DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This case is before the Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to a petition for review filed by Danielle Simms (“Simms” or “Appellant”). Simms filed a claim of discrimination alleging that the Office of Congressman Raul Grijalva (“Appellee” or “Grijalva’s Office”) discriminated against her based on her race when it fired her from her staff assistant position in March 2013, in violation of section 201 of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”). Simms seeks review of the Hearing Officer’s March 10, 2014 Order, dismissing her complaint on the dual grounds of untimeliness and failure to proceed.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the decision of the Hearing Officer and remand the claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background
Simms began working as a staff assistant in Grijalva’s Office on February 4, 2013, and her employment was terminated on March 15, 2013. The reason given by Grijalva’s Office for the termination was that Simms’s Spanish language skills were insufficient for her position. Simms alleges that she was treated differently from other employees, and ultimately terminated, because she is African-American.
After her termination, Simms sought counseling with the Office of Compliance (“OOC” or “Office”) and subsequently completed mediation. At that time, she was represented by two attorneys, Jennifer Bezdicek and Sofia Yazykova. The Office mailed the notice of the end of Simms’s mediation period to Ms. Yazykova on September 17, 2013, and the return receipt was signed on September 19, 2013.
The OOC was closed during the federal government shutdown from October 1-16, 2013. On October 1, the OOC notified the parties in all active cases that its staff would not be available during the shutdown. On November 1, 2013, the OOC sent a follow-up letter to Ms. Yazykova, signed by Executive Director Barbara Sapin, explaining that the processing of Simms’s case had been suspended on October 1 and resumed on October 17, and that “the period during which the case was suspended did not count against the processing time for the case[.]”1
