NATURE OF THE CASE
1Plaintiff brings this civil action against the above-named party pursuant to Title VII
1:26-cv-1059
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. for relief from Defendant’s unlawful discrimination of Mr. Justin on the basis of Retaliation (engagement in protected EEO activity) and being subjected to a hostile work environment during the course of his employment with Defendant.
2Defendant, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a federal agency, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of Retaliation (prior protected activity), and subjected him to a hostile work environment during the relevant time period.
3On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff received his Appeal Closure Letter from the Office of Federal Operations, providing that Plaintiff had ninety (90) days to file a civil action in the appropriate federal district court.
PARTIES
4Plaintiff is currently domiciled at 1213 McAdoo Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21207. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Maryland and is a United States citizen.
5At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center (“VAMC”), as a Registered Nurse, VN-02, Step 1, in Baltimore, Maryland.
6Defendant Secretary Douglas Collins (“Secretary Collins”) is named in his official capacity as the Secretary for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA” or “Agency”).
7Secretary Collins is directly liable for the discriminatory actions or omissions of his agents, servants, and employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment, under the theory of Respondeat Superior.
JURISDICTION
8This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1343, as it asserts a claim that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Jurisdiction is also appropriate as the actions complained of herein are actions and employment practices of Defendant, an agency of the federal government.
9Venue is appropriate and based on the fact that a substantial part of the actions complained of are the result of actions and the employment practices of the Defendant, an agency of the federal government, that operates within the District of Columbia, and which occurred in the District of Columbia. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue is further proper in this district because there is no other district in which this action may otherwise be brought. Id.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies as follows:
10Plaintiff timely initiated contact with the Defendant’s Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Office on October 30, 2022.
11On November 8, 2022, Mr. Justin had the initial interview with an EEO counselor regarding his informal EEO complaint.
12On January 18, 2023, Mr. Justin received a Notice of Right to File (“NORF”).
13On March 8, 2023, the Agency issued a notice of Partial Acceptance.
14On March 20, 2023, the Agency by and through EEO Manager, Karen Mason, denied Mr. Justin’s request to amend his Notice of Partial Acceptance, and was instead informed that the information Mr. Justin was trying to amend will be naturally expounded upon during the investigative process.
15On April 7, 2023, the Agency accepted the following claims for consideration on Mr. Justin’s matter:
Whether Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment based on Reprisal as evidenced by the following events:
a) On or around September 30, 2022, Complainant discovered his original FY 2021 performance appraisal had been removed, and Bernadette Briggs (BB), Nurse Manager, replaced it with a different copy that did not include his accomplishments; b) On October 7, 2022, BB denied Complainant’s request to change his employment status from full-time to intermittent; c) On October 21, 2022, BB issued Complainant a Written Counseling for misconduct.
16On April 24, 2023, the Agency assigned Mr. Justin’s matter for investigation to an external contractor, Christina Wong, The Ravens Group, Inc., tasked with serving as the investigator in the matter (hereinafter “EEO Investigator”).
17On June 13, 2023, the EEO Investigator finalized her portion of the investigation and issued a Report of Investigation Summary.
18However, neither Mr. Justin nor his counsel received any correspondence regarding the aforementioned completion, nor did they ever receive the Notice of Advisement of Rights.
19On August 22, 2023, the Agency referred Mr. Justin’s matter to the Department of Veterans Affairs for Final Agency Decision alleging that Mr. Justin had waived the right to request a hearing by failing to respond within thirty (30) days of receipt to the Notice of Advisement of Rights dated June 28, 2023.1 1 The Agency asserted that Mr. Justin received the notice and investigative file via email on June
20Unbeknownst to Mr. Justin and his noticed counsel, the Agency sent the Report of Investigation (“ROI”) to Mr. Justin’s work e-mail only.
21At the time, Mr. Justin was on medical leave and did not have access to his work e-mail address, which was known to the Agency.
22On August 30, 2023, the Agency was once again made aware that Mr. Justin had legal representation.
23On September 20, 2023, the Agency issued a Final Agency Decision (“FAD”).
24On September 22, 2023, Mr. Justin filed, through noticed counsel, a timely hearing request based on when he had actually received the Notice of Advisement of Rights.
25On September 26, 2023, Mr. Justin received a referral for hearing on his case.
26As part of the referral for hearing, Mr. Justin and his attorney received the complete investigative package, including the ROI, when the Agency uploaded the documents to EEOC Portal.
27On October 4, 2023, the Agency allegedly filed a Motion to Dismiss.
28Again, the Agency never served its Motion on Appellant or Appellant’s counsel.
29At the time the Agency filed its motion, Appellant was not aware an administrative judge had even been assigned.
30Prior to the Order of Dismissal, the EEOC had not issued any order relating to case processing or deadlines.
31On November 16, 2023, Mr. Justin’s case was dismissed by Administrative 30, 2023. However, Mr. Justin’s counsel was not included in the correspondence. The Agency cannot and has not demonstrated proper service of the notice and investigative file.
