EEOC Appeal 2025003551

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jarvis M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Todd Blanche,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003551
Hearing No. 450-2023-00370X
Agency No. BOP-2023-00214
DECISION
On July 14, 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 June 23, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-
0101-11 Drug Treatment Specialist (DTS) at the Agency’s Federal Medical Center
(FMC) Carswell facility in Fort Worth, 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.

2025003551	2
On March 21, 2023, Complainant filed a formal complaint, which he subsequently
amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race
(Caucasian/White), sex (male), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On November 17, 2022, he was accused of creating a hostile work
environment 	for 	providing 	EEO 	representation 	to 	another 	staff
member.
2. 	On December 8, 2022, he was placed under investigation for not
wearing a face mask.
3. 	On December 19, 2022, he was denied EEO compensatory time.
4. 	On January 18, 2023, the Warden shared information about his EEO
activity.
5. 	The Human Resources Manager implied he was having a sexual
relationship with a staff member.
6. 	On January 21, 2023, the South Central Regional Director failed to
provide prompt remedial action to stop staff at FMC Carswell from
disclosing his EEO and medical information to a third party.
7. 	On January 30, 2023, the South Central Regional Director notified the
Warden 	that 	Complainant 	had 	reported 	him 	for 	alleged 	staff
misconduct as well as EEO violations and then assigned the Warden
to investigate Complainant’s claims against himself.
8. 	On January 31, 2023, he was notified of potential EEO investigations.
9. 	On March 6, 2023, a temporary supervisor was assigned who was
identified in Complainant’s prior EEO complaint.
10. 	On March 10, 2023, he was sent a cease-and-desist letter.
11. 	In March-April 2023, he was given an order to remain standing during
meetings and reprimanded in front of inmates.
12. 	In March-April 2023, his supervisor refused to approve his leave.
13. 	In 	March-April 	2023, he was 	accused of leaving 	the institution
without notifying his supervisor.
14. 	In March-April 2023, he was given extra work assignments.
15. 	In 	March-April 	2023, 	he 	was 	ordered 	to 	provide 	his 	medical
information in the presence of inmates.
16. 	In March-April 2023, his emails and requests for relief to the Warden
were ignored.
17. 	In March-April 2023, his supervisor refused to approve his clinical
notes.

2025003551	3
18. 	On May 2, 2023, his evaluation was lowered from outstanding to
exceeds.
19. 	On June 1, 2023, he was denied a union representative witness.
20. 	On June 7, 2023, a member of the Human Resources Office was
assigned as a chairperson of anti-harassment meetings.
21. 	On June 8, 2023, he was assigned to the computer lab; a threat
assessment meeting was conducted with panel members named as
“aggressors” in Complainant’s EEO complaint; he was not allowed to
work compensatory time or overtime; and he was notified he was not
allowed inside the institution.
22. 	On June 24, 2023, his compressed work schedule, work hours, and
duty location were changed.
23. 	On 	April 	21, 	2023, 	he 	was 	denied 	the 	opportunity 	to 	obtain
supervision hours for an independent health license.
24. 	On June 30, 2023, he was not paid overtime and not assigned to
another job while under investigation.
25. 	On July 14, 2023, he was assigned a quota of phone calls and emails
and denied the opportunity to move freely around the psychology
area.
Complainant 	emailed 	the 	Regional 	Director, 	alleging 	that 	the 	Warden 	had
disclosed his EEO activity and medical information to a coworker and raising
issues related to official time requests and an EEO bulletin board. The Regional
Director delegated these allegations to management officials for review and action.
The Regional Director copied the Warden on an email delegating these allegations.
Beginning in March 2023, the Acting Chief of Psychology became Complainant’s
temporary supervisor. Complainant averred that he had identified the Acting Chief
as 	an 	alleged 	harasser 	in 	a 	prior 	EEO 	complaint. 	The 	Acting 	Chief 	told
Complainant that it was not appropriate for him to sit during community meetings.
Complainant alleged that the Acting Chief gave him additional assignments and
refused to sign off on his clinical notes. On May 12, 2023, the Chief of Psychology
emailed the department, stating that she would approve any pending notes.
On April 28, 2023, the Chief of Psychology issued Complainant an Excellent
rating for the period from November 9, 2022, to March 31, 2023. On December 22,
2022, the Chief of Psychology sent an email detailing best practices for writing
screening summaries, including five elements that needed to be present.

2025003551	4
Under the job element of performs professional duties, the Chief of Psychology
rated Complainant Successful, identifying areas of growth to ensure completion of
documentation for treatment team and to individualize treatment plans. The Chief
of Psychology rated Complainant as Excellent or Outstanding for the remaining
elements.
In June 2023, Complainant was assigned to monitor phone calls and emails in the
computer lab pending an investigation. During this period, he was not permitted to
work overtime or earn compensatory time, and he was also removed from his
compressed work schedule. Complainant stated that he was assigned a daily quota
of calls and emails to monitor.
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.
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 the AJ erred in denying his motion for
sanctions against the Agency for failing to timely complete the investigation.
Complainant also contends that the AJ erred in denying his motion to compel
discovery. According to Complainant, the AJ improperly dismissed his motion to
amend for alleging claims involving internal union business. Complainant asserts
that he identified genuine issues of material fact.
The Agency argues, in pertinent part, that its final order should be affirmed.
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

2025003551	5
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).
Complainant argues on appeal that the AJ erred in denying his motion for sanctions
and motions to compel. Administrative Judges have full responsibility for the
adjudication of the complaint, including overseeing the development of the record,
and have broad discretion in the conduct of hearings. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(a), (e).
This gives an AJ wide latitude in directing the terms, conduct, or course of EEO
administrative hearings. EEO MD-110 at Chapter 7, § III.D; Chere S. v. Gen. Serv.
Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0720180012 (Nov. 30, 2018) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, such determinations by the AJ are reviewed based on an abuse of
discretion standard.
In his motion for sanctions, Complainant argued that the Agency failed to timely
complete its investigation. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), agencies are
required to complete investigations within the earlier of 180 days after the filing of
the last 	amendment 	or 	360 	days 	after the 	filing 	of 	the 	original 	complaint.
According to the record, Complainant filed his EEO complaint on March 21, 2023,
and he most recently amended his complaint on July 26, 2023. The Agency issued
a copy of the report of investigation to Complainant on January 22, 2024, which
was 180 days from the most recent amendment. As the Agency timely completed
its investigation, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for sanctions.
Complainant filed a motion to compel the Agency to respond to his requests for
written discovery. The AJ denied this motion, finding that Complainant failed to
demonstrate good faith efforts to resolve the matter prior to filing a motion and that
the Agency’s objections were well founded. On September 12, 2024, Complainant
noticed a deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) regarding eight areas of
inquiry for September 18, 2024.

2025003551	6
The AJ denied Complainant’s motion to compel regarding this manner, finding
that Complainant had not explained why a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was needed
and that the request, made shortly before the close of discovery and with limited
time for the Agency to identify a deponent to testify about a wide range of topics,
was unreasonable. We find that it was not an abuse of discretion for the AJ to deny
Complainant’s motions to compel.
Complainant filed a motion to amend his complaint to reinstate a claim dismissed
as a collateral attack on union matters and include other retaliatory actions and
harassment by Agency employees who were union members. The AJ denied
Complainant’s 	motion, 	determining 	that 	Complainant’s 	allegations 	concerned
union activity and actions taken by union officials. The Commission has no
jurisdiction over claims related to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement,
enforcing the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or relations with union
representatives. 	See 	Herb 	P. 	v. 	Dep’t 	of 	the 	Treasury, 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
2020000916 (July 15, 2021); Lawrence L. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120160893 (Apr. 26, 2016); McDonald v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01A60555 (May 19, 2006). Accordingly, we find that the AJ properly denied
Complainant’s motion to amend.
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
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.

2025003551	7
Complainant cannot establish that he was subjected to an adverse action or
harassment based on his race, sex, and/or engagement in prior protected EEO
activity. Complainant’s speculation, conclusory assertions, and disagreement with
the Agency’s explanations are insufficient to establish that the Agency’s actions
were motivated by discriminatory and/or retaliatory motives. Complainant has not
identified a genuine issue of material fact that could lead a reasonable finder of fact
to conclude that the Agency disclosed his protected EEO activity or medical
information.
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. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision
and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, including
those 	not 	specifically 	addressed 	herein, 	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:
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.

2025003551	8
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.

2025003551	9
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 	Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date