EEOC Appeal 2025003166

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Joey B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Frank Bisignano,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003166
Agency No. KC-24-0036-SSA
DECISION
On June 17, 2025, 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 June 16, 2025, final decision (FAD) concerning an
equal 	employment 	opportunity 	(EEO) 	complaint 	claiming 	employment
discrimination in violation of 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 MODIFIES the Agency’s final decision.
During the relevant time, Complainant worked as an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ), AL-15, in Seattle, Washington.
1. 	On January 20, 2024, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on disability
(vision impairment) and, for Claims 3 - 5, in reprisal for prior
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.

2025003166	2
protected EEO activity under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 when: 	From August 10 – September 21, 2023, he was not
provided a reasonable accommodation in the form of a substitute
reader/assistant when his usual assistant was on leave;2
2. 	From September 11 – January 17, 2024, he was not provided a
reasonable accommodation when he was prohibited from using a
voice recorder and taking cassette tapes home;
3. 	Beginning on August 3, 2023, and continuing, he was subjected to
harassment when he was counseled for processing a late case, his
attorney was not notified of an in-person meeting, the Agency refused
to communicate with his attorney via email, he was not provided a
substitute reader/assistant when his current assistant was on leave, he
was barred from using a voice recorder and taking cassette tapes
home, 	he 	was 	admonished 	for 	exchanging 	pleasantries 	with 	his
assistant, he was instructed to report in person to court, and “other
working conditions”;
4. 	On August 3, 2023, he received counseling for processing a case late.
5. 	On August 8, 2023, he was instructed to report, in person, to court;
and
6. 	Since 	May 	18, 	2023, 	he 	was 	not 	provided 	a 	reasonable
accommodation, regarding his request for a qualified reader/assistant.
2 The record establishes that this claim is more accurately characterized as a denial
of accommodation because the substitute readers/assistants assigned during his
usual 	assistant’s 	absences 	were 	allegedly 	unable 	to 	help 	him, 	i.e., 	the
accommodation provided was ineffective, rather than a straight-forward denial of a
request for accommodation. Moreover, the exact dates for this claim are unclear.
Both the EEO Counselor’s Report and the formal complaint reference September
20, 2023, with the EEO Counselor’s report indicating that the relevant time runs
from that date for two and one-half weeks.

2025003166	3
In a decision dated February 7, 2024, the Agency accepted Claims 1 - 3 for
investigation. However, the Agency dismissed Claims 4 - 6. 	In so doing, the
Agency determined that Claims 4 and 5 were untimely raised with an EEO
Counselor and that Claim 6 stated the same claim as previously raised and
dismissed as untimely in Agency No. KC-22-0492.
After an investigation of Claims 1 - 3, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing
before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant requested a hearing but the AJ, upon a Motion from the Agency,
dismissed the request as untimely, finding that Complainant requested a hearing
more than one month after the filing deadline of July 15, 2024. As a result, on
April 17, 2025, the EEOC AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency for a final
decision. The Agency issued a final decision, finding no discrimination.
Complainant did not submit a statement or brief on appeal. 	In response, the
Agency argues that the AJ properly dismissed the hearing request and that
Complainant’s appeal should be dismissed.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency's 	decision 	is 	subject 	to 	de 	novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 1614.405(a). 	See 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5,
2015) 	(explaining 	that 	the 	de 	novo 	standard 	of 	review 	“requires 	that 	the
Commission 	examine 	the 	record 	without 	regard 	to 	the 	factual 	and 	legal
determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant
submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
Untimely Hearing Request and Agency’s Request for Dismissal
As an initial matter, we note that on appeal Complainant did not dispute the
dismissal of his hearing request as untimely, although he did file a motion with the
AJ arguing against the dismissal. In that motion, Complainant did not dispute that
he failed to request a hearing within the required time frame but instead argued that
this 	failure 	should 	be 	excused 	because the Agency 	provided 	the 	Report 	of
Investigation (ROI) in an overly complicated way. Complainant also argued that he

2025003166	4
and his attorney were unable to access the ROI without numerous communications
with 	the Agency. We 	agree 	with 	the Agency, however, that 	Complainant’s
explanations do not excuse the untimely request because the evidence establishes
that although the ROI was received on June 14, 2024, Complainant did not inform
the Agency that he could not access it until August 26, 2024, long past the deadline
for requesting a hearing. We further find, however, that the Agency’s request that
Complainant’s appeal “be dismissed with prejudice” due to his failure to timely
request a hearing is excessive. Complainant timely appealed the Agency’s FAD
and, as such, his appeal will be considered.
Dismissed Claims: Claims 4, 5, and 6
The Agency dismissed Claims 4 and 5 for untimely EEO Counselor contact, noting
that Complainant initiated contact on October 20, 2023, far beyond the 45-day
regulatory period. To the extent that Claims 4 and 5 were intended to be separate
claims of discrete acts of discrimination, we AFFIRM the Agency’s dismissal of
these claims as untimely. We note, however, that the actions described in Claims 4
and 5 were also listed as incidents of harassment within Claim 3, which is
discussed further below.
Regarding Claim 6, the Agency dismissed this claim as having been previously
raised in KC-22-0492. The claim raised and dismissed as untimely in KC-22-0492
is that Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation in October 2018.
On 	the 	other 	hand, 	Claim 	6 	involves 	the 	ongoing 	denial 	of 	a 	reasonable
accommodation request since May 2023. Although there is some indication in the
record that the accommodations Complainant requested in 2018 and 2023 were the
same or similar, this does not mean the claims are subjected to dismissal under 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a). Under § 1614.107(a), the agency shall dismiss an entire
complaint, or portion thereof, that states the same claim that is pending before or
has been decided by the agency or the Commission. As the Agency itself notes,
however, to be dismissed as the same claim, the present formal complaint and prior
formal complaint must have involved identical matters, including in time, place,
incident, 	and 	parties. Virgilio 	C. 	v. 	U.S. 	Postal 	Serv., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
2021000218 	(Feb. 	2, 	2021) 	and 	Shanti 	N. 	v. 	USPS 	(EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
0120162268 (Sept. 13, 2016) (citing Jackson v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 01955890, 1 (April 5, 1996)). Moreover, “because an employer has an ongoing
obligation 	to 	provide 	a 	reasonable 	accommodation, 	failure 	to 	provide 	such
accommodation constitutes a violation each time the employee needs it.” EEOC

2025003166	5
Compliance Manual Section 2, “Threshold Issues” at 2-IV.C.1.a, EEOC-CVG-
2000-2 (May 12, 2000). Thus, nothing prevents a complainant from requesting an
accommodation that is needed due to a disability even if a similar or the same
accommodation has previously been denied and filing a new complaint if it is
denied again under different circumstances. Complainant’s claim that he was
denied an effective accommodation on an ongoing basis since May 2023 is
therefore not subject to dismissal as the “same claim” as his claim, raised in KC-
22-0492, that he was denied an accommodation in October 2018.3 The Agency’s
dismissal of Claim 6 is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED in accordance
with this decision and the ORDER below.
Turning 	next 	to 	the claims 	accepted 	for 	investigation, it 	is 	undisputed 	that
Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability and that he requested
reasonable accommodation.
Denial of Accommodation: Substitute Reader/Assistant
In Claim 1, Complainant alleged that from August 10, 2023, through two and one-
half weeks after September 20, 2023, (intermittently), he was not provided a
reasonable accommodation when the substitute assistants he was provided when
his 	usual 	assistant 	(W1) 	was 	absent 	were 	inadequate 	and 	unhelpful, 	i.e.,
ineffective, because some were not able to access his email and some had
deficiencies in reading skills.
The obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation
Act includes the obligation to provide an accommodation that is effective, i.e.,
allows the employee to perform their essential functions. See EEOC Enforcement
3 We note that we accessed the pending appeal of Agency No. KC-22-0492 to
confirm that the claim of denial of reasonable accommodation raised therein is not
the same claim as that raised in the instant complaint. The Agency itself, in
dismissing the claim as untimely, described it as “Whether the Agency subjected
Complainant to disparate treatment based on reprisal (reasonable accommodation
request), 	when, 	in 	October 	2018, 	you 	were 	not 	provided 	reasonable
accommodations.” Claim 6, on the other hand, involves a denial of accommodation
that has been ongoing since May 2023. A five-year gap between the denial in 2018
and the denial in 2023 comprises a sufficiently different set of circumstances to
find they are not the same claim.

2025003166	6
Guidance 	on 	Reasonable 	Accommodation 	and 	Undue 	Hardship 	under 	the
Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002)
(Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation).
It is undisputed that Complainant needs a reader/assistant to perform the essential
functions of his job. Some of the tasks performed by the reader/assistant are to
keep Complainant informed about the emails he receives and their content, respond
to those emails as directed by Complainant, and read to Complainant the written
information he must absorb to perform his job as an Administrative Law Judge.
The 	record 	does 	not 	establish 	all 	dates 	on 	which 	Complainant 	alleged 	an
ineffective 	substitute 	was 	provided. 	However, 	contemporaneous 	notes
Complainant took of meetings he had with the named responsible management
official (Complainant’s then supervisor/RMO1) on September 11 and 12, 2023,
include a discussion of the difficulty that “back-up” assistants had accessing
Complainant’s email (i.e., being unable to read emails to him due to lack of
access). Furthermore, the EEO Counselor’s report indicates that Complainant told
RMO1 about the problem of ineffective substitutes on September 19, 2023,
because W1 was about to be on leave for over two weeks. In his affidavit, RMO1
acknowledged that Complainant may have told him orally about the lack of
effectiveness of the assigned substitutes when RMO1 was at Complainant’s office
on September 11-12, 2023.
RMO1 stated in his affidavit that when Complainant informed him that his usual
reader/assistant was not adequate, he issued Complainant a memo requesting
additional information by November 20, 2023, and that Complainant did not
provide that information. RMO1 did not assert in his affidavit that this request for
additional information had anything to do with Complainant’s claim that the
substitute assistants were ineffective. Based on this information, we do not agree
with the Agency’s assertion in its FAD that although Complainant informed
RMO1 that the substitutes were inadequate, Complainant failed to respond to
RMO1’s request for more information about this concern; and that, therefore, “[i]t
does not appear that management could have been aware in advance of how
Complainant may feel about the performance of his substitute assistants, and we do
not find that his opinion of the performance of the provided substitutes constitutes
a 	failure 	to 	accommodate.” 	The 	Agency 	in 	essence 	argues 	that 	it 	was
Complainant’s failure to engage in the interactive process that led to the lack of
action 	on 	the 	Agency’s 	part 	in 	response 	to 	Complainant’s 	claim 	that 	the

2025003166	7
accommodation provided was ineffective. However, based on RMO1’s affidavit,
the record does not support the Agency’s assertions.4
The Agency did not 	dispute Complainant’s 	allegation that the substitutes it
provided for him when W1 was absent were ineffective. Indeed, the Agency did
not respond to this allegation at all. RMO1 only stated in his affidavit that the
office “proactively assigned someone to assist Complainant when his assigned
reader/assistant was out for any reason,” and provided a few emails establishing
that on a few occasions in September 2023 when W1 was absent, other individuals
were assigned to assist Complainant (a fact which Complainant does not dispute).
Neither 	did 	RMO1 	provide 	any 	information 	in 	response 	to 	Complainant’s
allegation that the accommodation provided when W1 was absent was ineffective.
Furthermore, 	none 	of 	the 	management 	officials 	interviewed 	provided 	any
information about the effectiveness or lack thereof of the substitute assistants,
although one official did indicate a few dates on which a substitute was provided.
In 	these 	circumstances, 	we 	reject 	the 	Agency's 	conclusion 	that 	its 	actions
concerning the substitute assistants satisfied its obligation to provide a reasonable
accommodation and find instead that the Agency failed to provide an effective
reasonable accommodation between August 10, 2021, and two and a half weeks
after September 20, 2023 (intermittently/the days W1 was absent and Complainant
needed a substitute reader/assistant).
Where 	a 	discriminatory 	practice 	involves 	the 	provision 	of 	a 	reasonable
accommodation, damages may be awarded if the Agency fails to demonstrate that
it 	made 	a 	good 	faith 	effort 	to 	provide 	the 	individual 	with 	a 	reasonable
accommodation for his disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(3); and Gunn v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120053293 (June 15, 2007). Here, the Agency
failed to make such a showing. Indeed, the record establishes that the Agency
4 We further note that even the actual claim made by RMO1 (as opposed to the
claim the FAD inaccurately attributes to RMO1) that he requested additional
information about Complainant’s claim that W1 was an inadequate reader/assistant
and Complainant failed to provide the information, is not supported by the record,
which includes a detailed response, dated November 19, 2023, providing a great
deal of additional information about Complainant’s claim that W1’s skills were
inadequate. This fact is, however, irrelevant to Claim 1, which is a claim about the
effectiveness of the accommodation provided when W1 was absent.

2025003166	8
failed to respond when Complainant explained that the substitute readers/assistants
provided to him were ineffective. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the
Agency demonstrated that it made the good faith effort to provide Complainant
with a reasonable accommodation necessary to avoid an award of compensatory
damages (to the extent Complainant can establish he is entitled to such damages, as
outlined in the Order below).
The Agency’s decision on Claim 1 is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED in
accordance with this decision and the ORDER below.
Denial of Accommodation: Voice Record and Taking Tapes Home
In Claim 2, Complainant alleged that he was denied a reasonable accommodation
when, from September 11 – January 17, 2024, he was prohibited from using a
voice recorder and taking cassette tapes home, an accommodation that he had been
using 	for 	over 	25 	years. 	The 	Agency 	argued 	that 	it 	did 	not 	deny 	the
accommodation. 	Specifically, 	it 	found 	that 	upon 	RMO1’s 	realization 	that
Complainant’s practice of carrying cassette tapes in an unlocked, unsecure bag
placed claimants’ personally identifiable information (PII) at risk, he asked that
Complainant temporarily cease doing so until a method of transport could be
instituted that would protect PII. It is undisputed that during the time in which the
Agency 	attempted 	to 	reach 	a 	solution 	to 	this 	matter, 	Complainant 	was
accommodated by being allowed to record notes on his office answering machine
and then call into the answering machine from home. Ultimately, the Agency
provided a locked bag that Complainant could use to revert to his previous practice
of transporting cassette tapes to his home.
It is undisputed that the Agency provided Complainant an effective alternative
accommodation that allowed him to continue his practice of listening to recorded
notes at home while it came up with a more permanent accommodation. In these
circumstances, we find that Complainant did not establish that he was denied an
accommodation and AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision on Claim 2.
Harassment Based on Disability and Prior EEO Activity
In Claim 3, Complainant alleged that he was subjected to harassment based on his
disability and prior EEO activity and described several incidents, including those
separately set forth in Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 above. Specifically, Complainant

2025003166	9
alleged that he was counseled for processing a late case, his attorney was not
notified of an in-person meeting, the Agency refused to communicate with his
attorney via email, he was not provided a substitute reader/assistant when his
current assistant was on leave, he was barred from using a voice recorder and
taking cassette tapes home, he was admonished for exchanging pleasantries with
his assistant, he was instructed to report in person to court, and “other working
conditions.”
We 	have 	already 	determined, 	above, 	that 	Complainant 	was 	denied 	an
accommodation when he was not provided effective substitute readers/assistants
when W1 was on leave and that he was not denied a reasonable accommodation
when he was temporarily barred from using a voice recorder/taking cassette tapes
home. These incidents are more appropriately analyzed as accommodation claims
than harassment claims.
As for the other incidents identified in Claim 3, we find that Complainant failed to
establish that any of them were motivated by his disability or prior EEO activity.
Indeed, most of these incidents, while not claims of denial of accommodation
themselves, are more accurately described as the consequences of being denied a
reasonable accommodation than claims of harassment based on disability or EEO
activity. We find, therefore, that the Agency properly determined that Complainant
failed to establish that he was subjected to unlawful harassment as outlined in
Claim 3 and AFFIRM the Agency’s finding of no discrimination on this claim.
We MODIFY the Agency’s final decision. The Agency’s dismissal of Claims 4
and 5 and findings of no discrimination on Claims 2 and 3 are AFFIRMED. The
Agency’s dismissal of Claim 6 is REVERSED. The Agency’s finding of no
discrimination on Claim 1 is REVERSED. Claims 1 and 6 are REMANDED for
further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
1. The agency is ORDERED to process Claim 6 in accordance with 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to Complainant that it has
received the remanded allegation within thirty (30) calendar days of the
date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a
copy of the investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the
appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date

2025003166	10
this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to
that time. If Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the
Agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of
Complainant’s request.
As provided in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of
the Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the
Agency’s notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and
3) either a copy of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the
final agency decision (“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.
2. The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions based on the
finding of discrimination on Claim 1:
a. 	Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued,
the 	Agency 	shall 	provide 	Complainant 	with 	a 	substitute
reader/assistant when his usual reader/assistant is unavailable who can
effectively assist him in the performance of his essential functions and
who has full access to all materials and systems needed to do so.
b. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall conduct and complete a supplemental investigation to
determine whether Complainant is entitled to compensatory damages
for this violation of the Rehabilitation Act. In so doing, the Agency
shall:
i. 	Issue a notice to Complainant of his right to submit evidence
based our guidance in Carle v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC
Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993) and request evidence from
Complainant in support of compensatory damages.5 The Notice
5 To establish entitlement to compensatory damages, the evidence must show a
causal relationship between the Agency’s discriminatory action and any pecuniary
(monetary) or non-pecuniary losses/harm experienced by Complainant. For more
information on evidence to determine compensatory damages: EEOC Management
Directive 	110, 	Ch. 	11 	§ 	VII 	(Aug. 	5, 	2015), 	available 	at
https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md-110_chapter_11.cfm 	(provides 	the

2025003166	11
shall provide Complainant with thirty (30) calendar days to
respond (with an option and instructions to request an extension
in the case of extenuating circumstances). Complainant has a
duty to cooperate with Agency’s investigation to determine
compensatory 	damages, 	including 	responding 	to 	agency
requests for documentation or completing agency forms.
ii. 	Issue a new final agency decision (“Compensatory Damages
FAD”) based on the findings of the supplemental investigation.
The Compensatory Damages FAD shall state the amount (if
any) 	of 	compensatory 	damages 	owed 	to 	Complainant 	and
explain 	how 	the 	Agency 	determined 	that 	amount. 	The
Compensatory Damages FAD shall include appeal rights to the
Commission.
iii. 	Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date the Compensatory
Damages FAD is issued, the Agency shall pay Complainant the
amount of compensatory damages it determined are owed. If
there is a dispute over the exact amount of compensatory
damages owed, the Agency shall pay the undisputed amount to
Complainant. 	If Complainant disagrees 	with the agency’s
award, 	they 	may 	challenge 	the 	Agency’s 	decision 	on 	the
amount of compensatory damages by filing an appeal of the
Compensatory 	Damages 	FAD 	with 	the 	Commission.
Instructions on how to appeal, including the deadline to file,
will 	be 	included 	in 	the 	appeal 	rights 	portion 	of 	the
Compensatory Damages FAD.
c. 	Within ninety (90) calendar days from the date this decision is
issued, the Agency shall provide two hours of interactive or in-person
training to RMO1 as well as any other officials involving in failing to
types of compensatory damages available under EEOC statutes and “Objective
Evidence” of entitlement); and N. Thompson, Compensatory Damages in the
Federal Sector: An Overview, EEOC Digest Vol. XVI, No. 1 (Winter 2005)
available at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/digest/xvi-1.cfm#article (explains Carle
v. Dep’t of the Navy under the subsection “Proof of Damages”).

2025003166	12
provide Complainant with an effective reasonable accommodation as
described in Claim 1 on the Rehabilitation Act and the Agency's
obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation and engage in the
interactive process. The Agency shall provide proof of the officials'
attendance, as well as the contents of the in-person training provided.
If any of these individuals have left the Agency's employ, the Agency
shall furnish documentation of their departure dates.
d. 	Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision is issued,
the Agency shall post a notice in accordance with the paragraph
below.
POSTING ORDER (G0617)
The Agency is ordered to post at its Seattle, Washington office and its headquarters
office in Baltimore, Maryland 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 “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

2025003166	13
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
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.

2025003166	14
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.

2025003166	15
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 (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.

2025003166	16
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 __________ M. Hadden’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 29, 2026
Date