Laquita H.,1 Complainant,v.Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 7, 2020

Appeal No. 2019004960 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 7, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Laquita H.,1
Complainant,

v.

Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.

Appeal No. 2019004960

Agency No. DOS-0137-19

DECISION

On July 17, 2019, Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final Agency decision (FAD) dated June 18, 2019,
dismissing her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.

BACKGROUND

Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Foreign Service Officer, FP-04 & 05. From May
2014 to October 2015, she was assigned to the Ciudad Juárez, Mexico U.S. Consulate; starting
around November 2015, she was assigned to Washington, D.C.; and starting around August 2017,
she was assigned to the Toronto, Canada U.S. Consulate.

On April 29, 2019, Complainant filed an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
that the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on her race (African-American), sex
(female), color (Black), disability, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII
and the Rehabilitation Act when:

1. The Agency investigated her history of being a sexual assault victim from about July 8,
2011, to the present.

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.
2019004960

2
2. On or about August 10, 2015, it collected, reviewed and disseminated her privileged
medical information.

3. On or about August 10, 2015, it made comments about her that were racist and sexist.

4. On or about October 29, 2015, it launched a "threat assessment" investigation on her.

5. On or about October 31, 2015, and continuing until at least May 2016, it spread false
allegations and privileged medical and personal information about her to the Department
of Defense (DoD).

6. On or about December 23, 2015, it searched federal databases for information related to
her.

7. On or about December 23, 2015, it searched her social media accounts.

8. On or about December 29, 2015, it searched the Automated Targeting System Passengers
(ATSP) Database to determine her border crossings.

9. On or about July 18, 2016, it launched an investigation of her following her inquiry into
her Foreign Service Grievance Board grievance.2

The Agency dismissed the complaint because Complainant did not initiate EEO counseling until
December 3, 2018, both beyond the 45-day time limit of when the events occurred and when she
had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination. The Agency also dismissed a portion of the
complaint because the EEOC does not have jurisdiction over the substance of security clearance
decisions.3

2 The Agency defined the EEO complaint as concerning Complainant’s security clearance being
suspended in October 2015, her April 2016 performance evaluation being based on improper
consideration of confidential and prejudicial medical information, and being subjected to a hostile
work environment that included comments that characterized her as an “angry black woman.” On
appeal, Complainant clarifies that she alleged “actions”/”categories” 1 – 9 above in her EEO
complaint, which is in line with the nine underlined headings therein under “Incidents of
Discrimination”. The complaint was in narrative form, and it was difficult to discern which matters
were intended to be actionable until Complainant clarified this on appeal.

3 The Agency also dismissed part of the complaint to the extent it thought Complainant intended
it as evidence in support of actionable claims, not actionable claims. Because Complainant clarifies
her actionable claims on appeal, we need not address this part of the dismissal.
2019004960

3
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Factual Background Related to Discrimination Claims

On December 21, 2010, Complainant reported to the Charleston County, South Carolina Sheriff’s
Office that in 2007 (before she worked at the Agency) she had been sexually assaulted. A police
report was generated. Agency responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests
Complainant submits on appeal, Bates Nos. 1463 – 1470 (hereafter referred to by Bates numbers
only).

On February 7, 2011, Complainant reported the same thing to the Security Department of Hollins
University in Roanoke, Virginia, and made a “no trespass” request. She did this after receiving a
call that day from a South Carolina detective that they had to release the alleged perpetrator. A
police report was again generated. Bates Nos. 1391 – 1393.

Once Complainant sought employment with the Agency, Diplomatic Security conducted a
background investigation to assist in determining if she would be granted a security clearance. In
2011, as part of this process, Diplomatic Security obtained the South Carolina and Hollins
University police reports. On appeal, through counsel, Complainant writes that she was
uncomfortable with this, but assumed Diplomatic Security did nothing inappropriate. Complainant
received an initial security clearance.

On September 19, 2012, while attending Seaton Hall University in New Jersey to earn her master’s
degree, Complainant visited police headquarters in South Orange, New Jersey, entering an
enclosed vestibule. According to a police report, the following occurred. She took out and opened
a tactical folding knife, would not hand it over, and was crying. Two police officers entered the
vestibule with shields, immobilized her against a wall to prevent her from harming herself or
others, and removed the knife from her hand. After she was handcuffed, Complainant said she
came there so they would shoot and kill her, that she had been raped in South Carolina, and that
the perpetrator was on his way to New Jersey to attack her. A rescue squad with a police officer
transported Complainant to the East Orange General Hospital emergency room. Bates Nos. 1458
– 1459. The state of New Jersey charged Complainant with four felonies. Bates Nos. 1452, 1454.
On October 2, 2012, New Jersey reduced all the charges to misdemeanors, and on November 30,
2012, dismissed them. On August 30, 2013, a New Jersey court “expunged” all records related to
the matters above, meaning the records were sealed.

On September 6, 2013, Complainant self-reported Diplomatic Security that she had been arrested
on September 19, 2012, and the connected events. With her self-report, Complainant attached the
September 19, 2012 South Orange, New Jersey police report. Complainant characterized the
events at the police station as the police, not her being aggressive, and explained her actions there
stemmed from a complicated migraine attack and included symptoms of confusion and decreased
consciousness.

2019004960

4
Because of the self-report, around January 2014, the clearance function of Diplomatic Security
commenced a “for cause” update background investigation to examine her conduct. Bates Nos.
415, 439, 1076. Complainant writes this included a resumption of the investigation on her being a
sexual assault victim. In support of her claim, Complainant cites to Bates Nos. 414 – 435, pointing
to the activities of an identified Diplomatic Security investigator.4 Complainant writes that she
assumed Diplomatic Security was following proper procedures, and did not suspect this
investigation was discriminatory until she began reviewing the FOIA disclosures around October
26, 2018.

By letter to Complainant dated August 12, 2014, the clearance function of Diplomatic Security
advised that it forwarded her self-report information to the Agency’s Office of Medical Services
(OMS) for review to get input on whether she met the requirements to maintain her clearance.
Diplomatic Security advised Complainant that after evaluating the information, OMS requested
that she have two health care providers (who treated her migraine condition) respond to a
referenced medical inquiry and send it directly to OMS. The inquiry asked for sensitive
information about Complainant’s mental health, including whether she had issues with being
aggressive, suicidal, and having impaired judgment, and any related treatment. Bates Nos. 249 –
251. Complainant balked at submitting the inquiry to her health care providers. Bates No. 6.
Around August 2014, OMS also notified Complainant that it was planning for her to undergo a
psychological evaluation, which she resisted. By follow up letter to Complainant dated November
13, 2014, the clearance arm of Diplomatic Security directed Complainant to cooperate with OMS.
Bates Nos. 6 – 7.

Thereafter, on December 5, 2014, Complainant submitted to a psychological evaluation with
OMS. OMS reportedly advised Diplomatic Security that at the evaluation, Complainant was
“abrasive, disrespectful, initially uncooperative, alleging discrimination, spouting racial epithets,
and likening herself to Michael Brown” - the 18 year old Black male killed by police in Ferguson,
Missouri. Bates Nos. 1197, 1363. Still, on December 10, 2014, OMS opined that in its medical
judgment Complainant qualified for a clearance. The record reflects that by November 1, 2016,
Complainant was aware she was accused of being uncooperative during the psychological
evaluation and the OMS favorable medical opinion. Bates No. 75. Her then-legal counsel
communicated this in his November 1, 2016, letter.5 She asserted that she voluntarily underwent
the evaluation and was fully cooperative. Id.

4 We reviewed the referenced documentation. It indicated that the identified investigator inquired
on whether there were complaints by neighbors when Complainant was living in Seaton Hall
University dormitory housing, if she paid for her room and kept it maintained, asked character type
questions of people Complainant interacted with at this University, verified the dates she attended
the University and her grade point average, checked the records at the University’s Campus Police,
and unsuccessfully inquired about any South Orange police and court records on Complainant.

5 As will be discussed below, therein Complainant’s then counsel reported to the Agency’s Office
of Inspector General (OIG) that Diplomatic Security on January 20, 2016, improperly obtained,
2019004960

5
On October 1, 2015, Diplomatic Security suspended Complainant’s security clearance (top secret)
because her conduct raised questions about her judgment in handling protected information –
specifically, the actions recounted in the September 19, 2012 South Orange, New Jersey police
report and another matter.6

As a result of the suspension, Complainant’s assignment at the Ciudad Juárez Consulate was cut
short, and she was reassigned to start working around November 2015, in Washington, D.C.

Sometime in 2015, prior to Complainant’s arrival there, the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
in Washington DC, contacted Diplomatic Security’s Insider Threat Working Group (different from
the clearance arm of Diplomatic Security) and expressed concerns about her coming to their office
and, in particular, the potential for violence in the workplace. Bates No. 1437. See also, Agency
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report of Investigation (ROI), Bates Nos. 1914, 1942.
Complainant alleges that the Bureau Director contacted Diplomatic Security based on
inflammatory information in the October 1, 2015 suspension letter. The insider threat investigation
was officially opened on November 9, 2015, and closed on June 27, 2017. Id., Bates No. 1914. As
part of the insider threat investigation, on January 20, 2016, Diplomatic Security obtained
Complainant’s medical records from East Orange General Hospital (where she was taken to right
after her arrest on September 19, 2012). Complainant learned of this on March 4, 2016. OIG
determined that the insider threat arm of Diplomatic Security obtained these medical records
without a proper release from Complainant. Bates Nos. 195, 1912, 1913, 1917.

On appeal, Complainant submits a copy of a filing by her in March 2016, connected with her prior
EEO complaint. It reflects that in the prior complaint, as amended, Complainant alleged that the
Agency discriminated against her based on disability and reprisal when: (a) on January 20, 2016,
it requested her medical records from East Orange General Hospital, (b) on February 11, 2016, it
referred her to the Agency’s Office of Medical Services (OMS) for a mental health evaluation, and
(c) on February 17, 2016, it requested she sign a medical records release for the East Orange
General Hospital. Bates No. 2038 – 2039.

and then mishandled Complainant’s East Orange General Hospital records. This prompted OIG to
conduct an investigation and issue an ROI.

6 The other referenced misconduct was after being in an automobile accident with a Mexican
national on the Mexico side of a port of entry on November 30, 2014, Complainant seized her
border crossing card without authority, accessed an Agency database in December 2014, without
authority to obtain information about the Mexican national, and provided conflicting sworn
statements to Diplomatic Security investigators on the events in the aftermath the accident.
Complainant disputed these charges.

2019004960

6
We take administrative notice that after the prior EEO complaint was investigated, it was resolved
via a settlement agreement.7 The report of investigation (ROI) on the prior complaint reveals that
the clearance function of Diplomatic Security referred Complainant for a mental health evaluation
to OMS after the threat function of Diplomatic security forwarded the East Orange General
Hospital medical records to it on January 28, 2016. ROI on EEO complaint DOS-0069-16,
Affidavit B, at 3 – 4, ROI Bates Nos. 246 – 247.8 In her May 2016 ROI affidavit, Complainant
contended then, as she does now, that Diplomatic Security had no right to request these medical
records because she never signed a release authorizing this. She contended then, as she does now,
that Section 21 – Psychological and Emotional Health of the Standard Form 86 (SF-86), a
background clearance investigation form, instructs that the security clearance applicant may
answer “no”, which she did, to the question of whether she consulted with a health care
professional or was hospitalized regarding an emotional or mental condition if they are “[v]ictims
of Sexual Assault who have consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or
mental health condition during this period strictly in relation to the sexual assault.” She contended
then, as she does now, that the Agency had no right to her East Orange General Hospital medical
records, and they were unnecessary since she was already cleared by OMS on December [10],
2014. ROI, Affidavit A, at 15 – 17, 93 – 95, ROI Bates Nos. 106 – 108, 184 – 186.

Dismissal

An aggrieved person must seek EEO counseling within 45 days of the date of the alleged
discriminatory action, or in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of
the action. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) & .107(a)(2). The time limit to seek EEO counseling shall
be extended when an individual shows he did not know and reasonably should not have known
that the discriminatory action or personnel action occurred. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2).

The Commission has adopted a reasonable suspicion standard to determine when the forty-five
(45) day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No.
01965648 (Feb. 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation is not triggered until a complainant reasonably
suspects discrimination, but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have
become apparent.

Issue 1 is Complainant’s allegation that the Agency investigated her history of being a sexual
assault victim from about July 8, 2011, to the present. This refers to Diplomatic Security in 2011,
as part of Complainant’s security clearance background investigation, obtaining the December 21,
2010 South Carolina and February 7, 2011 Hollins University police reports, that thereafter
Diplomatic Security/OMS as part of an updated for cause background clearance investigation

7 While the Agency did not explicitly accept issue (c) for investigation, it was listed as one of the
issues resolved in the settlement agreement.

8 The Agency uploaded the ROI to the hearings part of EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal in
September 2016.

2019004960

7
requested from August 2014 – November 2014 that she have two of her health care providers
complete an inquiry about her mental health and undergo a psychological evaluation by OMS, and
in January 2016, the insider threat arm of Diplomatic Security obtaining her medical records from
East Orange General Hospital.

While Complainant contends these investigations continue to the present, she does not allege any
indicia thereof within 45 days before she initiated EEO counseling on December 3, 2018. The
insider threat investigation was completed on June 27, 2017, her security clearance was reactivated
on May 10, 2017, and on appeal Complainant writes that her security clearance was fully restored
by the Foreign Service Grievance Board on March 1, 2018, when it dismissed the last remaining
“charge.” Accordingly, the investigations ceased by March 2018, and likely earlier.

On appeal, Complainant argues that she did not form a reasonable suspicion of discrimination
regarding issue 1 until October 26, 2018, when she reviewed a response to her FOIA request. We
disagree. We find the record shows Complainant suspected discrimination regarding the Agency’s
investigation into matters related to her being a sexual assault victim by 2016. Accordingly, Issue
1 is dismissed for failure to timely initiate EEO counseling.

Issue 2 is Complainant’s allegation that on or about August 10, 2015, the Agency collected,
reviewed and disseminated her privileged medical information. This regards the clearance arm of
Diplomatic Security collecting, sharing among itself, and reviewing the notes of her December 5,
2014 psychological evaluation, and passing them along to the U.S. Counsel General of Ciudad
Juarez, who in turn passed it along to his Deputy Chief of Mission there, Complainant’s first line
supervisor, and the Visa Chief, Complainant’s superior. Complainant refers to Bates Nos. 783 –
785, and 1196 – 1202, which show that on August 10, 2015, Diplomatic Security via email briefed
the Ciudad Juarez Counsel General on Complainant’s actions during her psychological evaluation
and of the impending decision to suspend Complainant’s clearance. It also briefed the Visa Chief.
Bates Nos. 784, 1202.

In her EEO complaint, Complainant contended that she first learned of the above on October 26,
2018, when she reviewed a response to her FOIA request. We disagree. In his November 1, 2016
letter to OIG, Complainant’s then counsel indicated that Diplomatic Security collected and
disseminated information about her behavior at the psychological evaluation - it was cited in the
investigation of her actions in the aftermath of her November 30, 2014, automobile accident. Bates
No. 75. Further, Complainant’s dogged pursuit of documentation via FOIA suggests she was
suspicious of Diplomatic Security’s actions, and was seeking confirmation thereof. Accordingly,
Issue 2 is dismissed for failure to timely initiate EEO counseling.

The Commission does not have jurisdiction to review an agency’s determination on the substance
of a security clearance decision. Policy Guidance on the Use of the National Security Exception
Contained in § 703(g) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended, EEOC Notice No.
N-915-041 (May 1, 1989) (Guidance); Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988).
Section 703(g) is an affirmative defense to a charge of discrimination.
2019004960

8
However, the legislative history of § 703(g) makes it clear that the Commission is not precluded
from determining whether the grant, denial or revocation of a security clearance is conducted in a
nondiscriminatory manner. Guidance. Once statements gathered during the background clearance
investigation and are included in the security clearance investigative report, they are “squarely
within the rubric of a security clearance determination and, accordingly beyond the Commission’s
jurisdiction.” Schroeder v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05930248 (April 14, 1994).

Issue 3 is Complainant’s allegation that on or about August 10, 2015, the Agency made comments
about her that were racist and sexist. This regards the recitation of her comments at the
psychological evaluation, which she denied making, and we have already found untimely.

Issue 3 also regards comments made or reviewed during deliberations on Complainant’s clearance
at a Diplomatic Security Round Table that from August 12, 2014 up to December 5, 2014, she was
argumentative and uncooperative in reaction to efforts to have her give a mental health inquiry to
her health care providers and undergo a psychological evaluation by OMS. Specifically, the
comments made or reviewed were that Complainant sent multiple emails to the clearance function
of Diplomatic Security and OMS protesting the effort, invoking “I am a diplomat”, and sending
emails and making phone calls that were threatening and intimidating. Complainant characterizes
this as her being viewed as “an angry black women.” Because these comments were made or
reviewed as part of Diplomatic Security’s deliberations on whether to continue Complainant’s
clearance, they go to the substance of the security clearance decision, which is outside the
Commission’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, this portion of issue 3 is dismissed for failure to state a
claim.

The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge a
collateral attack on another proceeding. Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No.
05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No.
05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No.
05930106 (June 25, 1993). This line of cases has been applied to an internal affairs investigation
of a law enforcement officer. Heard v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120092680).

Issue 4 is Complainant’s allegation that on or about October 29, 2015, Diplomatic Security
launched a "threat assessment" investigation on her. While by November 1, 2016, Complainant
knew the name of the insider threat Diplomatic Security agent who obtained her East Orange
General Hospital record on January 20, 2016, she did not learn he was part of its insider threat arm
or that Diplomatic Security opened an insider threat investigation until she started reviewing the
FOIA responses on October 26, 2018.

Applying Heard, we find that the Agency’s decision to launch an insider threat investigation on
Complainant fails to state a claim.

While Complainant never served in the military, there were incorrect reports/rumors that she had.

2019004960

9
Bates 401, 1276, 1377, 1662 – 1663. Issue 5 is Complainant’s allegation that on or about October
31, 2015, and continuing until at least May 2016, the Agency spread false allegations, and
privileged medical and personal information about her to the Department of Defense. This regards
the insider threat arm of Diplomatic Security providing her social security number and date of birth
to the DoD in an effort to search for “highly prejudicial information” about her, prompting
“unauthorized” officials in DoD to view her “privileged medical history.” In support thereof,
Complainant refers to Bates numbers which show Diplomatic Security requested “Navy or Marine
Corp recruitment/basic training/or other record(s)” on her. Complainant did not learn of
Diplomatic Security’s inquiry to DoD until she started reviewing the FOIA responses. We find
that issue 5 fails to state a claim because it is a collateral attack against the Agency’s insider threat
investigation, and while its request to DoD included the phrase “or other record(s)”, we don’t view
this as a request for medical records.

Issues 6, 7, and 8 regard the insider threat arm of Diplomatic Security using databases to learn if
Complainant has used other names, her prior addresses, and her criminal history, and looking at
her social media, and running a check on her perpetrator, and obtaining a copy of two February 7,
2011 Hollins University police reports on Complainant.

We find this fails to state a claim because this constitutes a collateral attack on the insider threat
investigation. We note that the second Hollins University police report recounted that on February
7, 2011, a Ladson, South Carolina sheriff’s detective called to report that Complainant told her she
was going to kill the perpetrator and would be in handcuffs the next time she saw her. It recounted
that the detective feared Complainant could become depressed and suicidal, and asked Hollins
University to look out for her. It further recounted that it was reported Complainant told people on
the Hollins University campus that she was going to kill the perpetrator, and University police
planned to try to calm her down and advise her of the ramifications of making such public
statements. Bates Nos. 1395 – 1396. Complainant alleged that Diplomatic Security obtained the
police reports without a proper release. She did not specifically raise the matter of the insider threat
arm obtaining a copy of the Hollins University police reports. Assuming her EEO complaint
included this matter, we find it fails to state a claim for the reason above and because, assuming
the insider threat arm did not use a proper release, this irregularity, in the context of this overall
case, fails to state a claim.

Issues 6, 7, and 8 also regard the clearance arm of Diplomatic Security in November 2015, looking
for the location of her perpetrator and if he was in prison, and in December 2015, obtaining a
database run of Complainant’s border crossings. Complainant learned of these matters from the
FOIA responses. We note that on November 11, 2013, Complainant signed a background
investigation release for purposes of maintaining her clearance, consenting to the Agency
obtaining information on her activities from individuals, schools, residential management agents,
employers, criminal justice agencies, credit bureaus, consumer reporting agencies, retail business
establishments, or other sources.

2019004960

10
This release was active for so long as Complainant remained employed in a sensitive position
requiring a clearance. Given this release, we find this matter fails to state a claim.9

Issue 7 also regards the clearance arm of Diplomatic Security from December 2015 to March 2016
keeping tabs on Complainant’s whereabouts while working. This consisted of Diplomatic Security,
after Complainant’s clearance was suspended, ensuring that the Agency kept tabs on where she
worked on a daily basis, it keeping tabs on which Bureau she was in and the identity of her Bureau
Security Officer, and in March 2016, finding out that she started teleworking full-time. Regarding
Complainant’s telework, Diplomatic Security expressed relief that this got her out of the
workplace. We find that Diplomatic Security keeping tabs on Complainant’s whereabouts while
working, more likely than not to ensure she did not have access to classified information, fails to
state a claim. Complainant was not harmed by this since her clearance was suspended.

Issue 9 is Complainant’s allegation that on or about July 18, 2016, the Agency launched an
investigation of her following her inquiry into her Foreign Service Grievance Board grievance.
This allegation regards the clearance arm of Diplomatic Security requesting the Diplomatic
Security Office of Special Investigations investigate reports that Complainant was contacting
people at the Ciudad Juarez Consulate in July 2016, asking for information and reminders while
she was there of who were members of a team, the atmosphere there, assignments, productivity,
and information related to a visit by an official from the Bureau of Consular Affairs. The
investigation closed in less than two weeks with the conclusion that if Complainant contacts
Consulate staff in the future, prior to them sharing information with her, they will report the
contacts to management who will review the request for information and develop a response.
Complainant learned of this matter from the FOIA responses, and writes she contacted her former
colleagues to get information related to her grievance.

We find issue that 9 fails to state a claim because it constitutes a collateral attack on a Diplomatic
Security Office of Special Investigations misconduct investigation.

The Agency’s action to dismiss Complainant’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:

9 We note that the medical release used for background investigations is much more circumspect
and only allows the investigator to ask medical health questions of health care providers.
2019004960

11
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
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 his or her 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.
2019004960

12
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:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

January 7, 2020
Date