FAD- Spin-Off Complaint

Claim 1 (Spin-Off Complaint)

 

Claim 1 constitutes a spin-off complaint. See EEOC Management Directive (MD) 110, Chapter 5, Section III(F). Under 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(8), an agency is required to dismiss a spin-off complaint, which alleges dissatisfaction, unfairness, or bias in the processing of an EEO complaint. Allegations regarding the manner in which EEO allegations have been processed are not actions which can be remedied through the EEO complaint process. See Zanger v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103038 (November 24, 2010) (claims concerning processing of complainant’s prior EEO case properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8) “because these claims alleged dissatisfaction with the processing of an EEO complaint”); see also Morin v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 0120092626 at *3 (August 26, 2010) (agency properly dismissed claim that EEO staff intentionally delayed processing of complainant’s current complaint).

 

Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the EEOC MD 110, Chapter 5, Section IV(D), and by copy of this decision, Claim 1 is being referred to Ted Gutman, FS Civil Rights Director, who is the relevant agency official responsible for the quality of FS EEO complaint processing. Mr. Gutman is required to respond to the Complainant’s concerns and provide a copy of the response to the Office of Adjudication. As required by the MD 110, the information obtained will be incorporated into the complaint files for the prior complaints.[1] See EEOC MD 110, Chapter 5, Section IV(D)(2) (“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”).

 

Regarding Claim 1, the Complainant is further advised that if his concerns about the processing of his prior EEO complaints are not satisfactorily resolved, he may present them to the EEOC at either of the following stages of his prior complaints:

 

1. if a hearing is requested, to the EEOC AJ when the complaint is under the jurisdiction of the AJ; or

 

1. if a hearing is not requested, to the EEOC, Office of Federal Operations (OFO) on appeal.

 

The Complainant will have “the burden of showing improper processing.” See EEOC MD 110, Chapter 5, Section IV(D)(3). However, the Complainant “must raise any dissatisfaction with the processing of his[] [prior] complaint[s] before the Administrative Judge issues a decision on th[ose] complaint[s], the agency takes final action on the complaint[s], or either the Administrative Judge or the agency dismiss[es] the complaint[s].” Id. “No concerns regarding improper processing raised after a decision will be accepted by the agency, the Administrative Judge, or OFO.” Id.

[1] The Complainant’s prior EEO cases are listed in note 4, supra.