The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the primary federal agency charged with investigating, memorializing, and enforcing claims of discrimination, retaliation, and related statutory violations under Title VII, the ADA, and related statutes. The facts and claims in this matter—including but not limited to ADA accommodation, FMLA interference, retaliation, record falsification, and ongoing adverse action—fall squarely within the EEOC’s jurisdiction and mandate.

• Comprehensive Jurisdiction: This case involves allegations of disability discrimination, retaliation for protected activity, interference with medical leave, and related adverse actions—all of which are expressly within the EEOC’s statutory investigative and enforcement authority.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA enforcement via Title VII procedures)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and (f)(1) (EEOC investigative authority and enforcement)
  • 29 C.F.R. §§ 1601.15, 1601.18 (submission and use of party statements as evidence)
  • EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, rev. 2022) (collaborative investigation and systemic referral)
• Non-Delegable Record-Preservation Duty: The EEOC is required to preserve the full evidentiary record—including all filings, addenda, and cross-agency communications—and to transmit these materials to all relevant oversight agencies for synchronized review. Any attempt to segment, minimize, or prematurely close the record would violate both agency regulations and the EEOC’s own Quality Practices and MD-110 directives.
• Pattern and Practice, Systemic, and Cross-Agency Implications: The facts and evidence in this case—including executive-level inaction, ongoing retaliation, and record falsification—raise systemic concerns that the EEOC is uniquely positioned and required to investigate, memorialize, and, where appropriate, refer for further action by the DOJ, DOL, OSIG, and other agencies. See, e.g., McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc., 872 F.2d 1155 (3d Cir. 1989) (affirming agency’s duty to preserve and act on systemic evidence).
• Rebuttal of Improper Jurisdictional Minimization: Any suggestion—such as previously made by the prior investigator—that portions of the Complainant’s filings “fall outside” EEOC jurisdiction, are “unlikely to result in a cause finding,” or are “routine performance discussions” is both factually and legally unsupported. The EEOC is required to memorialize, investigate, and, where appropriate, refer all claims that are part of a pattern of retaliation, discrimination, or bad faith, regardless of whether they also implicate other agencies or statutes.
• Ongoing and Expanding Record: The Complainant has notified the EEOC that this matter will be submitted in two parts, with Part II (including a new inquiry and additional evidence) forthcoming. The record is not closed, and the EEOC is required to preserve and incorporate all subsequent filings and agency responses. Any attempt to close or minimize the record at this stage would constitute a denial of due process and a violation of the agency’s statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The EEOC has both the jurisdiction and the non-delegable duty to fully investigate, memorialize, and, where appropriate, refer all claims and evidence in this matter. The Complainant respectfully requests that the EEOC and all oversight agencies preserve the full record, refrain from premature closure or segmentation, and ensure that all subsequent filings are entered into the permanent record and transmitted to all relevant oversight bodies.