EEOC Appeal 2020001481

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Tu D, 1
Complainant,
v.
Andrew M. Saul,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001481
Agency No. DAL-19-1046-SSA
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from the Agency's final decision dated November 19, 2019, dismissing a formal
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Customer Service
Representative in Pasadena, Texas.
The record reflects the following chronology of events. On October 22, 2019, Complainant filed
a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity.
In its November 19, 2019 final decision, the Agency determined that the formal complaint was
comprised of the following claim: 	on July 17, 2019, management questioned and denied
Complainant’s request for official time.
The Agency dismissed Complainant’s formal complaint for failure to state a claim reasoning that
official 	time 	claims 	do 	not 	involve 	an 	evaluation 	of 	whether 	management 	engaged 	in
discrimination.
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.

2020001481	2
The Agency stated “when complainants raise claims involving official time, the Agency is required
to demonstrate that it did not violate the Commission’s requirement set forth as 29 C.F.R.
1614.605(b) that each employee be given a reasonable amount of official time…to prepare the
complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information.” The Agency stated that
it would process this claim outside the EEO process because it involves a possible violation of an
EEOC rule rather than an allegation of discrimination.
Complainant filed the instant appeal. Complainant does not submit a statement or brief in support
of her appeal.
On January 31, 2020, the Agency issued a decision finding that Complainant was not denied a
reasonable amount of official time.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission has stated that a claim regarding the denial of official time concerns a violation
of the Commission’s regulations and does not require a determination of whether the denial was
motivated by discrimination. 	See Edwards v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05960179
(Dec. 23, 1996). Thus, we find that the Agency properly issued a separate decision on this matter
addressing whether Complainant was provided a reasonable amount of official time.
Because Complainant’s appeal was pending before us when the Agency issued its January 31,
2020 decision finding that Complainant was not denied a reasonable amount of official time, we
find that this matter is properly before us.
Agencies shall afford complainants a reasonable amount of official time to allow a complete
presentation of relevant information associated with their complaint and to respond to agency
requests for information. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.605. 	The actual number of hours to which a
complainant is entitled will vary, depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint
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.
Because investigations are conducted by agency or Commission personnel, the above regulation
does not envision large amounts of official time for preparation purposes. 	Consequently,
“reasonable,” with respect to preparation time (as opposed to time in meetings and hearings), is
generally defined in terms of hours, not in terms of days, weeks, or months albeit what is
reasonable depends on the individual circumstances of each complaint. EEOC Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. , § VII.C
(rev. Aug. 5, 2015).
In the instant matter, we find that the Agency properly found that Complainant was provided with
a reasonable amount of official time.

2020001481	3
Complainant had alleged that she was not provided with a sufficient amount of official time
regarding her prior EEO complaint, Agency Case No. DAL-19-0398-SSA 2 . 	The issues in that
complaint were 1) did the Agency discriminate against Complainant based on reprisal when on
February 28, 2019, management failed to grant Complainant an hour of court leave for jury duty?
and 2) did the Agency subject Complainant to harassment based on sex and disability, when on
December 21, 2018, management requested medical documentation from her medical professional
with the Complainant’s medical diagnosis for her sick leave request and subsequently sent an email
to staff stating that management requests medical documentation from employees who are not
trustworthy.
The record reflects that from February-September 2019, the Agency granted Complainant nine
hours of official time and denied her request for the remaining 29 hours. The record reflects that
Complainant was granted one hour of official time to be used on February 5, 2019 for the initial
complaint. The Agency granted Complainant’s request for two hours of official time to be used
on March 28, 2019 for “gathering information.” On April 10, 2019, the Agency granted one hour
of official time for an interview to be used on April 11, 2019. The Agency denied Complainant
requests for official time for June 10, June 21, and June 24, 2019 for two hours for each date,
reasoning that the information Complainant provided was not sufficient to make a decision.
However, the Agency granted Complainant one hour of official time to be used on June 7, 2019
for “researching in preparation of the case.” Complainant requested to be provided with six hours
of official time for use on July 18, 2019 for her statement and rebuttal statements. The Agency
provided her with two hours, reasoning that the amount of time requested exceeds the time needed
based on the complexity of the complaint. 	The record reflects that several other requests were
denied for official time in July 2019, based on the time requested exceeded the time needed and/or
the request was not received in advance to provide sufficient time to make a determination.
However, the Agency did provide Complainant with one hour official time to be used on July 22,
2019 for rebuttals. Finally, the Agency provided one hour of official time to be used on September
18, 2019.
We find that the nine hours provided in the instant matter was a reasonable amount of official time
based on the complexity of the EEO complaint at issue and the reason provided for the official
time.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s decision finding that Complainant was provided with a
reasonable amount of official time.
2 The record reflects that an EEOC AJ on January 30, 2020 issued a decision without a hearing
finding no discrimination on Complainant’s prior EEO complaint, Agency Case No. DAL;19-
0398-SSA. 	In the alternative, the AJ dismissed Complainant’s complaint for failure to state a
claim.

2020001481	4
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:
1. 	The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or
2. 	The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 	Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 	In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. 	Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. 	The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety
(90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must
name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result
in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider
and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.

2020001481	5
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ 	Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 3, 2020
Date