DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

i 

PREAMBLE 

I. HISTORICAL AUTHORITY..................................................................... P-i

II. The Late 1970s-1980.............................................................................. P-iv

III. THE 1990s to the Present .........................................................................P-v

Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND AGENCY 

AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ....................................................... 1

I. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ................................ 1

II. FEDERAL AGENCY ............................................................................... 2

III. EEO DIRECTOR’S INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AND REPORTING 

RELATIONSHIPS ......................................................................................... 3

A. Federal Agencies Must Appoint an EEO Director Who Shall Be Responsible for: . 3

B. The EEO Director Must Report Directly to the Agency Head .......................... 3

IV. AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...................................................... 4

A. Separation of EEO Complaint Program From the Agency’s Personnel Function.... 5

B. Complaints That Present Potential Conflicts of Interest .................................. 5

C. Agencies Must Avoid Conflicts of Interest in Processing Complaints ................. 6

D. Separation of EEO Complaint Program from Agency's Defensive Function ......... 7

E. Questions and Answers Clarifying Proper Roles of an Agency Representative in the 

EEO Administrative Complaint Process ................................................... 8

V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES ............................12

VI. SPECIAL EMPHASIS PROGRAM ..............................................................13

VII.EEO OFFICIALS CANNOT SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVES ..........................13

VIII. AGENCY STATISTICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

COMPLAINT PROCESS ...............................................................................14

A. Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination 

Complaints ..................................................................................... 14

B. Quarterly and Fiscal Year EEO Complaint Statistics Required by Title III of the No 

FEAR Act ......................................................................................14

C. Annual Report to Congress, EEOC and the U.S. Attorney General Required by 

Title II of the No FEAR Act ................................................................14

IX. PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE ..............................15

A. Notice to Agency of Non-Compliance ......................................................15

B. Written Notice to Head of Federal Agency ................................................16

C. Public Notification of Non-Compliance ....................................................16

X. Pilot Projects .........................................................................................17

A. Request for Pilot Authority ...................................................................17

B. Process for Submitting, Reviewing, and Approving Pilot Projects ....................18

CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PRE-COMPLAINT PROCESSING ........ 2-1

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 2-1
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

ii

A. Counseling Generally ......................................................................... 2-1

B. Full-Time Counselors ........................................................................ 2-1

C. EEO Counselor Training Requirements ................................................... 2-2

D. EEO Counseling and Investigations ........................................................ 2-2

E. EEO Counseling and ADR .................................................................. 2-2

II. MANDATORY EEO COUNSELOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS ................... 2-3

A. Minimum Requirements ...................................................................... 2-3

B. Standards for Thirty-Two Hour Training Course ....................................... 2-3

C. Standards for Continuing Training Requirements ....................................... 2-4

III. THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN EEO COUNSELOR ................. 2-5

IV. INITIAL INTERVIEW SESSION ............................................................... 2-6

A. Provide Required Written Notice ........................................................... 2-6

B. Provide Information on Other Procedures as Required ................................. 2-6

C. Explain Statutes and Regulations ........................................................... 2-7

V. THE LIMITED INQUIRY ...................................................................... 2-10

A. Determining the Claim(s) .................................................................. 2-11

B. Determining the Basis(es) .................................................................. 2-12

C. When the Basis(es) is not Covered by the EEO Regulations ........................ 2-12

VI. RESOLUTION .................................................................................... 2-12

A. Extension of Counseling for Resolution Efforts ....................................... 2-13

B. Resolution of the Dispute .................................................................. 2-13

C. Failure to Resolve the Dispute ............................................................ 2-13

VII.THE ADR PROGRAM .......................................................................... 2-14

A. The Choice of EEO Counseling or ADR ............................................... 2-14

B. Role of the EEO Counselor during ADR Process ..................................... 2-14

C. Completing the ADR Process ............................................................. 2-15

VIII. NOTICE OF FINAL INTERVIEW .............................................. 2-15

A. Right to Pursue the Claim Through the Formal Process ............................. 2-16

B. Requirements of the Formal Complaint ................................................. 2-16

C. Time Frames to Complete the Notice of Final Interview ............................ 2-16

D. Name(s) of Person(s) Authorized to Receive Complaints ............................ 2-17

E. Loss of Confidentiality During Formal Process ....................................... 2-17

F. Written Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint ........................ 2-17

IX. THE COUNSELOR'S REPORT .............................................................. 2-17

A. Time Limits .................................................................................. 2-18

B. Contents of Report .......................................................................... 2-18

C. Confidentiality of Negotiations for Resolution ......................................... 2-18

X. COUNSELING CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTS ........................................ 2-19

CHAPTER 3 3-1

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ...................................................................... 3-1

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3-1
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

iii

II. CORE PRINCIPLES OF ADR ................................................................... 3-1

A. Fairness ......................................................................................... 3-2

B. Flexibility ....................................................................................... 3-3

C. Training ......................................................................................... 3-4

D. Evaluation ...................................................................................... 3-4

III. DEVELOPING AN ADR PROGRAM ......................................................... 3-5

A. Written Procedures ............................................................................ 3-5

B. ADR Throughout the EEO Process ........................................................ 3-5

C. Matters Inappropriate for ADR ............................................................. 3-6

D. Dealing with Non-EEO Issues .............................................................. 3-7

E. Choosing Among ADR Techniques ........................................................ 3-7

F. Time Frames of the ADR Process ......................................................... 3-7

G. Representation of the Parties ................................................................ 3-8

H. Spin-Off Complaints .......................................................................... 3-8

I. Collective Bargaining Agreements and the Privacy Act ................................ 3-8

J. Recordkeeping ................................................................................. 3-8

K. One-Stop ADR Shop .......................................................................... 3-9

IV. PROVIDING INFORMATION .................................................................. 3-9

A. Agencies Must Fully Inform Employees about the EEO Process ..................... 3-9

B. Providing Information about the ADR Program ....................................... 3-10

C. Explaining the Benefits of ADR .......................................................... 3-11

D. Informing the Employee about Filing Rights ........................................... 3-11

E. Pre-ADR Meeting ........................................................................... 3-11

V. NEUTRALS ....................................................................................... 3-12

A. Sources of Neutrals ......................................................................... 3-12

B. Qualifications of Neutrals .................................................................. 3-13

C. Role of the Neutral .......................................................................... 3-14

D. Promoting Trust ............................................................................. 3-15

3. Explaining the safeguards that are in place to protect parties from pressures to resolve the 

complaint. ............................................................................................... 3-15

VI. ADR TECHNIQUES ............................................................................ 3-15

A. Mediation ..................................................................................... 3-16

B. Facilitation .................................................................................... 3-16

C. Fact Finding .................................................................................. 3-17

D. Early Neutral Evaluation ................................................................... 3-17

E. Ombuds ....................................................................................... 3-17

F. Settlement Conferences .................................................................... 3-18

G. Mini-Trials ................................................................................... 3-18

H. Peer Review .................................................................................. 3-18

I. Combinations of Techniques .............................................................. 3-19

VII.RESOLUTIONS MUST BE IN WRITING .................................................. 3-19
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

iv

CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

PROCEDURES FOR RELATED PROCESSES ................................................................ 4-1

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4-1

II. MIXED CASE COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 .............. 4-1

A. Definitions ...................................................................................... 4-1

B. Procedures ...................................................................................... 4-1

III. NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES .............................................. 4-6

A. Where Agency is Covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d) ...................................... 4-6

B. Where Agency is not Covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d) ................................. 4-7

IV. AGE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS .................................................... 4-7

A. Election of Administrative Process ......................................................... 4-8

B. Aggrieved May Bypass Administrative Process ......................................... 4-8

C. Responsibilities Regarding Notices of Intent to Sue .................................... 4-8

V. EQUAL PAY ACT COMPLAINTS .......................................................... 4-10

CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................... 5-1

AGENCY PROCESSING OF FORMAL COMPLAINTS ................................................ 5-1

I. AGENCY SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE FORMAL COMPLAINT ........................ 5-1

II. THE AGENCY SHALL ALSO PROVIDE OTHER INFORMATION AND NOTICE 

OF RIGHTS .............................................................................................. 5-2

A. Agency Shall Inform the Complainant of the Agency's Obligations ................. 5-2

B. Agency Shall Inform Complainant of His/Her Rights .................................. 5-3

III. AGENCIES MUST AVOID FRAGMENTING EEO COMPLAINTS .................. 5-5

A. Identifying and Defining the Claim in an EEO Complaint ............................. 5-5

B. A Complainant May Amend A Pending Complaint ..................................... 5-9

1. provides additional evidence offered to support the existing claim, but does not raise a 

new claim in and of itself;............................................................................... 5-9

2. raises a new claim that is like or related to the claim(s) raised in the pending complaint; or

 5-9

C. Consolidation of Complaints .............................................................. 5-13

D. Partial Dismissals ........................................................................... 5-14

E. No Remands By Administrative Judges ................................................. 5-14

F. "Spin-off" Complaints ...................................................................... 5-14

G. Training ....................................................................................... 5-15

IV. AGENCY DISMISSAL PROCESS ........................................................... 5-15

A. Bases for Dismissals that May Exist As of the Filing of the Complaint or Develop 

Thereafter ................................................................................... 5-15

B. Dismissals that Generally Occur After the Agency Accepts the Complaint Based on 

Complainant’s Actions or Inactions..................................................... 5-25

C. Processing of Partially Dismissed Complaints ......................................... 5-25

D. Allegations of Dissatisfaction Regarding Processing of Pending Complaints .... 5-27

V. CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION ................................................... 5-29
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

v

A. Agency Retains Responsibility ............................................................ 5-29

B. Investigations Must be Timely Completed .............................................. 5-29

C. Failure to Complete Investigation within Time Limit ................................. 5-29

D. What Must be Done for an Investigation to be Considered Appropriate .......... 5-30

VI. FINAL ACTIONS ................................................................................ 5-30

A. Final Action By Agency Following An Administrative Judge’s Decision ......... 5-30

B. Final Actions in All Other Circumstances .............................................. 5-31

CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................................... 6-1

DEVELOPMENT OF IMPARTIAL AND APPROPRIATE ............................................ 6-1

FACTUAL RECORDS .......................................................................................................... 6-1

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 6-1

II. MINIMUM TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL INVESTIGATORS ............ 6-1

A. Standards for New Investigator Training Requirement ................................. 6-2

B. Continuing Investigator Training ........................................................... 6-3

III. RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................. 6-3

A. Director of Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................. 6-3

B. Equal Employment Opportunity Investigator ............................................. 6-3

C. Complainant .................................................................................... 6-4

IV. INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 6-4

A. Methods of Investigation ..................................................................... 6-4

B. Purpose of the Investigation ................................................................. 6-5

C. General Investigative Requirements ........................................................ 6-5

D. Failure to Complete Investigation within Time Limit ................................... 6-6

V. THE ROLE OF THE INVESTIGATOR ....................................................... 6-6

A. Collecting and Discovering Factual Information ........................................ 6-6

B. Variety of Methods Available ............................................................... 6-6

C. Investigator Must Be Unbiased and Objective ........................................... 6-6

D. Investigator Must Be Thorough ............................................................. 6-7

VI. EVIDENCE .......................................................................................... 6-8

A. Quality of Evidence ........................................................................... 6-8

B. Types of Evidence ............................................................................ 6-9

C. Sources of Evidence ........................................................................ 6-11

D. Evidence on the Question of Remedies .................................................. 6-13

VII.WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES IN THE FEDERAL EEO PROCESS ... 6-13

A. Disclosure of Investigative Material to Witnesses ..................................... 6-14

B. Travel Expenses ............................................................................. 6-14

C. Official Time ................................................................................. 6-15

D. Duty Status/Tour of Duty .................................................................. 6-18

E. Use of Government Property .............................................................. 6-18

VIII. COMPLAINT FILE ................................................................. 6-19

A. Contents of the Complaint File ........................................................... 6-19
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

vi 

B. Complaint Files Should Not Include ..................................................... 6-19

C. Redactions .................................................................................... 6-19

D. Features of the Complaint File ............................................................ 6-20

E. Format for the Complaint File ............................................................ 6-20

F. Availability of Complaint Files ........................................................... 6-22

G. Disposition of Complaint Files............................................................ 6-22

IX. THE INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY ........................................................ 6-23

X. COMPLAINANTS= OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE 6-23

XI. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COOPERATE DURING THE INVESTIGATION 6-

24

XII.SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO DEVELOP AN IMPARTIAL AND APPROPRIATE 

FACTUAL RECORD ................................................................................. 6-25

XIII. OFFER OF RESOLUTION ....................................................... 6-27

A. Elements of the Offer ....................................................................... 6-27

B. Model Language for the Offer ............................................................ 6-28

CHAPTER 7 ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

HEARINGS ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 7-1

II. THE ROLE OF THE AGENCY AT THE HEARING STAGE ........................... 7-3

A. Forward Complaint File to EEOC ......................................................... 7-3

B. Hearing Room and Production of Witnesses ............................................. 7-3

C. Hearings are Closed to the Public .......................................................... 7-3

D. Verbatim Hearing Transcripts and Court Reporters .................................... 7-3

E. The Site of the Hearing ...................................................................... 7-4

F. Request for Change in Venue ............................................................... 7-6

G. Agency Costs .................................................................................. 7-6

III. THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ......................................... 7-6

A. Administrative Judge's Review of the Record ........................................... 7-7

B. Developing the Record in Complaints with Inadequate Records ...................... 7-8

C. Dismissal of Complaint by Administrative Judge ..................................... 7-10

D. Administrative Judge's Authority ........................................................ 7-10

E. Summary Judgment (Decisions Without a Hearing) .................................. 7-16

F. Transmittal of the Decision and Hearing Record ...................................... 7-18

IV. DISCOVERY ...................................................................................... 7-18

A. Introduction .................................................................................. 7-18

B. Right to Seek Discovery ................................................................... 7-19

C. Methods of Discovery ...................................................................... 7-21

D. Discovery Procedures ...................................................................... 7-22

E. Failure to Request Discovery Implies Waiver of Subsequent Requests for 

Documents .................................................................................. 7-26

F. Cost of Discovery ........................................................................... 7-27
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

vii 

V. EXCLUSION AND DISQUALIFICATION ................................................ 7-27

A. Exclusion from a Hearing ................................................................. 7-27

B. Disqualification of a Representative from Future Hearings .......................... 7-32

C. Referral of Attorney Representatives to Bar Association ............................ 7-33
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

viii 

CHAPTER 8 ......................................................................................................................... 8-1

COMPLAINTS OF CLASS DISCRIMINATION.............................................................. 8-1

IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ................................................................................. 8-1

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 8-1

II. PRE-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES ...................................................... 8-1

A. Pre-Complaint Processing ................................................................... 8-1

B. Filing and Presentation of the Class Complaint .......................................... 8-2

III. INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS FILED ON BASES AND ISSUES IDENTICAL TO 

CLASS COMPLAINTS ................................................................................ 8-3

IV. CERTIFICATION OR DISMISSAL - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d) .......................... 8-5

A. Class Complaint Criteria ..................................................................... 8-5

B. Developing the Evidence for Purpose of Certification Determination ............... 8-5

V. CERTIFICATION DECISION - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d)(7) ............................. 8-6

A. Administrative Judge Issues Decision on Certification ................................. 8-6

B. Transmittal of Decision ...................................................................... 8-6

C. Right to Appeal the Administrative Judge's Decision .................................. 8-7

VI. NOTIFICATION - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(e).................................................. 8-7

A. Timing and Method of the Notice .......................................................... 8-7

B. Content of the Notice ......................................................................... 8-8

C. Individuals May Not Opt Out ............................................................... 8-8

D. Settlement Notice .............................................................................. 8-8

VII.DEVELOPING THE EVIDENCE - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(f) ............................. 8-8

A. The Process of Developing the Evidence ................................................. 8-8

B. Use of Agency Resources and Facilities by Class Agent ............................... 8-9

VIII. RESOLUTION - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(g) ..................................... 8-10

A. Resolution by the Parties ................................................................... 8-10

B. Notice of Proposed Resolution ............................................................ 8-10

C. Administrative Judge Shall Review Resolution ........................................ 8-10

IX. Hearing - 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.204(h) and (i) ................................................. 8-11

A. Hearing Procedures ......................................................................... 8-11

B. Site of the Class Hearing ................................................................... 8-11

C. Travel Expenses ............................................................................. 8-12

D. Official Time for Agency Employees .................................................... 8-12

X. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLASS 

COMPLAINT .......................................................................................... 8-12

XI. AGENCY DECISION - 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.204(j) and (k) ............................... 8-13

A. Action on Administrative Judge's Decision ............................................ 8-13

B. Required Features of the Agency Final Action ........................................ 8-13

C. Binding Nature of Agency Final Action Implementing Administrative Judge’s 

Decision ..................................................................................... 8-13

D. Notification of Agency Final Action ..................................................... 8-14
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

ix

XII.RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBERS - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(l) ....... 8-14

A. Claims for Individual Relief by Class Members Where Discrimination is Found 8-14

C. Oversight of Individual Claims for Relief .............................................. 8-15

D. Limits on the Duration of a Finding of Class-Wide Discrimination................ 8-16

E. Where Class-Wide Discrimination is Not Found ...................................... 8-16

XIII. REPRISAL ............................................................................ 8-17

CHAPTER 9 ......................................................................................................................... 9-1

APPEALS TO THE COMMISSION ................................................................................... 9-1

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 9-1

II. ADVISING THE PARTIES OF THEIR APPEAL RIGHTS ............................... 9-2

A. Rights Following Administrative Judge Issuance of a Decision....................... 9-2

B. Agency Final Action .......................................................................... 9-4

C. Agency Final Decision ....................................................................... 9-5

D. Agency Procedural Decision ................................................................ 9-6

E. Mixed Case Complaints ...................................................................... 9-6

III. PERSONS WHO MAY APPEAL ............................................................... 9-6

A. A Complainant May Appeal ................................................................. 9-6

B. An Agency Must Appeal ..................................................................... 9-7

C. An Agency May Appeal ..................................................................... 9-7

D. A Class Agent May Appeal ................................................................. 9-7

E. A Class Member or Petitioner May Appeal .............................................. 9-8

2. An Administrative Judge‟s decision that a proposed resolution is not fair, adequate, and 

reasonable to the class as a whole...................................................................... 9-8

F. A Grievant May Appeal ...................................................................... 9-8

IV. FILING THE APPEAL AND RESPONSE .................................................... 9-9

A. How to Appeal ................................................................................. 9-9

B. Service of Notice of Appeal ............................................................... 9-10

C. Appeal Will Be Acknowledged ........................................................... 9-10

D. Dismissal of Appeal ........................................................................ 9-11

E. Briefs and Supporting Documents ........................................................ 9-11

F. Statements in Opposition to an Appeal .................................................. 9-11

G. Submission of Case File.................................................................... 9-11

H. Signatures on Electronic Documents ..................................................... 9-12

V. APPELLATE PROCEDURE................................................................... 9-13

A. Where Record is Complete ................................................................ 9-13

B. Where Record Requires Supplementation ............................................... 9-13

C. Sanctions ...................................................................................... 9-14

D. Appeals Decisions are Final ............................................................... 9-15

VI. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ON APPEAL ................................................. 9-15

A. Review of Final Decisions Issued by the Agency ..................................... 9-16

B. Review of Decisions Issued by Administrative Judges ............................... 9-16
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

x

C. The Responsibility of the Parties ......................................................... 9-18

VII.RECONSIDERATION .......................................................................... 9-18

A. Reconsideration is Not an Appeal ........................................................ 9-18

B. Reconsideration Procedures ............................................................... 9-18

C. Reconsideration Decision is Final ........................................................ 9-19

VIII. REMEDIES ........................................................................... 9-19

A. An Agency Shall Provide Full Relief After A Finding Of Discrimination ........ 9-19

B. Clear and Convincing Standard Needed to Limit Relief; Duty to Cure 

Discrimination Remains................................................................... 9-20

C. Relief in Individual Cases .................................................................. 9-20

D. Relief in Class Cases ....................................................................... 9-20

IX. COMPLIANCE ................................................................................... 9-20

A. Relief Ordered in a Decision on Appeal ................................................ 9-20

B. Interim Relief ................................................................................ 9-21

C. Sanctions ...................................................................................... 9-23

D. Priority Consideration for Cases Remanded for Investigation ...................... 9-24

E. Remand of Dismissed Claims ............................................................. 9-24

F. Complainant May File an Appeal Alleging a Breach of a Settlement Agreement 9-24

G. Complainant May Appeal to the Commission for Enforcement of an Agency Final 

Action ........................................................................................ 9-25

H. Compliance Reports Required by Commission Appellate Decisions Containing 

Orders for Corrective Action ............................................................ 9-25

X. CIVIL ACTIONS ................................................................................. 9-25

XI. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 9-26

CHAPTER 10 ....................................................................................................................... 10-1

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, CIVIL ACTIONS, ...................................................... 10-1

AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ............................................................................. 10-1

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 10-1

II. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS ............................................................... 10-1

A. Time Limits for Appeals to the Commission - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402 ............ 10-1

B. Appeals to the Commission - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) .............................. 10-3

C. Petitions to Consider MSPB Decisions .................................................. 10-4

D. Appeal to MSPB on Mixed Case Complaint ........................................... 10-4

III. CIVIL ACTIONS ................................................................................. 10-4

A. Time Limits for Civil Actions ............................................................ 10-4

B. Termination of EEOC Processing ........................................................ 10-5

C. Mixed Case Complaints .................................................................... 10-5

IV. NOTICE OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO REQUEST COURT APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL AND STATEMENT OF RIGHT TO APPEAL .............................. 10-6

CHAPTER 11 ....................................................................................................................... 11-1

REMEDIES ....................................................................................................................... 11-1
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

xi 

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 11-1

II. NON DISCRIMINATORY PLACEMENT .................................................. 11-1

III. BACKPAY ......................................................................................... 11-2

A. Back Pay Issues .............................................................................. 11-2

B. Determining Gross Back Pay.............................................................. 11-3

C. Overtime or Premium Pay as a Component of Back Pay ............................ 11-3

D. Retirement Deductions and Back Pay.................................................... 11-3

E. Interim Earnings Deducted from Back Pay ............................................. 11-4

G. Availability for Work – Prerequisite for Receipt of Back Pay ...................... 11-5

H. Unemployment Compensation not Deducted from Back Pay – the Collateral Source 

Rule ........................................................................................... 11-5

I. Tax Consequences of a Lump Sum Payment of Back Pay ........................... 11-6

J. Liquidated Damages (ADEA and EPA only)........................................... 11-6

K. Restoration of Leave ........................................................................ 11-6

IV. FRONT PAY ...................................................................................... 11-6

V. OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF ............................................... 11-7

VI. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS ........................................................... 11-9

A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 11-9

B. DETERMINATION OF PREVAILING PARTY STATUS ......................... 11-9

C. PRESUMPTION OF ENTITLEMENT ................................................11-10

D. AWARDS TO PREVAILING PARTIES IN NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS ..11-

11

E. AWARDS OF COSTS AND FEES FOR EXPERT AND NON-LAWYER 

SERVICES .................................................................................11-12

F. COMPUTATION OF ATTORNEY=S FEES .........................................11-13

G. CONTENTS OF FEE APPLICATION AND PROCEDURE FOR 

DETERMINATION ......................................................................11-16

H. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ............................................................11-18

VII.COMPENSATORY DAMAGES .............................................................11-19

A. ENTITLEMENT TO SEEK COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ....................11-19

B. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................11-20

CHAPTER 12 ....................................................................................................................... 12-1

SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY .......................................................................................... 12-1

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 12-1

II. AUTHORITY ..................................................................................... 12-1

III. TITLE VII AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT OF BACK PAY ACT .................... 12-3

IV. NO FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION NECESSARY FOR SETTLEMENTS ...... 12-5

V. CASH AWARDS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PERSONNEL ACTIONS....... 12-5

VI. PERSONNEL ACTIONS WITH LUMP SUM PAYMENTS ............................ 12-6

VII.IMPLEMENTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ..................................... 12-6

Appendix A EEO-MD-110 ......................................................................................... App. A-1
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

xii 

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTBETWEENTHE U.S. [Non Conflict AGENCY] 

ANDTHE U.S. [AGENCY] .......................................................................................... App.A-1

Appendix B EEO-MD-110 .......................................................................................... App.B-1

EEO COUNSELING TECHNIQUES ........................................................................ App.B-1

Appendix C EEO-MD-110 ........................................................................................ APP.C -1

EEO COUNSELOR CHECKLIST ........................................................................... APP.C -1

Appendix D EEO-MD-110 ........................................................................................ APP.D -1

INFORMATION ON OTHER PROCEDURES ...................................................... APP.D -1

Appendix E EEO-MD-110 .......................................................................................... APP.E -1

(SAMPLE) NOTICE OF POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF

5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) TO ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY ACTION ....................... APP.E -1

(29 C.F.R. Part 1614) ................................................................................................... APP.E -1

Appendix F EEO-MD-110 .......................................................................................... APP.F -1

SAMPLE RESOLUTION LETTER .......................................................................... APP.F -1

Appendix G EEO-MD-110 ........................................................................................ APP.G -1

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT(Sample) APP.G -1

Appendix H EEO-MD-110 EEO COUNSELOR'S REPORT ............................... APP.H -1

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.105 ................................................................................................... APP.H -1

Appendix I EEO-MD-110 ........................................................................................... APP.I -1

Appendix J-1 EEO-MD-110 MODEL FOR ANALYSIS ........................................ APP.J -1

Appendix K EEO-MD-110 ........................................................................................ APP.K -1

NOTICE of INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION(sample) ...................................... APP.K -1

Appendix L EEO-MD-110 SAMPLE TITLE PAGE .............................................. APP.L -1

Appendix M EEO-MD-110 REQUEST FOR A HEARING FORM ................... APP.M -1

Appendix N EEO-MD-110 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

OFFICES AND GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTIONS FOR

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AND APPLICANT HEARING REQUESTS ............... APP.N -1

Notice of Appeal B Agency ......................................................................................... APP.O -1

NOTICE OF APPEAL/PETITION - COMPLAINANT ......................................... APP.P -1

Appendix Q EEO MD-110 Quick Reference Chart .............................................. APP.Q -1

Documentation Required to Close Compliance with the Most Common OFO Orders ..... 1
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

xiii 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

P - i 

PREAMBLE 

HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL SECTOR 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT PROCESS 

This section examines the history of the federal sector equal employment opportunity (EEO) 

complaint process. It provides an overview of the historical authority that transferred the 

responsibility for the federal sector EEO process from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). 

I. HISTORICAL AUTHORITY 

The Government first recognized a policy of nondiscrimination in federal employment during the 

1940s. Specifically, in July 1948, President Harry S. Truman issued the first Executive Order to 

declare a policy of nondiscrimination in federal employment.1

 Executive Order 9980 prohibited 

discrimination in federal employment on the bases of race, color, religion, or national origin.2

 

Exec. Order No. 9980, 13 Fed. Reg. 4,311 (July 28, 1948). The Order designated the head of 

each department to be personally responsible for insuring that employment decisions were based 

“solely on merit and fitness,” and it required the head of each department to designate a Fair 

Employment Officer to appraise department personnel actions, receive discrimination 

complaints, and take necessary corrective or disciplinary action. Id. The Fair Employment 

Officer‟s decisions were appealable to the head of the department. Id. Executive Order 9980 

also established a Fair Employment Board (FEB) in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to 

advise department heads on issues related to fair employment, disseminate information relevant 

to fair employment programs, and coordinate department programs. Id. The FEB was 

authorized “to review decisions made by the head of any department which are appealed . . . or 

referred to the Board by the head of the department for advice, and to make recommendations to 

such head.” Id. 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower carried forward the government‟s nondiscrimination policy 

when he issued Executive Order 10590, which superseded Executive Order 9980. Exec. Order 

No. 10590, 20 Fed. Reg. 409 (Jan. 19, 1955). The Order required each department or agency 

head to establish procedures to provide a complainant with a fair hearing and the opportunity to 

appeal their case. Id. Executive Order 10590 re-designated the Fair Employment Officer as an 

 

1

In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802, which prohibited government 

contractors from engaging in employment discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin. 

Exec. Order 8802, 6 Fed. Reg. 3,109 (June 27, 1941). 

2

 President Truman concurrently issued Executive Order 9981, which ordered desegregation of the U.S. 

Armed Forces. Exec. Order No. 9981, 13 Fed. Reg. 4313 (July 26, 1948). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

P - ii

Employment Policy Officer and abolished the FEB, replacing it with the President‟s Committee 

on Government Employment Policy. Id. The Committee‟s authority was limited, however, to 

reviewing cases and rendering advisory opinions to the agency or department heads before 

issuance of a final agency action. Id. 

In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which amended 

Executive Order 10590. Executive Order 10925 replaced the President‟s Committee on 

Government Employment Policy with the President‟s Committee on Equal Employment 

Opportunity.3

 Exec. Order No. 10925, 26 Fed. Reg. 1977 (Mar. 8, 1961). The Order charged 

this new committee with studying federal employment practices and recommending additional 

steps to fully achieve the policy of nondiscrimination. Id. The Committee was empowered with 

the authority to impose sanctions for violations of the Executive Order. Id.

In September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which 

superseded Executive Order 10590 but retained the prohibition on discrimination in federal 

employment on the bases of race, color, creed, or national origin. Exec. Order No. 11246, 

30 Fed. Reg. 12,319 (Sept. 28, 1965). Notably, Executive Order 11246 returned appellate 

review of final agency actions to the CSC and authorized the CSC to issue regulations and orders 

necessary to carry out its responsibilities.4

 Id. The Order required each department and agency 

head to comply with the CSC‟s procedures, establish and maintain a positive program of equal 

employment opportunity. Id.

In August 1969, President Richard Nixon further amended Executive Order 11246 by issuing 

Executive Order 11478, which required department and agency heads to “establish and maintain 

an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for all civilian employees and 

applicants for employment.” Exec. Order No. 11478, 34 Fed. Reg. 12,985 (Aug. 12, 1969). 

President Nixon tasked the CSC with reviewing and evaluating agency programs. Id. Executive 

Order 11478 also required agencies to “provide access to counseling for employees who feel 

aggrieved and . . . encourage the resolution of employee problems on an informal basis.” Id. 

By 1970, despite the issuance of numerous Executive Orders addressing nondiscrimination, 

employment discrimination remained a significant problem in the federal government. John 

Ross, A History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1965-1984 [hereinafter 

 

3 Executive Order 10925 also added “creed” as a prohibited basis of discrimination and prohibited federal 

government contractors from discriminating on account of race. Exec. Order No. 10925, 26 Fed. Reg. 

1977 (Mar. 8, 1961). 

4

 Executive Order 11246 also imposed nondiscrimination requirements on contractors and subcontractors 

as a condition of doing business with the federal government. Exec. Order No. 11246, 30 Fed. Reg. 

12,319 (Sept. 28, 1965). 

 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

P - iii

History of EEOC] at 82 (unpublished manuscript on file at EEOC Library in Washington, D.C.).5 

Congress did not find the administrative procedures established by the CSC to be effective. Id. at 

82. The CSC rarely reversed agency decisions and was criticized for failing to address systemic 

discrimination. Id. at 82-83. In addition, testimony presented to Congress suggested that federal 

employees had little faith in the complaint process and often feared retaliation for challenging 

discriminatory employment practices. Id. at 83. Furthermore, Congress “found that inadequate 

remedies existed to make aggrieved persons whole,” including the unavailability of back pay as 

an administrative remedy and procedural obstacles potentially limiting the ability of federal 

employees to bring claims against the federal government, such as sovereign immunity. Id. As a 

result, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which amended Title 

VII to extend its coverage to include federal employees while retaining the CSC‟s role in the 

administrative process.6 Id. Additionally, Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

which prohibited the federal government from discriminating against qualified individuals with 

disabilities and required federal agencies to establish affirmative action programs to provide 

greater employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973). 

Despite the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Rehabilitation Act, there 

were still several problems with the federal complaint/appeals process. The CSC‟s procedural 

regulations were viewed as fundamentally biased against complainants, and the complaint 

process itself was difficult for individual complainants to navigate. History of EEOC at 169 

(citing to U.S. CRC, To ELIMINATE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (1975)). Furthermore, by 

the 1970s, seventeen federal agencies and departments were responsible for enforcing forty 

different nondiscrimination statutes and executive orders. EEOC History: 35th Anniversary: 

1965 – 2000: The Law, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/index.html. As a result, 

in 1978, President Jimmy Carter submitted two reorganization plans to Congress to eliminate 

duplication and conflict by placing the responsibility for coordinating all federal EEO programs 

exclusively with the EEOC. Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 19,807 (May 5, 

1978); Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 36,037 (Aug. 15, 1978). 

President Carter issued Executive Order 12067 to implement Reorganization Plan No. 1 and 

transfer the functions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council (EEOCC) to 

the EEOC. Exec. Order No. 12067, 43 Fed. Reg. 28,967 (Jan. 3, 1979). Executive Order 12067 

delineated the EEOC‟s responsibility for “develop[ing] uniform standards, guidelines, and 

policies” for promoting and furthering equal employment opportunity without regard to race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age or handicap. Id. Executive Order 12067 required 

 

5

 A former Regional Attorney with the Dallas District Office, John Ross, drafted this source as part of the 

Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program. 

6

 In 1974, Congress amended the EPA and ADEA to extend coverage to the federal sector. History of 

EEOC at 165, 167. Initially, the CSC was responsible for the enforcement of the EPA and the ADEA 

with respect to the federal sector. Id. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

P - iv

department and agency heads to comply with the Commission‟s final rules, regulations, policies, 

procedures, and orders. Id.

After President Carter submitted his Reorganization Plans to Congress in 1978, Congress passed 

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which abolished the CSC and distributed its functions 

primarily among three agencies: the EEOC; a newly established Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM); and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which replaced the CSC. 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat 1111 (1978). The Reorganization 

Plan gave EEOC responsibility over the hearings and appeals functions for certain cases 

involving employment discrimination. Id. In December 1978, President Carter issued Executive 

Order 12106, which transferred additional CSC functions to the EEOC and amended Executive 

Order 11478 by adding disability and age as protected bases. Exec. Order No. 12106, 44 Fed. 

Reg. 1053 (Jan. 3, 1979). President Carter also issued Executive Orders 12107 implementing the 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and Reorganization Plan No. 2. Exec. Order No. 12107, 44 

Fed. Reg. 1055 (Jan. 3, 1979). In June, 1979, President Carter signed Executive Order 12144, 

which transferred certain equal pay and age discrimination enforcement functions to the EEOC. 

Exec. Order No. 12144, 44 Fed. Reg. 37,193 (June 26, 1979). 

II. The Late 1970s-1980 

Prior to the Commission obtaining authority over the federal sector EEO process, the CSC had 

authority to issue regulations and orders with respect to the processing of federal sector EEO 

complaints. As a result of Executive Order 11246, the CSC issued its initial regulations 

pertaining to complaint processing at 5 C.F.R. Part 1613, effective April 3, 1966. History of 

EEOC at 205 (citing to 5 C.F.R. Part 713 et seq.). These regulations provided time frames for 

filing complaints, required agency investigations, a hearing by an agency panel or an agency 

appointed hearing officer, a final decision by the agency head or a designee, and a process 

allowing complainants to file appeals with the CSC‟s Board of Appeals and Review. Id. After 

President Johnson issued Executive Order 11375, in October 1967, which prohibited 

discrimination in federal employment on the basis of sex, the CSC amended its regulations to 

require that sex discrimination complaints be processed the same as other EEO complaints. 

History of EEOC at 205. In 1969, the CSC revised its regulations. Significant changes to the 

regulations included: complainants were required to participate in informal counseling prior to 

filing a formal complaint, and complaints examiners were prohibited from being employees of 

the respondent agency. Id. The CSC subsequently amended its regulations several times 

between 1972 and 1979. Id.

When EEOC gained authority over CSC‟s functions regarding federal sector employment 

discrimination in 1979, it decided to keep the existing process in place until a detailed study 

could be completed. Id. Thus, the Commission adopted the CSC regulations with only minor 

technical changes. 43 Fed. Reg. 60,900 (Dec. 29, 1978). The regulations were moved from 

5 C.F.R. Part 713 and re-designated at 29 C.F.R. Part 1613, effective January 1, 1979. Id.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

P - v 

In the early 1980s, the Commission amended its regulations with respect to the issue of remedies 

for complainants alleging discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, in 

October 1981, the Commission amended its regulations to authorize back pay to applicants for 

federal employment who successfully proved disability discrimination in order to comply with 

the 1978 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 46 Fed. Reg. 51,384 (Oct. 20, 1981). 

The 1978 amendments provided that prevailing complainants of disability discrimination were 

entitled to the same remedies as those provided under Title VII. Id. The Commission‟s 

amendments deleted the provision in the regulations prohibiting back pay awards to applicants 

aggrieved by disability discrimination. Id. 

During the mid-1980s, the Commission significantly revised its regulations governing the 

processing of federal sector complaints. Initially, the regulations were amended in 1985, to 

provide for a special panel to resolve conflicts between the MSPB and the EEOC. 50 Fed. Reg. 

53,897 (Dec. 27, 1985). Subpart D, Processing Mixed Case Complaints, was amended to 

provide for a means to refer cases to a special panel, the organization of the special panel, and 

the procedures of the panel. Id. Subsequently, the Commission revised it regulations, effective 

November 30, 1987. 52 Fed. Reg. 41,920 (Oct. 30, 1987). The revised regulations encompassed 

numerous changes including providing additional grounds for dismissing complaints, as well as 

providing a right of appeal for complainants alleging breach of a settlement agreement. Id. In 

addition, the Commission in 1987, renamed complaints examiners to Administrative Judges 

(effective March 30, 1987), in order to “reflect more accurately the nature of the position.” 

52 Fed. Reg. 10085 (Mar. 30, 1987). 

III. THE 1990s to the Present 

The 1990s also represented a time of significant change to the Commission‟s regulations 

governing the processing of federal sector complaints. The Commission issued revised 

regulations effective October 1, 1992. 57 Fed. Reg. 12,634 (Apr. 10, 1992). These revisions 

moved the regulations from 29 C.F.R. Part 1613 to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Id. Part 1614 was 

organized differently than the prior version of the regulations. Id. Specifically, Part 1613 

contained separate subparts for each type of complaint (Title VII complaints, age complaints, 

mixed case complaints etc.). Part 1614 consolidated the procedures as much as possible in an 

effort to avoid repetition. Id. One noteworthy change encompassed in the 1992 revisions was 

extending the time limit to contact an EEO Counselor from 30 days to 45 days. 57 Fed. Reg. 

12,635 (Apr. 10, 1992). 

Pursuant to the recommendations of a Federal Sector Workgroup, comprised of representatives 

from various offices throughout EEOC, the Commission revised its regulations again in 1999, 

effective November 9, 1999. 64 Fed. Reg. 37, 644 (July 12, 1999). Some of the significant 

changes to the regulations included: a requirement that agencies establish an alternative dispute 

resolution program, providing additional grounds for dismissal, providing Commission 

Administrative Judges with the authority to dismiss complaints, and making Administrative 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

P - vi 

Judge decision final decisions without potential agency modification. 64 Fed. Reg. 37, 644-

37,645; 37,650 (July 12, 1999). In addition, the revised regulations implemented changes to the 

provisions governing class complaints to ensure that complaints “raising class claims are not 

unjustifiably denied class certification and are resolved under the appropriate legal standards 

consistent” with the federal courts. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,651 (July 12, 1999). Moreover, the 

Commission issued guidance regarding its new regulations in EEO Management Directive-110 

(MD-110) (Nov. 9, 1999). 

In 1992, Congress amended section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act to adopt the employment 

nondiscrimination standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 67 Fed. Reg. 35,732 

(May 21, 2002). Effective June 20, 2002, the Commission deleted from its regulations the text 

of its old section 501 regulation, at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203. Id. The new text of § 1614.203 

provides, in pertinent part, that the standards used to determine whether section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination shall be 

the standards applied under the ADA. 67 Fed. Reg. 35,735 (May 21, 2002). 

In an effort to clarify its procedures on mixed case complaints, the Commission issued EEO 

Management Bulletin 100-1 (EEO MB 100-1) on October 24, 2003. This bulletin advises 

agencies to delete from their copies of EEO MD-110, Section II.B.4.d in Chapter 4. EEO-MB 

100-1 (Oct. 24, 2003). This section advised agency representatives to file a motion with an 

MSPB Administrative Judge to consolidate matters that were not within their jurisdiction with 

matters that were properly before the MSPB Administrative Judge. Id. The MSPB notified the 

Commission that this section was improper because it constituted a request for an MSPB 

Administrative Judge to hear matters that may not be within the jurisdiction of the MSPB. Id.

In 2004, the process that led to the current regulatory revisions began when the Commission 

created a workgroup to develop consensus recommendations from the Commissioners for 

improvements to the federal sector EEO complaint process. The workgroup considered a 

number of items including testimony and submissions from a November 12, 2002 Commission 

meeting on federal sector reform, staff proposals, and submissions from internal and external 

stakeholders including the National Employment Lawyers Association and the Commission‟s 

union. The workgroup determined that while there was no consensus among the Commissioners 

for large-scale revision of the federal sector EEO process, there was agreement on several 

discrete changes to the existing regulations that would clarify or build on the 1999 Part 1614 

revisions. 

Based on the workgroup‟s recommendations, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was 

drafted that amended certain sections of 29 C.F.R. 1614. The Commission approved the draft 

NPRM on June 2, 2008, circulated it to federal agencies on June 4, 2008, pursuant to EO 12067, 

and gave agencies two months to submit comments. Thirty-three (33) agencies or agency 

components submitted comments. After coordination with the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the commenting agencies, the Commission formally submitted the draft 

NPRM to OMB for review under EO 12866 on July 27, 2009. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

P - vii 

The Commission approved the NPRM on December 9, 2009, and published it in the Federal 

Register on December 21, 2009. The Commission received 35 public comments: 14 from 

federal agencies; 6 from individuals; 5 from civil rights groups; 5 from members of the bar, and 

5 from unions or other groups. The Commission issued the Final Rule, with public comments 

discussed in the preamble, on July 25, 2012. 

The final rule contains a number of key revisions to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614: 

 As part of the Commission‟s authority to review agency programs for compliance with 

Commission directives and guidelines that promote equal employment opportunity in the 

federal workplace, the Commission can issue notices to agencies when non-compliance is 

found and not corrected. 

 Agencies can seek approval from the Commission to conduct pilot projects in which the 

complaint processing procedures vary from the requirements of Part 1614. 

 A complaint that alleges that a proposal or preliminary step to taking a personnel action is 

discriminatory can be dismissed, unless the complainant alleges that the proposal is 

retaliatory. 

 An agency that has not completed its investigation in a timely manner must inform the 

complainant in writing that the investigation is not complete, provide an estimated date of 

completion, and remind the complainant that s/he has a current right to request a hearing 

or file a lawsuit. 

 An Administrative Judge‟s decision on the merits of a class complaint is a final decision, 

rather than a recommended decision, which an agency can implement or appeal. 

 Agencies must submit appeals and complaint files to the Commission in a digital format, 

unless they can establish good cause for not doing so. Complainants are encouraged to 

submit digital filings. 

 The rule also required that the Commission provide guidance regarding the changes made 

by the final rule and continue to assess the federal sector EEO complaint process with a 

view to further improvements. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-1

CHAPTER 1 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND AGENCY 

AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 

I. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) enforces five federal 

laws that prohibit employment discrimination against applicants for employment, current 

employees or former employees, including those in the federal workforce: Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, religion, sex, or national origin); the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (prohibiting agencies 

from paying different wages to men and women performing equal work in the same work 

place); the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibiting 

discrimination against persons age 40 or older); Sections 501 and 505 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 

disability) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

(prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information). 

The Commission provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of 

the federal government's equal employment opportunity program. The Commission 

ensures federal agency and department compliance with Commission regulations, 

provides technical assistance to federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, 

monitors and evaluates federal agencies' affirmative employment programs, develops and 

distributes federal sector educational materials and conducts training for stakeholders, 

provides guidance and assistance to our Administrative Judges who conduct hearings on 

EEO complaints, and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by federal 

agencies on EEO complaints. 

To carry out these duties, the Commission is authorized to issue rules, regulations, orders, 

and instructions governing the federal sector pursuant to section 717(b) of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(b); section 15(b) of the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(b); section 505(a)(1) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1); the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff10; the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; section 303 of the Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Pub. L. 107-174; 

Executive Order 12067, 43 Fed. Reg. 28,967 (1978); and Executive Order 11478, 34 Fed. 

Reg. 12,985 (1969), as amended by Executive Order 12106 (1979). It is pursuant to 

these authorities that the Commission issues this Management Directive. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-2

In furtherance of its mission, to stop and remedy unlawful employment discrimination, 

the Commission will from time to time review agency programs and provide guidance 

regarding whether they are in compliance with the Commission‟s rules, regulations, 

orders, management directives, management bulletins and any other instructions issued 

by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(e). It is the intent of the Commission to 

assist agencies in perfecting their EEO programs and to avoid or rectify any deficiencies 

in their programs that prevent them from reaching the statutory mandate of being model 

workplaces free from unlawful discrimination. 

II. FEDERAL AGENCY1

Federal agencies are required by statute not to engage in discrimination on the bases of 

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information or 

retaliation. A federal employee, former employee or job applicant who believes they 

were discriminated against has a right to file a complaint with the agency‟s office

responsible for its EEO programs. Federal agencies must offer pre-complaint counseling 

or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to individuals who allege that they were 

discriminated against by the agency. If pre-complaint counseling or ADR does not 

resolve the dispute(s), the individual can file a formal discrimination complaint with the 

agency‟s EEO office. The agency may dismiss the complaint for certain procedural 

reasons or conduct an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency 

will issue a notice that provides the complainant with the option of either requesting a 

hearing before a Commission Administrative Judge or having the agency issue a final 

agency decision. The final agency action can be appealed to the Commission or 

challenged in a U.S. District court. The responsibility which the agency has to 

investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination stems from the statutory obligation 

which states that federal agencies have primary responsibility to ensure 

nondiscrimination in employment. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16(e).

In light of the significant responsibility agencies have for ensuring the integrity of the 

EEO process, agency programs must comply with the rules, regulations, orders and 

 

1The term “federal agency” or “agency,” as used in this Management Directive, applies to military 

departments as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 102, executive agencies as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105, the U.S. Postal 

Service, Postal Regulatory Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, the Government Printing Office (except for 

complaints under the Rehabilitation Act), and the Smithsonian Institution. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(b). 

The term also may include such other agencies, administrations, bureaus, (sub-components) as may be 

established within the above-listed that are given the authority to establish a separate unit tasked with 

implementing an agency program consistent with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102. Where such 

sub-components have been so authorized, the EEO Director shall be under the immediate supervision of 

the head of the sub-component. The sub-component EEO Director may, in the alternative, report to either 

the EEO Director of the parent organization or to the head of the parent organization. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-3

instructions issued by the Commission to ensure that complaints of employment 

discrimination are resolved fairly and quickly. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(e) clearly sets forth 

both the authority of the Commission over the federal sector EEO programs and the duty 

of federal agencies to maintain EEO programs in a manner consistent with the mandatory 

directives of the Commission. 

III. EEO DIRECTOR’S2 INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AND REPORTING 

RELATIONSHIPS 

A. Federal Agencies Must Appoint an EEO Director Who Shall Be Responsible 

for: 

1. implementing a continuing affirmative employment program to promote 

equal employment opportunity; 

2. identifying and eliminating discriminatory practices and policies, 

including the counseling of individuals and the fair and impartial 

investigations of complaints; and 

3. advising the agency head on matters related to equality of opportunity. 

B. The EEO Director Must Report Directly to the Agency Head 

To ensure that federal agencies achieve their goal of being a model workplace, all 

managers and employees must see equal employment opportunity as an integral 

part of the agency‟s strategic mission. Commission regulations require that the 

EEO Director “be under the immediate supervision of the agency head.” 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(4). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the 

EEO Director has the access and authority to ensure that the agency truly 

considers the elimination of workplace discrimination to be a fundamental aspect 

of the agency‟s mission.

In order to maintain and exercise the independent authority required of the 

position, the EEO Director cannot be placed under the supervision of the agency‟s

Chief Human Capital Officer or other officials responsible for executing and 

 

2EEO Director in this Directive refers to Director of Civil Rights, EEO Officer, Complaints 

Manager or any other title used for the position that is responsible for carrying out the responsibilities set 

forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(c).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-4

advising on personnel actions or providing the agency with a legal defense to 

claims of discrimination, such as the Office of General Counsel. 

By placing the EEO Director in a direct reporting relationship to the head of the 

agency, the agency underscores the importance of equal employment opportunity 

to the mission of each federal agency and ensures that the EEO Director is able to 

act with the greatest degree of independence. 

This unfiltered relationship allows the agency head to have a clear understanding 

of EEO factors when making organizational decisions. Placing the EEO Director 

under the authority of others within the agency may undermine the EEO 

Director=s independence, especially where the person or entity to which the EEO 

Director reports is involved in, or would be affected by, the actions of the EEO 

Director in the performance of his/her implementation of the agency program set 

forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102.

IV. AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

It is important to note that prior to the issuance of the final agency action, the agency is 

responsible for the fair, impartial processing and resolution of complaints of employment 

discrimination. Only when the employee opts to move the matter to the Commission or U.S. 

District court, does the process become adversarial for the agency. The primary role of an 

agency representative in the EEO process is to provide diligent representation to the agency in 

the adversarial portion of the process. 

Federal agencies thus have a unique role to play in ensuring equal employment opportunity. 

First, every agency head has a statutory obligation to eradicate unlawful employment 

discrimination that may occur within the agency. This anti-discrimination responsibility is what 

requires federal agencies to administer a fair and impartial investigative process designed to 

determine the validity of complaints, as well as to employ affirmative efforts to root out 

discrimination and ensure equal employment opportunity. The Director of the Office responsible 

for the agency‟s EEO programs within the agency (or other comparable representative) is 

designated by the agency head to carry out this obligation. 

At the same time, the agency head has a fiduciary obligation to defend the agency against legal 

challenges brought against it, including charges of discrimination. The General Counsel of the 

agency (or a comparable legal representative) is designated by the agency head to carry out this 

obligation. 

Some may view the agency‟s investigative process as inherently biased because the agency 

accused of discrimination is the same agency that is charged with administering the EEO 

investigative process. But the statute requires that an agency conduct a fair and impartial 

investigation and issue a “final action” on a complaint of discrimination, and Commission 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-5

regulations establish a comprehensive system through which agencies must issue these final 

agency actions. Nevertheless, as the Commission‟s regulations make clear, and as this 

management directive reinforces, a federal agency head is obligated to protect both the integrity 

of the agency‟s EEO process and the legal interests of the agency.

29 C.F.R. §1614.102(e) sets forth the authority of the Commission over the federal sector EEO 

programs and the duty of federal agencies to maintain EEO programs in a manner consistent 

with the mandatory directives of the Commission.

A. Separation of EEO Complaint Program From the Agency’s Personnel 

Function 

The EEO complaint program is an integral part of the agency‟s “affirmative 

program to promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate 

discriminatory practices and policies.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102. To carry out 

this function in an impartial manner, the agency‟s personnel function must be kept 

separate from the EEO complaint process. The same agency official(s) 

responsible for executing and advising on personnel actions may not also be 

responsible for managing, advising, or overseeing the EEO pre-complaint or 

complaint processes. The EEO processes often scrutinize and challenge the 

motivations and impacts of personnel actions and decisions. In order to maintain 

the integrity of the EEO investigative and decision-making processes, those EEO 

functions must be kept separate from the personnel function. 

B. Complaints That Present Potential Conflicts of Interest 

1. When the Alleged Responsible Management Official is the Head of the 

Agency

A conflict of interest may exist when the responsible management official 

alleged to have engaged in discriminatory conduct is the agency head or a 

member of the immediate staff of the agency head, or occupies a highlevel position of influence in the agency. Real or perceived conflict may 

occur as a result of the undue influence that the high level official may 

have over the EEO Director and other involved agency personnel. 

Whether this conflict is real or presents the appearance of a conflict, the 

matter must be addressed through procedures designed to safeguard the 

integrity of the EEO complaint process. For example, when an EEO 

complaint alleges that the agency head or a member of his/her immediate 

staff has engaged in discrimination, the agency head shall recuse 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-6

him/herself from the decision making process, and engage an official 

outside his/her chain of command to issue a final action on the case. 

2. When the Alleged Responsible Management Official is the EEO 

Director or Supervisor in the EEO Office

If an employee wishes to file a complaint alleging discrimination by the 

EEO Director or another supervisor in the EEO office, a real or perceived 

conflict may exist because the interests of the responding official would 

challenge the objectivity or perceived objectivity of the EEO office. This 

matter must be addressed through procedures designed to safeguard the 

integrity of the EEO complaint process. For example, when an EEO 

complaint alleges that the EEO Director or a member of his/her immediate 

staff discriminated, the EEO Director shall recuse him/herself and retain a 

3

rd party to conduct the counseling, investigation, and draft the final 

agency decision for the agency head to issue. 

C. Agencies Must Avoid Conflicts of Interest in Processing Complaints 

Agencies are required to develop an impartial factual record in accordance with 

the instructions contained in this Management Directive. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108(b). Therefore, agencies must develop procedures for investigating 

complaints in which it is perceived that the EEO office would have an actual or 

perceived conflict of interest. In developing an impartial record where a conflict 

of interest or the appearance of a conflict exists, agencies should consider the 

following: 

1. Formal or Informal Arrangements

Agencies should consider whether the EEO program would be best served 

by entering into a formal contract with a third party or whether an 

informal arrangement with a third party would suffice. When establishing 

a formal contract, many agencies enter into interagency agreements with 

other agencies to handle one or more of the stages in the EEO process. 

See Appendix A for a sample Interagency Agreement. Other agencies 

have developed informal arrangements with a third party, whereby the 

third party provides EEO services on an as-needed basis. 

Agencies should consider the best source from which to obtain a third 

party. Agencies have reported using private contractors, parallel subcomponents within a department or agency, and other federal agencies. 

The Commission does not endorse any particular type of third party over 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-7

any other. However, agencies should ensure that the third party adheres to 

the applicable requirements established in this Management Directive. 

2. Stages of the EEO Process

Agencies should assess the stages of the EEO complaint process at which 

the assistance of a third party would be most effective. Many agencies 

assign a third party the responsibility of providing counseling, 

administering ADR, conducting the investigation, and/or writing the 

accept/dismiss letter and/or the final agency action. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.110(a), the agency is responsible to issue a final order either fully 

implementing an Administrative Judge‟s decision or not fully 

implementing and appealing the Administrative Judge‟s decision; pursuant 

to 29 C.F.R. §1614.110(b), the agency is responsible for taking final 

action by issuing a final agency decision (FAD). Although the agency 

must issue the final action, it may assign a third party to write the final 

action and review the final action before issuance. 

D. Separation of EEO Complaint Program from Agency's Defensive Function 

Heads of agencies must manage the dual obligations of carrying out fair and 

impartial investigations of complaints that result in final agency determinations on 

whether discrimination has occurred and defending the agency against claims of 

employment discrimination. Only through the vigilant separation of the 

investigative and defensive functions can this inherent tension be managed. 

Ensuring a clear separation between the agency‟s EEO complaint program and the 

agency‟s defensive function is thus the essential underpinning of a fair and 

impartial investigation, and enhances the credibility of the EEO office and the 

integrity of the EEO complaints process. 

There must be a firewall between the EEO function and the agency‟s defensive 

function. The firewall will ensure that actions taken by the agency to protect 

itself from legal liability will not contaminate the agency‟s process for 

determining whether discrimination has occurred and, if such discrimination did 

occur, for remedying it at the earliest stage possible. 

The various means of ensuring this firewall are set forth in Section E below. In 

addition, is it important for the EEO Director to be provided with sufficient legal 

resources (either directly or through contracts) so that the legal analyses necessary 

for reaching final agency decisions can be made within the autonomous EEO 

office. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-8

At a minimum, however, the legal office that represents the agency in EEO 

complaints may not conduct legal sufficiency reviews of EEO matters. Similarly, 

impartiality or the appearance of impartiality is not ensured by simply rotating 

representatives within the same office and is undermined where the office 

colleagues of an agency representative are assigned the legal sufficiency function 

in EEO cases from the representative‟s caseload. 

The following sections provide answers to commonly asked questions regarding 

the appropriate role of those defending the agency during the EEO counseling and 

investigative processes. 

E. Questions and Answers Clarifying Proper Roles of an Agency 

Representative3in the EEO Administrative Complaint Process 

(Q1) May an agency representative participate in settlement attempts during the informal 

stage of the EEO process? 

(A1) Yes. Either party may have a representative present during settlement attempts.

(Q2) May an agency representative accompany a management official to a meeting with 

an EEO Counselor concerning an informal complaint? 

(A2) Yes. An agency representative may accompany a management official to a 

meeting with an EEO Counselor at the request of the management official. The 

agency representative may advise the management official of his or her rights and 

responsibilities and represent the agency‟s interest in facilitating resolution of the 

complaint. The EEO Counselor should not defer to the counsel/representative or 

allow the counsel/representative to interfere in the performance of the Counselor‟s 

duties. 

(Q3) May an Agency representative participate in activities conducted by the EEO 

Counselor during the informal process? 

(A3) No. Other than the situations described in Q1 and Q2, the Agency 

representative may not question witnesses or in any way attempt to consult/direct the 

EEO counseling process. 

 

3The term “agency representative” refers to any or all agency employees whose job duties include 

defending the agency‟s personnel policies and/or actions. The term is not limited to attorneys employed 

in an agency‟s Office of General Counsel or Office of Legal Counsel. The term also includes nonattorney employees whose job duties include defending the agency‟s personnel policies and/or actions, for 

example, labor relations specialists. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-9

(Q4) Is an agency representative the personal representative of the management official? 

(A4) No. The agency representative represents the agency. However, to the extent 

that management officials are acting within their official capacity and their interests 

are consistent with the agency‟s interests, the agency may permit the agency 

representative to provide representation to the management official during the EEO 

process. At no time during the EEO administrative process is an individual 

management official considered a party to the complaint. Rather, during the EEO 

administrative process, management officials are considered witnesses. 

(Q5) May an agency representative be involved in deciding whether or not to accept a 

complaint for investigation? 

(A5) No. In order to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the EEO process, an 

agency representative may not be involved in deciding whether or not to accept a 

complaint for investigation, or to determine which bases and issues are to be 

accepted. 

(Q6) May an agency require the EEO office to accept legal advice from the agency 

representative on how to conduct an EEO investigation? 

(A6) No. In order to preserve the integrity and neutrality of the EEO process, the 

agency representative may not advise the EEO office concerning any aspect of an 

EEO investigation unless requested to do so by the EEO office. The EEO office must 

be free to follow, or reject, the advice given. Advice can be provided by an attorney 

within the EEO office or an attorney in a unit separate and apart from the unit that 

provides representation to the agency. However, it would be a conflict, for example, 

for the individual who represented the agency in an EEO hearing to subsequently play 

a role in decisions with respect to EEO investigations involving the same 

complainant. 

(Q7) May an agency representative review documents during the investigation? 

(A7) Generally, no. The investigative process is a non-adversarial fact finding 

process. The role of the investigator in gathering information concerning the claim(s) 

in the complaint is to obtain unbiased, objective, and impartial information and facts 

regarding the allegations. The investigator has discretion to determine what 

documents and information would facilitate the investigation. The investigator also 

has the discretion to determine whether to disclose information and documents 

obtained during the investigation. For example, neither management officials nor 

agency representatives are entitled to review complainant‟s affidavit or the statements 

of other non-management witnesses unless the investigator decides that it would 

facilitate the investigation to disclose that information. However, if a witness is a 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-10

management official, such official may consult with agency counsel for information 

to assist the official in responding to the inquiry.4 This is not, however, a 

requirement, and agencies must not require that management officials‟ investigative 

responses be reviewed/approved by agency counsel. 

(Q8) May an agency representative accompany a management official, who is alleged to 

have engaged in an unlawful employment action, to a meeting with an EEO Investigator? 

(A8) Yes. An agency representative may accompany a management official who 

is alleged to have engaged in an unlawful employment action to an interview with 

an EEO Investigator at the request of the agency or the management official. The 

agency representative may advise the management official of his or her rights and 

responsibilities and participate in efforts to resolve the complaint. The EEO 

Investigator should be careful not to defer to the counsel/representative during the 

interview. The counsel/representative should be careful not to interfere with the 

performance of the Investigator‟s duties during the interview. 

(Q9) May an agency representative accompany managerial agency personnel who are 

not the subject of the complaint to interviews with an EEO investigator? 

(A9) Yes. Managers can request the advice of an agency representative during 

EEO interviews as they can for any matters related to their performance of their 

official duties because managers are agency agents whose actions are legally 

binding on the agency. However, the agency representative does not represent the 

manager in his/her personal capacity; the agency representative represents the 

manager in the manager's official capacity only. Therefore, if a manager requests 

an agency representative, the agency should consider whether the agency‟s and 

manager‟s interests coincide. Furthermore, because the investigation of an EEO 

complaint is not an adversarial process, the agency representative‟s role during 

the interview is limited to advising the manager witness. The agency 

representative may not ask questions, make objections, or otherwise play a 

defensive role for the agency. 

(Q10) May an agency representative accompany non-managerial agency personnel who 

are not the subject of the complaint to interviews with an EEO investigator? 

 

4

See, Rucker v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120082225 (February 4, 2011) 

(Participants in EEO investigations should be assured that they can give candid, truthful responses to 

EEO investigators. The agency must avoid actions that might create the appearance that it is influencing 

employees‟ responses to EEO investigators.)
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-11

(A10) No. The investigation of a complaint is not an adversarial process and there is 

no defensive role for the agency during the investigation. However, the witness may 

consult with personal counsel and bring them to the interview at their own expense. 

(Q11) May an agency representative make suggestions to the investigator regarding 

which documents to obtain or witnesses to interview? 

(A11) Yes. An agency representative and anyone else with knowledge of the matter 

may suggest or submit to the investigator relevant documents and witnesses. 

However, an agency representative cannot require the investigator to obtain certain 

documents or interview certain witnesses. Furthermore, an agency representative 

may not control the means and methods of the investigation. The means and methods 

of the investigation are solely within the discretion of the investigator. The 

investigator is obligated to collect evidence regardless of the parties‟ positions with 

respect to the items of evidence. Investigative inquiries may include any fact-finding 

methods that the investigator decides will efficiently and thoroughly address the 

matters at issue, including but not limited to: personal interviews, depositions, factfinding conferences, requests for information, position statements, exchange of letters 

or memoranda, interrogatories and affidavits. 

(Q12) May an agency representative review the affidavit of a management official who 

is the subject of a complaint of employment discrimination? 

(A12) Yes. Because the agency will be accountable for the actions of a management 

official who is the subject of a complaint of employment discrimination, an agency 

representative may review such management official‟s affidavit. However, agency 

representative should not direct the witness in how to respond to the questions 

contained in the affidavit. 

(Q13) May an agency representative review and comment on a draft report of 

investigation (ROI)? 

(A13) Generally no. However if the EEO office affords the complainant the 

opportunity to review the draft ROI before it is finalized and comment on any 

perceived deficiencies, the agency representative may also be afforded the 

opportunity to review and comment. 

(Q14) May an agency representative review a draft of an agency‟s final decision on the 

merits of an EEO complaint before it is issued? 

(A14) No. Legal sufficiency reviews must be handled by an individual or functional 

unit that is separate and apart from the agency representative and his/her functional 

unit. Because the EEO Director is acting as an adjudicator of the complaint when 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-12

s/he issues a final decision, it would be inappropriate for the agency representative to 

review or suggest any modifications to a draft final agency decision. An EEO 

Director may seek legal advice from any individual or unit that is separate and apart 

from the unit that handles agency representation in EEO complaints. Each agency 

must provide sufficient resources for its EEO office in order to ensure the legal 

sufficiency of its final actions. As noted above, the optimal situation is for the EEO 

office to have sufficient internal legal resources to draft final agency actions. 

(Q15) May an agency representative be involved in deciding whether or not to appeal a 

decision issued by a Commission Administrative Judge? 

(A15) Yes. When an Administrative Judge issues a decision, the administrative EEO 

complaint process allows both parties to the complaint the right to appeal to the 

Commission. The complainant may appeal the agency‟s final action on the 

complaint, and the agency must appeal from an Administrative Judge‟s decision if its 

final order does not fully implement the decision of the Administrative Judge. Unlike 

the issuance of a final decision without a hearing, where a decision is issued by a 

Commission Administrative Judge, the agency is no longer responsible for 

adjudicating the complaint, but rather is determining whether, as a party to the matter, 

to appeal from the Administrative Judge‟s decision. Therefore, an agency 

representative cannot make the decision but may, if requested, counsel the person 

designated with the responsibility with deciding whether to appeal a decision by an 

Administrative Judge.

(Q16) May an agency representative be involved in deciding whether or not to request 

reconsideration of a decision issued by the Commission on appeal? 

(A16) Yes. For the same reasons stated in Question No. 15, an agency representative 

may also counsel the person who decides whether to request reconsideration of a 

decision issued by the Commission on appeal. 

V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES 

The agency must designate an individual to attend settlement discussions convened by a 

Commission Administrative Judge or to participate in alternative dispute resolution 

(ADR) attempts. Agencies should include an official with settlement authority during all 

settlement discussions and at all ADR meetings, (note: the agency‟s official with 

settlement authority should not be the responsible management official or agency official 

directly involved in the case). The probability of achieving resolution of a dispute 

improves significantly if the designated agency official has the authority to agree 

immediately to a resolution reached between the parties. If an official with settlement 

authority is not present at the settlement or ADR negotiations, such official must be 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-13

immediately accessible to the agency representative during settlement discussions or 

ADR. 

VI. SPECIAL EMPHASIS PROGRAM 

The head of the agency shall designate an Equal Employment Opportunity Officer(s) and 

such Special Emphasis Program Managers, clerical, and administrative support as may be 

necessary to carry out the functions described in Part 1614 in all organizational units of 

the agency and at all agency installations. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(4). 

Special Emphasis Program Managers should include managers of the Program for 

Employees with Disabilities, the Federal Women's Program, Hispanic Employment 

Program and such other programs as may be required by the Office of Personnel 

Management or the particular agency. 

An agency head may delegate authority under this part to one or more designees. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.607. 

VII. EEO OFFICIALS CANNOT SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVES 

EEO officials must have the confidence of the agency and its employees. It is 

inconsistent with their neutral roles for EEO counselors, EEO investigators, EEO 

program managers, or EEO Directors to represent agencies or complainants in the EEO 

complaint process. Therefore, persons in these positions cannot serve as representatives 

for complainants or for agencies in connection with the processing of discrimination 

complaints. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(c) (disqualification of representatives for conflict 

of duties). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-14

VIII. AGENCY STATISTICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

COMPLAINT PROCESS 

A. Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of 

Discrimination Complaints 

The Commission requires each covered agency to use the EEOC Form 462 

Annual Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Statistical Report of 

Discrimination Complaints to provide an annual report of the status of all precomplaints and formal complaints processed under its EEO complaints program. 

See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.602(a). The Commission annually provides detailed 

instructions for reporting the data in an EEOC Form 462 User‟s Instruction 

Manual located on the Guidance page of the Commission‟s electronic document 

submission portal. 

B. Quarterly and Fiscal Year EEO Complaint Statistics Required by Title III of 

the No FEAR Act 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.703, agencies are required to post cumulative 

quarterly and fiscal year EEO complaint statistics, titled “Equal Employment 

Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to Title III of the Notification and Federal 

Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), 

Pub. L. 107-174” on the home page of the agency‟s public web site. Agencies 

should provide a hyperlink to the statistical data entitled “No FEAR Act Data,”

Section 1614.704 of 29 C.F.R. sets forth the list of statistical data the agency must 

post. Additional information regarding No FEAR Act posting can be found at 

http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/index.cfm.

C. Annual Report to Congress, EEOC and the U.S. Attorney General Required 

by Title II of the No FEAR Act 

Title II of the No FEAR Act of 2002 requires each federal agency to submit to 

Congress, the Commission and the Attorney General an annual report that 

includes the agency‟s fiscal year Equal Employment Opportunity complaint 

statistics among other requirements. More information on the No FEAR Act 

annual report requirements can be found in 5 C.F.R. §§ 724.301-302. All No 

FEAR Act reports should be sent to the 

Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

c/o Office of Federal Operations 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-15

Attention: No FEAR Act Report Coordinator 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

or submitted electronically through the Commission‟s electronic document 

submission portal. 

Other Commission reporting requirements are set forth in Management Directive 

715 issued in October 2003 that is located on the Commission‟s web site at

http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715.cfm. 

IX. PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE 

Agency programs will be reviewed for compliance with Commission rules, regulations, 

orders, Management Directives, Management Bulletins or any other instructions issued 

by the Commission. Due to the variation in the requirements set forth in the above 

issuances the method of review may vary, depending on the requirement(s) at issue. A 

review may result from multiple sources: 1) monitoring agency submissions including 

complaint files, plans and reports; 2) monitoring correspondence and news media for 

reports of agency action or non-action indicative of compliant or noncompliant activity; 

3) requesting information directly from the agency; and 4) onsite visits or virtual 

conferences. 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(e), in cases where any of an agency‟s EEO programs or 

activities are found not to be in compliance with a Commission issuance, the agency will 

be notified of such non-compliance, and the agency will be given the opportunity to 

respond to the Commission. The agency‟s response should contain a statement of the 

agency‟s compliance, a plan to bring the program or activity into compliance or a 

justification as to why the agency will not comply. Failure to respond or an inadequate 

agency response will result in escalation to the next step in this process. 

A. Notice to Agency of Non-Compliance 

In cases where non-compliance is discovered, the agency EEO Director or 

responsible Program Manager will be notified in writing of the noncompliance. 

The notice will include: 

1) the requirement with which the Commission believes that the agency is 

not in compliance and the source of that requirement; 

2) a statement explaining how the Commission became aware of the 

noncompliance; 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-16

3) a statement as to how the agency is not in compliance and the basis for 

that conclusion; 

4) a stated period of time to cure the noncompliance with recommended 

actions; and 

5) a stated period of time in which the agency may establish that it is, in fact, 

in compliance or a stated period of time to establish a justification for the 

non-compliance. 

B. Written Notice to Head of Federal Agency 

The Chair of the Commission may issue a notice to the head of the agency whose 

program is non-compliant when an agency head fails to be responsive and/or 

where efforts to assist the agency in reaching compliance through the steps set 

forth in Section IX.A fail. The notice to the agency head will include: 

1) the compliance requirement with which the Commission believes the 

agency is not complying and the source of that compliance requirement; 

2) a statement explaining how the Commission became aware of the 

noncompliance; 

3) the efforts undertaken by the Commission‟s Office of Federal Operations 

to obtain compliance; 

4) the agency response to the Commission‟s efforts; and

5) a stated period of time within which the agency head must respond with a 

plan to bring the program into compliance. 

C. Public Notification of Non-Compliance 

Where the head of the agency fails to respond timely and in good faith with a 

plan that the Director of Federal Operations believes is sufficient to bring the 

agency program into compliance, the Chair of the Commission will publically 

identify the non-compliant agency and the factual bases surrounding the noncompliance. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-17

1. The Chair will evaluate the repercussions and reach of the effect of the 

non-compliance on equal employment opportunity and publish or 

publically identify the fact of non-compliance in a manner reflective of the 

reach and severity of the harm. 

2. Public identification may occur by using, among other means, publication 

in the Annual Report to Congress, a press release, posting some form of 

notice of non-compliance on the Commissions‟s public website, or any 

other means the Chair deems appropriate. 

X. Pilot Projects 

Unless prohibited by law or executive order, the Commission, in its discretion and for 

good cause shown, may grant agencies prospective variances from the complaint 

processing procedures prescribed in 29 C.F.R Part 1614. Variances will permit agencies 

to conduct pilot projects of proposed changes to the complaint processing requirements of 

29 C.F.R Part 1614 that may later be made permanent through regulatory change. See 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(f). 

A. Request for Pilot Authority 

Agencies requesting variances must submit in writing a request for pilot authority. In its 

written request, the agency requesting a variance must: 

1. identify the specific section(s) of 29 C.F.R Part 1614 from which it wishes

to deviate and provide a summary description of what it proposes to do 

instead; 

2. provide information clearly defining the stages in the pilot project and 

how matters will progress to completion within the pilot project; 

3. explain the expected benefits and expected effect on the EEO complaints 

process of the proposed pilot project; 

4. certify that the pilot project will ensure fairness and neutrality with the 

ultimate goal of achieving equality of employment opportunity; 

5. state how the agency intends to maintain an adequate record for a potential 

hearing or appeal; 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

1-18

6. submit information demonstrating the agency‟s current status of operating 

within regulatory guidelines for complaint processing (information should 

include EEO Form 462 timeliness indicators, Management Directive 715 

self-assessment, and any third-party evaluations, such Commission 

program evaluations, OIG evaluation reports, or GAO reports); 

7. provide a written description of the knowing and voluntary opt-in 

provision for participants; 

8. indicate the proposed duration of the pilot project; 

9. describe the method to be used to inform agency employees and applicants 

of the pilot project; and 

10. explain the method by which it intends to evaluate the success of the pilot 

project on an interim basis and at the completion of the pilot project, 

including identification of well-defined, clear and measurable objectives 

and their connection to program objectives, the criteria for determining 

pilot project performance, a way to isolate the effects of the pilot project 

and how data will be collected for evaluation purposes. 

B. Process for Submitting, Reviewing, and Approving Pilot Projects 

The Commission will annually review and evaluate requests for pilot authority. Agencies 

should submit their request electronically at the end of the second quarter of the fiscal 

year and the Commission will make its determination by the end of the third quarter. All 

approved pilot projects will begin at the beginning of the next fiscal year and terminate 

not more than 24 months later, unless extended (see below). The process for approval of 

pilot authority follows: 

1. The Commission announces the opening period of the request for pilot 

authority at the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year (March 31st). 

2. Agencies submit requests to the Office of Federal Operations by April 

15th. 

3. The Office of Federal Operations reviews requests and makes 

recommendations (completed by May 15th). 

4. The Office of Federal Operations submits requests and recommendations 

to the Commission by May 15th. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

1-19

5. The Commission review, including a briefing period regarding the 

requests for variances and recommendations from the Office of Federal 

Operations, will be completed within 30 days (or by June 15th). 

6. The Commission votes on approval of requests for pilot authorities. 

7. The Office of Federal Operations sends Commission determinations to 

proposing agencies. 

8. Pilot projects must begin the first day of the next fiscal year (October 1st). 

9. The 24 month maximum timeframe for pilot projects will permit agencies 

to accept complaints into the pilot projects for up to 24 months, and allow 

agencies a reasonable amount of time to conclude the processing of those 

complaints. 

10. Agencies administering pilot projects must submit quarterly reports to the 

Office of Federal Operations with information on the total complainants 

opting into the pilot project, the average age of complaints with the pilot 

project, and updated pilot project evaluation data. See Section X.A.10 of 

this Chapter. 

11. Agencies administering pilot projects must submit a final evaluation report 

at the conclusion of the pilot project. The report must provide a detailed 

evaluation of the results of the pilot project and be submitted to the 

Commission within 90 days of the conclusion of the pilot project.

Variances will not be granted for individual cases and will usually not be granted for 

more than 24 months. The Director of the Office of Federal Operations for good cause 

shown may grant requests for extensions of variances for up to an additional 12 months. 

Additionally, the Director of the Office of Federal Operations may terminate an agency‟s 

pilot authority if the agency fails to comply with the requirements of the variance. Prior 

to termination of the pilot authority, the Director of the Office of Federal Operations will 

send a notice to the agency requesting information on compliance with the variance 

provisions. 

Electronic submission of pilot authority requests must be made using email transmission of all 

documents to federalsectoreeo@eeoc.gov or through the Commission‟s electronic document 

submission portal. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-1

CHAPTER 2

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PRE-COMPLAINT PROCESSING 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Counseling Generally 

The EEO process begins when a person who believes s/he has been aggrieved 

meets with an EEO Counselor.1 The EEO Counselor provides vital information 

regarding the EEO process and other processes that may be available to the 

aggrieved individual, gathers basic information regarding the matter(s) from the 

aggrieved individual and attempts to informally resolve the matter(s) if the matter 

does not go to the alternative dispute resolution program. The EEO Counselor 

plays a vital role in ensuring prompt and efficient processing of the formal 

complaint. This section of the Management Directive provides Commission 

guidance and procedures that EEO Counselors should follow when presented with 

individual and class claims of discrimination.2

B. Full-Time Counselors 

Agencies should use full-time EEO Counselors whenever possible. If an agency 

must rely on EEO counselors for whom EEO counseling is a collateral-duty, 

agencies should consider the following best practices: (1) include a timeliness 

component in the performance plan of the collateral-duty EEO Counselors; (2) 

implement a policy to remove EEO Counselors for tardiness or inferior work 

product; and (3) provide incentives for good performance by using on-the-spot 

awards, letters to supervisors, and awards presentations.3

 The Commission also 

 

1The Commission consistently has held that a complainant may satisfy the criterion of EEO 

Counselor contact by initiating contact with any agency official logically connected with the EEO 

process, even if that official is not an EEO Counselor, and by exhibiting an intent to begin the EEO 

process. See Hyman v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100060 (May 26, 2011); 

Walters v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110980 (May 18, 2011); Lodge v. 

Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110847 (May 12, 2011). 

2All time frames set out in this Management Directive are stated in calendar days unless otherwise 

indicated. 

3

For more information, please review the Commission‟s report, “Attaining a Model Agency 

Program: Efficiency” (2004).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-2

encourages agencies to use the step-by-step guide at Appendix B to develop or 

refine its own counseling procedures. 

C. EEO Counselor Training Requirements 

Continuing education and training for employees working in federal sector EEO 

is vitally important to promoting the goals and objectives of equal employment 

opportunity. This Chapter establishes mandatory training requirements for EEO 

Counselors. 

D. EEO Counseling and Investigations 

An EEO Counselor may not serve as an Investigator in a dispute in which s/he 

provided counseling to the aggrieved person. The EEO Counselor‟s role is to 

provide an environment for open dialogue leading to an informal resolution prior 

to the filing of a complaint. The role is compromised if the EEO Counselor also 

serves as an Investigator of the complaint. 

The Commission also discourages agencies from allowing an EEO Counselor to 

act as an Investigator in a different dispute. Combining the roles of Counselor 

and Investigator (even with regard to different disputes) can create a perception of 

bias and potentially confuse individuals with regard to the purpose of the 

counseling process. Therefore, the Commission recommends against using EEO 

Counselors as Investigators, except as a last resort. 

E. EEO Counseling and ADR 

Both alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and EEO counseling are essential to the 

prompt resolution of claims of discrimination. The opportunity for informal 

resolution is important. ADR is a term used to describe a variety of approaches to 

resolving conflict that are different from traditional adjudicatory methods or 

adversarial methods. ADR provides a means of improving the efficiency of the 

federal EEO complaint process by attempting early and informal resolution of 

EEO disputes without the filing of a complaint. 

When an aggrieved person seeks pre-complaint counseling, the individual must 

be fully informed of: 

1. how the agency ADR program works; 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-3

2. the opportunity to participate in the program where the agency agrees to 

offer ADR in a particular case; and 

3. the right to file a formal complaint if ADR does not achieve a resolution. 

II. MANDATORY EEO COUNSELOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 

A. Minimum Requirements 

To ensure quality counseling throughout the federal sector, the Commission 

requires that new EEO Counselors, including contract and collateral duty 

Counselors, receive a minimum of thirty-two (32) hours of EEO Counselor 

training prior to assuming counseling duties. In addition to the training for new 

Counselors, all Counselors are required to receive at least 8 hours of continuing 

counselor training each fiscal year. 

The Commission has developed training courses to satisfy this requirement, and 

offers them to agencies through the EEOC Revolving Fund Program on a fee-forservice basis.4

 Agencies may also develop their own courses to satisfy this 

requirement as long as the training meets the standards set forth by the 

Commission. 

B. Standards for Thirty-Two Hour Training Course 

New EEO Counselors must receive training in the following areas before an 

agency assigns them to provide EEO counseling to aggrieved persons: 

1. an overview of the entire EEO process set forth under 29 C.F.R. Part 

1614, emphasizing important time frames in the EEO process, providing 

an overview of counseling class complaints, and analyzing fragmentation 

issues (see Chapter 5, Section III of this Management Directive for a 

discussion of fragmentation); 

2. a review of the roles and responsibilities of an EEO Counselor, as 

described in this Chapter and in the Appendices to this Management 

Directive; 

 

4

For more information about EEOC training courses, visit the Commission‟s website at 

http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/training/index.cfm. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-4

3. an overview of the statutes that the Commission enforces, including Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin); 

the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (prohibiting agencies from paying different 

wages to men and women performing equal work in the same work place); 

the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967, as amended

(prohibiting discrimination against persons age 40 or older); Sections 501 

and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (prohibiting 

discrimination against people with disabilities) and Title II of the Genetic 

Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (prohibiting discrimination 

based on genetic information); 

4. an explanation of the theories of discrimination, including the disparate 

treatment, adverse impact, and reasonable accommodation theories, and 

providing more detailed instructions concerning class actions and issues 

attendant to fragmentation; 

5. a review of the practical development of issues through role-playing or 

other practices designed to have attendees practice providing EEO 

counseling, including the initial intake session with an aggrieved person, 

identifying claims, writing reports, and attempting resolution; 

6. a review of other procedures available to aggrieved persons: the right to go 

directly to court under the ADEA after notice to the Commission; mixed 

case processing issues, including the right of election; class complaints 

processing issues; and the negotiated grievance procedure, including the 

right of election; and 

7. an overview of the remedies available for each law, such as compensatory 

damages, attorney‟s fees, and costs available to prevailing parties.

C. Standards for Continuing Training Requirements 

Once EEO Counselors complete the minimum requirements, they must receive at 

least eight hours of continuing EEO counseling training during every fiscal year 

thereafter. The purpose of this continuing training requirement is to keep EEO 

Counselors informed of developments in EEO practice, law, and guidance, as well 

as to enhance and develop their counseling skills. Accordingly, agencies should 

conduct a needs assessment to determine specific areas for training. The 

Commission anticipates that this training will include segments on legal and 

policy updates, regulatory and statutory changes, and counseling skills 

development. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-5

III. THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN EEO COUNSELOR 

When an aggrieved person seeks EEO counseling, the Counselor must ensure that the 

complainant understands his/her rights and responsibilities in the EEO process, including 

the option to participate in ADR. The EEO Counselor must perform several tasks in all 

cases, regardless of whether the individual ultimately participates in ADR, including: 

1. Advise the aggrieved person about the EEO complaint process under 

29 C.F.R. Part 1614. The EEO counselor should explain the agency ADR 

program, stating that the program is available to the aggrieved person or 

advising the individual whether the program will be made available. The 

EEO Counselor should further explain that if the ADR program is 

available, the aggrieved person will have to decide whether to seek precomplaint resolution through the ADR process or through the traditional 

EEO counseling process. In this regard, the EEO Counselor should 

inform the aggrieved person about the differences between the two 

processes. 

2. Determine the claim(s) and basis(es) raised by the potential complaint. 

3. Conduct an inquiry during the initial interview with the aggrieved person 

for the purpose of determining jurisdictional questions. This includes 

determining whether there may be issues relating to the timeliness of the 

individual‟s EEO Counselor contact and obtaining information relating to 

this issue. It also includes obtaining enough information concerning the 

claim(s) and basis(es) so as to enable the agency to properly identify the 

legal claim raised if the individual files a complaint at the conclusion of 

the EEO counseling process. 

Use of the term “initial interview” in this context is not intended to 

suggest that during the first meeting with the aggrieved person an EEO 

Counselor must obtain all of the information s/he needs to determine the 

claim(s) or basis(es). Nor does it mean that if the person decides to 

participate in ADR, the EEO Counselor is foreclosed from contacting the 

person to obtain such additional information as s/he needs for this specific 

purpose. 

4. Seek a resolution of the dispute at the lowest possible level, unless the 

agency offers ADR and the aggrieved person agrees to participate in the 

ADR program. If the dispute is resolved in counseling, the EEO 

Counselor must document the resolution. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-6

5. Advise the aggrieved person of his/her right to file a formal discrimination 

complaint if attempts to resolve the dispute through EEO counseling or 

ADR are unsuccessful. 

6. Prepare a report sufficient to document that the EEO Counselor undertook 

the required counseling actions and to resolve any jurisdictional questions 

that arise. 

The Commission has developed a guide for EEO counseling that agencies may use in 

developing or refining their own procedures. (See Appendix B.) 

IV. INITIAL INTERVIEW SESSION 

A. Provide Required Written Notice 

At the initial session or as soon as possible thereafter, the EEO Counselor must 

provide all aggrieved persons written notice of their rights and responsibilities. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(b). The Commission has set forth this information in the 

“EEO Counselor Checklist,” in Appendix C

B. Provide Information on Other Procedures as Required 

Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, an aggrieved person may 

have options other than the Part 1614 procedure available in pursuit of a 

discrimination claim. The individual, in some cases, may have to elect the 

process s/he wishes to pursue. Election options apply in age discrimination 

complaints, mixed case complaints, Equal Pay Act complaints, and claims where 

certain negotiated grievance procedures apply. 

In addition, for cases alleging discrimination based on sex stereotypes (for 

example, sexual orientation) under Title VII, the aggrieved person may file a 

formal complaint under Part 1614 and/or file under the agency‟s grievance 

procedures, under the agency‟s procedures pursuant to Executive Order 13087, or 

with the Office of Special Counsel. As such, EEO Counselors must be familiar 

with these procedures and be able to identify such cases when the aggrieved 

person first seeks counseling. See Appendices D and E.5

 

 

5See Chapter 4, Section II, of this Management Directive, for additional guidance on the election 

process applicable to mixed case complaints.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-7

C. Explain Statutes and Regulations 

EEO Counselors must have a good working knowledge of the complaint 

processing regulations in Part 1614 and a sufficient familiarity with federal antidiscrimination statutes, regulations and Commission guidance that will enable 

them to identify bases and claims correctly. These statutes are: 

1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and 

national origin. It also prohibits reprisal or retaliation for participating in 

the discrimination complaint process or for opposing any employment 

practice that the individual reasonably and in good faith believes violates 

Title VII. 

Title VII‟s prohibition against sex discrimination includes denial of equal 

pay, pregnancy status, transgender status,6 and non-conformity of sex 

stereotypes (for example, sexual orientation).7

 

2. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (ADEA)

The ADEA prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of age (40 

years or older). It also prohibits retaliation against individuals exercising 

their rights under the statute. Unlike Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, 

the ADEA allows persons claiming age discrimination to go directly to 

court, after giving the Commission 30 days‟ notice of the intent to file 

such an action, without utilizing an agency's administrative complaint 

 

6Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender 

identity) is discrimination because of sex under Title VII, and those claims should be processed through 

the 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 process. Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 

20, 2012). 

7Claims of discrimination based on sex stereotype non-conformity (e.g., sexual orientation) may 

constitute sex discrimination under Title VII. See Baker v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120110008 (January 11, 2013); Veretto v. U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 

(July 1, 2011) (discrimination based on the sex-stereotype that men should only marry women can 

constitute discrimination based on sex); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 

(December 20, 2011) (discrimination based on the sex-stereotype that women should only have sexual 

relationships with men can constitute discrimination based on sex). EEO Counselors should advise 

employees that they may file a complaint under the Part 1614 EEO process and/or they may utilize any 

additional complaint procedures provided by the agency or utilize the process set forth in the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978 by taking their complaint to the Office of Special Counsel or the Merit 

Systems Protection Board. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-8

procedures. If, however, a complainant chooses to file an administrative 

complaint, s/he must exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding to 

court. As with Title VII complaints, a complainant exhausts 

administrative remedies 180 days after filing a formal complaint, if the 

agency has not taken a final action, or 180 days after filing an appeal with 

the Commission if the Commission has not issued a decision. 

3. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of mental and 

physical disabilities, as well as retaliation for exercising rights under the 

Act. The Rehabilitation Act requires that agencies make reasonable 

accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified 

applicant or employee with a disability unless the agency can demonstrate 

that the accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the 

operation of its program. (Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 in October 1992, to provide that the standards used to determine 

whether non-affirmative action employment discrimination has occurred 

shall be the standards applied under Title I of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. See § 503(b) of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 

1992, Pub. L. No. 102-569, 106 Stat 4344 (October 29, 1992); 29 

U.S.C.§ 791(g).) (Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act again when it 

issued the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008

(ADAAA). This statute broadly interprets the definition of disability by 

adding “major bodily functions” as a major life activity; by directing that 

the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major 

life activity should be determined based on the impairment‟s effect in its 

active state (for impairments that are episodic or in remission) and should 

be determined without taking into account the ameliorative effects of 

mitigating measures, such as medication. 

4. Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)

The EPA prohibits sex-based wage discrimination. It prohibits federal 

agencies from paying employees of one sex lower wages than those of the 

opposite sex for performing substantially equal work. Substantially equal 

work means that the jobs require equal skills, effort, and responsibility, 

and that the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.8

 The 

EPA also prohibits retaliation for exercising rights under the Act. 

 

8

Sex-based claims of wage discrimination may also be raised under Title VII; individuals so 

aggrieved may thus claim violations of both statutes simultaneously. EPA complaints are processed 

under Part 1614. In the alternative, an EPA complainant may go directly to a court of competent 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-9

5. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amended Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 to provide that an individual subjected to 

compensation discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

may file a complaint within forty-five (45) days of any of the following: 

a. When a discriminatory compensation decision or other 

discriminatory practice affecting compensation is adopted; 

b. When the individual becomes subject to a discriminatory 

compensation decision or other discriminatory practice affecting 

compensation; or 

c. When the individual‟s compensation is affected by the application 

of a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory 

practice, including each time the individual receives compensation 

that is based in whole or in part on such compensation decision or 

other practice. 

The Act also has a retroactive effective date of May 28, 2007, and applies 

to all claims of discriminatory compensation pending on or after that date. 

6. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)

GINA prohibits discrimination by federal agencies based on individual‟s 

genetic information, which includes the results of genetic tests to 

determine whether the individual is at increased risk of acquiring a 

condition in the future, as well as an individual‟s family medical history. 

Specifically, the law prohibits the use of genetic information in making 

employment decisions, restricts the acquisition of genetic information by 

federal agencies, imposes strict confidentiality requirements, and prohibits 

retaliation against individuals who oppose actions made unlawful by 

GINA. The remedies available under GINA are the same as those 

available under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. 

 

jurisdiction on the EPA claim.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-10

7. Commission Regulations, Guidelines, and Policy Directives

The Commission has issued regulations that address the application of 

federal nondiscrimination law to the federal government. The regulations 

governing the processing of federal sector discrimination complaints are 

contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 

1614. The regulations set out the EEO Counselor's obligations 

enumerated in Section II of this Chapter. 

Other Commission regulations and guidelines address the substantive 

provisions of federal nondiscrimination law. For example, 29 C.F.R. Part 

1630 sets forth Commission regulations applicable to the Rehabilitation 

Act. EEO Counselors should be familiar with Part 1630 in order to 

counsel individuals who present claims of disability discrimination.9

 The 

Commission also has disseminated enforcement guidance on discrete 

issues and areas of nondiscrimination law, such as “Enforcement 

Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by 

Supervisors,” issued June 18, 1999; and “Revised Enforcement Guidance 

on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act,” issued October 17, 2002. These documents and 

other Enforcement Guidance are available on the EEOC web site at

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement_guidance.cfm in the 

Enforcement Guidance and Related Documents section. 

V. THE LIMITED INQUIRY 

Once the EEO Counselor has determined the basis(es) and claims adhering to the 

guidance set forth below, s/he should conduct a limited inquiry. The purpose of the 

limited inquiry is to obtain information to determine jurisdictional questions if a formal 

complaint is filed and is performed regardless of whether the aggrieved person 

subsequently chooses ADR. The limited inquiry also is used to obtain information for 

settlement purposes if the person chooses EEO counseling over ADR, or does not have 

the right to choose between EEO counseling and ADR. 

 

9The Commission has issued guidelines covering all of the substantive bases of prohibited 

discrimination. EEO Counselors should be familiar with 29 C.F.R. Part 1604 (Guidelines on Sex 

Discrimination) and Appendix to Part 1604, (Questions and Answers on the Pregnancy Discrimination 

Act); Part 1605 (Guidelines on Religious Discrimination); Part 1606 (Guidelines on National Origin 

Discrimination); Part 1620 (The Equal Pay Act); Part 1625 (the Age Discrimination in Employment Act); 

and Part 1635 (Guidelines on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act).
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-11

While the scope of the inquiry will vary based on the complexity of the claims, the 

inquiry is intended to be limited and is not intended to substitute for the in-depth fact 

finding required in the investigative stage of formal complaint process. The EEO 

Counselor must at all times control the inquiry. If the aggrieved person or agency 

personnel raise objections to the scope or nature of the inquiry, the EEO Counselor shall 

seek guidance and assistance from the EEO Officer or Director. If the EEO Counselor 

has problems with the inquiry, s/he should immediately notify the EEO Officer or 

Director. 

Appendix B includes suggested methods for conducting the inquiry. This guidance may 

be used to supplement established procedures. 

A. Determining the Claim(s) 

1. Fragmentation

The EEO Counselor plays a crucial role in the complaint process. As 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, Section III of this Management 

Directive, EEO Counselors must assist the complainant in articulating the 

claim so as to avoid fragmenting the claim. EEO Counselors must review 

the materials set forth in Section III of Chapter 5 and become familiar with 

the concept of fragmentation. 

2. Identifying the claim(s)

At the initial interview, the EEO Counselor must determine what action(s) 

the agency has taken or is taking that causes the aggrieved person to 

believe s/he is the victim of discrimination. Before the EEO Counselor 

begins the inquiry, s/he must be certain that the claim(s) are clearly 

defined and the aggrieved person agrees with how the agency defines the 

claim(s). The EEO Counselor must also determine, based on his/her 

understanding of the claims, whether special procedures apply. 

If a claim is like or related to a previously-filed complaint, then the 

complaint should be amended to include that claim. If the claim is not like 

or related to a previously-filed complaint, the claim should be processed as 

a separate complaint. Commission regulations require agencies to 

consolidate complaints for processing unless it is impossible to do so. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.606. In a process set forth in Chapter 5, Section III.B of 

this Management Directive, a complainant shall be instructed to submit a 

letter to the agency‟s EEO Director or designee, describing the new 

incident(s) and stating that s/he wishes to amend his/her complaint to 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-12

include the new incident(s). The EEO Director or designee shall review 

the request and determine the correct handling of the amendment in an 

expeditious manner. 

B. Determining the Basis(es) 

The aggrieved person must believe s/he has been discriminated against on the 

basis of race, color, sex (includes equal pay, gender identity, and sexual 

orientation when discrimination based on sex stereotype non-conformity), 

religion, national origin, age (40 and over), disability, genetic information, or in 

retaliation for having participated in activity protected by the various civil rights 

statutes. The EEO Counselor should determine if the aggrieved person believes 

that his/her problem is the result of discrimination on one or more of the bases. 

C. When the Basis(es) is not Covered by the EEO Regulations 

If it is clear that the aggrieved person's problem does not involve a basis(es) set 

forth in the EEOC regulations, the EEO Counselor should inform the aggrieved 

person and, if possible provide him/her with the appropriate process for 

addressing the complaint. If the aggrieved person insists that s/he wants to file a 

discrimination complaint, the EEO Counselor should issue the notice of final 

interview. Under no circumstance should the Counselor attempt to dissuade a 

person from filing a complaint. 

VI. RESOLUTION 

In almost all instances, informal resolution, freely arrived at by all parties involved in the 

dispute, is the best outcome of a counseling action. In seeking resolution, the EEO 

Counselor must listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties so that s/he is able 

to assist the parties in achieving resolution. The EEO Counselor's role is to facilitate 

resolution, not develop, or advocate specific terms of an agreement. The EEO Counselor 

must be careful not to inject his/her views on settlement negotiations.10

Appendix C includes suggested methods for seeking resolution. This guidance may be 

used to supplement established agency procedures. 

 

10As noted in Appendix C, at point “B,” the EEO Counselor acts as a neutral and not as an advocate 

for the aggrieved person or the agency. When the aggrieved person seeks advice from the EEO 

Counselor, the Counselor should remind him/her of the right to representation.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-13

A. Extension of Counseling for Resolution Efforts 

As the parties engage in resolution efforts, they may decide that they need 

additional time to reach an agreement. If the aggrieved person consents, the 

agency may extend the counseling period up to but not exceeding 60 days. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(e). 

B. Resolution of the Dispute 

If, during the course of the limited inquiry, the agency and the aggrieved person 

agree to an informal resolution of the dispute, the terms of the resolution must be 

reduced to writing and signed by both parties11 to help ensure they have the same 

understanding of the terms of the resolution. See Chapter 12 of this Directive. 

The Commission recommends that the EEO Counselor, with the knowledge and 

guidance of the EEO Officer or Director, set forth the terms of the informal 

resolution in a letter transmitted to the parties. The letter should state clearly the 

terms of the informal resolution and should notify the aggrieved person of the 

procedures available under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504, in the event that the agency 

fails to comply with the terms of the resolution. Appendix F is a recommended 

format for the resolution agreement. 

The EEO Counselor shall transmit a signed and dated copy of the letter to the 

EEO Officer or Director. The EEO Officer or Director shall retain the copy for 

one year or until s/he is certain that the agreement has been implemented. 

C. Failure to Resolve the Dispute 

The aggrieved person may not be satisfied with the agency's proposed resolution 

of the dispute, or the agency officials may not agree to the aggrieved person's 

suggestions. If informal resolution is not possible, the EEO Counselor must hold 

a final interview with the aggrieved person. 

 

11Please note that in the federal EEO process, the parties are the complainant and the agency. See

Bates v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 851 F.2d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 1988). The supervisor/manager who 

has been accused of discrimination is not a party to the EEO complaint, although he may be subject to 

other legal liability. Id.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-14

VII. THE ADR PROGRAM 

A. The Choice of EEO Counseling or ADR 

At the initial counseling session, or within a reasonable time thereafter, the 

agency must decide whether to offer ADR to the aggrieved person. See Chapter 3 

of this Management Directive for more information about the ADR process. If 

the agency offers ADR, then the aggrieved person must be given a reasonable 

time to choose whether to pursue counseling or participate in ADR. If the 

aggrieved person chooses to participate in ADR, counseling activities must end 

and may not resume. 

To participate in ADR, the aggrieved person must sign the agency‟s Election 

Form, Agreement to Mediate, or other similar form. The form should be attached 

to the EEO Counselor‟s report. 

B. Role of the EEO Counselor during ADR Process 

When an aggrieved person chooses to participate in the ADR process, the EEO 

Counselor cannot attempt to resolve the matter. Once the aggrieved person 

selects ADR, the EEO Counselor must complete the intake functions of 

counseling (that is, obtaining the information needed to determine the basis(es), 

claim(s), and timeliness) before referring the dispute for ADR processing. Once 

those tasks are completed, the EEO Counselor should have no further 

involvement in resolving the matter until s/he learns the outcome of the ADR 

process. The role of the EEO Counselor will vary depending on whether the 

parties successfully resolve the dispute during ADR. 

1. Successful Resolution

The EEO Counselor shall advise the aggrieved person that if the dispute is 

resolved during the ADR process, the terms of the agreement must be in 

writing and signed by both parties. See 29 C.F.R. §1614.603. 

2. Unsuccessful Resolution

The EEO Counselor shall advise the aggrieved person that if ADR does 

not resolve the dispute, or if the matter is not resolved within ninety (90) 

days from the initial contact with the EEO Counselor, the aggrieved 

person will receive a final interview and have the right to file a formal 

complaint. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-15

In addition, the EEO Counselor must prepare the Counselor‟s report and 

conduct the final interview. The report should state whether the parties 

attempted ADR, but cannot reveal any other information about the ADR 

attempt. 

C. Completing the ADR Process 

If the agency offers ADR in a particular case and the aggrieved person agrees to 

participate, the pre-complaint processing period shall be ninety (90) days. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(f). Should the parties successfully resolve the dispute 

during the ADR process, they must sign a written settlement agreement. See

Chapter 12 of this Directive. In addition, the ADR program should notify the 

EEO Counselor of the settlement, and provide a copy of the document. 

If the dispute is not resolved within the 90-day period, the ADR program will 

notify the EEO Counselor, who will issue the notice of right to file a 

discrimination complaint, required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(d), not later than the 

90th day after the Counselor contact. 

VIII. NOTICE OF FINAL INTERVIEW 

During the final interview with the aggrieved person, the EEO Counselor should discuss 

what occurred during the EEO counseling process in terms of attempts at resolution. The 

EEO Counselor must not indicate whether s/he believes the discrimination complaint has 

merit. Since EEO counseling inquiries are conducted informally and do not involve 

sworn testimony or extensive documentation, the EEO Counselor (1) cannot make 

findings on the claim of discrimination, and (2) should not imply to the aggrieved person 

that his/her interpretation of the claims of the case constitutes an official finding of the 

agency on the claim of discrimination. See Appendix G for a sample notice of final 

interview or Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint. 

In addition, the EEO Counselor must provide the aggrieved person with the following 

information: 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-16

A. Right to Pursue the Claim Through the Formal Process 

If the dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the aggrieved person, the 

EEO Counselor must tell the aggrieved person that s/he has the right to pursue the 

claim further through the formal complaint procedure. It is the aggrieved person, 

and not the EEO Counselor, who must decide whether to file a formal complaint 

of discrimination. 

B. Requirements of the Formal Complaint 

The EEO Counselor must inform the aggrieved person that the complaint: 

1. Must be in writing; 

2. Must be specific with regard to the claim(s) that the aggrieved person 

raised in EEO counseling and that the complainant wishes to pursue; 

3. Must be signed by complainant or complainant's attorney; and 

4. Must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date s/he 

receives the notice of final interview. A postmark dated within the 

requisite 15 days will be evidence of timely filing. 

C. Time Frames to Complete the Notice of Final Interview 

The EEO Counselor must complete the notice of final interview within 30 days of 

the date the aggrieved person brought the dispute to the EEO Counselor's 

attention. If, however, the aggrieved person consented to a written extension of 

time, the time frame cannot exceed 60 days for counseling, or 90 days for ADR. 

If the dispute is not resolved at the end of the extended time period, the EEO 

Counselor must advise the aggrieved party in writing of his/her right to file a 

complaint. 

The 30-day EEO counseling period (or as extended by agreement of the aggrieved 

party) commences when the aggrieved person (1) first contacts the EEO 

Counselor or the appropriate agency office in which the EEO Counselor works 

and (2) exhibits an intent to begin the EEO process. The unavailability of an EEO 

Counselor to meet with the aggrieved person for a period of time after such initial 

contact does not toll the 30-day counseling period. Absent agreement from the 

aggrieved person to extend the time period, the EEO counselor must issue the 

notice of final interview at the end of the 30-day period. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-17

D. Name(s) of Person(s) Authorized to Receive Complaints 

The EEO Counselor shall provide the aggrieved person with the names of persons 

authorized to receive complaints of discrimination. The EEO Counselor shall 

inform the aggrieved person (or his/her representative) that the complaint must be 

mailed or personally delivered to one of the authorized persons. 

E. Loss of Confidentiality During Formal Process 

The EEO Counselor should explain that once the formal EEO complaint is filed, 

the complaint file, or part of it, may be shared with those who are involved and 

need access to it. This includes the EEO Officer or Director, agency EEO 

officials, and possibly persons whom the aggrieved person has identified as being 

responsible for the actions that gave rise to the complaint. The identity of the 

aggrieved person does not remain confidential in the formal complaint process. 

F. Written Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint 

The written notice of right to file a discrimination complaint must specify that an 

aggrieved person has 15 calendar days after receipt of the notice of final 

interview to file a formal complaint (including a class complaint). 

The notice must also advise the aggrieved person of the appropriate official with 

whom to file a complaint and of complainant's duty to inform the agency 

immediately when the complainant retains counsel or a representative. 

The EEO Counselor must advise the complainant of his/her duty to inform the 

agency of a change of address if s/he should move during the pendency of the 

EEO process and the possible consequences for not doing so. 

IX. THE COUNSELOR'S REPORT 

When advised that an aggrieved person has filed a formal complaint, the EEO Counselor 

will submit a written report pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(c). The report will contain 

relevant information about the aggrieved person, jurisdiction, claims, bases, requested 

remedy, and the EEO Counselor‟s checklist, as specified in the sample EEO Counselor‟s 

Report. See Appendix H. If the aggrieved person attempted to resolve the dispute via 

counseling or ADR, the report should state that the aggrieved person chose either 

traditional EEO counseling or the ADR program and that the dispute was not resolved 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

2-18

through either procedure. However, the report should not provide a summary of the 

informal resolution attempt. 

A. Time Limits 

The EEO Counselor must submit to the office designated to accept formal 

complaints and to the complainant a copy of the Counselor‟s report. This must be 

done within fifteen (15) days after notification by the EEO Director or other 

appropriate official that a formal complaint has been filed. It is essential that the 

EEO Counselor maintain his/her record of counseling so that this regulatory time 

limit is met. 

B. Contents of Report 

The report must include: 

1. A precise description of the claim(s) and the basis(es) identified by the 

complainant; 

2. Pertinent documents gathered during the inquiry, if any; 

1. Specific information bearing on timeliness of the counseling contact; 

2. An explanation for an untimely counseling process; and 

5. An indication as to whether an attempt to resolve the complaint was made. 

The counselor should also retain a copy of the Counselor's report for availability 

in the event that the original Counselor's report, submitted to the office designated 

to accept formal complaints, is lost or misplaced. All notes, drafts and other 

records of counseling efforts will be maintained by the agency after counseling is 

completed for a period up to four years after resolution of the case. 

Appendix H is a recommended format for a Counselor's report. 

C. Confidentiality of Negotiations for Resolution 

In order to facilitate resolution attempts, all parties involved in resolution must be 

free to explore all avenues of relief. Offers and statements by parties made in 

response to resolution attempts by the EEO Counselor cannot be used against 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

2-19

either party during the administrative EEO process, if resolution attempts fail. 

The EEO Counselor will not report any discussions that occur during negotiations 

for resolution. 

X. COUNSELING CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTS 

Occasionally, an EEO Counselor may need to provide EEO counseling to an aggrieved 

person or group of individuals who seek to represent a class of persons.12 A class is 

defined as a group of employees, former employees, or applicants who alleged that they 

have been or are being adversely affected by an agency personnel policy or practice that 

discriminates against the group on the basis of their common race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, age, genetic information, or disability. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204; see

also Chapter 8 of this Management Directive for further guidance. 

The aggrieved person(s) comes to the EEO Counselor as a class agent representing the 

group. A class inquiry must be brought to the attention of an EEO Counselor by a class 

agent within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date when the specific policy or 

practice adversely affected the class agent or, if a personnel action, within 45 days of the 

effective date of that action. 

The EEO counseling requirements for class claims are the same as those for individual 

claims of discrimination, but the facts must be framed to meet the requirements of 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.204. 

It is strongly recommended that, if class allegations are raised or an individual 

approaches an EEO Counselor as a class agent for counseling, the EEO Counselor 

immediately contact the EEO Officer or Director, or designated person, for advice and 

guidance

 

12This need may arise in the course of counseling an individual where the EEO Counselor identifies 

allegations of class discrimination.
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-1

CHAPTER 3

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Statutes enforced by the Commission, regulations and executive orders encourage the use 

of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in resolving employment disputes. ADR is a 

term used to describe a variety of approaches to resolving conflict rather than traditional 

adjudicatory methods or adversarial methods. Examples of traditional adjudicatory 

methods include litigation, hearings, and agency administrative processing and appeals. 

The Commission‟s regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102 (b)(2) require agencies to 

establish or make available an ADR program. The ADR program must be available 

during the pre-complaint process and the formal complaint process. EEOC regulations 

extend the counseling period when ADR is used. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(f). 

Agencies and complainants have realized many advantages from utilizing ADR. ADR 

offers the parties the opportunity for an early, informal resolution of disputes in a 

mutually satisfactory fashion. ADR usually costs less, and uses fewer resources than 

traditional administrative or adjudicative processes, particularly processes that include a 

hearing or litigation. Early resolution of disputes through ADR can make agency 

resources available for mission-related programs and activities. The agency can avoid 

costs such as court reporters and expert witnesses. In addition, employee morale can be 

enhanced when agency management is viewed as open-minded and cooperative in 

seeking to resolve disputes through ADR. 

EEOC will review an agency‟s program and its ADR policies, upon request, for 

consistency with 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. For more information, please contact the Office of 

Federal Operations at (202) 663-4599 or OFO.EEOC@EEOC.GOV. 

II. CORE PRINCIPLES OF ADR 

Agencies may be flexible in designing their ADR programs to fit their environment and 

workforce, provided the programs conform to the core principles set forth in EEOC‟s 

policy statement on ADR. See Appendix I. However, the Commission believes that 

there are certain requirements that are absolutely necessary for the successful 

development of any ADR program. The core principles include the concepts of fairness, 

flexibility, training, and evaluation. These concepts are discussed below. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-2

A. Fairness 

Any program developed and implemented by an agency must be fair to the 

participants, both in perception and reality. Fairness should be manifested 

throughout the ADR proceeding by providing, at a minimum: as much 

information about the ADR proceeding to the parties as soon as possible; the right 

to be represented throughout the ADR proceeding; and an opportunity to obtain 

legal or technical assistance during the proceeding to any party who is not 

represented. Fairness also requires the following elements: 

1. Voluntariness

Parties must knowingly and voluntarily enter into an ADR proceeding. 

An ADR resolution can never be viewed as fair if it is involuntary. Nor 

can a dispute be actually and permanently resolved if the resolution is 

involuntary. Unless the parties have reached a resolution willingly and 

voluntarily, the dissatisfaction of one party could lead to conflicts within 

the workplace or even to charges that the resolution was coerced or 

reached under duress. 

In addition, aggrieved parties should be assured that they are free to end 

the ADR process at any time, and that they retain the right to proceed with 

the administrative EEO process if they prefer that process to ADR, and 

resolution has not been reached. Both parties should be reassured that no 

one can force a resolution on them, not agency management, EEO 

officials, or the third party neutral. Finally, parties are more likely to 

approach a resolution voluntarily when they know of their right to 

representation at any time. 

2. Neutrality

To be effective, an ADR proceeding must be impartial and independent of 

any control by either party, in both perception and reality. Using a neutral 

third party as a facilitator or mediator assures this impartiality. A neutral 

third party is one who has no stake in the outcome of the proceeding. For 

example, s/he might be an employee of another federal agency who knows 

none of the parties and whose type of work differs from that of the parties. 

Or s/he may be an employee within the same agency as long as s/he can 

remain neutral regarding the outcome of the proceeding. The agency must 

ensure the independence and objectivity of the neutral at all times. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-3

3. Confidentiality

Confidentiality is essential to the success of all ADR proceedings. 

Congress recognized this fact by enhancing the confidentiality provisions 

contained in the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA), 

specifically exempting qualifying dispute resolution communications from 

disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 574. 

Parties who know that their ADR statements and information are kept 

confidential will feel free to be frank and forthcoming during the 

proceeding, without fear that such information may later be used against 

them. To maintain that degree of confidentiality, there must be explicit 

limits placed on the dissemination of ADR information. For 

implementation and reporting purposes, the details of a resolution can be 

disseminated to specific offices only with a need to have that information. 

Neither the ADRA nor EEOC‟s core principles require the parties to agree 

that a settlement must be confidential. 

Confidentiality must be maintained by the parties, by any agency 

employees involved in the ADR proceeding and in the implementation of 

an ADR resolution, and by any neutral third party involved in the 

proceeding. The Commission encourages agencies to issue clear, written 

policies protecting the confidentiality of what is said and done during an 

ADR proceeding. 

4. Enforceability

Enforceability is a key principle upon which a successful ADR program 

depends. Section 1614.504 of 29 C.F.R. provides that: “Any settlement 

agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at 

any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties.” The 

regulation sets forth specific procedures for enforcing such a settlement 

agreement. Agreements resolving claims of employment discrimination 

reached through ADR are enforceable through this procedure. 

B. Flexibility 

The ADR program must be flexible enough to respond to the variety of situations 

individual agencies face. There is not necessarily one ADR model which will 

work for all of an agency‟s programs, or all of its offices within the same 

program. Because agencies have different missions and cultures, they have 

flexibility in designing their ADR programs. Agencies must also exercise 

flexibility in implementing the ADR program. This flexibility will allow agencies 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-4

to adapt to changing circumstances that could not have been anticipated or 

predicted at the time the program was initially implemented. 

C. Training 

An ADR program, to be successful, will require that the agency provide 

appropriate training and education on ADR to its employees, managers and 

supervisors, neutrals and other persons protected under the applicable laws. 

In order to encourage the successful operation of ADR throughout the agency, all 

managers and supervisors must receive ADR training, either through an agencyconducted program or through an external source such as another federal agency 

or a private contractor. The ADR training must include the following: 

1. The ADRA and its amendments, with emphasis on the federal 

government‟s interest in encouraging mutual resolution of disputes and the 

benefits associated with utilizing ADR; 

2. The EEOC‟s regulations and Policy Guidance with respect to ADR: 

29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.102(b)(2), 1614.105(f), 1614.108(b), and 1614.603 

(voluntary settlement attempts); 

3. The operation of the ADR method or methods that the agency employs; 

4. Exposure to other ADR methods, including interest-based mediation, if 

this method is not already in use by the agency; and 

5. Drafting the settlement agreement, including the notice provision pursuant 

to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504, where the aggrieved party believes the agency 

failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. 

D. Evaluation 

An evaluation component is essential to developing and maintaining an effective 

ADR program, and should be in place before an ADR program is implemented. 

The evaluation will assist in determining whether the ADR program has achieved 

its goals and will provide feedback on how the program might be made more 

efficient and achieve better results. Evaluations can range from analyzing the 

ADR data on an annual basis to interviewing the ADR participants about their 

experience in the process. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-5

III. DEVELOPING AN ADR PROGRAM 

A. Written Procedures 

The agency must establish written procedures detailing the operation of its ADR 

program. The written procedures should include, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

1. The type or types of ADR that the agency offers; 

2. The stages of the EEO process at which ADR is being made available; 

3. The time frames involved in the administrative process and the ADR 

process; 

4. The source or sources of neutrals; 

5. Those matters where ADR is not available; 

6. Assurance to the aggrieved party that ADR is voluntary and that s/he may 

terminate the ADR procedure at any time and return to the EEO process; 

7. Assurance to the aggrieved party that its ADR program is fair and that s/he 

has the right to representation; 

8. An assurance to the aggrieved party with respect to confidentiality, 

neutrality, and enforceability; and 

9. An assurance that the agency will make accessible an individual with 

settlement authority, and that no responsible management official or 

agency official directly involved in the case will serve as the person with 

settlement authority. 

B. ADR Throughout the EEO Process 

If a case is appropriate, agencies may offer ADR at any stage of the EEO process. 

With that said, the Commission encourages agencies to resolve workplace 

disputes as early in the process as possible. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.603. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-6

1. ADR during the Counseling Stage

Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(2), agencies must establish or make 

available an ADR program during the pre-complaint process. Chapter 2 of 

this Management Directive provides additional guidance concerning the 

process of offering ADR during counseling. 

2. ADR after the Complaint is Filed

Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(2), agencies must establish or make 

available an ADR program during the formal complaint process. The 

regulations also state: “Agencies are encouraged to incorporate alternative 

dispute resolution techniques into their investigative efforts in order to 

promote early resolution of complaints.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(b). 

As such, agencies must design their ADR program to allow the parties to 

pursue ADR techniques after various stages of the formal complaint 

processing period. 

3. ADR at the Hearing and Appellate Stages

The Commission encourages ADR attempts by EEOC Administrative 

Judges prior to arranging a hearing. See Chapter 7 in this Management 

Directive. However, the parties may also pursue ADR through the 

agency‟s ADR program. To do so, the parties must notify the hearing 

office prior to utilizing the agency‟s ADR program. 

Similarly, ADR may be beneficial at the appellate stage of the 

administrative process. At this stage, the parties should notify the Office 

of Federal Operations (OFO) of their interest in ADR. They may utilize 

the agency‟s ADR program, or request a neutral from OFO.

C. Matters Inappropriate for ADR 

ADRA and the EEOC ADR Policy Statement recognize that there are instances in 

which ADR may not be appropriate or feasible. See 5 U.S.C. § 572(b). Agencies 

have discretion to determine whether a given dispute is appropriate for ADR. 

Agencies may decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is appropriate to offer 

ADR. Agencies may also limit ADR in other ways, such as geographically (if 

extensive travel would be required), or by issue. However, agencies may not 

decline to offer ADR to particular cases because of the bases involved (that is, 

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or 

retaliation). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-7

D. Dealing with Non-EEO Issues 

Although the purpose of the ADR program is to address disputes arising under 

statutes enforced by the Commission, the Commission has found that many 

workplace disputes brought to the process often include non-EEO issues. In 

designing their ADR programs, agencies may provide sufficient latitude for the 

parties to raise and address both EEO and non-EEO issues (that is, issues that do 

not fall under the jurisdiction of EEO laws, statutes and regulations) in the 

resolution of their disputes. However, agencies are still responsible for advising 

the individual of any other statutory rights they may have. 

E. Choosing Among ADR Techniques 

While mediation is the most popular form of ADR currently being used in the 

federal sector, there are numerous other forms available for consideration (see 

discussion below of particular ADR techniques). Agencies should carefully 

consider the needs of their workforce when selecting techniques and choose the 

technique or techniques that are most likely to result in the earliest successful 

resolution of workplace disputes. 

EEOC does not mandate the use of a particular ADR technique in an agency‟s 

ADR program; however, the selected technique(s) must be used in a manner that 

is consistent with the core principles. Further, the ADR program must not 

diminish an individual‟s right to pursue his or her claim under the 1614 process 

should ADR not resolve the dispute. For example, an ADR program may not 

require an individual to waive his/her right to an investigation, a hearing, or to 

appeal the final decision to the EEOC. 

F. Time Frames of the ADR Process 

An ADR program must be designed around the time frames of the EEO 

regulations. For example, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(f) provides that if the parties 

agree to participate in the ADR process, the pre-complaint processing period may 

be extended up to ninety (90) days. This time frame must be met to be consistent 

with the regulation. If the dispute is not resolved in this time frame, the agency 

must advise the aggrieved person not later than the 90th day after the Counselor 

contact. 

Similarly, if an individual enters into an ADR procedure after a formal complaint 

is filed, the time period for processing the complaint may be extended by 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-8

agreement for not more than 90 days. If the dispute is not resolved, the complaint 

must be processed within the extended time period. 

G. Representation of the Parties 

Aggrieved persons have the right to representation throughout the complaint 

process, including during any ADR process. While the purpose of ADR is to 

allow the parties to fashion their own resolution to a dispute, it is important that 

any agency dispute resolution procedure provide all parties the opportunity to 

bring a representative to the ADR forum if they desire to do so. The neutral will 

decide the role that the representatives will play during the ADR session. 

H. Spin-Off Complaints 

Nothing said or done during attempts to resolve the complaint through ADR can 

be made the subject of an EEO complaint. Likewise, an agency‟s decision not to 

offer ADR for a particular case, or an agency‟s failure to provide a neutral, cannot 

be made the subject of an EEO complaint. 

I. Collective Bargaining Agreements and the Privacy Act 

Agencies must be mindful of obligations they may have under collective 

bargaining agreements to discuss development of ADR programs with 

representatives of appropriate bargaining units. Agencies must also be mindful of 

the prohibitions of disclosing information about individuals pursuant to the 

Privacy Act. All pre- and post-complaint information is contained in a system of 

records subject to the Act. Unless the complaining party elects union 

representation or gives his/her written consent, such information, including the 

fact that a particular person has sought counseling or filed a complaint, cannot be 

disclosed to the union. 

J. Recordkeeping 

Pursuant to EEOC‟s authority set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.602(a) to collect 

Federal complaints processing data and pursuant to the agency‟s obligation to 

report EEO activity to the EEOC, the Commission requires agencies to maintain a 

record of ADR activity for annual reporting to the EEOC no later than October 

31st of each year. This information will be provided to EEOC on the Form 462. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-9

K. One-Stop ADR Shop 

A One-Stop Shop describes an office that attempts to informally resolve a variety 

of workplace disputes, such as EEO disputes, grievances, or general employee 

disagreements.1

 A primary advantage of the One-Stop Shop is that the agencies 

can resolve disputes that do not belong in the EEO process, which then permits 

the EEO staff to focus on the matters that truly relate to discrimination. Agencies 

can allow employees to go directly to the One-Stop Shop without first meeting 

with the EEO Counselor. As a result, the meeting with the agency‟s ADR contact 

person will serve as the initial contact with the EEO Counselor. The ninety (90) 

day pre-complaint processing period will begin from the first contact with the 

ADR contact person. The agency‟s ADR contact person must provide to the 

aggrieved person the same information EEO Counselors are required to provide to 

the aggrieved persons. 

An ADR contact person who serves in lieu of an EEO Counselor may not serve as 

a neutral in those cases where s/he has provided EEO counseling. In addition, the 

ADR contact person must meet all of the training requirements of an EEO 

Counselor and fully carry out the Counselor‟s roles and responsibilities. (See

Chapter 2 of this Management Directive for guidance on the qualifications, roles, 

and responsibilities of an EEO Counselor.) 

IV. PROVIDING INFORMATION 

Aggrieved persons need information about all aspects of ADR in order to make an 

informed choice between ADR and the administrative process. The information provided 

at the counseling stage largely determines whether aggrieved persons will utilize the 

ADR process. As such, ADR programs should ensure that aggrieved persons are 

informed of all of the various steps in the EEO process before beginning the actual ADR 

proceeding. The aggrieved persons should also learn about the benefits of resolving the 

EEO dispute through ADR. Although an informed choice is necessary to conduct an 

ADR proceeding, an additional value is that once aggrieved persons choose ADR over 

other alternatives, they have made a commitment to its success. 

A. Agencies Must Fully Inform Employees about the EEO Process 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(b)(2), which covers pre-complaint processing, requires that 

the EEO Counselor advise the aggrieved person that s/he may choose between 

 

1

For more information, refer to the Commission‟s ADR report, entitled “Part II – Best Practices in 

ADR (FY 2003-FY 2004). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-10

participation in the ADR program offered by the agency and the traditional EEO 

counseling procedures. Before the aggrieved person makes a choice between 

counseling and ADR, the EEO Counselor must fully inform the person about the 

stages of the EEO process. (See Chapter 2 of this Management Directive.) The 

EEO Counselor also must also advise the aggrieved person about other 

appropriate statutory or regulatory forums, such as the Merit Systems Protection 

Board or a negotiated grievance process. 

B. Providing Information about the ADR Program 

1. The EEO Counselor should provide the aggrieved person with information 

about the agency ADR program, including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

a. A definition of the term “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)” –

(the definitions in this Chapter can be used); 

b. An explanation of the stages in the EEO process where ADR is 

available; 

c. A thorough description of the particular ADR technique(s) used in 

the agency‟s program;

d. A thorough description of how the program is consistent with the 

ADR core principles in ensuring fairness (including the right to 

representation), which requires voluntariness, neutrality, 

confidentiality, and enforceability; 

e. An explanation of procedural and substantive alternatives; and 

f. Information regarding all of the time frames involved in the 

administrative process and the ADR process. 

2. Information about the agency‟s ADR program may be provided to the 

aggrieved person through discussions, memoranda, video presentations, 

booklets or pamphlets. In addition, the Commission recommends that 

agencies issue an ADR policy, which shows the agency head‟s support of 

the ADR program and encourages all employees to participate in the 

program. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-11

C. Explaining the Benefits of ADR 

To persuade the aggrieved persons to participate in the ADR program, they will 

need to understand the benefits of the ADR process. The Commission 

recommends that the ADR program prepare talking points to promote the use of 

ADR. In particular, agencies could identify the following benefits of ADR: 

1. ADR saves time and money, as litigation adjudication generally costs 

more and can takes years to reach a decision; 

2. Settlement agreements do not require admissions of liability; 

3. The parties maintain considerable control over the ADR process and will 

decide their own outcome; 

4. Settlement agreements are more durable than decisions issued by a court 

because there is buy-in from the parties; 

5. ADR can improve office morale and productivity by repairing the parties‟ 

relationship and avoiding the tension caused by the investigative process; 

and

6. The terms of the settlement agreement can be confidential, unlike 

decisions which are published. 

D. Informing the Employee about Filing Rights 

At the time the aggrieved person chooses to participate in the agency‟s ADR 

program, the EEO Counselor shall advise the aggrieved person of his or her rights 

and responsibilities in the EEO complaint process, as set forth in 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.105(b). 

If the agency‟s ADR program allows aggrieved persons to go directly into the 

ADR process without first meeting with the EEO Counselor, the ADR contact 

person should provide the EEO Counselor‟s report to the EEO office for issuance. 

E. Pre-ADR Meeting 

After the aggrieved person decides to participate in the ADR program, either the 

neutral or a member of the ADR office can hold a pre-ADR meeting. The 

purpose of this meeting is to provide information about the ADR proceeding and 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-12

address preliminary matters. For example, the meeting could clarify the issues in 

dispute, determine the scope of authority among the participants, discuss the role 

of the representatives, and ask the parties to develop a list of the desired results 

that s/he would like to achieve through ADR. 

V. NEUTRALS 

ADRA defines a neutral as "an individual who, with respect to an issue in controversy, 

functions specifically to aid the parties in resolving the controversy. 5 U.S.C. § 571(9). 

The Act further states that a neutral is a: 

permanent or temporary officer or employee of the Federal Government or 

any other individual who is acceptable to the parties to a dispute resolution 

proceeding. A neutral shall have no official, financial, or personal conflict 

of interest with respect to the issues in controversy, unless such interest is 

fully disclosed in writing to all parties and all parties agree that the neutral 

may serve. 

5 U.S.C. § 573 (a). 

A. Sources of Neutrals 

The Commission, in its policy statement on ADR, provides that ADR proceedings 

are most successful where a neutral or impartial third party, with no vested 

interest in the outcome of a dispute, allows the parties themselves to attempt to 

resolve their dispute. An agency should also consider the aggrieved person‟s 

perception of the third party‟s impartiality in appointing a neutral for an ADR 

proceeding. In order to be effective, the participants in an ADR program must 

perceive the neutral as completely impartial. Additionally, neutrals are often 

privy to confidential information, which may compromise their ability to serve as 

an EEO Counselor. For these reasons, the Commission believes that external 

neutrals provide the best assurance of impartiality and the greatest likelihood of a 

successful mediation. 

An agency may use neutrals for its ADR program, subject to their qualifications, 

from the following sources: 

1. Other federal agencies (through a federal neutral sharing program or other 

arrangement); or 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-13

2. Private organizations, private contractors, bar associations, or individual 

volunteers. 

EEOC recommends that agencies disclose their source of neutrals to the parties. 

Three federal agencies offer external sources of neutrals. Federal Executive 

Boards (FEB) throughout the nation offer pools of neutrals who are available for 

federal agency EEO dispute resolution. Similarly, the Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Service (FMCS) also provides neutrals throughout the country. 

Within the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, the Department of Health and 

Human Services offers an interagency mediation program called the Shared 

Neutrals Program. This program operates a pool of trained and experienced 

collateral-duty mediators who provide mediation services to agencies in exchange 

for like services to the program from the recipient agency. Information about 

these programs can be obtained online at the Commission‟s federal sector ADR 

page. 

In the event that an agency uses one of its own employees as a neutral, it must 

assure the neutrality and impartiality of the neutral. If EEO Counselors and 

investigators are used as neutrals, the agency must ensure that they do not serve as 

a neutral in the same dispute in which they provided counseling, or conducted an 

investigation. Furthermore, an agency may use EEO Counselors and investigators 

as neutrals if, and only if, they satisfy the minimum training requirements. 

Agencies should also be aware that having EEO Counselors and investigators 

switch roles between performing their traditional EEO duties and providing ADR 

can be confusing to the aggrieved persons and to the EEO staff as to their role in a 

particular case. To avoid this confusion, agencies must clearly communicate to 

the aggrieved persons the function being performed by the agency employee, 

whether EEO counseling, investigating, or ADR. To the extent possible, agencies 

are encouraged to designate individuals as EEO Counselors/investigators or ADR 

neutrals, and limit the switching of roles between the EEO and ADR programs. 

B. Qualifications of Neutrals 

1. Training in ADR Theory and Techniques 

Any person who serves as a neutral in an agency‟s ADR program must 

have professional training in whatever dispute resolution technique(s) the 

agency utilizes in its program. The Commission will accept as sufficient 

such training as is generally recognized in the dispute resolution 

profession. For example, the Interagency Program on Sharing Neutrals 

administered by the Department of Health and Human Services requires 

the following expertise: 1) at least 20 hours of basic mediation skills 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-14

training; 2) at least three co-mediations with a qualified mediator or five 

independent mediations and positive evaluations from a qualified 

trainer/evaluator; and 3) at least two references from two qualified 

mediators or trainer/evaluators. 

2. Knowledge of EEO Law

Any person who serves as a neutral in an agency‟s ADR program must be 

familiar with the following EEO laws and areas: 

a. The entire EEO process pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, including 

time frames; 

b. The Civil Service Reform Act and the statutes that EEOC enforces 

(including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, the Equal Pay Act of 

1963, as amended, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 

of 2008; 

c. The theories of discrimination (for example disparate treatment, 

adverse impact, harassment, and reasonable accommodation); and 

d. Remedies, including compensatory damages, costs, and attorney‟s 

fees. 

C. Role of the Neutral 

In any ADR proceeding conducted under this Directive, the neutral‟s duty to the 

parties is to be “neutral, honest, and to act in good faith.” See EEOC Policy 

Statement at Appendix I in the Manual. The neutral must also act consistently 

with the ADRA and: 

1. Ensure that ADR proceedings are consistent with EEO law and Part 1614 

regulations, including time frames; 

2. Ensure that proceedings are fair and consistent with the core principles in 

this Chapter, particularly providing the parties the opportunity to be 

represented by any person of his/her choosing throughout the proceeding; 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-15

3. Ensure that an agency representative participating in ADR has the 

authority and responsibility to negotiate in good faith and that a person 

with authority to approve or enter into a settlement agreement is accessible 

to the agency‟s representative;

4. Ensure enforceability of any agreement between the parties, including 

preparation of the written settlement agreement that includes the 

signatures of the appropriate agency representative and aggrieved person; 

5. Ensure confidentiality, including destroying all written notes taken during 

the ADR proceeding or in preparation for the proceeding; and 

6. Ensure neutrality, including having no conflict of interest with respect to 

the proceeding (for example, material or financial interest in the outcome, 

personal friend or co-worker of a party, supervisory official over a party), 

unless such interest is fully disclosed in writing to the parties and they 

agree that the neutral may serve. 

D. Promoting Trust 

Trust fosters the open and frank communication between the parties that is an 

essential factor in reaching a fair resolution of an EEO complaint. Once the 

individual has chosen ADR to attempt resolution, the neutral can develop the 

parties‟ trust by:

1. Providing full information about the ADR proceeding as soon as possible, 

including information on its impartiality, the relative merits of ADR as 

compared with the traditional form of complaint processing, and the 

confidentiality of the ADR process; 

2. Giving the parties the opportunity to request and obtain relevant 

information from one another, so that they have sufficient information to 

make informed decisions; and 

3. Explaining the safeguards that are in place to protect parties from 

pressures to resolve the complaint. 

VI. ADR TECHNIQUES 

As stated previously, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(2) requires that all agencies establish or 

make available an ADR program for the equal employment opportunity process. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-16

Numerous ADR techniques are available for use by agencies in their programs. All 

agencies should be familiar with the ADR techniques listed below. 

A. Mediation 

Mediation is presently the most popular form of ADR in use by agencies in 

employment-related disputes. Mediation is the intervention in a dispute or 

negotiation of an acceptable, impartial, and neutral third party, who has no 

decision-making authority. The objective of this intervention is to assist the 

parties to voluntarily reach an acceptable resolution of the issues in dispute. 

A mediator, like a facilitator, makes primarily procedural suggestions regarding 

how parties can reach an agreement. Occasionally, a mediator may suggest some 

substantive options as a means of encouraging the parties to expand the range of 

possible resolutions under consideration. A mediator often works with the parties 

individually, in caucuses, to explore acceptable resolution options, or to develop 

proposals that might move the parties closer to resolution. 

Mediators differ in their degree of assertiveness or control as they assist in 

disputing parties. Some mediators set the stage for bargaining, make minimal 

procedural suggestions, and intervene in the negotiations only to avoid or 

overcome a deadlock. Other mediators are much more involved in forging the 

details of a resolution. Regardless of how directive the mediator is, the mediator 

performs the role of catalyst that enables the parties to initiate progress toward 

their own resolution of issues in dispute. 

B. Facilitation 

Facilitation involves the use of techniques to improve the flow of information in a 

meeting between parties to a dispute. The techniques may also be applied to 

decision-making meetings where a specific outcome is desired (for example, 

resolution of a conflict or dispute). The term “facilitator” is often used 

interchangeably with the term “mediator,” but a facilitator does not typically 

become as involved as the mediator in the substantive issues. The facilitator 

focuses more on the process involved in resolving a matter. 

The facilitator generally works with all of the participants at once and provides 

procedural directions as to how the group can efficiently move through the 

problem-solving steps of the meeting, and arrive at the jointly agreed upon goal. 

The facilitator focuses on procedural assistance and remains impartial to the 

topics under discussion. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-17

C. Fact Finding 

Fact finding is the use of an impartial expert (or group) selected by the parties, by 

the agency, or by an individual with the authority to appoint a fact finder, in order 

to determine what the “facts” are in a dispute. The fact finder may be authorized 

only to investigate or evaluate the matter presented and file a report establishing 

the facts in the matter. In some cases, s/he may be authorized to issue either a 

situation assessment or a specific procedural or substantive recommendation as to 

how a dispute might be resolved. If used as an ADR technique, the findings of 

fact must remain confidential in order to comply with the core principles 

mentioned above. 

Fact finding used as an agency ADR technique is different from the many fact 

finding methods referred to in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(b) that agencies may employ 

to investigate formal complaints in the administrative process. For example, oral 

or written communications which occur during an ADR proceeding such as fact 

finding (or some other ADR technique) are generally treated as confidential. 

5 U.S.C. § 574. However, information which is developed during the 

investigation of a complaint through the use of fact finding methods mentioned in 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(b) is not treated as confidential. 

D. Early Neutral Evaluation 

Early Neutral Evaluation uses a neutral or impartial third party to provide an 

objective evaluation, sometimes in writing, of the strengths and weaknesses of a 

case. Under this method, the parties will usually make informal presentations to 

the neutral party to highlight their respective cases or positions. 

E. Ombuds 

Ombuds are individuals who rely on a number of techniques to resolve disputes. 

These techniques include counseling, mediating, conciliating, and fact finding. 

Usually, when an ombud receives a complaint, s/he interviews parties, reviews 

files, and makes recommendations to the disputants. Ombuds do not impose 

solutions. The power of the ombud lies in his/her ability to persuade the parties to 

accept his/her recommendations. An individual not accepting the proposed 

solution of the ombud is free to pursue a remedy in other forums for dispute 

resolution. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-18

F. Settlement Conferences 

Settlement Conferences may be conducted by a settlement judge (for example an 

EEOC Administrative Judge) or referee and attended by representatives for the 

opposing parties and/or the parties themselves in order to reach a mutually 

acceptable settlement of the disputed matter. Agencies are not precluded from 

having their own settlement conferences without an Administrative Judge, 

provided the parties agree. Attendance is mandatory at a settlement conference 

ordered by an Administrative Judge. The failure of any party to comply with an 

order of an Administrative Judge may result in sanctions. 

The role of a settlement judge is similar to that of a mediator in that s/he assists 

the parties procedurally in negotiating an agreement. Such judges may have 

much stronger authoritative roles than mediators, since they may provide the 

parties with specific substantive and legal information about what the disposition 

of the case might be if it went to court or hearing. They also provide the parties 

with possible settlement ranges for their consideration. In the event a settlement 

is not reached, the case is then processed by an Administrative Judge other than 

the settlement judge. Because these conferences are not conducted by the 

Administrative Judge hearing the case on the merits, the traditional ex parte

constraints are not applicable. 

G. Mini-Trials 

Mini-trials involve a structured settlement process in which each side of a dispute 

presents abbreviated summaries of their case before the parties and/or their 

representatives who have authority to settle the dispute. The summaries contain 

explicit data about the legal bases and the merits of a case. 

The process generally follows more relaxed rules for discovery and case 

presentation than might be found in a court or other administrative proceedings, 

and usually the parties agree on specific limited periods of time for presentations 

and arguments. 

H. Peer Review 

Peer Review is a problem-solving process where an employee takes a dispute to a 

group or panel of fellow employees and managers for a decision. The decision is 

usually not binding on the employee, and s/he would be able to seek relief in 

traditional forums for dispute resolution if dissatisfied with the decision. The 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

3-19

principal objective of peer review is to resolve disputes early before they become 

formal complaints or grievances. 

Typically, the panel is composed of employees and managers who volunteer for 

this duty and who are trained in listening, questioning, and problem-solving skills 

as well as the specific policies and guidelines of the panel. A peer review panel 

may be a standing group of individuals who are available to address whatever 

disputes employees might bring forward at any given time. Other panels may be 

formed on an ad hoc basis through a selection process initiated by the employee, 

for example, blind selection of a certain number of names from a pool of qualified 

employees and managers. 

I. Combinations of Techniques 

Techniques may be combined to provide advantageous aspects of more than one 

method. For example, if in a mediation session, the mediator finds that the parties 

are able to speak directly to each other in a productive way, the mediator may 

utilize the facilitator role and follow up with the mediator role later. In some 

cases, fact finding may precede a facilitation or mediation session. Agencies are 

not limited to using only one method or technique in their ADR programs. They 

may find that using various methods in combination may also yield fruitful results 

and be very effective in reaching resolution. 

VII. RESOLUTIONS MUST BE IN WRITING 

If the agency and the aggrieved person agree to a resolution of the matter, EEOC 

regulations require that the terms of the resolution be in writing and signed by both 

parties to verify they have the same understanding of the terms of the resolution. See

29 C.F.R § 1614.603; Chapter 12 of this Directive. The written agreement must state 

clearly the terms of the resolution and contain the procedures available under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.504, in the event that the agency fails to comply with the terms of the resolution. 

Written agreements must comply with EEOC‟s Enforcement Guidance on Non-Waivable 

Employee Rights Under EEOC Enforced Statutes, wherein the Commission sets forth its 

position that:

“an agency may not interfere with the protected right of employees 

to file a complaint or participate in any manner in an investigation, 

hearing, or proceeding under the laws enforced by the 

Commission.” 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

3-20

Additionally, any written agreement settling a claim under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act (ADEA) must also comply with the requirements of the Older Workers 

Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) Pub. L. 101- 433 (1990), the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 626(f), and EEOC‟s regulations regarding Waiver of Rights and Claims under the 

ADEA at 29 C.F.R. Part 1625. Neither the ADRA nor EEOC‟s core principles require 

the parties to agree that a settlement must be confidential. 

The agency representative shall transmit a signed and dated copy of the resolution to the 

EEO Director. The EEO Director shall retain the copy for one year, or until the EEO 

Director is certain that the agreement has been fully implemented, whichever is later. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

4-1

CHAPTER 4

PROCEDURES FOR RELATED PROCESSES 

I. INTRODUCTION 

As noted in Chapter 2, Section IV.B and Appendix D of this Management Directive, 

different procedures apply to certain related processes. The relationship between 

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 EEO complaints, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) actions, 

grievances filed pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures, notices of intent to sue in 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) complaints and the alternative available 

in Equal Pay Act (EPA) complaints are set out more specifically here. All time frames in 

this Chapter are expressed in calendar days. 

II. MIXED CASE COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302 

A. Definitions 

A “mixed case complaint” is a complaint of employment discrimination filed with 

a federal agency based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, 

genetic information, or reprisal related to or stemming from an action that may be 

appealed to the MSPB. The complaint may contain only a claim of employment 

discrimination or it may contain additional non-discrimination claims that the 

MSPB has jurisdiction to address. A “mixed case appeal” is an appeal filed 

directly with the MSPB that alleges that an appealable agency action was 

effected, in whole or in part, because of discrimination on the basis of race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, or reprisal. 

There is no right to a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge on a mixedcase complaint. 

B. Procedures 

EEOC regulations provide for processing discrimination complaints on claims 

that are otherwise appealable to the MSPB. Two determinations must be made to 

decide if the mixed case regulations apply. First, the employee must have 

standing to file such an appeal with the MSPB. Second, the claim that forms the 

basis of the discrimination complaint must be appealable to the MSPB. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

4-2

1. Standing

a. The following employees generally have a right to appeal to the 

MSPB and, therefore, to initiate a mixed case complaint or appeal:1

(1) competitive service employees not serving a probationary 

or trial period under an initial appointment; 

(2) career appointees to the Senior Executive Service; 

(3) non-competitive service veterans preference eligible 

employees with one or more years of current continuous 

service (for example, postal employees and attorneys with 

veterans preference); and 

(4) non-preference eligible excepted service employees who 

have completed their probationary period or with two or 

more years of current continuous service (for example, 

attorneys). 

b. The following employees generally do not have a right to appeal to 

the MSPB: 

(1) probationary employees (but see 5 C.F.R. § 315.806, 

allowing appeals alleging discrimination based on party 

affiliation, marital status, procedural deficiencies); 

(2) certain non-appropriated fund activity employees;2

(3) employees serving under a temporary appointment limited 

to one year or less; and 

(4) employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the General 

Accounting Office, the United States Postal Service, the 

 

1These are not all-inclusive lists of employees who have or lack standing to appeal to MSPB and 

these lists may change over time. Questions concerning whether an employee may appeal an action to the 

MSPB should be referred to the personnel office at the agency or to the MSPB. 

2

For example, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ' 2105(c), the MSPB lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by 

employees of the Army and Air Force Exchange. Perez v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 680 

F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

4-3

Postal Regulatory Commission, the Panama Canal 

Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

2. Appealable Actions

a. Most appealable actions fall into the following six categories: 

(1) reduction in grade or removal for unacceptable performance; 

(2) removal, reduction in grade or pay, suspension for more 

than fourteen (14) days, or furlough for thirty (30) days or 

less for cause that will promote the efficiency of the 

service; 

(3) separation, reduction in grade, or furlough for more than 30 

days, when the action was effected because of a reductionin-force; 

(4) reduction-in-force action affecting a career appointee in the 

Senior Executive Service; 

(5) reconsideration decision sustaining a negative 

determination of competence for a general schedule 

employee; and 

(6) disqualification of an employee or applicant because of a 

suitability determination. 

b. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3 for a more complete listing of appealable 

actions. 

3. Election to Proceed is Required

a. The regulations provide that a covered individual may raise claims 

of discrimination in a mixed case either as a direct appeal to the 

MSPB or as a mixed-case EEO complaint with the agency, but not

both. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b). 

b. Whatever action the individual files first is considered an election 

to proceed in that forum. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b). Filing a formal 

EEO complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

4-4

forum. Contacting an EEO Counselor or receiving EEO 

counseling does not constitute an election. 

c. Where an aggrieved person files an MSPB appeal and timely seeks 

counseling, counseling may continue pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.105, at the option of the parties. In any case, counseling 

must be terminated with notice of rights pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§§ 1614.105(d), (e), or (f). 

4. Procedures for Handling Dual Filing

a. Where the agency does not dispute MSPB jurisdiction 

(1) If an individual files a mixed case appeal with the MSPB 

before filing a mixed case complaint with the agency, and 

the agency does not dispute MSPB jurisdiction, the agency 

must thereafter dismiss any complaint on the same claim, 

regardless of whether the claims of discrimination are 

raised in the appeal to the MSPB.3

(2) The agency or the EEOC Administrative Judge must advise 

the complainant that s/he must bring the claims of 

discrimination contained in the dismissed complaint to the 

attention of the MSPB, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.151, et

seq. 

(3) Where an agency has not accepted a complaint for 

processing, that is, has disposed of the complaint on 

procedural grounds, the resulting final agency decision is 

appealable to the Commission. 9 C.F.R. § 1614.302(d)(1); 

Abegglen v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 

01966055 (October 9, 1998). 

b. Where the agency or the MSPB Administrative Judge questions 

MSPB jurisdiction 

The agency shall hold the mixed case complaint in abeyance until 

the MSPB Administrative Judge rules on the jurisdictional issue, 

notify the complainant that it is doing so, and instruct him/her to 

 

3A Commission Administrative Judge may dismiss the mixed case complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(b). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

4-5

bring the discrimination claim to the attention of MSPB. During 

this period, all time limitations for processing or filing the 

complaint will be tolled. An agency decision to hold a mixed case 

complaint in abeyance is not appealable to EEOC. If the MSPB 

Administrative Judge finds that MSPB has jurisdiction over the 

claim, the agency shall dismiss the mixed case complaint and 

advise the complainant of the right to petition EEOC to review 

MSPB's final decision on the discrimination issue. If the MSPB 

Administrative Judge finds that MSPB does not have jurisdiction 

over the claim, the agency shall recommence processing of the 

mixed case complaint as a non-mixed case EEO complaint. 

c. Where a complainant files with the agency first

If an employee first files a mixed case complaint at the agency and 

then files a mixed case appeal with the MSPB, the agency should 

advise the MSPB of the prior agency filing and request that the 

MSPB dismiss the appeal without prejudice. 

5. Processing Where MSPB Dismisses a Mixed Case Appeal Because it 

Finds No Jurisdiction (That Is, the Case Is Not Mixed)

a. If an individual files a mixed case appeal with MSPB instead of a 

mixed case complaint, and MSPB subsequently dismisses the 

appeal as non-jurisdictional, the agency must inform the individual 

that s/he may contact a Counselor within forty-five (45) days to

raise the discrimination claim(s) and that the filing date of the 

mixed case appeal will be deemed to be the date the individual 

initially contacted the Counselor. 

b. If the individual filed the appeal after the agency issued an agency 

final decision on the mixed case complaint or after the agency 

failed to issue a final decision on the mixed case complaint within 

120 days, the agency must provide the complainant with a thirty 

(30) day notice of right to a hearing and decision from an EEOC 

Administrative Judge or an immediate final decision by the agency 

pursuant to ' 1614.108(f) and thereafter proceed as in a non-mixed 

case. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

4-6

6. Processing Mixed Case Complaints Filed at the Agency

If an employee elects to file a mixed case complaint, the agency must 

process the complaint in the same manner as it would any other 

discrimination complaint, except: 

a. Within forty-five (45) days following completion of the investigation, the agency must issue a final decision without a hearing 

before an EEOC Administrative Judge. 

b. Upon the filing of a complaint, the agency must advise the 

complainant that if a final decision is not issued within 120 days of 

the date of filing the mixed case complaint, the complainant may 

appeal the claim to the MSPB at any time thereafter, as specified in 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.154(a), or may file a civil action as specified in 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.310(g), but not both. 

c. Also upon the filing of a complaint, the agency must notify the 

complainant that if s/he is dissatisfied with the agency's final 

decision on the mixed case complaint, s/he may appeal the claim to 

the MSPB (not the EEOC) within thirty (30) days of receipt of the 

agency's final decision. 

d. Upon completion of the investigation, the agency must notify the 

complainant that a final decision will be issued within forty-five 

(45) days without a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. 

e. Upon issuance of the agency's final decision on a mixed case 

complaint, the agency must advise the complainant of the right to 

appeal the claim to the MSPB (not EEOC) within 30 days of 

receipt of the notice and of the right to file a civil action as 

provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.310(a). 

III. NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES 

A. Where Agency is Covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d)

1. When an aggrieved employee is covered by a collective bargaining 

agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be raised in a 

negotiated grievance procedure, the employee must elect to file an EEO 

complaint or a grievance. The underlying principle is that an aggrieved 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

4-7

employee who has a choice of forums in which to proceed cannot go 

forward in more than one forum (unless the employing agency is exempt 

from coverage of 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d)). This is true “irrespective of 

whether the agency has informed the individual of the need to elect or of 

whether the grievance has raised an issue of discrimination.” 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.301(a). 

2. If an employee first files a grievance and thereafter files a complaint of 

discrimination on the same claim, the complaint must be dismissed 

without prejudice to the complainant's right to proceed through the 

negotiated grievance procedure, including the right to appeal to the 

Commission from a final decision as provided in subpart D of Part 1614 

(Appeals and Civil Actions). The dismissal of the complaint must advise 

the complainant of the obligation to raise discrimination claims in the 

grievance process and of the right to appeal the final grievance decision to 

the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301(a). 

B. Where Agency is not Covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d)

1. The U.S. Postal Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority are examples 

of two agencies not covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d). In such agencies, an 

aggrieved individual may file a complaint pursuant to Part 1614 and also a 

grievance pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement involving the 

same claim. 

2. In such agencies, complaints filed pursuant to Part 1614 may be held in 

abeyance where a grievance is filed on the same claim, if written notice of 

the abeyance is provided. 

3. Complaints may be held in abeyance until a final decision is issued on the 

grievance. 

IV. AGE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS 

It is incumbent upon federal agency personnel responsible for processing discrimination 

complaints to inform complainants or potential complainants of the following procedures 

available to them in pursuing an age discrimination complaint. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

4-8

A. Election of Administrative Process 

An aggrieved person may file an administrative age discrimination complaint with 

the agency pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. If the aggrieved person elects to file 

an administrative complaint, s/he must exhaust administrative remedies before 

s/he may file a civil action in U.S. District Court. Exhaustion of administrative 

remedies occurs when the agency takes final action or 180 days after filing the 

complaint if no final action is taken. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.201; see also Chapter 

9, Sections II and III, of this Management Directive. 

B. Aggrieved May Bypass Administrative Process 

An aggrieved person may bypass the administrative complaint process and file a 

civil action directly in U.S. District Court provided that the aggrieved person first 

provides the Commission with a written notice of intent to sue under the ADEA. 

The notice to the Commission must be filed within 180 days of the date of the 

alleged discriminatory action. Once a timely notice of intent to sue is filed with 

the Commission, the aggrieved person must wait at least thirty (30) days before 

filing a civil action. 

C. Responsibilities Regarding Notices of Intent to Sue 

The following is a statement of the procedures and a delineation of the 

responsibilities on the part of the aggrieved person, the Commission, and the 

agency with respect to the filing and processing of notices of intent to sue under 

the ADEA. 

1. The Aggrieved Person 

It is the responsibility of the aggrieved person to provide the Commission 

with a written notice of intent to sue within 180 days of the date of the 

alleged discriminatory action. 

a. Notices of intent to sue must be delivered to the Commission in 

one of the following ways: 

hand delivered to: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

Federal Sector Programs 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

4-9

131 M Street, NE 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

or mailed to: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

Federal Sector Programs 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

or may be submitted through the Commission‟s electronic 

document submission portal or fax at (202) 663-7022.

b. The notice of intent to sue should be dated and must contain the 

following information: 

(1) statement of intent to file a civil action under Section 15(d) 

of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as 

amended; 

(2) name, address, and telephone number of the employee or 

applicant; 

(3) name, address, and telephone number of the complainant's 

designated representative, if any; 

(4) name and location of the federal agency or installation 

where the alleged discriminatory action occurred; 

(5) date on which the alleged discriminatory action occurred; 

(6) statement of the nature of the alleged discriminatory 

action(s); and 

(7) signature of the complainant or the complainant's 

representative. 

2. The Commission

a. Upon receipt of a notice of intent to sue, the Commission will 

promptly notify the concerned agency (and all persons named in 

the notice as prospective defendants in the action, if any), in 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

4-10

writing, of its receipt of the notice of intent to sue and will provide 

the agency with a copy of the notice. Commission contact with the 

concerned agency will normally be through the agency 

headquarters level Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or 

similarly designated office, as the case may be. A copy of the 

Commission's notification will be provided to the aggrieved person 

and/or his/her representative, if any. Additionally, the 

Commission will take any appropriate action to ensure the 

elimination of any unlawful practice. 

b. Where an aggrieved person files a civil action before the agency 

has completed its inquiry, or before the Commission has reviewed 

the agency's disposition, the Commission will terminate the inquiry 

and will take no further action on the notice of intent to sue. 

3. The Agency

Upon receipt of a notice of intent to sue, an agency must review the 

claim(s) of age discrimination and conduct an inquiry sufficient to 

determine whether there is evidence that unlawful age discrimination has 

occurred. Agencies may determine their method of review/inquiry and the 

method may vary depending on the scope and complexity of the claims. 

Agencies are encouraged to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes. 

V. EQUAL PAY ACT COMPLAINTS 

An aggrieved individual does not have to file an administrative complaint before filing a 

lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). If an aggrieved individual nonetheless wants to 

file an administrative complaint, it will be processed like Title VII complaints under Part 

1614. Complainants in EPA cases should be notified of the statute of limitations (two 

years or, if a willful violation is alleged, three years), which applies even if the individual 

files an administrative complaint, and of the right to file directly in a court of competent 

jurisdiction without first providing notice to the Commission or exhausting administrative 

remedies. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-1

CHAPTER 5

AGENCY PROCESSING OF FORMAL COMPLAINTS 

I. AGENCY SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE FORMAL COMPLAINT 

Immediately upon receipt of a formal complaint of discrimination, the agency shall 

acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing. The acknowledgment letter shall 

inform the complainant of the date on which the complaint was filed. If the complaint is 

mailed, the date of filing is the postmark date, not the date the agency received the 

complaint. 

Commission regulations require that an EEO Counselor provide both the agency and the 

complainant with a written report within fifteen (15) days of being advised that the 

complainant has filed a formal EEO complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(c). Agencies thus 

should immediately notify the EEO Counselor that a complainant has filed a complaint so 

as to expedite the preparation and delivery of the written report. 

Within a reasonable time after receipt of the written report, the agency should send the 

complainant a second letter (commonly referred to as an "acceptance" letter), stating the 

claim(s) asserted and to be investigated. If the second letter‟s statement of the claim(s) 

asserted and claim(s) to be investigated differs, the letter further shall explain the reasons 

for the difference, including whether the agency is dismissing a portion of the complaint. 

The agency shall advise the complainant that s/he may submit a statement to the agency 

concerning the agency‟s articulation of the claim, which shall become a part of the 

complaint file. (Dismissals are governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a). Additional 

dismissal guidance is provided in Section III of this Chapter of the Management 

Directive.) The agency shall notify the complainant of a partial dismissal by letter and 

further inform the complainant that there is no immediate right to appeal the partial 

dismissal. The agency should advise the complainant that the partial dismissal shall be 

reviewed either by an EEOC Administrative Judge, if the complainant requests a hearing 

before an Administrative Judge, or by the Commission, if the complainant files an appeal 

of a final agency action or final agency decision. (See Section IV.C below for further 

discussion on the requirements of a partial dismissal). 

Unless the complainant states otherwise, copies of the acknowledgment and all 

subsequent actions on the complaint should be mailed or delivered to the complainant's 

representative with a copy to the complainant. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-2

II. THE AGENCY SHALL ALSO PROVIDE OTHER INFORMATION AND NOTICE 

OF RIGHTS 

A. Agency Shall Inform the Complainant of the Agency's Obligations 

1. To Investigate in a Timely Manner

The agency is required to investigate the complaint in a timely manner. 

The investigation must be appropriate, impartial, and completed within 

180 days of filing the complaint; within the time period contained in an 

order from the Office of Federal Operations on an appeal from a dismissal 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a), unless the EEO Officer or designee 

and the complainant agree in writing, consistent with 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108(e), to an extension of not more than ninety (90) days; or 

within the period of time set forth in 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.108(e)(2) or 

1614.606 if the complainant has amended the complaint or filed multiple 

complaints. If the agency fails to complete the investigation in a timely 

manner, it shall issue written notice to complainant informing the 

complainant of its failure, the estimated date of completion and 

complainant‟s right to file a civil action or request a hearing. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(g). See Appendix K for a sample notice letter. 

An investigation is deemed completed when the report of the investigation 

is served on the complainant in conjunction with the notice of the right to 

elect either a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or a final 

decision from the agency pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f). 

2. To Process Mixed Cases Timely

A mixed case complaint will be deemed by the EEOC to be timely 

investigated in the same manner and applying the same time limitations as 

non-mixed cases. However, if a final decision is not issued on the mixed 

cases complaint within 120 days of filing, the complainant may appeal to 

the Systems Protection Board (MSPB) at any time thereafter pursuant to 

MSPB regulation 5 C.F.R. § 1201.154(a) or may file a civil action as 

provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.310(g), but not both. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.302(d)(1). The complainant is not entitled to a hearing before the 

EEOC on a mixed case. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-3

3. Unilateral Extension for Sanitizing Classified Information

The agency may, after providing notice to the complainant, unilaterally 

extend the time period or any period of extension for no more than thirty 

(30) days where it must sanitize a complaint file that may contain 

information classified pursuant to Executive Order 12356 or successor 

orders as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e). 

B. Agency Shall Inform Complainant of His/Her Rights 

The agency shall ensure that all rights and responsibilities enumerated in Chapters 

2, 3, and 4 of this Management Directive are provided to every complainant in 

writing. This includes: 

1. The Right to Request a Hearing

Except in mixed cases, the complainant has the right to request a hearing 

before an EEOC Administrative Judge after 180 calendar days from the 

filing of a formal complaint or after completion of the investigation, 

whichever comes first. Complainants must request a hearing directly from 

the EEOC field office that has jurisdiction over the geographic area in 

which the complaint arose, as set forth in Appendix N of this Management 

Directive. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(g). In an agency‟s written 

acknowledgment of receipt of a complaint or an amendment to a 

complaint, the agency shall advise the complainant of the EEOC office 

and address where a hearing request is to be sent as well as the agency 

office to which the copy of the request should be sent. The complainant 

shall certify to the Administrative Judge that s/he sent a copy of the 

request to the agency EEO office to the attention of the individual and at 

the address that the agency previously informed the complainant. 

2. The Right to Appeal

The complainant has the right to appeal a dismissal, final action or a 

decision. Partial dismissals are not immediately appealable. See

29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.107(b) and 1614.401, and, Section IV.C of this 

Chapter, for further guidance. 

a. Agencies shall inform the complainant that s/he may appeal within 

thirty (30) days of receipt of the dismissal, final action or 

decision. Appeals may be mailed to: 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-4

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington D. C. 20013 

or hand delivered to: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

Appellate Review Programs 

131 M Street NE. Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

or may be submitted through the Commission‟s electronic 

document submission portal or by fax at (202) 663-7022.

b. Agencies shall provide the information at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 

(a)-(f) (use of appeal form EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition (a copy of which is appended hereto as Appendix 

P); content of petition; service of copies on agency EEO Director; 

certification of delivery; and opposition brief schedule). 

c. With regard to a mixed case, if the complainant is dissatisfied with 

the agency's final decision on the mixed case complaint, the 

complainant may appeal the matter to the MSPB, not the EEOC, 

within 30 days of receipt of the agency's final decision. 

3. The Right to File a Civil Action

The complainant has the right to file a civil action in federal district court 

on claims raised in the administrative process: 

a. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a final action on an 

individual or class complaint if no appeal has been filed; 

b. After 180 days from the date of filing an individual or class 

complaint if an appeal has not been filed and a final action has not 

been taken; 

c. Within 90 days of receipt of the Commission's final decision on 

appeal; or 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-5

d. After 180 days from the date of the filing of an appeal with the 

Commission if there has been no final decision by the 

Commission. 

4. See Appendix C of this Management Directive, which sets forth a detailed 

list of a complainant‟s rights about which the agency must advise the 

complainant. 

III. AGENCIES MUST AVOID FRAGMENTING EEO COMPLAINTS 

The fragmentation, or breaking up, of a complainant's legal claim during EEO complaint 

processing has been a significant problem in the federal sector. For complainants, 

fragmented processing can compromise their ability to present an integrated and coherent 

claim of an unlawful employment practice for which there is a remedy under the federal 

equal employment statutes. For agencies and the Commission, fragmented processing 

substantially increases case inventories and workloads when it results in the processing of 

related matters as separate complaints.1

The fragmentation of EEO claims must be prevented at all levels of the complaint 

process, including pre-complaint EEO counseling. This section is designed to promote 

understanding of the concept of fragmentation and to provide guidance on avoiding 

fragmented complaint processing. 

A. Identifying and Defining the Claim in an EEO Complaint 

1. Fragmentation often occurs at the point where the agency identifies and 

defines the complainant‟s claim, most commonly during the counseling 

and investigative stages. A claim refers to an assertion of an unlawful 

employment practice or policy for which, if proven, there is a remedy 

under the federal equal employment statutes. Fragmentation often results 

from a failure to distinguish between the claim the complainant is raising 

and the evidence (factual information) s/he is offering in support of that 

claim. 

 

1

See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997); Toole 

v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 01964702 (May 22, 1997).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-6

Example 1

An African-American employee complains to the EEO Counselor 

that his supervisor is stricter about his time and attendance than 

with the unit's Caucasian employees. This is a legal claim of racebased disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of the 

complainant's employment with regard to time and attendance. In 

support of this claim, the complainant tells the counselor about a 

number of different occasions when the supervisor denied his 

request for annual leave or required him to use leave because he 

was tardy, while treating similarly situated Caucasian employees 

more favorably. These specific incidents should be considered the 

evidence supporting the complainant's claim that the supervisor is 

treating him differently because of his race with regard to his time 

and attendance. Fragmentation would occur if each of these 

incidents were considered a separate claim and processed as a separate 

complaint. 

Example 2

A female employee complains to the EEO Counselor that she is 

being subjected to a hostile work environment due to the ongoing 

sexual harassment by her male coworkers. This is the complainant's legal claim. In support of this claim, the complainant tells the 

counselor of specific incidents of a sexual advance, a sexual joke 

and a comment of a sexual nature. These individual incidents are 

evidence in support of the complainant's claim and should not be 

considered as separate claims in and of themselves. 

2. Often, when an agency identifies each piece of factual evidence (usually 

comprising a single incident) offered by the complainant as a separate and 

distinct legal claim, it ignores the complainant's real underlying claim of a 

pattern of ongoing discrimination.2

 In contrast, fragmentation rarely 

occurs when the complainant presents a legal claim based on a single 

incident (such as a particular selection decision or a termination decision) 

rather than a series of events. 

 

2

See, e.g., Reid v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Request No. 05970705 (April 22, 1999); 

Ferguson v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05970792 (March 30, 1999); Manalo v. 

Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01960764 and 01963676 (November 5, 1996), request for 

reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05970254 (May 29, 1998).
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-7

In defining a legal claim, the agency must exercise care where a series of 

incidents offered by a complainant initially seem different from one 

another. 

Example 3

A complainant tells the counselor that she believes that the agency 

discriminated against her when she was not selected for a GS-14 

Engineer position, when she was not detailed to serve in a similar 

position, and when she was denied access to a particular training 

program. All of these seemingly different incidents are part of the 

same claim of a discriminatory non-selection, as the complainant 

has alleged that the detail and the training would have enhanced 

her qualifications for the GS-14 Engineer position and, therefore, 

are relevant to the agency's failure to select her for that position. 

Practice Tip: When defining a claim, two components must be 

identified. First, the claim must contain a factual statement of the 

employment practice or policy being challenged. As already discussed, it 

is critical that EEO Counselors, investigators, and other EEO staff 

members ensure that they understand the exact nature of the complainant's 

concerns so that the employment practice is defined broadly enough to 

reflect any allegation of a pattern of ongoing discrimination. Particular 

attention should be given to claims involving terms and conditions of 

employment. In Example 1 above, the employment practice being 

challenged is: disparate treatment in terms and conditions of employment 

with regard to time and attendance polices. In Example 2 above, the 

employment practice is: the creation of a hostile work environment 

because of sexual harassment. In Example 3 above, the employment 

practice might be defined as: management's failure to advance the 

complainant's career to a GS-14 position. The second component of a 

legal claim is the identification of the basis (because of race, color, 

national origin, sex, religion, reprisal, age or disability) for a violation of 

an equal employment statute. 

3. Timeliness Issues: One of the reasons the distinction between legal 

claims and supporting evidence is important is because complainants 

frequently raise factual incidents that occur outside of the 45-day time 

period for contacting an EEO Counselor. In general, for a legal claim to 

be timely raised, at least one of the incidents the complainant cites as 

evidence in support of his/her claim must have occurred within the 45-day 

time period for contacting an EEO Counselor. (The usual exceptions 

should still be made. See Section IV of this Chapter on dismissals.) If the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-8

claim itself is timely raised, the question remains as to how the agency is 

to treat those factual incidents that the complainant cited as evidence in 

support of his/her claim that occurred outside the 45-day time limit. 

The answer is that an agency must consider, at least as background, all 

relevant evidence offered in support of a timely raised legal claim, even if 

the evidence involves incidents that occurred outside the 45-day time 

limit. This is true of supporting evidence that the complainant offered 

during EEO counseling as well as later in the investigative stage. During 

the investigation, the degree to which a certain piece of proffered evidence 

is relevant to the legal claim will determine what sort of investigation is 

necessary of that particular piece of evidence. For example, in a nonselection case, a selection decision made long before the one at issue, 

involving different agency officials, may have little relevance to the 

current claim. On the other hand, if the selecting official in the most 

recent non-selection also failed to select the complainant for a similar 

position six months before, that piece of evidence may be very relevant to 

the complainant's claim. Investigators should not simply disregard 

relevant information the complainant provided in support of his/her claim 

as untimely raised; nor should they send the complainant back to 

counseling as if the supporting evidence was a new claim to be processed 

as a separate complaint. 

With regard to the timeliness of a claim of harassment, because the 

incidents that make up a harassment claim collectively constitute one 

unlawful employment practice, the claim is actionable, as long as at least 

one incident that is part of the claim occurred within the filing period. 

Such a claim can include incidents that occurred outside the filing period 

that the complainant knew or should have known were actionable at the 

time of their occurrence. See Bulluck v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

EEOC Appeal No. 0120114276 (March 14, 2012); Richardson v. U.S. 

Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111122 (February 1, 2012). 

However, the Supreme Court has held that no recovery is available for 

discrete acts such as hiring, firing, and promotions that fall outside the 

filing period, even if they are arguably related to other discriminatory acts 

that occur within the filing period. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. 

Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). See also, EEOC Compliance Manual 

915.003, Section 2: Threshold Issues, (rev. July 21, 2005). However, as 

the Court recognized, an employee may use the prior discrete acts as 

background evidence in support of a timely harassment claim. 

Practice Tip: It is critical that agencies document their actions and the 

reasons for those actions in the record for Administrative Judge and 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-9

Commission consideration later in the process. For example, if the 

agency's investigator decides that a certain factual incident raised by the 

complainant is of little relevance to his/her claim and, therefore, decides 

that an “appropriate” investigation of that incident is very minimal, the 

investigator should document that decision and the reasons for it in the 

investigative report. 

B. A Complainant May Amend A Pending Complaint 

At any time prior to the agency‟s mailing of the notice required by 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108(f) at the conclusion of the investigation, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(d) 

permits a complainant to amend a pending EEO complaint to add claims that are 

like or related to those claim(s) raised in the pending complaint.3 There is no 

requirement that the complainant seek counseling on these new claims. See

Braxton v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102410 (Oct. 29, 2010). 

After the complainant has requested a hearing, s/he may file a motion with the 

Administrative Judge to amend the complaint to include claims that are like or 

related to those raised in the pending complaint. 

This situation most frequently occurs when an alleged discriminatory incident 

occurs after the filing of an EEO complaint. In the past, agencies usually made 

these subsequent incidents the basis of a separate EEO complaint. A separate 

EEO complaint is not appropriate, however, if the new incident of discrimination 

raises a claim that is like or related to the original complaint. Rather, the original 

complaint should be amended to include the new incident of discrimination. 

When a complainant raises a new incident of alleged discrimination during the 

processing of an EEO complaint, it must be determined whether this new 

incident:

1. provides additional evidence offered to support the existing claim, 

but does not raise a new claim in and of itself; 

2. raises a new claim that is like or related to the claim(s) raised in the 

pending complaint; or 

3. raises a new claim that is not like or related to the claim(s) raised 

in the pending complaint. 

 

3

It should be noted that technical amendments to a complaint, such as changing the name of the 

agency head, should be handled quickly and without adding additional case processing time.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-10

In order to facilitate such a determination, the complainant shall be instructed by 

the investigator (or any other EEO staff person with whom complainant raises the 

new incident) to submit a letter to the agency's EEO Director or a designee 

describing the new incident(s) and stating that s/he wishes to amend his/her 

complaint to include the new incident(s). The EEO Director or designee shall 

review this request and determine the correct handling of the amendment in an 

expeditious manner. 

1. New Incident That Is Part of the Existing Claim

If the EEO Director or designee concludes that the new incident(s) 

provides additional evidence offered in support of the claim raised in the 

pending complaint, but does not raise a new claim in and of itself, then the 

EEO Director or designee should instruct the investigator to include the 

new incident in the investigation. A copy of this letter should be sent to 

the complainant. 

Example 4 

During EEO counseling and in her formal complaint, an agency 

employee has alleged that her co-workers were harassing her 

because of her gender, and she cites five examples of harassment. 

During the investigation, she provides an initial affidavit detailing 

these incidents. Shortly thereafter, the employee contacts the 

investigator and tells him of several new incidents of gender-based 

harassment by these same coworkers. In this case, these new 

incidents are additional evidence offered by complainant in support 

of her pending claim of discriminatory harassment and the 

investigator should be instructed to incorporate these new facts 

into his investigation of the pending claim. In this instance, the 

investigative period is not extended beyond 180 days, except with 

the consent of the complainant pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108(e). 

2. New Incident That Raises a New Claim Like or Related to the Pending 

Claim

While a complaint is pending, a complainant may raise a new incident of 

alleged discrimination that is not part of the existing claim, but may be 

part of a new claim that is like or related to the pending claim. In deciding 

if a subsequent claim is “like or related” to the original claim, a 

determination must be made as to whether the later incident adds to or 

clarifies the original claim, and/or could have reasonably been expected to 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-11

grow out of the investigation of the original claim. See Scher v. U.S. 

Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940702 (May 30, 1995); Calhoun v. 

U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05891068 (March 8, 1990); 

Webber v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 

01900902 (February 28, 1990). 

If the EEO Director or designee concludes that the new incident(s) raises a 

new claim, but that this new claim is like or related to the claim(s) raised 

in the pending complaint, the agency must amend the pending complaint 

to include the new claim. Accordingly, and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.106(e), the agency shall acknowledge receipt of an amendment to a 

complaint in writing and inform the complainant of the date on which the 

amendment was filed. The EEO Director or designee should also send a 

copy of the letter to the EEO investigator who is investigating the 

complainant's prior complaint with instructions to include the new 

incident(s) in the investigation. 

Example 5

An agency employee files a race discrimination complaint alleging 

he was not selected for a particular supervisory position, despite 

his belief that he was the best qualified candidate for the job. 

During the investigation into his complaint, the complainant is not 

selected for another supervisory position by the same selecting 

official. Complainant again asserts he was not selected because of 

his race. This new claim of a discriminatory non-selection is 

sufficiently like or related to the original non-selection claim that 

the agency should amend the original complaint to include the 

subsequent non-selection. 

Example 6

During the investigation into her claim that the agency is 

discriminating against her in the terms and conditions of her 

employment because her supervisor denied her developmental 

assignments that could lead to upward mobility in the agency, the 

complainant informs the investigator that her supervisor just issued 

her a letter of warning for attendance problems. The complainant 

asserts that the supervisor took this action in retaliation for her 

complaint about the denial of development assignments. This new 

claim of retaliation is related to the pending claim because it grew 

out of the investigation into that claim. The agency should amend 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-12

the original complaint to include this subsequent, but related, 

claim. 

Example 7 

An agency employee files a complaint of discrimination when his 

request for a hardship transfer is denied. During the investigation 

into his complaint, the complainant sends a letter to the EEO office 

stating that he has decided to resign from the agency because of the 

agency's failure to transfer him and the resulting stress. He further 

states that he is no longer seeking the transfer as a remedy to his 

complaint, but asserts he is entitled to a compensatory damages 

award instead. The EEO office should amend the original 

complaint to include the complainant's new like or related claim of 

constructive discharge. 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2), the agency is required to complete 

its investigation of an EEO complaint within 180 days of the filing of a 

complaint unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time period. If 

a complaint is amended, however, this deadline is adjusted so that the 

agency must complete its investigation within the earlier of 180 days after 

the last amendment to the complaint or 360 days after the filing of the 

original complaint. 

A complainant retains the right to request a hearing, even in the case of an 

amended complaint, after 180 days have passed since the filing of the 

original complaint, even if the agency's investigation has not been 

completed. In such a case, an Administrative Judge may develop the 

record through discovery and the hearing process, or utilize other means 

within his/her discretion to ensure that the amended complaint is properly 

addressed. 

3. New Incident Raises Claim That Is Not Like or Related to Pending Claim

In cases where subsequent acts of alleged discrimination do not add to or 

clarify the original claim, and/or could not have been reasonably expected 

to grow out of the investigation of the original claim, the later incident 

should be the subject of a separate EEO complaint. In such cases, 

fragmented processing of an EEO complaint is not at issue because there 

are two distinct and unrelated legal claims being alleged. 

If the EEO Director or designee concludes that the new claim raised by the 

complainant is not like or related to the claim(s) raised in the pending 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-13

complaint, then the complainant must be advised in writing that s/he 

should seek EEO counseling on the new claim. The postmark date of the 

letter (from complainant requesting an amendment) to the EEO Director or 

designee would be the date for time computation purposes used to 

determine if initial counselor contact was timely under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.105(b). 

Example 8 

An agency employee sought EEO counseling and filed a formal 

complaint concerning his allegation that the agency discriminated 

against him in the terms and conditions of his employment by 

requiring that he adhere to a specific work schedule while not 

imposing a similar requirement on a comparative employee. 

During the investigation into this complaint, the complainant tells 

the investigator that he was recently not selected for a position in 

another facility and believes this occurred as a result of 

discrimination. In this case, the discriminatory non-selection claim 

is not like or related to the adherence to the work schedule claim as 

it is factually distinct and cannot reasonably be said to add to or 

clarify the original claim. 

C. Consolidation of Complaints 

As noted above, a new claim that is not like or related to a previously filed 

complaint provides the basis for a new, and separate, complaint. The complainant 

must present the new, unrelated claim to an EEO Counselor and the new claim is 

subject to all of the regulatory case processing requirements. In order to address a 

different fragmentation concern, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606 requires agencies to 

consolidate for joint processing two or more complaints of discrimination filed by 

the same complainant, after appropriate notification is provided to the parties.4 

While it is anticipated that most consolidated complaints will be investigated 

together, in certain circumstances, such as significant geographic distance 

between the sites of two complaints, consolidation does not preclude an agency 

from investigating each complaint separately. In all instances, however, where an 

individual requests a hearing, the consolidated complaints should be heard by a 

single Administrative Judge; or where the complainant requests a final agency 

 

4Through mandatory consolidation, the Commission seeks to address the situation where a single 

complainant has multiple complaints pending against an agency. Even if the complaints are unrelated, 

their resolution in a single proceeding will make better use of agency and Commission resources.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-14

decision, the agency should issue a single decision. An agency must consolidate 

complaints filed by the same complainant before the agency issues the notice 

required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f) at the conclusion of the investigation. 

When a complaint has been consolidated with an earlier filed complaint, the 

agency must complete its investigation within the earlier of 180 days after the 

filing of the last complaint or 360 days after the filing of the original complaint. 

A complainant has the right to request a hearing, even in the case of consolidated 

complaints, after 180 days have passed since the filing of the original complaint, 

even if the agency's investigation has not been completed. If not already 

consolidated, an Administrative Judge or the Commission may, in their discretion, 

consolidate two or more complaints of discrimination filed by the same 

complainant. 

Section 1614.606 of 29 C.F.R. permits, but does not require, the consolidation of 

complaints filed by different complainants that consist of substantially similar 

allegations or allegations related to the same matter. 

D. Partial Dismissals 

Another method of addressing the fragmentation problem is 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(b), which provides for no immediate right to appeal a partial dismissal 

of a complaint. See Section IV.C of this Chapter for a more detailed discussion of 

partial dismissals. Partial dismissals will be preserved and decided within the 

context of the rest of the complaint. 

E. No Remands By Administrative Judges 

To further avoid the fragmenting of EEO claims, Administrative Judges will not 

remand issues to agencies for counseling or other processing. Once a case is 

before an Administrative Judge, that Administrative Judge is fully responsible for 

processing it. This provision is discussed more fully in Chapter 7 on Hearings. 

F. "Spin-off" Complaints 

Section 1614.107(a)(8) of 29 C.F.R. provides for the dismissal of spin-off 

complaints, which are complaints about the processing of existing complaints. It 

provides instead that complaints about the processing of existing complaints 

should be referred to the agency official responsible for complaint processing, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-15

and/or processed as part of the original complaint, as set forth in Section IV.D of 

this Chapter. 

G. Training 

As already emphasized, the EEO Counselor and investigator have critical roles in 

identifying, defining, and clarifying an aggrieved employee's legal claims. 

Therefore, agencies must provide all counselors and investigators with mandatory 

training in this area. See Chapter 2, Section II (EEO Counselor training) and 

Chapter 6, Section II (investigator training) of this Management Directive. 

IV. AGENCY DISMISSAL PROCESS 

Circumstances under which an agency may dismiss a complaint are set forth in 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a). An agency‟s authority to dismiss a complaint ends when a complainant 

requests a hearing. An agency should process dismissals expeditiously. 

Agencies should clearly set forth its reasoning for dismissing the complaint in all 

dismissal decisions and include evidence in the record that supports the grounds for 

dismissal. For example, if the agency dismisses a claim under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a)(3) because a civil action was filed by complainant, the agency should 

ensure that a copy of the civil complaint is included in the record. 

A. Bases for Dismissals that May Exist As of the Filing of the Complaint or 

Develop Thereafter 

1. Untimely Counseling Contact - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2)

a. A claim that has not been brought to the attention of an EEO 

Counselor in a timely manner. 

b. The complainant did not contact an EEO Counselor within fortyfive (45) days of the discriminatory event or within 45 days of the 

effective date of the personnel action, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1), 

and the complainant did not show that the 45-day contact period 

should be extended pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). See, 

for example, Ball v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 

05880247 (July 6, 1988) (reasonable suspicion standard used to 

determine when the 45-day limitation period begins; time limit is 

not triggered until the complainant reasonably suspects 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-16

discrimination, but before all of the facts that support the charge of 

discrimination have become apparent). An agency may be barred 

from dismissing a complaint on timeliness grounds where: 

(1) the agency could not establish that the complainant was not 

notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of 

them, or did not know and reasonably should not have 

known that the discriminatory practice or personnel action 

occurred or that despite due diligence was prevented by 

circumstances beyond his/her control from contacting an 

EEO Counselor within the time limits, or for other reasons 

considered sufficient by the agency or the Commission; or

(2) the complainant contends that the claim is a part of a 

continuing violation or establishes that there are other 

equitable circumstances that mitigate untimely contact. 

Time limits are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable 

tolling under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). 

2. Untimely Filing of the Formal Complaint – 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a) (2)

The complainant failed to file a formal complaint within fifteen (15) days

of his/her receipt of the Counselor's notice of right to file a formal 

complaint (“Notice of Final Interview”) in an individual complaint, 29 

C.F.R. § 1614.105(d), or in a class complaint, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(c). 

The agency has the burden of proving that the complainant received the 

notice and that the notice clearly informed the aggrieved person of the 15-

day filing time frame. See, for example, Paoletti v. U.S. Postal Service, 

EEOC Request No. 05950259 (August 17, 1995). This time limit is also 

subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.604(c). 

3. Failure to State a Claim - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1)

The complainant failed to state a claim under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103. This 

may include a claim that does not allege discrimination on a basis 

encompassed in one of the statutes applicable to federal sector employees. 

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the proper inquiry is 

whether the conduct if true would constitute an unlawful employment 

practice under the EEO statutes. Cobb v Department of the Treasury, 

EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997) (a complaint should not 

be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt 

that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts in support of the claim 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-17

which would entitle the complainant to relief; the trier of fact must 

consider all of the alleged harassing incidents and remarks, and 

considering them together in the light most favorable to the complainant, 

determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim). See also

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 752-753 (1998) 

(referencing cases in which courts of appeals considered whether various 

employment actions were sufficient to state a claim under the civil rights 

laws). Dismissal for failure to state a claim also may be appropriate where 

the complainant named the improper agency. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.106(a). 

An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or 

applicant for employment who believes that s/he has been discriminated 

against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, 

age, disabling condition or retaliation. The Commission has long defined 

an “aggrieved employee” as one who suffers a present harm or loss with 

respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is 

a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 

05931049 (April 21, 1994); see also Wildberger v. Small Business 

Administration, EEOC Request No. 05960761 (October 8, 1998). An 

agency is required to address EEO complaints only when filed by an 

individual who has suffered direct, personal deprivation at the hands of the 

employer; the agency‟s act must have caused some concrete effect on the 

aggrieved person‟s employment status. Quinones v. Department of 

Defense, EEOC Request No. 05920051 (March 12, 1992). 

When an individual alleges retaliation in a complaint, they do not need to

make a showing of an adverse employment action. See Burlington 

Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006); 

2 EEOC Compliance Manual Sec. 8-II.D.3 (1998) (any adverse treatment 

that is based upon a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the 

charging party or others from engaging in protected activity states a 

claim). The significance of the act of alleged retaliation will often depend 

upon the particular circumstances. For example, in Isom v. U.S. Postal 

Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113627 (November 7, 2012), the 

complainant alleged that he was required to perform both forklift and 

jitney duties. The record revealed that other employees were required to 

perform either forklift or jitney duties but not both and that the supervisor 

involved was under pressure to discipline complainant for refusing an 

assignment even if the discipline was not warranted. The Commission 

found a viable claim of retaliation was stated and remanded the case to the 

agency to process. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-18

4. Abuse of Process - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(9)

Section 1614.l07(a)(9) of 29 C.F.R. is the appropriate provision under 

which an agency may dismiss a complaint on the extraordinary grounds of 

abuse of process. 

(a) Abuse of process is defined as a clear pattern of misuse of the 

process for ends other than that which it was designed to 

accomplish. See Buren v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 

05850299 (1985); Kleinman v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 01943637 (1994); Sessoms v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Appeal No. 01973440 (1998). The Commission has a strong 

policy in favor of preserving a complainant‟s EEO rights whenever 

possible. The occasions in which application of the standards are 

appropriate must be rare, because of the strong policy in favor of 

preserving a complainant's EEO rights whenever possible. See

generally Love v. Pullman, 404 U.S. 522 (1972); Wrenn v. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 

01932105 (1993). Therefore, such dismissals must be taken only 

in cases where there is a clear misuse or abuse of the 

administrative process. 

(b) In order to determine whether a complaint, or a number of 

consolidated complaints, should be dismissed for this reason under 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(9), the agency or Administrative Judge 

must strictly apply the criteria established by the Commission on 

this issue.5 This requires an analysis of whether the complainant 

evidences an ulterior purpose to abuse or misuse the EEO process. 

Agencies are cautioned that numerous complaint filings alone is 

not a sufficient basis for determining that there has been an abuse 

of the process. However, multiple filings on the same issues, lack 

of specificity in the allegations, and the filing of complaints on 

allegations previously raised, may be considered in deciding 

whether a complainant has engaged in a pattern of abuse of the 

EEO process. All pending complaints from a complainant which 

satisfy these criteria should be consolidated for dismissal under 

this section. 

 

5The Commission retains the authority on appeal to protect its administrative processes from abuse 

by either party.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-19

(c) Cases in which the Commission has found an abuse of the EEO 

process include those where, upon review of the complainant‟s 

record, including the number and types of complaints filed, the 

Commission has concluded that the complainant has pursued a 

scheme involving the misuse and misapplication of the EEO 

process for an end other than that which it was designed to 

accomplish. 

(1) For example, in reviewing a complainant‟s prior 

complaints, the Commission has found abuse of process 

where the complainant presented similar or identical

allegations, evidencing a pattern of initiating the complaint 

process whenever the agency did anything that dissatisfied 

the complainant. Hooks v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Appeal No. 01953852 (1995). 

(2) The Commission has also found abuse of process when the 

complainant presented similar or identical allegations 

related to the complainant's dissatisfaction with the EEO 

process itself. Goatcher v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Request No. 05950557 (1996). The complainant in 

Goatcher filed numerous complaints concerning the 

agency's purported denial of access to sufficient equipment 

and storage for EEO claims, denial of official time for such 

claims, inadequate EEO counseling, agency monitoring of 

time spent in the EEO process, and failure to maintain her 

anonymity during EEO counseling. 

(3) In Sessoms v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 

01973440 (1998), the Commission noted that the appellant 

was experienced in the EEO process, but that he pursued a 

clear pattern of abuse of the EEO process by filing 

numerous frivolous complaints. The Commission noted, 

“A definite pattern of initiating the complaint machinery 

with respect to any matter with which appellant was 

dissatisfied has developed . . . clearly has amounted to an 

abuse of process.” See also Kessinger v. U.S. Postal 

Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01976399 (June 8, 1999) (clear 

pattern of abuse from multiple filings, totaling over 160 

complaints and 150 appeals, many of which were duplicate 

complaints of earlier, dismissed filings; Commission found 

the complainant‟s actions an intentional effort to clog the 

agency‟s in-house administrative machinery); Stoyanov v. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-20

Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120113142, 

0120113817, & 0120114019 (December 6, 2011) (clear 

pattern of abuse from multiple filings many of which 

concerned selections for positions for which complainant 

was not eligible to apply). 

(d) The Commission has stressed in such cases that a party cannot be 

permitted to utilize the EEO process to circumvent other 

administrative processes; nor can individuals be permitted to 

overburden the EEO system, which is designed to protect 

individuals from discriminatory practices. 

Example 1

The complainant originally filed a complaint of 

discrimination in non-selection for promotion. 

Subsequently, he repeatedly files complaints of reprisal, 

alleging that the agency was denying him official time to 

prepare EEO complaints, denying him the use of facilities 

and storage space for his EEO materials, providing 

improper EEO counseling, and unfairly keeping tabs on the 

amount of official time he is spending on his EEO 

complaints. Many of the allegations in these complaints 

are vague, and raise allegations previously raised in earlier 

complaints. In fact, he had on several occasions copied a 

previous complaint on which he would write a new date in 

order to file new complaint. Over the course of several 

months, he filed a total of 25 complaints in this manner. 

The agency could consolidate the subsequent complaints 

and dismiss them under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a) for abuse 

of process. The complainant had demonstrated a pattern of 

abuse of the process, involving multiple complaints 

containing identical or similar allegations. (See, for 

example, Kessinger v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 01976399 (June 8, 1999); Story v. U.S. Postal Service, 

EEOC Request No. 05970083 (May 22, 1998)). 

Example 2

The complainant originally filed a complaint of 

discrimination in non-selection for promotion. 

Subsequently she filed a total of 15 complaints, many 

alleging specific and distinct acts of reprisal for her prior 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-21

EEO activity. Based on the number of complaints alone, 

the agency attempted to dismiss them all for abuse of 

process. 

There was insufficient evidence to dismiss the complaints 

for abuse of process. Evidence of numerous complaint 

filings, in and of itself, is not a sufficient basis for determining that there has been an abuse of the process. In this 

case, there was no evidence that the complainant's ulterior 

purpose is to abuse the EEO process, or that she was 

misusing the process for ends other than that which it was 

designed to accomplish. It may be appropriate, however, 

for the agency to consolidate the individual complaints for 

processing. (See, for example, Manley v. Department of the 

Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01975901 (May 29, 1998); 

and Donnelly v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 

01972171 (November 17, 1997) for decisions rejecting 

agency contentions of abuse of process). 

5. States the Same Claim - 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(1)

The complaint states the same claim that is pending before or had been 

decided by the agency or Commission except in those cases where a class 

action complaint is pending.6

 The Commission has interpreted this 

regulation to require that the complaint must set forth the "identical 

matters" raised in a previous complaint filed by the same complainant, in 

order for the subsequent complaint to be rejected. Terhune v. U.S. Postal 

Service, EEOC Request No. 05950907 (July 18, 1997); Russell v. 

Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05910613 (August 1, 1991) 

(interpreting 29 C.F.R. § 1613.215(a)(1), the predecessor of 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a)(1)). 

6. Complainant Files a Civil Action - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(3)

The complainant files a civil action concerning the same allegation, at 

least one hundred eighty (180) days after s/he filed his/her administrative 

complaint. The requirement in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.410 that the civil action 

shall be dismissed only if it was filed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 

evidences the intent of the Commission to restrict the dismissals of EEO 

 

6

In that case, an individual complaint will be subsumed under the class complaint. See Chapter 8 

Section III of this Management Directive for detailed information on when a case should be subsumed.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-22

complaints for filing a civil action to those civil actions which were 

brought under the statutes enforced by the Commission. Where a 

complainant has not filed a civil action pursuant to the specific statutes 

listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408, the complaint may not be dismissed 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(3). See Krumholz v. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01934799 (December 15, 1993), 

aff‟d, EEOC Request No. 05940346 (October 21, 1994). 

7. Issue Has Been Decided - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(3)

The same issue has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and 

the complainant was a party to the lawsuit. Commission regulations 

mandate dismissal of the EEO complaint under these circumstances so as 

to prevent a complainant from simultaneously pursuing both 

administrative and judicial remedies on the same matters, wasting 

resources, and creating the potential for inconsistent or conflicting 

decisions. Stromgren v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request 

No. 05891079 (May 7, 1990); Sandy v. Department of Justice, EEOC 

Appeal No. 01893513 (October 19, 1989). The proper inquiry to 

determine whether dismissal is warranted is whether the issues in the EEO 

complaint and the civil action are the same, that is, whether the acts of 

alleged discrimination are identical. Bellow v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Request No. 05890913 (November 27, 1989). The factual allegations and 

not the bases or the precise relief requested should be the crux of the legal 

analysis.

8. Allegation Raised in Negotiated Grievance Proceeding - 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a)(4)

The complainant has raised the allegation in a negotiated grievance 

procedure that permits allegations of discrimination, indicating an election 

to pursue a non-EEO process. Section 1614.301(a) of 29 C.F.R. provides 

that “a person wishing to file a complaint or a grievance on a matter of 

alleged employment discrimination must elect to raise the matter under 

either part 1614 or the negotiated grievance procedure, but not both.” This 

subsection also provides that an election to proceed under 1614 is 

indicated by the “filing of a written complaint,” while an election to 

proceed under a negotiated grievance procedure is indicated by the “filing 

of a timely written grievance.” See Casey v. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01944605 (August 9, 1995).7 The withdrawal 

 

7 An agency cannot deny a complainant his statutory and regulatory right to file an EEO complaint 

because the union exercised its right to file its own grievance pursuant to the terms of a Collective 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-23

of a grievance does not abrogate its effect for purposes of an election. 

Bracket v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05910383 

(August 8, 1991). 

9. Appeal Made to MSPB - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(4)

The complainant has elected to appeal the claim to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, rather than file a mixed case complaint under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.302. 

10. Complaint Alleges a Preliminary Step - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(5)

The complaint alleges that a proposal to take or a preliminary step in 

taking a personnel action is discriminatory. This provision requires the 

dismissal of complaints that allege discrimination “in any preliminary 

steps that do not, without further action, affect the person: for example, 

progress reviews or improvement periods that are not a part of any official 

file on the employee.” 57 Fed. Reg. 12,643 (April 10, 1992); see, for 

example, McAlhaney v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 

05940949 (July 7, 1995). However, if the complaint alleges that a 

proposal to take or a preliminary step in taking a personnel action is 

retaliatory, the complaint should not be dismissed because a proposed 

action could be considered adverse treatment in the context of reprisal if it 

is reasonably likely to deter protected activity.8

 See Brown v. Department 

of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103139 (December 8, 2010) 

(complainant‟s claim that the agency discriminated against him when it 

placed him on a performance improvement plan stated a viable claim of 

retaliation). In addition, if the individual alleges that the preliminary step 

was part of a pattern of harassing the individual for a prohibited reason; 

the complaint cannot be dismissed under this section because the 

preliminary step has already affected the employee. See, for example, 

Noone v. Central Intelligence Agency, EEOC Request No. 05940422 

 

Bargaining Agreement. See Callahan v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110309 

(January 5, 2012) (complainant stated that the union filed a grievance without his knowledge, and there 

was no evidence in the record that complainant was involved in filing the grievance); see also Cate v. 

Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110083 (November 21, 2011). 

8Dismissal of allegedly retaliatory proposals and other preliminary steps may be appropriate under 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) if the alleged retaliatory actions are not “materially adverse,” that is, would 

not dissuade a reasonable employee in complainant‟s circumstances from engaging in protected activity. 

See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-24

(January 23, 1995); see also Bennett v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120111470 (January 5, 2012) 

11. Complaint is Moot - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(5)

A complaint may be dismissed as moot where there is no reasonable 

expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and interim relief or 

events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the 

alleged violation. See Wildberger v. Small Business Administration, 

EEOC Request No. 05960761 (October 8, 1998), citing County of Los 

Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979). When such circumstances exist, 

no relief is available, and there is no need for a determination of the rights 

of the parties. The Commission has also held, however, that where a 

complainant has made a timely request for compensatory damages, an 

agency must address the issue of compensatory damages before it can 

dismiss a complaint for mootness. See, for example, Salazar v. 

Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05930316 (February 9, 1994).9

12. Dissatisfaction with the Processing of a Complaint - 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a)(8)

The complaint alleges dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously 

filed complaint. See discussion in Section IV.D of this Chapter of the 

Management Directive. 

 

9A different situation is presented where an agency unilaterally and unconditionally promises in 

writing to provide the full and complete remedy as defined by the Administrative Judge. Although the 

complaint is Amoot@ in the sense that the guarantee of complete relief completely and irrevocably 

eradicates the effects of the alleged violation, the Administrative Judge will not dismiss the complaint as

moot, but will issue an order determining the appropriate remedy. The purpose of this requirement is to 

ensure that the complainant will be able to seek enforcement of the agency‟s agreement to provide full 

relief should the agency fail to do so. See Chapter 7, Section III.D.15 of this Management Directive.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-25

B. Dismissals that Generally Occur After the Agency Accepts the Complaint 

Based on Complainant’s Actions or Inactions

1. The Complainant Cannot Be Located - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(6) 

The regulations permit dismissal where the complainant cannot be located. 

The provision requires that the agency make reasonable efforts to locate 

the complainant and inform the complainant that s/he must respond to the 

agency‟s notice of proposed dismissal within fifteen (15) days sent to 

his/her last known address. A matter may not be “dismissed” under this 

section until after the complaint has been filed. See Clairborne v. 

Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01972713 (March 19, 

1998). 

2. The Complainant Failed to Respond or Proceed in a Timely Fashion -

29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(7)

The regulations permit dismissal where the complainant has failed to 

respond to a written “request to provide relevant information or to 

otherwise proceed” within 15 days of receipt, provided that the request 

contained notice of the proposed dismissal and further provided that there 

is otherwise insufficient available information to adjudicate the claim. 

The regulation further states that an agency may not dismiss on this basis 

where the record includes sufficient information to issue a decision. See

Delancy v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111686 (March 

13, 2012). The Commission also has held that the regulation is applicable

only in cases where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious 

conduct by the complainant. See Martinez v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Appeal No. 0120113028 (November 2, 2011) (dismissal of complaint for 

failure to cooperate was improper where there was insufficient evidence to 

support a conclusion that complainant purposely engaged in delay or 

contumacious conduct, and there was sufficient information in the record 

to have permitted the agency to continue the investigation, including 

extensive information as to the alleged discriminatory action and the 

responsible officials). 

C. Processing of Partially Dismissed Complaints 

There is no immediate right to appeal a partial dismissal of a complaint. Where 

an agency believes that some but not all of the claims in a complaint should be 

dismissed for the reasons contained in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a), the agency must 

notify the complainant in writing of its determination, set forth its rationale for 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-26

that determination, and notify the complainant that the allegations will not be 

investigated. The agency must place a copy of the notice in the investigative file. 

The agency should advise the complainant that an Administrative Judge shall 

review its dismissal determination if s/he requests a hearing on the remainder of 

the complaint, but the complainant may not appeal the dismissal until a final 

action is taken by the agency on the remainder of the complaint. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(b). 

1. Where a Hearing is Requested

If the complainant requests a hearing from an Administrative Judge, the 

Administrative Judge will evaluate the agency‟s reasons for believing that 

a portion of the complaint met the standards for dismissal before holding 

the hearing. If the Administrative Judge believes that all or a part of the 

agency‟s reasons are not well taken, the entire complaint or all of the 

portions not meeting the standards for dismissal will continue in the 

hearing process. The parties may conduct discovery to develop the record 

for all portions of the complaint continuing in the hearing process. The 

Administrative Judge‟s decision on the partial dismissal will become part 

of the Administrative Judge‟s final decision on the complaint and may be 

appealed by either party after final action is taken on the complaint. 

2. Where a Final Decision By the Agency Is Requested

Where a complainant requests a final decision by the agency without a 

hearing, the agency will issue a decision addressing all claims in the 

complaint, including its rationale for dismissing claims, if any, and its 

findings on the merits of the remainder of the complaint. The complainant 

may appeal the agency‟s decision, including any partial dismissals, to the 

Commission. 

Agency decisions shall include the following: 

(a) findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of each issue 

in the complaint; 

(b) appropriate remedies and relief in accordance with subpart E of 

part 1614 when discrimination is found; 

(c) notice of right to appeal to the Commission (with EEOC Form 573, 

Notice of Appeal/Petition attached), unless the complaint involves 

a mixed case, where the agency should provide notice of right to 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-27

appeal to the MSPB (not the EEOC) within thirty (30) days of 

receipt of the agency final decision; 

(d) notice of right to file a civil action in federal district court; 

(e) the name of the proper defendant in any such lawsuit; and 

(f) the applicable time limits for appeals and lawsuits. 

D. Allegations of Dissatisfaction Regarding Processing of Pending Complaints 

1. If a complainant is dissatisfied with the processing of his/her pending 

complaint, whether or not it alleges prohibited discrimination as a basis for 

dissatisfaction, including that agency counsel/representatives improperly 

interfered during the investigation of the complaint, s/he should be 

referred to the agency official responsible for the quality of complaints 

processing. Agency officials should earnestly attempt to resolve 

dissatisfaction with the complaints process as early and expeditiously as 

possible. 

2. The agency official responsible for the quality of complaints processing 

must add a record of the complainant‟s concerns and any actions the 

agency took to resolve the concerns, to the complaint file maintained on 

the underlying complaint. If no action was taken, the file must contain an 

explanation of the agency‟s reason(s) for not taking any action.

3. A complainant must always raise his/her concerns first with the agency, in 

the above manner. However, in cases where the complainant‟s concerns

have not been resolved informally with the agency, the complainant may 

present those concerns to the EEOC at either of the following stages of 

processing: 

a. Where the complainant has requested a hearing, to the EEOC 

Administrative Judge when the complaint is under the jurisdiction 

of the Administrative Judge; or 

b. Where the complainant has not requested a hearing, to the EEOC 

Office of Federal Operations (OFO) on appeal. 

A complainant must raise any dissatisfaction with the processing of his/her 

complaint before the Administrative Judge issues a decision on that 

complaint, the agency takes final action on the complaint, or either the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-28

Administrative Judge or the agency dismiss the complaint. The 

complainant has the burden of showing improper processing. No concerns 

regarding improper processing raised after a decision will be accepted by 

the agency, the Administrative Judge, or OFO. 

Where the Administrative Judge or OFO finds that an agency has 

improperly processed the original complaint and that such improper 

processing has had a material effect on the processing of the original 

complaint, the Administrative Judge or OFO may impose sanctions on the 

agency as deemed appropriate. For example, where the complainant 

asserts that the agency‟s investigation of the complaint was improper, the 

Administrative Judge may determine whether the complainant has 

properly characterized the investigation and whether the agency‟s failure 

properly to investigate the complaint had a material effect on the 

processing of the complaint. Or, for example, where the complainant 

asserts that agency counsel or representatives improperly directed, or 

interfered with, the investigation of the complaint, the Administrative 

Judge may determine whether the Agency did, in fact, interfere in the 

investigation, and whether such interference so undermined the neutrality 

of the investigation that it materially affected the processing of the 

complaint. If the Administrative Judge finds that the processing of the 

complainant‟s complaint was materially affected by the agency‟s actions, 

the Administrative Judge shall issue an appropriate order addressing the 

deficiencies in the investigation. If the Administrative Judge finds that 

although the agency‟s actions were inconsistent with its requirements 

under the 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 regulations, but had no material effect on 

the processing of the complaint, the Administrative Judge, in the exercise 

of his/her discretion, may suggest that the complainant submit a letter to 

the following EEOC office for consideration regarding the agency‟s 

conduct: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

Federal Sector Programs 

131 M Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20507 

Electronic submission may be made using email transmission of 

documents to federalsectoreeo@eeoc.gov or by using the EEOC‟s 

electronic document submission portal. 

Where the complainant contends that an agency improperly denied 

him/her official time and the Administrative Judge or OFO finds in the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-29

complainant‟s favor, the Administrative Judge or OFO may order the 

agency to restore such personal leave as the complainant may have used in 

lieu of official time. 

V. CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION 

A. Agency Retains Responsibility 

Agencies are responsible for conducting an appropriate investigation of 

complaints filed against them. An agency may contract out an investigation or 

may arrange for another agency to conduct the investigation, but the agency 

remains responsible for the content and timeliness of the investigation.

B. Investigations Must be Timely Completed 

Investigations must be completed within 180 days10 of filing a complaint or 

within the time period contained in an order from the Office of Federal 

Operations to investigate a complaint following an appeal from a dismissal, unless 

the EEO Officer or designee and the complainant agree in writing to an extension 

of not more than an additional ninety (90) days. Where a complaint has been 

amended or consolidated with another complaint, the investigation must be 

completed within the earlier of 180 days after the filing of the last complaint or 

360 days after the filing of the original complaint. A complainant has the right to 

file a civil action or request a hearing, even in the case of consolidated 

complaints, after 180 days have passed since the filing of the original complaint, 

even if the agency's investigation has not been completed. 

C. Failure to Complete Investigation within Time Limit 

If the investigation is not completed within the 180-day time limit (or up to 360 

days if the complaint has been amended), the Agency must send a Notice to 

complainant, informing him/her that the investigation is not complete, providing 

an estimated date by which it will be complete and explaining that s/he has a right 

to request a hearing from an EEOC Administrative Judge or to file a civil action 

in the appropriate United States District Court. The Notice must be in writing, 

must describe the hearing process including some explanation of discovery and 

 

10If the complaint is a mixed case, the investigation must be finished within 120 days. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.154(a).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-30

burdens of proof, and must acknowledge that its issuance does not bar 

complainant from seeking sanctions. A sample Notice is provided at Appendix K. 

D. What Must be Done for an Investigation to be Considered Appropriate 

A timely completed investigation means that within the applicable time period the 

agency must complete several actions. 

1. The complaint must be appropriately investigated in a manner consistent 

with Chapter 6 of this Management Directive. An appropriate factual 

record is one that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to 

whether discrimination occurred. 

2. Copies of the investigative file, including a summary of the investigation 

must be provided to the complainant(s)11; and 

3. Within thirty (30) days, notice must be given to the complainant 

informing him of his/her right to request a hearing, if it is not a mixed 

case, or of the right to request a final action by the agency pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.110.

VI. FINAL ACTIONS 

There are two types of final actions by agencies. One is a final action by an agency 

following a decision by an Administrative Judge. The other is a final action in all other 

circumstances. 

A. Final Action By Agency Following An Administrative Judge’s Decision

When an Administrative Judge issues a decision under 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.109 (b), 

(g), or (i), or § 1614.204(d)(7), the agency shall take final action on the complaint 

by issuing an order within forty (40) days of the date of its receipt of the 

Administrative Judge‟s decision. The agency‟s final order shall inform the 

complainant as to whether the agency will fully implement that decision. The 

term “fully implement” means that the agency adopts without modification the 

decision of the Administrative Judge. The agency‟s final order shall further 

inform the complainant of his/her right to file an appeal with the Commission, the 

 

11See Chapter 6 of this Management Directive for the nature and content of an investigative 

summary.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

5-31

right to file a civil action in federal district court, the name of the proper 

defendant in such appeal or civil action, and the applicable time limits for such 

appeals or civil actions. If the agency‟s final order does not fully implement the 

decision of the Administrative Judge, the agency shall file an appeal with the 

Commission in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, appending a copy of its 

appeal to the final order, simultaneously with its issuance of a decision to the 

complainant. A copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition - 

Complainant, shall be attached to the final order. 

When an Administrative Judge issues a decision under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(i), 

the agency shall take final action on the complaint by issuing an order within

sixty (60) days of the date of its receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s decision. 

The agency‟s final order shall inform the class agent as to whether the agency will 

fully implement that decision. The term “fully implement” means that the agency 

adopts without modification the decision of the Administrative Judge. The 

agency‟s final order further shall inform the class agent of his/her right to file an 

appeal with the Commission, the right to file a civil action in federal district court, 

the name of the proper defendant in such appeal or civil action, and the applicable 

time limits for such appeals or civil actions. If the agency‟s final order does not 

fully implement the decision of the Administrative Judge, the agency shall file an 

appeal with the Commission in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, appending 

a copy of its appeal to the final order, simultaneously with its issuance of a 

decision to the class agent. A copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition, shall be attached to the final order. 

B. Final Actions in All Other Circumstances 

When an agency dismisses an entire complaint under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a), 

receives a request for an immediate final decision, or does not receive a reply to 

the notice issued under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the agency will take final action 

by issuing a final decision. The final decision consists of findings by the agency 

on the merits of each claim in the complaint, or, as appropriate, the rationale for 

dismissing any claims in the complaint and, when discrimination is found, 

appropriate remedies, and relief in accordance with subpart E of Part 1614. The 

agency will issue the final decision within sixty (60) days of receiving notification 

that a complainant has requested an immediate final decision from the agency, or 

within 60 days of the end of the thirty (30)-day period for the complainant to 

request a hearing or an immediate final decision where the complainant has not 

requested a hearing or a decision. The final decision shall contain notice of the 

right to appeal the final action to the EEOC, the right to file a civil action in 

federal district court, the name of the proper defendant in any such lawsuit, and 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

5-32

the applicable time limits for appeals and lawsuits. A copy of EEOC Form 573, 

Notice of Appeal/Petition, shall be attached to the final decision. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-1

CHAPTER 6

DEVELOPMENT OF IMPARTIAL AND APPROPRIATE 

FACTUAL RECORDS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Section 1614.108(b), of Title 29 C.F.R., requires that “the agency shall develop an 

impartial and appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the claims 

raised by the written complaint.” An appropriate factual record is one that allows a 

reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred. 

Pursuant to that regulation, this Chapter prescribes the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission's standards for impartiality and appropriateness in factual findings on formal 

complaints of discrimination. Further, because continuing education and training for 

employees working in federal EEO is vitally important, this Chapter also establishes a 

mandatory minimum training requirement for all investigators, including contract and 

collateral duty investigators. 

This Chapter is intended to ensure that federal agencies consistently develop sound 

factual bases for findings on claims raised in equal employment opportunity complaints 

while retaining the maximum flexibility in the use of fact-finding techniques and in the 

use of established dispute resolution plans. This Management Directive is not intended 

as an exhaustive guide for conducting investigations, but represents the standard that the 

Commission expects in an investigation. 

II. MINIMUM TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL INVESTIGATORS 

All new EEO investigators, including contract and collateral duty investigators, must 

have completed at least thirty-two (32) hours of investigator training before conducting 

investigations. In addition to the training requirement for new investigators, all 

investigators are required to receive at least eight hours of continuing investigator 

training every fiscal year. The Commission has developed training courses to satisfy this 

requirement and offers them to agencies through its Revolving Fund Program on a feefor-service basis. Agencies may also develop their own courses to satisfy this 

requirement or contract with others to provide training, as long as the training meets the 

standards provided below. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-2

A. Standards for New Investigator Training Requirement 

The agency should provide training on the following: 

1. An overview of the entire EEO process pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. 

This segment must emphasize important time frames in the EEO process, 

including relevant time frames for investigation. 

2. The role and responsibility of an EEO Investigator, as described in this 

Management Directive. 

3. A thorough presentation of the relevant statutes including Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, the Equal Pay 

Act of 1963, as amended, and Title II of the Genetic Information 

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq. This module 

must explain the theories of discrimination relevant to these statutes, 

including disparate treatment, adverse impact, and reasonable 

accommodation theories. This module must provide detailed instruction 

concerning issues attendant to fragmentation. See Chapter 5, Section III, 

of this Management Directive. 

4. Case management issues, including information on practical techniques 

concerning the timely investigation of complaints. 

5. Remedies, including compensatory damages, attorney‟s fees, and costs. 

This module must provide investigators with practical information on how 

to gather relevant information in cases where remedies, attorney‟s fees, 

and costs are at issue. 

6. Investigative techniques, such as the gathering and analysis of evidence. 

Participants should be provided with an opportunity to get practical, 

hands-on experience during this module on topics such as interviewing 

witnesses, making credibility determinations, and the gathering and 

reviewing of documentary evidence. Participants should be provided with 

case studies to work with so that investigative skills can be effectively 

developed. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-3

B. Continuing Investigator Training 

The continuing eight hours of investigator training every fiscal year is intended to 

keep EEO investigators informed of developments in EEO practice, law, and 

guidance, as well as to enhance and develop investigatory skills. Agencies are 

encouraged to conduct a needs assessment to determine specific investigative staff 

training needs. The Commission anticipates that these eight hours of continuing 

investigator training will include segments on legal and policy updates, regulatory 

and statutory changes, and investigative skills development.

III. RESPONSIBILITIES 

A. Director of Equal Employment Opportunity 

The Director of Equal Employment Opportunity shall ensure that 1) all new 

investigators receive at least thirty-two (32) hours of introductory investigator 

training before conducting investigations and that all investigators receive at least 

eight hours of continuing investigator training every year, 2) the claim(s) in a 

complaint are thoroughly investigated, 3) all employees of the agency cooperate 

in the investigation, and 4) witness testimony is given under oath or affirmation 

and without a promise that the agency will keep the testimony or information 

provided confidential. 

The Director will also ensure that individual complaints are properly and 

thoroughly investigated and that all final actions are issued in a timely manner in 

accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110. The Director also must ensure that there 

is no conflict or appearance of conflict of interest in the investigation of 

complaints. 

B. Equal Employment Opportunity Investigator 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Investigator is a person officially designated 

and authorized to conduct inquiries into claims raised in EEO complaints. The 

authorization includes the authority to administer oaths and to require employees 

to furnish testimony under oath or affirmation without a promise of 

confidentiality. The investigator does not make or recommend a finding of 

discrimination. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-4

A new investigator must have received, at a minimum, thirty-two (32) hours of 

investigator training before s/he conducts an investigation; experienced 

investigators must receive eight hours of training every fiscal year thereafter. 

C. Complainant 

The complainant must cooperate in the investigation and keep the agency 

informed of his/her current address. If an agency is unable to locate the 

complainant, the agency may dismiss the complaint, provided that reasonable 

efforts have been made to locate the complainant and the complainant has not 

responded within fifteen (15) days of the notice of proposed dismissal. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a)(6). 

Where the agency has provided the complainant with a written request to provide 

relevant information or otherwise proceed with the complaint, coupled with a 15-

day notice of proposed dismissal, a failure to respond could result in dismissal of 

the complaint. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(7); Chapter 5, Section IV.B.1, of this 

Management Directive. 

IV. INVESTIGATION 

An investigation of a formal complaint of discrimination is an official review or inquiry, 

by persons authorized to conduct such review or inquiry, into claims raised in an EEO 

complaint. 

The investigative process is non-adversarial. That means that the investigator is 

obligated to collect evidence regardless of the parties' positions with respect to the items 

of evidence. 

A copy of the complaint shall be provided to the investigator prior to the commencement 

of the investigation. . 

Models for the analysis of common types of discrimination cases appear at Appendix J to 

this Management Directive. 

A. Methods of Investigation 

Investigative inquiries may be made using a variety of fact-finding models, such 

as the interview or the fact-finding conference, and a variety of devices, such as 

requests for information, position statements, exchange of letters or memoranda, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-5

interrogatories, and affidavits. The inquiry/review process may also incorporate 

some of the features of a dispute resolution plan. 

B. Purpose of the Investigation 

The purpose of the investigation is 1) to gather facts upon which a reasonable fact 

finder may draw conclusions as to whether an agency subject to coverage under 

the statutes that the Commission enforces in the federal sector has violated a 

provision of any of those statutes and 2) if a violation is found, to have a 

sufficient factual basis from which to fashion an appropriate remedy.1

C. General Investigative Requirements 

The investigation shall include a thorough review of the circumstances under 

which the alleged discrimination occurred; the treatment of members of the 

complainant's group as compared with the treatment of other similarly situated 

employees, if any2

; and any policies and/or practices that may constitute or appear 

to constitute discrimination, even though they have not been expressly cited by 

the complainant. 

 

1The Commission enforces: (1) Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; (2) Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 

29 U.S.C. §§ 791 and 794a; (3) Section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 633a; (4) the Equal Pay Act, Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 

as amended, 29 U.S.C. ' 296(d); and (5) Title II of the genetic Information nondiscrimination Act of 

2008, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq.

2

Investigators are reminded that even where the complainant is unable to provide comparative data 

and the investigator similarly cannot obtain any such information, the investigator still must determine 

whether there is other evidence that may establish unlawful discrimination. In O'Connor v. Consolidated 

Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that comparative evidence is not an 

essential element of a prima facie case of discrimination, but the complainant must come forward with 

sufficient evidence to create an inference of discrimination; that is, enough evidence that, if not rebutted, 

would support an inference that the agency's actions resulted from discrimination. Furnco Construction 

Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The Commission has issued enforcement guidance on 

O‟Connor, entitled “EEOC Enforcement Guidance on O‟Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.,” 

(September 18, 1996), which is available on the Commission‟s web site at 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement_guidance.cfm, in the “Enforcement Guidance and 

related Documents” section.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-6

D. Failure to Complete Investigation within Time Limit 

See Chapter 5, section V, C of this Management Directive regarding an agency‟s 

failure to complete the investigation in a timely manner. 

V. THE ROLE OF THE INVESTIGATOR 

A. Collecting and Discovering Factual Information 

The role of the investigator is to collect and to discover factual information concerning the claim(s) in the complaint under investigation and to prepare an 

investigative summary. 

B. Variety of Methods Available 

The investigator may accomplish his/her mission in a variety of ways. The 

investigator may function as: 

1. a presiding official at a fact-finding conference, 

2. an examiner responsible for developing material evidence, 

3. an issuer of requests for information in the form of requests for the 

production of documents, interrogatories, and affidavits, and/or, 

4. a face-to-face interviewer in on-site visits. 

C. Investigator Must Be Unbiased and Objective 

In whatever the mix of fact-finding activity selected for a particular case, the 

investigator must be and must maintain the appearance of being unbiased, 

objective, and thorough. S/he must be neutral in his/her approach to factual 

development. The investigator is not an advocate for any of the parties or 

interests and should refrain from developing allegiances to them. In addition, the 

following rules must be observed: 

1. The person assigned to investigate shall not occupy a position in the 

agency that is directly or indirectly under the jurisdiction of the head of 

that part of the agency in which the complaint arose. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-7

2. The investigator, if a contract investigator, shall not have been hired by or 

be obligated to the person(s) involved in the claims giving rise to the 

complaint. For example, where the contract monitor of EEO investigation 

contracts is alleged to have been involved in discriminatory activity, the 

use of the usual contract investigator would create an apparent bias 

because there is at best the appearance that the contract investigator could 

not be impartial. 

3. An agency is prohibited, in some situations, from using its own immediate 

investigative resources, even though the investigation of discrimination 

complaints in the federal service is primarily an agency function and 

responsibility. In such cases the agency shall use alternatives, such as 

contract investigators or other outside sources. Such situations include, 

but are not limited to: 

a. Particularly sensitive cases involving high-level officials (for 

example, complainant is an immediate subordinate of the head of 

the agency and the head of the agency is alleged to have taken 

discriminatory action). 

b. Potential conflict of interest (for example, complainant is an 

employee in the EEO office and names the EEO Director as the 

person taking the wrongful action). 

c. A small agency unable to carry out an unexpected EEO workload 

(for example, an agency with fewer than 450 employees, has a 

staff of part-time or ad hoc EEO investigators, and is unable to 

absorb an additional investigative caseload). 

D. Investigator Must Be Thorough 

This means identifying and obtaining all relevant evidence from all sources 

regardless of how it may affect the outcome. Investigators need not expend the 

same amount of investigatory effort on each case, however. The proper scope of 

an investigation is dictated by the facts at issue. Investigators should not take a 

cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach, as that wastes resources and delays 

resolution of the complaint. The investigation and the amount of effort expended 

should be appropriate to determine the claims raised by the complaint. An 

appropriate investigation is one that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw 

conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-8

An investigator should ensure that his/her questions are answered by a witness 

with personal knowledge of the facts rather than by a party’s representative. 

The investigator need not concern him/herself with balancing the amount of 

evidence supporting the complainant as compared with the amount of evidence 

supporting the agency. To ensure a balanced record, it is necessary only to 

exhaust those sources likely to support the complainant and the respondent. An 

investigation conducted in this manner might reveal that there is ample evidence 

to support the complainant's claims and no evidence to support the agency's 

version of the facts, or vice versa. Nevertheless, this investigation would be 

thorough. The best type of investigations allow for complainant to provide 

rebuttal evidence with sufficient time for the investigator to address any issues 

raised. 

VI. EVIDENCE 

A. Quality of Evidence 

Evidence will be gathered from the complainant, witnesses, and other sources. In 

order to support findings and, ultimately, decisions, this evidence should be 

material to the complaint, relevant to the issue(s) raised in the complaint, and as 

reliable as possible. 

1. Material Evidence 

Evidence is material when it relates to one or more of the issues raised in 

the complaint or raised by the agency's answer to it. To determine 

whether evidence is material, one must look to the claims of 

discriminatory conduct and resultant harm contained in the complaint and 

the agency's answers to the claims. If the evidence relates to one or more 

of those claims, then it relates to the issues presented in the complaint, and 

it is material. 

2. Relevant Evidence 

Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a material issue raised 

by a complaint. Relevancy and materiality are often used interchangeably. 

Generally, relevance is the more important concept in an investigation. If 

evidence is not relevant, whether it is material is of little consequence. A 

test of relevance is to ask, "What does this evidence tend to prove?" If the 

answer is that it tends to prove or disprove a proposition that is related to 

the complaint, then the evidence is relevant. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-9

3. Reliable Evidence 

Evidence is reliable if it is dependable or trustworthy. Evidence should 

not be ignored because it is of questionable reliability. Such evidence may 

lead to evidence that is reliable. 

Some factors to consider in determining whether testimony is reliable are: 

whether the witness's testimony is based on his/her own experience and 

personal knowledge, or based on rumor, hearsay, or innuendo; whether the 

testimony is a statement of fact or is merely a conclusion; and whether 

witnesses have an interest in the outcome of the complaint, or are 

otherwise biased. The investigator should explain the weight s/he gives 

any evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses in his/her report. 

Some factors to consider in determining whether documents are reliable 

are: whether they were prepared in response to the investigation or 

whether they are maintained in the ordinary course of business; whether 

they are obtained from the custodian of records or the author of the 

document; and whether they are copies or original documents and whether 

the documents are signed and/or dated. 

The rules of evidence were designed to set limits on the reliability of 

documents and testimony entered in evidence in court. Such formal rules 

will not be strictly applied in the collection of evidence for the 

investigation of federal equal employment opportunity complaints. Such 

rules may be used, however, as a guide in assessing the evidentiary weight 

to be given particular items of evidence. 

B. Types of Evidence 

There are many types of evidence which can be obtained on the issues raised in an 

equal employment complaint. The three basic types of evidence are 

circumstantial evidence (for example comparative evidence or other evidence 

giving rise to an inference of discrimination), direct evidence, and statistical 

evidence. 

1. Comparative Evidence 

Comparative evidence must be sought in every case alleging disparity in 

treatment on a basis protected by a law enforced by the EEOC. One of the 

challenges of developing comparative evidence is gathering sufficient 

evidence to determine whether the comparators are similarly situated with 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-10

respect to the complainant. In general, similarly situated means that the 

persons who are being compared are so situated that it is reasonable to 

expect that they would receive the same treatment as the complainant in 

the context of a particular employment decision. It is important to 

remember that individuals may be similarly situated for one employment 

decision, but not for another. For example, a female GS-4 clerk-typist 

may be similarly situated to a male GS-7 paralegal in a discrimination case 

involving the approval of annual leave where the same rules are applied to 

both by the same supervisor or where both are in the same unit or subject 

to the same chain of command. The investigator would be obligated to 

find out whether there were persons, not named by the complainant but 

similarly situated, whose treatment could be compared to the 

complainant's treatment.3

 Both the complainant and the responding 

management official should provide a list of comparators for the 

challenged action. 

2. Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of discrimination consists of facts revealing that 

intentional discrimination caused an adverse action. Direct evidence of 

discrimination means that one need not resort to inference or 

circumstantial evidence. 

Direct evidence is relevant in cases involving disparate treatment where 

the question is whether the employer intentionally treated employees 

differently because of a protected factor. It is also relevant in cases 

involving the effect of policies where the question is whether the policy 

disparately treats all employees in the protected class. 

Direct evidence is rare. The statement, “I would never hire you for that 

job because you are a woman,” is direct evidence of discrimination on the 

basis of sex in hiring but would not be direct evidence if the issue involved 

a performance appraisal, for example. Care must be taken to distinguish 

between direct evidence of bias and direct evidence of discrimination. 

Direct evidence of bias may be strong but circumstantial evidence of 

discrimination in a particular case. For example, the statement, “I would 

never hire a woman for that job," is direct evidence of bias, as not directed 

 

3As discussed in note 2, while comparative evidence is important, it is not always available and an 

investigator may be able to obtain other evidence of discrimination. So while the investigator should 

make an effort to obtain comparative evidence, s/he also should make an effort to determine whether 

there may be other evidence equally probative of discrimination.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-11

towards any specific person. See Heim v. State of Utah, 8 F.3d 1541, 

1546 (10th Cir. 1993). A statement to a complainant that you “may be 

getting too old to understand the store‟s new computer programs” was 

deemed direct evidence of age discrimination in Wright v. Southland 

Corp., No.97-3458 (11th Cir. 1999). 

3. Statistical Evidence

Statistical evidence or a survey of the general environment may be 

conducted as appropriate. For example, this evidence may be probative 

when claims involve the comparative treatment of groups, as in a claim of 

a pattern or practice of discrimination, or the adverse effect of an agency 

policy or practice. 

C. Sources of Evidence 

1. The Complainant

The complaint will generally provide the initial information concerning 

the bases, issues, and incidents that gave rise to the complaint of 

discrimination. The complaint may also indicate the reason, if any was 

given, for any adverse employment decision. Additional background and 

detailed information must be obtained from the complainant and recorded 

through written questions and answers (interrogatories), recorded 

interviews (using handwritten notes or verbatim transcription), an 

exchange of letters or memoranda, or a fact-finding conference. This 

information should include medical documentation, where necessary. 

Witness testimony intended to be made a part of the complaint file should 

be made under oath or affirmation or penalty of perjury. 

Volume II of the EEOC Compliance Manual will assist in developing 

inquiries. That volume contains substantive topics arranged in sections. 

Most sections contain advice on what questions to ask when certain issues 

are raised. The Commission's Compliance Manual is published 

commercially and is available at many libraries and at the Commission's 

district, area, and field offices. In addition, newly issued sections of the 

Compliance Manual and Commission policy guidance on issues such as 

reprisal, definition of disability, reasonable accommodation and sexual 

harassment are available on the Commission‟s web site at: 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/compliance.cfm.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-12

2. The Agency 

Information from the agency may be obtained initially through a request 

for information. Consult the agency EEO Director for instructions 

concerning to whom to direct the request. 

Follow-up information should be obtained in a variety of ways, including 

further requests, affidavits, interrogatories, or a fact-finding conference. 

In most instances, the individual who initiated or enforced the decision or 

engaged in the action about which the complaint was filed should be 

interviewed early in the investigation. His/her reasons for the action will 

often open other avenues to explore. 

For this reason, a management official‟s explanation of a challenged 

action should be detailed and specific. In a non-selection type case, 

stating the person selected was better qualified is insufficient standing 

alone. The explanation should include a narrative as to why the 

management official believes the selectee was better qualified. 

3. Witnesses

Witnesses can be identified by asking the complainant, the official 

involved in the alleged discriminatory action or other obvious witnesses if 

they are aware of other persons who might have information related to the 

complaint. Witnesses need not be employees at the respondent agency. 

a. The EEO staff may be of some assistance in discovering other 

witnesses, but they should rarely be witnesses themselves. Their 

information will usually be hearsay and their participation as 

witnesses would compromise their objectivity. Information should 

be obtained from its primary source. 

b. Witness bias should be noted when it is discovered. The following 

should be noted: 1) favorable feelings toward a party based on a 

mutual alliance, family ties, or close friendship; 2) hostility to a 

party, because of a past disagreement; and 3) self-interest in the 

outcome of the complaint, are some indicators of potential bias. 

The indicators should be made a part of the record, and efforts 

should be made to corroborate the testimony. The weight accorded 

the evidence adduced from such witnesses will be governed by the 

degree to which it can be determined that the bias colored the 

testimony. Explanations of a witness‟ credibility are helpful and 

should be included in the investigators final report. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-13

4. Documentary Evidence 

All relevant documents should be obtained. The complainant, the 

supervisor, the manager who took the personnel action or the personnel 

office of the agency may be sources to help identify relevant documents. 

Statistical evidence usually can be obtained through the EEO Office or the 

personnel office of the agency. 

D. Evidence on the Question of Remedies 

The investigator should gather evidence that will allow for an appropriate remedy 

to be fashioned. This essentially means that a determination of the parameters of 

relief should be made and the appropriate inquiries developed. Agencies should 

be aware that, during the investigative process, they need to address evidence that 

may be used in connection with framing remedies. Evidence on the question of 

remedies may include evidence of a complainant's interim earnings or subsequent 

promotions (in a discharge or non-promotion case), compensatory damages, or 

other mitigating factors. For a source of information concerning compensatory 

damages, see Enforcement Guidance, Compensatory & Punitive Damages 

Available under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, N-915.002 (July 14, 

1992).4

VII. WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES IN THE FEDERAL EEO PROCESS 

The procedures outlined here relate specifically to the processing of individual 

complaints of discrimination under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108. The principles reflected in 

these procedures, however, should also guide the processing of class complaints of 

discrimination under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204.

 

4The Commission prepared this Enforcement Guidance for use in both public and private EEO 

litigation. The discussion in the Enforcement Guidance concerning punitive damages does not apply to 

federal sector EEO.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-14

A. Disclosure of Investigative Material to Witnesses 

1. To the complainant

The complainant must receive a copy of the complaint file and a transcript 

of the hearing, if a hearing is held. The complainant should be given the 

opportunity to receive a copy of the complaint file and hearing transcript 

in an electronic format as an alternative to the paper files/documents. The 

complainant should receive the same copy of the complaint file as the 

agency counsel does and where a hearing was requested as the 

Administrative Judge does. 

2. To other witnesses

Agencies may disclose information and documents to a witness who is a 

federal employee where the investigator determines that the disclosure of 

the information or documents is necessary to obtain information from the 

witness, for example, to explain the claims in a complaint or to explain a 

manager's articulated reason for an action in order to develop evidence 

bearing on that reason. 

B. Travel Expenses 

1. Witness Employed by the Federal Government

Section 1614.605(f) of 29 C.F.R. requires that a witness be in an official 

duty status when his/her presence is required or authorized by agency or 

Commission officials in connection with a complaint. A witness is 

entitled to travel expenses. If a witness is employed at an agency other 

than the one against which the complaint is brought and must travel to 

provide the attestation or testimony, the witness is entitled to 

reimbursement for travel expenses. The current employing agency of a 

federal employee must initially authorize and pay the employee's travel 

expenses and is entitled to reimbursement from the responding agency, 

which is ultimately responsible for the cost of the employee's travel. 

Decision of the Comptroller General, Matter of John Booth - Travel 

Expenses of Witness - Agency Responsible, File: B-235845, 69 Comp. 

Gen. 310 (1990). An agency would not be responsible for paying the 

travel expenses of non-federal witnesses. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-15

2. Complainant or Applicant Not Employed by Federal Government

The agency is not responsible, however, for paying the travel expenses of 

a complainant or applicant who is not employed by the federal 

government. Although the complainant who, for purposes of his/her 

complaint is a witness, may once have been employed by the agency 

against whom s/he complains, the termination of the employment status 

with the federal government also terminates any federal obligation to pay 

travel expenses associated with prosecution of the complaint. Decision of 

the Comptroller General, Matter of: Expenses of Outside Applicant 

Complainant to Travel to Agency EEO Hearing, File: B-202845, 61 

Comp. Gen. 654 (1982). 

C. Official Time 

Section 1614.605 of 29 C.F.R. provides that complainants are entitled to a 

representative of their choice during pre-complaint counseling and at all stages of 

the complaint process. Both the complainant and the representative, if they are 

employees of the agency where the complaint arose and was filed, are entitled to a 

reasonable amount of official time to present the complaint and to respond to 

agency requests for information, if otherwise on duty. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(b). 

Former employees of an agency who initiate the EEO process concerning an 

adverse action relating to their prior employment with the agency are employees 

within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605, and their representatives, if they are 

current employees of the agency, are entitled to official time. Witnesses who are 

federal employees, regardless of whether they are employed by the respondent 

agency or some other federal agency, shall be in a duty status when their presence 

is authorized or required by Commission or agency officials in connection with 

the complaint. 

1. Reasonable Amount of Official Time

“Reasonable” is defined as whatever is appropriate, under the particular 

circumstances of the complaint, in order to allow a complete presentation 

of the relevant information associated with the complaint and to respond 

to agency requests for information. The actual number of hours to which 

complainant and his/her representative are entitled will vary, depending on 

the nature and complexity of the complaint and considering the mission of 

the agency and the agency's need to have its employees available to 

perform their normal duties on a regular basis. The complainant and the 

agency should arrive at a mutual understanding as to the amount of official 

time to be used prior to the complainant's use of such time. Time spent 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-16

commuting to and from home should not be included in official time 

computations because all employees are required to commute to and from 

their federal employment on their own time. 

2. Meeting and Hearing Time

Most of the time spent by complainants and their representatives during 

the processing of a typical complaint is spent in meetings and hearings 

with agency officials or with EEOC Administrative Judges. Whatever 

time is spent in such meetings and hearings is automatically deemed 

reasonable. Both the complainant and the representative are to be granted 

official time for the duration of such meetings or hearings and are in a 

duty status regardless of their tour of duty. If a complainant or 

representative has already worked a full week and must attend a hearing or 

meeting on an off day, that complainant or representative is entitled to 

official time, which may require that the agency pay overtime. 

3. Preparation Time

Since presentation of a complaint involves preparation for meetings and 

hearings, as well as attendance at such meetings, conferences, and 

hearings, complainants and their representatives are also afforded a 

reasonable amount of official time, as defined above, to prepare for 

meetings and hearings. They are also to be afforded a reasonable amount 

of official time to prepare the formal complaint and any appeals that may 

be filed with the Commission, even though no meetings or hearings are 

involved. However, because investigations are conducted by agency or 

Commission personnel, the regulation does not envision large amounts of 

official time for preparation purposes. Consequently, “reasonable,” with 

respect to preparation time (as opposed to time actually spent in meetings 

and hearings), is generally defined in terms of hours, not in terms of days, 

weeks, or months. Again, what is reasonable depends on the individual 

circumstances of each complaint. See, Murry v. General Services 

Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120093069 (July 26, 2012). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-17

4. Aggregate Time Spent on EEO Matters

The Commission considers it reasonable for agencies to expect their 

employees to spend most of their time doing the work for which they are 

employed. Therefore, an agency may restrict the overall hours of official 

time afforded to a representative, for both preparation purposes and for 

attendance at meetings and hearings, to a certain percentage of that 

representative's duty hours in any given month, quarter, or year. Such 

overall restrictions would depend on the nature of the position occupied by 

the representative, the relationship of that position to the mission of the 

agency, and the degree of hardship imposed on the mission of the agency 

by the representative's absence from his/her normal duties. The amount of 

official time to be afforded to an employee for representational activities 

will vary with the circumstances. 

Moreover, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(c) provides that in cases where the 

representation of a complainant or agency would conflict with the official 

or collateral duties of the representative, the Commission or the agency 

may, after giving the representative an opportunity to respond, disqualify 

the representative. At all times, the complainant is responsible for 

proceeding with the complaint, regardless of whether s/he has a designated 

representative. 

The Commission does not require agencies to provide official time to 

employee representatives who are representing complainants in cases 

against other federal agencies. However, the Commission encourages 

agencies to provide such official time. 

5. Requesting Official Time

The agency must establish a process for deciding how much official time 

it will provide a complainant. Agencies further must inform complainants, 

their representatives, and others who may need official time, such as 

witnesses, of the process and how to claim or request official time. 

6. Denial of Official Time

If the agency denies a request for official time, either in whole or in part, 

the agency must include a written statement in the complaint file noting 

the reasons for the denial. If the agency‟s denial of official time is made 

before the complaint is filed, the agency shall provide the complainant 

with a written explanation for the denial, which it will include in the 

complaint file if the complainant‟s subsequently files a complaint. Where 

a request for official time is denied in whole or part while an 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-18

Administrative Judge is presiding over the matter, a copy of the agency‟s 

denial of official time with the requisite explanation should be provided to 

the Administrative Judge when provided to the requestor. 

D. Duty Status/Tour of Duty 

For purposes of these regulations, “duty status” means the complainant's or 

representative‟s normal hours of work. 

It is expected that the agency will, to the extent practical, schedule meetings 

during the complainant's normal working hours and that agency officials shall 

provide official time for complainants and representatives to attend such meetings 

and hearings. 

If meetings, conferences, and hearings are scheduled outside of the complainant's 

or the representative's normal work hours, agencies should adjust or rearrange the 

complainant's or representative's work schedule to coincide with such meetings or 

hearings, or grant compensatory time or official time to allow an approximately 

equivalent time off during normal hours of work. The selection of the appropriate 

method for making the complainant or representative available in any individual 

circumstance shall be within the discretion of the agency. 

Any reasons for an agency's denial of official time should be fully documented 

and made a part of the complaint file, and if an Administrative Judge is presiding 

over the matter at the time of the request, then it should be provided to the 

Administrative Judge at the same time as it is provided to the requestor. 

Witnesses, who are federal employees, regardless of their tour of duty and 

whether they are employed by the respondent agency or another federal agency, 

must be in a duty status when their presence is authorized or required by 

Commission or agency officials in connection with a complaint. 

E. Use of Government Property 

The complainant‟s or complainant‟s non-attorney representative‟s use of 

government property (copiers, telephones, word processors, computers, internet, 

printers and e-mail) must be authorized prior to their use by the agency and must 

not cause undue disruption of agency operations. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-19

VIII. COMPLAINT FILE 

A. Contents of the Complaint File 

The complaint file must include the various documents and information acquired 

during the fact-finding under this Directive. The complaint file will be assembled 

as either an electronic document or paper file with a title page, a sample of which 

is provided in Appendix L and submitted as a digital record. Agencies must 

submit the file in a digital format unless good cause is shown as to why the 

agency cannot produce a digital copy of the file. While cost alone does not 

constitute good cause why an agency cannot submit files in a digital format, OFO 

will consider facts such as undue cost, undue burden, national security concerns, 

and other reasonable bases. The complaint file must contain all documents 

pertinent to the complaint.

B. Complaint Files Should Not Include 

The complaint file should not include confidential documentation concerning the 

substance of attempts to resolve the complaint during informal counseling or 

during any alternative dispute resolution procedure. 

C. Redactions 

Agencies should not place non-relevant information in complaint files. Where 

names, social security numbers, home addresses, etc. are not relevant, that 

information should be redacted before the document containing them is placed in 

the compliant file. Relevant information that should not be redacted includes 

management and/or comparative employees/applicant‟s names. Once a document 

is placed in the complaint file the complainant has a right to the entire file. All 

parties including the agency representative/counsel, the complainant and his/her 

counsel and the Administrative Judge should all have the same complaint file, 

either all files are not redacted or all files contain the same redactions.5

 

5Except for MOUs currently in place for National Security purposes, any previous information from 

the Commission‟s offices regarding redactions, upon which agencies are relying to redact complaint files, 

is hereby obsolete. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-20

D. Features of the Complaint File 

The completed complaint file shall have the following features: 

1. Case index to documents and exhibits. 

2. Bookmarked/Tabbed sections for documents, exhibits, and explanatory 

material. 

3. A typed summary of the investigation signed and dated by the investigator 

and containing a discussion and analysis of the evidence. See Section IX 

of this Chapter. 

E. Format for the Complaint File 

The following is the format for complaint files; the categories below indicate 

where electronic bookmarks must be placed in the digital file or section dividers 

in a paper file. 

Title Page - (Sample at See Appendix L.) 

Bookmark A - should contain the case index to the file and should list the 

contents of the file by bookmark/tab and sequential page 

number.

Bookmark B - should contain the formal complaint and documents submitted by 

the complainant. (Individual documents in each bookmark/tab 

should be consecutively numbered in addition to being identified 

as part of the bookmark/tab. Example A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.). 

Bookmark C - should contain the EEO Counselor's report and all documents 

generated in the informal process pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.105(c). Included here should be the notice of right to file 

a complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(d). 

Bookmark D - should contain the agency's notice of claims to be investigated 

pursuant to Section IV.A.1 of this Chapter. Copies of any other 

documents bearing on delineation of the claims to be investigated 

should also be included. Documents pertaining to the partial 

dismissal of claim(s) and/or the notice of late investigation 

should be included in this tab. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-21

Bookmark E - should contain documented attempts at resolution; including any 

settlement agreement reached on any aspect of the complaint; 

however, documentation should not include the substance of such 

attempts. 

Bookmark F - should contain any documentation of appellate activity and any 

decisions affecting the processing of the complaint. 

Bookmark G - should contain the summary of investigation/summary analysis of 

the facts. The summary should cite to exhibits and evidenced, be 

signed and dated by the investigator. 

Bookmark H - should contain the investigative evidence and documents in a 

logical order, with documents further separated by numerical 

tabs as necessary. The notice of incomplete investigation 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(g), if one was issued should be 

included.

Bookmark I - should contain all pre-hearing submissions, including those relevant 

to summary judgment, and all discovery documentation, and 

motions, orders, exhibits and transcripts. 

Bookmark J - should contain all submissions from an administrative hearing, 

including motions, exhibits and transcripts. 

Bookmark K - should contain the decision(s) of the EEOC Administrative Judge. 

Bookmark L - should contain the Final Agency Decision or Final Order and any 

documentation related to service on the parties. 

Bookmark M - should contain any miscellaneous material. 

All pages in the complaint file must be accounted for in the page numbering of 

the document, including the cover page and any administrative documents, in 

order for the numbers in any paper file to match precisely the numbers in the 

electronic file. An individual entering page number 150 into an Adobe Acrobat 

file should come to the exact same page as an individual turning to page 150 of 

the paper file. Administrative documents added after the original complaint file 

was compiled may be submitted in a separate PDF file that must contain a tile 

page and bookmarks to the applicable sections of the original file where the 

documents belong. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-22

F. Availability of Complaint Files 

The complainant and his/her representative shall be entitled to one copy each of 

the complaint file and investigative summary either at the time that the 

investigation is completed or when the agency sends the complainant the notice 

required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), whichever is earlier. The complainant and 

his/her representative should be given the alternative to receive these documents 

in an electronic medium. 

G. Disposition of Complaint Files 

1. Effective December 8, 1998, the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) revised General Records Schedule (GRS) 1, Item 

25, titled Equal Employment Opportunity Records, provides: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Records.

a. Official Discrimination Complaint Files. 

Originating agency's file containing complaints with related 

correspondence, reports, exhibits, withdrawal notices, 

copies of decisions, records of hearings and meetings, and 

other records. Cases resolved within the agency, by EEOC, 

or by a U.S. Court.6

Authorized Disposition

Destroy four years after resolution of case. 

2. The agency originating the equal employment opportunity case will retain 

the original (“official”) file during the appeals process and send only 

duplicate copies of documents to EEOC for use in the appeal. The agency 

sending the duplicates will certify that the file contains everything that is 

in the original. 

3. EEOC will create documents relating to the appeal, but will file such 

documents apart from the materials sent by the originating agency. After 

resolution of the appeal, the Commission will destroy all duplicate 

 

6

See Section VIII of this Chapter for a description of the documents contained in the complaint 

file. This schedule applies regardless of whether case files are in paper or electronic format.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-23

materials, but will retain the appeals documentation for four years. The 

originating agency will retain the original file for four years after 

resolution of the case. EEOC will retain the appeals documentation and 

will answer Freedom of Information Act requests on the appeals file. The 

EEOC will maintain the security of documents as required by Federal 

Statutes and Executive Orders. 

4. The originating agency will be responsible for retiring the original case 

file to the Federal Records Center, and answering Freedom of Information 

Act requests on the original file. Requests for disclosure, which the EEOC 

determines are requests for the agency's complaint file, will be forwarded 

to the agency for a response. 

5. Further information concerning the disposition of records under this 

section may be obtained by reviewing NARA GRS 1 which is available on 

the NARA web site at www.nara.gov or by contacting: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D. C. 20013 

Telephone: (202) 663-4599 

IX. THE INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY 

The investigative summary is a narrative document that succinctly states the issues and 

delineates the evidence addressing both sides of each issue in the case. The summary 

should state facts (supported in the complaint file) sufficient to sustain a conclusion(s). 

The summary should cite to evidence and the exhibits collected. 

X. COMPLAINANTS= OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE 

Within the appropriate time frame for finishing an investigation under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108(e), and prior to issuance of the notice required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), 

agencies are encouraged to allow complainants and their designated representatives an 

opportunity to examine the investigative file and to notify the agency, in writing, of any 

perceived deficiencies in the investigation prior to transferring the case to the EEOC for a 

hearing or prior to taking a final action without a hearing. A copy of the complainant‟s 

notification to the agency of perceived deficiencies must be included in the investigative 

file together with a written description by the agency of the corrective action taken. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-24

If the agency agrees with alleged deficiencies in the investigation as identified by the 

complainant, the agency must immediately correct them. If the investigation period has 

ended or is about to end, the agency should request agreement from the complainant to 

extend the investigation period pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e). If the agency does 

not agree with the complainant‟s claimed deficiencies in the investigative file, the agency 

will prepare a statement explaining the rationale for the disagreement and include it in the 

investigative file along with the complainant‟s notice of claimed deficiencies. 

XI. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COOPERATE DURING THE INVESTIGATION 

Agencies and complainants each have a duty to cooperate with the investigator during the 

investigation. See 29 CFR § 1614.108(c)(1). Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(c)(3), a 

party to a complaint - the complainant as well as the agency - may be subject to sanction 

where it fails without good cause shown to respond fully and in a timely fashion to a 

request of the investigator for documents, records, comparative data, statistics, affidavits, 

or the attendance of witnesses. The investigator shall make a note in the investigative file 

concerning the party‟s failure without good cause shown to comply with a request for 

information or the attendance of witnesses and the decision maker (Administrative Judge 

during the hearing process or the agency where the complainant requests a final agency 

decision) or the Commission on appeal may, in appropriate circumstances: 

1. draw an adverse inference that the requested information, or the testimony of the 

requested witness, would have reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to 

provide the requested information; 

2. consider the matters to which the requested information or testimony pertains to 

be established in favor of the opposing party; 

3. exclude other evidence offered by the party failing to produce the requested 

information or witness; 

4. issue a decision fully or partially in favor of the opposing party; or 

5. take such other actions as it deems appropriate. 

An investigator should inform the party from which it seeks documents, records, 

comparative data, statistics, affidavits, or the attendance of witnesses that failure to 

comply with the request may lead to the imposition of sanctions from the decision maker 

or the Commission on appeal. An investigator may, in an initial request for information 

or the attendance of witnesses, advise the party that, absent good cause shown, the party 

has a duty to respond fully and in a timely fashion to the investigator‟s request and that 

failure to do so may result in the imposition of the sanctions set forth at 29 C.F.R. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-25

§ 1614.108(c)(3). Where the investigator does not so inform the party upon making the 

request, s/he may advise the party upon the party‟s failure to comply with the request. If 

the investigator properly advised the party that a failure to comply with the request may 

result in the sanctions set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(c)(3), the decision maker or 

Commission on appeal may impose such sanctions upon receipt and review of the 

complaint/appeal file. 

XII. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO DEVELOP AN IMPARTIAL AND 

APPROPRIATE FACTUAL RECORD 

Section 1614.108(b) of 29 C.F.R. requires that an agency develop an impartial and 

appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the claims raised in the 

written complaint. The Commission‟s regulations explain that “an appropriate factual 

record is one that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to whether 

discrimination occurred. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(b). EEOC Administrative Judges and the 

Office of Federal Operations have the authority to issue sanctions against an agency for 

its failure to develop an impartial and appropriate factual record in appropriate 

circumstances.7 

Where it is clear that the agency failed to develop an impartial and appropriate factual 

record, an Administrative Judge may exercise his/her discretion to issue sanctions. In 

such circumstances, the sanctions listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3) are available. See

Petersel v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060075 (October 30, 

2008)(Administrative Judge properly drew an adverse inference against the agency when 

the investigative report failed to include any comparative data on other employees); 

Royal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070045 (September 25, 

2009)(finding that the agency‟s delay in completing the investigation within the 180 day 

regulatory period is no small non-compliance matter and warrants a sanction). Even 

 

7The Commission recognizes that agencies will not always meet their regulatory burden to conduct 

such comprehensive investigations, such as when amendments to complaints or consolidation of 

complaints occur late in the process. It is the Commission‟s intent that where a hearing is properly 

requested and where there has been no investigation or there is an incomplete or inadequate investigation, 

the record in the case shall be developed under the supervision of the Administrative Judge assigned to 

the case. See for example, Menoken v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01A32052 

(January 3, 2005); but see also Cox v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050055 

(December 24, 2009) (finding that the purpose of discovery in the hearing process is to perfect the record, 

but it is not a substitute for an appropriate investigation; moreover, not every complainant chooses the 

option of requesting a hearing). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-26

when an agency eventually completes the investigation during the hearing stage an 

Administrative Judge may issue sanctions in appropriate circumstances.8 

Before an Administrative Judge may sanction an agency for failing to develop an 

impartial and appropriate factual record, the Administrative Judge must issue an order to 

the agency or request the documents, records, comparative data, statistics, or affidavits. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3). Such order or request shall make clear that sanctions may be 

imposed and the type of sanction that could be imposed for failure to comply with the 

order unless the agency can show good cause for that failure. See Rountree v. 

Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00015 (July 17, 2001). The notice to 

show cause to the agency may, in appropriate circumstances, provide the agency with an 

opportunity to take such action as the Administrative Judge deems necessary to correct 

the deficiencies in the record. This may include curing the defects in the investigation 

caused by improper interference by the agency‟s general counsel, if possible; and/or 

disqualifying counsel from continuing to represent the agency before the Commission. 

The Administrative Judge also shall provide the agency with a reasonable period of time 

within which to take the action that the Administrative Judge has deemed necessary. 

Only on the failure of the agency to comply with the Administrative Judge‟s order or 

request and the notice to show cause may the Administrative Judge impose a sanction or 

the sanctions identified in the order or request.9

 

8

See Myvett v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103671 

(February 8, 2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110349 (November 21, 

2011) (upholding Administrative Judge‟s sanctions where agency submitted complaint file without a 

report of investigation and almost nine months later submitted a report of investigation to the 

Administrative Judge after failing to reply to two Orders to Complete the Investigation). 

9Where an agency did not complete an investigation of late-filed amendments to complaints or lateconsolidated complaints because the complainant either requested a hearing before the full investigatory 

period ended or the amendments and consolidation occurred late in the process, sanctions for inadequate 

records would be inappropriate. Sanctions only would be appropriate where a party subsequently fails to 

comply with an order or request of the Administrative Judge that puts the party on notice of the type of 

sanction that may be imposed for noncompliance.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-27

XIII. OFFER OF RESOLUTION 

The Commission encourages the resolution of complaints at all times in the complaint 

process through a variety of settlement mechanisms. Section 1614.109(c) of 29 C.F.R. 

provides for one of these mechanisms by permitting agencies to make an "offer of 

resolution" to complainants. The Commission believes that this provision will provide 

incentive for agencies and complainants to resolve complaints and that it will conserve 

agency resources where settlement reasonably should occur. If a complainant does not 

accept an offer of resolution made in accordance with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(c) and subsequently obtains less relief than had been offered, the 

complainant‟s attorney‟s fees will be limited, as described below. It should be 

emphasized that the offer of resolution is only one mechanism by which complaints may 

be settled. 

A. Elements of the Offer 

An offer of resolution made pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(c) can be made to a 

complainant who is represented by an attorney at any time after the filing of a formal 

complaint until thirty (30) days before a hearing. If, however, the complainant is not 

represented by an attorney, an offer of resolution cannot be made before the case is 

assigned to an Administrative Judge for a hearing. (These time and representation 

provisions apply only to offers of resolution and do not restrict the parties from 

discussing settlement or engaging in an alternate dispute resolution process in an effort to 

resolve an EEO complaint.) 

Complainants have 30 days from receipt of an offer of resolution to consider the offer 

and decide whether to accept it. Offers of resolution must be in writing and must explain 

to the complainant the possible consequences of failing to accept the offer. The agency‟s 

offer, to be acceptable, must include attorney‟s fees and costs, and must specify any nonmonetary relief. The agency may offer a lump sum payment that includes all forms of 

monetary liability, including attorney‟s fees and costs, or the payment may itemize the 

amounts and types of monetary relief being offered. Complainant's acceptance of the 

offer must also be in writing. Upon acceptance, the complaint is settled in full and 

processing ceases. 

If a complainant decides not to accept the offer, the agency takes no immediate action, 

and the complaint continues to be processed normally. After the hearing is completed, if 

the Administrative Judge (or the Commission on appeal) concludes that discrimination 

has occurred, but provides for less relief than the amount offered by the agency earlier in 

its offer of resolution, then the agency may use complainant's decision not to accept its 

offer of resolution to argue for a reduction in its obligation to pay complainant's 

attorney's fees. In general, if a complainant fails to accept a properly made offer, and the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

6-28

relief ordered on the complaint is not more favorable than the offer, then the complainant 

will not receive payment from the agency for attorney‟s fees or costs incurred after the 

expiration of the 30-day acceptance period. 

It should be noted, however, that an exception to this general rule exists where the 

interests of justice would not be served. An example of an appropriate use of the interest 

of justice exception is where the complainant received an offer of resolution, but was 

informed by a responsible agency official that the agency would not comply in good faith 

with the offer (for example, would unreasonably delay implementation of the relief 

offered). If the complainant did not accept the offer for that reason, and then obtained 

less relief than was obtained in the offer, it would be unjust to deny attorney‟s fees and 

costs. 

A complainant‟s failure to accept an offer of resolution does not preclude the agency 

from making other offers of resolution or either party from seeking to negotiate a 

settlement of the complaint at any time. 

When comparing the relief offered in an offer of resolution with that actually obtained, 

the Commission intends that non-monetary as well as monetary relief be considered. 

Although a comparison of non-monetary relief may be inexact and difficult in some 

cases, non-monetary relief can be significant and cannot be overlooked. Attorney‟s fees 

and costs incurred after the offer of resolution may not be included in the amount actually 

obtained for comparison purposes. For guidance, parties may wish to refer to court cases 

deciding issues involving an offer of judgment made pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. See, for example, Marek v. Chesney, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). 

While not identical, the Commission‟s offer of resolution provision was modeled on the 

Rule 68 offer of judgment process. 

B. Model Language for the Offer 

The preamble to the Commission‟s regulations noted that this Management Directive 

would include model language for agency use in extending offers of resolutions: 

This offer of resolution is made in full satisfaction of the claims of 

employment discrimination that you have made against [name of 

agency] in [identify the complaint by number or other clear and 

unambiguous designation]. This offer includes all of the monetary 

and/or non-monetary relief to which you are entitled, including 

attorney‟s fees and costs.

[For complainants who are not represented by counsel include this 

paragraph:] 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

6-29

Your acceptance of this offer must be made in writing and 

postmarked or received in this office within thirty (30) days of 

your receipt of the offer. If you accept this offer, please indicate 

your acceptance on the enclosed original offer by signing on the 

line appearing above your name and include the date of your 

acceptance on the line appearing adjacent to your name. You 

should send or deliver your acceptance of the offer to the 

undersigned at the address specified below. 

[For complainants represented by counsel, substitute the following 

paragraph:] 

The complainant‟s acceptance of this offer must be made in 

writing and postmarked or received in this office within thirty 

(30) days of your receipt of the offer. If the complainant accepts 

this offer, please indicate your acceptance on the enclosed original 

offer by signing on the line appearing above your name and 

include the date of your acceptance on the line appearing adjacent 

to your name. Please also obtain the signature of the complainant, 

which should be placed on the line appearing above [his/her] name 

and include the date of [his/her] acceptance on the line appearing 

adjacent to [his/her] name. This offer will not be deemed to have 

been accepted without the signature of both you and the 

complainant. You should send or deliver your acceptance of the 

offer to the undersigned at the address specified below. 

[The following paragraphs must be included in offers sent to ALL 

complainants:] 

If you do not accept this offer of resolution and the relief that you 

are eventually awarded by the Administrative Judge, or the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission on appeal, is less than the 

amount offered, you will not receive payment for the attorney‟s 

fees or costs that you incur after the expiration of the 30-day 

acceptance period for this offer. The only exception to this rule is 

where the Administrative Judge or Commission rules that the 

interests of justice require that you receive your full attorney‟s fees 

and costs. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-1

CHAPTER 7

HEARINGS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The hearing is an adjudicatory proceeding that completes the process of developing a full 

and appropriate record. A hearing provides the parties with a fair and reasonable 

opportunity to explain and supplement the record and, in appropriate instances, to 

examine and cross-examine witnesses. Hearings are governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109.1

 

An Administrative Judge from the Commission adjudicates claims of discrimination and 

issues decisions. Unless the agency issues a final order within forty (40) days of receipt 

of the Administrative Judge‟s decision in a non-class action pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.110(a), the Administrative Judge‟s decision becomes the final action of the 

agency. A complainant may appeal an agency‟s final action or dismissal of a complaint. 

An agency may appeal as provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(a). 29 C.F.R. 

§§ 1614.401(a) & (b). 

Section 1614.108(f) of 29 C.F.R. generally provides, among other things, that within 180 

days from the complainant‟s filing of his/her complaint, an agency shall provide the 

complainant with a copy of the investigative file and shall notify the complainant that 

within thirty (30) days of the complainant‟s receipt of the investigative file that the 

complainant has the right to request a hearing and decision from an Administrative Judge 

or a final agency decision from the agency.2

 Regardless, of whether the investigation is 

complete, the agency‟s duty to send this notice and the complainant‟s right to receive it 

are not dependent on the agency‟s completion of the investigation. 

If the agency does not send the notice required in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f) within the 

applicable time limits it must send a notice informing the complainant that it has not yet 

finished the investigation and providing an estimate as to when the investigation will be 

completed. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(g). The notice should notify the complainant that 

they do not have to wait for the investigation to be completed and may request a hearing 

 

1Additional information regarding hearings and the hearing process can be found in the U.S. Equal 

Opportunity Commission‟s Handbook for Administrative Judges, July 1, 2002 found on the 

Commission‟s website. 

2

Section 1614.108(f) of 29 C.F.R. specifically provides that the agency has a duty to send the notice 

within 180 days of the filing of the complaint or, where a complaint has been amended, the earlier of 180 

days from the date of the last amendment or 360 days from the filing of the first complaint, whichever is 

earlier; within a time period set forth in an order from the Commission; or within any period of extension 

provided under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-2

or file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court. Further, the notice 

will contain information regarding the hearing process. 

A complainant must submit the hearing request directly to the EEOC district or field 

office having jurisdiction over the geographic area in which the complaint arose, as set 

forth in Appendix N of this Management Directive, and provide a copy of the request to 

the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(h). (The Commission has prepared a hearing 

request form that agencies may provide to complainants for their use in requesting a 

hearing, which advises complainants that they are to send a copy of the request to the 

agency. See Appendix M.) Upon receipt of the request for a hearing, the EEOC district 

or field office will send a docketing order to the complainant and the agency, in which it 

will provide the parties with an EEOC Hearings Unit No. or docket number, and if the 

agency did not receive a copy of the complainant‟s request for a hearing will require that 

the agency forward a copy of the complaint file within fifteen (15) days. 

In an agency‟s written acknowledgment of receipt of a complaint or an amendment to a 

complaint, the agency shall advise the complainant of the EEOC office and address 

where a hearing request is to be sent as well as the agency office to which the copy of the 

request should be sent. In the absence of the required notice from the agency, the 

complainant may request a hearing at any time after 180 days have elapsed from the 

filing of the complaint by submitting his/her written hearing request directly to the 

appropriate EEOC district or field office indicated in the agency‟s acknowledgment 

letter. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(h). In the case of accepted class complaints, an EEOC 

Administrative Judge will, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(h), conduct a hearing on the 

complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.109(a) - (f).

Generally, an Administrative Judge will conduct a hearing on the merits of a complaint 

unless: 1) the parties mutually resolve the complaint and the hearing request is 

withdrawn; 2) the hearing request is otherwise voluntarily withdrawn; 3) the 

Administrative Judge dismisses the complaint; or 4) the Administrative Judge determines 

that material facts are not in genuine dispute and issues an order limiting the scope of the 

hearing or issues a decision without a hearing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). The 

Administrative Judge will issue a decision on a complaint and shall order appropriate 

remedies and relief when discrimination has been found within 180 days of his/her 

receipt of the complaint file from the agency, unless the Administrative Judge makes a 

written determination that, in his/her discretion, good cause exists for extending the time 

for issuing a decision. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(i).3

 

3A decision issued within 180 days may include a finding of discrimination and order that the 

agency provide relief and pay the complainant‟s attorney‟s fees. The Administrative Judge then would 

issue a second decision subsequent to the end of this 180-day period concerning the quantum of relief and 

attorney‟s fees. In this situation, the agency‟s 40-day period for taking final action on the Administrative 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-3

II. THE ROLE OF THE AGENCY AT THE HEARING STAGE 

A. Forward Complaint File to EEOC 

Within fifteen (15) days of its receipt of a copy of the complainant‟s request for a 

hearing sent to an EEOC district or field office the agency shall send a copy of the 

complaint file, including the investigative file, to the district or field office. The 

agency also shall send a copy of the complaint and investigative file(s) to the 

complainant and his/her representative, if it has not previously done so. The 

complaint file sent to the complainant or his/her representative must be identical 

to the complaint file sent to the EEOC district or field office. See Chapter 6 

Section VIII of this directive for more information regarding the complaint file. 

The complainant and his/her representative shall be given the option of receiving 

these documents in paper or electronically in a PDF format.

B. Hearing Room and Production of Witnesses 

The agency is responsible for arranging for an appropriate size room in which to 

hold the hearing and must ensure that all approved witnesses who are federal 

employees are notified of the date and time of the hearing and the approximate 

time that their presence will be required. This includes making space available 

with appropriate virtual conferencing equipment for hearings and/or other 

proceedings as required by the Administrative Judge. The agency is responsible 

for ensuring the appearance and travel arrangements to the hearing site of 

approved witnesses who are federal employees. 

C. Hearings are Closed to the Public 

Access to the hearing room and the record of the hearing shall be restricted in 

accordance with the Commission's regulation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(e). 

D. Verbatim Hearing Transcripts and Court Reporters 

The agency shall arrange and pay for a verbatim transcript (printed and 

electronically in a PDF format for the Administrative Judge and the complainant) 

 

Judge‟s decision and determining whether it will implement the decision begins on its receipt of the 

second decision and the hearing file. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(a).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-4

of the hearing proceedings pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(h) regardless of 

whether the Administrative Judge issues a decision. All exhibits submitted to the 

Administrative Judge and admitted into evidence shall become a part of the 

complaint file and at the discretion of the Administrative Judge may be referred to 

the court reporter to be appended to the transcript. Agencies should instruct 

reporters with whom they contract to submit bills to the agency. The 

Administrative Judge may require the court reporter to submit the original and all 

copies (usually two) of the transcript to the Administrative Judge, who can 

provide verification of transcript receipt and the number of pages in the transcript. 

Contracts with court reporting firms must require delivery of the transcript to the 

Administrative Judge within ten (10) calendar days or less after the close of the 

hearing. If the Administrative Judge identifies a problem with timely delivery of 

the transcript or any other difficulty, s/he should contact the agency directly to 

resolve the dispute. The agency shall take any steps necessary to ensure that the 

transcript is provided as expeditiously as possible. Absent a specific 

memorandum of understanding with the EEOC, the agency may not use 

employees of that agency to transcribe the proceedings. 

As a matter of information, the General Services Administration maintains a list 

of court reporters available to agencies in the GSA eLibrary. 

E. The Site of the Hearing 

Appendix N of the Management Directive is a list of the addresses of the EEOC 

district and field offices, their geographic jurisdictions and where federal 

employees and applicants should send hearing requests. Hearing requests are sent 

to the district office having jurisdiction over the agency facility where the 

complaint arose. In an agency‟s written acknowledgment of a complaint or an 

amendment to a complaint, the agency must advise the complainant of the EEOC 

office and its address where a request for a hearing shall be sent. Where two or 

more complaints have been consolidated and the EEOC district or field offices 

identified in the agency‟s complaint acknowledgment letter differ, the office 

identified in the last filed complaint will govern the location of the office to which 

the hearing request shall be made. Should the agency's organizational component 

where the complaint arose not fall within one of the geographical jurisdictions 

shown in Appendix N, the agency should contact the following office for 

guidance: 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-5

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Field Programs 

Attention: Hearings Coordinator 

131 M Street, NE. 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

Upon receipt of a hearing request, the Administrative Judge assigned to hear the 

complaint will determine the site of the hearing. Within his/her discretion, the 

Administrative Judge is authorized to conduct the hearing in the EEOC district or 

field office, in an EEOC area or local office, at the agency's organizational 

component where the complaint arose or at such other location or by virtual 

conference as s/he may determine appropriate within a local commuting distance 

from the agency‟s component unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. In 

determining the hearing site, the Administrative Judge may consider factors such 

as the location of the parties; the location of EEOC district, area, and local offices; 

the number and location of witnesses; the location of records; travel distances for 

the Administrative Judge, the parties, and witnesses; travel costs; the availability 

of sources of transportation; and other factors as may be appropriate including the 

availability of appropriate virtual conferencing equipment. 

Similarly, where an Administrative Judge is considering whether the hearing 

should be held by video conferencing, there are a number of factors that should be 

considered before electing to proceed. These factors include the availability and 

proximity to the participants of the video-conferencing facilities4

; the adequacy of 

the available video-conferencing facilities, including any technological issues; the 

cost to the respondent agency (if any) balanced against the savings in travel time 

for all parties, and the Administrative Judge; the number of expected participants; 

and the objections of the parties, if any. Should a party object to conducting the 

hearing by video conference, the Administrative Judge will document for the 

record both the nature of the objection and his or her ruling on the objection, 

including the reasons therefore.5 See Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 01A51259 (August 21, 2006). 

 

4

“Proximity” in this instance refers to whether the facility is within reasonable commuting distance 

for the hearing participants. The Commission notes, however, that considerations of proximity will 

generally exclude the use of video conferencing when all participants and the Administrative Judge are 

located within commuting distance of an appropriate location for an in-person hearing. But cf. Louthen v. 

U. S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A44521 (May 17, 2006) (telephone hearing inappropriate 

where, inter alia, all participants including the Administrative Judge were present in same city on hearing 

date). 

5

In this regard, the Commission contemplates that the Administrative Judge will provide the parties 

advance notice of his or her intention to proceed by video conference, allowing opportunity for the parties 

to object prior to the time the hearing is convened. Objections to video conference raised on appeal will 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-6

If the Administrative Judge sets a hearing by video conference or a hearing site 

that is outside the local commuting area of the agency's organizational component 

where the complaint arose, the agency must bear all reasonable video 

conferencing costs if any, or travel expenses of complainants, their authorized 

representatives, agency representatives, and all witnesses approved by the 

Administrative Judge, except that an agency does not have the authority to pay the 

travel expenses of the complainant or the complainant's witnesses or 

representatives if they are not federal employees. 

F. Request for Change in Venue 

Should either party desire that a hearing be held within the jurisdictional area of 

another EEOC district office, it must submit a request, in writing, to the 

Administrative Judge assigned to the case in the appropriate EEOC district or 

field office having jurisdiction over the agency's organizational component where 

the complaint arose. In its request, the party must set out, in detail, its reasons, 

and justification for the requested change. The Administrative Judge will rule on 

the request only after the directors of the concerned EEOC district offices, or their 

designees, have conferred on the matter. 

G. Agency Costs 

The agency's obligation is limited to those costs that are legally payable in 

advance by the agency. See Decisions of the Comptroller General, Matter of: 

Expenses of Outside Applicant/Complainant to Travel to Agency EEO Hearing, 

File: B-202845, 61 Comp. Gen. 654 (1982). See also Matter of: John Booth--

Travel Expenses of Witness -- Agency Responsible, File: B-235845, 69 Comp. 

Gen. 310 (1990). 

III. THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

Once an Administrative Judge is appointed, the Administrative Judge has full 

responsibility for the adjudication of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(a). The 

agency cannot dismiss a case that has been referred to the EEOC for a hearing. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a). 

 

be reviewed by the Commission under the abuse of discretion standard, on a case-by-case basis. See

Louthen, EEOC Appeal No. 01A44521.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-7

A. Administrative Judge's Review of the Record 

An Administrative Judge shall review the record developed by the agency and 

determine whether additional documentation is necessary. If a determination is 

made that additional documentation is necessary, the Administrative Judge may 

order the appropriate party to produce the additional documentation. 

If after reviewing the file, the Administrative Judge determines that the 

investigation is inadequate due to the agency's failure to complete the 

investigation within the time limits set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e), or the 

agency has not cooperated in the discovery process as required by 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(f)(3), the Administrative Judge may take the following actions: 

1. Subject the agency to adverse inference findings in favor of the 

complainant; 

2. Consider the issues to which the requested information or testimony 

pertains to be favorable to the complainant; 

3. Exclude other evidence offered by the agency; 

4. Permit the complainant to obtain a summary disposition in his/her favor 

(that is, default judgment) on some or all of the issues without a hearing; 

or 

5. Take other action deemed appropriate, including, but not limited to, 

requiring the agency to pay any costs incurred by the complainant in 

taking depositions or in conducting any other form of discovery. 

The Commission has the authority to issue sanctions in the administrative hearing 

process because it was granted, through statute, the power to issue such rules and 

regulations that it deems necessary to enforce the prohibition on employment 

discrimination. See Waller v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 

0720030069 (May 25, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request 

No. 0520070689 (February 26, 2009). In this respect, the Commission has

determined “that delegating to its Administrative Judges the authority to issue 

sanctions against agencies, and complainants, is necessary and is an appropriate 

remedy which effectuates the policies of the Commission.” Id.

However, before an Administrative Judge may sanction an agency for failing to 

develop an impartial and appropriate factual record or for not cooperating in the 

discovery process, the Administrative Judge must issue an order to the agency or 

request the documents, records, comparative data, statistics, or affidavits. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-8

29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3). Such order or request shall make clear that sanctions 

may be imposed and the type of sanction that could be imposed for failure to 

comply with the order unless the agency can show good cause for that failure. 

See Rountree v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00015 (July 

17, 2001). In appropriate circumstances, the order or request may provide the 

agency with an opportunity to take such action as the Administrative Judge deems 

necessary to correct the deficiencies in the record within a specified reasonable 

period of time. Only on the failure of the agency to comply with the 

Administrative Judge‟s order or request and the notice to show cause may the 

Administrative Judge impose a sanction or the sanctions identified in the order or 

request. 

B. Developing the Record in Complaints with Inadequate Records 

Section 1614.108(h) of 29 C.F.R. authorizes a complainant to request a hearing 

before an Administrative Judge where the respondent agency has not completed 

the investigation within the required time limit and where the complainant has not 

agreed in writing with the agency to extend the time for completing the 

investigation.6 This provision reflects the Commission‟s intent that complainants 

be permitted to move their cases forward in the complaint process where an 

agency has not complied with the regulation by completing a timely investigation. 

Further, it is the Commission‟s intent that where a hearing is properly requested 

and where there has been no investigation or there is an incomplete or inadequate 

investigation, the record in the case shall be developed under the supervision of 

the Administrative Judge assigned to the case. The record can be developed 

through the parties‟ use of discovery and/or through the Administrative Judge‟s 

orders for the production of documents and witnesses. 

Section 1614.109(a) of 29 C.F.R. provides that upon appointment, the 

Administrative Judge will assume full responsibility for adjudication of the 

complaint, including overseeing the development of the record. The Commission 

intends that the Administrative Judge will take complete control of the case once 

a hearing is requested. Administrative Judges will preside over any necessary 

supplementation of the record in the hearing process without resort to remands of 

complaints to agencies for additional investigations. If an Administrative Judge 

 

6Where an agency did not complete an investigation of late-filed amendments to complaints or lateconsolidated complaints because the complainant either requested a hearing before the full investigatory 

period ended or the amendments and consolidation occurred late in the process, sanctions for inadequate 

records would be inappropriate. Sanctions only would be appropriate where a party subsequently fails to 

comply with an order or request of the Administrative Judge that puts the party on notice of the type of 

sanction that may be imposed for noncompliance.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-9

determines that there is an incomplete or inadequate investigation, s/he may, 

however, issue an order directing the agency to complete its investigation within a 

specified period of time set forth in the order or directing that the agency show 

cause for its failure to complete the investigation within the 180-day period. 

Where an agency has not completed a timely investigation or has prepared an 

inadequate investigation, the Administrative Judge may issue an order on their 

own initiative or upon request by either party requiring a party to produce 

documents, records, comparative data, statistics, or the attendance of witnesses. 

Such order or request shall make clear that sanctions may be imposed and the type 

of sanction that could be imposed for failure to comply with the order within the 

specified time set forth in the order without good cause shown. 7

 See for example,

Rountree v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00015 (July 17, 

2001). Where a party fails without good cause shown to respond fully and in a 

timely fashion to the Administrative Judge‟s order and/or the party has not 

otherwise cooperated in the discovery process, the Administrative Judge may 

impose sanctions pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3).8

 A showing that the 

non-complying party acted in bad faith is not required. See Kramer v. 

Department of Justice, EEO Appeal No. 07A10108 (September 11, 2003), request 

for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05AA40050 (December 8, 2003); 

Cornell v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01974476 

(November 24, 1998). Additionally, the Administrative Judge may, as a result of 

a discovery order issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3)(v), require the 

agency to bear the costs for the complainant to obtain depositions or any other 

 

7Where the Administrative Judge‟s order or request does not put a party on notice that it could be 

sanctioned for noncompliance or does not put the party on notice of the type of sanction that the 

Administrative Judge intends to impose, the Administrative Judge must issue a separate notice to show 

cause to the party for an explanation as to why the sanction should not be imposed and provide an 

opportunity to cure the noncompliance before imposing the sanction. This rule applies in all instances 

where the Administrative Judge intends to impose a sanction on a party for a failure to comply with an 

order or request that does not make clear what sanction(s) may be imposed for noncompliance. 

8

See for example, Johnson v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090115 (May 6, 

2010), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request 0520100394 (July 30, 2010)(OFO affirmed 

Administrative Judge‟s dismissal of complainant‟s request for a hearing as a sanction for the failure to 

respond to discovery requests); Cox v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050055 

(December 24, 2009)(OFO affirmed Administrative Judge‟s default judgment against the agency based 

upon the Administrative Judge‟s finding that the agency failed to: adequately develop the factual record 

prior to hearing; respond to the complainant‟s initial request for admissions and subsequent written 

discovery requests; comply with the Administrative Judge‟s Order to Produce witnesses for depositions 

and timely respond to the Administrative Judge‟s Order to Show Cause why a default judgment should 

not be entered against the agency). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-10

discovery because the agency has failed to complete its investigation timely as 

required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e) or has failed to investigate the allegations 

adequately pursuant to Chapter 6 of this Management Directive.9 See also

Section IV.F of this Chapter. 

If either party is requested by the Administrative Judge to produce additional 

documents, that party shall also furnish a copy of those documents to the 

opposing party at the time they are submitted to the Administrative Judge. 

C. Dismissal of Complaint by Administrative Judge 

The Administrative Judge may dismiss complaints within his/her jurisdiction 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a) on his/her own initiative, after notice to the 

parties, or upon an agency‟s motion to dismiss a complaint. (See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(b) and Chapter 5, Section IV, of this Management Directive.) Before 

dismissing a complaint, the Administrative Judge must ensure that the claim has 

not been fragmented inappropriately into more than one complaint. A series of 

subsequent events or instances involving the same claim should not be treated as 

separate complaints, but should be added to and treated as part of the first claim. 

See Chapter 5, Section III of this Management Directive for an extended 

discussion on fragmentation. 

D. Administrative Judge's Authority 

The Administrative Judge has full responsibility for the adjudication of the 

complaint, which includes, but is not limited to the following: 

1. Issue decisions on complaints. 

2. Administer oaths. 

3. Regulate the conduct of hearings. 

4. Limit the number of witnesses so as to exclude irrelevant and repetitious 

evidence. 

 

9

See for example, Waller v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0720030069 (May 

25, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520070689 (February 26, 

2009)(finding that Administrative Judges may award attorney‟s fees and costs as a sanction against 

federal agencies for the violation of an Administrative Judge‟s Order and that awarding attorney‟s fees 

and costs as a sanction ensures the integrity and efficiency of the administrative process); 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-11

5. Order discovery or the production of documents and witnesses by serving 

orders on both parties. 

The Administrative Judge has independent authority under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(f) to order the production of information, documents, records, 

comparative data, statistics, affidavits, or the attendance of witnesses. 

6. Issue protective orders not to disclose information. 

7. Exclude any person who is disruptive from the hearing or who is a witness 

so that s/he cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.10

8. Issue summary judgment (decisions without a hearing) if there are no 

genuine issues of material fact in dispute. 

9. Limit the hearing to the issues in dispute. 

10. Impose appropriate sanctions on parties who fail to comply with orders or 

requests. 

The Administrative Judge has the authority to impose sanctions on a party 

if s/he fails to comply without good cause with orders or requests. See

29 CFR § 1614.109(f)(3). In addition, the Administrative Judge may 

impose sanctions where a party fails to appear or be prepared for a 

conference (for example, for status or settlement discussions) or hearing 

pursuant to an order of the Administrative Judge.11

 Sanctions may be 

imposed on the agency for failure to produce an approved witness who is a 

 

10The Administrative Judge may apply Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the exclusion 

of witnesses: 

At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the 

testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does 

not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of 

a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a 

person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's 

cause, or (4) a person authorized by statute to be present.

11See for example, Council v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080321 

(April 9, 2010)(OFO affirmed the Administrative Judge‟s dismissal of complainant‟s request for a hearing 

as a sanction for her failure to prosecute her case when she failed to timely submit a previously ordered 

Pre-Hearing Statement or otherwise proceed with her complaint). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-12

federal employee.12 Sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply with 

orders to compel, requests for information, documents, or admissions 

where the information is solely in the control of that party.13 Similarly, if 

a party fails to provide an adequate explanation for the failure to respond 

fully and in a timely manner to a request and the information is solely in 

the control of that party, the Administrative Judge may impose sanctions.14 

Sanctions for failing to comply with the orders or requests discussed 

above include, but are not limited to, the authority to: 

(a) draw an adverse inference that the requested information would 

have reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the 

requested information; 

(b) consider the issues to which the requested information pertains to 

be established in favor of the opposing party; 

(c) exclude other evidence offered by the party failing to produce the 

requested information; 

(d) enter a decision fully or partially in favor of the opposing party; 

and,

(e) take such other actions as appropriate.15

 

12See also LeBlanc v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01981419 (May 5, 1999)(upholding 

sanctions against an agency for its failure to even attempt to produce a former employee for hearing). 

13See for example, Johnson v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090115 (May 

6, 2010), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request 0520100394 (July 30, 2010)(OFO affirmed 

Administrative Judge‟s dismissal of complainant‟s request for a hearing as a sanction for the failure to 

respond to discovery requests). 

14See for example, Johnson, (OFO upheld the Administrative Judge‟s dismissal of complainant‟s 

hearing request, stating that when the complainant responded to the Administrative Judge‟s order to show 

cause, he did not explain his failure to respond to discovery as he was ordered to do, but instead argued 

the merits of his case). 

15See footnote 4 of this Chapter in this Management Directive, for a discussion of placing a party 

on notice that sanctions may be imposed before ordering their imposition. However, see also Council v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080321 (April 9, 2010) in which OFO upheld 

the Administrative Judge‟s dismissal of the complainant‟s hearing request even when an order to show 

cause had not been issued, pointing out that when the Administrative Judge issued the Acknowledgement 

and Order it advised the parties that failure to follow Orders may result in sanctions pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

1614.109(f)(3).
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-13

11. Calculate compensatory damage awards. 

Before holding a hearing, the Administrative Judge may require the 

complainant, after receipt of an agency motion or otherwise, to declare 

whether or not s/he is seeking compensatory damages as relief for the 

discrimination or retaliation alleged in the complaint, and to proffer or 

produce evidence demonstrating entitlement to compensatory damages. If 

a complainant fails to proffer or produce such evidence, the 

Administrative Judge may, in his/her discretion, deem the claim for 

damages to be waived. 

Where the complainant has claimed compensatory damages and where the 

Administrative Judge determines, on the merits of the complaint, 

entitlement to compensatory damages because of intentional 

discrimination or retaliation, the Administrative Judge will calculate the 

amount of compensatory damages to be awarded by the respondent 

agency. In complaints where compensatory damages have been claimed 

and a hearing is held, the Administrative Judge may, in his/her discretion, 

develop the record on the compensatory damages claim during the hearing 

on the merits on the complaint or may bifurcate the proceeding and 

develop the record on the compensatory damage claim after a finding of 

discrimination. 

12. Order a medical examination. 

Administrative Judges have the authority to order, in very limited 

circumstances, as detailed below, that a complainant undergo a medical 

examination on motion of the agency. A request by the agency that a 

complainant undergo a medical examination must notify the complainant, 

the complainant's representative, and the Administrative Judge, of the 

proposed time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination 

and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. All such requests 

must be approved by the Administrative Judge. 

In making a determination of whether to order a medical examination, an 

Administrative Judge may be guided by the principles and cases arising 

under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the 

physical and mental examinations of persons. The burden of proof in 

supporting a request for such an examination requires an affirmative 

showing that each condition as to which examination is sought is 

genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each 

particular examination. Such requests must be narrowly tailored to elicit 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-14

only the evidence necessary to develop the record with regard to the 

specific issue. 

The agency requesting the examination has the burden of proving that the 

examination is reasonably necessary. For example, merely showing that 

the complainant has made a claim for compensatory damages is not 

sufficient to meet the agency's burden of proof. In determining whether 

such a request is reasonable, the Administrative Judge will consider: 

whether the complainant has asserted a claim for compensatory damages 

sufficient to place his/her mental or physical condition in controversy; and 

whether the request is made for good cause shown; that is, that the 

examination is reasonably necessary to determine the existence and extent 

of an asserted injury. The Commission has held that evidence from a 

health care professional is not a mandatory prerequisite to establishing 

entitlement to compensatory damages. Sinnott v. Department of Defense, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01952872 (1996); Lawrence v. U.S. Postal Service, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (1996); Carpenter v. Department of 

Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (1995). A complainant's own 

testimony, along with the circumstances of a particular case, may suffice 

to sustain the complainant's burden in this regard. Therefore, independent 

medical examinations will not be appropriate in every case in which a 

claim for compensatory damages is made. See Requests for Private 

Information Should Be Limited at Section IV (B)(4) in this chapter of this 

Management Directive for more information. 

Some factors to be considered in determining whether an agency has 

shown that a complainant has asserted a claim for damages sufficient to 

place his/her mental or physical condition in controversy include: 1) the 

type and extent of mental or physical harm claimed; 2) whether the harm 

alleged is ongoing or is merely a past harm with no current effects on the 

complainant; 3) whether the complainant has offered expert testimony 

concerning the nature and/or extent of the alleged harm, or intends to offer 

such testimony; and 4) whether the complainant has sufficiently asserted a 

connection between the asserted harm and the alleged discrimination 

sufficient to establish a causal relationship between the harm and the 

alleged discrimination. 

Some factors to be considered in determining whether an agency 

requesting a mental or physical examination has shown good cause for 

such examination include: 1) the nature and severity of the alleged harm, 

and the likelihood that the requested examination will elicit relevant 

evidence as to the existence and/or extent of the alleged harm; 2) whether 

there is already sufficient evidence in the record as to the nature and extent 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-15

of the asserted harm; and 3) whether the information sought could be 

obtained through other less intrusive discovery techniques, such as 

interrogatories, depositions, or requests for the production of witnesses or 

documents. 

Even where the above criteria may have been satisfied by the agency 

requesting the examination, the decision to order such examination at the 

hearing stage is solely within the discretion of the Administrative Judge.

Upon receipt of a request from the agency for a medical examination, the 

complainant may file a motion for a protective order, stating objections to 

the request or order. See Section IV.D.2.b of this Chapter. The decision 

to order such examination at the hearing stage remains solely within the 

discretion of the Administrative Judge. 

13. Calculate and award the amount of attorney‟s fees or costs. 

Where a party is represented by an attorney, an Administrative Judge is 

authorized to award a complainant reasonable attorney‟s fees and costs 

(including expert witness fees) incurred in the processing of a complaint 

where the Administrative Judge issues a decision finding discrimination in 

violation of Title VII and/or the Rehabilitation Act, issues an order 

sanctioning the agency, or where the award of attorney‟s fees or costs may 

otherwise be appropriate and authorized. Any award of attorney‟s fees or 

costs shall be paid by the respondent agency. Where the Administrative 

Judge determines that a complainant is entitled to an award of attorney‟s 

fees or costs, the Administrative Judge will calculate the amount of such 

award in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(B) and Chapter 

11 of this Management Directive. 

When the Administrative Judge determines an entitlement to attorney‟s 

fees or costs, the complainant‟s attorney must submit a verified statement 

of attorney‟s fees (including expert witness fees) and other costs, as 

appropriate, to the Administrative Judge within thirty (30) days of receipt 

of the decision, unless otherwise directed, and must submit a copy of the 

statement to the agency. A statement of attorney‟s fees and costs must be 

accompanied by an affidavit executed by the attorney of record itemizing 

the attorney‟s charges for legal services. The agency may respond to a 

statement of attorney‟s fees and costs within thirty (30) days of its receipt. 

The verified statement, accompanying affidavit and any agency response 

shall be made a part of the complaint file. The Administrative Judge will 

issue a decision determining the amount of attorney‟s fees and costs due 

within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement and affidavit. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-16

14. Engage the parties or encourage the parties to engage in settlement 

discussions. 

The Administrative Judge may engage the parties in discussion aimed at 

reaching a settlement agreement or may allow the parties such time as they 

may need to discuss settlement. The Administrative Judge further may 

hold a hearing in abeyance to allow the parties to engage in alternate 

forms of dispute resolution. (For a more detailed discussion of alternative 

dispute resolution, see Chapter 3 of this Management Directive.) 

15. Issue an order determining full relief. 

Administrative Judges shall issue an order awarding full relief where the 

agency unilaterally and unconditionally promises in writing to provide the 

full and complete remedy as defined by the Administrative Judge. To 

permit him/her to determine the appropriate remedy for the complaint, the 

Administrative Judge may require the parties to submit statements of full 

relief, may receive evidence including testimony, and/or require oral 

argument. After issuing the order and a determination of the appropriate 

remedy, the Administrative Judge shall return the hearing file to the 

agency, which shall have forty (40) days to take final action. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.110(a). Once the agency takes final action, the complainant will 

have thirty days within which to file an appeal. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402(a). 

If the agency fails to provide the full and complete remedy as promised, 

the complainant may seek compliance from the agency and, failing that, 

file an appeal with the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a); see

also Miller v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05980345 

(July 20, 1998); Perlingiero v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 

01941176 (Feb. 24, 1995); Poirrier v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01933308 (May 5, 1994). 

16. Hold a hearing in abeyance. 

An Administrative Judge may hold a hearing in abeyance in the event that 

a party is unable to proceed with the hearing for reasons such as illness, 

military assignment, or for other good cause shown. 

E. Summary Judgment (Decisions Without a Hearing) 

1. On Motion of a Party

A party who believes that some or all material facts are not in genuine 

dispute may file a motion for summary judgment with the Administrative 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-17

Judge at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, or at such earlier time 

as required by the Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge may, 

in the acknowledgment order, specify a date for filing such a motion and 

provide for extending that time in certain circumstances. A copy of any 

such motion shall be served on the opposing party. 

The opposing party will have 15 days from the receipt of the statement in 

which to file any opposition to the statement. 

After considering the request and the opposing submission, if any, the 

Administrative Judge may deny the request, order that discovery be 

permitted on the facts involved, limit the hearing to the issues remaining 

in dispute (if any), issue a decision without a hearing, or make such other 

rulings as are appropriate. 

2. On Administrative Judge's Determination

If the Administrative Judge determines that some or all of the material 

facts are not in genuine dispute, s/he may, after giving notice to the parties 

and providing them an opportunity to respond within 15 days of receipt of 

the notice, issue an order limiting the scope of the hearing or issue a 

summary judgment decision without conducting a hearing. 

3. Oral Argument or Testimony on Summary Judgment Motion

At his/her discretion, the Administrative Judge may provide notice 

requiring the parties to appear and present oral argument or testimony on a 

motion for summary judgment. 

4. Legal Standard for the Use of Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper when “material facts are not in genuine 

dispute.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). Only a dispute over facts that are truly 

material to the outcome of the case should preclude summary judgment. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (only disputes 

over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing 

law, and not irrelevant or unnecessary factual disputes, will preclude the 

entry of summary judgment). For example, when a complainant is unable 

to set forth facts necessary to establish one essential element of a prima 

facie case, a dispute over facts necessary to prove another element of the 

case would not be material to the outcome. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 322-23 (1986). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-18

Moreover, a mere recitation that there is a factual dispute is insufficient. 

The party opposing summary judgment must identify the disputed facts in 

the record with specificity or demonstrate that there is a dispute by 

producing affidavits or records that tend to disprove the facts asserted by 

the moving party. In addition, the non-moving party must explain how the 

facts in dispute are material under the legal principles applicable to the 

case. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; Patton v. 

U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930055 (July 1, 1993) 

(summary judgment proper where complainant made only a general 

pleading that his job performance was good but set forth no specific facts 

regarding his performance and identified no specific inadequacies in the 

investigation). 

F. Transmittal of the Decision and Hearing Record 

At the conclusion of the hearing stage the Administrative Judge shall send to the 

parties (the agency representative, the agency EEO Director or EEO Office, the 

complainant and the complainant‟s representative) copies of the record produced 

at the hearing stage of the process, including the transcript of the hearing, if any, 

as well as the decision. 

The Administrative Judge may, when necessary, release the transcript prior to the 

issuance of the decision, for example, when the transcript is needed to prepare a 

post-hearing brief or to prepare for a hearing on relief. 

The Administrative Judge may issue a decision from the bench after the 

conclusion of the hearing, in lieu of issuing a written decision. 

IV. DISCOVERY 

A. Introduction 

1. General

The purpose of discovery is to enable a party to obtain relevant 

information for preparation of the party's case. Both parties are entitled to 

reasonable development of evidence on issues raised in the complaint, and 

the Administrative Judge may limit the quantity and timing of discovery. 

A reasonable amount of official time shall be allowed to prepare requests 

for discovery and to respond to discovery requests. (See Chapter 6, 

Section VII.C of this Management Directive.) 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-19

2. Avoidance of Delay

The discovery instructions that follow are intended to provide a simple 

method of discovery. They will be interpreted and applied so as to avoid 

delay and to facilitate adjudication of the case. The parties are expected to 

initiate and complete needed discovery with a minimum of intervention by 

the Commission's Administrative Judge. The parties are further expected 

to use discovery judiciously for its intended purpose only. 

B. Right to Seek Discovery 

1. Notice of Right to Seek Discovery

The Administrative Judge shall send the parties an acknowledgment order 

advising the parties that they may commence discovery. It is the 

Commission's policy that the parties are entitled, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(b), to the reasonable development of evidence on the issues 

raised in the complaint. 

2. Discovery is Designed to Supplement the Record

It is anticipated that discovery will ordinarily involve supplementing the 

existing record. There may be situations in which the record does not 

have to be supplemented. 

3. Discovery Time Frames Will Be Strictly Regarded

Discovery must be completed by such time ordered by the Administrative 

Judge. Parties may request to extend the time for discovery beyond the 

time limit set. The Administrative Judge may modify the time frame for 

completing discovery either by extending it or by curtailing it as the 

Administrative Judge may determine. To be considered, any request for 

extension must be made prior to the expiration of the time limit by motion 

and accompanied with a proposed order and shall state whether the 

opposing party agrees or objects to the motion or order. 

4. Requests for Private Information Should Be Limited

Agencies are not authorized to request production of the medical records 

of complainants during discovery except to establish or challenge 

disability status or the right to reasonable accommodation in 

Rehabilitation Act cases. Otherwise, agencies must request the 

Administrative Judge‟s prior permission before making requests for 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-20

medical information. Making requests for release of medical information 

is particularly without justification in cases where the complainant seeks 

no more than “garden variety” compensatory damages. Thus, production 

of stress-related medical records will not be required as long as a 

complainant's compensatory damages claim is limited to lay descriptions 

of his or her stress and symptoms without buttressing it with any medical 

diagnosis, medical records, or medical expert testimony. Production of 

such record evidence is unnecessary, unwarranted and privileged when 

only garden variety non-pecuniary compensatory damages are sought. 

Elliott v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 07A20063, (April 29, 

2003) citing EEOC Guidance No. 915.002 at 7. 

See cases which hold that the privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 

(1996), is not waived unless the plaintiff makes affirmative use of the 

privileged material in connection with her prosecution of the case.Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission v. Danka Industries, Inc., 990 

F.Supp 1138, 1142 (E.D. MO. 1997). 

Before granting a request for production of the complainant‟s medical 

records, the Administrative Judge should provide the complainant a set 

time period, such as fifteen days, to make an election between pursuing or 

waiving the right to pecuniary medical damages or non-pecuniary 

compensatory damages more than garden variety compensatory damages. 

Agencies are not authorized and must request prior permission from the 

Administrative Judge before making requests for production of a 

complainant‟s tax records except with respect to W-2 (earned income) and 

Schedule C (profit or loss) documents. The financial status of a 

complainant is usually not relevant except concerning backpay and 

mitigation, items that are calculated solely with records of earned income. 

Requests for prior permission to propound a request for production of 

documents covered by this section shall be granted only upon a showing 

of good cause.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-21

C. Methods of Discovery 

1. Evidence may be developed using a variety of methods including: 

a. Interrogatories

Absent specific authorization from the Administrative Judge, a 

party may propound no more than one set of interrogatories and a 

set of interrogatories shall not exceed thirty (30) in number 

including all discrete subparts. 

b. Depositions

Generally the party requesting depositions will pay for them. A 

failure to appear at a properly scheduled deposition may result in 

the non-appearing party bearing the cost of the missed session. 

Agencies must make federal employees available for depositions 

and such depositions shall be taken on official time. The agency 

may be liable for costs incurred if such persons are not made 

available on the clock for depositions or other discovery or if such 

persons fail to appear. 

c. Stipulations

Stipulations are strongly encouraged. 

d. Requests for Admissions

Absent specific authorization from the Administrative Judge, a 

request for admissions shall not exceed 30 in number including all 

discrete subparts. This limit does not apply, however, to 

admissions relating to the authenticity or genuiness of documents. 

e. Requests for the Production of Documents

Absent specific authorization from the Administrative Judge, 

requests must be specific, identifying the document or types of 

documents requested. A set of document requests shall not exceed 

30 in number including all discrete subparts. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-22

2. Where possible, more informal methods of discovery should be employed

In many instances, discovery should proceed on an informal basis, 

including unrecorded meetings and conference calls designed to exchange 

information. For example, if a primary purpose of discovery is to 

determine the scope and content of a material witness's testimony, it may 

be sufficient that there be a meeting scheduled with the witness and that 

the discovery be conducted on an informal basis. If that method proves 

unsatisfactory, a more formal method of discovery may be used. 

When information gathering and hearing preparation takes place outside 

the scope of formal discovery, agencies may not restrict access to nonmanagement employees who voluntarily cooperate with informal 

discovery. 

a. The parties may agree that a witness be made available for 

questioning without the production of a transcript or tape recording 

where the purpose is to discover the availability of other evidence, 

either documentary or testimonial. 

b. The parties may agree to the questioning of witnesses using a tape 

recording device, provided that any such tape will not be accepted 

in evidence without authentication. Such authentication can be 

presumed where the opposing party is provided a copy of the tape 

at the close of the discovery session and it is identical to the tape 

proffered in evidence. 

D. Discovery Procedures 

1. Commencing Discovery

a. Requests for authorization to commence 

Unless the Administrative Judge requires that a party request 

authorization to commence discovery, parties may begin discovery 

upon receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s acknowledgment order. 

If the Administrative Judge requires that a party request 

authorization to commence discovery, the request must state the 

method(s) and scope of discovery requested and its relevance to 

the issue(s) in the complaint. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-23

b. Exchange of requests

Upon receipt of the Administrative Judge's authorization to begin 

discovery or acknowledgment order that does not require the 

parties to seek authorization, the parties must, within twenty (20) 

calendar days or such period of time ordered by the Administrative 

Judge, exchange requests for discovery. If a party does not submit 

a discovery request to opposing party within that period, the 

Administrative Judge may determine that the party has waived its 

right to pursue discovery. 

The parties must cooperate with each other in honoring requests 

for relevant, non-repetitive documentary and testimonial evidence. 

The parties shall not use any form of discovery or discovery 

scheduling for harassment, unjustified delay, to increase litigation 

expenses, or any improper purpose. Discovery disputes will be 

resolved by the Administrative Judge only after the parties have 

made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. 

(1) Where to address discovery

Requests for discovery should be addressed to the agency 

representative, complainant, and complainant's 

representative of record, and not to the Administrative

Judge, unless requested by the Administrative Judge. 

Where a party addresses a request for discovery to the 

Administrative Judge, the Administrative Judge may, at 

his/her discretion, return the request to the party submitting 

the discovery request with instructions to serve it on the 

appropriate party, or may forward the request to the 

appropriate party. Where a party inappropriately submits a 

discovery request to the Administrative Judge, the required 

time frame for submitting the request to the appropriate 

party will not stop running unless the Administrative Judge 

rules otherwise. Copies of discovery requests should not be 

provided to the Administrative Judge unless a motion to 

compel or a response to a motion to compel is being filed 

or if otherwise directed by the Administrative judge. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-24

(2) Criteria for requests

The request should be: 1) as specific as possible, 

2) reasonably calculated to discover non-repetitive, 

material evidence. 

2. Response to Discovery Request

Unless otherwise ordered, the opposing party/representative must serve 

his/her response to the request for discovery within thirty (30) calendar 

days from the date of service of the request. If service of the request was 

by mail, the opposing party/representative may add five days to the date 

that the response is due. A response means: 

a. Compliance with the request; 

Voluntary cooperation with discovery requests is encouraged; 

b. Written opposition to the request/motion for a protective order; 

Such opposition shall set forth a basis for finding that the request is 

irrelevant, overburdening, repetitious, or privileged; 

c. Written agreement or stipulation obviating the request; 

Stipulations of fact are favored as a means of resolving discovery 

issues; 

d. Request for extension of time; 

Request for extension of time to comply or to produce a written 

agreement shall not exceed 15 calendar days. 

3. Failure to Respond to Request for Discovery

a. Failure to fully respond to a request for discovery within 30 

calendar days of receipt of the request, or as otherwise ordered by 

the Administrative Judge, shall form the basis for a motion to 

compel discovery, provided the parties have made a good faith 

effort to resolve the dispute. 

b. A motion to compel must be filed within ten (10) calendar days 

after the expiration date for responding to a request for discovery, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-25

or as otherwise ordered by the Administrative Judge. When filing 

a motion, the moving party must certify that s/he conferred with 

the opposing party, or made a good faith effort to do so, to attempt 

to resolve the discovery dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); 

Apex Oil Co. v. Belcher Co., 855 F.2d 1009, 1020 (2d Cir. 1988) 

(failure to confer in good faith over discovery disputes multiplied 

the proceedings and justified sanctions); 

c. A motion to compel compliance with a request for discovery must 

be addressed to the Administrative Judge and the moving party 

must certify that a copy was served on the opposing party. 

d. Any statement in opposition to the motion must be filed within ten 

(10) calendar days of service of the motion and the responding 

party must certify that a copy was served on the moving party. 

e. A party‟s failure to raise an objection to a discovery request within 

the time period to respond to it may be determined by the 

Administrative Judge to be a waiver of that party‟s ability to object 

to the request at a later date. 

4. The Administrative Judges Will Rule Expeditiously on Discovery Issues 

Following the filing of an opposition, if any, to the motion to compel 

discovery, the Administrative Judge will rule expeditiously on the request 

for discovery. In the alternative, the Administrative Judge may, in the 

interest of expediting the hearing, order that the document(s), witness(es), 

or other evidence at issue be produced at the hearing. Where the 

Administrative Judge finds that the request for discovery that is the subject 

of the motion to compel is irrelevant, overburdening, repetitious, or 

privileged, the Administrative Judge will deny the motion to compel and 

may, upon the request of the party opposing the motion to compel, or upon 

the Administrative Judge‟s own initiative, issue such protective orders as 

the Administrative Judge determines appropriate. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-26

5. Administrative Judge's Orders to Comply

a. In considering a motion to compel compliance, the Administrative 

Judge will consider whether the following factors apply: 

(1) the discovery is calculated to produce or lead to the 

production of material evidence that is not repetitious of 

facts or documents already in the complaint file, 

(2) the discovery does not concern privileged or restricted 

information, and 

(3) the discovery is not overly burdensome. 

b. Where a motion to compel discovery is approved, in whole or in 

part, the Administrative Judge shall issue a written order to comply 

with the request. The parties shall have 15 calendar days or such 

other time period ordered by the Administrative Judge to comply 

with a discovery order. 

6. Failure to Respond or Comply With Administrative Judge's Order May 

Result in Sanctions

A failure to respond or follow an order to comply with a request for 

discovery may result in sanctions. See Section III.D.10, of this Chapter. 

E. Failure to Request Discovery Implies Waiver of Subsequent Requests for 

Documents 

It is the intention of the Commission that the parties utilize the informal or formal 

discovery procedures provided for in this Chapter to develop the record in the 

complaint or that the record be developed to the extent necessary through the 

Administrative Judge‟s orders for documents, information and witnesses. Under 

previous Commission guidance, the failure to request discovery did not imply a 

waiver of the opportunity of the parties to make requests for documents and 

witnesses at the hearing. Allowing parties this opportunity at the time of the 

hearing, regardless of whether the discovery process was invoked, is not 

consistent with sound administrative economy and with the expeditious 

processing of complaints. Accordingly, where a party has not timely requested 

discovery or has not otherwise timely requested that the Administrative Judge 

order the opposing party to produce documents, the party‟s request for documents 

for the first time at the time of the hearing, or at a pre-hearing conference held just 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-27

prior to the hearing, will be disallowed unless the Administrative Judge, in his/her 

discretion, rules otherwise. 

F. Cost of Discovery 

The parties shall initially bear their own costs with regard to discovery, unless the 

Administrative Judge requires the agency to bear the costs for the complainant to 

obtain depositions or any other discovery because the agency has failed to 

complete its investigation timely as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e) or has 

failed to investigate the allegations adequately pursuant to Chapter 6 of this 

Management Directive. 

V. EXCLUSION AND DISQUALIFICATION 

All participants in the EEO hearing process have a duty to maintain the decorum required 

for a fair and orderly proceeding and to obey orders of the Administrative Judge. Any 

person who engages in improper behavior or contumacious conduct (as defined in 

Section V.A.3 of this Chapter) at any time subsequent to the docketing of a complaint for 

a hearing is subject to sanction. Section 1614.109(e) of 29 C.F.R. provides that persons 

may be excluded from the hearing for contumacious conduct or misbehavior that 

obstructs the hearing. It further provides that if the complainant‟s or agency‟s 

representative engages in misconduct or refuses to obey an order of the Administrative 

Judge, the Commission may suspend or disqualify the representative from future 

hearings, refer the matter to an appropriate licensing authority, or both. 

A. Exclusion from a Hearing 

An Administrative Judge has the power to regulate the conduct of a hearing and to 

exclude any person from a hearing for contumacious conduct or misbehavior that 

obstructs the hearing. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(e). The Administrative Judge 

may exclude any disruptive person, including the complainant, an agency official, 

or a representative, including agency or complainant counsel. This sanction 

generally applies to conduct occurring in the Administrative Judge‟s presence at 

any point during the hearing process, including prehearing proceedings and 

teleconferences as well as the hearing itself. It also applies to a representative‟s 

refusal to obey orders of the Administrative Judge. The exclusion bars the 

individual, for the duration of the hearing process, from further participation in 

the case in which the misconduct occurs. (In contrast, a disqualification of a 

representative applies to future hearings. The procedure for disqualification is in 

Section V.B below.) 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-28

The authority of an Administrative Judge to impose an exclusion under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(e) derives from the judicial doctrine of the “inherent powers” of the 

forum. For example, courts have certain implied powers that are necessary to the 

exercise of all others. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). “„Courts 

of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with 

power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission 

to their lawful mandates.‟” Id. at 43 (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 224 

(Wheat.) 227 (1821)). “These powers are „governed not by rule or statute but by 

the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to 

achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. (quoting Link v. 

Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). 

Inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion. Id. In 

considering the imposition of sanctions, Administrative Judges must take steps to 

ensure fairness to the parties and the effectiveness of the sanction in furthering the 

orderly conclusion of the hearing process. Sanctions should be proportional to the 

nature and degree of the improper conduct. Administrative Judges may look to 

rules of ethics, common law, statutes, and case law to determine the propriety and 

nature of a sanction. With respect to sanctions against a representative, the 

Administrative Judge should be mindful that a party to the EEO process is entitled 

to be represented by an individual of that party‟s choice, and the representative is 

expected to be an advocate for the party‟s interests. Nonetheless, by virtue of 

their position, all representatives also have a particular responsibility to respect 

the order and authority of the EEO process. See subsection 4 below. 

1. Relationship to other sanctions

In addition to exclusion under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(e) for misconduct, 

other sanctions may be imposed for failure to obey orders of an 

Administrative Judge. Section 1614.109(f)(3) of 29 C.F.R. provides that 

when the complainant, the agency, or its employees fail without good 

cause shown to respond fully and in timely fashion to an order of an 

Administrative Judge, or requests for the investigative file, for documents, 

records, comparative data, statistics, affidavits, or the attendance of 

witnesses, the Administrative Judge shall impose sanctions in appropriate 

circumstances. 

Sanctions under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f) may be evidentiary, monetary, or 

both. The failure of a party to produce evidence or obey an order may 

support the drawing of an adverse inference about a matter in dispute, the 

exclusion of other evidence offered by that party, or a decision on the 

merits in favor of the other party. Monetary sanctions include attorney‟s 

fees and the costs of discovery. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-29

2. Preventive measures

To lessen the need for resort to exclusion or other sanctions, 

Administrative Judges may instruct the parties in the initial order and/or at 

the outset of the hearing to maintain professional conduct and speech. The 

parties should be informed that engaging in improper conduct or failing to 

comply with orders of the Administrative Judge or Commission 

regulations may result in sanctions under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109. Giving 

such a warning is within the Administrative Judge‟s discretion, however. 

Any asserted failure to advise the parties of the potential for sanctions 

does not limit the Administrative Judge‟s authority to impose a sanction. 

3. General standard for exclusion

A person‟s conduct is contumacious when it is “willfully stubborn and 

disobedient.” Black‟s Law Dictionary 330 (6th ed. 1990). Contumacious 

behavior or disruptive conduct may include any unprofessional or 

disrespectful behavior; degrading, insulting, or threatening verbal remarks 

or conduct; the use of profanity; or conduct engaged in for the purpose of 

improperly delaying the hearing.16 A finding of contumacious conduct or 

disruptive behavior may be based on a series of disruptive incidents, a 

pattern of acts, or a single sufficiently obstructive episode.17 Normally, 

any pattern should be manifest within a single case. However, the 

Administrative Judge may take into consideration other improper conduct 

engaged in by the individual on any previous occasion before that judge, if 

the Administrative Judge had clearly described the misconduct for the 

 

16In Bradley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01952244, 01963827 (1996), the 

Commission rejected the complainant‟s contention that he was denied a fair hearing because the 

Administrative Judge had complainant and his representative escorted from the hearing room under guard 

and terminated the hearing. The Commission found that complainant‟s representative “engaged in 

contumacious conduct of the worst kind: asking questions which the witnesses could not comprehend, 

then berating the witnesses for failing to answer; repeatedly testifying rather than asking questions; 

vociferously arguing on the record with the agency representative and the Administrative Judge; defying 

the authority of the Administrative Judge with regard to evidentiary rulings and the conduct of the 

hearing; and threatening the Administrative Judge over an evidentiary ruling.” Misconduct does not have 

to rise to this level to be subject to sanction. Any one of the types of misconduct noted in Bradley would 

alone be sufficient. 

17See In re Chaplain, 621 F.2d 1272, 1276 (4th Cir. 1980) (“contempt of court may be found based 

on the cumulative impact of a series of actions, no one of which standing alone would be sufficient: „It is 

only necessary that a contumacious act be „a volitional [one] done by one who knows or should 

reasonably be aware that his conduct is wrongful.‟”)(citations omitted).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-30

record in the earlier proceeding or the misconduct is otherwise clearly 

apparent from the record. 

In addition, there may be situations in which a decision to exclude a 

person may take into consideration prior misconduct before a different 

Administrative Judge or the Commission. For example, in the first 

instance of misconduct, the Administrative Judge, in his/her discretion and 

as part of the sanction, may publicize the sanction to other Administrative 

Judges or require the sanctioned individual to disclose the sanction to 

other Administrative Judges. This should be done in appropriate 

circumstances, taking into account the nature and degree of the 

misconduct. If the sanctioned individual engages in further improper 

conduct in a subsequent hearing before the same or a different 

Administrative Judge, the prior sanction should be considered in 

determining whether to exclude the individual from the subsequent 

hearing. To that end, the Administrative Judge also may ask an 

individual, on the record, to disclose whether or not s/he ever had 

previously been sanctioned in any way before the EEOC. 

4. Standard for exclusion of representative

Representatives may also be excluded for refusal to follow the orders of an 

Administrative Judge or other improper conduct, in addition to 

“contumacious conduct or misbehavior that obstructs the hearing.” 

Representatives have a special duty to maintain the dignity of the EEO 

process and to preserve the order and authority of the EEO forum and 

must act accordingly. 

If a party‟s representative engages in repetitive misconduct or conduct 

justifying exclusion, the Commission also will consider imposing a 

suspension or disqualification through the procedure described in Section 

B below. If the representative is an attorney, s/he also may be referred to 

the appropriate bar association for disciplinary action as provided in 

section C below. 

5. Procedure for exclusion

Unless the improper conduct is so egregious as to compromise the order 

required for a fair and orderly proceeding, the Administrative Judge 

normally should first warn the offending person to stop the conduct. The 

warning should give notice that if the conduct continues, the person will 

be excluded from the hearing. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-31

When imposing the sanction, the Administrative Judge must ensure that 

the record includes a clear and specific description of the nature of the 

misconduct. The record must include the particular details of what the 

person said or did, rather than a conclusory characterization.18 The 

Administrative Judge may place the information on the record through a 

statement at the hearing or, if the misconduct occurred in a teleconference 

or other proceeding without a court reporter, by inclusion in a prehearing 

conference memorandum or order or through a written statement provided 

to the individual. Any gestures or actions that would not be apparent from 

the hearing transcript should be clearly described for the record. If the 

person used profanity or other improper or threatening language before the 

Administrative Judge while off the record or at a proceeding that is not 

being transcribed, the Administrative Judge should relate the particular 

language used in a statement on the record or other written statement made 

a part of the record. 

An Administrative Judge‟s decision to exclude a person from a hearing is 

final. There is no right to an interlocutory appeal of an exclusion decision. 

A party may raise the issue as part of an appeal of the final order on the 

case when the party asserts it has been deprived the opportunity for a fair 

hearing. 

If the complainant engages in obstructive misconduct or contumacious 

conduct, the Administrative Judge should warn the complainant as 

described above and consider recessing the hearing for a short time to 

restore order. If the complainant‟s misconduct is extreme or persistent, 

the Administrative Judge may, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(7),

dismiss the case for failure to cooperate or issue a decision if the record is 

sufficient to permit adjudication. 

If the complainant‟s representative is excluded, the complainant should be 

given the option of proceeding without his/her representative. If the 

agency‟s representative is excluded, the Administrative Judge must notify 

the agency of the exclusion. In either case, the Administrative Judge may, 

in his/her discretion, continue the hearing to allow time for the designation 

of a new representative or, in appropriate circumstances, terminate the 

hearing, and decide the case based on the record if the record is sufficient 

to permit adjudication. 

 

18For example, the description might state that the party‟s representative, despite a warning to 

remain at his seat, “repeatedly rose out of his chair, walked around the hearing room, and pointed his

finger close to the witness‟s face while berating the witness in a loud voice and cutting short the witness‟s 

answers, making the following statements to the witness: . . . .”
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-32

The Administrative Judge also may impose an evidentiary sanction against 

either party as provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3). For example, when 

misconduct has prevented or hindered the development of evidence, the 

Administrative Judge may draw an adverse inference; consider the matter 

to be established in favor of the opposing party; exclude other evidence; or 

issue a decision fully or partially in favor of the opposing party. See

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.109(f)(3). The standard for imposing such a sanction 

must be the same for both complainants and agencies. A sanction should 

be proportional to the level of the misconduct and reflect the degree to 

which the misconduct has impeded a full and fair hearing. 

B. Disqualification of a Representative from Future Hearings 

1. Standard for suspension and disqualification19

In the case of repeated or flagrant improper conduct by a representative, 

the Administrative Judge or the Commission may take further action. 

Section 1614.109(e) of 29 C.F.R. provides that the Commission, after 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, may suspend or disqualify from 

representing complainants or agencies in future EEOC hearings any 

representative who refuses to follow the Administrative Judge‟s orders or 

otherwise engages in improper conduct. These provisions apply not only 

to conduct at the hearing stage of the case but also to all other actions 

taken by a representative in the course of an EEO proceeding, including 

the appeal. A disqualification applies to future representation of a party 

before the EEOC, at both the hearing and appellate stages. 

2. Procedure for suspension and disqualification‟

Before suspension or disqualification from future hearings, the 

representative must be given: 

a. notice of the specific conduct that is the basis for the proposed 

disqualification; 

 

19In addition to disqualification under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(e) for misconduct, the term 

“disqualification” is also used when the representation of a complainant or agency would conflict with the 

official or collateral duties of the representative. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(c), in that circumstance, the 

Commission or the agency may, after giving the representative an opportunity to respond, disqualify the 

representative. In contrast to disqualification for misconduct, a disqualification for conflict of interest 

under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(c) applies only to the particular case. Parties shall disclose and reasonably 

attempt to avoid all conflicts of interest.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

7-33

b. notice of the proposed sanction; and 

c. the opportunity to be heard. 

This is accomplished through a show cause order. The show cause order 

must describe in detail the incident(s) constituting the grounds for 

suspension or disqualification,20 describe the proposed sanction, and give 

the representative a period of time in which to explain in writing why s/he 

should not be suspended or disqualified. 

For improper conduct or a refusal to follow orders at the hearing stage, the 

Administrative Judge will issue the show cause order and certify the 

matter to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, for a determination. 

In addition, the Administrative Judge may, separately or simultaneously, 

issue an order excluding the representative from the hearing process in the 

case at bar, in accordance with the provisions discussed above. If the 

representative is an attorney, referral to the appropriate bar association 

normally should be considered as well, pursuant to section C below. 

For improper conduct during the appeal, the Office of Federal Operations 

will issue the show cause order. In all cases, the representative must 

submit his/her response to the Director of the Office of Federal 

Operations. The Director or his/her designee will issue a final order, 

which is not appealable. 

An order suspending or disqualifying a representative from future hearings 

must specify the time period the penalty will be in effect, which must be 

commensurate with the severity of the conduct. 

When the Administrative Judge or the Commission proposes to suspend or 

disqualify the agency‟s representative, a copy of the show cause order and 

subsequent decision must be provided to the agency‟s EEO Director. 

C. Referral of Attorney Representatives to Bar Association 

Section 1614.109(e) of 29 C.F.R. provides that the Administrative Judge or the 

Commission may refer to the disciplinary committee of the appropriate bar 

association any attorney who refuses to follow the orders of an Administrative 

Judge or who otherwise engages in improper conduct. This may be done 

 

20The conduct must be described with specificity and detail, as explained in section A. 5 above with 

respect to exclusion.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 2013

Management Directive 

7-34

independently of, or in conjunction with, any proposed or final exclusion, 

suspension, or disqualification. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-1

CHAPTER 8

COMPLAINTS OF CLASS DISCRIMINATION 

IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Section 1614.204 of Title 29 C.F.R. provides for processing class complaints of 

discrimination. A class is defined as a group of employees, former employees, or 

applicants who are alleged to have been adversely affected by an agency personnel policy 

or practice which discriminates against the group on the basis of their common race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or disability. A class 

complaint is a written complaint of discrimination filed on behalf of the class by the 

agent of the class, alleging that the class is so numerous that a consolidated complaint by 

the members of the class is impractical, that there are questions of fact common to the 

class, that the claims of the agent of the class are typical of the claims of the class, and 

that the agent of the class and, if represented, the representative, will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class. 

The regulatory requirements for class complaints at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204 provide a 

structure different from that for individual complaints. For class complaints, there is a 

four-stage process. The first stage is the establishment of a class complaint. At this 

stage, the class agent is required to seek counseling from an agency EEO Counselor and 

file a complaint. The second stage is a determination from a Commission Administrative 

Judge, subject to agency final action, implementing or appealing the Administrative 

Judge‟s decision on class certification. The third stage, assuming that the complaint has 

been certified as a class action, involves a final decision from an Administrative Judge on 

the merits of the class complaint. The agency can either fully implement or appeal. If 

the agency appeals the Administrative Judges final decision, it only has to appeal the 

parts of the decision that it is contesting. The fourth stage, where there has been a finding 

of class-based discrimination, is the determination of the claims for relief of the 

individual class members. 

II. PRE-CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

A. Pre-Complaint Processing 

Section 1614.204(b) of 29 C.F.R. provides that, as with an individual 

complainant, an employee who seeks to represent a class of employees must seek 

counseling and undergo pre-complaint processing in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.105 and Chapter 2 of this Management Directive, with one exception, 

discussed below. Section 1614.105 of 29 C.F.R. requires that an employee must 

seek counseling within forty-five (45) days of the discriminatory event. The 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-2

agency shall extend the 45-day time limit when the individual shows that s/he was 

not notified of the time limits and was not aware of them, that s/he did not know 

and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory practice or 

personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence s/he was prevented by 

circumstances beyond his/her control from contacting the EEO Counselor within 

the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or the 

Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). The time period may be waived 

by the agency and is subject to estoppel and equitable tolling. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.604(c). If the complaint is not resolved on the thirtieth (30th) day 

following initial EEO counseling, the EEO Counselor must give the agent written 

notice that s/he has fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice to file a formal 

complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(c)(2). 

The counseling period may be extended up to an additional sixty (60) days if, 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, the aggrieved person agrees with the 

agency in writing to postpone the final interview. 

The one exception to the mandatory counseling prerequisite allows a complainant 

to move for class certification at any reasonable point in the process when it 

becomes apparent that there are class implications to the claim raised in an 

individual complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(b).1

 The Commission intends that 

“reasonable point in the process” be interpreted to allow a complainant to seek 

class certification when s/he knows or suspects that the complaint has class 

implications, that is, the complaint potentially involves questions of law or fact 

common to a class and the complainant‟s claim is typical of that of the class. 

Undue delay in moving for certification will lead to denial of the class 

certification by the Administrative Judge. If a complainant moves for class 

certification after completing the pre-complaint process contained in 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.105, no additional counseling is required. Instead, the agency or the 

Administrative Judge, as appropriate, must advise the complainant of his/her 

rights and responsibilities as the class agent. 

B. Filing and Presentation of the Class Complaint 

As with an individual complaint, a class complaint must be filed with the agency 

that allegedly discriminated against the putative class. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106. A 

class complaint must be signed by the class agent (the complainant) or a class 

representative and must identify the policy or practice adversely affecting the 

 

1The term “move” in this context means that the complainant must make his/her intention to 

process the complaint as a class action clear. A complainant may make his/her intention clear through a 

letter, a formal motion, or any means that effectively informs the agency or Administrative Judge of the 

complainant‟s intent to pursue a class action.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-3

class as well as the specific action or policy affecting the class agent. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.204(c)(1). 

Within thirty (30) days of an agency's receipt of a class complaint, including the 

agency‟s receipt of the class complaint during its investigation of the aggrieved 

person‟s individual complaint, an agency must designate an agency representative 

and forward the complaint, along with a copy of the EEO Counselor's report and 

any other relevant information about the complaint, to the Commission. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d)(1). When any complaint is filed, an agency must take 

care to preserve any and all evidence with potential relevance to the class 

complaint. This is a continuing obligation that begins as soon as the complaint is 

filed, even before the class has been certified, and continues throughout the 

processing of the complaint. 

The agency must forward the class complaint to the EEOC district office having 

jurisdiction of the agency facility where the complaint arose. Appendix N to this 

Management Directive is a list of the addresses of the EEOC district and field 

offices, their geographic jurisdictions and where federal employees and applicants 

should submit hearing requests. 

Should the agency's organizational component where the complaint arose not fall 

within one of the geographical jurisdictions shown, the agency should contact the 

following office for guidance: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Field Programs 

Attn: Hearings Coordinator 

131 M Street, NE

Washington, D.C.20507 

III. INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS FILED ON BASES AND ISSUES IDENTICAL TO 

CLASS COMPLAINTS 

When a complainant who is a potential member of a class action files an individual complaint 

between the time a class complaint is filed and a final certification decision is issued, the agency 

must determine whether there are claims in the individual complaint that are identical to those 

that are presented in the class complaint. If the agency determines that claims in the individual 

and class complaints are identical, then the agency shall issue a written decision notifying the 

complainant that the portion of the complaint raising claims identical to the class complaint will 

be held in abeyance during the pendency of the decision to accept or reject the class complaint.2

 

 

2As a point of clarification, claims that are held prior to class certification are stated to be held in 

“abeyance” and claims that are referenced as being “subsumed” are claims that become part of the class 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-4

The agency decision shall notify the complainant of his/her right to appeal the abeyance 

determination to the Commission.3 The agency decision must also contain, at a minimum, a 

description of the individual claims at issue; a description of the class complaint with the 

definition of the putative class; the class complaint counseling report; and the status of the class 

action, including the EEOC field office to which the class complaint has been sent for a 

determination on certification, if applicable. 

If, however, the agency finds that the claim in the individual complaint is not identical to the 

class claim then the individual complaint shall continue to be processed by the agency. 

The Administrative Judge may dismiss a class complaint because it does not meet the 

prerequisites for certification or for any of the procedural grounds listed in §1614.107. If a 

potential class complaint is dismissed by the Administrative Judge, the Agency‟s final order 

adopting the dismissal shall include notification to the class agent(s) that his/her complaint will 

be processed as an individual complaint, or that the individual complaint is also dismissed in 

accordance with §1614.107. In addition, within forty (40) days of receipt of an Administrative 

Judge‟s decision dismissing a putative class complaint the agency shall issue an 

acknowledgement of receipt of an individual complaint as required by 29 C.F.R. §1614.106(e) 

and process each individual complaint that was held in abeyance because of the class complaint. 

If a class complaint is certified, all individual complaints that raise claims identical to the 

definition of the class claim(s) shall be subsumed within the class complaint. When the class 

claim proceeds to a hearing on the merits, the subsumed individual claim(s) may be presented 

during the liability stage by the class agent, or at the remedy stage by the individual complainant. 

If class-wide discrimination is not found, the agency shall process each individual claim that was 

subsumed into the class complaint. See 29 C.F.R. §1614.204(l)(2). 

(a) For an individual claim to be subsumed in an accepted class complaint, it must be 

identical in all respects to the class claim(s), including the issue and basis of 

discrimination alleged. When an individual complaint raises multiple claims, only those 

claims that are identical to those raised in the class complaint will be subsumed in it. The 

non-identical claims in the individual complaint shall be separately processed under the 

individual complaint process. 

(b) When an agency makes a decision not to process an individual claim because it is 

identical to and subsumed by an accepted class complaint, it shall issue a decision 

advising the individual complainant of his/her right to appeal to OFO for a ruling on 

whether the individual claim should be subsumed in the accepted class claim(s). The 

 

action following class certification. When an individual complaint raises multiple claims, only those 

claims that are identical to those in the class complaint with respect to basis and issue are properly held in 

abeyance or subsumed. The non-identical claims in the individual complaint shall be processed 

separately by the agency under the individual complaint process. 

3

See Roos v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05920101 (February 13, 1992). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-5

agency decision must also contain, at a minimum, a description of the individual 

complaint at issue; a description of the certified class complaint and underlying 

certification decision(s). 

IV. CERTIFICATION OR DISMISSAL - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d) 

The Commission will assign an Administrative Judge (or in some limited circumstances a 

complaints examiner from another agency may be assigned) to issue a decision on 

certification of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d). 

A. Class Complaint Criteria 

A class complaint will be dismissed if: 

1. The complaint does not meet all of the prerequisites of a class complaint 

under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(a)(2) (that is, numerosity, commonality, 

typicality, and adequacy of representation); 

2. The claims lack specificity and detail pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.204(d)(4); 

3. The complaint meets any of the criteria for dismissal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a) ADismissals of Complaints.”

Class certification may be denied by the Administrative Judge where the 

complainant unduly delayed in moving for class certification. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.204(b). 

B. Developing the Evidence for Purpose of Certification Determination 

The Administrative Judge may direct the complainant or agency to submit 

additional information relevant to the issue of certification. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.204(d)(1). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-6

V. CERTIFICATION DECISION - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(d)(7) 

A. Administrative Judge Issues Decision on Certification 

The Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on whether to certify or dismiss a 

class complaint. When appropriate, the Administrative Judge may decide to 

certify a class conditionally, for a reasonable period of time, until a complainant 

finds representation. For example, if the record on a class complaint satisfies the 

numerosity, typicality, and commonality requirements for class certification, the 

Administrative Judge may “conditionally” certify the class for a reasonable period 

of time so that the class agent may secure adequate representation. 

Administrative Judges should refer complainants to any attorney referral systems 

that may be operating in EEOC district offices or other attorney referral services 

for assistance in obtaining adequate legal representation. 

Even after a class is certified, the Administrative Judge remains free to modify the 

certification order or dismiss the class complaint in light of subsequent 

developments. See General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982). 

The Administrative Judge has the authority, in response to a party's motion or on 

his/her own motion, to redefine a class, subdivide it, or dismiss it if the 

Administrative Judge determines that there is no longer a basis for the complaint 

to proceed as a class complaint. Hines v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC 

Request No. 05940917 (January 29, 1996). 

B. Transmittal of Decision 

The Administrative Judge shall transmit his/her decision to accept or dismiss a 

class complaint to the agency and the agent. The agency shall take final action by 

issuing a final order within forty (40) days of receipt of the Administrative 

Judge‟s decision. The final order shall notify the agent whether the agency will 

implement the decision of the Administrative Judge. If the final order does not 

fully implement the decision of the Administrative Judge, the agency shall 

simultaneously appeal the Administrative Judge‟s decision in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 and append a copy of the appeal to the final order. The 

Commission has prepared a form that agencies may use to file appeals with the 

Commission. A copy of that form is attached as Appendix O. 

If the decision is to accept (certify) the class complaint, Commission regulations 

require the agency to notify all class members. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(e)(1). The 

agency must use all reasonable means to notify all class members of the 

acceptance of the complaint within 15 days of receipt of the Administrative 

Judge's decision or within a reasonable time frame specified by the 

Administrative Judge. (See Section V, below.) 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-7

An Administrative Judge's decision to dismiss the class complaint at the 

certification stage will inform the agent that the complaint is being filed on that 

date as an individual complaint and will be processed under subpart A, that the 

complaint is also dismissed as an individual complaint in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a), or, in the case of a complaint forwarded to the 

Administrative Judge during the agency‟s investigation of the complaint, that the 

complaint is being returned to the agency and will continue from the point that the 

agency‟s investigation ended with the referral of the complaint to the 

Administrative Judge. 

C. Right to Appeal the Administrative Judge's Decision 

The Administrative Judge‟s decision whether to accept or dismiss the class 

complaint is subject to final agency action. The Administrative Judge shall 

transmit his/her decision to the agency, with a copy to the complainant and the 

complainant‟s representative, if any. The agency has forty (40) days from receipt 

of the Administrative Judge‟s decision to take final action by issuing a final order 

informing the complainant as to whether the agency will fully implement the 

decision. If the agency informs the complainant that it does not intend to fully 

implement the decision, the agency must simultaneously file an appeal with the 

Commission and append a copy of the appeal to the final order served on the 

complainant. The agency may use the form appended hereto as Appendix O to 

file its appeal with the Commission. The complainant will have thirty (30) days 

from receipt of the final order to file an appeal and the agency shall provide the 

complainant with a copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition - 

Complainant (Appendix P). 

VI. NOTIFICATION - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(e) 

A. Timing and Method of the Notice 

Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the agency's receipt of the Administrative 

Judge's decision certifying a class complaint or such time frame specified by the 

Administrative Judge, the agency shall use reasonable means, such as hand 

delivery, mailing to the last known address, or distribution (such as through interoffice mail or e-mail) to notify all class members of the certification of the class 

complaint. An agency may file a motion with the Administrative Judge seeking a 

stay in the distribution of the notice for the purpose of determining whether it will 

fully implement or appeal the Administrative Judge‟s decision.

The “reasonable means” used by agencies for notification should be those most 

likely to provide an opportunity for class members to know about the complaint. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-8

Conspicuous posting on bulletin boards to which all potential class members have 

easy access may constitute adequate notice in some situations. 

B. Content of the Notice 

The notice must contain: 

1. the name of the agency or organizational segment, its location, and the 

date of acceptance of the complaint; 

2. the definition of the class and a description of the issues accepted; 

3. an explanation of the binding nature of the decision or resolution of the 

complaint on class members; 

4. the name, address, and telephone number of the class representative; and 

5. a copy of the Administrative Judge's decision certifying the class. 

C. Individuals May Not Opt Out 

The class members may not “opt out” of the defined class; however, they do not 

have to participate in the class or file a claim for individual relief. All class 

members will have the opportunity to object to any proposed settlement and to 

file claims for individual relief if discrimination is found. 

D. Settlement Notice 

All class members must receive notice of any settlement or decision on the class 

complaint whether or not they participated in the action. See Section VII of this 

Chapter. 

VII. DEVELOPING THE EVIDENCE - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(f) 

A. The Process of Developing the Evidence 

The Administrative Judge will advise both parties that they will have at least sixty 

(60) days to develop evidence. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(f)(1). They can do this in 

the same manner as in individual cases, that is, through interrogatories, 

depositions, requests for admissions, stipulations, or production of documents. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-9

The parties may object to production on the grounds that the information sought is 

irrelevant, overly burdensome, repetitious, or privileged. The Administrative 

Judge has the authority to impose sanctions on a party if that party fails to comply 

without good cause with rulings on requests for information, documents, or 

admissions. An adverse inference may be appropriate where the information is 

solely in the control of that party. Similarly, if a party fails to provide an adequate 

explanation for the failure to respond fully and in a timely manner to a request, 

the Administrative Judge may impose sanctions. Adverse inferences are 

appropriate when the information is solely in the control of that party. These 

sanctions include, but are not limited to, the authority to: 

1. draw an adverse inference that the requested information would have 

reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the requested 

information; 

2. consider the issues to which the requested information pertains to be 

established in favor of the opposing party; 

3. exclude other evidence offered by the party failing to produce the 

requested information, and/or; 

4. recommend that a decision be entered in favor of the opposing party.4

B. Use of Agency Resources and Facilities by Class Agent 

The class agent and his/her non-attorney representative should be permitted 

reasonable access to and/or use of agency facilities (copiers, telephones, 

computers, internet, fax machines, email, printers, etc.) for preparation of the case 

as long as there is no undue disruption of agency operations. The class agent 

and/or non-attorney representative may not use agency resources and facilities in 

the preparation of the class case without obtaining the prior approval of the 

designated agency official. 

 

4The Administrative Judge‟s order to the parties should make clear what sanctions or other 

actions may be imposed for a failure to comply with the order within the time set forth therein. Where an 

order did not put a party on notice that it could be sanctioned for a noncompliance or did not put the party 

on notice of the type of sanction that the Administrative Judge now seeks to impose, the Administrative 

Judge must issue a notice to show cause to the party for an explanation why the sanction should not be 

imposed and provide an opportunity to cure the noncompliance before imposing the sanction.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-10

VIII. RESOLUTION - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(g) 

A. Resolution by the Parties 

The complaint may be resolved by agreement of the agency and the agent at any 

time pursuant to the notice and approval procedure contained in 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.204(g)(4). 

B. Notice of Proposed Resolution 

If a resolution is proposed, notice must be given to all class members in the same 

manner as the notification of certification of the class was given. The notice must 

include a copy of the proposed resolution, set out the relief, if any, that the agency 

will grant, and inform the class members that the resolution will bind all members 

of the class. The notice must also inform class members of the right to submit 

objections to the settlement. The notice further must inform the parties of the 

name and address of the Administrative Judge assigned to the complaint. 

The agency shall provide the Administrative Judge with a copy of the proposed 

resolution and the notice sent to the parties. 

C. Administrative Judge Shall Review Resolution 

1. The Administrative Judge shall review and issue a decision concerning the 

fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed resolution. Within

thirty (30) days of the date of a class member's receipt of the notice of 

proposed resolution, the class member may file a petition with the 

Administrative Judge noting objections to the settlement if the petitioner 

(class member) believes that the settlement benefits only the class agent or 

is otherwise not fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole. The 

Administrative Judge will review the proposed resolution after the 

expiration of the 30-day period allowed for petitions and consider any 

petitions received. If the judge determines that the resolution is not fair, 

adequate, and reasonable, s/he will vacate the proposed resolution and 

may replace the class agent with the petitioner or other class member who 

is eligible to serve as class agent. 

2. An Administrative Judge‟s decision that a resolution is not fair, adequate, 

and reasonable vacates the agreement between the class agent and the 

agency. The decision must inform the class agent, the petitioner, class 

members, and the agency, of the right to appeal the decision to the 

Commission. The decision must include a copy of EEOC Form 573, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-11

Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). The agency may use the separate 

form at Appendix O for filing its appeal with the Commission. 

3. An Administrative Judge‟s decision that a resolution is fair, adequate, and 

reasonable binds all members of the class. The decision must inform the 

petitioner of the right to appeal the decision to the Commission. The 

decision must include a copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition. 

IX. Hearing - 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.204(h) and (i) 

A. Hearing Procedures 

Hearing procedures in certified class complaints are the same as those applied to 

hearings in individual complaints of discrimination and are set out at 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109. 

B. Site of the Class Hearing 

The Administrative Judge assigned to hear the certified class complaint will, upon 

expiration of the period allowed for preparation of the class case, set a date for a 

hearing and determine the site of the hearing. Within his/her discretion, the 

Administrative Judge is authorized to conduct the hearing in the EEOC district 

office, in an EEOC area or local office, at the agency's organizational component 

where the complaint arose, or at such other location as s/he may determine 

appropriate. In determining the hearing site, the Administrative Judge may 

consider factors such as the location of the parties; the location of EEOC district, 

area, and local offices; the number and location of witnesses; the location of 

records; travel distances for the Administrative Judge, the parties, and witnesses; 

travel costs; the availability of sources of transportation; and other factors as may 

be appropriate. 

Should an agency desire that a hearing be held at a location within the 

jurisdictional area of another EEOC district office, it must submit a request, in 

writing, to the EEOC office that determined the class certification issue. In its 

request, the agency must identify the location of the desired place of hearing and 

must set out, in detail, its reasons, and justification for the requested change. The 

Administrative Judge will rule on the request only after the directors of the 

concerned EEOC district offices have conferred on the matter. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-12

C. Travel Expenses 

If the Administrative Judge sets a hearing site that is outside the local commuting 

area of the agency's organizational component where the complaint arose, the 

agency must bear all reasonable travel and per diem expenses of complainants, 

their authorized representatives, agency representatives, and all witnesses 

approved by the Administrative Judge, except that an agency does not have the 

authority to pay the travel expenses of complainant's witnesses who are not 

federal employees. 

The agency's obligation is limited to those costs which are legally payable in 

advance by the agency. See Decision of the Comptroller General, Matter of: 

Expenses of Outside Applicant/Complainant to Travel to Agency EEO Hearing, 

File: B-202845, 61 Comp. Gen. 654 (1982); see also Decision of the Comptroller 

General, Matter of: John Booth B Travel Expenses of Witness B Agency 

Responsible, File: B-235845, 69 Comp. Gen. 310 (1990). 

D. Official Time for Agency Employees 

Any employee testifying at a hearing is entitled to official time for the time s/he 

spends testifying as well as a reasonable amount of time for travel to and from the 

hearing. The class agent and agent's representative, if employees of the agency 

where the complaint arose and was filed, are entitled to official time for actual 

time spent at the hearing and for a reasonable amount of time spent preparing for 

the hearing. 

An agency may permit its employees to use official time in preparing and 

presenting a class complaint which arose in another agency. 

X. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLASS 

COMPLAINT 

The Administrative Judge shall transmit his/her decision on the complaint to the parties. 

If there is a finding of discrimination, the decision shall include systemic relief for the 

class, and any individual relief, where appropriate, with regard to the personnel action or 

policy that gave rise to the complaint. The decision shall be sent to the agency together 

with the entire record, including the transcript. 

If the Administrative Judge finds no class relief appropriate, s/he shall determine if any 

finding of individual discrimination is warranted and, if so, shall issue a decision on the 

appropriate relief to be provided by the agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(i)(2). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-13

XI. AGENCY DECISION - 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.204(j) and (k) 

A. Action on Administrative Judge's Decision 

Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s decision, the 

agency must issue a final order either fully implementing or simultaneously 

appealing the Administrative Judge‟s decision. If the agency does not issue the 

final order within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Administrative Judge's 

decision, the Administrative Judge‟s decision becomes the final action of the 

agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(j)(2) 

The agency must transmit its final action to the class agent within five days of the 

expiration of the 60-day period. 

B. Required Features of the Agency Final Action 

1. The agency's final action on a class complaint must be in writing; notify 

the class agent whether the agency will fully implement the decision of the 

Administrative Judge; and contain a notice of the right to appeal to the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the right to file a civil 

action and the applicable time limits. If the final action does not fully 

implement the decision of the Administrative Judge, the agency shall 

simultaneously file an appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 

and append a copy of the appeal to the final order. See 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.204(j)(1). 

C. Binding Nature of Agency Final Action Implementing Administrative 

Judge’s Decision

The final agency action implementing the Administrative Judge‟s decision finding 

discrimination will be binding on all members of the class and on the agency. A 

final agency action implementing the Administrative Judge‟s decision finding no 

discrimination is not binding on a class member‟s individual complaint. Class 

members may not Aopt out@ of the class action while it is pending. See Section 

V.C of this Chapter. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-14

D. Notification of Agency Final Action 

The agency shall notify class members and the class representative of its final 

action through the same media employed to give notice of the existence of the 

class complaint. The notice, where appropriate, shall include information 

concerning the rights of class members to seek individual relief and of the 

procedures to be followed. Notice shall be given by the agency within ten (10) 

days of the transmittal of its final action to the agent. 

XII. RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBERS - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(l) 

A. Claims for Individual Relief by Class Members Where Discrimination is 

Found 

Where a finding of discrimination against a class is made, there is a presumption 

of discrimination as to each member of the class. The agency has the burden of 

proving by clear and convincing evidence that a class member is not entitled to 

relief. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(l)(3). 

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification of the final agency action 

implementing the Administrative Judge‟s decision, a class member who believes 

that s/he is entitled to individual relief must file a written claim with the head of 

the agency, or with the agency's EEO Director. 

The claim must include a specific, detailed showing that: 

1. The claimant is a class member who was affected by the discriminatory 

policy or practice; and 

2. The discriminatory action occurred within the period of time for which the 

Administrative Judge found class-wide discrimination in his/hers decision. 

Where a finding of discrimination against a class has been made, there shall be a 

presumption of discrimination as to each member of the class. The agency must 

show by clear and convincing evidence that any class member is not entitled to 

relief. 

B. Timing of Agency Decision on Individual Claims for Relief

Within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving an individual claim, the agency 

must issue a final decision on that claim. The agency's final decision must 

include a notice of the right to file an appeal or a civil action within the applicable 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-15

time limits. The decision must include a copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). 

C. Oversight of Individual Claims for Relief 

1. Where an Administrative Judge finds that the agency discriminated 

against the class, the Administrative Judge should include in his/her order 

a provision that establishes a mechanism for review of individual claims 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(l)(3). Under that section, a class 

member must file a claim with the agency within thirty (30) days of 

his/her receipt of notification from the agency of its final order and the 

agency must issue a final order within ninety (90) days of its receipt of the 

claim. That section further provides that Administrative Judges retain 

jurisdiction over the complaint in order to resolve any disputed claims of 

class members and may hold hearings or otherwise supplement the record 

on a claim filed by a class member. 

2. To implement this section, an Administrative Judge‟s order should advise 

the agency to inform him/her in writing within sixty (60) days of the 

agency‟s receipt of a claim from a class member that it intends to dispute 

the class member‟s claim, and provide a copy of such notice to the class 

member. Once the agency informs the Administrative Judge and the class 

member of its intent to dispute the class member‟s claim, the 

Administrative Judge will issue an order tolling the 90-day period within 

which the agency is required to issue a decision on the class member=s 

claim. 

3. The Administrative Judge‟s order will advise the agency to provide a 

statement in support of its decision to dispute the class member‟s claim 

and any supporting evidence within fifteen (15) days of the agency‟s 

receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s order, providing a copy of any such 

submission to the class member. The class member will have 15 days 

from the date of service of the agency‟s submission to respond to the 

agency‟s submission and may file a statement and documents in support of 

his/her claim, providing a copy of any such submission to the agency. If 

service of the submission was by mail, the class member may add three 

days to the date that the response is due. The Administrative Judge has 

the discretion to enlarge the 15-day period at the written request of either 

party or on his/her own motion. If a party seeks an enlargement of the 15-

day period, that party must provide a copy of its written request to the 

other party. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

8-16

4. The Administrative Judge thereafter may determine whether s/he needs 

additional information or should hold a hearing in order to further develop 

the record regarding the class member‟s claim. At the conclusion of fact 

finding, the Administrative Judge will issue a decision concerning the 

class member‟s claim and forward the decision to the class member and 

the agency. The decision will advise the agency that the 90-day period for 

issuing a final order on the claim will resume upon its receipt of the 

Administrative Judge‟s decision. The agency must issue a final order 

regarding the class member=s claim within the 90-day period. If the 

agency does not issue the final order within the 90-day period, the 

Administrative Judge‟s decision will become the final order of the agency. 

5. The agency‟s final action on a class member‟s claim must inform the class 

member of the right to appeal the decision to the Office of Federal 

Operations or to file a civil action and it must include EEOC Form 573, 

Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). 

D. Limits on the Duration of a Finding of Class-Wide Discrimination 

The agency or the Commission may find class-wide discrimination and order 

remedial action for any policy or practice in existence within forty-five (45) days 

of the class agent‟s initial contact with the EEO Counselor. Relief may be 

ordered for the time the policy or practice was in effect. Under the continuing 

violation theory, incidents occurring earlier than 45 days before contact with the 

EEO Counselor must also be remedied provided the initial contact with the EEO 

Counselor was timely and the earlier incidents were part of the same continuing 

policy or practice found to have been discriminatory. Where contact with the 

EEO Counselor is timely as to one of the events comprising the continuing 

violation, then the counseling contact is timely as to the entire violation. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(l)(3). This 45-day time period does not limit the two-year 

time period for which back pay can be recovered by a class member. 

E. Where Class-Wide Discrimination is Not Found 

The agency shall, within sixty (60) calendar days of issuance of the final 

decision, acknowledge receipt of an individual complaint as required in 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.106(d) and process in accordance with the provisions of subpart A, each 

individual complaint that was subsumed into the class complaint. 

If it is found that the class agent or any other member of the class is a victim of 

discrimination, the relief provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501 shall apply. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

8-17

XIII. REPRISAL 

Federal employees who are agents, claimants, representatives of agents or claimants, 

witnesses, or agency officials having responsibility for processing class complaints may 

file individual discrimination complaints if they believe they have been subjected to 

restraint, interference, coercion, or reprisal because of their involvement in the 

presentation and/or processing of a class complaint. EEO counseling must precede the 

filing of such complaints. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-1

CHAPTER 9

APPEALS TO THE COMMISSION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Sections 1614.401(a)-(e) of 29 C.F.R. identify those entitled to file appeals to the Commission. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.402(a) provides that appeals to the Commission must be filed by complainant 

within thirty (30) days1

 of receipt of an agency's final action - that is a dismissal, final agency 

decision (FAD), final order or final determination. If the complainant is represented by an 

attorney of record, the 30-day time limit shall begin to run from the date of receipt by the 

attorney of the agency‟s final action. If an agency determines not to implement the decision of 

an Administrative Judge either in full or in part, it must notify the complainant of its 

determination in a final order issued within forty (40) days of its receipt of the Administrative 

Judge‟s decision and it must simultaneously file an appeal with the Commission, in a digital 

format acceptable to the Commission, absent a good showing why the agency cannot submit 

digital records. See Chapter 6 Section VIII for more information on what constitutes good cause 

shown. The complainant may file an appeal with the Commission in either a digital format 

acceptable to the Commission or by mail. For information regarding appeals submissions see 

Section IV of this Chapter. 

The complainant shall furnish a copy of the appeal to the opposing party at the same time it is 

filed with the Commission. In or attached to the appeal to the Commission, the complainant 

must certify the date and method by which service was made on the opposing party. 

The individual complainant should use EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition. A copy of 

the Form is attached as Appendix P to this Management Directive. The agency shall attach a 

copy of EEOC Form 573 to all final actions, and dismissals of equal employment complaints. 

The Commission has prepared a separate form that agencies may use to file appeals with the 

Commission. A copy of that form is attached as Appendix O. 

 

1All time limits stated in this Management Directive are in calendar days. The time limits in Part 

1614 are subject to waiver, estoppels, and equitable tolling. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). For further 

guidance, see EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 2 Threshold Issues, IV-D Timeliness.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-2

II. ADVISING THE PARTIES OF THEIR APPEAL RIGHTS 

A. Rights Following Administrative Judge Issuance of a Decision 

1. Merits/Class Certification Cases

a. In a decision on the merits of a non-class complaint or concerning 

the issue of certification of a class action, the Administrative Judge 

shall advise the parties that the agency has forty (40) days from the 

date of its receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s decision to review 

the decision and to take final action on the decision by issuing a 

final order. The 40-day period within which the agency must take 

final action does not commence until the Administrative Judge 

issues an order advising the agency that the decision of the 

Administrative Judge is the final decision and that the agency must 

take final action within 40 days of its receipt thereof. Where an 

Administrative Judge issues a decision finding discrimination, the 

40-day period will not commence until the Administrative Judge 

issues a final decision regarding remedies and attorney‟s fees.2

b. In a decision on the merits of a class complaint, the Administrative 

Judge shall advise the parties that the agency has sixty (60) days 

from the date of its receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s decision 

to review the decision and to take final action on the decision by 

issuing a final order. The 60-day period within which the agency 

must take final action does not commence until the Administrative 

Judge issues an order advising the agency that the decision of the 

Administrative Judge is the final decision and that the agency must 

take final action within 60 days of its receipt thereof.3

c. The Administrative Judge should inform the complainant of the 

following: 

 

2

If service of the Administrative Judge‟s decision was by mail without the use of certified 

mail/return receipt, the agency may add five days to the date that the final action is due. This rule, adding 

five days to the date of service, shall apply in all instances where the party being served has the right to 

take an action within a period of time following such service, except where the serving party uses 

certified mail/return receipt and can establish the date of actual receipt.

3Due to the potential complexity of class complaints that proceed through litigation, the 60-day 

period is intended to provide agencies adequate time to review the Administrative Judge‟s decision on 

liability and relief. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-3

(1) where the agency‟s final action/final order advises the 

complainant that the agency accepts the Administrative 

Judge‟s decision, the agency will advise the complainant 

that s/he has thirty (30) days from the date the complainant 

receives the agency‟s final order to file an appeal of the 

final order. 

(2) the agency‟s failure to take final action by issuing a final 

order within this 40 or 60 day review period will be 

deemed acceptance of the Administrative Judge‟s decision;

(3) the complainant‟s 30-day period for filing an appeal of the 

agency‟s final order/Administrative Judge‟s decision 

begins at the conclusion of the agency‟s 40 or 60 day 

review period; 

(4) where the agency‟s final action/final order advises the 

complainant that the agency has determined not to fully 

implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision, the agency 

must file an appeal of the Administrative Judge‟s decision 

simultaneously with notifying the complainant of its 

determination (providing the complainant with a copy of 

the appeal) and advise the complainant of his/her right to 

file a separate appeal of the Administrative Judge‟s 

decision within 30 days of the complainant=s receipt of the 

agency‟s final order.

2. Procedural Dismissal

When the Administrative Judge issues a procedural dismissal, s/he must 

advise the complainant that the complainant will have the right to file an 

appeal of the agency‟s final order within 30 days of the complainant‟s 

receipt thereof. 

3. Class Action Settlement Agreements

A petition to vacate a resolution may be filed with the Administrative 

Judge asserting that the resolution favors only the class agent or is not fair, 

adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole. An Administrative 

Judge‟s decision that a class action settlement agreement is fair, adequate, 

and reasonable binds all members of the class. The decision must inform 

the petitioner of the right to appeal the decision to the Commission. The 

decision must include a copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-4

An Administrative Judge‟s decision that a resolution is not fair, adequate, 

and reasonable vacates the agreement between the class agent and the 

agency. The decision must inform the class agent, the petitioner, class 

members, and the agency, of the right to appeal the decision to the 

Commission. The decision must include a copy of EEOC Form 573, 

Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). The agency may use the separate 

form at Appendix O for filing its appeal with the Commission. 

B. Agency Final Action 

1. Agency Final Action

An agency final action involves agency issuance of a final order to the 

complainant. The final order informs the complainant whether the agency 

will fully implement the decision of the Administrative Judge and contains 

notice of the complainant‟s right to appeal to EEOC. The term “fully 

implement” means that the agency adopts without modification the 

decision of the Administrative Judge. If the agency‟s final order advises 

the complainant that the agency will not fully implement the decision of 

the Administrative Judge, the agency must file an appeal of the decision 

with EEOC simultaneously with issuing the final order to the complainant. 

In this way, an agency will take final action on a complaint referred to an 

Administrative Judge by issuing a final order, but it will not be provided 

with the opportunity of introducing new evidence or writing a new 

decision in the case. The agency may use the form attached hereto as 

Appendix O to file its appeal with the Commission. Whether the agency‟s 

final order advises the complainant that the agency will or will not fully 

implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision, the agency must provide 

the complainant with a copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). 

2. Notice of Rights

a. Full Implementation

Where the agency issues a final order in which it agrees to fully 

implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision, the order must 

inform the complainant that s/he has the right to file an appeal of 

the Administrative Judge=s decision and agency‟s final order. 

The agency further must inform the complainant that s/he must file 

an appeal within 30 days of his/her receipt of the agency‟s final 

order and the agency must provide the complainant with a copy of 

EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-5

b. Less than Full Implementation

Where the agency issues a final order through which it informs the 

complainant that it does not intend to fully implement the 

Administrative Judge‟s final decision, the agency‟s final order 

must inform the complainant that the agency, simultaneously with 

the issuance of its final order to the complainant, has filed an 

appeal of the Administrative Judge‟s decision with the 

Commission. The agency may use the form appended hereto at 

Appendix O to file its appeal with the Commission. 

The agency must provide the complainant with a copy of the 

appeal. The final order further must inform the complainant of the 

following: 

(1) the complainant may file a separate appeal of the 

agency‟s final order; 

(2) the Commission, as a general rule and in the absence of 

a separate appeal from the complainant, will review only 

the agency‟s decision not to fully implement the 

Administrative Judge‟s decision; and

(3) if the complainant contends that the Administrative 

Judge erred either in any rulings made during the pendency 

of the action or in the decision, the complainant must file a 

separate appeal from the agency‟s final order to challenge 

such errors. 

The final order must inform the complainant that any such appeal 

must be filed within 30 days of the complainant‟s receipt of the 

final order and the agency must provide the complainant with a 

copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). 

C. Agency Final Decision 

In any case where the agency issues a final decision (for example, where the 

complainant elects to have the agency issue a final decision following completion 

of the investigation), the agency must inform the complainant of his/her right to 

file an appeal with the EEOC and provide the complainant with a copy of EEOC 

Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). The agency further must 

inform the complainant that any such appeal must be filed within 30 days of 

complainant‟s receipt of the agency‟s final decision.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-6

D. Agency Procedural Decision 

Where the agency issues a decision dismissing a complaint in its entirety pursuant 

to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a), the agency must inform the complainant of his/her 

right to file an appeal with the EEOC and provide the complainant with a copy of 

EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). The agency further 

must inform the complainant that any such appeal must be filed within 30 days of 

complainant‟s receipt of the agency‟s dismissal decision. 

E. Mixed Case Complaints 

The agency must advise the complainant that s/he may appeal a final agency 

decision on a mixed case complaint by filing the appeal with the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (not the EEOC). The agency further must inform the 

complainant that any such appeal must be filed within 30 days of his/her receipt 

of the agency‟s decision. For a fuller discussion concerning the processing of 

mixed cases, see Chapter 4, Section II of this Management Directive. 

III. PERSONS WHO MAY APPEAL 

The Commission's regulations governing appeals to the Commission are located at 

subpart D of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Section 1614.401 of 29 C.F.R. sets out who may 

appeal to the Commission when an issue of employment discrimination is raised either 

alone or in connection with a grievance, settlement, or a Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB) claim. 

A. A Complainant May Appeal 

1. An agency‟s dismissal of or final action on a complaint.4

 

4An agency‟s final action on a complaint may include either 1) a dismissal, see 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.107(a); 2) a final order from the agency stating whether it will fully implement the decision of the 

Administrative Judge, see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(a), 3) a final agency decision on the merits of the 

complaint where the complainant requested an immediate final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108(f) or 4) an agency‟s final determination on its alleged non-compliance with a settlement 

agreement in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The regulations 

further provide that the agency must file an appeal with the Commission at the same time it serves the 

final order on the complainant following receipt of a decision from an Administrative Judge where it does 

not intend to fully implement the decision. The agency‟s filing of an appeal of an Administrative Judge‟s 

decision that it does not intend to fully implement will result in the Commission‟s review of the agency‟s

decision not to fully implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision. The complainant need not file a 

separate appeal to have the Commission review the agency‟s actions. Where, however, the complainant 

contends that the Administrative Judge erred either in any rulings made during the pendency of the action 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-7

B. An Agency Must Appeal 

1. If it determines not to fully implement an Administrative Judge‟s decision 

to dismiss or on the merits of a complaint, in an appeal filed 

simultaneously with the final order served on the complainant.5

2. If it determines, in a class complaint, not to fully implement an 

Administrative Judge‟s certification decision or a decision on the merits, 

in an appeal filed simultaneously with the final order served on the agent. 

The agency may use the form appended hereto at Appendix O to file its appeal 

with the Commission. 

C. An Agency May Appeal 

An Administrative Judge‟s decision to vacate a proposed resolution of a class 

complaint on the grounds that it is not fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class 

as a whole. The agency may use the form appended hereto at Appendix O to file 

its appeal with the Commission

D. A Class Agent May Appeal 

1. An Administrative Judge‟s decision accepting or dismissing all or part of a 

class complaint.6

 

or in the decision, the complainant would need to file an appeal from the agency‟s final order to challenge 

such errors. 

If an agency fails to take any action during the 40-day period, the Administrative Judge‟s decision would 

be deemed ratified and the complainant would be entitled to file an appeal of the Administrative Judge‟s 

decision as ratified after the expiration of the 40-day period. The agency would not be permitted to crossappeal or challenge any aspect of the Administrative Judge‟s decision in this situation.

5

If the agency issues a final order to the complainant stating that it does not intend to fully 

implement the decision of the Administrative Judge but fails to file an appeal, the agency‟s final order has 

no effect on the Administrative Judge‟s decision. If the agency fails properly to issue a final order and 

file an appeal simultaneously with the issuance of the order, the Administrative Judge‟s decision will be 

deemed ratified by the agency upon the expiration of the agency‟s 40-day period for accepting or not 

accepting the Administrative Judge‟s decision.

6

Included is a dismissal of a complaint that does not meet the prerequisites of a class complaint as 

enumerated in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(a)(2) where the decision to dismiss informs the class agent that the 

complaint is being filed as an individual complaint. The Office of Federal Operations, Appellate Review 

Programs, will provide expedited consideration of class complaints that are dismissed for failure to meet 

the prerequisites of a class complaint. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-8

2. An agency final action on the merits of the complaint. 

3. An Administrative Judge‟s decision to vacate a proposed resolution of a 

class complaint on the grounds that it is not fair, adequate, and reasonable 

to the class as a whole.7

4. An agency‟s alleged noncompliance with a settlement agreement in 

accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504. 

E. A Class Member or Petitioner May Appeal 

1. An Administrative Judge‟s decision finding a proposed resolution fair, 

adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole if the class member filed 

a petition to vacate the resolution; or finding that the petitioner is not a 

member of the class and did not have standing to challenge the resolution. 

2. An Administrative Judge‟s decision that a proposed resolution is not fair, 

adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole.8

3. An agency‟s final action on a claim for individual relief under a class 

complaint. 

4. An agency's alleged noncompliance with a resolution in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.504.

F. A Grievant May Appeal 

1. A final decision of the agency. 

2. A final decision of the arbitrator. 

 

7

See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(g)(4). A petition to vacate a resolution may be filed with the 

Administrative Judge asserting that the resolution favors only the class agent or is not fair, adequate, and 

reasonable to the class as a whole. The petitioner may file an appeal with the Commission if the 

Administrative Judge finds the resolution fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class as a whole. If the 

Administrative Judge finds the agreement not fair, adequate, and reasonable, the class agent, class 

members, and the agency may file an appeal.

8As noted above, where the Administrative Judge finds the agreement not fair, adequate, and 

reasonable, the class agent, class members, and the agency may file an appeal. If the Administrative 

Judge finds that the agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, only the petitioner may file an appeal.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-9

3. A final decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) on the 

grievance. 

4. Exception: A grievant may not appeal under subpart D of Part 1614, 

when the dispute initially raised in the negotiated grievance procedure is: 

a. still ongoing in that process, 

b. in arbitration, 

c. before the FLRA, 

d. appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or 

e. if 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d) is inapplicable to the involved agency. 

IV. FILING THE APPEAL AND RESPONSE 

A. How to Appeal 

The complainant, agent, grievant or individual class claimant (hereinafter 

appellant) must file an appeal by mailing the appeal to: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

As an alternative the appeal may be submitted through the Commission‟s 

electronic document submission portal. 

The complainant should use EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition –

Complainant (Appendix P), and should indicate what is being appealed. 

Unless it has a variance, the agency must file an appeal with the Commission in 

digital format, either by using the Commission‟s electronic document submission 

portal or by some other approved method. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The 

agency may file its appeal by using the form appended hereto at Appendix O to 

file its appeal with the Commission and/or by providing the Commission with a 

copy of the order it sends to the complainant. 

Where an agency files an appeal simultaneously with providing the complainant 

with a final order indicating that it does not intend to fully implement the decision 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-10

of the Administrative Judge, the complainant need not file a separate appeal as a 

prerequisite to Commission review of the propriety of the agency‟s decision not to 

implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision. If, however, the complainant 

believes that other issues presented in his/her complaint and addressed by the 

Administrative Judge were wrongly decided, or if the complainant believes that 

the Administrative Judge‟s decision contained errors, the complainant should file 

an appeal from the agency‟s final order in order to ensure that the Commission 

will address these issues as well. Although the Commission has the right to 

review all of the issues in a complaint on appeal, it also has the discretion not to 

do so and may focus only on the issues specifically raised on appeal. 

B. Service of Notice of Appeal 

The complainant on appeal shall furnish a copy of the appeal to the agency at the 

same time it is filed with the Commission. In or attached to the appeal to the 

Commission, the complainant must certify the date and method by which service 

was made on the agency. 

The agency must certify to the Commission that it has provided the complainant 

with a copy of the order in which it advised the complainant that it did not intend 

to fully implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision, that it informed the 

complainant of his/her right to file an appeal of its decision and provided the 

complainant with information as to how s/he may file an appeal, and that it 

provided the complainant with a copy of EEOC Form 573, Notice of 

Appeal/Petition (Appendix P). 

C. Appeal Will Be Acknowledged 

OFO will docket and acknowledge in writing the receipt of an appeal. The 

acknowledgement will include notice of the Freedom of Information Act‟s, 

5 USCA Section 552(a)(2) requirement that decisions of the Commission be 

published and that the Commission posts decisions on its website to meet that 

requirement. If a complainant does not want their name to appear in the 

published decision, they should submit their request in writing to 

OFO.eeoc@eeoc.gov or to the following address: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

Where both the agency and the complainant file appeals based on the same 

complaint following the agency‟s issuance of an order stating that it does not 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-11

intend to fully implement the decision of the Administrative Judge, the 

Commission shall consolidate the appeals under a single EEOC Appeal No. and 

consider both appeals simultaneously. 

D. Dismissal of Appeal 

If a party files an appeal beyond the applicable time limits, the Commission may 

dismiss the appeal. The agency should advise the complainant in its dismissal 

decision or final order that if s/he files his/her appeal beyond the thirty (30) day 

period set forth in the Commission‟s regulations, s/he should provide an 

explanation as to why his/her appeal should be accepted despite its untimeliness. 

If the complainant cannot explain why his/her untimeliness should be excused in 

accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604, the Commission may dismiss the appeal 

as untimely. 

E. Briefs and Supporting Documents 

The complainant may file a brief or statement in support of his/her appeal with the 

Office of Federal Operations. The optional brief or statement must be filed within 

thirty (30) days of filing the notice of appeal and a copy of it must be sent to the 

other party. 

The agency may file a brief or statement in support of its final action. The brief 

or statement must be filed within twenty (20) days of filing its appeal. 

F. Statements in Opposition to an Appeal 

Any statement or brief in opposition to an appeal must be submitted to OFO and 

served on the opposing party within thirty (30) days of receipt of the statement or 

brief supporting the appeal. Where both the complainant and the agency file 

appeals and briefs or statements in support of their appeals, both parties may file 

statements in opposition to the appeal of the other party. If no brief or statement 

supporting the appeal is filed, the party opposing the appeal must file its 

opposition within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the appeal. 

G. Submission of Case File 

Absent notice from the Commission that it is has the case file from the hearing on 

the same matter, the agency must submit the complaint file to OFO within thirty 

(30) days of notification that the complainant has filed an appeal or within thirty 

(30) days of submission of an appeal by the agency. If the complaint was 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-12

adjudicated by an Administrative Judge, the complaint file must include copies of 

all documents issued by or served on the Administrative Judge, including, but not 

limited to, all correspondence to and from the Administrative Judge, orders from 

the Administrative Judge, and motions and briefs of the parties. Agencies should 

develop internal procedures that will ensure the prompt submission of complaint 

files upon a determination not to fully implement an Administrative Judge‟s 

decision or notice that a complainant has filed an appeal. 

The agency must submit appeals and complete complaint case file(s) to the 

Commission‟s Office of Federal Operations in a digital format unless they can 

show good cause for not doing so. Complainants and their representative(s), if 

applicable, are strongly encouraged to file all documents electronically. See, 

29 C.F.R. §1614.403(g). All documents may be uploaded to the Commission‟s 

electronic document submission portal. If a CD is used, it is preferred that all 

documents be provided in a PDF format. 

The electronic complaint file must at a minimum have the following features: 

Electronic bookmarks corresponding to the file index and section dividers 

of the paper file, if a paper file was created; 

Sequentially numbered pages starting with the first page of the file. All 

pages in the report of investigation must be accounted for in the page 

numbering of the document, including the cover page and any 

administrative documents, in order for the numbers in the paper file to 

match precisely the numbers in the electronic file. An individual entering 

page number 150 into Adobe Acrobat should come to the exact same page 

as an individual turning to page 150 of the paper file. Administrative 

documents added after the paper file was compiled may be submitted in a 

separate PDF file. 

H. Signatures on Electronic Documents 

It is the Commission‟s policy to support, encourage, and in the case of agency 

submissions on appeal, mandate the use of digital documents in lieu of paper for 

documentation sent to the Commission specifically under the authority of 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). A digital document used by a person, agency, or other 

entity shall have the same force and effect as those documents not produced by 

electronic means. 

In support of the policy, the Commission considers electronic signatures on such 

submissions as having the same force and effect as signatures and records 

produced by hand or other non-electronic means. “Electronic signature” means 

any digital symbol, sound, or process attached to or logically associated with a 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-13

digital record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the 

record. The Commission will accept an array of digital objects to serve as an 

electronic signature. These objects can range from keyboarded characters (for 

example, “/s/Jane Doe”), a graphical image of a handwritten signature, or an 

authenticated process that creates an electronic signature. An electronic signature 

is considered attached to or logically associated with a digital record if the 

electronic signature is linked to the record during transmission and storage. 

V. APPELLATE PROCEDURE 

A. Where Record is Complete 

Where the record is complete, OFO shall issue a decision in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.405.

B. Where Record Requires Supplementation 

While the Commission retains the right to supplement the record on appeal, it is 

intended that this right will be exercised only in rare instances to avoid a 

miscarriage of justice. 

1. Where the record requires supplementation, OFO may require additional 

information from one or both of the parties. OFO may supplement the 

record by an exchange of letters, memoranda, or investigation. Each party 

shall provide copies of such supplemental information to the other party at 

the time it is submitted to OFO. 

2. Where the record is so incomplete as to require remand to the agency in 

order to complete the investigation, the Commission shall designate a time 

period between thirty (30) and ninety (90) days within which the agency 

must complete the investigation. During the period of remand, the appeal 

will be held in abeyance and the complaint will be monitored by OFO. 

Upon completion of the investigation, the agency must provide the 

complainant with a copy of its supplemental record and findings and 

return the completed record to OFO. The complainant may, within 

fifteen (15) days of receipt of the supplemental record, submit a statement 

concerning the supplemental record to OFO. Upon receipt by OFO, the 

supplemental record will be included in the appeal file and the appeal will 

be processed appropriately. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-14

C. Sanctions 

Absent good cause shown, there is no legitimate basis for either party to an appeal 

to fail to comply with the appellate procedures in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.404 or to fail 

to respond fully and in a timely fashion to a request for information. Accordingly, 

where either party to an appeal fails to comply with the appellate procedures in 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.404 or fails to respond fully and in a timely fashion to requests 

for information, without good cause shown, OFO shall, in appropriate 

circumstances, impose any of the following sanctions: 

1. draw an adverse inference that the requested information would have 

reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the requested 

information9

; 

2. consider the matters to which the requested information or testimony 

pertains to be established in favor of the opposing party; 

3. issue a decision fully or partially in favor of the opposing party; or 

4. take such other actions as appropriate. 

See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.404(c). OFO will aggressively utilize sanctions if parties 

fail, without good cause shown, to comply with the appellate procedures or to 

respond fully and timely to information requests.10 Sanctions may be used to 

effectuate the policies of the Commission by both deterring the non-complying 

party from similar conduct in the future and by providing an equitable remedy to 

the opposing party. 

Before OFO issues sanctions on either party to an appeal, it will provide the party 

with a notice to show cause why the sanctions identified in the notice should not 

be imposed. The notice to show cause will identify the specific conduct that is the 

 

9

See for example, Smith v. Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), EEOC 

DOC 0320080085, (March 21, 2012)(finding that because the agency failed to comply with OFO‟s 

explicit order to produce comparative evidence, the agency was subject to sanctions for its 

noncompliance, including the drawing of an adverse inference that the requested comparative evidence 

would have reflected unfavorably on the agency). 

10The Commission has exercised its inherent authority to enforce its Part 1614 regulations by 

ordering sanctions in response to various violations. See for example, Vu v. Social Security 

Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120072632 (Jan. 20, 2011)(finding that the agency was subject to 

sanctions for its failure to submit the complete complaint file); DaCosta v. Department of Education, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01995992 (Feb. 25, 2000)(Commission issued sanction against agency for failure to 

complete timely investigation). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-15

basis for the finding of noncompliance and will describe the proposed sanction(s) 

to be imposed. The notice to show cause will further provide the non-complying 

party with an opportunity to cure its noncompliance within a reasonable period of 

time, to be noted in the order. If the party fails to cure its noncompliance or to 

otherwise show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed, OFO shall 

impose the sanctions identified in its notice.11

D. Appeals Decisions are Final 

An appellate decision issued under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) is final pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.407 unless a timely request for reconsideration is filed by a 

party to the case. A party may request reconsideration within thirty (30) days of 

receipt of a decision of the Commission, which the Commission in its discretion 

may grant, if the party demonstrates that 1) the appellate decision involved a 

clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law or 2) the decision will have 

a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c); Section VII of this Chapter. 

VI. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ON APPEAL 

Generally, standards of review delineate the nature of the inquiry on appeal by 

establishing the extent to which the reviewing body will substitute its own judgment for 

that of the prior decision-maker. The Commission has essentially employed a de novo

standard of review in issuing appeals decisions since it took over the federal sector EEO 

function from the Civil Service Commission pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 

1978. 

The decision on an appeal from an agency‟s dismissal or final action shall be based on a 

de novo review, except that the review of the factual findings in a decision by an 

Administrative Judge issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(i) and 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.204(i) shall be based on a substantial evidence standard of review. This Section 

of the Management Directive will ensure a degree of uniformity and predictability in 

assessing case development and in processing appeals. 

 

11Sanctions usually will be contained in the decision of the Commission on appeal. If the sanction 

is contained in a separate order and not the decision on the appeal, the sanction is not immediately 

reviewable. Once OFO issues a decision on an appeal, the sanctioned party may request reconsideration 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). If the sanction is issued while a matter is pending review under 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) or is contained in a 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) decision, there is no administrative 

review available.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-16

A. Review of Final Decisions Issued by the Agency 

Appeals of final decisions or actions issued by agencies, duly filed pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(a), (d), or (e) will be considered by the Commission in the 

following manner: 

1. Agency dismissals pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 and final decisions 

on the merits of individual complaints pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.110(b) shall be reviewed de novo. 

 

2. The de novo standard requires that the Commission examine the record 

without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous 

decision maker. On appeal the Commission will review the documents, 

statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant 

submissions of the parties, and the Commission will issue its decision 

based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its 

interpretation of the law. 

3. As a general rule, no new evidence will be considered on appeal unless 

there is an affirmative showing that the evidence was not reasonably 

available prior to or during the investigation or during the hearing process. 

The Commission may request supplementation of the record. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.404(b). 

4. Following de novo review, the Commission will issue decisions on the 

appeals of decisions issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b) based on 

a preponderance of the evidence. 

5. Where appropriate, and after the requisite analysis, the Commission may 

adopt the findings and conclusions of the final decision issued by the 

agency. Such an adoption does not short-cut the review process, but 

merely serves to expedite communication of the result of the review. 

B. Review of Decisions Issued by Administrative Judges 

The Commission shall consider an appeal by either an agency or a complainant 

following a final action based on a decision from an Administrative Judge issued 

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g) (summary judgment decisions), 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.109(i) (decisions on individual complaints), and 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.204(d) 

and (i) (decisions on class complaints), duly filed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.401 et seq., in the following manner: 

1. The review of the post-hearing factual findings in an Administrative 

Judge‟s decision shall be based on a substantial evidence standard of 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-17

review. In Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 

340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951), the Supreme Court noted that substantial 

evidence “is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence 

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . 

It „must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be 

established. [I]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a 

refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it 

is one of fact for the jury.‟” [Citations omitted.]

2. Applying the substantial evidence review standard, the Commission will 

give deference to an Administrative Judge‟s post-hearing factual findings 

based on evidence in the record. Factual determinations will be 

distinguished from legal determinations and the Administrative Judge‟s 

factual determinations will be given deference. For example, a credibility 

determination of an Administrative Judge based on the demeanor or tone 

of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective 

evidence so contradicts the testimony of the witness or the testimony of 

the witness otherwise so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder 

would not credit it. 

3. A finding of discriminatory intent will be treated as a factual finding 

subject to the substantial evidence review standard. See Pullman-Standard 

Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). 

4. Legal determinations will be reviewed de novo on appeal. 

a. Legal determinations in decisions, whether made by an 

Administrative Judge or by the agency, will be reviewed using a de

novo standard. There will be no presumption that the previous 

decision-maker was correct in his/her interpretation or application 

of the law. 

b. An Administrative Judge‟s decision to issue a decision without a 

hearing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.109(g) will be reviewed de

novo. The substantial evidence standard of review will apply only 

to decisions rendered following a hearing and will not apply to 

decisions issued on summary judgment or to decisions issued 

without a hearing with the consent of the parties. 

5. As a general rule, no new evidence will be considered on appeal unless 

there is an affirmative showing that the evidence was not reasonably 

available prior to or during the hearing. The Commission may request 

supplementation of the record. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.404(b). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-18

C. The Responsibility of the Parties 

1. On appeal, the burden is squarely on the party challenging the 

Administrative Judge‟s decision to demonstrate that the Administrative 

Judge‟s factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence. 

This burden does not exist in a de novo review. The appeals statements of 

the parties, both supporting and opposing the Administrative Judge‟s 

decision, are vital in focusing the inquiry on appeal so that it can be 

determined whether the Administrative Judge‟s factual determinations are 

supported by substantial evidence. 

2. In an appropriate case, and in instances where a party fails to submit a 

statement or brief in support of his/her appeal, the Commission may issue 

a summary decision. 

VII. RECONSIDERATION 

A. Reconsideration is Not an Appeal 

A request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. A party 

may request reconsideration within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Commission 

decision. The Commission, in its discretion, may grant the request if the party 

demonstrates that: 

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of 

material fact or law; or 

2. The decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or 

operations of the agency. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.405(b)(1) & (2). 

The Commission reserves the right to reopen any decision on its own motion. See

Parnell v Department of Veterans‟ Affairs, EEOC Request No. 0520100031 

(December 7, 2009).

B. Reconsideration Procedures 

1. Requests for reconsideration and any supporting statement or brief must 

be filed with Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) days

of receipt of a decision of the Commission and a statement or brief in 

opposition to a request for reconsideration must be filled within twenty 

(20) days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. 

OFO will accept statements or briefs in support of the request from 

complainants by fax transmittal, provided they are no more than ten (10) 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-19

pages long. Agency briefs must be submitted in an approved digital 

format. The request must also include proof of service on the opposing 

party. 

2. The requesting party must submit any supporting documents or brief at the 

time the request is filed. The burden is on the requesting party to make a 

substantial showing that its request meets one of the two prerequisites for 

a granting of reconsideration. 

3. The opposing party shall have 20 days from the date of service in which to 

submit any brief or statement in opposition. Such brief or statement must 

be served on the requesting party and proof of service must be included 

with the submission to OFO. OFO will accept briefs or statements in 

opposition to the request from complainants by fax transmittal, provided 

they are no more than 10 pages long. Agency briefs must be submitted in 

an approved digital format. 

4. Failure to provide a proof of service or to submit comments within the 

prescribed time frame will result in the denial of the request, or the option 

not to consider the party‟s untimely statement or brief. 

C. Reconsideration Decision is Final 

The Commission's decision on a request for reconsideration is final, and there is 

no further right by either party to request reconsideration. If the decision remands 

the complaint for further agency consideration, the parties retain the rights of 

appeal and reconsideration with respect to any subsequent decision.

VIII. REMEDIES 

A. An Agency Shall Provide Full Relief After A Finding Of Discrimination 

When the agency or the Commission finds that the agency has discriminated 

against an applicant or employee, the agency shall provide an appropriate remedy 

as explained in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, subpart E. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-20

B. Clear and Convincing Standard Needed to Limit Relief; Duty to Cure 

Discrimination Remains 

1. When an Administrative Judge, agency, or the Commission finds that 

discrimination existed, but also finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the agency would have made the same employment decision even 

absent the discrimination, the agency shall nevertheless take all steps 

necessary to eliminate the discriminatory practice and ensure that it does 

not recur. 

2. Back pay, computed in the manner prescribed by 5 C.F.R. § 550.805, shall 

be awarded from the date the individual would have entered on duty, 

assumed the duties of the position at issue, or not removed from the 

position unless clear and convincing evidence indicates that the applicant 

or employee would not have been selected for, placed into, or removed 

from the position even absent discrimination. The complainant has the 

obligation to mitigate damages. 

C. Relief in Individual Cases 

A discussion of the relief available in individual cases is set forth in Chapter 11 of 

this Management Directive. 

D. Relief in Class Cases 

A discussion of the relief available in class cases is set forth in Chapter 8, Section 

XI, of this Management Directive. 

IX. COMPLIANCE 

A. Relief Ordered in a Decision on Appeal 

1. Compliance with Orders of the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission in final Federal appeals decisions is mandatory. Section 

717(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e-16(b) provides that the EEOC shall 

have authority to enforce prohibitions against discrimination in the Federal 

government “through appropriate remedies, including reinstatement or 

hiring of employees with or without back pay as will effectuate the 

policies of this section and shall issue rules, regulations, orders and 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-21

instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its 

responsibilities.”

2. The ordered relief shall be provided in full not later than one hundred 

twenty (120) days after receipt of the final decision unless otherwise 

ordered in the decision. A decision is considered final when it is issued. 

The 120 day period includes the 30-day period in which the complainant 

can file a request for reconsideration, as well as the 90-day period in 

which the complainant can file a civil action.

3. A complainant may petition OFO to seek enforcement of a Commission 

Order. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.503(a). The petition shall be submitted to OFO 

and shall set forth the basis for the complainant=s assertion that the agency 

is not complying with the decision. If a petition is docketed 

acknowledgment letters will be sent to both parties identifying the new 

docket number and advising them of the right to submit a brief or to 

comment on the issue(s) in dispute. 

4. Where the Director of OFO is unable to obtain satisfactory compliance 

with the final decision, the Director shall submit appropriate findings and 

recommendations for enforcement to the Commission pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.503(d). Among other things, the Commission may 

certify the matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to a 

memorandum of understanding. See 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.503(f) or issue a 

notice to show cause for non-compliance to the head of an agency that has 

failed to comply with a Commission order pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.503(e). 

5. Where the Commission has determined that an agency is not complying 

with a prior decision and wishes to complete administrative efforts, the 

Commission shall notify the complainant of his/her right to seek judicial 

review of the agency=s refusal to order the relief or commence a de novo

proceeding. See 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.503(g). 

B. Interim Relief 

1. Interim relief where the agency files a request for reconsideration of a 

decision regarding removal, separation, or suspension continuing beyond 

the date of the request for reconsideration: 

a. When the agency requests reconsideration and the case involves 

removal, separation, or suspension continuing beyond the date of 

the request for reconsideration, and when the decision orders 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-22

retroactive restoration, the agency shall comply with the decision 

to the extent of the temporary or conditional restoration of the 

employee to duty status in the position specified by the 

Commission, pending the outcome of the agency=s request for 

reconsideration. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.502(b). 

b. The agency must notify the complainant that his/her restoration is 

temporary or conditional at the same time it seeks reconsideration. 

Failure of the agency to provide notification will result in the 

dismissal of the agency=s request. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.502(b)(3). 

c. When the if the agency seeks reconsideration of a decision that 

included an award of payments of amounts owed, the agency may 

delay such payment provided it advises the complainant of its 

delay and further informs the complainant that it will pay interest 

on any award ultimately determined to be owed to the 

complainant. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.502(b)(2). 

2. Interim relief where an agency appeals from a decision of an 

Administrative Judge in a case involving separation, or suspension 

continuing beyond the date of the appeal, and when the Administrative 

Judge's decision orders retroactive restoration: 

a. The agency shall comply with the decision to the extent of the 

temporary or conditional restoration of the employee to duty status 

in the position specified in the decision, pending the outcome of 

the agency appeal. The employee may decline the offer of interim 

relief. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.505(a)(1). 

b. An agency may decline to return a complainant to his/her place of 

employment if it determines that the return or presence of the 

complainant will be unduly disruptive to the work environment. 

However, the agency must provide prospective pay and benefits. 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.505(a)(5). 

c. An agency also may delay the payment of other amounts, 

exclusive of pay and benefits, when it files an appeal of an 

Administrative Judge=s decision. If an agency declines to make 

such payments, it will be required to pay interest on these amounts 

from the date of the decision until payment is made if the outcome 

of the appeal requires the agency to make the payment. 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.505(a)(3). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-23

d. An agency must inform the Commission and the complainant in 

writing that it will delay making required payments at the same 

time that it files its appeal that it will delay making the payments 

of any amounts owed pending resolution of the appeal. If an 

agency fails to inform either the complainant or the Commission 

and fails further to make the payments required by the decision 

being appeal, the Commission will dismiss the appeal. The 

complainant must file a request for dismissal with the Commission 

within twenty-five (25) days of the date of service of the agency=s 

appeal and provide the agency with a copy of the request. The 

agency will have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the 

complainant=s request to file a response. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.505(b). 

C. Sanctions 

1. There is no legitimate basis for delay in complying with a Commission 

order, particularly in those cases where the Commission has ordered relief 

after a finding of discrimination. 

2. The Office of Federal Operations (OFO) will aggressively utilize 

sanctions if the agency fails to implement the relief ordered. 

3. OFO may recommend that the Commission take enforcement action 

where an agency does not comply with a Commission order, or, as 

directed by the Commission, refer the matter to another appropriate 

agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(d). The Commission may issue a show 

cause notice to the head of the federal agency that is in noncompliance or 

refer the matter to the Office of Special Counsel for enforcement action. 

See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.503(e) and (f). 

4. OFO may issue a notice to the complainant that the administrative process 

for securing compliance has been exhausted. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.503(g). Such a notice will inform the complainant of the right to 

file a civil action for enforcement of the Commission decision and to seek 

judicial review of the agency‟s refusal to implement the relief ordered by 

EEOC, or of the right to commence proceedings pursuant to the 

appropriate statute. 

5. An OFO notice to the complainant advising that the administrative process 

for securing compliance has been exhausted may be issued after the 

Commission determines an agency is not complying with a prior decision, 

when an agency fails or refuses to submit a report of compliance required 

by the Commission, or upon receipt of a request from the complainant. In 

determining whether to issue such a notice, OFO will consider such 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-24

factors as whether the agency is making reasonable efforts to comply with 

the Commission order or, if the notice is requested by the complainant, 

whether the complainant has legal representation to secure enforcement in 

court. After issuing such a notice, the Commission ordinarily will 

terminate its administrative processing of the complaint. Processing will 

continue, however, if the Director of OFO determines that continued 

processing would effectuate the purposes of the laws enforced by the 

Commission. 

D. Priority Consideration for Cases Remanded for Investigation 

Agencies should give priority to cases remanded for an investigation if this is 

necessary to comply with the time frames contained in an EEOC order. OFO will 

issue sanctions against agencies when it determines that agencies are not making 

reasonable efforts to comply with a Commission order to investigate a complaint. 

E. Remand of Dismissed Claims 

Where a complainant‟s appeal includes a dismissed claim that the Administrative 

Judge has affirmed but that OFO reverses either on appeal or on reconsideration, 

OFO shall remand the dismissed claim to the Administrative Judge for further 

processing in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109. Where a complainant 

appeals from an agency final decision that includes a dismissed claim that OFO 

reverses, OFO shall remand the dismissed claim to the agency and include an 

order directing the agency to process the matter in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.108, except that OFO may order the completion of the investigation within 

a time period shorter than 180 days. 

F. Complainant May File an Appeal Alleging a Breach of a Settlement 

Agreement 

Where a complainant files an appeal alleging a breach of a settlement agreement 

and the Commission determines that the agreement was breached, the 

complainant may request enforcement of the settlement agreement or may request 

reinstatement of the underlying complaint at the point at which the processing of 

the complaint was stopped. Where a complaint is reinstated for further 

processing, both the agency and the complainant would be returned to the status 

quo ante at the time that the parties entered into the settlement agreement, which 

would require the complainant to return any benefits received pursuant to the 

agreement. See Christensen v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120081918 (September 17, 2008) (citing Armour v. Department of Defense, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01965593 (June 24, 1997). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

9-25

G. Complainant May Appeal to the Commission for Enforcement of an Agency 

Final Action 

A complainant may file an appeal with the Commission for enforcement of an 

agency=s final action through which the agency has accepted the decision of an 

Administrative Judge. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.504(a) - (c). The complainant first 

must notify the agency=s EEO Director of the agency=s alleged noncompliance 

with the final action within thirty (30) days of when the complainant knew or 

should have become aware of the agency=s noncompliance. If the agency has not 

responded to the complainant=s notice within thirty-five (35) days, the 

complainant may file an appeal with the Commission. If the agency has 

responded to the complainant=s notice before the complainant files an appeal with 

the Commission, the complainant must file an appeal within 30 days of his/her 

receipt of the agency=s response.

H. Compliance Reports Required by Commission Appellate Decisions 

Containing Orders for Corrective Action 

The implementation paragraph found in Commission appellate decision orders 

provides that a compliance report shall be submitted within thirty (30) calendar 

days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. 

The compliance report must contain 1) supporting documentation for all ordered 

corrective action and 2) evidence that copies of all submissions in support of 

compliance were sent to the complainant. See Appendix Q for a Quick Reference 

Chart describing the documentation required to satisfy compliance with the most 

common Orders found in EEOC appellate decisions. 

The report shall be submitted to: 

(The designated Compliance Officer) 

Office of Federal Operations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Post Office Box 77960 

Washington, DC 20013 

X. CIVIL ACTIONS 

Filing a civil action terminates Commission processing of an appeal. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.409.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

9-26

XI. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS 

Agencies are required to notify complainants of their rights to appeal to the Commission 

and to file a civil action within the specified limitations periods. Agencies must also 

notify complainants of their statutory right to request court appointment of counsel for 

representation in connection with the filing of civil actions, which arise from Title VII, 

GINA, and the Rehabilitation Act. See Hilliard v. Volcker, 659 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 

1981). Therefore, agencies subject to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 are required to include the 

appropriate language in every decision on complaints which allege discrimination. 

Sample language is provided in Chapter 10, Section IV, of this Management Directive. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

10-1

CHAPTER 10

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, CIVIL ACTIONS, 

AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Aggrieved persons must be made aware of administrative and civil action time limitations 

which potentially may bar an aggrieved person's ability to file appeals and civil actions. 

The time limits specified throughout this Management Directive are stated in calendar 

days. 

All parties should be aware that attorney's fees may be awarded at the administrative 

level and beyond under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e16, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000ff and under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, see 29 U.S.C. § 791, but that 

attorney's fees are not available at the administrative level under the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633a, or the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). 

Finally, the agency must advise complainants that they can request that a U.S. District 

Court appoint counsel for them after they file suit in that court. 

II. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS 

A. Time Limits for Appeals to the Commission - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402 

The following time limits apply for filing an appeal to the Commission: 

1. Appeals limits for complainant=s appeal of an agency‟s final action on or 

dismissal of individual complaints of discrimination: Within thirty (30) 

days of receipt of the dismissal or final action. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.401(a). 

2. Appeals limits for decisions on class complaints of discrimination under 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.402(a): 

a. a class agent or an agency may appeal an Administrative Judge‟s 

decision accepting or dismissing all or part of a class complaint; a 

class agent may appeal a final action on a class complaint; a class 

member may appeal a final action on a claim for individual relief 

under a class complaint; and 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

10-2

b. a class member, a class agent or an agency may appeal a final 

decision on a petition pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(g)(4). See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(c). Appeals filed by class agents or class 

members described in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(c) must be filed 

within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final action or final 

decision on a petition pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(g)(4). 

Appeals filed by agencies on an Administrative Judge‟s decision 

accepting or dismissing all or part of a class complaint must be 

filed within (30) days of receipt of the hearing file and decision. 

Appeals filed by agencies on an Administrative Judge‟s decision 

on the merits of a class complaint must be filed within sixty (60) 

days of receipt of the hearing file and decision. 

3. Appeals limits for allegations of noncompliance with a settlement 

agreement or an Administrative Judge‟s decision that has not been 

appealed to the Commission or been the subject of a civil action under 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.504. 

a. Within thirty (30) days of the complainant's receipt of an agency's 

determination on an allegation of noncompliance. 

b. Thirty-five (35) days after the complainant serves the agency with 

an allegation of noncompliance, if the agency has not issued a 

determination. 

Notice to the EEO Director of noncompliance is a prerequisite to the filing 

of an appeal alleging breach of a settlement agreement.1

4. Appeals limits on final grievance decisions in employment discrimination 

claims where 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d) applies to the agency: Within 30 days of 

receipt of the final decision of an agency, an arbitrator, or the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority when employment discrimination was raised. 

5. Limits on petitions for consideration of final decisions of the MSPB on 

mixed case appeals and mixed case complaints (5 C.F.R. § 1201.151 et

seq. and 5 U.S.C. § 7702).2

 

1As a prerequisite to the agency determination, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504 provides : 

If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with the 

terms of a settlement agreement or final decision, the complainant shall 

notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 

30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the 

alleged noncompliance.
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

10-3

a. Within 30 days of receipt of the final MSPB decision. 

b. Within 30 days after the decision of a MSPB field office becomes 

final. 

6. Appeals limits for an agency‟s appeal if the agency‟s final order following 

a decision by an Administrative Judge does not fully implement the 

decision of the Administrative Judge: 

a. Within forty (40) days of receipt of the Administrative Judge‟s 

decision. 

b. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(b), an agency is required to file an 

appeal to the Commission if the agency‟s final order does not fully 

implement the decision of the Administrative Judge. The 

Commission‟s use of the word “may” in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(b) 

is not inconsistent with this requirement. The agency has the 

option to appeal if it is not satisfied with the Administrative 

Judge‟s decision. If the agency chooses not to appeal, however, it 

must fully implement the Administrative Judge‟s decision. In 

other words, when the agency decides whether it will fully 

implement the Administrative Judges‟ decision, it is also deciding 

whether to appeal; a decision to fully implement means that it is 

not appealing while a decision not to fully implement means that it 

is appealing. 

B. Appeals to the Commission - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) 

In addition to providing for appeals to the Commission by complainants alleging 

breach of a settlement agreement, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) provides that a 

complainant may file an appeal alleging agency noncompliance with a final action 

through which the agency has accepted the decision of an Administrative Judge. 

The complainant first must present his/her allegations of noncompliance to the 

EEO Director. The complainant thereafter may appeal: 

1. Within thirty (30) days of the complainant's receipt of an agency's 

determination on the allegation of noncompliance. 

2. Thirty-five (35) days after the complainant serves the agency with the 

allegation of noncompliance, if the agency has not issued a determination. 

 

2The Commission will only accept petitions for review of final MSPB decisions.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

10-4

C. Petitions to Consider MSPB Decisions 

A petition to EEOC to consider a final MSPB decision on a mixed case appeal or 

on the appeal of a final decision on a mixed case complaint, under 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.303 and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.304, must be in writing and must include: 

1. The name and address of the petitioner and of petitioner's representative 

(if any); 

2. A statement of the reasons why the decision of the MSPB is alleged to be 

incorrect, only with regard to the issues of discrimination based on race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability; 

3. A copy of the decision issued by the MSPB; and 

4. The signature of the petitioner or representative, if any. 

D. Appeal to MSPB on Mixed Case Complaint 

At the time the agency issues its final decision on a mixed case complaint the 

agency shall advise the complainant of the right to appeal the decision to the 

MSPB (not the EEOC) within thirty (30) days of receipt of the agency's final 

decision provided at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(d)(3). 

III. CIVIL ACTIONS 

A. Time Limits for Civil Actions 

1. Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Genetic 

Information Nondiscrimination Act, Rehabilitation Act - 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.407. 

A complainant who has filed a non-mixed individual complaint, an agent 

who has filed a class complaint or a claimant who has filed a claim for 

individual relief in a class action complaint may file a civil action in an 

appropriate United States district court: 

a. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of an agency's final action on an 

individual complaint, or final decision on a class complaint, if no 

appeal has been filed. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

10-5

b. After 180 days from the date of filing an individual or class 

complaint if no appeal has been filed and no final action on an 

individual complaint or no final decision on a class complaint has 

been issued. 

c. Within 90 days after receipt of the Commission's final decision on 

appeal. 

d. After 180 days from the date of filing an appeal with the Commission if there has been no final decision by the Commission. 

2. The Equal Pay Act - 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408

Regardless of whether the individual complainant pursued any 

administrative complaint processing, a complainant may file a civil action 

in a court of competent jurisdiction within two years or, if the violation is 

willful, within three years of the date of the alleged violation of the Equal 

Pay Act. Recovery of back wages is limited to two years prior to the date 

of filing suit, or to three years if the violation is willful; liquidated 

damages in an amount equal to lost back wages may also be awarded. The 

filing of an administrative complaint does not toll the time for filing a civil 

action. 

B. Termination of EEOC Processing 

Filing a timely civil action under any of these statutes terminates Commission 

processing of an appeal. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409. If a civil action is filed after 

an appeal has also been filed, the parties are requested to notify the Commission 

of this event in writing. 

C. Mixed Case Complaints 

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not extend the time limit for filing a civil action 

in mixed case complaints. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.310, which sets forth the 

statutory rights to file a civil action in mixed case complaints. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

10-6

IV. NOTICE OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO REQUEST COURT APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL AND STATEMENT OF RIGHT TO APPEAL 

Consistent with the court's holding in Hilliard v. Volcker, 659 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 

1981), it is the Commission's policy to require all federal agencies subject to the 

Management Directive to inform complainants, in writing, of their statutory right to 

request court appointment of counsel for representation in connection with the filing of 

civil actions that arise under Title VII, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 

and the Rehabilitation Act. 

In Hilliard, the court held that agencies must inform complainants unsuccessful in the 

administrative process that, in the event they file a civil action, the court has discretionary 

authority to appoint counsel for them. A litigant who fails to request counsel should not 

be penalized because an agency has been remiss in its duty to inform the complainant of 

the court's authority. 

Therefore, all federal agencies subject to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 must include the following 

language in every final action or final decision on complaints which allege discrimination 

of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information and/or 

retaliation: 

Within 30 days of your receipt of the final action or final decision (as 

appropriate), you have the right to appeal this final action or final decision 

to: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

You also have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States 

district court. If you choose to file a civil action, you may do so 

-- within 90 days of receipt of this final action or final 

decision (as appropriate) if no appeal has been filed, 

or 

-- within 90 days after receipt of the EEOC's final 

decision on appeal, or 

-- after 180 days from the date of filing an appeal with 

the EEOC if there has been no final decision by the 

Commission. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

10-7

You must name the person who is the official agency head or department 

head as the defendant. Agency or department means the national 

organization, and not just the local office, facility, or department in which 

you might work. Do not name just the agency or department. In your 

case, you must name as the defendant. [The Administrative 

Judge or agency must supply the name of the proper person.] You must 

also state the official title of the agency head or department head. Failure 

to provide the name or official title of the agency head or department head 

may result in dismissal of your case. 

If you decide to file a civil action, under Title VII or under the 

Rehabilitation Act, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of 

an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint an attorney to 

represent you and that the Court permit you to file the action without 

payment of fees, costs, or other security. The grant or denial of the 

request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for 

an attorney does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both 

the request and the civil action MUST BE FILED WITHIN NINETY (90) 

CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the final action or final 

decision (as appropriate) from the agency or the Commission. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-1

CHAPTER 11

REMEDIES 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In federal EEO law, there is a strong presumption that a complainant who prevails in 

whole or in part on a claim of discrimination is entitled to full relief which places him/her 

in the position s/he would have been in absent the agency‟s discriminatory conduct. See

Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-419 (1975). 

This Chapter of the Management Directive sets forth guidance for use by agencies and 

persons seeking remedial relief in a variety of areas, including: back pay, front pay, 

attorney‟s fees and costs, awards of compensatory damages, and other forms of equitable 

relief. This guidance applies only to the federal sector administrative process.

II. NON DISCRIMINATORY PLACEMENT 

When an agency or the Commission finds that an employee of the agency was 

discriminated against, the agency shall provide the individual with non-discriminatory 

placement into the position s/he would have occupied absent the discrimination. For 

cases in which the employee is not selected for a position or promotion due to 

discrimination, this would include an offer of placement into the position sought, or a 

substantially equivalent position. See Carson v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120100078 (February 16, 2012). 

The offer should be made retroactive to the date of the selection in question. The 

individual should receive all step or pay increases and monetary benefits associated with 

the position See Stewart v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Request No. 

0520070124 (November 14, 2011). A “substantially equivalent position” is a position 

within the same commuting area. Bakken v. Department of Transportation, EEOC 

Appeal No. 0120093529 (August 8, 2011). 

When the relief ordered includes the offer of a position or a promotion, the offer shall be 

made to the complainant in writing, providing the complainant fifteen (15) days from 

receipt of the offer to notify the agency of the acceptance or rejection. Failure to respond 

within the15-day time limit shall be construed as a declination. Any back pay liability 

shall cease to accrue with either the actual placement of the complainant into the position 

in question, or with the date the offer was declined. 

In cases involving a discriminatory termination, the agency should offer to reinstate the 

complainant to his/her former position retroactive to the date of the termination. See Oni 

v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0720100015 (October 11, 2011). The 

complainant should also receive all applicable benefits and step or pay increases. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-2

In some cases, there is evidence that discrimination was one of multiple motivating 

factors for an employment action. In these “mixed motive” cases, the agency does not 

have to offer complainant the position sought if it can demonstrate by clear and 

convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action even absent the 

discrimination. See Montante v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 

0120110240 (November 9, 2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 

0520120259 (June 8, 2012). If the agency is able to make this demonstration, the 

complainant is not entitled to personal relief such as reinstatement, hiring, or promotion. 

The complainant may still be entitled to declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and/or 

attorneys‟ fees and costs. Id.

When an individual accepts an offer of employment as a remedy for discrimination, s/he 

shall be deemed to have performed service for the agency during the period he would 

have served but for the discrimination for all purposes except for meeting service 

requirements for completion of a required probationary or trial period. 

III. BACKPAY 

A. Back Pay Issues 

When an agency or the Commission finds that an employee of the agency was 

discriminated against, the agency shall provide the individual with nondiscriminatory placement into the position s/he would have occupied absent the 

discrimination, with back pay computed in the manner prescribed by 5 C.F.R. 

§ 550.805. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(c)(1). The purpose of a back pay award is 

to restore to the complainant the income he would have otherwise earned but for 

the discrimination. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19 

(1975); Davis v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04900010 (November 

29, 1990).A number of discriminatory personnel actions can generate back pay. 

The most common actions generating back pay are: removals, suspensions, 

denials of promotions and failure to hire. 

Interest on back pay shall be included in the back pay computation. The back pay 

computation should also include any applicable step increases or pay differentials. 

See Morrow v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070058 (November 

13, 2009) (ordering the agency to provide complainant with a back pay award 

which included interest, overtime, and night pay differential). Under Title VII, 

GINA and the Rehabilitation Act, back pay is limited to two years prior to the 

date the discrimination complaint was filed. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-3

B. Determining Gross Back Pay 

Back pay includes all forms of compensation, and reflects fluctuations in working 

time, overtime rates, penalty overtime, Sunday premium and night work, 

changing rates of pay, transfers, promotions, and privileges of employment. The 

EEOC also construes “benefits” broadly to include annual leave, sick leave, 

health insurance, retirement contributions. Vereb v. Department of Justice, EEOC 

Petition No. 04980008 (February 26, 1999); Holly v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Petition No. 04A50003 (November 2, 2005). 

[T]he Commission recognizes that precise measurement cannot always be used to 

remedy the wrong inflicted, and therefore, the computation of back pay awards 

inherently involves some speculation. Hanns v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC 

Petition No. 04960030 (September 18, 1997). The Commission has held that 

uncertainties involved in a back pay determination should be resolved against the 

agency that has already been found to have committed acts of discrimination. Id. 

See also Davis v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04900010 (November 

29, 1990); and Besemer v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04890005 

(December 14, 1989). 

C. Overtime or Premium Pay as a Component of Back Pay 

Back pay will be required to cover any overtime or premium pay that would have 

been worked absent discrimination. The parties often disagree over whether 

overtime would have been worked and to what extent overtime could have been 

earned. The overtime component of a back pay award should generally be 

calculated based upon the average amount of overtime worked by similarly 

situated employees. Haines v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04A50018 

(November 23, 2005); Holly v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 

04A50003 (November 2, 2005). If the position is unique, such that a comparison 

with a similarly situated employee is not possible, the agency should calculate 

overtime based on the actual overtime worked by the person who was selected for 

the position. See, for example, Bowman v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120112333 (October 3, 2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC 

Request No. 0520120091 (March 16, 2012).

D. Retirement Deductions and Back Pay 

The Commission has held that make whole relief requires the agency to make 

retroactive tax-deferred contributions to the complainant‟s retirement account for 

the relevant period. To the extent complainant would have received agency 

contributions to a retirement fund as a component of her salary, she is entitled to 

have her retirement benefits adjusted as part of her back pay award, including 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-4

sums which the account would have earned during the relevant period. The 

agency should provide its calculations of the amount of contributions to the 

agency‟s retirement system that both it and complainant would have made during 

her absence, as well as the earnings which would have accrued. See Kretschmar 

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 04A40044 (March 25, 2005). 

E. Interim Earnings Deducted from Back Pay 

If the complainant lost a job or did not receive a position due to discrimination, 

the complainant has the responsibility of mitigating the harm by looking for other 

work. Ghannam v. Agency for International Development, EEOC Appeal No. 

01990574 (June 22, 2004). Wages earned by the employee while separated from 

the agency are commonly called “interim wages.” The agency should deduct the 

interim wages earned by the complainant from the amount of back pay owed to 

the complainant as provided for in Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (5)(g). If the 

agency believes that the complainant did not do enough to mitigate lost wages, 

they must prove so by a preponderance of the evidence, McNeil v. U.S. Postal 

Service, EEOC Request No. 05960436 (December 9, 1999). 

However, income that the complainant could have earned while still holding the 

position at the agency should not be subtracted or off-set from back pay. 

“Moonlight” employment is employment that the employee could have engaged 

in even while federally employed. See 5 CFR § 550.805(e)(1). See Paulk v. U.S. 

Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04A10026 (October 4, 2001) (Commission 

found that petitioner‟s overtime earnings were earned from his working 65-80 

hours per week in a position he acquired during the period subsequent to his 

termination from the agency, and thus petitioner could not have held both the 

supplemental job and the job he lost because of discrimination, and therefore, the 

agency properly offset these earnings from complainant‟s back pay award). 

F. Worker’s Compensation Benefits May be Partially Deductible from Back 

Pay

A Federal Employees‟ Compensation Act (FECA) award is meant to compensate 

for lost wages and/or reparation for physical injury. A claim of back pay against a 

Federal agency during the same time period covered by a FECA claim would 

have the potential for a double recovery of back pay. Any portion of a FECA 

award attributable to lost wages during the back pay period in a discrimination 

finding will be deducted from the back pay award. The portion of the FECA 

award that is paid as reparation for physical injuries is not related to wages earned 

and should not be deducted. 

If the agency contends that receipt of workers‟ compensation would result in 

double-recovery, the agency must determine what portion of the FECA benefits, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-5

if any, applied to back pay, leave and other benefits, and what portion of 

complainant‟s FECA benefits applied to reparation for physical injuries. See

Ulloa v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04A30025 (August 3, 2004). 

G. Availability for Work – Prerequisite for Receipt of Back Pay 

The applicable regulations provide that the amount of back pay awarded shall be 

reduced by the amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person 

discriminated against. Thus, the complainant has a duty to mitigate or lessen 

damages by making a reasonable good faith effort to find other employment.1

 

This means that the complainant must seek a substantially equivalent position, 

that is, a position that affords virtually identical compensation, job 

responsibilities, working conditions, status, and promotional opportunities as the 

position he was discriminatorily denied. 

As a general rule, a complainant must be ready, willing, and able to work during 

the period of back pay recovery in order to receive back pay. The Commission 

has stated that if an agency can present persuasive evidence that complainant was 

not able to work during the back pay period, back pay would not be awarded; 

however, the agency has the burden of proof. Morman v. Department of Defense 

(Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC Petition No. 04A10006 (July 31, 2002). 

The Back Pay regulation 5 CFR § 550.805(c) provides that periods of 

unavailability may not be included in the back pay period unless such periods of 

time are the result of an illness or injury related to an unjustified or unwarranted 

personnel action. When a complainant receives workers‟ compensation due to an 

agency‟s failure to provide reasonable accommodation, this does not preclude a 

back pay award. The receipt of workers‟ compensation benefits does not indicate 

that a person was unable to work during the back pay period. See McClendon v. 

U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04960013 (May 22, 1997). 

H. Unemployment Compensation not Deducted from Back Pay – the Collateral 

Source Rule 

Unemployment compensation is an interim source of income, but it is a collateral 

source in the sense that it comes from the state – not the Federal employer. An 

employer cannot set off or mitigate its damages through a collateral source – in 

this case the state‟s payment of unemployment compensation even though the 

employer might have contributed to the source. 

When a back payment is made where unemployment had been received, in theory 

the unemployment compensation represents an overpayment from the state and is 

due to the state. See Morra-Morrison v. U.S. Postal Service, 04980023 (June 2, 

 

1

See Knott v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720100049 (July 5, 2010). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-6

1999). This process of recoupment is generally a matter between the complainant 

and the state. 

I. Tax Consequences of a Lump Sum Payment of Back Pay 

The Commission has recognized that make whole relief requires that an agency be 

liable for any increased tax liability resulting from receipt of a lump sum of back 

pay in a single tax year. When an individual receives back pay as a lump sum 

payment, s/he is entitled to a tax offset payment for the tax year in which she 

received the payment. See Mohar v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 

0720100019 (August 29, 2011); Teresita Lorenzo v. Department of Defense 

Education Activity, Petition No. 0420040035 (September 29, 2005); Warren 

Goetze v. Department of the Navy, 01991530 (August 23, 2001). 

J. Liquidated Damages (ADEA and EPA only) 

This is an amount equal to the back pay due the complainant when the violation is 

found to be willful and in reckless disregard of the statutes. Liquidated damages 

are mandatory for a violation of the EPA, unless the agency can prove that it acted 

in “good faith” and reasonably believed that its actions did not violate the EPA. 

Since an EPA claim may also be brought as a sex-based wage discrimination 

claim under Title VII, compensatory damages may be available if the claim is 

brought under both statutes. 

K. Restoration of Leave 

When there has been a finding of discriminatory harassment, the complainant is 

entitled to back pay for time lost from work during the applicable periods, as well 

as the restoration of any leave used because of the discriminatory harassment. 

See Mohar v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720100019 (August 29, 

2011). The restoration of leave taken for purposes of avoiding or recovering from 

a discriminatory hostile work environment is a valid component of equitable 

relief. See Burton v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720090046 (June 

9, 2011). For example, in Jackson v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0720110036 (March 13, 2012), the agency was ordered to restore sick leave 

which complainant used to avoid a discriminatory hostile work environment. 

IV. FRONT PAY 

Front pay is an equitable remedy that compensates an individual when reinstatement is 

not possible in certain limited circumstances. The Commission has held that front pay 

may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement when: (1) no position is available; (2) a 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-7

subsequent working relationship between the parties would be antagonistic; or (3) the 

employer has a record of long-term resistance to anti-discrimination efforts. Brinkley v. 

U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No, 05980429 (August 12, 1999). The fact that front 

pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement implies that the complainant is able to work but 

cannot do so because of circumstances external to the complainant. See Cook v. U.S.

Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01950027 (July 17, 1998). 

The Commission has held that front pay is an equitable remedy to be awarded for a 

reasonable future period required for the victim of discrimination to reestablish his 

rightful place in the job market, Deidra Brown-Fleming v. Department of Justice, EEOC 

Petition No. 0420080016 (October 28, 2010). 

V. OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF 

As appropriate, the agency shall also: 

1. Cancel an unwarranted personnel action and restore the employee to the status 

s/he occupied prior to the discrimination; 

2. Expunge any adverse materials relating to the discriminatory employment 

practice from the agency‟s records;2and 

3. Provide the individual with a full opportunity to participate in the employee 

benefit that was denied, for example training, preferential work assignments, or 

overtime scheduling.3

When the finding of discrimination involves a performance appraisal, the appropriate 

relief should include raising the rating to that which the individual would have received 

absent the discrimination. McKenzie v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 

0120100034 (July 7, 2011); Hairston v. Department of Education, EEOC Appeal No. 

0120071308 (April 15, 2010). In addition, the individual is entitled to all benefits and 

awards that she would have received if she had achieved the higher performance 

appraisal rating. Cook v. Department of Labor, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080045 

(February 22, 2010). 

 

2

See Sipriano v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103167 (January 20, 

2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110313 (May 12, 2011) (ordering the 

Agency to expunge all documentation relating to a discriminatory termination from Complainant‟s 

records); Farrington v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720090011 (January 19, 

2011), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110295 (May 12, 2011) (ordering the 

Agency to expunge evaluation reports and documents referencing a discriminatory investigation). 

3

See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(c). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-8

It is also appropriate to order training for agency personnel found to have engaged in 

discrimination, and to consider taking disciplinary action against those officials who 

engaged in the discrimination4 See James v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120073831 (September 22, 2009), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC 

Request No. 0520100086 (March 22, 2010) (ordering the agency to provide the Selecting 

Official who discriminated against complainant 16 hours of EEO training, and to 

consider taking disciplinary action against the Official). The Commission does not 

consider training to be “discipline.” See Morrow v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0720070058 (November 13, 2009). 

For example, in Burton v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720090046 (June 9, 

2011), one of the responsible management officials found to have engaged in unlawful 

discrimination and retaliation was a high-level management official who set the 

leadership tone for the entire facility, and, thus, requiring five hours of EEO training for 

all facility management and supervisory staff was appropriate. See, also, Kitson v. 

Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720100052 (February 15, 2011), request for 

reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520110312 (June 10, 2011) (ordering the 

agency to provide training for upper-level employees at an agency facility following a 

finding of discriminatory non-selection); Wagner v. Department of Transportation, 

EEOC Appeal No. 0120103125 (December 1, 2010) (ordering the agency to provide 

EEO training to all employees at an agency facility following a finding that agency 

managers and employees subjected complainant to a hostile work environment). 

The Commission has also found that, in cases involving discriminatory policies or 

practices, the appropriate relief includes ordering the agency to “cease and desist” from 

adhering to that policy or practice. For example, in Smith v. Department of the Navy, 

EEOC Appeal No. 0120082983 (February 16, 2010), request for reconsideration denied, 

EEOC Request No. 0520100287 (July 9, 2010), the Commission ordered the agency to 

cease and desist from requiring that all contact with EEO Counselors be arranged by 

management officials. 

Following a finding of discrimination, the agency should take steps to ensure that the 

same type of action does not recur. In Cheeks v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0120091345 (February 1, 2012), the agency was found to have engaged in racial 

harassment. The agency was ordered to take all necessary steps to ensure that 

complainant had no contact with the supervisor responsible for the harassment, as well as 

to provide complainant with a designated management official to whom he could report 

any subsequent acts of harassment. See also Ighile v. Department of Justice, EEOC 

Appeal No. 0720110010 (April 13, 2012) (ordering the agency to cease and desist from 

 

4

In fact, the Commission strongly urges that agencies include consideration of disciplinary action in 

all agency orders on findings of intentional discrimination. In certain circumstances, training may be 

ordered for additional Agency managers and staff. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-9

all hostile conduct directed to complainant, and take appropriate action to ensure that his 

co-workers cease and desist from any hostile conduct). 

VI. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS 

A. INTRODUCTION 

Attorney‟s fees and costs shall be awarded in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.501(e). 

In federal EEO law, there is a strong presumption that a complainant who prevails 

in whole or in part on a claim of discrimination is entitled to an award of 

attorney‟s fees and costs. More specifically, complainants who prevail on claims 

alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, are presumptively 

entitled to an award of attorney‟s fees and costs, unless special circumstances 

render such an award unjust. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1). (Complainants 

prevailing on claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 

as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, are not entitled to 

attorney‟s fees at the administrative level.) Only where a Title VII, GINA, or 

Rehabilitation Act complainant rejects an offer of resolution made in accordance 

with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(c) and does not obtain more relief than the agency had 

offered, or in the rarest of other circumstances, might an agency limit or deny an 

award of fees. 

B. DETERMINATION OF PREVAILING PARTY STATUS 

1. A “prevailing party,” within the meaning of Section 706(k) of Title VII, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), is a complainant who has succeeded on any 

significant issue that achieved some of the benefit the complainant sought 

in filing the complaint. Texas State Teachers Ass‟n v. Garland I.S.D., 489 

U.S. 782 (1989). The Commission has relied on a two-part test set forth in 

Miller v. Staats, 706 F.2d 336 (D.C. Cir. 1983), for determining whether a 

complainant is a prevailing party. Baldwin v. Department of Health & 

Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05910016 (April 12, 1991). To 

satisfy the first part of the test, the complainant must have substantially 

received the relief sought. Id. To satisfy the second part of the test, there 

must be a determination that the complaint was a catalyst motivating the 

agency to provide the relief. Id. (citing Miller, 706 F.2d at 341). A purely 

technical or de minimis success is insufficient to confer “prevailing party” 

status. Texas State Teachers Ass‟n. at 792.
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-10

2. The touchstone is whether the actual relief on the merits materially alters 

the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the agency‟s 

behavior in a way that directly benefits the complainant. Farrar v. Hobby, 

506 U.S. 103 (1992); Bragg v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal 

No. 01945699 (March 7, 1996). Even an award of nominal monetary 

damages may be sufficient to meet this standard. Farrar. Monetary relief 

is not required; non-monetary relief such as reinstatement or a higher 

performance rating is sufficient. Id.

3. An attorney who represents himself is not entitled to an award of fees. 

Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991). Neither a non-attorney nor a federal 

employee (including attorneys) who represents a complainant is entitled to 

an award of fees. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iii). 

C. PRESUMPTION OF ENTITLEMENT 

1. A prevailing complainant is presumptively entitled to fees and costs unless 

special circumstances render such an award unjust. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.501(e)(1)(i); New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 

(1983); Thomas v. Department of State, EEOC Appeal No. 01932717 

(June 10, 1994). Special circumstances should be construed narrowly. 

The following arguments are not sufficient to show special circumstances: 

a. the complainant did not need an attorney; 

b. the complainant‟s attorney worked for a public interest 

organization; 

c. the complainant‟s attorney accepted the case pro bono; 

d. the complainant‟s attorney was paid from some private fee 

agreement; 

e. the complainant was able to pay the costs of the case; 

f. the agency acted in good faith; 

g. the agency took prompt action in remedying the discrimination; 

h. the financial burden of any fee would fall to the taxpayers; 

i. the agency has limited funds. 

See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989); Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain 

Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wilkinson, 800 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-11

F.2d 989 (10th Cir. 1986); Fields v. City of Tarpon Springs, 721 F.2d 318 (11th

Cir. 1983); Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also Wise v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05920056 (April 1, 1992). 

2. Agencies are not required to pay for attorney's fees for services rendered 

during the pre-complaint process unless an Administrative Judge issues a 

decision finding discrimination, the agency issues a final order that does 

not implement the decision, and the EEOC upholds the Administrative 

Judge's decision on appeal. If the agency agrees to fully implement the 

Administrative Judge‟s decision, it cannot be compelled to pay attorney‟s 

fees for fees incurred during the pre-complaint process, except that fees 

may be recovered for a reasonable period of time for services performed in 

reaching the decision whether to represent the complainant. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.501(e)(1)(iv). The agency and the complainant can agree, 

however, that the agency will pay attorney's fees for pre-complaint process 

representation. Id.

3. No attorney‟s fees may be awarded under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act, see Coome v. Social Security Administration, EEOC 

Appeal No. 0720120010 (October 12, 2012), or Equal Pay Act, see

Jacobsen v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0720100046 and 

0720100047 (September 7, 2012), for services performed at the 

administrative level. Lowenstein v. Baldridge, 38 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. 

(BNA) 466 (D.D.C. 1985); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1). 

D. AWARDS TO PREVAILING PARTIES IN NEGOTIATED 

SETTLEMENTS 

1. A complainant who prevails through a negotiated settlement is entitled to 

attorney‟s fees and costs under the same standards as any other prevailing 

party. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980); Copeland v. Marshall, 641 

F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980); EEOC v. Madison Community Unit Sch. Dist.

12, 818 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1987); Cerny v. Department of the Navy, EEOC 

Request No. 05930899 (October 19, 1994). A settlement agreement that 

fails, however, to preserve the issue of fees and costs will operate as an 

implicit waiver of fees and costs. Wakefield v. Matthews, 852 F.2d 482 

(9th Cir. 1988); Elmore v. Shuler, 787 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The 

Commission strongly encourages parties to resolve fee and cost issues by 

negotiated settlement.5

 

 

5Where the parties enter into a settlement agreement that provides for but does not quantify the 

amount of attorney‟s fees and costs, the attorney should submit his/her statement of fees and costs and 

supporting documentation to the agency for determination of the amount due. The agency should issue a 

decision on fees within 60 days of receipt of the statement and supporting documentation. See 29 C.F.R. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-12

2. The Administrative Judge will not review a negotiated fee agreement for 

fairness or reasonableness, except in class cases. Foster v. Boise-Cascade, 

Inc., 577 F.2d 335 (5th Cir.)(per curiam), reh‟g denied, 581 F.2d 267 (5th

Cir. 1978); Jones v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., 721 F.2d 881 

(2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 944 (1984). In class cases, the 

Administrative Judge should review the agreement to ensure that the 

negotiated fee is fair and reasonable to all parties. 

E. AWARDS OF COSTS AND FEES FOR EXPERT AND NON-LAWYER 

SERVICES 

1. A prevailing complainant is entitled to recovery of his/her costs. Costs 

include those costs authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(C). These include: witness fees; transcript costs; and 

printing and copying costs. In addition, reasonable out-of-pocket 

expenses may include all costs incurred by the attorney that are normally 

charged to a fee-paying client in the normal course of providing 

representation. Hafiz v. Department of Defense, EEOC Petition No. 

04960021 (July 11, 1997). These costs may include such items as 

mileage, postage, telephone calls, and photocopying. 

2. A prevailing complainant is entitled to expert fees as part of recoverable 

attorney‟s fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The fee is not limited to per diem 

expenditures, but includes all expenses incurred in connection with the 

retention of an expert. Id. Recovery is generally limited to testifying 

experts, but fees may be awarded for non-testifying experts if the 

complainant can show that the expert‟s services were reasonably 

necessary to the case. 

3. A prevailing complainant is entitled to compensation for the work of law 

clerks, paralegals, and law students under the supervision of members of 

the Bar, at market rates, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iii), but not for 

clerical services. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989). 

4. Reasonable costs incurred directly by a prevailing complainant (for 

example, one who is unrepresented or who is represented by a non-lawyer) 

are compensable. Hafiz, supra. Costs must be proved in the same manner 

as fees are, and the complainant must provide documentation, such as bills 

or receipts. 

 

§ 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(A). If the complainant disputes the amount awarded, s/he may file an appeal with 

the Commission. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-13

5. Witness fees shall be awarded in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1821, 

except that no award shall be made for a federal employee who is in a duty 

status when made available as a witness. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(iii). 

F. COMPUTATION OF ATTORNEY=S FEES 

1. Attorney‟s fees will be computed by determining the “lodestar.” The 

“lodestar” is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a 

reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). 

By regulation, the Commission uses the same basis for calculating the 

amount of attorney‟s fees. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(B). 

a. All hours reasonably spent in processing the complaint are 

compensable. Fees shall be paid for services performed by an 

attorney after the filing of a written complaint, provided that the 

attorney provides reasonable notice of representation to the 

agency, Administrative Judge, or Commission, except that fees are 

allowable for a reasonable period of time prior to the notification 

of representation for any services performed in reaching a 

determination to represent the complainant. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1614.501(e)(1)(iv). 

b. Fees for services rendered during the pre-complaint process may 

be awarded only under the circumstances set forth above in Section 

III.B. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iv). 

c. An attorney is eligible for work performed at the appeals stage for 

an award of fees, provided the complainant prevails at this stage. 

d. The number of hours should not include excessive, redundant, or 

otherwise unnecessary hours. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434; Bernard 

v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01966861 

(July 17, 1998). The presence of multiple counsel at hearing or 

deposition may be considered duplicative in certain situations, 

such as where one or more counsel had little or no participation or 

where the presence of multiple counsel served to delay or prolong 

the hearing or deposition. Hodge v. Department of Transportation, 

EEOC Request No. 05920057 (April 23, 1992). The presence of 

multiple counsel is not necessarily duplicative, however, and is 

often justifiable. Time spent on clearly meritless arguments or 

motions, and time spent on unnecessarily uncooperative or 

contentious conduct may be deducted. Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 

109 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1997); Clanton v. Allied Chemical Corp., 

416 F. Supp. 39 (E.D. Va. 1976).
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-14

e. A reasonable hourly rate is a rate based on “prevailing market rates 

in the relevant community” for attorneys of similar experience in 

similar cases. Cooley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC 

Request No. 05960748 (July 30, 1998) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 

465 U.S. 886 (1984)). A higher rate for time spent at hearing may 

be reasonable if trial work would command a higher rate under 

prevailing community standards. Where multiple attorneys have 

worked on the case, the rate for each attorney should be 

determined separately. The limits on hourly rates contained in the 

Equal Access to Justice Act are not applicable. 

f. The applicable rate for fee awards to public interest attorneys is the 

prevailing hourly rate for the community in general. Hodge v. 

Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05920057 

(April 23, 1992). In Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. 

Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the court held that the 

prevailing market rate should also be used to determine fee awards 

to private, for-profit attorneys who represent certain clients at 

reduced rates, which reflect "non-economic" goals. See also

Cooley v. Department of Veterans Administration, EEOC Request 

No. 05960748 (July 30, 1998); Hatfield v. Department of the 

Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01892909 (December 12, 1989). 

g. The hours spent on unsuccessful claims should be excluded in 

considering the amount of a reasonable fee only where the 

unsuccessful claims are distinct in all respects from the successful 

claims. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). 

h. The degree of success is an important factor in calculating an 

award of attorney‟s fees. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992). 

In determining the degree of success, the relief obtained (including 

both monetary and equitable relief) should be considered in light of 

the complainant‟s goals. City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 

(1986); Cullins v. Georgia Dep‟t of Transportation, 29 F.3d 1489 

(1994). Where the complainant achieved only limited success, the 

complainant should receive only the amount of fees that is 

reasonable in relation to the results obtained. Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Cerny v. Department of the Navy, 

EEOC Request No. 05930899 (October 19, 1994). However, a 

reasonable fee may not be determined by mathematical formula 

based on monetary relief obtained. Riverside; Cullins. The 

determination of the degree of success should be made on a caseby-case basis. In many cases, an award of equitable relief only or 

a small award of monetary damages may reflect a high degree of 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-15

success. Failure to obtain the maximum damages allowable or a 

large monetary award generally does not reflect limited success. 

2. There is a strong presumption that the lodestar represents the reasonable 

fee. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(B). In limited circumstances, the 

lodestar figure may be adjusted upward or downward, taking into account 

the degree of success, the quality of representation, and long delay caused 

by the agency. The lodestar may be adjusted only under the circumstances 

described in this sub-part. 

a. An award of attorney‟s fees may be enhanced in cases of 

exceptional success. The complainant must show that such an 

enhancement is necessary to determine a reasonable fee. City of 

Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992). Conversely, a fee 

award may be reduced in cases of limited success. Texas State 

Teachers Ass=n v. Garland I.S.D., 489 U.S. 782 (1989). However, 

there is no requirement that fee awards be proportional to the 

amount of monetary damages awarded. City of Riverside v. 

Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986). 

b. An award of attorney‟s fees may be enhanced where the quality of 

representation is exceptional. McKenzie v. Kennickell, 875 F.2d 

330 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Conversely, the award of attorney‟s fees 

may be reduced where the quality of representation was poor, the 

attorney‟s conduct resulted in undue delay or obstruction of the 

process, or where settlement likely could have been reached much 

earlier but for the attorney‟s conduct. Lanasa v. City of New

Orleans, 619 F. Supp. 39 (E.D. La. 1985); Barrett v. Kalinowski, 

458 F. Supp. 689 (M.D. Pa. 1978). 

c. The lodestar may not be enhanced to compensate for the risk of 

non-payment, risk of losing the case, or difficulty finding counsel. 

City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992). 

d. A lodestar may be adjusted to compensate for a long delay where 

the delay is caused by the agency. Pennsylvania v. Delaware 

Valley Citizens‟ Council, 483 U.S. 711 (1987). 

e. If the Administrative Judge or agency determines that an 

adjustment to the lodestar is appropriate, the Administrative Judge 

or agency may calculate the adjustment by either adding or 

subtracting a lump sum from the lodestar figure or by adding or 

subtracting a percentage of the lodestar. The Administrative Judge 

or agency has discretion to determine the amount of the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-16

adjustment. Normally, the adjustment should be no more or less 

than 75% of the lodestar figure. The Administrative Judge or 

agency must provide a detailed written explanation of why the 

adjustment was made, and what factors supported the adjustment. 

Coutin v. Young & Rubicam Puerto Rico, Inc., 124 F.3d 331 (1st

Cir. 1997). 

f. The party seeking to adjust the lodestar, either up or down, has the 

burden of justifying the deviation. Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 

880, 892 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Brown v. Department of Commerce, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01944999 (May 17, 1996). 

3. Where a complainant rejects an offer of resolution and the final decision is 

not more favorable than the offer, attorney‟s fees and costs incurred after 

the expiration of the thirty (30) day acceptance period are not 

compensable. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(c)(3). This regulation further 

provides that an Administrative Judge may award attorney‟s fees and costs 

despite the complainant‟s failure to accept an offer of resolution where 

Athe interests of justice would not be served@ by a denial of fees. An 

example of when fees would be appropriate is where the complainant 

received an offer of resolution, but was informed by a responsible agency 

official that the agency would not comply in good faith with the offer (for 

example, would unreasonably delay implementation of the relief offered). 

A complainant who rejected the offer for that reason, and who obtained 

less relief than was contained in the offer of resolution, would not be 

denied attorney‟s fees in this situation.

G. CONTENTS OF FEE APPLICATION AND PROCEDURE FOR 

DETERMINATION 

1. When the decision-making authority, that is, the agency, an 

Administrative Judge, or the Commission, issues a decision finding 

discrimination, the decision normally should provide, under the standards 

set forth above, for the complainant‟s entitlement to attorney‟s fees and 

costs. The complainant‟s attorney then must submit a verified statement 

of attorney‟s fees (including expert witness fees) and other costs, as 

appropriate, to the agency or Administrative Judge within thirty (30) days 

of receipt of the decision and must submit a copy of the statement to the 

agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(i).6

 

6Where the Commission finds discrimination in a case in which the agency takes final action under 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(a), the Commission will remand the case to the Administrative Judge for a 

determination of attorney‟s fees. Where the decision on appeal originates from a case handled 

exclusively by the agency (that is, where the complainant elected a final agency decision under 29 C.F.R. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-17

A statement of attorney‟s fees and costs must be accompanied by an 

affidavit executed by the attorney of record itemizing the attorney‟s 

charges for legal services. A verified statement of fees and costs shall 

include the following: 

a. a list of services rendered itemized by date, number of hours, 

detailed summary of the task, rate, and attorney‟s name; 

b. documentary evidence of reasonableness of hours, such as 

contemporaneous time records, billing records, or a reasonably 

accurate substantial reconstruction of time records; 

c. documentary evidence of reasonableness of rate, such as an 

affidavit stating that the requested rate is the attorney‟s normal 

billing rate, a detailed affidavit of another attorney in the 

community familiar with prevailing community rates for attorneys 

of comparable experience and expertise, a resume, a list of cases 

handled, or a list of comparable cases where a similar rate was 

accepted; and 

d. documentation of costs. 

National Ass‟n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319 

(D.C. Cir. 1982). A fee award may be reduced for failure to provide adequate 

documentation. If seeking an adjustment to the lodestar figure, the fee application 

shall clearly identify the specific circumstances of the case that support the 

requested adjustment. Id.

2. The agency may respond to the statement of fees and costs within 30 days 

of its receipt. If the agency contests the fee request, it must provide 

equally detailed documentation in support of its arguments. National 

Ass‟n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319 

(D.C. Cir. 1982). 

3. Discovery into the reasonableness of the hours or rate is permissible, but 

discouraged. The Administrative Judge has discretion to grant or deny 

permission to conduct discovery by interrogatory or document request. 

4. The Administrative Judge or agency will issue a decision determining the 

amount of attorney‟s fees or costs due within 60 days of receipt of the 

statement and affidavit. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(A). The decision 

 

§ 1614.110(b)), the Commission will remand the case to the agency for a determination of attorney‟s fees. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-18

should provide a written explanation of any award of fees and costs, 

including, as appropriate, findings of fact, analysis, and legal conclusions. 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(ii)(A). The decision must include a notice of 

right to appeal to the EEOC. 

5. The Commission encourages the parties to resolve fee and cost issues by 

negotiated settlement during the 30-day period for filing a fee petition. As 

noted in section IV.B above, the Administrative Judge will not review a 

negotiated fee agreement for fairness or reasonableness, except in class 

cases. 

6. If the Administrative Judge decides to bifurcate the liability and damages 

determinations in a case, the decision on liability should provide for 

entitlement to attorney‟s fees and the subsequent decision on damages 

should also include the determination of the amount of the award of fees 

and costs. The complainant‟s attorney should be directed to submit the 

statement of fees and costs within 30 days of receipt of the decision 

finding liability. The attorney may submit a supplemental petition for fees 

incurred during the damages phase of the case. 

H. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES 

1. An Administrative Judge may award interim fees pendente lite7 where the 

complainant has prevailed on an important non-procedural allegation of 

discrimination in the course of the case. Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 

754 (1980); Trout v. Garrett, 891 F.2d 332 (D.C. Cir. 1989). However, 

interim awards should be granted only under special circumstances, such 

as where a complainant‟s attorney has invested substantial time and 

resources into a case over a long period of time. 

2. A prevailing complainant is entitled to an award of fees for time spent on a 

fee claim including time spent defending the award on appeal. Southeast 

Legal Defense Group v. Adams, 657 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1981); Lund v. 

Affleck, 587 F.2d 75 (1st Cir. 1978). However, the Administrative Judge 

may reduce or eliminate fees for time spent on litigating the fee award 

where fee claims are exorbitant or the time devoted to preparing a fee 

claim is excessive. Gagne v. Maher, 594 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1979), aff‟d, 

448 U.S. 122 (1980). A reasonableness standard applies. Black v.

Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05960390 (December 9, 

1998). 

 

7

Pendente lite is Latin for awaiting the litigation (lawsuit). It is applied to court orders (such as 

temporary child support) which are in effect until the case is tried, or rights that cannot be enforced until 

the lawsuit is over. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-19

3. Even absent a finding of discrimination, the Administrative Judge has 

authority to impose attorney‟s fees and costs as an appropriate sanction for 

refusal to obey discovery or other orders. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3)(v). 

For example, a complainant may be entitled to attorney‟s fees when the 

agency fails without good cause shown to respond to discovery requests, 

Shine v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972201 (December 12, 

1998), or falsifies documents or testimony, Wichy v. Department of the 

Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01962972 (September 25, 1998). Fees and 

costs may be awarded for work associated with efforts to secure discovery 

compliance, even when the complainant does not prevail on the merits. 

Stull v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01942827 (June 15, 

1995). 

4. Attorney‟s fees are available for work pursuing claim for damages. Rivera 

v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 

0120111416 (July 19, 2011). 

VII. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 

A. ENTITLEMENT TO SEEK COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 

1. Pursuant to section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a complainant 

who establishes his or her claim of unlawful discrimination may receive, 

in addition to equitable remedies, compensatory damages for past and 

future pecuniary losses (that is, out of pocket expenses) and non-pecuniary 

losses (for example, pain and suffering, mental anguish). 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981a(b)(3). For an employer with more than 500 employees, the limit 

of liability for future pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is $300,000. 

Id. Complainants prevailing on claims under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as

amended, are not entitled to compensatory damages at the administrative 

level. 

2. Under section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, compensatory damages 

may be awarded for past pecuniary losses, future pecuniary losses, and 

non-pecuniary losses that are directly or proximately caused by the 

agency's discriminatory conduct. Compensatory and Punitive Damages 

Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992). 

3. However, section 102 also provides that an agency is not liable for 

compensatory damages in cases of disability discrimination where the 

agency demonstrates that it made a good faith effort to accommodate the 

complainant's disability. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-20

4. The Commission may set out the amount of compensatory damages to be 

awarded by the respondent agency in its decisions. Alternatively, the 

Commission may remand the matter to the agency for a determination of 

the amount of compensatory damages. 

5. An agency can demonstrate a good faith effort by proving that it consulted 

with the individual with a disability and attempted to identify and make a 

reasonable accommodation. Schauer v. Social Security Administration, 

EEOC Appeal No. 01970854 (July 12, 2001); compare Luellen v. U.S.

Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01951340 (December 23, 1996) 

(Agency demonstrated good faith effort where it consulted with 

complainant and her physicians in attempting to identify a reasonable 

accommodation, despite the fact that these efforts were not sufficient to 

afford complainant a reasonable accommodation); Morris v. Department 

of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01962984 (October 1, 1998) (Agency did 

not make a good faith effort to identify and provide a reasonable 

accommodation for complainant where it did not make any attempt to find 

an available office position for complainant in spite of his repeated 

requests.). 

B. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 

1. Non-Pecuniary Damages

Non-pecuniary losses are losses that are not subject to precise quantification 

including emotional pain and injury to character, professional standing, and 

reputation. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate for losses or 

suffering inflicted due to discrimination. Punitive damages are not available 

against the federal government. 

The particulars of what relief may be awarded, and what proof is necessary to 

obtain that relief, are set forth in detail in EEOC Notice No. 915.002, 

Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992). Briefly stated, the complainant must submit 

evidence to show that the agency's discriminatory conduct directly or proximately 

caused the losses for which damages are sought. Id. at 11-12, 14; Rivera v. 

Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01934157 (July 22, 1994). 

The amount awarded should reflect the extent to which the agency's 

discriminatory action directly or proximately caused harm to the complainant and 

the extent to which other factors may have played a part. EEOC Notice No. 

915.002 at 11-12. The amount of non-pecuniary damages should also reflect the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-21

nature and severity of the harm to the complainant, and the duration or expected 

duration of the harm. Id. at 14. 

In Carle v. Department of the Navy, the Commission explained that “objective 

evidence” of non-pecuniary damages could include a statement by the 

complainant explaining how s/he was affected by the discrimination. EEOC 

Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993). Non-pecuniary damages must be 

limited to the sums necessary to compensate the injured party for the actual harm 

and should take into account the severity of the harm and the length of the time 

the injured party has suffered from the harm. Carpenter v. Department of 

Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995). 

Objective evidence of compensatory damages can include statements from 

complainant concerning his emotional pain or suffering, inconvenience, mental 

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to 

character or reputation, injury to credit standing, loss of health, and any other nonpecuniary losses that are incurred as a result of the discriminatory conduct. Id. 

Statements from others including family members, friends, health care providers, 

other counselors (including clergy) could address the outward manifestations or 

physical consequences of emotional distress, including sleeplessness, anxiety, 

stress, depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of selfesteem, excessive fatigue, significant weight loss or gain, or a nervous 

breakdown. Id. Complainant‟s own testimony, along with the circumstances of a 

particular case, can suffice to sustain his burden in this regard. Id. The more 

inherently degrading or humiliating the defendant's action is, the more reasonable 

it is to infer that a person would suffer humiliation or distress from that action. Id. 

Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory 

prerequisite for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. See

Lawrence v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (Apr 18, 1996) 

(citing Carle v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 

1993)). The absence of supporting evidence, however, may affect the amount of 

damages appropriate in specific cases. Id. 

Non-pecuniary damages must be limited to compensation for the actual harm 

suffered as a result of the agency's discriminatory actions. See Carter v. DuncanHiggans, Ltd., 727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Notice at 13. A proper award 

should take into account the severity of the harm and the length of time that the 

injured party suffered the harm. See Carpenter, supra. Additionally, the amount 

of the award should not be “monstrously excessive” standing alone, should not be 

the product of passion or prejudice, and should be consistent with the amount 

awarded in similar cases. See Jackson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 

01972555 (April 15, 1999), citing Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F. 2d 827, 848 

(7th Cir. 1989). Finally, we note that in determining non-pecuniary compensatory 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

11-22

damages, the Commission has also taken into consideration the nature of the 

agency‟s discriminatory actions. See Utt v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal 

No. 0720070001 (March 26, 2009); Brown-Fleming v. Department of Justice, 

EEOC Appeal No. 0120082667 (October 28, 2010). 

2. Past Pecuniary Damages

Compensatory damages may be awarded for pecuniary losses that are directly or 

proximately caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct. See Compensatory 

and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 

1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 8 (Notice). Pecuniary losses are out-ofpocket expenses incurred as a result of the agency's unlawful action, including 

job-hunting expenses, moving expenses, medical expenses, psychiatric expenses, 

physical therapy expenses, and other quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses. Id. 

Past pecuniary losses are losses incurred prior to the resolution of a complaint 

through a finding of discrimination, or a voluntary settlement. Id. at 8-9. 

In a claim for pecuniary compensatory damages, complainant must demonstrate, 

through appropriate evidence and documentation, the harm suffered as a result of 

the agency's discriminatory action. Rivera v. Department of the Navy, EEOC 

Appeal No. 01934156 (July 22, 1994); Notice at 11-12, 14; Carpenter v. 

Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995). 

Objective evidence in support of a claim for pecuniary damages includes 

documentation showing actual out-of-pocket expenses with an explanation of the 

expenditure. See Notice at 11-12; Carle v. Department of the Navy, EEOC 

Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993). The agency is only responsible for those 

damages that are clearly shown to be caused by the agency's discriminatory 

conduct. Id.. To recover damages, the complainant must prove that the 

employer's discriminatory actions were the cause of the pecuniary loss. Notice at 

8.

3. Future Pecuniary Damages

Future pecuniary losses are losses that are likely to occur after resolution of a 

complaint. See Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 

102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 9 (Notice). 

An award for the loss of future earning potential considers the effect that 

complainant's injury will have on her ability in the future to earn a salary 

comparable with what she earned before the injury. Brinkley v. U.S. Postal 

Service, EEOC Request No. 05980429 (August 12, 1999) citing McKnight v. 

General Motors Corp., 973 F.2d 1366, 1370 (7th Cir. 1992). Where complainant 

has shown that her future earning power has been diminished as a result of the 

agency's discrimination, the Commission has awarded future pecuniary damages 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

11-23

for the loss of future earning capacity. See Morrison V. U.S. Postal Service, 

EEOC Appeal No. 07A50003 (April 18, 2006) citing Brinkley, supra; Hernandez 

v. U.S. Postal Service, EEO Appeal No. 07A30005 (July 16, 2004). Proof of 

entitlement to loss of future earning capacity involves evidence suggesting that 

the individual's injuries have narrowed the range of economic opportunities 

available to her. Carpenter v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 

01945652 (July 17, 1995). Generally, the party seeking compensation for loss of 

earning capacity needs to provide evidence which demonstrates with reasonable 

certainty or reasonable probability that the loss has been sustained. Id., citing 

Annotation, Evidence of Impaired Earnings Capacity, 18 A.L.R. 3d 88, 92 (1968). 

Such evidence need not prove that the injured party will, in the near future, earn 

less than she did previously, but that “[her] injury has caused a diminution in [her] 

ability to earn a living.” Carpenter, supra, citing Gorniak v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger 

Corp., 889 F.2d 481, 484 (3d Cir. 1989). 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

12-1

CHAPTER 12

SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Public policy favors the amicable settlement of disputes. It is clear that this policy in 

favor of settlement of disputes applies particularly to employment discrimination cases. 

See, for example, Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm., 581 

F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Shaw v. Library of Congress, 479 F. Supp. 945 (D.D.C. 

1979). Agencies are encouraged to seek resolution of EEO complaints through 

settlement at any time during the administrative or judicial process. Agencies and EEO 

complainants should be creative in considering settlement terms. In this chapter, we 

discuss the authority for settlements of EEO disputes and various options for those 

settlements. 

II. AUTHORITY 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly encourages the settlement of 

employment discrimination disputes without litigation. Courts have consistently 

encouraged the settlement of discrimination claims and have upheld those settlements 

when challenged. See, for example, Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Comm., 432 U.S. 355 (1977); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 

36 (1974). 

The Supreme Court held in Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U. S. 840 (1976), that federal 

employees have the same rights under the employment discrimination statutes as private 

sector employees, thus recognizing the right of federal employees to enter into voluntary 

settlements with federal agencies. As a result, section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 authorizes agencies to fashion settlements of EEO disputes in resolution of 

such claims. The same analysis applies to disputes brought under section 501 or 505 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

of 1967 and the Equal Pay Act. See Matter of Albert D. Parker, 64 Comp. Gen. 349 

(1985). 

Conciliation and voluntary settlement are critical to efforts to eradicate employment 

discrimination, both in the public and private sectors. The legislative history of section 

717 of Title VII is unequivocal in stressing that the broadest latitude exists in determining 

the appropriate remedy for achieving this end.1

 

1

1. S. Rep. No. 92-415, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1971), reprinted in Senate Comm. on Labor and 

Public Welfare, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 

1972, at 424 (Comm. Print 1972). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

12-2

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's strong support for settlement attempts 

at all stages of the EEO complaint process is codified in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.603, which 

states, "Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to voluntarily settle complaints of 

discrimination as early as possible in, and throughout, the administrative processing of 

complaints, including the pre-complaint counseling stage."2

 Settlement agreements 

entered into voluntarily and knowingly by the parties are binding on the parties. 

Settlements may not involve waiver of remedies for future violations. Settlements of age 

discrimination complaints must also comply with the requirements of the Older Workers 

Benefits Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626, involving waivers of claims. That is, a waiver 

in settlement of an age discrimination complaint must be knowing and voluntary.3

The Department of Justice‟s Office of Legal Counsel has affirmed the broad authority of 

agencies to settle EEO disputes by applying remedies a court could order if the case were 

to go to trial. In an opinion interpreting the authority of an agency to settle a Title VII 

class complaint, the Department's Office of Legal Counsel advised that a complainant can 

obtain in settlement whatever the agency concludes, in light of the facts and recognizing 

the inherent uncertainty of litigation, that a court could order as relief in that case if it 

were to go to trial. In the case it reviewed, which alleged discrimination in classification 

decisions, the Office of Legal Counsel determined that the agency could agree not to 

reclassify positions of specific employees downward because a court could enjoin 

reclassification of the positions of those employees if the court found some cognizable 

danger of recurrent violation. The Office of Legal Counsel found the proposed 

settlement valid under Title VII, even though the Office of Personnel Management 

contended that the agency's authority to reclassify pursuant to applicable statutes, rules, 

and regulations cannot be superseded by settlement. 

The relief provided by an agency to settle an EEO dispute cannot be greater than the 

relief a court could order if that particular dispute were to go to trial. For example, 

assume that a GS-9 employee files an EEO complaint alleging discrimination in the 

denial of a promotion to the level of a GS-11. If the employee has met the time-in-grade 

and any other job-related requirements, it is appropriate to offer in settlement a 

retroactive promotion to GS-11. It would not be appropriate, however, to propose a 

promotion to a GS-12 position for which the employee has not met the requirements. 

 

2One of the mechanisms for settling complaints is the offer of resolution, which is set forth in 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(c). Offers of resolution are not, however, the only way to settle complaints; they 

are a particular method, which, in certain circumstances, can limit an agency's liability for attorney's fees 

and costs. 

3

Section (f)(2) of OWBPA in conjunction with sections (f)(1)(A) through (E) set forth the minimum 

standards. A settlement agreement is knowing and voluntary when the complainant is given a reasonable 

period of time to consider the settlement agreement, and the waiver is worded in a reasonably 

understandable way, specifically refers to rights or claims under the ADEA, and does not waive future 

rights. In addition, the settlement agreement must provide something of value in exchange for the waiver 

and must advise the complainant to consult with an attorney before signing the agreement. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

12-3

However, if an individual was denied promotion to a GS-11 position and one or more 

individuals who got the promotion at that time was subsequently promoted to GS-12 

based on a career ladder, then it may be appropriate to offer a GS -12 position in 

settlement of the complaint. 

On the other hand, parties are encouraged to be creative in resolving an employment 

dispute and may agree to settle a complaint for relief that may be different than that 

which a court might order, as long as it is no greater than what a court might order. For 

example, an agency may settle a complaint involving the termination of an employee by 

agreeing to pay for or provide outplacement services to help the former employee find a 

new job, provided that the cost of the outplacement services does not exceed the total 

monetary relief a court could order if the complainant were to prevail in the case. In 

another example, an agency could agree to reassign a complainant to a different 

supervisor or office in a settlement of a complaint, alleging discriminatory failure to 

promote, where the complainant and the supervisor who made the promotion decision do 

not get along. 

III. TITLE VII AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT OF BACK PAY ACT 

The Comptroller General of the United States has considered objections to settlements of 

EEO disputes in a number of cases. In these decisions, the Comptroller General has 

confirmed the authority of agencies to enter into settlements of EEO claims and 

considered ancillary questions about settlements. 

In one of these decisions, the Comptroller General affirmed that Title VII contains 

authority for remedying employment discrimination and this authority is independent of 

the authority contained in the Back Pay Act to provide back pay only where a finding has 

been made of "an unwarranted and unjustified personnel action." 5 U.S.C. § 5596. "The 

connection between Title VII and the Back Pay Act arises only because EEOC has 

provided in its regulations on remedial actions that when discrimination is found, an 

award of back pay under Title VII is to be computed in the same manner as under the 

Back Pay Act regulations." Matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

Informal Settlement of Discrimination Complaints, 62 Comp. Gen. 239, 242 (1983). The 

authority to award back pay is derived from Title VII; the regulations borrow the formula 

for calculating the amount of back pay owed from the Back Pay Act. 

The independent Title VII authority to settle EEO claims is significant because, unlike 

the Back Pay Act, section 717 of Title VII does not limit awards of back pay to situations 

where there has been a finding of an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action. Thus, 

there is no impediment to an award of back pay as part of a settlement without a finding 

of discrimination. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

12-4

When evaluating the risk of litigation versus the cost of settlement, agencies should 

include the cost of a federal retirement annuity in their consideration, if an annuity would 

become payable immediately. This reflects the actual cost to the government of the 

proposed settlement and should be considered when deciding whether the settlement is in 

the interest of the government. This calculation may lead an agency to explore 

alternative solutions, such as purchasing a private annuity. The purchase of a private 

annuity may not be desirable in all instances, but can be considered as a possible 

alternative. Following are some examples that reflect this calculation: 

1. An employee at a GS-14, step 10, separates at age 50 with 25 years of 

service. His only annuity eligibility is for a deferred annuity at age 62. 

The present value of this deferred benefit (when the employee is age 50) is 

$259,992. If, under the terms of a settlement agreement, his separation is 

changed to an involuntary separation (thus entitling him to an immediate 

discontinued service retirement benefit), the value of the benefit is 

$691,546. Thus, the cost to the government resulting from the settlement 

is the difference, or an additional $431,554. 

2. An employee at a GS-14, step 10, separates at age 55 with 30 years of 

service, and therefore is eligible for an immediate annuity. The value of 

this annuity is $843,800. If, in settlement, she is retroactively promoted to 

a GS-15, step 10, for three years, the value of her annuity becomes 

$992,669. This means the settlement costs the government an additional 

$148,869 in retirement annuities. 

3. An employee at GS-14, step 10, separates at age 56 with 30 years of 

service and is eligible for an immediate annuity valued at $825,588. If, 

pursuant to a settlement, he is retroactively considered a law enforcement 

officer for 20 years of his federal career, the value of his retirement benefit 

becomes $1,027,344. Thus, the settlement adds $201,756 to the 

government's cost of his retirement. 

4. An employee at a GS-14, step 10, separates at age 50 with 25 years of 

service. When the employee is 55, the value of her deferred annuity 

payable at age 62 is $364,653. If the employee is returned to the agency's 

rolls for five years, enabling her to retire immediately, her retirement 

benefit has a value of $1,044,361. This settlement would add $679,708 to 

the government's costs. 

5. In settlement, the level of a GS-12, step 10, employee is retroactively 

changed to GS-14, step 10, for a period of three years. Assuming that she 

is entitled to an immediate annuity, the value of her retirement benefit is 

raised from $582,132 to $817,945. Thus, the additional cost to the 

government of this settlement is $235,813. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

12-5

IV. NO FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION NECESSARY FOR SETTLEMENTS 

It has long been the practice in both the private sector and the federal sector for 

employers and agencies to enter into settlements that contain cash payments where there 

has been neither a finding of discrimination, either judicially or administratively, nor an 

admission by the employer or agency of any wrongdoing. 

The Comptroller General has supported these settlements, stating "it is beyond question 

that an agency has the general authority to informally settle a discrimination complaint 

and to award back pay with a retroactive promotion or reinstatement in an informal 

settlement without a specific finding of discrimination." Matter of Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, Informal Settlement of Discrimination Complaints, 62 Comp. 

Gen. 239, 242 (1983). 

V. CASH AWARDS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PERSONNEL ACTIONS 

Settlements of EEO disputes may contain monetary payments that are independent of any 

personnel action, provided that the monetary payment does not exceed the amount of 

back pay, attorney's fees,4 costs or damages5 the employee would have been entitled to in 

the case if discrimination had been actually found. 

The Comptroller General has considered settlements of EEO disputes comprised of 

monetary payments unconnected to personnel actions on at least two occasions and held 

that they were authorized and appropriate. 

[W]e conclude that Federal agencies have the authority in informally settling 

discrimination complaints filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, to make awards of backpay, attorney's fees, or costs, without a 

corresponding personnel action and without a finding of discrimination, provided 

that the amount of the award agreed upon must be related to backpay and may not 

exceed the maximum amount that would be recoverable under Title VII if a 

finding of discrimination were made. 

Id., 62 Comp. Gen. at 244; Matter of Albert D. Parker, 64 Comp. Gen. 349 (1985). 

 

4Attorney's fees are not available during the administrative process of complaints brought under the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Equal Pay Act. 

5The Commission has the authority to award compensatory damages during the administrative 

process. Gibson v. West, 527 U.S. 212 (1999). Agencies, therefore, are authorized to pay compensatory 

damages in a settlement during the administrative process. Compensatory damages should be calculated 

separately from back pay, other benefits, and fees, and are limited to no more than $300,000. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

12-6

VI. PERSONNEL ACTIONS WITH LUMP SUM PAYMENTS 

An agency may informally settle an EEO complaint by providing a lump sum payment as 

a retroactive personnel action in lieu of back pay. As long as the settlement does not 

exceed the relief to which the complainant would be entitled if a finding of discrimination 

had been made, it is authorized. 

If the settlement provides for a retroactive personnel action, all appropriate contributions 

to the retirement funds must be made. Settlements may resolve claims actually made and 

also claims that could be made, provided that the factual predicate for the claims that 

could be made has occurred. For example, an agency may settle a complainant's formal 

complaint, alleging failure to promote and include relief for the complainant's retaliation 

claim, which has not been raised, except in the settlement discussions. 

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1991 provided for award of compensatory damages in 

appropriate cases, settlements often provide for one lump sum amount covering monetary 

relief, even when there is a personnel action involved as well. In these cases, parties can 

agree to an overall figure in the settlement that represents damages, back pay, and 

attorney's fees. That figure can reflect the maximum amount a court could award, and 

need not be limited to an amount that the agency believes a complainant can prove in 

court. The settlement agreement does not need to contain a separate breakdown of the 

lump sum showing individual amounts of back pay, damages, and fees. The lump sum 

agreed to by the parties can be equal to or less than the total amount of back pay, 

damages, and fees that would be awarded if a finding of discrimination were made. A 

lump sum cannot, under any circumstances, exceed the amount that the agency 

concludes, in light of the facts and recognizing the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a 

court could award if a lawsuit were brought. 

If a lump sum settlement is intended to award enhanced retirement benefits as part of its 

terms, the rates of basic pay or grade and step deemed to be received by the complainant, 

and the periods during which each rate of pay was received, must be specified in the 

settlement terms. OPM advises that if this specific information is not set out in the 

settlement document, the terms of the settlement will not be included in the calculation of 

the complainant's retirement benefits. 

VII. IMPLEMENTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS 

There may be some instances where a proposed informal settlement appears to be at odds 

with normal personnel procedure or practice contained in regulations implementing 

Title 5 of the United States Code or processing guidance of the Office of Personnel 

Management. Such situations could arise where Office of Personnel Management 

regulations or guidance foresee personnel actions taken in the normal course of business 

and do not generally discuss personnel actions taken pursuant to court order or a 
DRAFT for COMMENT

2013 EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

12-7

settlement. Title VII provides authority to enter into settlements of EEO complaints,6

and, likewise, Title VII provides authority for agencies to effectuate the terms of those 

settlements. 

Chapter 32, Section 6(b) of OPM's Guide to Processing Personnel Actions describes the 

procedure for documenting personnel actions taken as the result of a settlement 

agreement, court order, EEOC or MSPB decision. The purpose of this procedure is to 

protect the privacy of the employee. 

Rather than including personal and irrelevant settlement information on the employee's 

SF-50, the SF-50 may be processed with the computer code "HAM." ("HAM" is a 

computer code that prints on the SF-50 a citation to 5 C.F.R. § 250.101.) If an agency's 

computer system does not permit the use of the citation "HAM," then the SF-50 may cite 

to 5 C.F.R. § 250.101. This section of the Code of Federal Regulations indicates that the 

personnel action is processed under an appropriate legal authority. 

 

6As noted earlier in this chapter, the same analysis applies to EEO complaints filed under the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Equal Pay Act 

of 1963. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix A MD-110

Management Directive 

App. A-1 

APPENDIX A EEO-MD-110 

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

THE U.S. [NON CONFLICT AGENCY]

AND

THE U.S. [AGENCY] 

A. Purpose, Authority, and Scope

The U.S. [Non Conflict AGENCY (hereinafter "NC Agency") and the U.S. [AGENCY] 

(hereinafter "agency") hereby agree that, in accordance with the terms of this Interagency 

Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) and the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1535, the NC 

agency shall assume responsibility for investigating the following Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) complaint filed with the agency: 

[Complainant] v. [AGENCY] [Case No.] 

Through this interagency acquisition, the agency is obtaining needed investigative 

services from the NC agency on a reimbursable basis. 

B. Responsibilities of the NC Agency

With respect to the matters identified in Part A of this Agreement, and pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. §1614.607, the agency herein officially delegates authority to the NC agency as 

follows: 

1. The NC agency shall investigate the complaint in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. §1614.108(b)-(e).

2. The NC agency shall prepare an investigative file and an investigative 

summary.

3. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the NC agency shall forward the 

investigative file to the agency to continue processing in accordance with 

29 C.F.R. Part 1614.
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix A EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. A-2 

C. Responsibilities of Agency

With respect to the complaint identified under Part A of this Agreement, the agency 

agrees to assume the following responsibilities: 

1. The agency shall transmit the complaint file to the NC agency for investigation 

within seven calendar days of the date that this Agreement is signed by the NC 

agency and received by the agency by fax or mail, whichever is earlier. 

2 The agency shall cooperate fully with the NC agency staff assigned to the 

investigation of the complaint covered by this Agreement. This cooperation shall 

include, but not be limited to, the following: 

a. making agency officials and employees available for interviews, 

conferences, and statements under oath with the NC agency at times and 

places designated by the NC agency, including any employees deemed by 

the NC agency to be witnesses necessary to furnish information pertinent 

to the complaint. This includes the obligation to provide official time to 

these employees and to pay their necessary travel expenses; 

b. promptly responding to any written or oral requests for information 

received from the NC agency; 

c. designating and making available, an agency official who is 

authorized to discuss and enter into a voluntary settlement of the 

complaint; and 

d. ensuring that the agency representative: 

i. not request, or be provided with, any EEO complaint record 

document during the investigation; 

ii. not be present when the investigator meets with a witness 

or a potential witness, except at the express request of the witness. 

Agency representatives may inform witnesses that they have the 

right to have an agency representative present when they meet with 

the investigator; and 

iii. not speak to witnesses concerning their testimony prior to 

or during the investigation unless the contact with the agency 

representative was initiated by the witness. 

3. Upon receipt of the investigative file from the NC agency, the agency will 

notify the complainant in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix A MD-110

Management Directive 

App. A-3 

a. The agency will reimburse the NC agency, as provided below and in 

accordance with Parts D and E of this Agreement, actual costs 

associated with the NC agency's investigation, to include the 

following: 

i. Reimbursement to the NC agency for all time spent by the 

assigned NC agency personnel to investigate the complaint and 

prepare the investigative file; 

ii. Reimbursement to the NC agency for all time spent by the 

NC agency clerical personnel for clerical work related to the 

investigation of the complaint and preparation of the investigative 

file;

iii. Reimbursement to the NC agency of standard rate factor 

(28%) of the salary rates reimbursed in sections (i) and (ii), above, 

for benefits and other costs associated with the administration of 

this Agreement. 

b. The agency will pay, as provided below and in accordance with Parts 

D and E of this Agreement the following costs: 

i. Payment for all air, hotel, per diem and other travel 

expenses as authorized by the Federal Travel Regulations for travel 

by the NC agency personnel required to investigate the complaint; 

ii. Payment for all costs for the services of a qualified court 

reporter (not an agency employee) to take verbatim affidavits or 

statements and prepare transcripts in connection with any 

investigative proceeding; 

iii. Payment for all copying services of a commercial vendor 

determined to be necessary to reproduce the investigative file; and 

iv. Payment for all other actual costs agreed to by agency prior 

to incurrence of the cost, as may be necessary to the NC agency's 

investigation of the complaint. 

D. NC Agency's Right to Determine Investigative Method

The NC agency reserves the right to determine the investigative techniques and 

procedures to be utilized in the investigation of the complaint identified in Part A of this 

Agreement. In the event that the NC agency elects to have verbatim affidavits or 

statements of the witnesses made at fact finding conferences or other investigative 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix A EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. A-4 

proceedings, the agency agrees, subject to a ten (10) working day advance request by the 

NC agency to take all necessary steps to procure the services of a qualified court reporter 

to transcribe investigative proceedings and to prepare transcripts of those proceedings. 

The NC agency shall not arrange and provide court reporter services on a 

reimbursable basis. All arrangements shall be made by the agency and all bills for 

transcription services and transcripts shall be sent directly to the agency. Such bills shall 

not be sent to the NC agency. 

The agency is responsible for ensuring that a requested court reporter is available on the 

day and at the time and location specified by the NC agency. The original transcript of 

any proceeding and any copies ordered shall be sent directly to the NC agency within the 

time frame deemed necessary by the NC agency, but not later than ten calendar days

from the date of the investigative proceeding. 

E. Procedure for Reimbursement

1. Upon completion of the investigation, the NC agency shall present to the 

agency an itemized billing statement of the costs and expenses and the total hours 

expended by the assigned NC agency personnel for services related to the 

investigation of the complaint pursuant to Part C. 4. a. of this Agreement. 

As appropriate the itemized billing statement shall include a standard rate factor 

for employee benefits and administration (28%, as provided in Part C. 4. a. of this 

Agreement). The time expended by the assigned NC agency personnel 

investigating the complaint shall include time spent in a travel status, and for 

other time spent on the investigation either during or after normal duty hours. 

 The statement shall also include a recitation of the total dollar amount to be 

reimbursed to the NC agency by the agency. Such amount shall be calculated by 

multiplying the total hours expended by the official hourly rate of the assigned 

NC agency personnel based on the individual's official grade and step and in 

accordance with the applicable federal pay schedule. 

Upon presentation of the itemized billing statement, collection shall be effected 

by the NC agency via the U.S. Treasury's intra-governmental payment and 

collection system (IPAC) using the following agency accounting data: 

Agency Location Code: ________________

Appropriation Code: ________________

DUNS/BPN Number: ________________

Collection shall be made no later than thirty calendar days of the billing. The 

NC agency's liaison regarding billing is [Name], [phone number] . The agency's 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix A MD-110

Management Directive 

App. A-5 

liaison regarding this Agreement is ____________________________________, 

_________________ [please insert name, phone number]. 

2. In the event that the complaint is settled, withdrawn by the complainant or 

canceled by the agency prior to the NC agency's completion of the investigation 

the NC agency shall present agency an itemized billing statement for all hours 

expended by the assigned NC agency personnel up to such time as the complaint 

is settled, withdrawn or canceled and costs incurred by the NC agency. 

3. Travel expenses relating to the investigation shall be paid by the agency at 

GSA rates as travel is performed. Travel shall not be arranged and paid for by 

the NC agency on a reimbursable basis. When the agency‟s designated contact 

person for the complaint is notified by the NC agency that travel arrangements are 

necessary with respect to the investigation of the complaint, the contact person 

shall arrange or cause to be arranged all round-trip travel arrangements to include 

all airline scheduling and tickets, lodging accommodations at the destination and 

authorized per diem. 

Prior to travel, the agency shall deliver the necessary airline tickets (either by 

paper or notification of availability of electronic ticket), confirmation of lodging 

arrangements and any travel advance as authorized by the Federal Travel 

Regulations to the designated NC agency personnel. Upon completion of the 

travel, the NC agency shall present the agency with the necessary information and 

documents for the agency to prepare a travel claim for the signature of the 

personnel investigating the complaint. The agency shall promptly process and 

settle such travel claims. 

F. Agreement Effective Date, Term Modification and Termination

This Agreement will become effective when signed by both the agency and the NC 

agency and will remain in effect until completion of the investigation and final payment 

of costs as set forth herein is made by the agency; the complaint is settled, withdrawn by 

the complainant or cancelled by the agency and final payment of costs as set forth herein 

is made by the agency. The NC agency and the agency may modify this Agreement by 

written consent. The NC agency or the agency may terminate this Agreement by giving 

30 days advance written notice to the other. 

Should a disagreement arise on the interpretation of the provisions of this agreement, or 

amendments and/or revisions thereto, that cannot be resolved at the operating level, the 

area(s) of disagreement shall be stated in writing by each party and presented to the other 

party for consideration. If agreement on interpretation is not reached within thirty (30) 

days, the parties shall forward the written presentation of the disagreement to respective 

higher officials for appropriate resolution. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix A EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. A-6 

G. Signatures and Date 

FOR THE U.S. [AGENCY]: 

________________________________________________ __ 

_____________________ 

[Name] Date 

[Title] 

FOR THE U.S. [NC AGENCY]: 

_________________________________________________ ____________________ 

[Name] Date 

[Title]
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-1 

APPENDIX B EEO-MD-110 

EEO COUNSELING TECHNIQUES 

This attachment can be used to develop or refine counseling techniques when traditional 

counseling is selected. Below are suggested methods to follow in each step of the counseling 

process. 

EEO counseling consists of the following steps: 

1. Preparing for the effort 

2. Holding discussions 

3. Assessing the situation 

4. Determining appropriate resolution technique(s) 

5. Using informal resolution technique(s) 

In reviewing each step, the Counselor must remember that each informal resolution situation will 

be different and each Counselor will have his/her own style. There will probably be times when 

the Counselor will need to make modifications to fit the situation. 

A. Meeting with the Aggrieved Person

1. Initial Actions

a. Upon contact by an aggrieved person, the Counselor should record the 

date and set an appointment for the initial counseling session to discuss the 

dispute. Before the initial meeting, the Counselor should advise the 

aggrieved person of his/her right to be accompanied, advised, and 

represented by a representative at any stage in the complaint process, 

including the counseling stage. 

Also, the Counselor must advise the aggrieved person that the aggrieved 

person will remain anonymous during counseling unless s/he chooses not 

to remain anonymous. 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.105(g). 

b. The Counselor should begin the initial meeting with the aggrieved person 

by explaining the role of the Counselor. The Counselor should then give 

him/her an opportunity to explain the problem. The Counselor should 

create an atmosphere which is open to good communication and dialogue. 

c. The Counselor should listen attentively in order to get an understanding of 

the issues involved (the facts as the aggrieved person sees them and the 

action(s) alleged to be discriminatory). Once the aggrieved person has had 

the opportunity to relate the dispute fully, the Counselor will be in a better 

position to define the claims(s) and basis(es) involved, determine if the 

problem comes under the purview of the anti-discrimination laws, and 

determine if special procedures apply. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-2 

d. The Counselor should find out if the aggrieved person tried to resolve the 

problem or brought the problem to the agency's attention before seeking 

counseling and, if so, how. Part of the problem might be that s/he did not 

use the appropriate mechanisms to handle the problem prior to seeking 

counseling and, if properly handled, the problem may be easily resolved. 

e. The Counselor should ask the aggrieved person whether s/he is willing to 

meet with agency officials. 

f. If the dispute is to be handled under Part 1614, the Counselor should 

provide the aggrieved person with an overview of informal counseling and 

the discrimination complaint process under Part 1614, including required 

notifications and time frames, and answer any questions s/he may have 

about counseling and the complaint process. 

g. If a dispute involves employment discrimination and the aggrieved person 

chooses to have his/her case processed by the agency, the EEO Counselor 

must provide counseling, regardless of whether the EEO Counselor 

believes the case has merit. 

2. Disputes Not Involving Discrimination

After listening to and asking questions of the aggrieved person, it may become 

apparent that s/he is not alleging discrimination on one or more of the bases 

protected by the anti-discrimination laws. For example, a person may allege that 

s/he was the target of reprisal for union activities. In the absence of facts to show 

that the union activities are related to participation in protected EEO activities or 

related to opposing discriminatory practices, the Counselor can offer other 

alternatives for redress. 

3. Disputes Involving Prohibited Discrimination

When the dispute involves an allegation of discrimination, the Counselor should 

proceed with the initial counseling session and do the following: 

a. Determine whether special procedures apply (i.e., mixed case, negotiated 

grievance procedure, or age). Also, advise the aggrieved individual how 

the agency=s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process works in 

counseling, and of the aggrieved person=s option to choose ADR during 

the counseling stage of the process where the agency agrees to offer ADR 

in the particular case. 

b. Find out as many specifics as possible concerning the individual's reasons 

for believing discrimination has occurred. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-3 

c. Ask the aggrieved person what it would take, in his/her view, to resolve 

the problem. For example: The aggrieved person alleges race 

discrimination in an agency's selection of trainees for a computer training 

program. The Counselor should determine what the aggrieved person will 

accept to resolve the problem. Suppose the aggrieved person will accept 

being placed at the top of the agency's waiting list for the next available 

opening. The Counselor may be able to resolve this dispute by presenting 

the offer to agency officials as a first step. If the agency agrees, the 

Counselor has avoided the need to formulate a resolution strategy. 

Learning early on exactly what it is that the aggrieved person is seeking 

may well provide the basis for a prompt resolution and save everyone 

time. 

d. Make sure the aggrieved person understands that s/he cannot be forced to 

agree to any proposed solutions or to reach an agreement with the agency 

and that s/he may file a formal complaint. 

e. Conclude the initial EEO counseling session by making sure that the 

procedural requirements of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 were followed and that 

enough information was obtained to attempt resolution. 

B. Meeting with Agency Officials 

1. Explain the aggrieved person's allegations and summarize the reasons or facts s/he 

gave for believing there has been discrimination. The aggrieved person's name 

can be used only if anonymity has been waived in writing. 

2. Explain or answer any questions about EEO counseling and the federal complaint 

process. Emphasize that the Counselor's role is to attempt to resolve a dispute. If 

counseling is successful and resolution is reached, then the need to file a formal 

complaint is avoided. 

3. Give the agency an opportunity to present its position on the matters raised by the 

aggrieved person and ask agency officials to suggest ways the problem might be 

resolved. 

4. Try to get a sense of the relationship between the aggrieved person and the 

responding agency official (assuming the aggrieved person did not request 

anonymity). Is the relationship hostile, perhaps because of past dealings? Is the 

agency official interested in meeting with the aggrieved person? 

5. Make sure that agency officials understand that the agency cannot be forced to 

enter into an agreement as a result of EEO counseling. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-4 

C. Considering Factors in Situation

The Counselor's approach to a given situation will depend on several factors, including 

the following: 

1. Nature of the alleged discriminatory acts and characteristics of the dispute 

between the parties. 

2. Relationship between the aggrieved person and the agency. 

3. Whether the Counselor must gather facts beyond those provided by the aggrieved 

person and the agency. 

4. Acceptance by the aggrieved person and the agency of various resolution 

techniques. 

5. The Counselor's willingness to participate in various resolution techniques. 

D. Conducting the Inquiry

1. Focus on the Issue(s) and Basis(es)

The Counselor may be required to interview witnesses and review agency records. 

An inquiry into an EEO dispute begins when the Counselor attempts to gather 

information following the initial meeting with the aggrieved person. Upon 

completion of this initial meeting with the aggrieved person, the claim(s) raised 

should be clearly defined and the basis(es), i.e., race, color, sex (including equal 

pay, pregnancy, transgender, and sex stereotypes), religion, national origin, age, 

reprisal, genetic information, and/or disability, identified. The Counselor should 

keep in mind that the aggrieved person is best able to assist in defining the 

issue(s) since s/he is an involved party. The Counselor should not conclude an 

initial interview with the aggrieved party without a clear understanding of the 

issue(s) and basis(es). 

The direction the inquiry will take depends upon the Counselor's understanding of 

the issue(s) and basis(es). If the issue(s) involves a personnel action, it will be 

necessary to identify the action with as much specificity as possible. For 

example, if the aggrieved person alleges discrimination in a promotion action, the 

Counselor must at least determine the position applied for, and whether the 

aggrieved person was qualified, was on the list of best qualified candidates, was 

interviewed, and whether a selection was made. This information will help to 

focus the inquiry on the specific portion of the personnel action at issue. The 

Counselor must include dates to ensure that the dispute was raised in a timely 

manner. For those issues that involve actions other than personnel actions 

documented by an SF-50, the data gathering approach is the same, but gathering 

information can be more difficult. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-5 

2. Data Gathering from Witnesses and Agency Records

a. Once the claims(s) and basis(es) are defined, the Counselor will need to 

determine if it is necessary to gather information from sources other than 

the aggrieved person and agency representative in order to attempt 

resolution. Potential sources of information could include witnesses and 

written documentation or records. 

If the Counselor determines that witness interviews are necessary, s/he 

should attempt to interview witnesses who have direct knowledge of a 

particular situation. The Counselor should limit witness interviews to 

those persons who can provide information that will help the Counselor 

better understand the dispute so that resolution can be attempted. 

Sometimes witness interviews will be the only source of information other 

than information obtained from the aggrieved person and the agency. 

Such disputes would include allegations of harassment, either sexual or 

otherwise, or situations where the issue raised is one of inappropriate 

conduct or treatment based on a prohibited reason. 

b. Early in the process, the Counselor must determine what documents 

control the action taken; i.e., whether there is a written agency procedure 

that must be followed in certain situations. For example, if the issue 

involves a promotion action, the Counselor should decide if it is necessary 

to review the applicable promotion plan and, if so, determine where the 

plan is maintained. The Counselor may be able to obtain needed 

information from official personnel folders, supervisors' working files, or 

wherever the personnel action is maintained, such as a promotion folder. 

By making inquiries, the EEO Counselor will soon learn where such 

documents are kept and who maintains the records. 

When looking at individual records, the EEO Counselor should keep in 

mind that his/her role is to achieve informal resolution at the lowest 

possible level, so the number of records reviewed should be kept to a 

minimum. Only records of the aggrieved person and of those who 

allegedly received different, more favorable treatment should be examined 

in an effort to achieve informal resolution. 

The Counselor's first contact may be at the personnel office, but the 

Counselor may determine other sources for obtaining needed documents. 

For situations which EEO Counselors encounter often, the following types 

of issues will require review of certain records: 

(1) Promotion - The promotion folder should include the vacancy 

announcement, job description, ranking/rating factors, and SF- 171 

or applications of at least the aggrieved person and the selectee. 

The Counselor should notify the personnel office that an EEO 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-6 

inquiry was made concerning a promotion action. The Counselor 

should request that documents relating to the promotion action, 

which might ordinarily be destroyed, be retained while the inquiry 

is pending. 

(2) Time and Attendance - Agency regulations/orders on time and 

attendance, time and attendance records of the aggrieved person 

and person(s) the aggrieved person is comparing himself/herself to, 

and how each is treated. 

(3) Training -Agency procedures for requesting and recommending 

training, any forms required, and training approved or denied with 

reason(s). 

(4) Appraisal/Rating - Agency regulations/orders on system implementation and administration, elements and standards, performance requirements, rating of the aggrieved person, and ratings 

prepared by same rating and/or reviewing official of similarly 

situated employees. 

c. In reviewing documentation, the Counselor should copy only documents 

needed in the discussions that will follow the initial inquiry. Notes should 

be kept, but the identity of comparators should not be revealed to the 

aggrieved person. Review of documents should be restricted to those that 

relate to the issue(s) raised by the aggrieved person and are necessary to 

resolve the concerns informally at the lowest possible level. 

EEO counseling will often involve the use of various techniques to bring 

about early resolution. For example, it may include: 

(1) Holding separate meetings, followed by joint meetings, and then 

telephone contact to work out details of an agreement; 

(2) Holding a joint meeting to set forth the facts as both sides see 

them, followed by separate meetings with the parties in which the 

various possibilities for resolution are explored; or 

(3) Conducting a conference call or separate telephone calls to the 

parties during which the dispute is resolved. Care should be taken 

to protect anonymity unless waived. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-7 

E. Developing a Resolution Strategy for 30-Day Counseling Period

1. Joint Meetings (An aggrieved person must agree to a joint meeting)

a. Advantages: 

(1) Gives the aggrieved person and the agency an opportunity to 

present the facts as each sees them and to clarify points of 

confusion or misunderstanding. 

2) Gives the parties an opportunity to explore directly with each other 

the means for resolving issues underlying the problems. 

(3) Helps the parties establish a more constructive working relationship by getting a better understanding of each other's concerns. 

(4) Enables the parties to "shake hands" on any agreements reached 

and to work together to put them in writing. 

(5) Allows the Counselor better control of the process, making sure 

that the parties treat each other as equals and that threats or 

coercion are not used. 

b. Disadvantages: 

(1) Risks a blow-up, a hardening of positions, and increased 

antagonism. 

(2) May require the parties to call a recess to explore changes in 

position with others (e.g., counsel). 

(3) May be difficult to schedule. 

(4) Can be costly when the parties are in different locations. 

c. The Counselor Should Use This Approach When: 

(1) The parties' positions are based on different facts or different 

perceptions of the same facts. 

(2) The parties have not had an opportunity to talk with each other or 

would like a way to reopen discussions. 

(3) The Counselor is confident that s/he will be able to control the 

joint meeting. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-8 

2. Separate Meetings

a. Advantages: 

(1) Allows the Counselor to learn more about the parties' specific 

concerns and priorities. 

(2) Allows the Counselor to explore alternatives. 

(3) Allows the parties to ask questions they do not want to ask in front 

of the other party. 

(4) Prevents the possibility of intimidation. 

(5) May be easier to schedule than a joint meeting. 

b. Disadvantages: 

(1) May lead the parties to wonder what the Counselor is saying to the 

other side. 

(2) Unless the resolution reached through separate meetings is restated in a joint meeting or through a conference call, the parties do 

not have the opportunity to talk with each other to make sure each 

has the same interpretation of the agreement. It is easier for the 

parties to blame the Counselor for any future misunderstanding 

about the resolution. 

(3) May put the Counselor in the position of having to pass messages 

back and forth between parties. Misunderstanding of the messages 

may occur in their transmission. 

c. The Counselor Should Use This Approach When: 

(1) The parties' hostility and antagonism can get in the way of 

substantive discussions. 

(2) The Counselor needs a better understanding of issues and priorities 

to be able to control a subsequent joint meeting. 

(3) The Counselor needs to help one or both parties be realistic about 

possible solutions. 

(4) Scheduling is a problem. 

(5) The parties do not have a current relationship. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-9 

(6) One party is afraid to meet with the other. 

3. Telephone Communication

a. Advantages: 

(1) May be easier to schedule and quicker than joint meetings. 

(2) Less costly. 

(3) For advantages of conference calls, refer to advantages of joint 

meetings. 

(4) For advantages of separate calls, refer to advantages of separate 

meetings. 

b. Disadvantages: 

(1) Impersonal communication resulting from the inability to see how 

the person is responding to what is said. Harder to gain the rapport 

needed to explore issues and alternatives. 

(2) For disadvantages of conference calls, refer to disadvantages of 

joint meetings. Note: it may be easier to hang up the telephone 

than leave a meeting chaired by an EEO Counselor. 

(3) For disadvantages of separate calls, refer to disadvantages of 

separate meetings. 

c. The Counselor Should Use This Approach When: 

(1) The parties are in different locales and are not logistically able to 

meet face to face. 

(2) The issues are comparatively easy to deal with, such as those based 

on a misunderstanding or incorrect information. 

(3) The Counselor needs more information to determine if counseling 

is productive, and scheduling a meeting for this purpose is too 

time-consuming. 

4. Attempting Resolution

When the Counselor has a good grasp of the issues involved and has decided on 

which EEO counseling technique to use, s/he is ready to attempt resolution. 

Resolution of an EEO problem means that the aggrieved person and the agency 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-10

come to terms with a problem and agree on a solution. The Counselor should 

generally concentrate on resolving individual cases independently; but, when 

appropriate, the Counselor should ask for assistance from the EEO officer in 

reaching a solution or correcting a problem. When asking the EEO officer for 

help, the Counselor should relate what s/he has learned in the inquiry (using the 

aggrieved person's name only if s/he has given permission) and be prepared to 

recommend specific action. 

There is no set formula for a Counselor to follow in attempting a resolution using 

the techniques described. The Counselor can attempt resolution by talking with 

the parties separately or together. The Counselor can talk with them together only 

if the aggrieved person has given permission; otherwise, they must be spoken 

with separately. 

The following subsections highlight barriers faced when attempting resolution 

and provide guidance on how to attempt resolution using the EEO counseling 

techniques of joint meetings, separate meetings, and telephone communication. 

5. Obstacles to Informal Resolution

In order to resolve an EEO dispute, the agency and the aggrieved person must 

agree on a solution. However, only the agency has the authority to resolve an 

EEO dispute. Like most situations involving two parties, the Counselor can 

expect obstacles to resolution of EEO disputes. These obstacles can be put up by 

both parties. The challenge is to overcome these obstacles and work out a 

solution. 

Sometimes obstacles can be overcome by bringing the parties together and having 

them candidly discuss their attitude toward working out a solution. Other times, 

obstacles can be lessened by helping the parties explore possible outcomes if the 

dispute is escalated to the formal complaint level. However, the EEO Counselor 

must recognize that not all obstacles can be overcome and attempts at resolution

should end when it is apparent that the parties are unable to come to an 

agreement. 

a. Some agency obstacles are listed below:

(1) "There was no discrimination, so nothing should be done." 

(2) "The decision at issue was correctly made, procedures were 

correct, and nothing should be done for the aggrieved person." 

(3) "Resolution will encourage frivolous complaints." 

(4) "Subordinates and supervisors will lose respect for a manager who 

settles rather than fights." 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-11

b. Aggrieved persons may also impose obstacles to successful resolutions of 

problems. Such obstacles may include:

(1) "Discrimination must be punished." 

(2) "My manager must be disciplined." 

(3) "My manager must apologize" 

(4) "No remedy is sufficient." 

(5) "The agency must pay punitive 

damages."1

F. Attempting Resolution Using the Joint Meeting Technique 

This subsection outlines the steps and activities involved in arranging and conducting 

joint meetings. The Counselor should make sure the aggrieved person has consented to 

joint meetings with the agency before arranging a joint meeting. 

1. Arranging a Joint EEO Counseling Session

a. The Counselor should select a location convenient for both parties. 

b. The Counselor should arrange a date and time convenient to both parties, 

but as soon as possible. 

c. If there does not seem to be a mutually acceptable time for the parties to 

meet, consider the following questions: 

(1) Is there a suitable and feasible alternative to the joint meeting? If 

so, the Counselor should use it. 

(2) Does the scheduling problem appear to be real, or does it appear to 

be a delaying tactic? 

(3) If the scheduling problem appears to be real, how do the parties 

feel about postponing the meeting? Would a request for an 

extension make resolution within 30 days impossible? 

(4) If the scheduling problem is more of a delaying tactic and if there 

is no suitable alternative to a joint meeting, the Counselor should 

terminate counseling. 

 

1Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, punitive damages are not available against a federal employer. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-12

d. The Counselor should determine who will be attending the meeting and let 

all parties know who will be present. 

e. The Counselor should let the parties know the way the meeting will be run 

and suggest ways the parties can prepare for the meeting. Each party 

should understand that the Counselor chairs the meeting but will not take a 

position on the merits of either party's position or the merits of any 

proposed solutions made by the parties, and that the Counselor will not 

make decisions for the parties. 

f. The Counselor should explain that the purpose of the meeting is to provide 

each party with an opportunity to present the facts and problems as each 

sees them, to clarify the issues, to establish points of agreement and 

disagreement, and to explore the possibility of some form of voluntary 

resolution acceptable to both parties. 

g. The Counselor should suggest that the parties review the facts of the case 

as they know them and think about what it would take to resolve the 

problem as they see it. 

h. The Counselor should point out the confidentiality of discussions to both 

parties. 

i. If, at the last minute, one of the parties calls to cancel, the Counselor 

should try to determine if the reason is legitimate. If it appears it is, the 

Counselor should reschedule the meeting as quickly as possible. If 

rescheduling becomes a problem, an alternative to the joint meeting

should be explored. If there is a question about the reason for cancellation 

or if a party cancels more than one meeting, the Counselor should decide 

whether informal resolution efforts should be terminated. 

2. Conducting a Joint EEO Counseling Session

The Counselor should: 

a. Start the meeting on time. 

b. Make sure everyone at the table knows everyone else and the reason each 

person is there. 

c. Set the tone and establish ground rules. This is the time to restate the 

purpose of the meeting, the EEO Counselor's role, and the role and 

responsibility of the parties. 

d. Work with the parties toward resolution. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-13

e. Prepare to handle the unexpected. 

(1) If one party does not appear for the meeting, the Counselor should 

find out why. Discuss the issues involved with the party who does 

appear. Try to get a sense of what it would take to resolve the 

dispute. See if the party is interested in continuing EEO 

counseling and is willing to reschedule the meeting. 

(2) If one of the parties is about to break off discussions and leave in a 

huff, the Counselor should try to calm the parties down and do the 

following: 

- Help both parties save face by getting them to put aside 

emotions and address the problem. 

- Talk to the parties separately, if necessary. 

- Not dwell on the incident if discussions resume, but remind 

the parties that a resolution does not have to be achieved 

and that it is okay to agree to disagree and to end informal 

resolution. The Counselor can explain to the parties that a 

decision to end informal resolution efforts should be a 

conscious, deliberate one, not one simply made in a 

moment of anger. 

f. If one of the parties accuses the Counselor of bias and asks the Counselor 

to leave, the Counselor should leave provided the other party is willing to 

continue the meeting without the Counselor. If the other party is not 

willing to continue, the meeting should be adjourned. 

(1) Later, if appropriate, the Counselor can clarify what happened and 

try to regain acceptance. 

(2) Apologize for any misconceptions that might have been created. 

(3) Decide whether to terminate EEO counseling. 

3. Ending the Joint EEO Counseling Session

A joint EEO counseling session can end in one of the following ways: 

a. With a resolution. The Counselor should explain that s/he will draw up a 

written agreement to be signed by both parties. 

b. Without resolution but with an agreement to keep trying. The Counselor 

should explain that she will arrange the next meeting. Keep in mind the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix B EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. B-14

requirement, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.105(d), to conduct the final 

interview no later than the 30th day of initial contact by the aggrieved 

person, unless the aggrieved person and the EEO Director (or his 

delegatee) agrees in writing to postpone the final interview. 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.105(e). 

c. Without a resolution and with a decision to end EEO counseling. The 

Counselor should explain to the aggrieved person that s/he will set up a 

final counseling session at which time the Counselor will explain the next 

steps. 

The Counselor should make sure that each party agrees on the way the 

meeting is ending. 

G. Attempting Resolution Using the Separate Meeting Technique

1. What Should Be Done Up Front

Separate EEO counseling sessions with each party can be used in place of or to 

supplement joint meetings. If separate meetings are to be used, the parties should 

know: 

a. That the Counselor will be meeting separately with the parties. 

b. The purpose of the meetings. 

c. That what is said in the meetings is intended to be confidential. 

d. That the Counselor will not serve as an advisor to the parties or comment 

directly on the substance of a proposal. 

2. Handling Special Situations

The following paragraphs describe situations which may occur in separate 

meetings and suggest ways each situation might be handled. 

a. The agency concedes directly or indirectly that there may be some merit to 

what the aggrieved person sees as a problem. 

(1) The Counselor can explore alternative solutions to the problem, for 

example, suggesting that the agency consult with appropriate 

officials to review the dispute and merits with a view towards 

possible resolution. The Counselor should consult with his/her 

EEO officer to discuss the dispute before a suggestion is made to 

the agency to consult with legal counsel. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix B MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. B-15

(2) The Counselor must be careful not to prejudge a case because a 

formal investigation may not find the situation to be as the parties 

described it. 

(3) The Counselor may assist the agency and the aggrieved person in 

reaching an acceptable resolution of the dispute. 

b. The aggrieved person concedes directly or indirectly that there may be no 

merit to the allegations. (S/he thinks that there was unfair treatment, but it 

may not have been in violation of the anti-discrimination laws and 

regulations.) In such a case, the Counselor can examine alternative 

solutions to the problem. 

c. The parties may ask the Counselor for his/her opinion regarding the 

strength of the allegation. The Counselor should: 

(1) Inform the parties that s/he cannot comment on the strength or 

weakness of a given situation. 

(2) Let the parties judge the strength and weakness of an allegation. 

H. Attempting Resolution Using Telephone Communication

The general procedures outlined for joint and separate meetings also apply to telephone 

conference calls and separate telephone calls to each party. However, at the start of the 

conversation the Counselor should: 

1. Ask if anyone else is on the line. 

2. Remind parties that recording the conversation is prohibited. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix C EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. C-1

APPENDIX C EEO-MD-110 

EEO COUNSELOR CHECKLIST 

At the initial counseling session, Counselors must advise individuals in writing of their rights 

and responsibilities. At a minimum those rights include the following: 

a. The right to anonymity. 

b. The right to representation throughout the complaint process 

including the counseling stage. The EEO Counselor should make 

clear to the aggrieved person that the EEO counselor is not an 

advocate for either the aggrieved person or the agency, but acts 

strictly as a neutral in the EEO process. 

c. The right to choose between the agency=s alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) process or EEO counseling, where the agency 

agrees to offer ADR in the particular case, and information about 

each procedure. 

d. The possible election requirement between a negotiated grievance 

procedure and the EEO complaint procedure. See Chapter 4, 

Section III of this Management Directive. 

e. The election requirement in the event that the claim at issue is 

appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), i.e., the 

dispute is a mixed case. See Chapter 4, Section II of this 

Management Directive. 

f. The requirement that the aggrieved person file a complaint within 

15 calendar days of receipt of the Counselor's notice of right to file 

a formal complaint in the event s/he wishes to file a formal 

complaint at the conclusion of counseling or ADR. 

g. The right to file a notice of intent to sue when age is alleged as a 

basis for discrimination and of the right to file a lawsuit under the 

ADEA instead of an administrative complaint of age 

discrimination, pursuant to ' 1614.201(a). 

h. The right to go directly to a court of competent jurisdiction on 

claims of sex-based wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act 

even though such claims are also cognizable under Title VII.1

 

1

Sex-based claims of wage discrimination may also be raised under Title VII; individuals so 

aggrieved may thus claim violations of both statutes simultaneously. Equal Pay Act complaints may be 

processed administratively under Part 1614. In the alternative, a complainant in the EPA claim may go 

directly to a court of competent jurisdiction.
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix C EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. C-2

i. The right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative 

Judge, except in a mixed case, after 180 calendar days from the 

filing of a formal complaint or after completion of the 

investigation, whichever comes first. 

j. The right to an immediate final decision after an investigation by 

the agency in accordance with ' 1614.108(f). 

k. The right to go to U.S. District Court 180 calendar days after filing 

a formal complaint or 180 days after filing an appeal. 

l. The duty to mitigate damages, for example, that interim earnings 

or amounts that could be earned by the individual with reasonable 

diligence generally must be deducted from an award of back pay. 

m. The duty to keep the agency and EEOC informed of his/her current 

mailing address and to serve copies of appeal papers on the 

agency. 

n. Where counseling is selected, the right to receive in writing within 

30 calendar days of the first counseling contact (unless the 

aggrieved person agrees in writing to an extension) a notice 

terminating counseling and informing the aggrieved of: 

(1) the right to file a formal individual or class complaint 

within 15 calendar days of receipt of the notice, 

(2) the appropriate official with whom to file a formal 

complaint, and 

(3) the complainant's duty to immediately inform the 

agency if the complainant retains counsel or a 

representative. Any extension of the counseling period 

may not exceed an additional sixty (60) calendar days. 

o. Where the aggrieved person agrees to participate in an established 

ADR program, the written notice terminating the counseling period 

will be issued upon completion of the dispute resolution process or 

within ninety (90) calendar days of the first contact with the EEO 

Counselor, whichever is earlier. 

p. That only those claims raised at the counseling stage or claims that 

are like or related to those that were raised may be the subject of a 

formal complaint, and how to amend a complaint after it has been 

filed. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix C EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. C-3

q. The identity and address of the EEOC field office to which a 

request for a hearing must be sent in the event that the aggrieved 

person files a formal complaint and requests a hearing pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.108(g). 

r. The name and address of the agency official to whom the 

aggrieved person must send a copy of the request for a hearing. 

The EEO Counselor should advise the aggrieved person of his/her 

duty to certify to the Administrative Judge that s/he provided the 

agency with a copy of a request for a hearing. See also Chapter 7, 

Section I, of this Management Directive. 

s. The time frames in the complaint process. 

t. The class complaint procedures and the responsibilities of a class 

agent, if the aggrieved person informs the EEO Counselor that s/he 

wishes to file a class complaint. See Chapter 8, Section II of this 

Management Directive. 

u. That rejection of an agency=s offer of resolution made pursuant to 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.109(c) may result in the limitation of the 

agency=s payment of attorney=s fees or costs. See Chapter 6, 

Section XIII, of this Management Directive. 

v. That the agency must consolidate two or more complaints filed by 

the same complainant after appropriate notice to the complainant. 

See 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.606. The EEO Counselor should advise the 

complainant that when a complaint has been consolidated with one 

or more earlier complaints, the agency shall complete its 

investigation within the earlier of 180 days after the filing of the 

last complaint or 360 days of the filing of the first complaint and 

that the complainant may request a hearing before an EEOC 

Administrative Judge at any time after 180 days of the filing of the 

first complaint. 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix D EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. D-1 

APPENDIX D EEO-MD-110 

INFORMATION ON OTHER PROCEDURES 

A. Negotiated Grievance Procedures in Collective Bargaining Agreements

1. Aggrieved Person Makes Election.

At the initial counseling session, the Counselor must inform the aggrieved person 

of the possible applicability of the election of remedies provisions from the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d), concerning negotiated grievance 

procedures. 

a. In order for an aggrieved person to be covered under 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d), 

both of the following conditions must be met: 

(1) S/he must be employed in a federal agency subject to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d); and 

(2) S/he must be covered by a collective bargaining agreement at the 

agency where the grievance arises. The agreement must also 

permit allegations of discrimination to be raised in the negotiated 

grievance procedure. 

b. If these conditions are met, then the Counselor must inform the aggrieved 

person that 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) applies. This means that the aggrieved 

person must be informed of the requirement that s/he choose one (not 

both) of the following: 

(1) a right to have his/her allegations of discrimination addressed in 

the negotiated grievance procedure of the collective bargaining 

agreement with a caution that the opportunity to raise allegations 

of discrimination will be lost if not raised in the grievance process; 

or 

(2) a right to have his/her allegations of discrimination addressed 

under 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. 

(3) An election to proceed under Part 1614 is indicated only by the 

filing of a formal complaint, in writing. Use of the pre-complaint 

process does not constitute an election to proceed under Part 1614. 

(4) Allegations of discrimination that are raised by employees not 

covered by 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) are to be processed as EEO 

complaints under Part 1614 regardless of whether they are also 

pursuing a grievance on the same claim (for example, a five day 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix D EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. D-2 

suspension from work) under a collective bargaining agreement 

not covered by 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d).1

(a) Under ' 1614.301(c), the complaint may be held in 

abeyance while the grievance on the same claim is 

processed. The abeyance shall terminate without further 

notice upon the issuance of a final decision on the 

grievance. The complaint may be held in abeyance only if

the aggrieved is provided written notice of the abeyance. 

(b) The notice of abeyance shall state that the abeyance is 

instituted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.301(c) and that time 

limits for processing the complaint contained in 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.106 and for appeal to the Commission contained in 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.402 will also be held in abeyance until 

fifteen (15) days following the issuance of the final 

decision on the grievance. 

(c) If the EEO complaint is held in abeyance, the time limits 

for processing are tolled until a final decision is rendered in 

the grievance process. 

2. Election is Final

a. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.301, EEO Counselors are required to inform 

an aggrieved person that once s/he decides which forum s/he will use the 

negotiated grievance procedure in a collective bargaining agreement 

covered by 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) or Part 1614 the aggrieved person is 

precluded from using the other forum to address the same claim. This 

preclusion holds regardless of whether discrimination is actually raised. 

For example, if an aggrieved person elects to have a dispute involving a 

claim of discrimination addressed under the terms of a collective 

bargaining agreement by filing a grievance, s/he could not also file a 

formal complaint of discrimination under Part 1614 on the same claim. 

This bar to a subsequent formal EEO complaint would hold true even if 

the complainant failed to raise the discrimination claim in the grievance, 

as long as the grievance process could have addressed the discrimination 

allegations. 

b. If an agency issues a decision rejecting the grievance either because the 

individual is not covered by the collective bargaining agreement, the 

collective bargaining agreement does not contain a provision that allows 

allegations of discrimination to be raised in the grievance process, or the 

 

1Employees of the U.S. Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Tennessee 

Valley Authority are not subject to 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d). 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix D EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. D-3 

grievance was untimely filed, the agency shall include appeal rights to the 

EEOC. The case shall be processed as a complaint under Part 1614. 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.301(b). 

3. Appeals

Unless the grievance is a mixed case, the complainant has the right to appeal a 

final decision on his/her grievance that contains a discrimination allegation to the 

Commission as provided in subpart D of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. If the grievance is 

a mixed case, the complainant has the right to appeal to MSPB. 

B. Mixed Cases

1. MSPB Mixed Case Complaints and Appeals

In addition to negotiated grievance procedures, an aggrieved person may present 

an allegation that constitutes a mixed case. A mixed case is one which alleges 

discrimination in connection with a claim which is also appealable to the MSPB. 

Two criteria determine whether a case is a mixed case. 

a. The employee has standing to file an appeal to the MSPB. The following 

employees generally have a right to appeal to the MSPB:2

(1) competitive service employees not serving a probationary period 

under an initial appointment; 

(2) career appointees to the Senior Executive Service; 

(3) non-competitive service preference eligible employees with one or 

more years of current continuous service (e.g., postal employees 

and attorneys with veterans preference); and, 

(4) non-preference eligible excepted service employees with two or 

more years of current continuous service; and 

b. The allegations which form the basis of the discrimination complaint can 

be appealed to the MSPB. Most MSPB appealable claims fall into one or 

more of the following six categories: 

(1) reduction-in-grade or removal for unacceptable performance; 

 

2The following employees generally do not have a right to appeal to the MSPB: 

1. Probationary employees (see 5 C.F.R. ' 315.806 for exceptions); 

2. Non-appropriated fund activity employees; 

3. Excepted service employees with less than two years current continuous service; and 

4. Employees serving under a temporary appointment limited to one year or less. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix D EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. D-4 

(2) removal, reduction in grade or pay, suspension for more than 

fourteen (14) days, or furlough for thirty (30) days or less for such 

cause as will promote the efficiency of the service; 

(3) separation, reduction-in-grade, or furlough for more than 30 days, 

when the action was effected because of a reduction-in-force; 

(4) reduction-in-force action affecting a career SES appointee; 

(5) reconsideration decision sustaining a negative determination of 

competence for General Schedule employees; and 

(6) disqualification of an employee or applicant because of a 

suitability determination. 

2. Choosing a Forum

If both criteria for a mixed case are met, the EEO Counselor must notify an 

aggrieved person that s/he must choose the forum in which s/he wishes to 

proceed. Where a negotiated grievance can also be filed, the Counselor must 

explain that the aggrieved person must choose to proceed in one of three forums: 

the MSPB appeal process, the internal EEO process, or the negotiated grievance 

process (see Section C.1 above). 

a. The EEO Counselor is initially responsible for identifying mixed cases 

and for advising aggrieved persons of their right to pursue the claim as a

mixed case complaint or as a mixed case appeal. The Counselor must 

identify mixed cases early in order to ensure that aggrieved persons are 

fully informed of their complaint processing options. 

b. An aggrieved person may choose to raise allegations of discrimination in a 

mixed case either as an appeal to the MSPB ("mixed case appeal") or as a 

discrimination complaint with the agency under 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 

("mixed case complaint"), but not both. Whichever action the employee 

files first is considered an election to proceed in that forum. 

c. An election to proceed under 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 is made when the 

aggrieved person files a formal complaint in writing. Use of the EEO 

counseling process is not an election to proceed under Part 1614. 

d. If an employee chooses to file an appeal with the MSPB on a mixed case, 

the agency must thereafter dismiss any subsequently filed complaint on 

the same claim, regardless of whether the allegations of discrimination are 

raised in the appeal to the MSPB. Upon dismissal, the agency must advise 

the employee to raise the allegations of discrimination in connection with 

his/her appeal to the MSPB. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix D EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. D-5 

e. Where the agency disputes MSPB jurisdiction, (for timeliness, coverage, 

or any other reason) the agency shall notify the complainant that it is 

holding the mixed case complaint in abeyance until the MSPB 

Administrative Judge rules on the jurisdictional issue. During this period, 

all time limitations for processing or filing will be tolled. An agency 

decision to hold a mixed case complaint in abeyance is not appealable to 

EEOC. 

If the MSPB Administrative Judge finds that MSPB has jurisdiction over 

the claim, the agency shall dismiss the mixed case complaint under 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.107(a)(4). 

f. If the employee elects to file a mixed case complaint under Part 1614, the 

agency must process the complaint in a manner substantially similar to 

any other discrimination complaint, except that the employee is not 

entitled to a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. An aggrieved 

person's appeal rights will be to the MSPB, not the EEOC. Following a 

final decision from MSPB, an aggrieved person may petition EEOC to 

consider that decision as it pertains to the allegations of discrimination. 

3. Constructive Discharge

A discriminatory constructive discharge occurs when the employer 

discriminatorily creates working conditions that are so difficult, unpleasant, or 

intolerable that a reasonable person in the aggrieved person's position would feel 

compelled to resign. In other words, the aggrieved person is essentially forced to 

resign under circumstances where the resignation is tantamount to the employer's 

termination or discharge of the employee. 

Similarly, in coerced or involuntary retirement cases, the aggrieved person alleges 

that s/he was essentially forced to retire, for example, because of age, and the 

retirement decision was not voluntary. Discriminatory coercion or involuntary 

retirement allegations are, if supported, tantamount to the employer discharging 

the employee. 

a. MSPB dismissal may "unmix" a case

An employee with MSPB appeal rights who alleges that s/he was 

constructively discharged or coerced into retirement because of 

discrimination should be advised to file a mixed case complaint or a mixed 

case appeal. Where the merits of the claim of discrimination cannot be 

reached for lack of jurisdiction, the case will be considered no longer 

mixed. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix D EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. D-6 

b. An unmixed appealBreferral to counseling

If an aggrieved person files a mixed case appeal with MSPB and MSPB 

dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the agency shall promptly 

notify the individual in writing of the right to contact an EEO Counselor 

within forty-five (45) days of receipt of this notice and to file an EEO 

complaint, subject to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.107. The complaint will be 

processed as a non-mixed case. See 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.302(b). 

c. A complainant in a case that becomes "unmixed" complaint after 

completion of the agency=s investigation and subject to the notice set forth 

at 29 C.F.R.' 1614.108(f) need not be referred back to EEO counseling 

and the 29 C.F.R.' 1614.108(f) notice should be issued. 

d. When a mixed case complaint is "unmixed" by a finding by the MSPB of 

no jurisdiction, the individual has a right to elect between a hearing before 

an EEOC Administrative Judge or an immediate final decision. See

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.302(b). 

C. Age Discrimination in Employment Act Complaints

When a person contacts an EEO Counselor with a complaint of age discrimination, the 

EEO Counselor must make the person aware of two important options: 

1. The person may choose to file a formal complaint under 29 C.F.R. Part 1614; or

2. The person may bypass the administrative complaint process in Part 1614 and file 

a civil action directly in an appropriate U.S. District Court after first giving the 

EEOC not less than thirty (30) days notice of intent to file such action. Such 

notice must be filed within 180 days after the date of the alleged discrimination. 

The notice may be mailed to EEOC Headquarters at the following address: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

Federal Sector Programs 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

hand delivered to: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

Federal Sector Programs 

131 M Street N.E. 

Suite 5SW12G 

Washington, D.C. 20507 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix D EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. D-7 

or sent by facsimile to: 

(202) 663-7022 

3. Because it is not clear which statute of limitations applies, an aggrieved person 

choosing to bypass the administrative process should initiate the civil action as 

soon as possible after the expiration of the 30-day waiting period that follows the 

notice of intent to sue. 

D. Equal Pay Act

1. When a person contacts an EEO Counselor with a complaint of wage-based sex 

discrimination, the EEO Counselor should advise the person that s/he may file a 

civil action in federal district court within two years, or three years if the violation 

is willful, of the date of the alleged violation, regardless of whether s/he has 

pursued an administrative action against the agency. The EEO Counselor further 

should advise the person that the filing of an EEO complaint under Part 1614 

alleging a violation of the EPA does not toll the time for filing a civil action. 

2. The EEO Counselor further should advise the person that if s/he seeks to allege a 

violation of Title VII=s prohibition against sex discrimination based on the same 

allegation, s/he must raise the Title VII allegation in the administrative process 

even if s/he files a civil action on the EPA allegation. 

3. The EEO Counselor also should advise the person that notwithstanding the 

two/three-year limitations period applicable to the current action under the EPA, 

in order to present an administrative EPA claim, the aggrieved person must 

contact an EEO Counselor within forty-five (45) days of the date the aggrieved 

person becomes aware of or reasonably suspects a violation of the EPA. 

E. Discrimination Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, 

Sexual Orientation, or Transgender (Gender Identity) Status

1. Laws Enforced By the EEOC - The EEOC has held that discrimination against an 

individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity 

discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, 

EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), The Commission has also 

found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sexstereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. 

Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. 

Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), 

While discrimination based on an individual's status as a parent (prohibited under 

Executive Order 13152) is not a covered basis under the laws enforced by the 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix D EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. D-8 

EEOC, there are circumstances where discrimination against caregivers may give 

rise to sex discrimination under Title VII or disability discrimination under the 

ADA. See Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers 

with Caregiving Responsibilities. 

Federal government employees may file claims of discrimination under the Part 

1614 EEO process on any of the bases covered under the laws EEOC enforces, 

and/or may also utilize additional complaint procedures provided by their agency

or described below.

2. Civil Service Reform Act - The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as 

amended, also protects federal government applicants and employees from 

discrimination in personnel actions (see "Prohibited Personnel Practices") based 

on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, 

political affiliation, or on conduct which does not adversely affect the 

performance of the applicant or employee -- which can include sexual orientation 

or transgender (gender identity) status. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), enforce the prohibitions against 

federal employment discrimination codified in the CSRA. For more information, 

see OPM's Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Federal Civilian 

Employment and OPM's Guidance Regarding the Employment of Transgender 

Individuals in the Federal Workplace and OSC's Prohibited Personnel Practices 

and How to File a Complaint.

3. Executive Orders - Additionally, federal agencies retain procedures for making 

complaints of discrimination on any bases prohibited by Executive Orders 

reviewed below. For example, some lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees may 

file complaints under both the agency's Executive Order complaint process (for 

sexual orientation discrimination) and 1614 process (for sex discrimination), as 

these are separate processes.

Executive Order 11478, section 1 (as amended by Executive Orders 13087 and 

13152) provides: 

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal 

opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit 

discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation or status as a parent, and 

to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a 

continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. 

This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of 

every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, 

development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the 

federal government, to the extent permitted by law.
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix D EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. D-9 

Executive Order 13152 states that "status as a parent" refers to the status of an 

individual who, with respect to an individual who is under the age of 18 or who is 

18 or older but is incapable of self-care because of a physical or mental disability, 

is: a biological parent, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, a stepparent, a 

custodian of a legal ward, in loco parentis over such individual, or actively 

seeking legal custody or adoption of such an individual. The Executive Order 

authorized OPM to develop guidance on the provisions of the Order.
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix E EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. E-1 

APPENDIX E EEO-MD-110 

(SAMPLE) 

NOTICE OF POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF

5 U.S.C. ' 7121(D) TO ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY ACTION 

(29 C.F.R. PART 1614) 

Section 1614.105 of the regulations of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

requires that upon an aggrieved person's initial contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) Counselor, or as soon thereafter as possible, the Counselor shall inform each aggrieved 

person of the possible applicability of 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) to the alleged discriminatory action 

which caused the aggrieved person to seek EEO pre-complaint counseling. Further, the EEO 

Counselor must communicate to the aggrieved person the substance of 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.301 

concerning the election of remedies. 

Section 1614.301 (Relationship to Negotiated Grievance Procedure) provides as follows: 

(a) When a person is employed by an agency subject to 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) and is 

covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, a person wishing to file a 

complaint or a grievance on a claim of alleged employment discrimination must 

elect to raise the claim under either Part 1614 or the negotiated grievance 

procedure, but not both. An election to proceed under this part is indicated only 

by the filing of a written complaint; use of the pre-complaint process as described 

in 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.105 does not constitute an election for purposes of this 

section. An aggrieved employee who files a complaint under this part may not 

thereafter file a grievance on the same claim. An election to proceed under a 

negotiated grievance procedure is indicated by the filing of a timely written 

grievance. An aggrieved employee who files a grievance with an agency whose 

negotiated agreement permits the acceptance of grievances which allege 

discrimination may not thereafter file a complaint on the same claim under Part 

1614 are regardless of whether the agency has informed the individual of the need 

to elect or of whether the grievance has raised an issue of discrimination. Any 

such complaint filed after a grievance has been filed on the same claim shall be 

dismissed without prejudice to the complainant's right to proceed through the 

negotiated grievance procedure, including the right to appeal to the Commission 

from a final decision as provided in subpart D of this part. The notice of final 

action dismissing such a complaint shall advise the complainant of the obligation 

to raise discrimination in the grievance process and of the right to appeal the final 

grievance decision to the Commission. 

(b) When a person is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits 

claims of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, claims 

of discrimination shall be processed as complaints under this part. 

(c) When a person is employed by an agency not subject to 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) and is 

covered by a negotiated grievance procedure, claims of discrimination shall be 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix E EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. E-2 

processed as complaints under this part, except that the time limits for processing 

the complaint contained in 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.106 and for appeal to the 

Commission contained in ' 1614.402 may be held in abeyance during processing 

of a grievance covering the same claim as the complaint if the agency notifies the 

complainant in writing that the complaint will be held in abeyance pursuant to this 

section. 

Accordingly, if you are alleging discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, age, disability, genetic information and/or reprisal, and if you wish to pursue the 

claim, you must make an election to pursue it either as a complaint with your agency under 

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 or in a negotiated grievance procedure, if the following conditions apply: 

1. You are an employee of a federal agency subject to the provisions of 

5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d), and

2. You are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which permits 

claims of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure. 

If those two conditions apply to you, then you must elect one or the other procedure, but not 

both. An election is made as follows: 

1. By filing a grievance in writing (whether or not the grievance has raised a 

claim of discrimination), or

2. By filing a written formal EEO complaint with your agency under Part 

1614. Use of the pre-complaint process (counseling) under 29 C.F.R. 

' 1614.105 does not constitute an election. 

If you have further questions concerning the possible applicability of 5 U.S.C. ' 7121(d) to you, 

you should immediately contact a representative of the employee organization which has a 

negotiated agreement with your agency or ask the EEO Counselor for further information and 

assistance. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix F EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. F-1 

APPENDIX F EEO-MD-110 

SAMPLE RESOLUTION LETTER 

Aggrieved Person's Name 

Aggrieved Person's Address 

RE: Resolution of EEO Dispute 

Dear [Aggrieved Person]: 

This refers to the dispute which you first discussed with me on [DATE] when you alleged 

discrimination because of [IDENTIFY BASIS OF DISCRIMINATION] when on [IDENTIFY 

DATE OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY EVENT] the following occurred: [IDENTIFY 

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY 

EVENT]_________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________. The 

purpose of this letter is to set out the terms of the informal resolution. 

[INSERT TERMS OF RESOLUTION] __________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________.

If you believe the agency has not complied with the terms of the informal resolution, you may, 

under 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.504, notify the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity in writing 

within 30 days of the date of the alleged violation, requesting that the terms of the informal 

agreement be specifically implemented. Alternatively, you may request that the claim be 

reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. 

The agency has signed the terms of the resolution as indicated by the signature of the agency 

official. Your signature and date below will verify your receipt of this letter and will signify 

your agreement with the terms of the informal resolution of this dispute as set out above. 

Enclosed is a duplicate copy of this letter. Please date and sign the original and the copy in the 

spaces provided and return the copy to me for inclusion in the counseling file. I will send a 

signed copy to the agency. You may keep the original. 

Sincerely, 

_________________________________________ ______________ 

EEO Counselor Date: 

_________________________________________ _______________

Agency Official Date 

_________________________________________ _____________ 

Aggrieved Person Date: 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix G EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. G-1 

APPENDIX G EEO-MD-110 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT 

(SAMPLE) 

SUBJECT: Notice of Right To File a Discrimination Complaint 

FROM: EEO Counselor DATE: 

TO: (Name of Person Counseled) 

This is to inform you that because the dispute you brought to my attention has not been resolved 

to your satisfaction, you are now entitled to file an individual or class-based discrimination 

complaint based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical or mental disability, age, 

genetic information, and/or reprisal. If you file a complaint, it must be in writing, signed, and 

filed within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of this notice, with any of the following 

officials authorized to receive discrimination complaints: 

! Field Installation Head 

(Provide name and address) 

! Agency Director of Equal Employment Opportunity 

(Provide name and address) 

! Agency Head 

(Provide name, title, and address) 

! Other Official(s) as designated by the Agency, for example, an agency 

Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, the Hispanic Program 

Coordinator, the Disability Program Coordinator, or the Federal Women's 

Program Coordinator 

[Provide name(s) and address(es)] 

A complaint shall be deemed timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the 

15-day filing period, or, in the absence of a legible postmark, if it is received by mail within five 

days of the expiration of the filing period.

If you file your complaint with one of the officials listed above (other than the EEO officer), it 

will be sent to the activity EEO officer for processing. Therefore, if you choose to file your 

complaint with any of the other officials listed above, be sure to provide a copy of your 

complaint to the EEO officer to ensure prompt processing of your complaint. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix G EEO MD-110 , 2012

Management Directive 

App. G-2 

The complaint must be specific and contain only those issues either specifically discussed with 

me or issues that are like or related to the issues that you discussed with me. It must also state 

whether you have filed a grievance under a negotiated grievance procedure or an appeal to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board on the same claims. 

If you retain an attorney or any other person to represent you, you or your representative must 

immediately notify the EEO officer, in writing. You and/or your representative will receive a 

written acknowledgment of your discrimination complaint from the appropriate agency official. 

If you file a complaint, you should name __________ (The Counselor should provide the name 

and title of the agency head or department head. Agency or department means the national 

organization, and not just the local office, facility or department in which the aggrieved person 

might work.) 

_______________________________________ 

(Signature Block) 

EEO Counselor 

NOTE: 

A copy of this notice must be provided to the EEO officer with the EEO Counselor's report and 

will be made a part of the complaint file. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix H EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. H-1 

APPENDIX H EEO-MD-110 

EEO COUNSELOR'S REPORT 

29 C.F.R. ' 1614.105 

I. REQUIRED ELEMENTS 

A. AGGRIEVED PERSON 

Name: 

Job Title/Series/Grade:_______________________________________________ 

Place of Employment:________________________________________________ 

Work Phone No:_________________________ 

Home Phone No:________________________ 

Home Address: ___________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________ 

B. CHRONOLOGY OF EEO COUNSELING 

Date of Initial Contact: 

Date of Initial Interview:_____________________________________________ 

Date of Alleged Discriminatory Event:__________________________________ 

45th Day After Event:______________________________________________ 

Reason for delayed contact beyond 45 days, if applicable: 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

Date Counseling Report Requested:__________________________________ 

Date Counseling Report Submitted:__________________________________ 

C. BASIS(ES) FOR ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION 

 1) [ ] Race (Specify)_______________________________________ 

 2) [ ] Color (Specify)______________________________________ 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix H EEO MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. H-2 

 3) [ ] National Origin (Specify)______________________________ 

 4) [ ] Sex (Specify)________________________________________ 

 5) [ ] Age (Date of Birth)___________________________________ 

 6) [ ] Mental Disability (Specify)_____________________________ 

 7) [ ] Physical Disability (Specify)____________________________ 

 8) [ ] Religion (Specify)____________________________________ 

 9) [ ] Genetic Information (Specify)___________________________ 

10) [ ] Reprisal (Identify earlier event and/or opposed 

practice, give date)____________________________________ 

D. PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE(S) COUNSELED 

E. REMEDY REQUESTED 

F. EEO COUNSELOR'S CHECKLIST - THE COUNSELOR ADVISED THE 

AGGRIEVED PERSON IN WRITING OF THE RIGHTS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES CONTAINED IN THE EEO COUNSELOR CHECKLIST. 

II. SUMMARY OF INFORMAL RESOLUTION ATTEMPTS 

A. IF THE COUNSELOR ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION 

1. Personal Contacts 

2. Documents Reviewed 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix H EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. H-3 

3. Summary of Informal Resolution Attempt 

B. IF AGGRIEVED OPTED FOR ADR, COUNSELOR=S STATEMENT THAT 

THE ADR PROCESS WAS FULLY EXPLAINED TO THE AGGRIEVED 

INDIVIDUAL/SUMMARY OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE 

AGGRIEVED INDIVIDUAL AND THE AGENCY BY THE COUNSELOR 

_____________________________ ____________________________ 

Name of EEO Counselor Telephone Number 

_____________________________ ____________________________ 

Signature of Counselor Office Address 

_____________________________ 

Date 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix I EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. I-1 

APPENDIX I EEO-MD-110 

SAMPLE POLICY STATEMENT 

1. SUBJECT: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Policy Statement 

2. PURPOSE: This policy statement sets out the Commission's policy on Alternative 

Dispute Resolution 

3. EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon receipt 

4. EXPIRATION DATE: As an exception to EEOC Order 205.001, Appendix 6, 

Attachment 4, a(5), this Notice will remain in effect until rescinded or superseded. 

5. ORIGINATOR: Legal Services, Office of Legal Counsel 

6. INSTRUCTIONS: File in Volume 11 of the Compliance Manual. 

7. SUBJECT MATTER.

I. Introduction

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is firmly committed to using 

alternative methods for resolving disputes in all of its activities, where appropriate and feasible. 

Used properly in appropriate circumstances, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) can provide 

faster, less expensive and contentious, and more productive results in eliminating workplace 

discrimination, as well as in Commission operations. 

The use of ADR is fully consistent with EEOC's mission as a law enforcement agency. It 

is squarely based in the statutes creating and enforced by the Commission, Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. The use of ADR is also predicated on the Administrative 

Number 

915.002 

EEOC NOTICE

Date

7/17/95
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix I EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

APP. I-2 

Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), pursuant to which this policy is being adopted, Executive 

Orders 12778 and 12871, and the National Performance Review. Finally, the Commission's 

1995 ADR Task Force Report made a strong and persuasive case for the use of ADR programs. 

II. Core Principles Governing Commission ADR Programs

Any use of ADR under Commission auspices will be governed by certain core principles. 

Above all, any Commission ADR program must further the agency's mission. It must also be 

fair, which requires voluntariness, neutrality, confidentiality, and enforceability. Recognition of 

the differing circumstances that obtain in the Commission's District Offices suggests that ADR 

be flexible enough to respond to varied and changing priorities and caseloads. In addition, any 

EEOC ADR programs must have adequate training and evaluation components. 

A. Furthering the Commission's Mission

First and foremost, an effective ADR program must further the EEOC's dual mission: 

vigorously enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and resolving 

employment disputes. ADR will complement current systems in operation by facilitating early 

resolution of disputes where agreement is possible, thereby freeing up resources for identifying, 

investigating, settling, conciliating or litigating other matters.1

 These improvements in our 

enforcement efforts should, in turn, enhance the Commission's credibility as a law enforcement 

agency, encourage victims to come forward, and make the process of filing a charge less 

daunting. However, as a law enforcement agency, the Commission will vigorously enforce the 

statutes over which it has jurisdiction and will not hesitate to seek appropriate legal remedies 

through litigation when warranted.2

B. Fairness

Any ADR enterprise developed and implemented by the EEOC must be fair to the 

participants, both in perception and reality. Fairness should be manifested throughout all 

Commission ADR proceedings by incorporating each of the core principles identified in this 

policy as well as by providing as much information about the ADR proceeding to the parties as 

soon as possible. Fairness requires that the Commission provide the opportunity for assistance 

 

1These procedures will continue to be governed by current standards except as specifically 

discussed in this document. 

2The Commission remains cognizant that there are instances in which ADR may not be appropriate 

or feasible, such as in cases in which there is a need to establish policies or precedents, where resolution 

of a dispute would have a significant effect on non-parties, where a full public record is important, where 

the agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction over a matter, or where it would otherwise be 

inappropriate. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix I EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. I-3 

during the proceeding to any party who is not represented. Fairness also requires that any 

Commission-sponsored program include the following elements: 

1. Voluntariness 

ADR programs developed by the Commission will be voluntary for the parties because 

the unique importance of the laws against employment discrimination requires that a federal 

forum always be available to an aggrieved individual. The Commission believes that parties 

must knowingly, willingly and voluntarily enter into an ADR proceeding. Likewise, the parties 

have the right to voluntarily opt out of a proceeding at any point prior to resolution for any 

reason, including the exercise of their right to file a lawsuit in federal district court. In no 

circumstances will a party be coerced into accepting the other party's offer to resolve a dispute. 

If the parties reach an agreement, the parties will be allowed to settle as long as the proposed 

agreement is lawful, enforceable, and both parties are informed of their rights and remedies 

under the applicable statutes. 

2. Neutrality 

Commission ADR proceedings will rely on a neutral third party to facilitate resolution of 

the dispute. ADR proceedings are most successful where a neutral or impartial third party, with 

no vested interest in the outcome of a dispute, allows the parties themselves to attempt to resolve 

their dispute. Neutrality will help maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the ADR program. 

The facilitator's duty to the parties is to be neutral, honest, and to act in good faith. Those 

who act as neutrals under EEOC auspices should possess a thorough knowledge of EEO law, and 

must be trained in mediation theory and techniques.3

3. Confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality is an important component of any successful ADR program. 

Subject to the limited exceptions imposed by statute or regulation, confidentiality in any ADR 

proceeding must be maintained by the parties, EEOC employees who are involved in the ADR 

proceeding, and any outside neutral or other ADR staff. This will enable parties to ADR 

proceedings to be forthcoming and candid, without fear that frank statements may later be used 

against them. To accomplish this purpose, the Commission will be guided by the nondisclosure 

provisions of Title VII and the confidentiality provisions of ADRA which impose limitations on 

the disclosure of information. In order to encourage participation in a Commission sponsored 

ADR program, the Commission will include confidentiality provisions in all of its ADR 

 

3The Commission will accept as sufficient such training as is generally recognized in the dispute 

resolution profession. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix I EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

APP. I-4 

programs or projects, and will notify the parties to the dispute of the protection offered by 

confidentiality provisions. 

In order to ensure confidentiality, those who serve as neutrals for the Commission should 

be precluded from performing any investigatory or enforcement function related to charges with 

which they may have been involved. The dispute resolution process must be insulated from the 

investigative and compliance process. 

4. Enforceability 

Any agreement reached during an ADR proceeding must be enforceable. An allegation 

that an ADR settlement agreement has been breached should be brought to the attention of the 

EEOC official responsible for that program function. The Commission will review and 

investigate the allegation and determine whether it will utilize its authority and resources to seek 

enforcement of the agreement. 

C. Flexibility

The ADR program must be flexible enough to respond to the variety of challenges the 

Commission and its individual offices face. The Commission recognizes that there cannot be 

one ADR model which will work for all of its programs or all of its offices within the same 

program. Within the parameters set by the Commission, Commission staff should be able to 

adapt ADR techniques to fit specific program needs. Because offices operate in different 

cultures and milieus, and because the nature of the workload varies from office to office, 

Commission offices will need maximum flexibility in implementing an ADR program.

D. Training and Evaluation 

Commission-sponsored ADR programs should include training and evaluation 

components. A successful ADR scheme requires that EEOC provide appropriate training and 

education on ADR to its own employees, the public, persons protected under the applicable laws, 

employers and neutrals. In addition, an evaluation component is essential to any ADR program 

in order to determine whether the program has achieved its goals, and how the program might be 

improved to be more efficient and achieve better results. 

III. CONCLUSION

Through this Policy Statement, the Commission affirms its commitment to the use of 

ADR techniques throughout its programs, where appropriate and feasible, including charge 

processing, litigation, federal sector EEO complaint processing, internal EEO complaint 

processing, labor-management relations and contract administration. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix J EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. J-1 

APPENDIX J-1 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

DISPARATE TREATMENT 

PRIMA FACIE CASE 

1) Membership in protected group 

2) Complainant treated differently from similarly situated employees not in protected group 

a) Were compared employees in same chain of command as complainant? 

b) Were compared employees in same work unit as complainant? 

OR

In the absence of comparative evidence, is there other evidence that indicates that the agency=s 

actions may have been motivated by discrimination?1

OR

Is there direct evidence that shows discriminatory intent? 

REBUTTAL 

What did the agency say was the reason for its treatment of complainant and the compared 

employees/applicants? How did the agency respond to other evidence, if any, of discrimination? 

PRETEXT 

Is there direct or circumstantial evidence that the agency's reason for its treatment of complainant 

is pretextual? 

 

1

In this model and in the models set forth below, keep in mind the Supreme Court=s decision in 

O=Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterer=s Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996), in which the Court ruled that 

comparative evidence is not an essential element of a prima facie case of discrimination. In the absence 

of such evidence, the complainant must come forward with other evidence sufficient to create an 

inference of discrimination. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix J EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. J-2 

Appendix J-2 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

HIRING/PROMOTION 

PRIMA FACIE CASE 

1) Complainant is a member of a protected group 

2) Was there a vacancy? 

3) Did complainant apply? 

4) Was complainant qualified; was complainant rejected? 

5) Was the vacancy filled? If so, was the selectee a member of complainant's protected 

group? 

OR

Is there direct evidence that shows discriminatory intent? 

REBUTTAL 

What did the agency say was the reason for rejecting complainant?

PRETEXT 

Is there direct or circumstantial evidence that the agency's reason for rejecting complainant is 

pretextual? 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix J EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. J-3 

Appendix J-3 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

DISCHARGE/DISCIPLINARY ACTION 

PRIMA FACIE CASE 

1) Complainant is a member of a protected group 

2) Was complainant qualified for the position s/he was performing? 

3) Was the complainant satisfying the normal requirements of the position? 

4) Was the complainant discharged or otherwise disciplined? 

5) Was the complainant replaced by an employee outside the protected group or was s/he 

singled out for discharge or discipline while similarly situated employees were retained 

or not comparably disciplined? 

OR

Is there direct evidence that shows discriminatory intent? 

REBUTTAL 

What did the agency say was the reason for disciplining complainant? 

PRETEXT 

Is there direct or circumstantial evidence that the agency's reason for discipline or 

discharge of complainant is pretextual? For example, did the agency treat other 

individuals with similar performance problems more favorably than complainant? 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix J EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. J-4 

Appendix J-4 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

RETALIATION 

PRIMA FACIE CASE 

1) Had the complainant previously engaged in protected activity or opposed unlawful 

discrimination? 

2) Was the agency aware of complainant's activity? 

3) Was complainant contemporaneously or subsequently adversely affected by some action 

of the agency? 

4) Does some connection exist between complainant's activity and the adverse employment 

decision (for example, the adverse employment decision occurred within such a period of 

time that a retaliatory inference arises)? 

OR

Is there direct evidence that shows discriminatory intent?

REBUTTAL 

What did the agency say was the reason for the adverse employment decision? 

PRETEXT 

Is there direct or circumstantial evidence that the agency's reason for the employment decision is 

pretextual? 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix J EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. J-5 

Appendix J-5 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

DISABILITY--REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 

PRIMA FACIE CASE -- Where Complainant Alleges a Failure to Provide a Reasonable 

Accommodation: 

1) Does complainant have a physical or mental impairment (for example, deafness; 

blindness; partially or completely missing limbs or mobility impairments requiring the 

use of a wheel chair; intellectual disability (formerly termed mental retardation); autism; 

cerebral palsy; major depressive disorder; bipolar disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder; 

obsessive compulsive disorder; schizophrenia; cancer; diabetes; epilepsy; HIV infection; 

multiple sclerosis; and muscular dystrophy) that is readily observable or where there is 

medical documentation of the impairment? 

2) Does this impairment substantially limit complainant's ability to perform a major life 

activity (for example, caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, 

hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working) or substantially limits a major bodily 

function? If not readily observable then provide evidence on the activities affected, how 

they are affected, and the degree to which they are affected (can't do the activity at all, 

can only do the activity with assistive devices or equipment, can only do the activity for a 

limited period of time, etc.). The question of whether an individual meets the definition 

of disability under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.(c)(4) should not demand extensive analysis. 

3) Does the agency know of the complainant's disability? 

4) Is the complainant otherwise qualified (that is, does the complainant meet the education, 

skills, and experience requirements of the job)? 

5) What are the essential functions of the complainant's job? 

6) Did complainant request accommodation? What accommodation, if any, did the 

complainant suggest? 

7) What action did the agency take to identify possible accommodation or attempt 

accommodation? Did the agency make an individualized assessment of the complainant, 

comparing his/her qualifications and limitations with the job requirements? What actions 

did the agency take to consider the complainant=s suggested accommodations? 

8) If an accommodation has been identified, will this accommodation enable complainant to 

perform the essential functions of the job, that is, is it effective? 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix J EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. J-6 

9) Did the agency provide an accommodation? 

10) If the agency did not provide an accommodation, what reason has the agency given for its 

refusal? 

11) If the agency contends that a particular accommodation would impose an undue hardship 

on its operations, are these reasons sufficient to establish an undue hardship defense 

given: 

a) the overall size of the agency's program (the number of employees, 

number and type of facilities and size of budget); 

b) type of agency operation (composition and structure of work force); 

c) nature and net cost of accommodation. 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix J EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. J-7 

Appendix J-6 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

DISABILITY--DISPARATE TREATMENT 

PRIMA FACIE CASE -- Where Complainant Alleges Disparate Treatment 

1) Does complainant have a physical or mental impairment (for example, deafness; 

blindness; partially or completely missing limbs or mobility impairments requiring the 

use of a wheel chair; intellectual disability (formerly termed mental retardation); autism; 

cerebral palsy; major depressive disorder; bipolar disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder; 

obsessive compulsive disorder; schizophrenia; cancer; diabetes; epilepsy; HIV infection; 

multiple sclerosis; and muscular dystrophy) that is readily observable or where there is 

medical documentation of the impairment? 

2) Does this impairment substantially limit complainant's ability to perform a major life 

activity (for example, caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, 

hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working) or substantially limits a major bodily 

function? If not readily observable then provide evidence on the activities affected, how 

they are affected, and the degree to which they are affected (can't do the activity at all, 

can only do the activity with assistive devices or equipment, can only do the activity for a 

limited period of time, etc.). The question of whether an individual meets the definition 

of disability under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.(c)(4) should not demand extensive analysis. 

3) Does complainant have a record or history of a substantially limiting impairment (from 

which complainant may have recovered in whole or in part)? 

OR

Was complainant regarded as having such an impairment (whether or not the complainant 

has an impairment or a substantially limiting impairment)? 

4) Does the agency know of complainant's disability? 

5) Is complainant qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without 

reasonable accommodation: 

a. Is complainant otherwise qualified (that is, does the complainant meet the educational and experience requirements of the job)? 

b. What are the essential functions of complainant's job? 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix J EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. J-8 

c. Can complainant perform the essential functions of the job with or without 

accommodation? If an accommodation is necessary, see Model for Analysis --

Disability -- Reasonable Accommodation, Attachment J-5. 

6) Was complainant treated differently from similarly situated employees who were not 

disabled or who had different disabilities? 

a. Were compared employees in the same chain of command? 

b. Were compared employees in the same work unit? 

OR

Is there direct evidence which shows discriminatory intent? 

REBUTTAL 

What did the agency say was the reason for treating complainant differently than other similarlysituated employees who were not disabled or who had different disabilities? 

PRETEXT 

Is there direct or circumstantial evidence that the agency's reason for its treatment of complainant 

is pretextual? 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix J EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. J-9 

Appendix J-7 EEO-MD-110 

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS 

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION 

PRIMA FACIE CASE 

1) Does complainant hold a religious belief which conflicts with employment requirements? 

(Note: only in the rarest of cases, where the evidence appears very clear that the 

complainant does not sincerely hold the religious belief or does not sincerely engage in 

the religious practices that may need an accommodation should an investigator challenge 

the sincerity of the belief or practice.) 

2) Has complainant informed his/her superior of a conflict? 

3) Has complainant been penalized for failing to comply with employment requirements? 

REBUTTAL 

1) Belief or practice not of religious nature. 

2) Agency could not accommodate without undue hardship. 

DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE -- RELIGIOUS COMPENSATORY TIME 

To allow employees to work additional hours (overtime, compensatory time) to make up for the 

time required by their personal religious belief (Pub. L. No. 95-390, 5 U.S.C. ' 5550a, 

"Compensatory Time Off for Religious Observances"). 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix K EEO-MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. K-1 

APPENDIX K EEO-MD-110 

NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION 

(SAMPLE) 

Subject: Notice of Incomplete Investigation 

FROM: [EEO Director] DATE: [Insert] 

TO: [Complainant/Complainant‟s Representative]

This Notice is to inform you that the investigation of [Agency Complaint No(s)] has not been 

completed with the required regulatory timeframe. Therefore, at this time, you have the right to 

request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or to file a civil action in an appropriate 

U.S. District Court. You should send your request for a hearing before an EEOC Administrative 

Judge to [insert correct address for EEOC District Office]. If you choose to file a civil action, 

that action should be styled [Complainant v. Agency Head]. You may also petition the District 

Court to appoint an attorney and to authorize commencement of the civil action without payment 

of fees, costs, or security. Whether your request is granted or denied is within the sole discretion 

of the District Judge. 

Should you elect to request a hearing or file a civil action, you may have the opportunity to 

engage in discovery. Discovery is a pre-hearing and pre-trial device you can use to obtain facts 

and information from the agency. Tools of discovery include, but are not limited to, depositions, 

interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions. You are 

required to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence which means the evidence of 

discrimination must be of greater weight than the evidence of non-discrimination. 

In the alternative, you may wait until the investigation is complete, at which time, you will 

receive notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or to 

request an immediate final agency decision. The estimated date of completion for the 

investigation is [insert date]. If you choose to wait for the investigation to be completed, you 

need not take any action at this time. The issuance of this Notice does not operate to waive your 

right to seek sanctions against the Agency for failing to complete the investigation within the 

required regulatory timeframe. 

________________________________ 

(Signature Block) 

EEO Director
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix L EEO-MD-110 

Management Directive 

App. L-1 

APPENDIX L EEO-MD-110 

SAMPLE TITLE PAGE 

Title Page 

(Agency Letterhead) 

) 

(COMPLAINANT): 

(Complainant's Address): 

(Complainant's City, State, Zip): 

) 

Complainant: 

) 

) 

and

) 

) AGENCY CASE NO.___: 

(AGENCY HEAD): 

(Title): 

(Agency Name): 

OTHER NUMBERS_____: 

(Agency Address) 

(P.O. Box) 

(City, State, Zip) 

Agency: 

) 

) 

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix M EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

M-1

APPENDIX M EEO-MD-110 

REQUEST FOR A HEARING FORM 

TO: EEOC Hearings Unit:

District/Field Office Name:

Address:

City, State, ZIP Code:

Fax number (if applicable):

Dear Sir/Madam: 

I am requesting the appointment of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Administrative Judge pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ' 1614.108(g). I hereby certify that either more than 

180 days have passed from the date I filed my complaint or I have received a notice from the 

agency that I have thirty (30) days to elect a hearing or a final agency decision. 

Complainant Information: (Please Print or Type)

Complainant‟s name (Last, First, 

M.I.:

Home/mailing address:

City, State, ZIP Code:

Daytime Telephone # (with area 

code):

Home or Mobile Phone # (with area 

code):

E-mail address (if any):

Agency Case Number:

Attorney/Representative Information (if any):

Attorney name:

Non-Attorney Representative name:

Address:

City, State, ZIP Code:

Telephone number (if applicable):

E-mail address (if any):

Page 1 of 2 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix M EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

M-2

In accordance with section 1614.108(g), I have sent a copy of this request for a hearing to the 

following person at the agency: 

Agency EEO Office Representative Information:

Agency EEO Office Representative 

name:

Address:

City, State, ZIP Code:

Fax number (if applicable):

E-mail address (if any):

Complainant’s Signature:

Signature of complainant or 

complainant‟s attorney: 

Date:

NOTE: Only Complainant or their attorney can sign the request for a hearing. Non-attorney 

representatives may not sign requests for a hearing. HEARING REQUESTS MUST BE 

SIGNED. UNSIGNED HEARING REQUESTS WILL NOT BE ASSIGNED A HEARING NUMBER OR AN 

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

Page 2 of 2 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix N EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. N-1 

APPENDIX N EEO-MD-110 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

OFFICES AND GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTIONS FOR 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AND APPLICANT HEARING REQUESTS 

Toll Free 1-800-669-4000 

Toll Free TTY 1-800-669-6820

info@eeoc.gov 

Atlanta District Office Commercial No: 404/562-6930

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 404/562-6928 

100 Alabama Street, S.W. Hearings Fax No: 404/562-6909

Suite 4R30 TTY No: 404/562-6801

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8704

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Georgia and State of South Carolina counties of

Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown, Hampton, Jasper, and 

Williamsburg.

Baltimore Field Office Commercial No: 410/962-3932

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 410/209-2782

City Cresent Building Hearings Fax No: 410/209-2777

10 South Howard Street, 3rd Floor TTY No: 410/962-6065

Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2529

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Maryland.
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix N EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. N-2 

Birmingham District Office Commercial No: 205/212-2104

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 205/212-2139

Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 Hearings Fax No: 205/212-2105

1130 22nd St., South TTY No: 205/212-2112

Birmingham, Alabama 35205-2870

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Alabama; the State of Florida counties of Bay, 

Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, 

Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington; and the State of 

Mississippi except for the counties of Alcorn, Benton, 

Coahoma, Desoto, Itawamba, Lafayette, Lee, Marshall, Panola, 

Pontotoc, Prentiss, Quitman, Tate, Tippah, Tishomingo Tunica, 

and Union which should be sent to the Memphis District 

office.

Charlotte District Office Commercial No: 704/344-6682

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 704/954-6428

129 W. Trade St., Suite 400 Hearings Fax No: 704/954.6573

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-5306 TTY No: 704/344-6684

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of North Carolina and South Carolina except for 

the counties of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, 

Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown, 

Hampton, Jasper, and Williamsburg which should be sent to 

the Atlanta District Office; The State of Virginia except for 

the counties of Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, 

Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford, Warren, and the State of 

Virginia Independent Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax City, Falls 

Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, Winchester, Quantico, 

Dumfries, and Occoquan which should be sent to the 

Washington Field Office.
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix N EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. N-3 

Chicago District Office Commercial No: 800-669-4000

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 312/869-8114

500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000 Hearings Fax No: 312/869-8125

Chicago, Illinois 60661-2506 TTY No: 312/869-8001

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Illinois except for the counties of Alexander, 

Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Greene, Jackson, Jersey, Macoupin, 

Madison, Monroe, Perry, Pulaski, Randolph, St. Clair, Union, 

and Washington which should be sent to the St. Louis District 

Office.

Cleveland Field Office Commercial No: 216/522-2001

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 216/522-7325

1240 E. Ninth Street, Room 3001 Hearings Fax No: 216/522-7430

Cleveland, Ohio 44199 TTY No: 216/522-8441

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Ohio counties of Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, 

Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Coshocton, Crawford, 

Cuyahoga, Delaware, Erie, Fairfield, Franklin, Geauga, 

Guernsey, Harrison, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Jefferson, Knox, 

Lake, Licking, Lorain, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, Meigs, 

Monroe, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Portage, 

Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Vinton, 

Washington and Wayne.

Dallas District Office Commercial No: 214/253-2700

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 214/253-2763

207 S. Houston Street, 3rd Floor Hearings Fax No: 214/253-2739

Dallas, Texas 75202-4726 TTY No: 214/253-2710

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Texas counties of Anderson, Andrews, Archer, 

Armstrong, Bailey, Baylor, Bell, Borden, Bosque, Bowie, 

Brewster, Briscoe, Brown, Callahan, Camp, Carson, Cass, 

Castro, Cherokee, Childress, Clay, Cochran, Coleman, Collin, 

Collingsworth, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Cottle, Crane,

Crosby, Culberson, Dallam, Dallas, Dawson, Deaf Smith, Delta, 

Denton, Dickens, Donley, Eastland, Ector, Ellis, El Paso, Erath, 

Falls, Fannin, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Franklin, Freestone, Gaines, 

Garza, Glasscock, Gray, Grayson, Gregg, Hale, Hall, Hamilton, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix N EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. N-4 

Hansford, Hardeman, Harrison, Hartley, Haskell, Hemphill, 

Henderson, Hill, Hockley, Hood, Hopkins, Howard, Hudspeth, 

Hunt, Hutchinson, Jack, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Jones, Kaufman, 

Kent, King, Knox, Lamar, Lampasas, Lamb, Leon, Limestone, 

Lipscomb, Loving, Lubbock, Lynn, McLennan, Marion, Martin, 

Midland, Milam, Mills, Mitchell, Montague, Moore, Morris, 

Motley, Navarro, Nolan, Ochiltree, Oldham, Palo Pinto, Panola, 

Parker, Parmer, Pecos, Potter, Presidio, Rains, Randall, Reagan, 

Red River, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Rockwall, Runnels, 

Rusk, Scurry, Shackelford, Sherman, Smith, Somervell, 

Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Swisher, Tarrant, Taylor, Terry, 

Throckmorton, Titus, Upshur, Upton, Van Zandt, Ward, 

Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Winkler, Wise, Wood, Yoakum, 

and Young; and the State of New Mexico counties of Dona 

Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lea, Luna, Otero, and Sierra.

Denver Field Office Commercial No: 303/866-1300

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 303/866-1356

303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Hearings Fax No: 303/866-1085

Denver, Colorado 80203-1258 TTY No: 303-866-1950

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Colorado and Wyoming. Hearing requests should 

be sent to the Phoenix District Office.

Detroit Field Office Commercial No: 313/226-4600

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 313/226-4641

477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Hearings Fax No: 313/226-4610

Detroit, Michigan 48226-9704 TTY No: 313-226-7599

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Michigan and the State of Ohio counties of

Allen, Defiance, Fulton, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Ottawa, 

Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, 

Wood, and Wyandot.
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix N EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. N-5 

Houston District Office Commercial No: 713/651-4900

EEOC

1201 Louisiana Street, Ste 600 Hearings Unit Phone No: 713/651-4967

Hearings Fax No: 713-751-0675

Houston, Texas 77002-8094 TTY No: 713-651-4901

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Texas counties of Angelina, Austin, Brazoria, 

Brazos, Calhoun, Chambers, Colorado, Fayette, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jackson, Jasper, 

Jefferson, Lavaca, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, 

Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, 

San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, Tyler, Victoria, Walker, Waller, 

Washington, and Wharton.

Indianapolis District Office Commercial No: 317/226-7212

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 317/226-6430

101 West Ohio Street, Suite 1900 Hearings Fax No: 317-226-5571

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-4203 TTY No: 317-226-5162

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Indiana, Kentucky; the State of Ohio counties 

of Adams, Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Champaign, Clark, 

Clermont, Clinton, Darke, Fayette, Gallia, Greene, Hamilton, 

Hardin, Highland, Jackson, Lawrence, Logan, Madison, Mercer, 

Miami, Montgomery, Pickaway, Pike, Preble, Ross, Scioto, 

Shelby, Union, and Warren.

Los Angeles District Office Commercial No: 213/894-1000

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 213/894-1064

255 E. Temple, 4th Floor Hearings Fax No: 213-894-5482

Los Angeles, California 90012-3334 TTY No: 213-894-1121

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of California counties of Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, 

Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, 

Orange, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San 

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura; The State of 

Hawaii and the State of Nevada counties of Clark, Esmeralda, 

Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye; The U.S. Possessions of American 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix N EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. N-6 

Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Wake Island. 

Federal civilian employees at military installations in Japan, 

Korea, Okinawa and other Pacific Islands. 

Memphis District Office Commercial No: 901/544-0116

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 901/544-0073

1407 Union Avenue, Suite 901 Hearings Fax No: 901/544-0111

Memphis, Tennessee 38104-3629 TTY No: 901/544-0112

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Arkansas and Tennessee, and the State of 

Mississippi counties of Alcorn, Benton, Coahoma, Desoto, 

Itawamba, Lafayette, Lee, Marshall, Panola, Pontotoc, Prentiss, 

Quitman, Tate, Tippah, Tishomingo Tunica, and Union.

Miami District Office Commercial No: 305/808-1740

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 305/808-1820

100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 1500 Hearings Fax No: 305/808-1835 

TTY No: 305/808-1742

Miami, Florida 33131 

Geographic Jurisdiction: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. The State of Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, 

Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, 

Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, 

Gadsden, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, 

Hillsborough, Indian River, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, 

Leon, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami Dade, 

Monroe, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, 

Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. 

Lucie, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, and Wakulla; 

Milwaukee Area Office Commercial No: 414/297-1111

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 414/297-1117 

310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Hearings Fax No: 414/297-3146

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203-2292 TTY No: 414-297-1115

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota 

and Wisconsin.
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix N EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. N-7 

New Orleans Field Office Commercial No: 504/595-2825

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 504/595-2329 

1555 Poydras St., Suite 1900 Hearings Fax No: 504/595-6861

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 TTY No: 504/595-2958

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Louisiana.

New York District Office Commercial No: 212/336-3620

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 212/336-3620

33 Whitehall Street Hearings Fax No: 212/336-3621

New York, New York 10004-2112 TTY No: 212/336-3622

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the 

State of New Jersey counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, 

Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, 

Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren.

Philadelphia District Office Commercial No: 215/440-2600

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 215/440-2800

801 Market St, Suite 1300 Hearings Fax No: 215/440-2805

TTY No: 215/440-2610

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 

The State of New Jersey except for the State of New Jersey 

counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, 

Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, 

Union, and Warren which should be sent to the New York 

District Office. The State of Ohio except for the State of 

Ohio counties under the jurisdiction of the Cincinnati Area 

Office (Adams, Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Champaign, Clark, 

Clermont, Clinton, Darke, Fayette, Gallia, Greene, Hamilton, 

Hardin, Highland, Jackson, Lawrence, Logan, Madison, Mercer, 

Miami, Montgomery, Pickaway, Pike, Preble, Ross, Scioto, 

Shelby, Union, and Warren; and The State of State of Ohio 

counties of Allen, Defiance, Fulton, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, 

Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix N EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. N-8 

Williams, Wood, and Wyandot. and the State of Kentucky 

counties of Bath, Boone, Bourbon, Boyd, Bracken, Breathitt, 

Campbell, Carter, Elliott, Fleming, Floyd, Gallatin, Grant, 

Greenup, Harrison, Johnson, Kenton, Knott, Lawrence, Letcher, 

Lewis, Magoffin, Martin, Mason, Menifee, Montgomery, 

Morgan, Nicholas, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Powell, Robertson, 

Rowan, and Wolfe) which should be sent to the Indianapolis 

District Office.

Phoenix District Office Commercial No: 602/640-5000

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 602/640-5039

3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 690 Hearings Fax No: 602/640-4729

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504 TTY No: 602/640-5072

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Arizona and Utah. The State of New Mexico 

except for the State of New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, 

Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lea, Luna, Otero, and Sierra which 

should be sent to the Dallas District Office. Hearing requests 

for the states of Colorado, and Wyoming should also be sent 

to the Phoenix District Office.

St. Louis District Office Commercial No: 314/539-7800

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 314/539-7800 

The Robert A. Young Building Hearings Fax No: 314/539-7894

1222 Spruce Street, 8th Fl., Rm.100 TTY No: 314/539-7803 

St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2828

Geographic Jurisdiction: The States of Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and 

the State of Illinois counties of Alexander, Bond, Calhoun, 

Clinton, Greene, Jackson, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Monroe, 

Perry, Pulaski, Randolph, St. Clair, Union, and Washington.

San Antonio Field Office Commercial No: 210/281-7600

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 210/281-7676

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 Hearings Fax No: 210/281-2520 

San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 TTY No: 210/281-7610

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Texas counties of Aransas, Atascosa, Bandera, 

Bastrop, Bee, Bexar, Blanco, Brooks, Burleson, Burnet, 

Caldwell, Cameron, Coke, Comal, Concho, Crockett, De Witt, 
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix N EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. N-9 

Dimmit, Duval, Edwards, Frio, Gillespie, Goliad, Gonzales, 

Guadalupe, Hays, Hidalgo, Irion, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, 

Kendall, Kennedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La Salle, 

Lee, Live Oak, Llano, McCulloch, McMullen, Mason, 

Maverick, Medina, Menard, Nueces, Real, Refugio, San 

Patricio, San Saba, Schleicher, Starr, Sutton, Terrell, Tom 

Green, Travis, Uvalde, Val Verde, Webb, Willacy, Williamson, 

Wilson, Zapata, and Zavala.

San Francisco District Office Commercial No: 415/522-3000

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 415/522-3023

Phillip Burton Federal Building, Suite 5000

450 Golden Gate Avenue Hearings Fax No: 415/522-3415

5 West, P.O. Box 36025

San Francisco, California 94102-3661 TTY No: 415/522-3152

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of California counties of Alameda, Alpine, Amador, 

Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, 

Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, 

Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San 

Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, 

Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, 

Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba; and the State of 

Nevada except for the State of Nevada counties of Clark, 

Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, and Nye which should be sent to 

the Los Angeles District Office.

Seattle Field Office Commercial No: 206/220-6884

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 206/220-6884

Federal Office Building Hearings Fax No: 206/220-6911

909 First Avenue, Suite 400 TTY No: 206/220-6882

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 

Geographic Jurisdiction: The State of Montana; The States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, 

and Washington.
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix N EEO-MD-110 , 2013

Management Directive 

App. N-10 

Washington Field Office Commercial No: 202/419-0700

EEOC Hearings Unit Phone No: 202/419-0713

131 M Street, NE, 4th Floor Hearings Fax No: 202/419-0740

Washington, D.C. 20507 TTY No: 202/419-0702

Geographic Jurisdiction: The District of Columbia and the State of Virginia counties 

of Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Loudoun, 

Prince William, Stafford, Warren, and the State of Virginia 

Independent Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax City, Falls Church, 

Manassas, Manassas Park, Winchester, Quantico, Dumfries, and 

Occoquan.
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix O EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. O-1

NOTICE OF APPEAL B AGENCY

TO THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS

 1. Agency (please print or type):

 2. Address:

 3. Name of agency representative:

 4. Telephone (including area code): E-Mail address:

 5. Name, address. telephone no. of complainant:

 6. If the complainant is represented, name, address, and telephone no. of representative:

 7. Agency complaint number:

 8. Name of Administrative Judge, District/Field Office location, and EEOC Hearings Unit No.:

 9. Date of agency final action (include a copy):

10. To your knowledge, does the complainant have any appeals pending at OFO? If so, please indicate the 

EEOC Appeal Nos.:

11. Signature of agency representative: Date:

NOTICE: Before mailing this appeal, please be sure to attach a copy of the final action and 

the Administrative Judge=s decision from which you are appealing. Please serve a copy of this 

appeal form on the complainant, with a copy of your final action. Any statement or brief in 

support of this appeal shall be submitted within twenty (20) days of the date this appeal 

is filed. Agencies must forward the complaint file to the EEOC within thirty (30) days of 

FOR EEOC USE ONLY: OFO DOCKET NO.: the submission of this appeal.

U.S. Government Printing Office 2000-462-842 
DRAFT for COMMENT
DRAFT for COMMENT

, 2013 Appendix P EEO-MD-110

Management Directive 

App. P-1

NOTICE OF APPEAL/PETITION - COMPLAINANT 

TO THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, DC 20013 

Complainant Information: (Please Print or Type)

Complainant‟s name (Last, First, M.I.:

Home/mailing address:

City, State, ZIP Code:

Daytime Telephone # (with area code)

E-mail address (if any):

Attorney/Representative Information (if any):

Attorney name:

Non-Attorney Representative name:

Address:

City, State, ZIP Code:

Telephone number (if applicable):

E-mail address (if any):

General Information:

Name of the agency being

Charged with discrimination:

Identify the Agency‟s complaint number:

Location of the duty station or local facility in 

which the complaint arose:

Has a final action been taken by the agency, an 

Arbitrator, FLRA, or MSPB on this complaint?

□ Yes Date Received ____________ (Remember to attach a copy)

□ No

□ This appeal alleges a breach of a settlement agreement

Has a complaint been filed on this same matter 

with the EEOC, another agency, or through any 

other administrative or collective bargaining 

procedures?

□ No

□ Yes (Indicate the agency or procedure, complaint/docket number, 

and attach a copy, if appropriate)

Has a civil action (lawsuit) been filed in 

connection with this complaint?

□ No

□ Yes (Attach a copy of the civil action filed)

NOTICE: Please attach a copy of the final decision or order from which you are appealing. If a hearing was 

requested, please attach a copy of the agency‟s final order and a copy of the EEOC Administrative Judge‟s 

decision. Any comments or brief in support of this appeal MUST be filed with the EEOC and with the agency 

within 30 days of the date this appeal is filed. The date the appeal is filed is the date on which it is postmarked, 

hand delivered, or faxed to the EEOC at the address above.

Signature of complainant or complainant‟s 

representative:

Date:
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix P EEO-MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. P-2

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT ON REVERSE SIDE. 

EEOC Form 573 REV 2/09 

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

(This form is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974. Public Law 93-597. Authority for requesting the personal data and 

the use thereof are given below) 

1. FORM NUMBER/TITLE/DATE: EEOC Form 573, Notice of Appeal/Petition, February 2009 

2. AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16

3. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit information to enable the Commission 

to properly and effectively adjudicate appeals filed by Federal employees, former Federal employees, and 

applicants for Federal employment. 

4. ROUTINE USES: Information provided on this form may be disclosed to: (a) appropriate federal, state, or 

local agencies when relevant to civil, criminal, or regulatory investigations or proceedings; (b) a Congressional 

office in response to an inquiry from that office at your request; and (c) a bar association or disciplinary board 

investigating complaints against attorneys representing parties before the EEOC. Decisions of the Commission 

are final administrative decisions, and, as such, are available to the public under the provisions of the Freedom 

of Information Act. Some information may also be used in depersonalized form as a data base for statistical 

purposes. 

5. WHETHER DISCLOSURE IS MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY AND EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL 

FOR NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION: Since your appeal is a voluntary action, you are not required to 

provide any personal information in connection with it. However, failure to supply the Commission with the 

requested information could hinder timely processing of your case, or even result in the rejection or dismissal of 

your appeal. 

Send your appeal to: 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Office of Federal Operations 

P.O. Box 77960 

Washington, D.C. 20013 
DRAFT for COMMENT

,2013 Appendix Q EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. Q -1 

APPENDIX Q EEO MD-110 

QUICK REFERENCE CHART

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO CLOSE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST COMMON OFO ORDERS

TYPE OF ORDER OR EVENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED

Attorney Fees

Dollar amount is adjudicated and 

ordered.

[Not general attorney fee entitlement] 

1. Copy of an agency payment order, print screen of electronic funds 

transfer or check issued to complainant (and attorney) for fees. 

2. A narrative statement by an appropriate agency official - one to 

know with reasonable certainty that payment was made. 

3. Documentation must include total monies paid, to whom, and when, 

or

4. A FAD on contest of fees

Awards

1. A narrative statement by an appropriate agency official, stating the 

dollar amount and the criteria used to calculate the award. An 

appropriate agency official must be one to know with reasonable 

certainty that the payment was made.

2. Documentation must include total monies paid, to whom, and when.

Back Pay

5 C.F.R. § 550.805

Interest

5 C.F.R. § 550.806

1. Computer print-outs or payroll documents delineating gross backpay before mitigation and interest, and 

2. Copies of any cancelled checks issued; or a copy of a print screen 

showing an electronic funds transfer.

3. Narrative statement by an appropriate agency official of total monies 

paid. An appropriate agency official must be one to know with 

reasonable certainty that the payment was made. (Last resort) 

Documentation must include total monies paid, to whom, and when.
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix Q EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. Q-2 

TYPE OF ORDER OR EVENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED

Breach of Settlement or

Non-Compliance with a 

Final Agency Action

(Remand – reinstatement / processing 

or specific performance of 

agreement/FAD)

For reinstatement at the point processing ceased - see documentation 

required for “Remand [of a] previously dismissed complaint,” 

For an order of specific performance, submit proof that specific 

performance was completed.

Civil Action Terminations

A complete copy of the civil action complaint demonstrating that it was 

filed in a Federal court and that it covers the same issues as the 

compliance matter.

Compensatory Damages

(Remand for determination)

FAD determining complainant‟s entitlement or non-entitlement to 

compensatory damages, with appeal rights to the EEOC/OFO. 

Compensatory Damages

(Orders to pay)

Evidence of payment - Copies of any cancelled checks issued; a copy of 

a print screen showing an electronic funds transfer; or a narrative 

statement by an appropriate agency official of total monies paid. An 

appropriate agency official must be one to know with reasonable 

certainty that the payment was made. Documentation must include total 

monies paid, to whom, and when.

Disciplinary Action Consideration 

of

Documentation of oral or written counseling or a copy of any written 

notice of reprimand, suspension, or other action taken against any of the 

identified responsible management officials or statement of reason for 

not taking action. Note: The Commission does not consider training as a 

form of disciplinary action.

Final Agency Decision (FAD) Copy of the FAD with appropriate appeal rights.

Personnel Actions 

(for example Reinstatement, 

Promotion, Hiring, Reassignment)

Copy of Standard Forms (SF) 50, or comparable notice of official 

action.

Petition for Enforcement

(Terminating compliance)

A petition for enforcement may be requested by a complainant when 

s/he believes that the Commission‟s Order has not been followed. The 

Compliance Officer will attempt to resolve the matter and may exercise 

appropriate discretion in having the matter docketed. Compliance will 

be suspended if the issue is critical to the remaining action(s) and the 

petition for enforcement is docketed.
DRAFT for COMMENT

,2013 Appendix Q EEO MD-110

Management Directive 

App. Q -3 

TYPE OF ORDER OR EVENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED

Posting a Notice of Violation The original signed and dated Notice, reflecting the dates that the notice 

was posted. A copy may suffice, if the original is not available.

Remand

(for example Reinstatement of 

complaint –from dismissal or breach 

of settlement)

(Reversal of Administrative Judge

summary judgment)

1. Copy of agency acknowledgement of remanded claims. 

2. Copy of appropriate notice of rights to a hearing or FAD w/in 

60days of receipt of notice and right to file a C/A w/in 90 days. A 

FAD will be required to close compliance when no hearing elected.

3. Copy of letter transmitting the investigative file to an Administrative 

Judge where hearing is requested or on reversal of an Administrative 

Judge Summary Judgment. 

Restoration of Leave A print-out or statement by an appropriate agency official, identifying 

the amount and type of leave restored.

Settlement Agreements 

(Which terminate compliance)

Written agreement signed and dated by both parties, containing specific 

dollar amounts and/or other applicable provisions. Should be followed 

up with documentation of relief provided. Settlement agreements will 

not relieve an agency from a Commission Order to post a Notice of 

Violation.

Supplemental Investigation

1. Copy of the letter acknowledging to the complainant, receipt of their 

remanded case from OFO.

2. Signed copy of the letter transmitting the Investigative File and 

appropriate notice of rights to the complainant – may be orderspecific.

3. Copy of the request for a hearing or a FAD. (Complainant‟s request 

for a hearing, agency transmittal of the complaint file to the 

appropriate Commission District/Field/Area Office, or a copy of the 

FAD.)
DRAFT for COMMENT

Appendix Q EEO MD-110 , 2013 

Management Directive 

App. Q-4 

TYPE OF ORDER OR EVENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED

Training

1. Attendance roster at training session(s) or a narrative statement by an 

appropriate agency official confirming training hours, course titles 

and content, if necessary.

2. Course description providing some indication that the training was 

appropriate for the discrimination found or commensurate with the 

order.