EEOC Appeal 2025003399

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Zachariah W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003399
Hearing Nos. 570-2024-00078X, 570-2024-00913X
Agency Nos. 2004-872-2022-145863, 2004-872-2023-152946
DECISION
On July 4, 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 4, 2025, final order concerning his equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 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., 	Section 	501 	of 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act 	of 	1973
(Rehabilitation 	Act), 	as 	amended, 	29 	U.S.C. 	§ 	791 	et 	seq., 	and 	the 	Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621
et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
order.
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.

2025003399	2
At the time of events giving rise to these complaints, Complainant was employed
by the Agency as a WL-4749-8 Maintenance Worker Leader (Work Leader) at
Quantico National Cemetery in Triangle, Virginia.
On May 2, 2022, Complainant initiated contact with an EEO counselor. On August
16, 2022, Complainant filed a formal complaint, which he subsequently amended,
alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and harassment on the
bases of race (Black), sex (male), disability (mental and physical), age (born in
1979), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity beginning in 2019, including
when:
1. 	He was counseled and suspended;
2. 	He was denied training and promotional opportunities;
3. 	He was subjected to unwelcome comments and messages;
4. 	He was inappropriately charged leave, including absent without leave
(AWOL) and leave without pay (LWOP);
5. 	He was assigned work beneath his paygrade, stripped of his leadership
duties, publicly humiliated, told not to refer to himself as the Acting
Foreman, that he was not second in command, and that he was not a
team player, and threatened; and
6. 	He was denied a reasonable accommodation and threatened with
medical termination.
On July 19, 2023, Complainant filed a second formal complaint, which he
subsequently amended, alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination
and harassment on the bases of race (Black), disability (mental and physical), age
(born in May 1979), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity beginning on
June 7, 2023, including when:
a. 	He learned his job description had been changed, was stripped of his
leadership duties, was required to take training, and was not provided
the same meal break opportunities as other employees;
b. 	He was forced to take leave and charged AWOL;
c. 	He was denied a reasonable accommodation and told he had to accept
reassignment or medical termination;
d. 	Effective July 30, 2023, he was suspended for 14 days for Failure to
Follow Supervisory Instructions;
e. 	On October 20, 2023, he was rated Fully Successful for FY 2023; and

2025003399	3
f. 	On October 27, 2023, he was removed from federal service for Failure
to Follow Supervisory Instruction, effective November 3, 2023.2
Factual Background
Complainant began working at Quantico National Cemetery in 2012 as part of the
Agency’s Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) program. Complainant was hired
by the Agency in November 2023. As a Work Leader, Complainant was in a non-
supervisory role. His duties included ground maintenance, landscaping, setting
headstones, and working with his team to complete tasks.
Beginning in or around January 2022, the Maintenance & Operations Supervisor
(Supervisor-1; 	African 	American/Filipino; 	male; 	born 	in 	1984) 	became
Complainant’s supervisor. Supervisor-1 started working at Quantico National
Cemetery in 2013 as part of the CWT program and was hired by the Agency in
October 	2014. 	Complainant 	and 	Supervisor-1 	had 	been 	coworkers 	before
Supervisor-1 was promoted to a supervisory role.
Complainant stated that his disabilities included migraines, chronic sinusitis,
traumatic brain 	injury 	(TBI), post-traumatic stress 	disorder 	(PTSD), anxiety,
depression, 	and 	adjustment 	disorder. 	Beginning 	in 	May 	2022, 	Complainant
requested not to use machines that vibrated for more than 15 minutes as a
reasonable accommodation. Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation
was administratively closed on July 8, 2022, October 24, 2022, and May 1, 2023,
based on Complainant not providing the requested medical documentation.
On 	March 	28, 	2023, 	Supervisor-1 	issued 	Complainant 	a 	proposed 	five-day
suspension with three specifications of failure to follow supervisory instructions.
On March 21, 22, and 23, 2023, Supervisor-1 had directed Complainant to meet
with him, and Complainant declined to attend the meetings with Supervisor-1 as
instructed. On April 18, 2023, the proposal was sustained, and Complainant was
informed that he would be suspended effective May 8, 2023.
2 We have summarized Complainant’s allegations. The claims at issue on appeal
are listed in full starting on the second page of the EEOC AJ’s Decision dated May
28, 2025.

2025003399	4
On June 7, 2023, Complainant provided medical documentation indicating that he
was unable to use vibrating machinery. On June 9, 2023, the Agency granted an
interim accommodation of not using vibrating machinery pending consideration of
his request. On June 20, 2023, a Management & Program Analyst/HR Liaison
(HR-1; Caucasian; female; born in 1975) notified Complainant that the Agency
could not accommodate him because using vibrating machinery was an essential
function of his position and was offering reassignment as an accommodation of
last resort. Complainant appealed this decision, which was upheld on July 12,
2023.
On June 29, 2023, Supervisor-1 issued Complainant a proposed 14-day suspension
for failure to follow supervisory instructions. On June 23, 2023, Supervisor-1 told
Complainant twice that his break had ended and instructed him to log off the
computer and resume his assigned job duties, stating that he was not aware of any
work 	Complainant 	needed 	to 	complete 	that 	required 	using 	a 	computer.
Complainant did not comply with Supervisor-1’s instructions. On July 14, 2023,
the proposal was sustained, and Complainant was informed that he would be
suspended effective July 30, 2023.
On August 15, 2023, the Agency began a 40-business day search for a vacant,
funded 	position 	to 	which 	Complainant 	could 	be 	reassigned 	based 	on 	his
parameters. On October 12, 2023, the Agency notified Complainant that it had not
found a position to which he could be reassigned.
On August 21, 2023, Supervisor-1 charged Complainant AWOL for taking a lunch
break that was longer than 30 minutes. According to the Assistant Cemetery
Director (Supervisor-2; Caucasian; male; born in 1976), video evidence showed
that Complainant left for lunch around noon and did not return until 1 p.m.
Supervisor-1 asked Complainant to request 30 minutes of leave and charged him
AWOL when he declined to do so.
Complainant alleged that Supervisor-1 attempted to charge him AWOL on October
5, 2023. At 7:37 a.m., Complainant emailed Supervisor-1, stating that he was not
taking the day off work but was “meeting with management.” Supervisor-1
responded at 8:10 a.m., asking Complainant to clarify because management did not
know what he was talking about and noting that he was currently in an AWOL
status.

2025003399	5
At 9:07 a.m., Supervisor-1 sent another email, stating that, after calling around, he
was 	informed 	that 	Complainant 	had 	mediation 	that 	day. Supervisor-1 	asked
Complainant to disregard his previous email about AWOL.
On October 18, 2023, Complainant received a Fully Successful rating for his FY
2023 performance evaluation. For FY 2023, 19 of the 24 employees at Quantico
National Cemetery were rated Fully Successful.
Procedural History
The Agency processed Complainant’s removal claim as a mixed-case complaint
that was appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).3 At the
conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of
the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) for his non-mixed-case claims. Complainant
timely requested a hearing before an AJ for his non-mixed-case claims.
Pursuant to Complainant’s request, the AJ joined Hearing Nos. 570-2024-0078X
and 570-2024-00913X. Both parties submitted motions for a decision without a
hearing. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision by summary
judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
For 	Complainant’s 	disparate 	treatment 	claims, 	the 	AJ 	found 	that, 	assuming
arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the
Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that
Complainant had not introduced any evidence of pretext.
The AJ found that there was no dispute that the interactive process was delayed on
several occasions based on Complainant’s failure to provide adequate medical
3 Complainant’s removal claim is not at issue on appeal. Complainant appealed the
Agency’s final decision on this claim to the MSPB, and, on November 21, 2025, a
MSPB Administrative Judge issued an initial decision affirming the Agency’s
action and finding that Complainant did not establish his affirmative defenses,
including affirmative defenses of discrimination and hostile work environment
based on race, age, disability, and/or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.
Commission records show that Complainant did not file a petition for review with
the Commission of his discrimination claims.

2025003399	6
documentation substantiating his need for reasonable accommodation. According
to the AJ, there was nothing in the investigation showing that the Agency failed to
engage in the interactive process or that its actions were based on disability
discrimination. The AJ noted that, once Complainant provided appropriate medical
documentation, the Agency provided him an interim accommodation. The AJ
determined that completion of Complainant’s job duties as Work Leader required
the use of heavy vibrating machinery and that the Agency could not accommodate
Complainant in his position because it would remove an essential function. The AJ
found that the Agency appropriately considered reassignment as a reasonable
accommodation of last resort and that the Agency was unable to find any positions
for reassignment.
Considering Complainant’s hostile work environment claim, the AJ found that
Complainant’s allegations were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a claim
of harassment. The AJ also found that Complainant had not introduced any
evidence tying his allegations to his membership in a protected class. According to
the AJ, there was evidence that Complainant was not singled out. The AJ noted
that the Agency conducted three fact-findings regarding Complainant’s allegations
of harassment by Supervisor-1 and interviewed more than 40 people, concluding
that the allegations were not substantiated.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination
as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Contentions on Appeal
On appeal, Complainant argues, among other things, that he submitted direct
evidence showing that he was subjected to ongoing discriminatory treatment and a
hostile work environment and that the AJ failed to review all of the evidence
before granting summary judgment.4 Complainant asserts that Agency officials
offered inconsistent testimony and suppressed documents.
4 On appeal, Complainant argues that the Agency violated his FMLA rights.
FMLA is governed by the Department of Labor, and Complainant should raise any
concerns that his FMLA rights were violated with the Department of Labor. See
Susie K. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2020003012 (June 2, 2020).

2025003399	7
Complainant 	avers 	that 	Supervisor-1 	manufactured 	a 	pretextual 	record 	of
performance concerns to justify retaliatory discipline against him. According to
Complainant, the Agency made misleading and inaccurate representations to the
AJ, such as misidentifying a White coworker (Coworker-1) as Black. Complainant
contends that he submitted multiple requests for reasonable accommodation that
were supported by medical documentation, which were delayed, mishandled, or
summarily 	closed 	by 	the 	Agency 	without 	proper 	evaluation 	or 	follow 	up.
Complainant characterizes the Agency’s requests for medical documentation as
excessive. We will address Complainant’s arguments below.
The Agency argues, in pertinent part, that its final order should be affirmed.
Standard of Review
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, 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 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 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”); see also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an
administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the
decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
Administrative 	Judges 	have 	full 	responsibility 	for 	the 	adjudication 	of 	the
complaint, including overseeing the development of the record, and have broad
discretion in the conduct of hearings. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(a), (e). This gives an
AJ wide latitude in directing the terms, conduct, or course of EEO administrative
hearings. EEO MD-110 at Chapter 7, § III.D; Chere S. v. Gen. Serv. Admin.,
EEOC Appeal No. 0720180012 (Nov. 30, 2018) (citations omitted). Accordingly,
such determinations by the AJ are reviewed based on an abuse of discretion
standard.
Analysis

2025003399	8
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when they
find that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An
issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could
find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). A fact is
“material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When
considering summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557,
586 (2009).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must
identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing
further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material
under applicable law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing
is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was
motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to
establish such a dispute.
Upon review, we find that the record reflects that the AJ considered all the
evidence 	in 	the 	record, 	including 	transcripts 	of 	conversations 	Complainant
recorded in the workplace, text messages, and emails. However, contrary to
Complainant’s assertion on appeal, after a review of the voluminous record, we
find 	that 	Complainant 	has 	not 	provided 	direct 	evidence 	of 	discrimination.
Complainant generally argues that the Agency suppressed documents during
discovery, but he does not explain his argument. To the extent that Complainant
refers to the AJ’s denial of his motion to compel, we find that it was not an abuse
of discretion for the AJ to deny Complainant’s motion to compel. Complainant
also generally avers that management officials provided inconsistent testimony, but
he has not specified the inconsistencies, and we find that Complainant has not
demonstrated the existence of an issue of credibility showing the need for a hearing
to assess witness credibility.
Complainant 	argues 	that 	Supervisor-1 	manufactured 	discipline 	against 	him.
However, the record reflects that Complainant received a reprimand dated April
17, 2019, for failure to perform assigned job duties, a written counseling on
January 23, 2020, for reporting to work late and failing to follow instructions, and
a one-day suspension effective April 25, 2020, for unauthorized absence.

2025003399	9
These 	disciplinary 	actions 	were 	issued 	long 	before 	Supervisor-1 	became
Complainant’s 	supervisor. 	Complainant 	characterized 	the 	proposed 	five-day
suspension issued on March 28, 2023, and the proposed 14-day suspension issued
on June 29, 2023, as “pretextual.” However, A factual issue of pretext cannot be
established merely on personal speculation that there was discriminatory intent.
Lyles v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A11110 (May 22, 2002); Springer
v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2008). Moreover, it appears undisputed
that Complainant refused to meet with Supervisor-1 as instructed on March 21, 22,
and 23, 2023, and that, on June 23, 2023, he continued using the computer after
Supervisor-1 twice informed him that his break was over and instructed him to log
off the 	computer to 	perform his 	assigned 	work. 	Complainant 	may 	question
Supervisor-1’s authority to instruct him to meet or to log off the computer or
whether it was unfair to be disciplined for such infractions. However, we have
consistently 	stated 	that 	pretext 	analysis 	is 	not 	concerned 	with 	whether 	the
Agency’s 	action 	was 	unfair 	or 	erroneous 	but 	whether 	it 	was 	motivated 	by
discriminatory 	animus. 	Andrews 	v. 	U.S. 	Postal 	Serv., 	EEOC 	Petition 	No.
03980017 (May 28, 1988).
Complainant asserts on appeal that the Agency attempted to mislead the AJ, citing
the example of the Agency indicating that Coworker-1 was Black when he was
actually White, but this is also insufficient to state a genuine issue of material fact
regarding pretext. The AJ discussed Coworker-1 once, including him in a list of
employees who received discipline as evidence that Complainant was not singled
out. The fact that Coworker-1 was outside of Complainant’s protected class yet
was subjected to discipline constitutes additional evidence that Complainant was
not subjected to discipline based on discriminatory and/or retaliatory animus.
Complainant has not established a genuine issue of material fact that would show
that the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations for its actions were
pretextual.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency mishandled his requests for
reasonable accommodation. We agree with the AJ that the delay was largely
attributable 	to 	Complainant’s 	refusal 	to 	timely 	complete 	forms 	and 	provide
medical documentation that was needed to assess his need for accommodation. The
undisputed material evidence in the record shows that HR-1 administratively
closed Complainant’s requests when he did not provide medical documentation by
the deadlines.

2025003399	10
Even viewing the undisputed evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant,
we find that 	Complainant 	cannot 	establish that 	the Agency 	made excessive
requests for medical documentation.
When an employee’s disability or need for an accommodation is not known or
obvious, an employer may ask an employee for reasonable documentation about
his disability, limitations, and accommodation requirements. See Enforcement
Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Question 7 (July 27, 2000). Upon a
complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation, an employer may require
that documentation about the disability and the functional limitations come from an
appropriate health care or rehabilitation professional. See Enforcement Guidance
on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation), Number
915.002, Question 6, (Oct. 17, 2002).
Complainant provided a note from his primary care provider (MD-1) dated April
13, 2022, multiple times throughout the interactive process. The April 13, 2022,
note stated that Complainant was treated for migraine headaches, which were
exacerbated by loud noises and vibrations caused by machines such as lawn
mowers. MD-1 stated, “Please allow him accommodations to avoid direc[tl]y
working with such ma[]chinery to avoid exac[]erbating his migraine headaches.”
Report of Investigation for Agency No. 2004-872-2022-145863 (ROI 1) at 619.
Complainant also submitted a partially completed VA Form 0857e, Request for
Medical Documentation, signed by his psychiatrist on July 31, 2022, which did not
address Complainant’s physical limitations or inability to use machinery. ROI 1 at
771-72.
Upon review, we find that the medical documentation did not contain information
concerning 	the 	extent 	of 	Complainant’s 	limitations, 	the 	specific 	proposed
reasonable accommodation, or the manner in which the provided accommodation
would assist Complainant in performing the essential duties of his position. MD-
1’s request that the Agency allow Complainant to “avoid” directly working with
machinery such as lawn mowers was vague. Complainant has the burden of
establishing a nexus between his disability and his need for accommodation, in
order to be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. See Jackqueline G. v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2023003279 (Mar. 20, 2025); Struthers v. Dep’t

2025003399	11
of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40043 (June 29, 2006); Ricco v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 07A10007 (Feb. 21, 2002).
On June 7, 2023, HR-1 received a VA Form 0857e signed by MD-1 on March 20,
2023. MD-1 identified the following as the key duties Complainant was unable to
perform: use handheld tools or machinery that caused vibrations, concentrate
on/perform tasks, and work effectively under time constraints. ROI 1 at 787. The
doctor specified that Complainant was unable to use vibrating tools or machinery
for more than 15 minutes. ROI 1 at 788. This medical documentation identified
Complainant’s limitations, including the inability to use vibrating handheld tools or
machinery, and explained that Complainant was unable to use vibrating tools or
machinery for more than 15 minutes.
Complainant has not identified a genuine issue of material fact that would show
that he could be accommodated in his Work Leader position without removing an
essential 	function. 	Complainant’s 	duties, 	including 	ground 	maintenance,
landscaping, and irrigation, required extensive use of heavy vibrating machinery.
On August 5, 2022, Supervisor-2 completed an essential functions analysis for
Complainant’s Work Leader position, estimating that Complainant was required to
operate a backhoe and other heavy equipment for approximately 25 percent of the
workweek. ROI 1 at 790. While Complainant identified some administrative duties
that 	were 	performed 	by 	other 	employees, 	this 	is 	insufficient 	to 	show 	that
Complainant’s duties requiring the use of machinery approximately 25 percent of
his 	workweek 	were 	a 	marginal 	function 	rather 	than 	an 	essential 	function.
Accordingly, the Agency properly considered whether Complainant could be
reassigned to a vacant, funded position as a reasonable accommodation of last
resort.
We find that Complainant has not shown the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact regarding a position to which he could be reassigned. Complainant
provided some vacancy announcements to HR-1. However, one announcement was
for vacancies in Colorado, Oregan, and Utah, and Complainant stated that he was
not willing to relocate outside of the state. Another position would have been a
promotion for Complainant, and the Agency is not obligated to reassign an
employee to a position that would be a promotion as a reasonable accommodation.
Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable 	Accommodation 	at 	Question 	24; 	see
Spencer T. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004239 (Dec. 15,
2021).

2025003399	12
The Commission has also found that the Rehabilitation Act does not require an
agency to reassign an employee to a position with additional promotion potential
as 	an 	accommodation. 	See 	Foley 	v. 	Dep’t 	of 	Transp., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
0120090235 (Feb. 6, 2009). Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to Complainant and drawing all justifiable inferences, a reasonable finder of fact
could not conclude that Complainant established that he was denied a reasonable
accommodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, and construing any inferences raised by
the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable factfinder
could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision
and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, including
those 	not 	specifically 	addressed 	herein, 	we 	conclude 	that 	the 	AJ 	correctly
determined 	that 	the 	preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence 	did 	not 	establish 	that
Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, 	we 	AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order 	implementing 	the 	AJ’s
decision.
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.

2025003399	13
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.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s
request 	for 	reconsideration 	as 	untimely, 	unless 	extenuating 	circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must
be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District
Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this
decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint
the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that
person by their full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the
dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national
organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If
you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will
terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

2025003399	14
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so,
you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without
paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent
you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you.
You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an
attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the
time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s
Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
T. Gimbrere __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 29, 2026
Date