Preserve Separate EEOC Charges and Expand the Investigation

Introduction

To the EEOC and all reviewing authorities:

This is a formal demand, grounded in law and precedent, that the two distinct EEOC matters-Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 (filed 10-24-2024, pre-termination) and Inquiry No. 437-2025-01209 (filed 04-02-2025, post-termination)-remain separate and be independently and thoroughly investigated. Any attempt to consolidate or summarily dismiss these distinct charges would violate both the letter and spirit of the ADA, Title VII, and EEOC’s own enforcement mandates.

1. Distinct Factual Chronologies and Statutory Triggers

Statute: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12; 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)

• The first charge concerns events prior to termination (failure to accommodate, ongoing retaliation).

• The second charge arises after termination (wrongful discharge, continuing retaliation).

• Each event triggers separate statutory deadlines and legal standards; combining them risks procedural default and loss of rights.

2. Preservation of All Remedies and Tolling Rights

Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28

• Each charge preserves different remedies (reinstatement, back pay, front pay, injunctive relief).

• Consolidation could extinguish or limit remedies for the later-occurring wrongful termination, violating Congressional intent.

3. EEOC’s Duty to Investigate Each Discrete Act

Statute: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002)

• The Supreme Court requires each discrete act of discrimination or retaliation to be independently investigated and charged.

• Pre-termination retaliation and post-termination wrongful discharge are separate “discrete acts.”

4. Protection Against Employer “Bootstrapping” Defenses

Statute: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.19; 42 U.S.C. § 12203

• Employers often seek to “bootstrap” later acts (like firing) onto earlier charges to avoid scrutiny.

• Keeping charges separate prevents the employer from using a summary judgment on one to dismiss the other.

5. Due Process and Notice Requirements

Statute: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8

• Each charge provides distinct notice to the employer and triggers different defenses and obligations.

• Combining them prejudices the charging party’s right to fair process and full disclosure.

6. EEOC’s Mandate to Address Continuing and Evolving Retaliation

Statute: EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)

• The EEOC is required to address continuing retaliation, which may evolve after the initial charge.

• The second charge is an “open matter” with ongoing facts and should not be prejudiced by prior proceedings.

7. Preservation of Judicial Review and Right to Sue

Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28

• Each charge must be fully processed to preserve the right to a Notice of Right to Sue on each distinct claim.

• Premature consolidation could forfeit the right to federal court review on the second, open matter.

8. Public Interest in Robust Enforcement and Pattern-or-Practice Review

Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6; 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7

• Separate investigation allows the EEOC to uncover broader patterns of discrimination and retaliation, as seen in McLendon v. Cox and similar cases.

• The public interest demands that each form of employer misconduct be independently scrutinized to deter future violations.

Conclusion & Call to Action

The EEOC’s mission is not served by consolidation or summary disposition.
Each charge-pre-termination and post-termination-deserves the full weight of the Commission’s investigative and enforcement powers. To do otherwise would embolden employers to “wait out” charges, then retaliate further, knowing later acts will be swept under the rug.

I invoke all statutory rights, agency precedent, and the public interest in robust civil rights enforcement to demand:

• Separate, thorough investigation of each charge;

• Preservation of all remedies and rights;

• Expansion of the investigation to include pattern-or-practice review;

• Immediate notice to all parties that consolidation or summary judgment is improper and unlawful under the above-cited authorities.

Respectfully submitted,