language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

Philippine Laws and Cases.: Barangay complaint; sample. complainant

Philippine Laws and Cases. Manuel J. zpujpduw. complaint Laserna Jr., Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices, Las Pinas City, Philippines.


moncler snowsuit baby girl
complaint letter writing
us digital millennium copyright act bypass
outlet moncler italia

The EEO Counselor should have no further involvement in resolving the matter until he or she is advised of the outcome of the ADR process.

F. If Mediation is not Chosen

The EEO Counselor must advise the Aggrieved Person that if he/she does not choose to participate in the agency's ADR program, the dispute(s) about which he/she contacted the EEO Counselor will be handled through the agency's traditional EEO counseling procedures.


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, or reprisal related to or stemming from an action that may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (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, or reprisal. There is no right to a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge on a mixed case complaint.

B. Procedures

The 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.

Standing The following employees generally have a right to appeal to the MSPB and, therefore, to initiate a mixed case complaint or appeal:

(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 (e.g., 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 (e.g., attorneys).

The following employees generally do not have a right to appeal to the MSPB:

(1) probationary employees; (2) certain non-appropriated fund activity employees; (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 Postal Rate Commission, the Panama Canal Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Appealable Actions 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 reduction-in-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.

Election to Proceed is Required 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 . Whatever action the individual files first is considered an election to proceed in that forum. Filing a formal EEO complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO forum. Contacting an EEO Counselor or receiving EEO counseling does not constitute an election. Where an Aggrieved Person files an MSPB appeal and timely seeks counseling, counseling may continue at the option of the parties. 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. CHAPTER 5 DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS' (DOCR) PROCESSING OF FORMAL COMPLAINTS 5.1 Acknowledgement of Formal Complaints

Immediately upon receipt of a formal complaint of discrimination, the DOCR will acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing.

The DOCR will send the complainant an acceptance letter stating the claims accepted for investigation. A copy of the acceptance letter is provided to the FHWA Office of Civil Rights. The FHWA Office of Civil Rights provides a copy of the letter to the servicing Headquarters or field office attorney. The DOCR assigns a contractor or DOCR staff investigator to investigate the complaint. The EEO Investigator will contact the FHWA Office of Civil Rights to determine the responsible management official in the program office named in the dispute. The management official should identify a staff member to work with the EEO Investigator. The staff member will be responsible for assisting the EEO Investigator with scheduling interviews and meetings and obtaining documentation.

5.2 Providing Other Information and Notice of Rights

A. The DOCR Shall Inform the Complainant of the Agency's Obligations

To Investigate in a Timely Manner

The DOCR 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 unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time period.

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 2 from the DOCR.

To Process Mixed Cases in a Timely Manner

With regard to mixed case complaints, if a final decision 2 is not issued on a mixed case complaint within 120 days of the date of filing, the complainant may appeal to the MSPB at any time thereafter or file a civil action but not both. The complainant is not entitled to a hearing before the EEOC on a mixed case.

B. The DOCR Shall Inform Complainant of His/Her Rights

The Right to 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.

The Right to Appeal

The complainant has the right to appeal a dismissal, final action or a decision.

The DOCR will inform the complainant that he/she may appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the dismissal, final action or decision. 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:

Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a final action on an individual or class complaint if no appeal has been filed; 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; Within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC's final decision on appeal; or After 180 days from the date of the filing of an appeal with the EEOC if there has been no final decision by the EEOC. 5.3 Conducting the Investigation

A. The DOCR Retains Responsibility

The DOCR is responsible for conducting an appropriate investigation of complaints.

B. 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 the following actions:

The complaint must be appropriately investigated and include an appropriate factual record that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred. Copies of the investigative file, including a summary of the investigation, must be provided to the complainant(s). Within thirty (30) days , notice must be given to the complainant informing him/her 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 DOCR. 5.4 Final Actions After the Investigation

After the investigation is completed, the complainant may request a hearing before an Administrative Judge or request a Final Agency Decision based on the merits of each claim in the complaint; or, as appropriate, the rationale for dismissing any claims in the complaint.


The EEO Investigator is a person officially designated and authorized to conduct inquiries into claims raised in EEO complaints. The EEO Investigator's responsibilities include the authority to administer oaths and to require employees to furnish testimony under oath or affirmation without a promise of confidentiality. The EEO Investigator does not make or recommend a finding of discrimination.

6.2 The 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. A copy of the complaint shall be provided to the EEO Investigator prior to the commencement of the investigation. The investigative process is non-adversarial. The EEO Investigator is obligated to collect evidence regardless of the parties' positions with respect to the items of evidence.

A. 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 EEOC 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.

B. 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, interrogatories, and affidavits.

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 any; 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.

6.3 The Role of the EEO Investigator

A. Collecting and Discovering Factual Information

The role of the EEO 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 EEO Investigator may accomplish his/her mission in a variety of ways, such as: a presiding official at a fact-finding conference; an examiner responsible for developing material evidence; an issuer of requests for information in the form of requests for the production of documents, interrogatories, and affidavits; and/or, a face-to-face interviewer in on-site visits.

C. EEO Investigator Must Be Unbiased and Objective

In whatever the mix of fact-finding activity selected for a particular case, the EEO Investigator must be and must maintain the appearance of being unbiased, objective, and thorough. He/she must be neutral in his/her approach to factual development. The EEO Investigator is not an advocate for any of the parties or interests and should refrain from developing allegiances to them.

6.4 Witnesses and Representatives in the Federal EEO Complaint Process

A. Official Time

Complainants are entitled to a representative of their choice during pre-complaint counseling and at all stages of the EEO 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.

Former employees of an agency who initiate the EEO complaint process concerning an adverse action relating to their prior employment with the agency are considered employees, and their representatives, if they are currently employed by 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 the EEOC or agency officials in connection with the complaint.

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 the 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 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.

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.

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 EEOC, even though no meetings or hearings are involved. However, because investigations are conducted by agency or EEOC 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.

Aggregate Time Spent on EEO Matters

The EEOC 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, the EEOC's regulation provides that in cases where the representation of a complainant or agency would conflict with the official or collateral duties of the representative, the EEOC 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 he/she has a designated representative.

The EEOC does not require agencies to provide official time to employee representatives who are representing complainants in cases against other Federal agencies. However, the EEOC encourages agencies to provide such official time.

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.

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 reason(s) 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 subsequently files a complaint.

B. Use of Government Property

The complainant's or complainant's non-attorney representative's use of government property (copiers, telephones, word processors) must be authorized by the agency and must not cause undue disruption of agency operations.

6.5 Sanctions for Failure to Cooperate During the Investigation

Agencies are required to develop an impartial and appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the claim(s) raised in the written complaint. The EEOC Administrative Judge and the EEOC's 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.

Moreover, agencies and complainants each have a duty to cooperate with the EEO Investigator during the investigation. The complainant, as well as the agency, may be subject to sanction where it fails to comply with a request of the EEO Investigator for documents, records, comparative data, statistics, affidavits, or the attendance of witnesses. The EEO Investigator shall make a note in the investigative file concerning the party's failure, without good cause shown, to comply and the decision-maker (EEOC Administrative Judge during the hearing process or the DOCR where the complainant requests a Final Agency Decision) or the EEOC on appeal may, in appropriate circumstances:

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; conside

The EEOC encourages the resolution of complaints at all times during the EEO complaint process.

r the matter(s) to which the requested information or testimony pertains to be established in favor of the opposing party; exclude other evidence offered by the party failing to produce the requested information or witness; issue a decision fully or partially in favor of the opposing party; or take such other actions as it deems appropriate. 6.6 Offer of Resolution

The EEOC encourages the resolution of complaints at all times during the EEO complaint process.

CHAPTER 7 HEARINGS 7.1 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. An Administrative Judge from the EEOC adjudicates claims of discrimination and issues decisions. Administrative Judge decisions, in non-class action cases, become the final action of the agency if the agency does not issue a final order within forty (40) days of receipt of the Administrative Judge's decision.

The FHWA and its management officials will be represented by the FHWA Office of Chief Counsel (HCC) and HCC will provide advice, information, and guidance related to the discovery process for any scheduled hearing.

7.2 The Role of the Administrative Judge

Once an Administrative Judge is appointed, the Administrative Judge has full responsibility for the adjudication of the complaint. The agency cannot dismiss a case that has been referred to the EEOC for a hearing.

A. Dismissal of Complaint by Administrative Judge

The Administrative Judge may dismiss complaints within his/her jurisdiction on his/her own initiative, after notice to the parties, or upon an agency's motion to dismiss a complaint.

B. Transmittal of the Decision and Hearing Record

At the conclusion of the hearing stage the Administrative Judge shall send to the parties 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 (e.g., 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.

7.3 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 disorderly conduct at any time subsequent to the docketing of a complaint for a hearing is subject to sanction. Persons may be excluded from the hearing for disruptive 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 EEOC may suspend or disqualify the representative from future hearings, refer the matter to an appropriate licensing authority, or both.

APPENDIX Simplified Flowchart for EEO Complaint Process

NOTE: The flowchart was developed by DOCR.

1 The term "management official" refers to any staff member who serves in a supervisory capacity and is responsible for assignment of work, performance appraisals, issuing awards, disciplinary actions, etc.

2 Final decision or final action refers to the DOCR's issuance of a Final Agency Decision or a dismissal of the complaint.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Headquarters, Office of Civil Rights, Investigations and Adjudications Unit Southeast Federal Center 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE HCR-40, Room E81-101 Washington, DC 20590

202/366-0693 or Fax: 202/366-1599 TTY: 202/366-5751

Visit us on the Web: https://www.fhwa./civilrights/

Publication No.: FHWA-CR-08-002

Return to top

Page last modified on May 18, 2012.

Complainant offers ‘witness’ money to confirm story April 26, 2017 213  Assassination allegation As the probe into the alleged assassination plot against the Guyanese Head of State deepens, Police have discovered new information which may change the entire direction of the investigation. Guyana Times understands that the complainant, who is a well-known barber of Grove, East Bank Demerara (EBD), had offered a significant sum of money to someone to support his claim of being approached by two businessmen to kill President David Granger. The complainant who claimed that two local businessmen hired him to assassinate President David Granger The complainant, who up to Monday evening was being hunted by Police, finally showed up at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters on Tuesday for a confrontation with the ‘witness’, who he had said had information to corroborate the assassination plot. When contracted on Tuesday, Crime Chief Wendell Blanhum confirmed that there was indeed a confrontation between the ‘witness’ and the complainant. He said this was necessary based on recommendations from the Police’s legal advisers. In a confrontation, the accused and the virtual complainant (in this case the witness and complainant) would relate their version of events in the presence of officers; and the accused either denies or confirms the statements. Given the sensitive nature of the case, Blanhum did not divulge more information; however, he disclosed that the new statements were submitted to the Police’s legal advisers for further recommendations. The statements initially submitted by the complainant and the alleged witness did not match, and as such, Police advisers had recommended a confrontation to clarify the situation. Monetary offer This publication understands from reliable sources close to the probe that the alleged witness told Police investigators during the confrontation that the complainant had contacted him, and offered a sum of money in exchange for him giving a statement claiming that he (the alleged witness) was present when the two businessmen contacted the complainant about allegedly assassinating the President. According to the source, the complainant had only made the monetary offer after he informed the Police of the assassination plot. Guyana Times was told that the alleged witness refused the offer and had made contact with the Police when the investigation was launched. This publication was unable to determine whether or not the complainant conceded to the statements provided by the alleged witness. Fear Meanwhile, another source close to the investigation told Guyana Times that the complainant allegedly owes the businessmen whom he accused in excess of $8 million, which he had borrowed to pay off debts when he first started a mining operation. Independent investigations revealed that his creditors had approached him to enquire about their money; and based on his inability to repay the money and more so out of fear of what the men may be capable of doing, he allegedly levelled the allegation against them. This barber had reportedly worked with the businessmen he implicated for some time prior to opening his own mining concession a few years ago. These businessmen have already been interrogated by members of the Major Crimes Unit of the Guyana Police Force (GPF). Mischief Police Commissioner Seelall Persaud had told reporters that the Police’s legal minds were to make a determination on whether there was enough evidence to support the allegation of an assassination plot or whether it was just a ploy to create mischief. He, nevertheless, said if the allegation was indeed true, the guilty parties involved could be charged for treason, but if it was a mischievous act, the person who made the allegation could be charged for providing false information to the Police. TV interview Shortly after news broke of the investigations into an alleged assassination plot against the Head of State, the complainant appeared on a local private television station to relate his story. The matter involving the alleged plot to assassinate President David Granger was first brought to light by Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, at a weekly post-Cabinet press briefing. In that interview, the barber revealed that he was offered $7 million and given a “long black gun” by a businessman to carry out the job of assassinating the President, but he had declined the offer. Reports indicate that he subsequently filed a complaint with the Police, prompting the investigation which has been ongoing for approximately three weeks. SHARE Facebook Twitter tweet Previous article Protests against closure of sugar estates gain momentum Next article Man killed in row over water GTIMES