EEOC Appeal 2025003137

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Stephine S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Sean Duffy,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003137
Agency No. 2024-00379-FHWA-06
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
May 12, 2025 final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.,
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Civil
Rights Program Manager/Equal Opportunity Specialist, GS-12, in the Agency’s
Nevada Division Office in Carson City, Nevada.
1 	This 	case 	has 	been 	randomly 	assigned 	a 	pseudonym 	which 	will 	replace
Complainant’s 	name 	when 	the 	decision 	is 	published 	to 	non-parties 	and 	the
Commission’s website.

2025003137	2
On November 7, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment based on
race (African American), color (Black), sex (female), age (over 40), disability
(mental), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. On or about March 4, 2024, management falsely accused Complainant of
improperly using a government-owned vehicle (GOV) for unofficial
business;
2. On or about July 18, 2024, management rated Complainant “Meets
Expectations/Fully Successful” on her performance appraisal after she had
received “Exceeds Expectations” ratings in prior years; and
3. On or about July 25, 2024, management issued Complainant a Notice of
Proposed 30-Day Suspension.
The record reflects that, after Complainant filed her complaint, the Agency issued a
decision mitigating the proposed 30-day suspension to a 14-day suspension.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant did not make a timely election.
Consequently, 	the 	Agency 	issued 	a 	final 	decision 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.110(b). The Agency determined that claim 1 was untimely because it occurred
more than 45 days before Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor on July 26,
2024. Nevertheless, the Agency considered claim 1 as part of Complainant’s timely
hostile work environment claim. Regarding claims 2 and 3, the Agency found that
management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and
that Complainant did not establish that those reasons were pretext for discrimination
or reprisal. The Agency further found that the incidents, considered individually and
collectively, did not establish a hostile work environment. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency's 	decision 	is 	subject 	to 	de 	novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 	See Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015)
(explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission
examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the

2025003137	3
previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and
testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties,
and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record
and its interpretation of the law”).
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Matter
The record reflects that Complainant filed her appeal on June 7, 2025, but did not
submit a statement or brief within the period prescribed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(d).
Complainant submitted her response only after receiving the Agency’s statement in
opposition. The response primarily presents substantive arguments in support of the
appeal that could have been raised in a timely appeal brief.
Nevertheless, we need not determine whether Complainant’s response should be
stricken. Even assuming that the response is considered in its entirety, its arguments
do not establish a basis for disturbing the Agency’s final decision.
Untimely EEO Counselor Contact
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) requires an aggrieved individual to
initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory
matter or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of its effective date.
Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact on July 26, 2024. Claim 1 concerns
management’s March 4, 2024, questioning and subsequent memorandum regarding
Complainant’s use of the GOV. Thus, claim 1 was raised outside the applicable 45-
day period and cannot be considered as an independently actionable discrete claim.
The Agency appropriately considered the claim as background information for
Complainant’s hostile work environment claim.

2025003137	4
Disparate Treatment & Harassment
We find that the alleged incidents, even assuming they occurred as described by
Complainant, were more likely the result of routine supervision, personality
conflicts, and general workplace disputes and are therefore insufficiently severe or
pervasive to establish a discriminatory hostile work environment. Furthermore, we
find that the conduct was not sufficiently material to deter protected activity.
In addition, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the alleged
conduct was based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Regarding claim 2,
Complainant’s supervisor (Supervisor) explained that she rated Complainant Fully
Successful 	because 	Complainant 	experienced 	difficulties 	completing 	certain
assignments, including Equity 2 and National Summer Transportation Institute
responsibilities. The Supervisor stated that Complainant missed deadlines, did not
respond adequately to questions regarding the projects, and submitted materials
without 	obtaining 	required 	management 	signatures. 	Notably, 	the 	Supervisor
provided Complainant with a $600.00 cash award for taking on additional duties.
Regarding claim 3, the Supervisor explained that she proposed Complainant’s
suspension based on misuse of the GOV and inappropriate conduct. The record
establishes that Complainant used the GOV without entering the trip on the office
calendar; drove the vehicle to a stakeholder’s office, her residence, and Costco;
returned the GOV but retained the vehicle key; and provided inconsistent accounts
regarding her use of the GOV and the location of the key.
The suspension proposal also charged Complainant with inappropriate conduct
arising from her responses to the GOV inquiry, her communication with a coworker,
and disruptive conduct in the office on April 11, 2024. Management considered
Complainant’s 	written 	and 	oral 	responses, 	upheld 	the 	unauthorized-use 	and
inappropriate-conduct charges, but mitigated the penalty to 14 days.
Although 	Complainant 	disagrees 	with 	management’s 	actions 	and 	decisions,
disagreement with management’s judgment does not establish discrimination or
reprisal. We acknowledge that Complainant identified comparators but find that they
were not similarly situated. Those identified generally involved incidental stops
during authorized trips (like getting coffee). Complainant did not identify a
comparator who, like her, engaged in an unrecorded trip involving non-work-related
stops.

2025003137	5
Accordingly, the record contains insufficient evidence demonstrating that similarly
situated employees outside Complainant’s protected classes were treated more
favorably under comparable circumstances. Nor does the record establish that the
Agency's stated reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination or reprisal.
The challenged actions principally involved management’s investigation of GOV
use, assessment of Complainant’s performance, and administration of discipline.
Based on the record, the evidence does not establish that the incidents occurred
because of Complainant's protected classes or prior EEO activity. Rather, the record
supports the Agency’s explanation that the actions at issue were based on general
workplace matters.
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record, we find that Complainant has
not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged.
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no
discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or
evidence that tend to establish that:
1. 	The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or
2. 	The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 	If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request,
that 	statement 	or 	brief 	must 	be 	filed 	together 	with 	the 	request 	for
reconsideration.

2025003137	6
A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request
for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, Complainant can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20507. 	In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS receives it by mail within
five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the
EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either
party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of
service on the other party, unless Complainant files their request via the EEOC
Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented
the timely filing of the request. 	Any supporting documentation must be
submitted together with the request for reconsideration. 	The Commission will
consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court
within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. 	If
you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person
who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by their
full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case
in court. 	“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to
reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.

2025003137	7
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so,
you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without
paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent
you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You
must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an
attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the
time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s
Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
T. Gimbrere 	Acting Director's signatu Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 21, 2026
Date