You are viewing a Web site, archived on 20:41:25 Oct 15, 2004. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration.
External links, forms, and search boxes may not function within this collection.
Office of Compliance Seal
Left Menu Bar Contact Information, Get in Touch With Us What's New Archive Proposed Rules and Rulemaking Safety and Health Procedures for Covered Employees Reports and Studies Conducted by the Office The Manual, Your Guide to the Congressional Accountability Act Other Rights Family and Medical Leave Fair Labor Standards Disability Discrimination Age Discrimination Equal Opportunity Employment Organization, Who We Are and What We Do Forms and Publications, A Library of Forms and Publications Decisions, Board of Directors Decisions
Decisions, Final Board Decisions


LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-1999

v. Case No. 02-AC-54(CV, FL)
April 8 , 2004
Respondent/Employing Office. _________________________

Before the Board of Directors: Susan S. Robfogel, Chair; Barbara L. Camens, Alan V. Friedman; Roberta L. Holzwarth; Barbara Childs Wallace, Members.


In On September 9, 2003, Hearing Officer Michael W. Doheny issued the attached Decision in this matter. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Complainant had failed to meet her burden of proof regarding her non-promotion, equal pay and position reassignment claims.

The Board has considered the decision in light of the record, the petition for review, and parties’ briefs. The Board finds that the Hearing Officer’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and affirms the Hearing Officer’s determination that the record does not establish proscribed discrimination. See Office of the Architect of the Capitol v. Office of Compliance, et al., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541 (Fed. Cir. 03/11/2004). We rely upon the Hearing Officer’s finding and conclusion that the Appellant did not prove that her race or national origin motivated the employing office to reassign her. In so holding, we do not and need not rule on the alternate finding that the Appellant’s reassignment was not an actionable adverse action.


Pursuant to Section 406(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act and Section 8.01(d) of the Office’s Procedural Rules, the Board affirms the hearing officer’s merits determination of no discrimination in this matter.

It is so ordered.

Issued, Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2004



I hereby certify that on this 8th day of April 2004, I delivered a copy of this Decision of the Board of Directors to the following parties by the below identified means:

First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid

Jeffrey H. Leib, Esq.
Attorney at Law
5104 34th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid
& Facsimile Mail (w/o Hearing Officer Decision)

Peggy L. B. Tyler, Esq.
Office of Architect of the Capitol
Office of Employment Counsel
Ford House Building, Room H2-202
2nd and D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20515

Kisha L. Harley
Office of Compliance

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact wwwadmin@compliance.gov.

Text Size Link: Extra Large Text Link: Large Text Link: Meduim Text Link: Small Text

Get PDF version PDF version Get Acrobat Reader

Read Accompanying Hearing Officer's Decision