EEOC Appeal 2024002434

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Dominica V.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2024002434
Hearing No. 540-2018-00098X
Agency No. 2003-0442- 201710213
DECISION
On March 2, 2024, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment
Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or 	Commission), 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.403(a), regarding the Agency’s compliance with its final order dated October
19, 2023, concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
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. and Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et
seq. For the following reasons, the Commission finds that the Agency has not yet
established that it is in full compliance with its final order fully implementing an
EEOC Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision and order of remedial relief, and we
REMAND the matter to the Agency.
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.

2024002434	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Registered Nurse at the Agency’s Cheyenne VA Medical Center in Cheyenne,
Wyoming. On June 27, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability and reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity.
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 AJ. 	Complainant timely requested a hearing and the AJ held a
hearing on February 15-17 and April 8, 2022, and issued a decision on July 18,
2023, finding that Complainant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of
disability, including failure to accommodate and reprisal in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act and subjected to a hostile work environment. The AJ ordered a
variety of relief and on September 26, 2023, issued the final judgment and notice
regarding appeal rights. The Agency issued its timely final order on October 19,
2023, adopting the findings of discrimination and accepting the ordered relief with
a few clarifications.2 Complainant did not appeal the Agency’s final order or
otherwise object to the clarifications to the remedies that it made.
2 Although the AJ ordered “front pay,” the Agency’s final order found this to be
inconsistent with the remedy of reinstatement that was also ordered. 	In the final
order, it therefore clarified that instead of “front pay,” Complainant was entitled to
“back pay for the period of time leading to her reinstatement, or until she rejects
the offer of reinstatement,” asserting that this would remedy the discrimination
found to have occurred until Complainant accepted or rejected the offer of
reinstatement. We agree with the Agency that this remedy is appropriate in place
of the AJ’s order of “front pay until she is offered and accepts (or declines)
reinstatement.” We further note that Complainant did not object to this clarification
either by appealing the final order or raising it in the Notice of Non-Compliance or
in the instant appeal.
The final order also clarified the offer of reinstatement, correctly noting that the
AJ’s order did not provide a timeline within which the Agency must provide
Complainant an offer or a deadline within which she must accept or reject it,
meaning that the AJ’s order seemingly could require back pay without time

2024002434	3
The parties engaged in extensive communications concerning compliance with the
remedial order. Believing that the Agency failed to fully comply with the ordered
relief, Complainant submitted a Notice of Non-Compliance to the Agency on
January 16, 2024, identifying the following areas of non-compliance:
1. Failure to pay Complainant any back pay and associated benefits;
2. Failure to restore any leave to Complainant;
3. Refusal to provide documentation regarding the training that was ordered;
4. Refusal to provide proof of rescission of documents from Complainant’s
official and unofficial personal files;
5. Refusal 	to 	provide 	proof 	of 	compliance 	that 	the 	posting 	notice 	was
electronically and physically posted.
The 	Agency 	responded 	to 	this 	notice 	on 	February 	7, 	and 	March 	6, 	2024.
Complainant filed this appeal on March 2, 2024.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency has not paid any back pay or
associated benefits and has not provided any information or documentation for
how it has or will calculate back pay. 	She disputes the Agency’s argument that it
has complied with the back pay order because it submitted a remedy ticket to
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) on February 7, 2024, and has no
control over when DFAS will respond. Complainant argues that the Agency’s
failure 	to 	provide 	the 	documentation 	it 	submitted 	to 	DFAS 	regarding 	its
calculations or copies of its follow up communications establishes that it is not in
compliance with the ordered relief. 	She further argues that the Agency was
ordered to provide her with the opportunity to establish additional tax liability,
which she has been unable to do given the Agency’s failure to provide back pay or
the underlying documents.
Turning to the ordered restoration of leave, Complainant argues that the Agency
was ordered to restore 56.50 hours of annual leave and credit her leave banks with
the leave she would have earned during the back pay period but that it has not
limitation. We agree with the Agency that this was not the intent of the order and
find that the Agency’s clarification providing timelines was appropriate.

2024002434	4
restored any leave as of the date of her appeal or provided any information on how
it has or will calculate leave accrual during the back pay period.
Complainant next argues that the agency did not correctly calculate her grade and
step level upon her reinstatement. She asserts that she “could have been promoted
to the position of Nurse II during the back pay period” and asks that the Agency be
ordered to provide a “plain language but detailed explanation as to how it
calculated Complainant’s grade and step level, including by addressing the Agency
policy referenced in Exhibit 4 hereto (which provides pay scales and information
about 	how to obtain a waiver for the education requirements of a Nurse II
position, 	among 	other 	things) 	and 	it 	should 	adjust 	her 	grade/step 	level 	as
necessary.”
Complainant also asserts that the Agency has not provided Complainant with
vision or dental insurance since her reinstatement and should be ordered to do so.
Complainant further asserts that the Agency did not provide all of the remedial
training ordered, providing specific details by relevant individuals of the number of
hours of training still lacking and/or unproven. She asks that the Agency be
ordered to provide all of the training described in the final order.
Complainant asserts that the Agency did not expunge all of the documents it was
required to under the order, arguing that it only established that it had expunged
documents relating to her termination from her Official Personnel File, as opposed
to “all Agency records.” She asks that the Agency be ordered to fully comply with
the expungement order and provide written confirmation that all official and
unofficial documents related to the termination have been expunged from all
Agency records. Finally, Complainant argues that the Agency refused to provide
proof of compliance that the posting notice was electronically and physically
posted.
In conclusion, Complainant asks for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with her
efforts to have the Agency comply with the relief ordered, including but not
limited to, the filing of the appeal.
In response, the Agency first argues that the appeal should be dismissed as
prematurely filed in terms of the back pay and restoration of leave orders because
the final order did not provide a specific deadline for the payment of back pay or
restoration of leave and that Complainant’s January 16, 2024, Notice of Non-

2024002434	5
Compliance was premature. 	The Agency then asserts that the case involves over
seven years of back pay and is a very complicated calculation which it could not
have reasonably calculated within two days of Complainant’s reinstatement, which
is what Complainant requested. 	It further states that as of February 7, 2024, it
submitted a remedy ticket to DFAS and that is it therefore “currently in compliance
with the final order.” It asks that the claim of non-compliance as to back pay and
leave restoration be dismissed as prematurely filed.
Turning to the question of Complainant’s grade and step level upon reinstatement,
the Agency stated that it informed Complainant on January 11, 2024, that she
would be reinstated at the Nurse I, Step 123 rate and that Complainant failed to
raise this issue in her Notice of Non-Compliance, thus failing to exhaust her
administrative 	remedies 	in 	regard 	to 	this 	claim. 	The 	Agency 	also 	argues
Complainant failed to provide any evidence that she is entitled to a higher rate of
pay upon reinstatement.
Similarly, the Agency asserts that Complainant did not raise her claim concerning
vision or dental insurance in her Notice of Non-Compliance and, in any case, it is a
vague claim that does not make clear whether she has attempted to enroll in a
vision or dental plan under Benefeds. As for training and expungement, the
Agency asserts that it complied with all ordered training and has expunged all
documents required under the final order, referring to specific attached exhibits.
Based on these and other arguments, the Agency asks that the appeal be dismissed
a prematurely filed and moot, as well as asserting that it should be “construed as
bad faith” on the part of Complainant.
3 The Agency’s brief in response to Complainant’s appeal actually states that
Complainant was reinstated as a “Nurse II, Step 12.” But Complainant’s assertion
that she was reinstated as a Nurse 1, Step 12 (only one step above the position she
held when she was discriminatorily terminated), her argument that she should have
been reinstated as a Nurse II, the Agency’s argument that she failed to prove she
should have been granted a higher rate of pay upon reinstatement, as well as a
review of the documents in the record, indicate that the Agency’ reference to
“Nurse II, Step 12” is a typographical error.

2024002434	6
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will
be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence
is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” 	Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding
whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. 	See Pullman-
Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are
subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the
tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective
evidence so contradicts the testimony, or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a
reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110,
Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, we address whether Complainant’s appeal is properly
before the Commission. EEOC regulations provide that any final action that has
not been the subject of an appeal or civil action shall be binding on the agency and
that, if the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with a final
action, the complainant shall notify the EEO Director, in writing. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.504(a). If the agency does not respond in writing or if the complainant is not
satisfied with the Agency’s attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant may
appeal to the Commission 35 days after she has served the agency with the
allegations of non-compliance. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b). Here, the Agency does
not argue that Complainant failed to comply with these requirements. 	Instead, it
makes two other arguments suggesting that the appeal is not properly before the
Commission. 	First, in relation to the back pay and leave restoration issues, it
argues that Complainant submitted her Notice of Non-Compliance with the final
order before the Agency could reasonably have complied with the relevant portions
of the order. It also argues that two of Complainant’s allegations – one involving
the proper grade and step for her reinstatement and the other involving issues
related to health insurance – were not raised in her Notice of Non-Compliance.
Given 	Complainant’s 	detailed 	communications 	with 	various Agency 	officials
involving non-compliance, the fact that the Agency contends on appeal that it is

2024002434	7
“currently in compliance” with the remedial order, and the fact that the appeal has
now been awaiting review for over two years (during which time both the Agency
and Complainant had the opportunity to submit additional evidence of compliance
or non-compliance should they have so chosen), we find it appropriate to address
Complainant’s appeal.
When discrimination is found, the agency must provide the complainant with a
remedy that constitutes full, make-whole relief to restore her as nearly as possible
to the position she would have occupied absent the discrimination. See, e.g.,
Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 764 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co. v.
Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19 (1975); Adesanya v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 01933395 (July 21, 1994).
Here, Complainant identified the following areas of non-compliance: 	failure to
pay any back pay and associated benefits; failure to restore any leave; refusal to
provide documentation regarding the training that was ordered; refusal to provide
proof of rescission of documents from Complainant’s official and unofficial
personnel files; and refusal to provide proof of compliance that the posting notice
was electronically and physically posted. 	On appeal, she further raised issues of
non-compliance related to her reinstatement and the Agency’s provision of visual
and dental insurance. She does not allege non-compliance with any other portions
of the relief ordered in the October 19, 2023, final order. 	This decision only
pertains to the issues about which Complainant alleged non-compliance.
Back pay and Other Benefits, Leave Restoration
The purpose of a back pay award is to restore to a complainant the income she
would have otherwise earned but for the discrimination. Albemarle Paper Co., 442
U.S. at 418-19; Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04900010 (Nov. 29,
1990). The person who has been discriminated against must receive a sum of
money equal to what would have been earned by that person in the employment
lost through discrimination (gross back pay) less what was actually earned from
other employment during the period, after normal expenses incurred in seeking and
holding the interim employment have been deducted (net interim earnings). The
difference between gross back pay and net interim earnings is net back pay due.
Net back pay accrues from the date of discrimination, except where the statute
limits recovery, until the discrimination against the individual has been remedied.

2024002434	8
Gross back pay should include all forms of compensation and must reflect
fluctuations in working time, overtime rates, penalty overtime, Sunday premium
and night work, changing rate of pay, transfers, promotions, and privileges of
employment to which the complainant would have been entitled but for the
discrimination. See Ulloa v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04A30025
(Aug. 3, 2004) (citing Allen v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Petition No.
04940006 	(May 	31, 	1996)); Perez v. 	U.S. 	Postal 	Serv., EEOC 	Petition 	No.
04A40041 (Mar. 3, 2005).
On appeal, the Agency contends that Complainant alleged non-compliance with
the back pay/leave restoration order prematurely. The final order states that unless
otherwise specified, the relief ordered will be implemented within 60 days of the
issuance of the final order, October 19, 2023. The back pay portion of the order, in
relevant part, states that the Agency shall pay back pay, with interest, from April 7,
2017, until the effective date of Complainant’s reinstatement (which occurred on
January 14, 2024). It does not provide a specific time frame for completing this
action. The Agency argues that the lack of timeframe and the fact that it could not
start 	calculating 	the 	appropriate 	amount 	of 	back 	pay 	until 	such 	time 	as
Complainant accepted or rejected the reinstatement offer (December 13, 2023)
means that it could not have been in non-compliance with this portion of the order
until after February 11, 2024 (assuming it had 60 days from Complainant’s
acceptance of the reinstatement offer) and that Complainant’s January 14, 2024,
Notice of Non-Compliance was premature. But even assuming that is the case, the
passage of time has made that argument moot. The question that remains is
whether the Agency has established compliance based on proof that it submitted a
remedy ticket to DFAS on February 7, 2024, as the Agency argues on appeal,
stating that because it does not have the authority to do anything more than submit
the remedy ticket to DFAS it is “currently in compliance” with the final order in
regard to both back pay and leave restoration.
We agree with Complainant that merely submitting a remedy ticket to DFAS and
providing Complainant with a copy of that ticket is insufficient to establish
compliance with this portion of the order. The existing record shows that as of
February 7, 2024, the Agency submitted a remedy ticket to DFAS entitled
“Settlement Inquiry – Submission” which describes the back pay period (April 7,
2017 – January 13, 2024) and states that the Agency will submit a “[f]ollow-up to
provide remaining documents.”

2024002434	9
The Agency provided no further information as to any other steps it has taken in
response to this appeal, instead merely providing a copy of this remedy ticket.
Although we acknowledge that the Agency exercises no control over DFAS, the
record is clear that the Agency failed to provide Complainant with any information
whatsoever about back pay or leave restoration beyond this vague “remedy ticket”
despite the fact that it submitted additional information to DFAS. Moreover, the
Agency did not dispute Complainant’s claim that as of October 2, 2024, the
Agency still had not taken any further action on the back pay or leave restoration
issues. Nor does the record indicate that it has done anything since, such as asking
DFAS for an update or providing Complainant with the documents it sent to DFAS
concerning the back pay and leave restoration calculations. The Agency has also
not provided any evidence that Complainant ever received any of the back pay and
benefits or leave she was entitled to pursuant to the final order.
Moreover, in terms of leave restoration in particular, even given that the Agency
could not restore leave to Complainant that she would have earned between her
discriminatory termination and the date she was reinstated until she either accepted
or 	rejected 	the 	reinstatement 	offer, 	it 	is 	undisputed 	that 	at 	the 	very 	least
Complainant was entitled to 56.50 hours of leave that she took due to the Agency’s
discriminatory failure to accommodate her. The Agency provided no evidence to
establish that even as of the date of its response to this appeal, it had restored these
hours of leave to Complainant upon her reinstatement.
In these circumstances, we find that the Agency has failed to establish that it is in
compliance with the final order on back pay and benefits or leave restoration. See,
e.g., Everette C. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 202204798 (Sept. 19,
2024) (even where Agency provided Complainant the preliminary back pay
calculations it made to DFAS and showed that it made good faith efforts to follow
up with DFAS, and acknowledging the limited control the Agency has over DFAS,
the Agency failed to establish that it was in substantial compliance with order
when it provided no evidence that Complainant ever received any of the back pay
or 	benefits 	he 	was 	entitled 	to 	even 	two 	years 	after 	the 	brief 	concerning
compliance); Josefina P. v. Dep’t of Vet. Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2023003721
(June 17, 2025) (remanding the matter for further processing where Agency
submitted remedy ticket number to DFAS, but also provided Complainant detailed
estimated calculations to include pay, benefits, leave and overtime because it was
unclear from the record if Complainant was ever paid the back pay by DFAS or
whether her leave had been restored by DFAS.)

2024002434	10
Vision and Dental Insurance
Complainant argues on appeal that the Agency failed to provide her with vision
and dental insurance and asks that it be ordered to do so, just as it would any other
employee who elects such benefits. We are unable to determine from the record the
specifics of this claim. Complainant may have intended to argue that in calculating
the back pay award, the Agency failed to comply with the order to include
appropriate “other benefits,” in the calculation, i.e., health insurance to the same
extent as it is made available to other employees.4 It is undisputed that the back
pay award included “other benefits (e.g., annual leave, sick leave, health insurance,
and retirement contributions).” As we have already determined that the Agency
failed to establish that it is in compliance with the final order on back pay and
benefits and leave restoration, we remind the Agency that upon remand it must
consider “other benefits” when it calculates back pay and should specifically
clarify the portion of the back pay award that relates to health insurance, including
dental and vision insurance.
To the extent that Complainant’s allegation is, instead, that upon her reinstatement
the Agency failed to provide her with the same health insurance benefits that were
made available to other employees, this claim relates to the order of reinstatement,
not back pay, and will be addressed below.
Reinstatement
4 With respect to health insurance premiums, the Commission has held that an
award 	of 	back 	pay 	should 	compensate 	a 	prevailing 	complainant 	for 	loss
of health insurance coverage by either (1) reimbursing her for health insurance
premiums paid to continue in an agency-sponsored insurance plan or to secure
alternative coverage; or (2) paying her for uninsured medical expenses incurred
during the relevant period to the amount the agency would have contributed to
health insurance premiums. See, e.g., Harrington v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
EEOC Petition No. 04920010 (December 10, 1993).

2024002434	11
Complainant was reinstated effective January 14, 2024, to the position of Nurse 1,
Step 	12 	(a 	one-step 	increase 	from 	the 	position 	she 	held 	when 	she 	was
discriminatorily terminated on April 7, 2017). 	Complainant argues on appeal that
she “recently learned that per Agency policy she could have been promoted to the
position of Nurse II during the back pay period which would have resulted in a
significant pay increase.” The Agency, in addition to asserting that Complainant
failed to raise this issue in her Notice of Non-Compliance, argues that she
submitted 	no 	evidence 	that 	she 	is 	entitled 	to 	a 	higher 	rate 	of 	pay 	upon
reinstatement and asks that “this issue be dismissed.”
The final order stated that the Agency shall offer “to place Complainant in the
position of Registered Nurse . . . or a substantially equivalent position closer to her
home.” 	As noted above, the Agency made some adjustments to the reinstatement
order provided in the AJ’s decision but even the AJ’s reinstatement order merely
indicated that “Complainant be offered her former position” or a “similar position
to 	that 	which 	she 	previously 	held,” 	along 	with 	appropriate 	reasonable
accommodations. There is no dispute that Complainant was a Nurse 1, Step 11 at
the time of her removal. 	It thus appears that reinstating her to a Nurse 1, Step 12
position complies with the final order. Although Complainant argues on appeal
that she “could have [been] promoted to the position of Nurse II during the back
pay period,” her complaint did not include an allegation of denial of promotion to a
Nurse II position (or denial of a waiver of the education requirements for that
position). 	Generally, 	the 	Commission 	does 	not 	presume 	any 	subsequent
promotions after finding discrimination; rather, the burden is on the complainant to
show that any subsequent promotions would have been substantive in nature. See
Ruben T. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Petition No. 2019005494 (Mar. 10, 2020);
Munno v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Petition No. 04A10042 (June 18, 2001); Malek
v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., EEOC Petition No. 04990009 (Aug. 19,
1999); Ramirez v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 049500024 (Feb. 8, 1996).
Here, the only evidence Complainant provides in support of her statement that she
“could have been” promoted to the Nurse II position is an attachment which
indicates that the education requirements for a Nurse II position can be waived in
certain circumstances.

2024002434	12
We find that Complainant has therefore not met her burden of showing that her
promotion to the Nurse II level would have been perfunctory and the Agency’s
failure to reinstate her to this position does not establish that it is not in compliance
with the reinstatement order.5
We find, however, that the Agency has not established that it is in compliance with
the reinstatement order due to a separate issue. 	As noted above, Complainant
appears to have alleged that in reinstating her, the Agency failed to provide her
with all of the benefits to which she is entitled as an employee of the Agency, in
particular, the option of choosing dental and visual insurance. An order to reinstate
an employee by its very nature includes the requirement that the employee be
reinstated to a position that provides all of the benefits of employment to which an
Agency 	employee 	is 	entitled. 	The 	lack 	of 	information 	concerning 	whether
Complainant was offered the option to choose dental and visual insurance means
that 	the 	Agency 	has 	failed 	to 	establish 	that 	it 	is 	in 	compliance 	with 	the
reinstatement portion of the remedial order.
Remedial Training
Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to provide all of the training that was
ordered, giving specific details as to which agency officials had not received the
required training. 	In response, the Agency stated that it had “complied with all
ordered training” and provided evidence in support of this claim. We agree with
Complainant, however, that the evidence provided does not establish that the
Human Resources Specialist and Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator
(LRAC) or the Nurse Manager VN-III (NM) received the required eight hours of
training regarding their responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act or that NM
also received four additional hours of anti-retaliation training. 	Although the
Agency asserted that both LRAC and NM received 8 hours of training related to
disability discrimination and submitted documents showing that such a training
occurred, it failed to submit evidence that LRAC and NM actually attended the full
5 We remind the Agency, however, that the step increases and grade increases
Complainant would have received had she remained continuously employed by the
Agency from April 7, 2017, through January 13, 2024, (the day before her
reinstatement 	became 	effective) 	should 	be 	part 	of 	DFAS’s 	calculation 	of
Complainant’s back pay award, as outlined in the order below.

2024002434	13
8 hours of this training (although there is evidence to show that each completed at
least 3 hours). Likewise, while it is clear that four hours of anti-retaliation training
was offered, there is insufficient evidence to establish that NM attended it.
Complainant also argues that the Agency failed to establish that other nursing
supervisors, managers, and management advisory staff received training. We find,
however, that the final order required that current or past Summary Review Board
members involved in the discrimination receive four hours of training regarding
basic investigative/adjudicatory techniques and that the evidence in the record
establishes that these officials did receive this training.
We note that the record is somewhat confusing on the issue of training because
while it includes an April 15, 2024, memo signed by an EEO Manager which
“confirms and acknowledges” that the listed individuals (including LRAC and
NM) attended eight hours of training that would satisfy the order, the evidence the
Agency submits in support of this memo does not establish attendance for the
entire eight hours. 	This failure could simply be an oversight, but we nonetheless
conclude that based on the existing record, the Agency has not established that it is
in compliance with the order regarding training.
Posting Notice
Complainant further alleged that the Agency failed to provide proof that the
posting notice was electronically and physically posted. 	The record includes a
photocopy of two photos of the posting notice with labels indicating that they were
posted at the relevant facility (one in the “CLC breakroom” and one in the “facility
canteen”), as well as a link to something labeled “internet posting,” (which we are
not able to access). 	It also includes an email dated November 3, 2023, from an
EEO manager with the subject line “Notice to Employees,” which purports to show
that the notice was posted to the facility’s “sharepoint” drive. 	However, because
we cannot access the link and cannot find in the record any unequivocal statement
from an Agency official confirming that the notice was posted in the appropriate
physical and electronic locations, we remand this matter to the Agency for further
processing in accordance with the Order below.

2024002434	14
Expungement
Complainant asserted that the Agency only established that it had expunged
documents relating to her termination from her Official Personnel File (OPF),
while the order required expungement from all agency records. She asks on appeal
that the Agency provide written confirmation that all official and unofficial
documents related to her termination from all Agency records be provided. 	The
Agency asserts that it has complied and submitted an email dated April 15, 2024,
from a supervisory HR employee stating that “all official and unofficial documents
related to [Complainant’s] termination that existed was [stet] expunged from all
Agency 	records, 	including 	[Complainant’s] 	Official 	Personnel 	File 	prior 	to
November 15, 2023.” 	We find that the Agency therefore established that it is in
compliance with this portion of the order.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we conclude that the Agency has not yet
established that it is in full compliance with its own final order of October 19,
2023. We therefore REMAND the matter for further action in accordance with this
decision and the ORDER below.
ORDER
To the extent that it has not already done so, the Agency shall take the following
remedial actions:
1. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest,
and other benefits due Complainant (including annual leave, sick leave,
health 	insurance, 	and 	retirement 	contributions), 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R.
§ 1614.501. 	The 	back 	pay 	amount 	shall 	be 	computed 	in 	the 	manner
prescribed by 5 C.F.R. § 550.805, including, but not limited to all step and
grade increases and awards Complainant would have received had she
received performance evaluations with overall “Meets Expectations” or
“Satisfactory” ratings, all cost of living adjustments, and retroactive tax-
deferred 	contributions 	to 	Complainant’s 	Thrift 	Savings 	Plan 	(TSP)
retirement account.

2024002434	15
2. The back pay period shall begin on April 7, 2017, and end on January 13,
2024, (the day before Complainant’s reinstatement to Agency employment
became effective).
Complainant shall cooperate with the Agency’s efforts to compute the
amount 	of 	back 	pay 	and 	benefits 	due 	and 	shall 	provide 	all 	relevant
information requested by the Agency within thirty (30) calendar days of
the Agency’s request.
If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay, interest, and/or
benefits, 	Complainant 	may 	file 	a 	Petition 	for 	Enforcement 	with 	the
Commission. The Agency shall still pay Complainant the undisputed amount
of back pay owed within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the amount is
determined. The back pay calculation and payment period should not exceed
one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days.
3. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall restore 56.50 hours of leave Complainant took in 2016 due to
the Agency’s failure to accommodate her on June 18 and 22; July 10;
August 23; October 12; November 29; and December 7.6
4. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall provide written confirmation that Complainant’s award of back
pay includes all of the “other benefits” to which she is entitled, including
health insurance (including vision and dental insurance to the extent that
benefit is available to similarly situated employees.)
5. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall provide written confirmation that upon her reinstatement,
Complainant was provided all of the benefits available to an Agency
6 We note that leave restoration is a form of back pay and that Complainant may
follow the procedure outlined in part (7) of this Order to submit a request for
compensation for any adverse tax consequences of receiving leave reimbursement
as a lump sum payment.

2024002434	16
employee, including the option to choose dental and vision insurance as part
of her health insurance coverage.
6. Within ninety (90) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall provide the EEO training described in Paragraph 6(a) of the
October 19, 2023, final order (not copied here to avoid providing identifying
information of the relevant officials).
The Agency shall provide the Compliance Officer with proof of attendance
for each individual described in the October 19, 2023, final order, as well as
the contents and materials it used for the training. If these individuals have
left the Agency’s employ, the Agency shall furnish documentation of their
departure dates. 7
7. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall post a notice in accordance with the section listed below,
entitled “Posting Order.” The Agency shall provide the Compliance Officer
with the original signed and dated notice, reflecting the dates that the notice
was posted, along with evidence that the notice was physically posted at the
facility and electronically.8
8. Complainant may, within thirty (30) calendar days of filing her tax return
for the year in which they received the lump sum back pay amount, submit a
request for reimbursement to the Agency (not the EEOC Office of Federal
Sector). Complainant has the burden of establishing the amount of increased
7 We note that the existing record includes an unsworn memo asserting that the
required training was provided to the relevant officials, along with supporting
evidence that does not parallel the contents of that memo. 	As noted above, this
evidence is not sufficient to establish compliance. To confirm compliance, the
Agency should either submit a sworn statement confirming that all of the ordered
training was provided and attended by the relevant officials and/or other evidence
of such attendance.
8 We note that the existing record includes some evidence concerning the posting
of the notice but that it does not appear to include an unequivocal statement from
an Agency official that the notice was posted as ordered.

2024002434	17
tax liability, if any. The issue of adverse tax consequences (if applicable)
shall be resolved within 120 days of the date Complainant submits her
request for reimbursement.
Complainant is advised that any claim for reimbursement should include the
tax 	documentation 	and 	calculations 	showing 	the 	tax 	liability 	that
Complainant actually incurred for each year of the back-pay period, the tax
liability that Complainant would have incurred in each of those years if
Complainant had received the back pay in the form of a regular salary, and
the difference in the amounts (i.e. tax liability that Complainant incurred
solely as a result of Complainant’s receipt of the lump-sum back-pay
award). 	If applicable, Complainant may provide documentation to support
reimbursement of any costs and fees incurred from hiring a certified public
accountant to calculate the amount of increased tax liability.
Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of Complainant’s claim and
supporting documents, the Agency shall pay the amount of adverse tax
consequences and associated attorney or CPA costs and fees.
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as
provided 	in 	the 	statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of 	the 	Commission’s
Decision.” The report shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.403(g). 	Further, 	the 	report 	must 	include
supporting documentation of the Agency’s calculation of back pay and other
benefits due Complainant, including evidence that the corrective action has been
implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0617)
The Agency is ordered to post at its Cheyenne VAMC in Cheyenne, Wyoming
copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the
Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted both in hard copy and
electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the date this decision
was issued, and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to be
submitted 	to 	the 	Compliance 	Officer 	as 	directed 	in 	the 	paragraph 	entitled

2024002434	18
“Implementation of the Commission’s Decision,” within 10 calendar days of the
expiration of the posting period. The report must be in digital format and must be
submitted 	via 	the 	Federal 	Sector 	EEO 	Portal 	(FedSEP). 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.403(g).
ATTORNEY’S FEES (H1125)
If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), they are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees
incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e). The award of
attorney’s fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified
statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Office of Federal Sector -- within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt
of this decision. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney’s fees in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501.
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 Complainant and his/her representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant 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 Complainant 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

2024002434	19
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 	If the Complainant 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.
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

2024002434	20
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).

2024002434	21
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0124)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires
the 	Agency 	to 	continue 	its 	administrative 	processing 	of 	a 	portion 	of 	your
complaint. 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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has
affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued
administrative processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the
Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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.

2024002434	22
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 __________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 17, 2026
Date