Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

2018 EEOPUB LEXIS 2694; 119 FEOR (LRP) 84; EEOC (IHS) 0120170991

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

October 10, 2018

Appeal No. 0120170991, Agency No. GSA-16-CO-Q-0027



Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency's December 15, 2016, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.


The issues presented are whether the Agency properly found that Complainant did not prove she was subjected to reprisal, and whether the Agency should be sanctioned because its Office of General Counsel (OGC) intruded into the EEO process during counseling and the investigation.


At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Telecommunications Specialist, GS-13, within the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) in Washington, D.C.

On March 24, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint in which she alleged that the Agency subjected her to reprisal because of prior protected EEO activity [*2]  when:

1. On November 16, 2015, she became aware that her fiscal year 2015 (FY 2015) performance plan had been altered in the Comprehensive Human Resources Integrated System (CHRIS);

2. On January l4, 2016, she was told withdrawn her December 24, 2015 request for annual leave;

3. On January 20, 2016, her request for official time was denied;

4. On January 28, 2016, her time spent on EEO activities was being closely monitored; and

5. Around January 25, 2016, she became aware that she was left off emails that were sent to her team.

In an investigative statement, Complainant stated that she previously filed two EEO complaints regarding her immediate supervisor (S1) that were before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Regarding claim 1, Complainant stated that between November 10, 2015 and November 16, 2015, S1 asked her to review her FY 2015 annual performance plan and to be prepared to discuss it. Complainant further stated that when she went into the CHRIS system, she noticed that there was information in the critical factors that had not been in the FY 2015 performance plan. She stated that when she looked at the FY 2015 performance plan, she noticed [*3]  that her FY 2015 performance plan had been altered. Complainant stated that some critical elements contained completely different standards in the altered plan than were found in her original FY 2015 plan.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2018 EEOPUB LEXIS 2694 *; 119 FEOR (LRP) 84; EEOC (IHS) 0120170991

[TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT] Annalee D., 1 Complainant, v. Emily W. Murphy, Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency  

Subsequent History:

Vacated by, in part, Modified by, in part, On reconsideration by Redacted v. Murphy, 2019 EEOPUB LEXIS 3828 (E.E.O.C., Nov. 27, 2019)


email, telework, employees, complaints, changes, reprisal, withdraw, altered, home office, investigator, responses, sanctions, subjected, worksheet, prepare, final decision, timekeeper, revised