EEOC Appeal 2025000466

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Shondra H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Janet Dhillon,
Director,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000466
Hearing No. 570-2023-01118X
Agency No. 23-006
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
October 2, 2024, final order 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.,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
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.

2025000466	2
At the time of events, giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-14
Information 	Technology 	Specialist 	with 	the 	Agency’s 	Office 	of 	Information
Technology, Enterprise Governance Department, Information Technology Portfolio
Division, located in Washington, D.C.
On February 21, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases
of race (African American), sex (female), religion (Christian), color (black),
disability (mental and physical), age (40), and reprisal (prior protected EEO activity)
when:
1. On January 6, 2023, the Agency failed to grant Complainant effective
accommodation of telework five days a week and instead provided an
alternative 	accommodation 	of 	liberal 	leave, 	thereby 	depriving
Complainant of the ability to work normal duty hours Monday through
Friday. Additionally, the request was not granted within the Agency’s
reasonable accommodation policy timeframe of 30 days;
2. On or about December 2022, and on previous requested dates, 2018 and
2015 the Agency forced Complainant to get a medical examination to
certify the need for accommodation and the physician’s documentation
was ignored. Complainant further alleges the Reasonable Accommodation
Coordinator (RAC) continuously finds ways to deny her requests and
provide alternative accommodation;
3. On or about December 2022, the RAC, after consulting with management,
threatened to change the trajectory of Complainant’s career path via
directed reassignment;
4. On or about December 2022, and on previous dates August 2019, February
2018, July 2016, and September 2015, the RAC made comments to
Complainant pertaining to her medical history and/or issues; and body
shape that made her uncomfortable;
5. On 	or 	about 	February 	2018, 	management 	made 	threats 	against
Complainant and have documented and recorded evidence of such because

2025000466	3
of the stereotypes put on Complainant as a young Black Christian woman
participating in the EEO process;2
6. On or about 2018, the RAC along with management advised Complainant,
she could not attend a mandatory meeting via telephone while pregnant in
third trimester and the RAC failed to provide effective accommodation
although accommodation was requested;3
7. No date specified, Complainant was told the human resource department
would be monitoring employees’ liberal leave usage, and if abusing their
leave could face disciplinary action despite the reasonable accommodation
decision.
Following 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 timely requested a
hearing. The AJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency on Claims 2, 3,
and 4 and reaffirmed the dismissal of Claims 5 and 6. The AJ scheduled the
remaining claims (Claims 1 and 7) for discovery and filing of dispositive motions.
On May 29, 2024, the AJ issued a Decision of Partial Liability finding that the
Agency had violated the Rehabilitation Act when it failed to provide Complainant
an effective accommodation between March 16, 2023, and June 22, 2023 (Claim 1).
The AJ granted summary judgment with respect to Claim 7 in favor of the Agency.
The AJ ordered Complainant to submit a Statement of Relief addressing the nature
of relief she was seeking in this matter by no later than June 19, 2024, and ordered
the Agency to file a Response no later than July 10, 2024. Both parties timely
submitted their respective briefs.
On August 12, 2024, the AJ issued an order entering judgment and relief which
incorporated her May 29, 2024, liability findings.
2 Claim 5 was properly dismissed pursuant to C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2) because it was
untimely.
3 Claim 6 was properly dismissed because it was the subject of a previous informal
EEO complaint for which Complainant did not timely exercise her right to file a
formal complaint.

2025000466	4
This decision was revised and superseded on August 28, 2024, due to a minor factual
error in the May 29, 2024, decision.
The AJ’s decision concluded that Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when from
March 16, 2023, through June 23, 2023, the Agency required Complainant to use
liberal leave one day per week instead of offering Complainant the option of
situational telework.4 The AJ awarded Complainant, among other things, $3,540.00
in nonpecuniary compensatory damages and $2,400.00 in attorney’s fees.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision in all
respects. Complainant, thereafter, appealed the final order. Complainant generally
argues that the AJ’s liability findings with respect to Claims 2-7 were not correct
and she is entitled to additional remedies, including: (1) pecuniary damages; (2) a
much higher nonpecuniary damages award; and (3) a higher attorney’s fees award.
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
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”).
Claims 2-4 and 75
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable factfinder could
not find in Complainant’s favor with respect to Claim 2-4 and 7. Specifically, what
Complainant described as an unlawful medical examination, was undisputedly the
4 Complainant had already received four days per week of regular telework to
accommodate her disability.
5 The AJ’s finding of discrimination with respect to Claim 1 is not at issue herein.

2025000466	5
Agency requesting additional medical documentation to establish the need for five-
days a week of telework which was proper and legal (Claim 2).6 We also find the
record devoid of evidence that Complainant was “threatened” with reassignment
(Claim 3). The undisputed record shows that management raised reassignment as a
possible solution to alleviate the hostile work environment that Complainant claimed
exacerbated her disability and that Complainant rejected it. There is no evidence that
management attempted to coerce Complainant to change her mind or act in any way
that was contrary to Complainant’s position on the matter.
Notably, many of the allegations raised in Claims 2 and 4 were untimely. In addition,
Complainant raised additional allegations of “other harmful discriminatory acts
against the Complainant” which were not accepted claims and relate to matters that
occurred as much as several years prior. Nevertheless, the record does not support a
finding that the alleged incidents were objectively severe or pervasive to establish a
discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment. Moreover, the record is
devoid of evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory animus on the part of any
management official, with respect to any claim.
In addition, the language in the Agency’s revised accommodation decision which
advises Complainant that her liberal leave usage would be monitored does not
constitute a threat of disciplinary action. The record shows that such language was
boilerplate. Moreover, the undisputed record shows that Complainant was never
required to submit any additional information to use liberal leave nor was she ever
denied such option. To the extent that Complainant asserts that she was never
adequately accommodated, we find that she has failed to present evidence that the
Agency’s alternative accommodation of one day per week of situational telework
6 Complainant asserts that the Agency “did request [genetic information] via the
[reasonable accommodation] form. They called it by another name, ‘Medical
Information.’” We agree with the AJ that nothing on the form requested genetic
information. To the extent Complainant volunteered such information, the Agency
is not liable. In addition, the record contains an email between Complainant and a
coworker about Ancestry DNA. Contrary to Complainant’s assertions, the email
demonstrates 	nothing 	more 	than 	a 	friendly 	exchange 	in 	which 	Complainant
volunteered information about her genealogical ancestry.

2025000466	6
(provided in late June 2023) and four days per week of regular teleworking was not
effective.7
Remedies
Pecuniary Damages
Complainant fails to provide objective evidence in support of her claim for pecuniary
damages 	such 	as 	documentation 	showing 	actual 	out-of-pocket 	expenses 	and
explanation of the expenditure. Although Complainant is entitled to reimbursement
of medical and other bills incurred as a result of the Agency’s discrimination, she
fails to identify which of the expenses for which she seeks reimbursement are related
to 	conditions/symptoms/harm 	she 	attributes 	to 	the 	Agency’s 	actions. 	See
Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under
Section 102 of the Civil 	Rights Act, EEOC NO. 915.002 (July 14, 1992).
Accordingly, we agree with the AJ’s decision with respect to pecuniary damages.
Nonpecuniary Damages
We also agree with the AJ in finding that the evidence presented by Complainant
and the record as a whole establishes that only minimal harm resulted from the
approximately three months without an appropriate accommodation. We note that
Complainant asserts that she has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), agoraphobia,8 and high blood pressure and that
these conditions “are a direct result of the ongoing discrimination, retaliation, and
harassment in her workplace, as noted in this case.” We agree with the AJ that
Complainant conflates her asserted entitlement to pain and suffering damages
resulting from the single claim on which she prevailed in this case, with unsuccessful
claims 	or 	claims 	not 	at 	issue 	herein. 	The 	nonpecuniary 	monetary 	damages
Complainant is entitled to in this matter pertain to the AJ’s finding that the Agency
did not provide Complainant an effective accommodation when it granted her the
use of liberal leave one day a week for a period of fifteen weeks rather than
situational telework.
7 The record shows that episodic telework effectively amounted to five days of
telework per week.
8 Aside from Complainant’s bare assertion, the record is devoid of evidence that
Complainant was ever diagnosed with PTSD or agoraphobia.

2025000466	7
We note that Complainant failed to provide any specific information about how the
use of leave in lieu of teleworking affected her emotionally and did not provide any
supporting evidence in the form of statements from health care providers, family
members or friends. Accordingly, we find that the AJ’s award of $3,540.00 in
nonpecuniary damages is proper, considers the severity and duration of the harm
Complainant suffered, is not “monstrously excessive” standing alone, is not the
product of passion or prejudice, and is consistent with the amount awarded in similar
cases. See Troupe v. Dep’t of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01985836 (Aug. 3, 2001)
(award of $2,000.00 ($3,762.84 present day value)9 in nonpecuniary damages where
Agency failed to accommodate disability for approximately one month with limited
evidence of harm).
Attorney’s Fees
We also agree with the AJ’s award of attorney’s fees. The record shows that
Complainant is seeking reimbursement of attorney’s fees with respect to two lawyers
(Attorney M and Attorney L) from two different law firms. The Commission
requires that “a statement of attorney’s fees and costs shall be accompanied by an
affidavit executed by the attorney of record…” See EEOC Management Directive
110, Ch. 11 at 17 (citing to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(i)). The affidavit must include
an itemization of the charges for legal services. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2)(i)).
In support of her claim for attorney’s fees, Complainant submitted two engagement
letters, one from Attorney M’s law firm and one from Attorney L’s law firm.
Complainant also provided one invoice from Attorney M’s law firm for a total of
$1,117.55 and four invoices from Attorney L’s law firm for $2,000.00, $2,000.00,
$3,000.00, 	and 	$1,000.00. 	Attorney 	M 	did 	not 	submit 	a 	designation 	of
representation form at any point in this matter, nor was any brief filed during the
adjudication of this matter submitted by any member of his firm. Even assuming it
had been provided, the single invoice provided by Complainant reflects an hourly
rate of $745.00 by an unnamed attorney and is unaccompanied by any information
substantiating the reasonableness of such a rate.
9 See Lara G. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 0520130618 (June 9, 2017).
Using 	the 	Consumer 	Price 	Index 	Inflation 	Calculator 	(at
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm).

2025000466	8
Moreover, the retainer agreement references a pending “MSPB IRA Appeal”, for
which Complainant is not entitled to reimbursement in this matter. In addition, the
“pending formal EEO Complaint” referenced in the invoice could not have referred
to this matter as Complainant filed her formal complaint in this matter (Agency no.
23-006) on February 21, 2023, and the retainer agreement was signed September 6,
2022. Accordingly, we agree that Complainant is not entitled to reimbursement of
any attorney’s fees as relates to Attorney M or his law firm.
Complainant provided a copy of the retainer agreement entered into between
Attorney L and Complainant on April 3, 2023, stating that “Client agrees to pay
Attorney $200 per hour with upfront payment of $2000” for “representing him/her
on the Employment discrimination-EEOC case.” Complainant’s fee petition does
not include “an affidavit executed by the attorney of record itemizing the attorney’s
charges for legal services,” as required by Management Directive 110, however the
four invoices provided itemize charges totaling $8,232.00. The invoices for May 4,
2023, and July 2, 2023, are for $2,000.00 each, representing a “flat fee” for
“Employment discrimination-EEOC case.” Based on these generalized descriptions,
the AJ was unable to determine what work was performed, when it was performed,
and over what time period. Accordingly, we agree that Complainant failed to meet
her burden to provide adequate information to establish her entitlement to these
attorney’s fees. See Brown v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 07A30050 (Jul.
14, 2004); Davis v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01961461 (Feb. 12, 1998).
Of the remaining two entries/invoices from Attorney L, only one includes the date
on which the work was performed and is otherwise sufficiently descriptive.
Specifically, it appears that on October 5, 2023, Attorney L spent 12 hours preparing,
reviewing, and editing Complainant’s response to the September 20, 2023, Notice
of Intent.10 Accordingly, we agree with the AJ that the October 5, 2023, entry, is the
10 For an unexplained reason, the hourly rate charged, at least according to the
invoice, was $250/hour rather than $200/hour, for a total of $3,000. Because this
figure was inconsistent with the retainer agreement and the other invoices, the AJ
concluded the $250/hour rate was a typographical error and that the correct amount
of attorney’s fees was $2,400 (i.e., $200/hour x 12 hours). The hourly rate of $200
for Attorney L is not contested by either party on appeal.

2025000466	9
only accounting that provides sufficient information establishing entitlement to
attorney’s fees.11
Therefore, based on the above and upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the
evidence of record, including arguments on appeal,12 we conclude that the AJ
correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that
Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged in Claims 2-7 and
ordered the proper award to remedy the Agency’s violation under the Rehabilitation
Act with respect to Claim 1. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order
implementing the AJ’s decision. The Agency’s final decision remains in place.
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. 	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).
11 Contrary to Complainant’s assertion, under the facts herein, she is not entitled to
interest on attorney’s fees.
12 To the extent that Complainant raises an issue with respect to the remedies of
reimbursed leave, training, and the requirement to post a notice of discrimination,
we find the AJ’s remedial award proper.

2025000466	10
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.

2025000466	11
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 signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 24, 2026
Date