EEOC & MSPB Motion for Stay: "Good Cause" and ALJ Discretion

In administrative law, proceedings before the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and the MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board) are rigorous and time-sensitive. However, a case may require an unexpected pause. This necessary halt is achieved through an EEOC or MSPB Motion for Stay, a formal request by one party (or sometimes both, in a joint motion) to temporarily stop the case's progress. Success hinges entirely on the legal standard of proving "good cause." If you are a federal employee or an agency representative, understanding the strict requirements for a stay—and the broad authority a judge has to grant or deny it—is essential to protecting your legal strategy.

If you are a federal employee or an agency representative, understanding the strict requirements for a stay—and the broad authority a judge has to grant or deny it—is essential to protecting your case strategy.

The Threshold: Establishing "Good Cause" for a Delay

A Motion for Stay is not a casual request for a continuance; it is a serious legal petition that must demonstrate compelling circumstances. The requirement for "good cause" ensures the motion is not used to simply delay a case, but rather to prevent injustice when a party cannot reasonably participate.

These motions typically arise late in the process, during or shortly after the discovery phase, as hearing preparation is underway.

Common Grounds for an EEOC or MSPB Motion for Stay

The most persuasive and frequently cited justifications for a stay involve extreme, unavoidable issues:

Good Cause Argument	Moving Party	Necessary Evidence
Medical Incapacity	Complainant or Agency Counsel	Detailed medical documentation explaining the specific functional limitationsthat prevent participation in litigation.
Death or Family Emergency	Complainant or Agency Counsel	Documentation proving the critical nature and timing of a personal tragedy.
Unresolvable Scheduling Conflict	Either Party	Evidence showing a mandatory, pre-scheduled legal or medical obligation that cannot be moved, and which conflicts with the hearing date.

For Complainants (federal employees), a motion for a stay is sometimes filed due to a sudden and verifiable medical incapacitation or significant personal issues. Similarly, Agencies may file if their assigned legal counsel experiences comparable, debilitating issues. In all instances, the moving party will be asked to provide evidence in support of the cited need.

The Critical Role of ALJ Discretion

The single most important factor in whether a stay is granted is the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or MSPB Judge. According to the U.S. EEOC at Management Directive 110 Chapter 7, and paralleled by the MSPB Judge's Handbook, the decision to grant a motion for a stay is at the sole discretion of the assigned Judge.

• Extremely Broad Authority: It is vital to realize that ALJs have extremely broad discretion to grant or deny these requests. This power is intended to allow the judge to manage the case docket efficiently, prevent manipulation of the legal timeline, and balance fairness to both sides.

• Balancing Act: The judge must weigh the immediate need of the moving party against the potential prejudice—or harm—to the non-moving party that a delay might cause.

Filing an Objection (or Joinder) to the Motion

Either party may file an Objection to an EEOC or MSPB Motion for Stay, arguing that the requested delay is unnecessary or would be detrimental to the case. Alternatively, they may join the Motion for Stay in support, if they agree the pause is necessary.

What Happens When a Motion for Stay is Denied?

It’s important to note that a motion for a stay is not a guarantee proceedings will be halted.

If the ALJ denies the motion, the case will proceed as previously scheduled. Once a Motion for a Stay is denied, further appeal will generally not result in a change of the Judge's decision unless there are significant changes to the specified basis for the need.

A request for additional stays, however, is not necessarily handicapped by a previously granted request, provided each subsequent motion is supported by new evidence of "good cause."

Our Collective Experience

In our collective experience, motions for a stay are not that common. They are reserved for truly exceptional and unavoidable circumstances that occur late in the litigation process. They should never be treated as a routine procedural tool. Any party considering a motion for a stay should be prepared to provide a full and frank disclosure of the supporting evidence, knowing that the Judge's decision will be final.