OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second Street, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20540-1999 

__________________________________ 

GLORIA A. HALCOMB , 

Complainant, 

RADIO AND TELEVISION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 03-SN-45(RP) 

Date: June 4, 2004 

CORRESPONDENTS’ ASSOCIATION; ) 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ) 

RADIO-TELEVISION GALLERIES, ) 

) 

) 

Respondent . 1 ) 

________________________________ ) 

Before the Board of Directors: Susan S. Robfogel, Chair; Barbara L. Camens, 

Alan V. Friedman; Roberta L. Holzwarth; Barbara Childs Wallace, Members. 

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

On February 3, 2004, Hearing Officer, on a motion to dismiss, issued the attached Order 

dismissing the Complaint against Respondent on jurisdictional grounds; that is, as a matter of law 

the Respondent could not constitute an employing office under the Congressional Accountability 

Act, 2 U.S.C. §1301(9): in essence holding that even if the Complainant’s factual allegations were 

taken as true, jurisdiction would still be lacking over the Respondent. The Complainant timely 

filed a petition for review of that Order, and a supporting brief. The Respondent timely filed its 

opposition brief to the petition for review. 

While we acknowledge that an individual must be employed by one of the nine employers 

listed in Section 101(3)(A)-(I) [2 U.S.C. §1301(3)(A)-(I))] of the Act in order to be considered a 

“covered employee”, we do not construe Section 101(3) of the Act as precluding a covered 

employee from bringing a claim against more than one respondent under a joint-employer or 

1

 The proper name of the “Association” and the “Executive Board” is reflected as 

corrected by Respondent’s Reply Brief and Opposition 
single-employer theory. The ruling in Moore v. Capitol Guide Board, 982 F. Supp. 35 (D.D.C. 

1997) does not require us to hold otherwise. Similarly, in light of the general rule of statutory 

construction that “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context 

indicates otherwise – words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, 

or things; words importing the plural include the singular . . .” 1 U.S.C. §1, we do not construe 

Section 405(a) (2 U.S.C. §1405) as precluding a covered employee from naming more than one 

employing office as a respondent in a complaint filed with the Office of Compliance under the 

Act. 

Accordingly, the issue to be resolved is whether Respondent may be considered an 

“employing office” under Section 101(9) (2 U.S.C. 1301(9))of the Act. Complainant has alleged 

that Respondent meets the definition of an employing office contained in Section 101(9)(C), 

which encompasses as an employing office “any other office headed by a person with the final 

authority to appoint, hire, discharge, and set the terms, conditions, or privileges of the 

employment of an employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate”. 

The record before us is limited to the pleadings, which include the allegation that there is 

an integrated relationship between the Respondent and the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the 

Congressional leadership. Based on the limited record, we are unable to determine whether the 

Respondent is an employing office under Section 101(9)(C) of the Act. The question was not 

amenable to dismissal without first affording the Complainant the opportunity to develop a factual 

record. 

We are remanding this matter to the Hearing Officer to permit the Complainant an 

opportunity to prove her claim that the Respondent constitutes an employing office as described 

in Section 101(9)(C) of the Act. We have not reached any conclusion as to whether the 

Respondent could constitute an employing office under the Act. We hold only that the Hearing 

Officer should permit limited discovery on the issue. Once this discovery is completed, 

Respondent may reassert its position through a dispositive motion. 

ORDER 

Pursuant to Section 406(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act and Section 8.01(d) of the 

Office’s Procedural Rules, the Board remands this matter to the Hearing Officer in accord with 

this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

Issued, Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004 

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 4th day of June 2004, I delivered a copy of this Decision and 

Order of the Board of Directors to the following parties by the below identified means: 

First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid 

Lawrence Z. Lorber & Stephanie L. Marn, Esqs.


Proskauer Rose LLP


1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800


Washington, D.C. 20036.


Sam E. Taylor, Administrative Counsel


P.O. Box 15370


Washington, D.C. 20003


Facsimile Mail 

Lawrence Z. Lorber & Stephanie L. Marn, Esqs. 

Fax.No. (202)416-6899 

Sam E. Taylor, Administrative Counsel 

Fax. No. (301)989-3249 

___________________


Kisha L. Harley


Office of Compliance


3