EEOC Appeal 2025004472

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Felton M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Todd Blanche,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025004472
Hearing No. 530-2023-00181X
Agency No. ATF-2022-00962
DECISION
On September 18, 2025, 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 September 12, 2025, final order concerning his
equal 	employment 	opportunity 	(EEO) 	complaint 	alleging 	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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 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.

2025004472	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Program
Analyst at the Agency’s Firearms Ammunition Technology Branch facility in
Martinsburg, West Virginia.
On October 11, 2022, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (Native American), disability
(physical), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	from January 2022 to the present, Complainant was denied assistance
with performing assignments because of the increasing workload in the
Firearms 	and 	Ammunition 	Technology 	Division 	(FATD) 	due 	to
Complainant’s co-worker being on an extended detail assignment;
2. 	On unspecified dates, all requests to provide Complainant with a work
cell phone was denied;
3. 	He was subjected to harassment, including when:
a. 	From 	January 	2022 	to 	the 	present, 	Complainant 	was 	denied
assistance with performing assignments because of the increasing
workload in FATD due to Complainant’s co-worker being on an
extended detail assignment;
b. On September 13, 2022, the Acting Division Chief made several
comments which Complainant believed were accusatory, borderline
hostile, and unprofessional;
c. 	On September 13, 2022 and September 30, 2022, Complainant’s
requests to be transferred out of FATD were not addressed.
Complainant stated that his most recent EEO complaint was in 2018 and ended with
a settlement and more recently, he has served as a witness in his co-workers’
complaints. See Report of Investigation (ROI) at 165. He asserted that he is a 30%
disabled veteran with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) issues, migraines, and tinnitus
but that he is able to perform his job without a reasonable accommodation. See ROI
at 165. 	He asserted that since his co-worker (Co-worker 1) went on a detail
assignment in January 2022 that was extended in June 2022 and then was
permanently transferred, he was “set up for failure” because he became the only
administrative person left in FATD to support a growing office, needing to perform
many of Co-worker 1’s duties as well as his own. See ROI at 166.

2025004472	3
He stated that he requested assistance from his Supervisor but the former FATD
Chief, who has since retired, refused the request.2 See ROI at 166-67.
The Deputy Assistant Director (Deputy Director) explained that at the time, the
FATD was dealing with a shortage of internal personnel and limited access to
detailee support from other directorates so that every branch was understaffed and
faced workload challenges. 	See ROI at 250. 	He stated that to his understanding,
Complainant was provided with support with detailees and the option to receive
overtime pay. See ROI at 250. Complainant’s Supervisor stated that he and another
chief attempted to post a detail to replace Co-worker 1 while she would be gone but
division leadership did not post the position and so Co-worker 1’s duties needed to
be spread between other team members, including Complainant, but that to his
knowledge, Complainant was able to keep up with the increased work and received
overtime as well. 	See ROI at 260. 	Co-worker 1 agreed that management did not
provide Complainant with assistance to deal with the increased work load, asserting
it was due to “a lack of pre-planning, foresight, and carelessness,” and asserting that
it is “a sanctioned practice to place a target on an employee’s back when it suits
management,” and that she felt management denied Complainant support out of spite
because Complainant’s suggestions in order to improve FATD processes were taken
as being in conflict with management’s visions and agenda. See ROI at 276.
Complainant also took issue because his request for a work cell phone was not
approved. He asserted that his Supervisor asked if Complainant had ever received
the phone that the Supervisor had ordered, the Supervisor was disappointed and
stated that he suspected it had been denied by the former Chief. See ROI at 168. He
stated that having a work cell phone would permit him to work from home if his
internet went down because he has an agreement to telework five days a week. See
ROI at 168. 	He asserted that he “does not know” why he was singled out for
harassment by the former Chief but speculated that it was because of his prior EEO
complaint and possibly because he is Native American, a disabled veteran, and has
no children. See ROI at 169. Complainant further took issue because at an all-hands
division meeting held by the Acting Division Chief after the former Chief retired,
the Acting Division Chief made some comments which Complainant found to be
offensive and hostile, such as making comments about how if you are not happy,
find another job and that they need to change their attitudes and be more flexible and
that there are people who would be happy to take their seats, which he viewed as a
2 The former Chief did not submit an affidavit.

2025004472	4
threat. See ROI at 170. He further asserted that at that meeting, the Acting Division
Chief said that if anyone was unhappy, they should let him know so Complainant
did so, requesting to transfer out of FATD but he never heard anything further. See
ROI at 172-73.
The Supervisor asserted that he requested that Complainant be given a cell phone
because he felt it would be useful for Complainant to have to serve as back-up
because there had been an occasion where Complainant lost internet access at his
home for an extended period and was unable to telework. 	See ROI at 261. 	The
Acting Division Chief stated that generally, only employees within a specific job
series are authorized cell phones and program analysts were not among the jobs that
were issued cell phones. See ROI at 237. He also asserted that cell phones are not
required in order to telework and, in fact, according to Agency policy, an employee
is not permitted to use a cell phone exclusively when teleworking. See ROI at 237.
Another of Complainant’s co-workers (Co-worker 2) stated that she too requested a
cell phone and was denied until she was assigned additional duties and was able to
demonstrate a mission-based need for a cell phone. See ROI at 309. He explained
that at the all-hands meeting, he was only trying to acknowledge the former Chief’s
retirement and contributions to the Agency after more than 30 years of government
service and he simply communicated that he wanted to try to help employees to find
a job within the Agency where they could be happy. See ROI at 242. The Supervisor
stated that at the meeting, the Acting Division Chief said complimentary things
about the former Chief that Complainant took exception to. See ROI at 262.
The Deputy Director explained that he received Complainant’s request to be
transferred but explained that it is not a “wave of a magic wand type of scenario,”
because there are competing operating factors and administrative demands, as well
as budget uncertainties, a new hire shortage, and changes in leadership that all need
to be taken into consideration. 	See ROI at 253. 	He asserted that Complainant’s
request is still pending and under evaluation. See ROI at 253.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant timely requested a hearing
before an AJ.

2025004472	5
The 	Agency 	submitted 	a 	motion 	for 	a 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing, 	which
Complainant opposed. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant argues that there are material facts in dispute that should
have required a hearing. The Agency filed a brief in response urging affirmance of
the AJ’s decision.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, 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 (EEO
MD-110), at Chap. 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”); see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an
administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the
decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when they
find that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue
of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in
favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). A fact is “material”
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When considering
summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must
identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing
further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material
under applicable law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see

2025004472	6
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing
is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated
by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such
a dispute. 	Contrary to Complainant’s argument on appeal, none of the factual
disputes Complainant cites are material facts as they are all ultimately irrelevant to
the issue of discriminatory or retaliatory intent. It is well settled that mere assertions
of a factual dispute without more are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary
judgment. 	See Darrell C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 10200181833
(July 12, 2019); Quartermain v. U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, EEOC Appeal No.
0120112994 (May 21, 2013). 	Upon our review of the record, we find that the AJ
correctly determined that Complainant failed to establish a dispute of material fact
and properly granted summary judgment.
We find that the record does not support Complainant’s assertions that he was
subjected to disparate treatment. 	At the outset, we note that Complainant did not
establish a prima facie case because he did not identify any similarly-situated
employees who were treated more favorably and he also asserted that his most recent
EEO activity occurred around two years prior to all the incidents at issue. 	In any
event, we also find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions and Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s reasons were a
pretext for discrimination. 	See Complainant v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120133200, (Dec. 18, 2014) (finding one year in between events “too
remote to supply the necessary nexus”). Moreover, Complainant himself admitted
that he did not actually need a cell phone in order to do his work but only that it
would have been helpful as a back-up while Co-worker 2 stated that her request for
a cell phone was not granted until she demonstrated a mission-based need for it. The
Commission has repeatedly stated that mere assertions or conjecture that an agency’s
explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is insufficient because
subjective belief, however genuine, does not constitute evidence of pretext. See
Charlie O. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2021002639 (March 29, 2022);
Juliet B. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120182519 (Oct. 8, 2019).
We further find that the evidence in the record does not establish that Complainant
was subjected to unlawful harassment as alleged. 	We find that all the alleged
incidents of harassment amount to little more than routine workplace occurrences
such as disagreements over work assignments, procedures, and personnel matters
which 	are 	not 	sufficiently 	severe 	or 	pervasive 	to 	constitute 	a 	hostile 	work
environment.

2025004472	7
See Complainant v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122676 (Dec. 18, 2014)
(The record established that the issues between the complainant and the supervisor
were because of personality conflicts and fundamental disagreements over how work
should be done and how employees should be supervised, and there is no indication
that 	the 	supervisor 	was 	motivated 	by 	discriminatory 	animus 	towards 	the
complainant’s race, sex. or age). 	Moreover, the record indicates that the Acting
Division Chief’s comments that Complainant found to be offensive or hostile were
addressed generally to all the staff and said in the context of acknowledging the
former Chief’s retirement. 	While Complainant may well have disagreed with the
comments due to his own contentious interpersonal relationship with the former
Chief and his disagreement with the way the former Chief handled management
matters, his subjective perception of the comments as somehow directed at him is
not 	sufficient 	to 	meet 	the 	objective 	standard 	required 	to 	establish 	unlawful
harassment. 	See Mattson v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec’y, EEOC Appeal No.
0120052563 (July 3, 2007) (stating that a hostile work environment is established
by an objective standard and not a complainant’s subjective perceptions). 	The
Commission has repeatedly stated that EEO laws are not a civility code and do not
guarantee a complainant a right to work in a pleasant or stress-free environment, but
merely one that is free from discrimination. 	Not every unpleasant or undesirable
action which occurs in the workplace constitutes an EEO violation. See Cher C. v.
Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161929 (Dec. 8, 2017).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable fact-finder could
not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the
evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, 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.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.
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:

2025004472	8
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).
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).

2025004472	9
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.
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 __________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 23, 2026
Date