ORDER
Respondent has moved to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. Complainant opposes the motion. For reasons set forth below. the motion must be granted.
Respondent urges that it is not complainant’s employer, This is almost certainly true, since complainant was admittedly an employee of the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms (“OSAA”) and Moore v. Capitol Guide Board, 982 F. Supp 35 (D.D.C. 1997), establishes that one may not be an employee of more than one employing office. However, Moore announced this principle in rejecting a contention that plaintiff was an employee of multiple “’employing offices” designated in the Congressional Accountability Act. Halcomb argues that respondent, a private entity, shared (with OSAA) supervisory authority over her and was thus, effectively, her co-employer. This proposition. while doubtful, was not specifically addressed in Moore, and it would be unfair to complainant to dismiss her complaint on this ground without first affording her the opportunity | to gather the facts and legal authorities which allegedly support her argument.
It also appears likely that tb.-1 respondent was not afforded the opportunity to participate in mediation with the instant complainant, which is a statutory pre-requisite for a hearing on her complaint. However, at the February 2, 2004 Pre-Hearing Conference, complainant asserted that respondent was given notice of mediation in this matter. Thus, determination of the motion on this ground would require · examining evidence, not presently before the hearing officer, concerning what, if any. notice of mediation of m · · on was provided to respondent.
However, it is not is not necessary to expend further time and resources in pursuing either of the issues described above because, even if respondent were complainant’s ”employer” and even if respondent had been afforded an opportunity to mediate the complaint, this complaint would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Office of Compliance is a limited-jurisdiction tribunal established by Congress for the the purpose of entertaining certain employee complaints against particular federal government t offices specified in the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 as “employing offices,” 2 USC 1405(a.).
