
investigation, completed an ROI, and provided Petitioner with the opportunity to request a hearing
or an immediate Agency final decision. Because the record before us does not contain any
evidence indicating that Petitioner’s hearing request was processed and assigned to an AJ, the
Agency is Ordered to provide such documentation to the Commission as set forth below.
ORDER
To the extent it has not already done so, the Agency shall submit to the Hearings Unit of the
EEOC's Indianapolis Field Office a request for a hearing in this case, as well as a copy of the
complaint file, within 15 calendar days of the date this decision is issued.
The Agency shall provide written notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth
below that the complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. Thereafter, the
Administrative Judge shall issue a decision in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109 and the
agency shall issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110.
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 supporting documentation
when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
Petitioner and his/her representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Petitioner may petition the
Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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.

2020001155	5
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Petitioner 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. Petitioner’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).
PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint.
However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate
United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this
decision. 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 filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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.

2020001155	6
“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or
department in which you work. 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 Petitioner’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
June 16, 2020
Date