Sample Request for a Hearing
IN THE MATTER OF: ] Current EEO File No.:
] EEOC 123-45-6789X
Ive Ben Wronged, ]
]
Complainant, ]
]
vs. ]
] AGENCY #1-H-234-4567-89
Daniel Glickman, ]
Secretary, Department of Agriculture, ] OFO
Appeal #01234567
]
Agency. ]
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
REQUEST FOR A HEARING
Complainant
requests that all of her outstanding cases be consolidated for hearing, and
that the Agency be Sanctioned for repeated and unjustified failures to process
EEO Complaints # 987654, # 654321, #321000 as well as failure to process eleven
additional informal EEO complaints dating back many years.
FACTUAL HISTORY
Complainant, Ms. Ive Ben Wronged, has been engaged in
a long process against the Agency for numerous EEO actions based primarily upon
disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation. Her complaints commenced
With respect to the first action, that pertained to a
breached settlement agreement which was subsequently appealed (see exhibit
#1). The Office of Federal Operations ruled
that the agency had in fact breached several provisions of the agreement and
afforded Complainant the remedy of her complaint’s reinstatement.
The second and third actions were eventually
consolidated and there were several mediation orders (see exhibit “4”). Upon failure to obtain a settlement, the
actions were to be turned back to an Administrative Judge for hearing. Years went by and Complainant heard nothing
from the Agency or the EEOC regarding the hearing. Complainant did virtually everything in her
power to obtain information regarding the hearing, including having her
Congressman, investigate the matter.
In addition to the three formal complaints filed by
Complainant, she filed eleven informal complaints. These were pursued by a prior attorney in a
letter dated,
After reviewing complainant’s file, by new Counsel,
Snider & Associates, LLC., Complainant sought a formal inquiry into the
status of the complaints and requested that the agency consent to consolidation
of all the matters for a hearing (see exhibit “7”). Such correspondence was sent
APPLICABLE
LAW
29 C.F.R. Section 1614(f) (3) states
“When the complainant, or the agency against which a
complaint is filed, 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 witness(es), the administrative
judge shall, in appropriate circumstances:
(i) 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;
(ii) Consider the matters to which the
requested information or testimony pertains to be established in favor of the
opposing party;
(iii) Exclude other evidence offered by the
party failing to produce the requested information or witness;
(iv) Issue a decision fully or partially in favor of the
opposing party; or
(v) Take such other actions as appropriate.”
In the case at bar, the least Complainant’s counsel
should be entitled to is written correspondence from the Agency, acknowledging
receipt of its representation and cooperation in setting forth a plan of action
to either: (1) consolidate the complaints for a single hearing; (2) providing a
detailed account of the status of the informal complaints filed; and (3)
provide correct information regarding the status of the latter two formal
complaints.
There also exists an issue as to the timeliness of the
reinstated complaint with respect to completing a timely investigation. The regulations mandate that the Agency must
conduct the investigation within 180 days of the complaint’s filing. The agency is also required to develop
complete and factual records upon which to make findings in on the matters
raised by the written complaint. Thus
far, the only Agency communication acknowledging its duty to investigate her is
the aforementioned August 2003 letter, describing a previous letter with
Complainant on
While the Agency may argue that the 180 day
requirement has not passed, by virtue of its August Correspondence, Counsel for
Complainant would have no way of knowing what, if any, investigation was
performed or if the Agency was planning on completing one, due to its lack of
response to Complainant’s simple request for acknowledgement. Motions such as this only become necessary
due to this lack of cooperation.
Finally, given that Complainant’s actions have dragged
on for some eight to nine years, it is unfair to her to further wait for an
Agency response. Instead, Counsel
respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative Law Judge investigate this
matter in order to get the complaints processed, hearings scheduled and arrange
for possible consolidation.
_________________________
Michael J. Snider, Esq.
Snider & Associates, LLC
410-653-9060 voice
410-653-9061 fax