EEOC Appeal 2025002009

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jeanie P.,1
Complainant,
v.
Adam Telle,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025002009
Hearing No. 550-2024-00308X
Agency No. ARSIERRA23JUN02264
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), directly from the
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ)’s January 3, 2025, decision, 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 Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
206(d) et seq. When the Agency failed to timely issue a final order, the AJ’s decision
became the Agency’s final action pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(i). For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s action.
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 	2025002009
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human
Resources (HR) Specialist, GS-11, at the Agency’s Sierra Army Depot in Herlong,
California.
On October 2, 2023, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her based on sex (female) when she was tasked with
performing GS-12 duties for GS-11 pay on a regular and recurring basis.
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 AJ. Complainant requested a hearing, but the AJ sua sponte proposed to
issue a decision without a hearing in favor of the Agency. Over Complainant’s
objections, the AJ entered judgment in favor of the Agency.
In finding no discrimination, the AJ found that a male HR Specialist (HR Specialist-
2), GS-12, working at the same location as Complainant, had severe health issues
that affected his attendance and ability to work from late 2019 until his retirement in
March 2023. During this time, HR Specialist-2’s workload was split between
Complainant and another female HR Specialist (HR Specialist-3). Complainant was
eventually 	promoted to 	a GS-12 	position 	on 	May 21, 2023. While the AJ
acknowledged Complainant’s resentment at sharing HR Specialist-2’s duties for an
extended period, the AJ also noted that Complainant did not inherit all of HR
Specialist-2’s 	duties. 	Consequently, 	the 	AJ 	found 	that 	Complainant 	had 	not
established that her position and HR Specialist-2’s position constituted equal work
or responsibility. Furthermore, the AJ found no evidence that any similarly situated
male coworkers received more favorable treatment than Complainant. The AJ
ultimately 	concluded 	that 	Complainant 	had 	not 	established 	that 	the 	Agency
subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
Complainant argues on appeal, among other things, that she performed several tasks
at the GS-12 level for extended periods while being compensated at the GS-11 level.
Complainant further argues that when she was promoted to the GS-12 level, her
duties did not change from what she had been performing since HR Specialist-2
began his extended absence in 2019, indicating that she was performing GS-12
duties while occupying the GS-11 position.

3 	2025002009
The U.S. Supreme Court articulated the requirements for establishing a prima facie
case of discrimination under the EPA in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S.
188 (1974). To establish a prima facie case of a violation under the EPA, a
complainant must show that she or he received less pay than an individual of the
opposite sex for equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, under
similar working conditions within the same establishment. Sheppard v. Equal Emp’t
Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02919 (Sept. 21, 2000), req. for
recons. den., EEOC Request No. 05A10076 (Aug. 12, 2003).
The requirement of “equal work” does not mean that the jobs must be identical, but
only that they must be “substantially equal.” Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 567 F.2d
429, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1976). 	The terms skill, effort, and responsibility, “constitute
separate tests, each of which must be met in order for the equal pay standard to
apply.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.14(a). The factors of skill, effort, and responsibility used
to measure the equality of jobs are not precisely definable. Id. Skill includes such
things as “experience, training, education, and ability.” 29 C.F.R. §1620.15(a).
Effort addresses the amount of “physical or mental exertion needed for the
performance of a job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.16(a). Responsibility concerns “the degree
of accountability required in the performance of the job, with emphasis on the
importance of the job obligation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.17(a).
Upon review, we find that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination under the EPA. Complainant admits in her brief on appeal that “the
AJ’s findings were substantially accurate.” While Complainant argues that the AJ
applied the law incorrectly, we disagree. Here, the AJ found that Complainant failed
to show that she performed substantially the same tasks as HR Specialist-2, requiring
equal 	skill, 	effort, 	and 	responsibility 	and 	under 	similar 	working 	conditions.
Complainant’s own statements affirm that she took on some of HR Specialist-2’s
duties during his extended absence, but not all of them. As Complainant has not
shown that she performed equal work to HR Specialist-2, we find that she cannot
prevail on her EPA claim.
Furthermore, to the extent Complainant alleges a violation of Title VII, we find that
the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons as to why it reassigned
some of HR Specialist-2’s work to Complainant, as detailed above. As we find no
persuasive evidence of pretext, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final action, which
implemented the AJ’s decision finding of no discrimination.

4 	2025002009
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).
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.

5 	2025002009
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.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION-EQUAL PAY ACT
(Y0408)
You are authorized under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C.
§ 216(b)) to file a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction within two years
or, if the violation is willful, three years of the date of the alleged violation of the
Equal Pay Act 	regardless of whether you have pursued any administrative
complaint processing. The filing of the civil action will terminate the administrative
processing of your complaint.

6 	2025002009
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 15, 2026
Date