EEOC Appeal 2026002249

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hyo L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002249
Agency No. 200P-644-2025-163443
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
April 1, 2026, final decision concerning her 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. and Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
791 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s
final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Social Worker at the Agency’s Community Resource and Referral
Center in Phoenix, Arizona.
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.

2026002249	2
On March 26, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination
by the Agency on the bases of race (Latina), national origin (Puerto Rican), disability
(PTSD; anxiety, depression), and reprisal for protected EEO activity when she was
subjected to numerous incidents of harassment, including but not limited to: one of
her coworkers (Coworker 1) repeatedly stated in front of other staff, “Puerto Ricans
can be deported to Mexico,” after which her Supervisor and others laughed;
Coworker 1 stated to a veteran referring to Complainant, “She’s Puerto Rican, and
you better watch out;” another coworker (Coworker 2) and another coworker were
disturbing Complainant by being loud while Complainant was on the phone with a
veteran and Coworker 1 “balled up her fists,” and stated “You have a big mouth, the
next time you decide to get into any of my jokes, you’re going to get it!”; her
Supervisor denied her request to move to a different office away from Coworker 1;
Complainant was advised that an email dated May 7, 2025 which addressed
exemptions from the Return to In-Person Work Presidential Memorandum dated
January 20, 2025 was sent to her in error and Complainant was to continue reporting
to work in person; and Complainant did not receive a performance bonus after the
Supervisor announced to staff to check their email for bonuses after the issuance of
FY 2024 performance appraisals.
Complainant stated that she has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression,
and anxiety, which makes it difficult for her to work with “toxic employees who are
constantly in drama.” See Report of Investigation (ROI) at 195-96. She requested
a reasonable accommodation asking to be allowed to telework two days a week,
flexibility to have her door closed, being allowed to have Friday or Monday off when
available, being allowed to come in later and leave early on Wednesdays, and a
training packet. See ROI at 324. The Agency denied her request to telework because
her duties included seeing veterans face to face in the clinic and also denied her
request for Mondays and Fridays off and being allowed to arrive late and leave early
on Wednesdays because the facility was often short-staffed on Mondays and Fridays
due to staff with compressed schedules, seniority, and union regulations, and
because Wednesdays were the highest patient care days. 	However, the Agency
granted her alternative accommodations of being allowed to have her door closed,
more training time, and training packets. See ROI at 324-25.
Complainant took issue with incidents where her coworkers or her Supervisor yelled
at her, which she found to be humiliating and “bullying.” See ROI at 198-200. She
also alleged that one of her coworkers (Coworker 1) repeatedly said, “Puerto Ricans
can be deported to Mexico,” and the Supervisor laughed, which has allowed

2026002249	3
Coworker 1 to say this more than once, which she finds offensive because deporting
immigrants without due process is not funny and Puerto Ricans are Americans. See
ROI at 201. She further took issue with another coworker (Coworker 2) who sent
out a group text message to say that they were busy and needed help and
Complainant responded to assure another of their coworkers who had health issues
that they were fine and it was just a joke. 	Complainant stated that afterwards,
Coworker 2 got angry with her, balling up her fists and growled at her, “The next
time you get into my business, I am going to get you!” See ROI at 203. Complainant
asserted that she asked the Supervisor if she could move offices away from
Coworker 2 but the Supervisor denied her request, even though another employee
was allowed to move. See ROI at 211-12.
The Supervisor denied any incident where Coworker 1 said “Puerto Ricans can be
deported to Mexico.” See ROI at 302. She also denied yelling at Complainant but
acknowledged that she does not feel comfortable having a conversation alone with
Complainant. 	See ROI at 303. 	The Supervisor explained that she denied
Complainant’s request to move offices because she received a directive by Facilities
Management not to permit any movement of offices until all buildings completed
their plans to bring workers back into the building in accordance with the Executive
Order to return to the office. 	See ROI at 307. 	She explained that of the other
employees who were permitted to move offices, one was given that permission by
another management official and the other was moved due to a fact-finding
investigation involving that employee and another staff member. See ROI at 309-
10.
Coworker 2 stated that she did not recall any incident where Coworker 1 said,
“Puerto Ricans can be deported to Mexico.” 	See ROI at 345. 	She further denied
hearing the Supervisor yell at Complainant. 	See ROI at 346. 	She denied that she
“balled her fists,” or growled at Complainant to tell her to stay out of Coworker 1’s
business, stating that she was not angry and never threatened Complainant. See ROI
at 346-48. 	None of Complainant’s other coworkers recalled any incident where
Coworker 1 made a comment about Puerto Ricans being deported.
Complainant stated that she received an email directing her to return to the office,
which she asserted “rescinded” her approved reasonable accommodation to work
remotely and being allowed to close her doors was not sufficient because her
coworkers still have loud conversations outside her office while she is on the phone
that she can hear even with her door closed. See ROI at 220-21.

2026002249	4
She asserted that she believes the Supervisor denied her reasonable accommodation
out of retaliation and because she is not Caucasian. See ROI at 221-23. Complainant
also took issue with being denied a bonus after the Supervisor announced that all
social workers should check their emails for the bonus to their checks on payday,
but Complainant did not receive the email or a bonus. See ROI at 223.
The Supervisor stated that she had no involvement in Complainant’s reasonable
accommodation request. 	See ROI at 316-17. 	The Supervisor explained that
Complainant received a “Fully Successful” in her performance rating but only
employees who received an “Excellent” or “Outstanding” rating were eligible to
receive bonuses. 	See ROI at 317-18. 	She stated that Human Resources was
responsible for deciding who was eligible for bonuses. See ROI at 317. A Human
Resources Officer told Complainant that she had been sent an email informing her
that she had been approved for telework and would not need to return to the office
in error. See ROI at 93-95; 98.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, or a final
decision from the agency. 	When Complainant requested a final Agency decision,
the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision
concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant argues that the Agency’s final decision erred because it did
not consider all the incidents of harassment together to consider whether they
collectively created a hostile work environment and also because the Agency’s final
decision erred in ignoring Complainant’s own statements that the incidents where
Coworker 1 made a comment about how “Puerto Ricans can be deported to Mexico,”
or Coworker 2 threatening her while choosing to believe the statements of the other
coworkers. 	The Agency filed a brief in response, arguing that its final decision
should be affirmed.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	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 9-16 (Aug. 5,
2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission

2026002249	5
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”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under
circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. 	Furnco Constr.
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). 	Proof of a prima facie case will vary
depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at 802
n.13. 	The 	burden 	then 	shifts 	to 	the 	agency 	to 	articulate 	a 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. 	Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions and Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s reasons are a pretext for
discrimination. 	While Complainant insists that the Agency’s final decision erred
because it accepted the Supervisor’s reasons without question, we emphasize that it
was Complainant’s choice to request a final Agency decision. Because Complainant
did not request a hearing, we do not have the benefit of an AJ’s credibility
determinations and can only evaluate the facts based on the evidence presented. See
Liz M. v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150805 (April 5, 2017). While
it is clear that Complainant believes she was treated unfairly, there is simply no
evidence in the record aside from Complainant’s unsupported assertions to indicate
that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. See Edmond
C. v. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev’t, EEOC Appeal No. 0120140517 (Oct. 21,
2016) (noting that a complainant cannot establish pretext by arguing that the agency
is lying absent evidence of discriminatory animus). The Commission has repeatedly
stated that mere assertions or conjecture that an agency’s explanation is a pretext for
intentional discrimination is insufficient because subjective belief, however genuine,
does not constitute evidence of pretext. See Jed T. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec’y,
EEOC Appeal No. 2022000805 (May 18, 2023); Juliet B. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

2026002249	6
EEOC Appeal No. 0120182519 (Oct. 8, 2019); Richardson v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC
Petition No. 03A40016 (Dec. 11, 2003).
We further find that the evidence does not establish that the Agency violated the
Rehabilitation Act. Contrary to Complainant’s assertions, there is no evidence that
the Agency ever “rescinded” her reasonable accommodation. The Agency did not
grant Complainant’s request to telework because her job duties involved face-to-
face contact with veterans at the clinic. See Lynette B. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC
Appeal No. 2019003392 (Aug. 25, 2022) (an agency not required to remove
essential functions as a reasonable accommodation). While we can understand that
Complainant was confused when she received an email indicating that she was
exempted from the requirement to return to the office, an HR specialist explained to
Complainant that the email had been sent to her in error and clarified that
Complainant was required to return to the office. A mistake made by an agency is
not evidence of pretext unless there is evidence that the mistake was based on a
complainant’s protected classes. See Vickey S. v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120112893 (Nov. 17, 2015); Hsieh v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120120980 (June 4, 2012); Carroll v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.
01A20985 (Jan. 21, 2003). Moreover, to the extent Complainant appears to argue
that being allowed to close her doors was not effective because she could still hear
the noise caused by her coworkers with the door closed, we note that there is nothing
in the record to indicate that this was related to Complainant’s disability, rather than
Complainant’s 	apparent 	preference 	to 	be 	able 	to 	work 	without 	disturbance.
Complainant herself stated that she did not like the working environment because
her coworkers “are constantly in drama.” 	See ROI at 196. 	However, the
effectiveness of accommodation relates to whether the accommodation allows a
complainant to perform the essential duties of their position, not whether or not the
accommodation satisfies all of Complainant’s wishes unrelated to her disability. See
Giselle W. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2025002647 (June 22,
2026).
Finally, contrary to Complainant’s contentions on appeal, we do not find that
Complainant established that she was subjected to unlawful harassment. As stated
earlier, because Complainant did not request a hearing, we do not have the benefit
of an AJ’s credibility determinations and Complainant’s allegations about Coworker
1’s references to Puerto Ricans or her allegation that Coworker 2 threatened her are
not corroborated by any evidence in the record and are specifically denied by all of
Complainant’s other coworkers.

2026002249	7
Under these circumstances, Complainant did not establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that these incidents occurred as alleged. See Ellsworth S. v. Dep’t of the
Army, 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No. 	2023002413 	(July 	8, 	2025) 	(the 	complainant’s
unsupported assertions not sufficient to establish that incidents of alleged harassment
occurred). Moreover, we find that the record only establishes that Complainant had
a contentious interpersonal relationship with her coworkers and her Supervisor with
Complainant making repeated comments about how her coworkers were noisy and
Complainant taking issue with the Supervisor telling her to talk to a veteran or saying
that the Supervisor is “the boss.” 	There is, however, no evidence in the record to
indicate that the fraught working relationship between Complainant, her coworkers,
and the Supervisor was due to a protected class.
The Commission has repeatedly stated that common workplace tribulations such as
contentious 	interpersonal 	relationships 	with 	coworkers 	and 	routine 	work
assignments, instructions, and admonishments do not rise to the level of an unlawful
hostile work environment. See Arthur J. v. Social Sec’y Admin., EEOC Appeal No.
0120142985 (Feb. 28, 2017). It is well-settled that anti-discrimination laws are not
a “general civility code” that guarantees a complainant the right to a pleasant or
stress-free working environment. See Teresa W. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC
Appeal No. 2023002984 (May 6, 2024). 	We find that the evidence in the record
does not support a finding that Complainant was subjected to an unlawful hostile
work environment.
Therefore, based on our review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
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

2026002249	8
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.
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).

2026002249	9
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.
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