REMEDIES: WHAT IS A “NO CONTACT” ORDER?

It is a remedy no one should forget to request. Josefina at the VA did not.  She filed a complaint alleging her manager had subjected her to a hostile work environment on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity as evidenced by several incidents. The EEOC agreed and issued an unusual order called a “No Contact” order. It required the agency to “… take all necessary steps to ensure that, following her reinstatement, Complainant has no contact with the Supervisory Medical Instruments Technician (hereinafter Former Supervisor.” When a dispute arose as to whether the agency was complying, the Commission wrote—

“While Complainant asserts that the Agency misled her into accepting the offered position by providing false information about the lack of contact with Former Supervisor, the record shows that Former Supervisor and Complainant both received no contact orders. In addition, the record establishes that Former Supervisor is no longer in a supervisory position and Complainant has been provided a new supervisor for the reinstated position.

Furthermore, on May 18, 2023, Former Supervisor was issued a Temporary Detail Assignment in which she was informed that she would work from Room 1B163, or any other non-9th floor rooms, and perform non-supervisory duties as assigned. Former Supervisor’s no contact order explicitly prohibited contact in the form of emailing, texting, calling, instant messaging, voice mailing or using third parties to communicate. On May 22, 2023, Complainant was also provided with a no contact order which instructed that in the event she must communicate with Former Supervisor in the performance of her duties, she should contact her new supervisor. Accordingly, we find that the record establishes that the Agency has complied with the final order and offered Complainant a position of reinstatement with no contact with Former Supervisor.”

Sadly, about the same time the EEOC decided Josephina’s case, a similar case came before it wherein Alina made similar allegations against DOD managers. She alleged the following:

1. 1. The Lead Food Service Worker (Lead 1: male) held Complainant tightly and kissed her neck;
   2. Lead 1 would look at Complainant and lick his lips;
   3. Lead 1 would stare Complainant up and down and make grunting noises.
   4. The Lead Deli/Bakery worker (Lead 2: female) made inappropriate comments about Complainant’s body and stated that her reason for harassing Complainant was because Complainant had filed an EEO complaint against a fellow coworker;
   5. In June of 2020, the Store Director (Director: male) on three occasions denied Complainant’s requests to be removed from the deli/bakery department and reassigned to a store worker position so as to get away from the hostile work environment she was experiencing. Director subsequently suggested Complainant should “go get counseling.”

But she never asked for a “no contact” order and as a result EEOC never imposed one.  It gave her $85,000 in damages, but no guarantee that she will not have to deal with those managers ever aqain.

You can find the details of Josephina’s case at: Josefina P.,v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), EEOC No. 2023003721 2025).  Alina’s details can be found at: Aline A., v.Pete Hegseth, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC  No. 2023004274 (2025)