DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This case is before the Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to a petition filed by the appellant, Eve Ferguson (“Ferguson”), seeking review of the January 13, 2020 Order of the Hearing Officer that dismissed this case without prejudice to refiling as a new claim. Upon due consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Order, the parties’ briefs and filings, and the record in these proceedings, the Board AFFIRMS the Order AS MODIFIED herein. We REMAND Ferguson’s December 26, 2019 pleading in this case to the Clerk of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (“OCWR”) for docketing as a new claim, with an effective filing date of December 26, 2019.
I. Background
The operative facts in this case are not in dispute. They occurred, however, during a period of transition in which the administrative dispute resolution (“ADR”) procedures set forth in the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”), 2 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018 (“Reform Act”), Pub. L. No. 115–397.
Under pre-Reform Act ADR procedures, the CAA required that an employee satisfy two jurisdictional prerequisites in order to file a formal administrative complaint with the OCWR. Specifically, before bringing a claim for violation of the CAA, an employee first had to complete mandatory counseling and mandatory mediation with the OCWR. 2 U.S.C. § 1408(a) (2006). Failure to complete counseling and mediation in the manner then prescribed by the CAA deprived the Board of jurisdiction over the ensuing administrative complaint. See Blackmon– Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699, 705 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Gordon v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 928 F. Supp. 2d 196, 204 (D.D.C. 2013); Ross v. U.S. Capitol Police, 195 F. Supp. 3d 180, 195 (D.D.C. 2016); Torres-Velez v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Case No. 17-AC-36 (FL, RP, CV), slip op. at 4 n.1 (OCWR Sep. 23, 2019).
