Reported
Earlier retaliation matter involving Intel
The charging party reports filing an EEOC retaliation matter involving Intel. He says he provided evidence that he believed made the retaliation clear, but that the EEOC took no meaningful enforcement action.
He further reports that the underlying accommodation process continued for more than a year without an accommodation being implemented.
Oversight question: What minimum investigative steps does the EEOC expect when a charging party identifies evidence of retaliation, and how does the agency audit whether those steps occurred?
Allegation
Post-employment ADA retaliation and interference
The charging party states that in 2026 he initiated a new EEOC matter alleging post-employment retaliation and interference under the ADA. The new allegations concern continuing conduct during separate employment litigation/arbitration rather than asking the EEOC to re-decide the original discrimination claims.
The project will not publish confidential arbitration material, protective-order material, or other information that is not appropriate for public disclosure.
Reported
Intake appointment reportedly scheduled for February 2027
The charging party reports that his intake interview for the new 2026 filing was scheduled for February 2027.
Oversight question: How frequently are charging parties offered intake appointments many months in the future, what is the median and 90th-percentile wait by field office, and what happens when statutory filing deadlines are approaching?
Policy question
This site is designed to test whether the experience is unusual.
One person's experience cannot establish a national pattern. That is why the project collects structured submissions from other charging parties and compares them against public EEOC statistics.
Share a similar experience
Publication rule for future evidence
Documents added to this page should be public records or otherwise lawfully publishable. Protective-order materials, confidential conciliation information, privileged attorney communications, private medical information, and other restricted material should not be published merely because the project possesses it.