EEOC Appeal 2026001821

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Eva M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001821
Hearing No. 470-2025-00047X
Agency No. 200J-583-2024-156999
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
final order of February 26, 2026, 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 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.

2026001821	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), GS-6, at the Agency’s Richard L. Roudebush
Veterans 	Medical 	Center 	in 	Indianapolis, 	Indiana. 	On 	March 	28, 	2024,
Complainant 	filed 	a 	complaint 	alleging 	harassment 	based 	on 	race 	(African
American), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
1. In August 2023, an admonishment against Complainant was initiated and
then dismissed.
2. On November 21, 2023, Complainant was removed from doing patient care.
3. In December 2022 (not 2023), Complainant was subjected to bullying,
including being shoved by a health technician.
4. In November 2023, while in an elevator, a supervisor stated to Complainant,
“so you’re the troublemaker.”
5. In February, March, April and May 2024, Complainant’s requests to transfer
were denied.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and the notice of her right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant requested a hearing.
The AJ 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 Complainant was subjected
to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
As an LPN, Complainant’s duties involved, in part, screening calls and walk-in
patients, administering flu injections, ordering supplies, scheduling appointments,
placing X-ray orders, assisting doctors with procedures, drawing up injection
procedures, and assisting with what was needed in the clinic.
Regarding claim 1, Complainant’s first-level supervisor (S1), Manager of Patient
Care Services (PCS), indicated that he issued Complainant an admonishment,
dated May 26, 2023, due to concerns over her sending three photographs of a
patient’s computerized patient record system profile from her personal email to her
Agency email using her personal cellphone.

2026001821	3
S1 noted that Complainant was previously given a discussion of her privacy and
security policy violation in December 2022. 	The admonishment at issue was
reduced to a written counseling via grievance on August 15, 2023.
Regarding claim 2, S1 stated that Complainant was not removed from patient care.
Complainant previously helped out patients’ nail trim care for one day per week.
However, after two full-time nail technicians were assigned to patients’ nail trim
panel, Complainant’s help was no longer needed. 	Complainant continued to
perform her patient care duties in the clinic as needed.
Regarding claim 3, Complainant indicated that on one occasion in December 2022,
she was bullied by her coworker (C1), a Health Technician when C1 told her to
“move!” while she was escorting a patient and his daughter. C1 then tried to shove
her over when she responded she did not have anywhere to go. 	Complainant
reported the incident to S1. 	Human Resources Office initiated a fact-finding
regarding her complaint. 	On February 2, 2023, Complainant’s second-level
supervisor (S2), Chief, PCS Surgery Service, notified her that after the fact-
finding, management determined there was insufficient evidence that the events
occurred as alleged in regard to being pushed in the hallway. 	Management,
however, determined there was sufficient evidence of unprofessional behavior in
regard to how C1 responded to Complainant in the hallway. 	Complainant was
informed that management would take appropriate steps if conduct of this nature
continues. 	Complainant did not allege she was subjected to any further incidents
involving C1.
Regarding claim 4, Complainant indicated that on one occasion in November 2023,
she was standing outside of the elevator and an identified new supervisor, African
American, not a colleague, walked by her and said, “so you’re the troublemaker.”
Complainant stated that she did not know what that comment meant and responded
that she was not a troublemaker and just walked away. 	Complainant did not
believe the comment was based on her race or age; rather, it was because she
reported “stuff” to management. 	Complainant did not allege that the identified
supervisor made a similar comment to her again. 	S1 stated that he was not aware
of this incident.

2026001821	4
Regarding claim 5, Complainant clarified the claim in that she was not denied her
transfer requests. 	S1 noted that Complainant discussed transferring to a different
service line, not within PCS. 	He informed her to apply for a position because
management could not unilaterally transfer her to a different service line.
After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency's
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as pretextual or
show that the actions were otherwise motivated by discriminatory animus. 	With
respect to the harassment claim, we find that Complainant failed to demonstrate
that the Agency’s actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an
unlawful 	hostile 	work 	environment. 	Furthermore, 	we 	find 	no 	evidence 	of
retaliation as a motive for any of the harassing incidents. 	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 or harassed as alleged.
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.

2026001821	5
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.

2026001821	6
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 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date