EEOC Appeal 2026002628

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Eric S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Immigration and Customs Enforcement),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002628
Hearing No. 451-2025-00017X
Agency No. HS-ICE-00519-2024
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 11, 2026, final order concerning his 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. For the following
reasons, 	the 	Commission 	AFFIRMS 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order 	finding 	no
discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Probationary Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer at the Agency’s
Enforcement and Removal Operations in Harlingen, Texas.
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.

2 	2026002628
On January 29, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him based on race (African American) and color (black) when
he was demoted during his probationary period from a Supervisory Detention and
Deportation Officer to a Deportation Officer.
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 requested a hearing. 	On
February 	11, 	2026, 	the 	Agency 	motioned 	for 	summary 	judgment. 	Over
Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that the Agency accurately stated the facts in its motion for summary
judgment, and that Complainant failed to identify similarly situated employees
outside of his protected classes who were treated more favorably than himself. The
AJ found no evidence, beyond Complainant’s own speculation, that the Agency
acted with discriminatory motives. 	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. We
find that the record is adequately developed.
Upon 	review 	of 	the 	record, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	Agency 	stated 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for demoting Complainant from a Supervisory Detention
and Deportation Officer to a Deportation Officer. During his probationary period,
Complainant refused to follow direct orders from his supervisor, the Assistant Field
Office 	Director 	(AFOD), 	to 	cancel 	the 	simultaneous 	leave 	requests 	of 	five
subordinates due to operational needs. Complainant also failed to communicate with
the AFOD regarding this decision, leading to all five subordinates taking leave at the
same time and management discovering this on the day the leave began. While
Complainant argued that he failed to cancel leave requests because he believed it to
be an unlawful order, this did not explain his failure to communicate this with the
AFOD. Complainant’s disagreement with the AFOD’s instructions is not evidence
of discrimination.

3 	2026002628
Complainant argues that Coworkers 1 and 2 were treated more favorably than him.
We find that Complainant is not similarly situated to Coworker 1. The conduct for
which Coworker 1 was issued a letter of counseling was an unintentional failure to
ensure his subordinate followed procedures. In contrast, Complainant’s conduct was
an intentional refusal to follow orders and failure to communicate his intention to do
so with the AFOD. Likewise, we find no evidence that Coworker 2 refused to follow
direct instructions or communicate with leadership as Complainant. Therefore,
Complainant has not shown that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated
individuals outside of his protected classes. We find no evidence in the record from
which to draw an inference that the Agency acted with discriminatory motives.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s 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. 	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).

4 	2026002628
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.

5 	2026002628
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