EEOC Appeal 2026002696

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jessica E.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Defense Logistics Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002696
Hearing No. 532-2025-00020X
Agency No. DLAC-24-000163
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 1, 2026, 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. and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621
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 Pursuant to Executive Order 14347, Restoring the United States Department of
War, issued on Sept. 5, 2025, the Department of Defense is to be known as the
Department of War. Any references in the record or decision to the Department of
Defense should be read interchangeably as the Department of War.

2 	2026002696
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 Contract
Specialist 	at 	the 	Agency’s 	Defense 	Supply 	Center 	Columbus 	Installation 	in
Whitehall, Ohio. Complainant was undergoing training as part of the Agency’s
Pathways to Career Excellence (PaCE) program and was subject to a one-year
probationary period. On July 7, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her based on national origin (Ukrainian), age (over
40), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was subjected to a
hostile work environment culminating in her termination on July 3, 2024.
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 requested a hearing. On May 16,
2025, the Agency motioned for a decision without a hearing. 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 Complainant failed to present evidence that any similarly situated
employees outside of her protected classes were treated more favorably when
engaging in similar conduct as Complainant. The AJ found no evidence in the record
from which to draw an inference that the Agency acted with discriminatory animus.
Even if Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination or reprisal,
the AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
removing Complainant from employment during her probationary period, namely
that she displayed unprofessional or disrespectful behavior toward her trainers on
multiple occasions. Examples of this behavior include recording trainings on
personal devices not using a secured network; telling a trainer that “the MicroSAT
class was a waste of [her] time”; raising her voice and repeatedly hitting her hand on
a desk; entering inaccurate timesheet input; raising her voice at a trainer, saying,
“Who are you? You are a nobody, you are no one”; hitting her hands and fists on
desks and slamming her computer mouse; and sending unprofessional emails
containing personal attacks to a trainer. Complainant admitted to engaging in these
behaviors, and the AJ found no evidence that the Agency’s reasoning for removing
her was pretext for discrimination or reprisal.

3 	2026002696
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Upon review of the record, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for removing Complainant during her probationary
period. Specifically, the Agency explained that Complainant was removed for
unprofessional conduct. Complainant does not deny raising her voice at trainers,
making rude comments, hitting her hands and fists on a desk, slamming her
computer mouse, and sending unprofessional emails to a trainer. While Complainant
explains that these incidents were the result of frustration and confusion she
experienced as a foreign-born Ukrainian with an accent in a stressful and fast-paced
training environment, we find that Complainant’s frustration is not evidence that the
Agency acted with discriminatory motives. The record clearly indicates that the
decision to remove Complainant was based on her conduct, and contains no evidence
that the Agency took any action based on Complainant’s protected categories.
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.

4 	2026002696
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.

5 	2026002696
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 24, 2026
Date