EEOC Appeal 2026000220

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Dinah L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000220
Agency No. 200H-650-2024-159232
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
October 21, 2025, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay
Act of 1963, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) 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 Physician’s Assistant (PA [Urology]), VM-0603-50 (PA Grade 1,
Step 2) at the Agency’s Surgical Service, Providence VA Medical Center (PVAMC)
in Providence, Rhode Island. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 58, 97-123, and 156-
63. At that time, there were no male Physician’s Assistants who worked at the
PVAMC, there were only male Nurse Practitioners, VN-0610-III, who worked at the
facility. ROI at 60. Complainant’s second-level supervisor (Supervisor 2) was the
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 	2026000220
Associate Chief of Staff. Complainant’s third-level supervisor (Supervisor 3) was
the Chief of Staff. ROI at 59, 90, and 126.
On July 3, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by
the Agency on the basis of sex (female) when, since September 18, 2023,
Complainant was paid less as a physician’s assistant than her comparable male nurse
practitioner coworkers.
The Agency conducted an investigation. The investigation revealed that as of July
26, 2024, the salaries for all Physician’s Assistants at the PVAMC were as follows:
Grade 1: $92, 616.00 (Step 1) - $123,174.00 (Step 13); Grade 2: $111,007.00 (Step
1) - $147,637.00 (Step 13); Grade 3: $132,002.00 (Step 1) - $175,562.00 (Step 13);
Grade 4: $155,987.00 (Step 1) - $207,456 (Step 13). ROI at 140.
For PVAMC Nurse Practitioners, the salaries were set as follows: Grade 1:
$105,916.00 (Step 1) - $140,863.00 (Step 13); Grade 2: $124,439.00 (Step 1) -
$165,502 (Step 13); Grade 3: $141,860.00 (Step 1) - $188.665 (Step 13). On
September 15, 2023, Complainant was onboarded in the PVAMC Surgical Service
as a Physician’s Assistant, Grade 1, Step 2, with an annual salary of $78,884.00. She
alleged that her male counterparts made $104,195.00 annually. ROI at 64 and 99-
100. Complainant argued that according to VA Handbook 5007 and as it relates to
pay administration, Physician’s Assistants were added as a “covered position” to the
Nurse Locality Pay System, which was renamed the Title 38 Locality Pay system
via the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act. According to Complainant, Nurse
Practitioners and Physician’s Assistants at the Providence VAMC were supposed to
receive equivalent levels of pay. ROI at 60-1.
According to management, the PVAMC used salary surveys of private sector pay to
determine pay scales for Nurse Practitioners and Physician’s Assistants. Based on
an initial salary survey, a pay chart would be developed, approved by the facility
Director, 	and 	forwarded 	to 	the 	VA 	Central 	Office 	for 	authorization 	and
implementation. Supervisor 2 explained that Complainant was approved by the
Board to start as a Physician’s Assistant Grade 1, Step 2. The Human Resources
Office offered Complainant her initial salary because it was the salary that correlated
to the grade and step on the Physician’s Assistant pay table at the time of her hiring.
ROI at 69-70, 90-2, 99-110, and 765-71.

3 	2026000220
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. After Complainant requested a decision, the Agency
issued a final decision (FAD) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency
concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, argues that the FAD incorrectly found
that Nurse Practitioner and Physician’s Assistant roles require different degrees and
credentialling levels, listing four bullet points to support her argument. Complainant
asserts that the work Physician’s Assistants perform is “substantially equal in skill,
effort, and responsibility.” She supports her assertion with bulleted arguments but
no evidence. We will address Complainant’s arguments below.
The Agency, in pertinent part, argued 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
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 he/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).

4 	2026000220
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).
The United States Supreme Court articulated the requirements for establishing a
prima facie case of discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (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 [1] she or he received less pay [2] than
an individual of the opposite sex [3] for equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and
responsibility, 	[4] 	under 	similar 	working 	conditions 	[5] 	within 	the 	same
establishment. Emma B. v. Dept. of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151590
(May 9, 2017).
Here, we find that the Agency provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation
for the amount of pay Complainant received. We also find no evidence of pretext,
and Complainant failed to provide any information that would support a conclusion
that she received less pay as a female physician’s assistant than male coworkers who
were nurse practitioners. As the record reflects, there were no similarly situated male
physician’s assistants who were paid more than Complainant as she was the only
physician’s 	assistant 	at 	the 	PVAMC. 	The 	coworkers 	to 	whom 	Complainant
compared herself were male nurse practitioners who had different skills as measured
by experience, training, and certification requirements.
As such, we find no basis to conclude that the Agency was motivated by
discriminatory animus based on Complainant’s protected female class when her pay
was set consistent with applicable statute and guidance from the Board. To reach a
different outcome, Complainant would need to show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that there were male physician’s assistants at the PVAMC who performed
equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar working
conditions. However, in spite of Complainant’s appeal arguments, including those
insinuating that physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners did not require
different degrees, certifications, and credentialling, the record in this case is devoid
of such evidence.

5 	2026000220
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
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).

6 	2026000220
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.
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).

7 	2026000220
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.
FOR THE COMMISSION:
T. Gimbrere 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 16, 2026
Date