2698; 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981), section 633a of the ADEA and section 2000e-16 of Title VII are substantially similar. Lehman, 453 U.S. at 163, 101 S.Ct. at 2703 (section 633a “patterned after” section 2000e-16 “which extended protection of Title VII to federal employees”). Therefore, under the reasoning of Agency Holding Corp., 483 U.S. at 150-51, 107 S.Ct. at 2764-65, Title VII’s thirty-day limitation period, found in section. 2000e-16(c), properly governs the parallel ADEA cases brought under section 633a. Admittedly, this rationale does not address the omission of the thirty-day limitation period from the final version of section 633a — the second question that plagued the Bornholdt court. See Bornholdt, 869 F.2d at 66; see also Lubniewski v. Lehman, 891 F.2d 216, 220-21 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>): However, as the First Circuit explained in
holding that legislative history leading up to section 633as enactment indicates that congress deliberately decided that a federal employee should not have to file her adea claim within thirty days of receiving notice of an adverse eeoc decision holding that the laterserved defendants  had thirty days from the date of service on them to file a notice of removal with the unanimous consent of their codefendants even though the firstserved codefendants did not file a notice of removal within thirty days of service holding that federal employee cannot file for damages against supervisor for an unconstitutional adverse personnel action when congress has provided adequate administrative remedy holding that the failure to file a motion for review of appellate attorneys fees under rule 9400c within thirty days of rendition waived the issue for appeal holding the employee had 180 days to file a claim from the date the employee received final definitive and unequivocal notice of an adverse employment action