EEOC Appeal 2026002475

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Laurence L,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002475
Agency No. 200I5212026172367
DECISION
Complainant 	timely 	appealed 	with 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's May 15, 2026, dismissal
of his complaint of unlawful 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. 	Upon review, the Commission REVERSES the Agency’s
decision and REMANDS the matter to the Agency for further processing.
During the relevant time frame, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a
Supervisory Medical Supply Technician, GS-08, Sterile Processing Services (SPS),
for the VA Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama.
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.

2026002475	2
On May 2, 2026, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected him to a discriminatory hostile work environment on the bases
of sex (male) and age (66). The Agency framed the claims as follows:2
1. On November 4, 2025, a Sterile Processing Educator (Coworker)
stated that Complainant told her to “shut up” during a meeting;
2. On December 16, 2025, Coworker smirked at Complainant, rolled her
eyes and looked disdainfully at him;
3. On January 12, 2026, Complainant overheard Coworker say: “Just
because he is a man, he doesn’t control me or anything in this office,
and as a woman, I will show him, he may be the supervisor but I don’t
give a fuck about his old ass and I am going to get him” or words to
that effect;
4. On 	January 	12, 	2026, 	Coworker 	attempted 	to 	circumvent
Complainant’s supervisory authority by instructing an employee to
handle some of her duties;
5. On 	February 	9, 	2026, 	Complainant 	overheard 	Coworker 	say:
“[Complainant] ain’t shit!” and she (Coworker) will continue to tell
Complainant’s employees not to listen to him;
6. On March 5, 2026, Coworker claimed Complainant was “fucking with
her” and said, “you think that just because you are a man, that you can
do and say whatever you want me to, but I will show you who I am!”;
2 Complainant raised the allegation in Claim 9 on appeal. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.106(d) a complainant may amend an EEO complaint, at any time prior to the
conclusion of the investigation, to include issues or claims that are like or related to
the original complaint. A later claim or complaint is “like or related” to the original
complaint if the later claim or complaint adds to or clarifies the original complaint
and could have reasonably been expected to grow out of the original complaint
during the investigation. See Mannon v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 0720070074 (Apr. 4, 2012); Scher v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC
Request No. 05940702 (May 30, 1995).

2026002475	3
7. On March 13, 2026, Coworker spread the lie that Complainant filed
an EEO complaint against her and the Reusable Medical Devices
(RMD) Coordinator;
8. On April 10, 2026, Complainant became aware that Coworker was
spreading the lie that Complainant snatched paperwork out of her
hands; and
9. On February 12, 2026, Complainant reported the harassment to the
SPS Chief, including “many instances of name calling, innuendos and
outright disrespect being perpetrated against me by [Coworker]” and
SPS Chief responded that he already spoke with Coworker about
Complainant’s allegations, and he did not want to hear anything else
or any more about it from Complainant.
The Agency dismissed the matter pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure
to state a claim. 	The Agency reasoned that Complainant described isolated
incidents, and that even considered together, these incidents were not sufficiently
severe 	or 	pervasive 	to 	constitute 	a 	hostile 	work 	environment. 	Specifically,
Coworker had no supervisory authority over Complainant, and Management was
not aware of the alleged harassment.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency improperly framed the claims to
minimize the severity of the alleged harassment. In particular, he alleges that
Coworker’s actions impeded his ability to perform his supervisory duties, she
threatened physical violence by saying she was going to “get him” (Claim 3), and
Management was aware of the harassment but failed to take effective action. 	He
also contends that the alleged harassment was pervasive, as it occurred “over 6
months” and continued after the filed the instant complaint. The Agency filed a
response disputing Complainant’s appellate arguments.
Upon review, we find that the Agency’s framing accurately summarizes the facts of
the 	complaint. 	We 	have 	considered 	the 	additional 	explanations 	provided 	in
Complainant’s 	formal 	EEO 	complaint, 	and 	the 	contemporaneous 	Reports 	of
Contact 	(ROC) 	corresponding 	with 	each 	claim, 	for 	context 	and 	background
information.

2026002475	4
Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a
complaint from an aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes
that they have been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. 	29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a).
The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved
employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. 	Diaz v. Dep’t
of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). If the complainant
cannot establish that they are aggrieved, the agency shall dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
Where, as here, a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction
regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, a claim of
harassment may survive if it alleges conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive
to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment. 	See Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). In instances where the alleged harasser has
no supervisory authority over the complainant, the complainant may still state a
claim if Management “condoned” or “tolerated” the harassing conduct, or failed to
effectively respond when made aware of the conduct. See, e.g. Colene M. v. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2023000066 (Jan. 4, 2023) (discussing
harassment by a subordinate) citing Norbert K. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC
Appeal No. 2021001898 (Apr. 19, 2021), other citations omitted. 	In these
instances, severity or pervasiveness can be determined from the extent to which the
harassment unreasonably interferes with the complainant’s work performance. Id.
We have previously held that for hostile work environment claims where the
complainant 	is 	a 	supervisor, 	“unreasonable 	interference” 	by 	a 	coworker 	or
nonsupervisory 	employee 	may 	manifest 	“by 	reducing 	the 	complainant’s
effectiveness as a supervisor or undermining the complainant’s credibility or
authority in the eyes of other subordinates or coworkers.” See, e.g. Norbert K. (the
complainant’s subordinates mocked his accent, ignored his emails, would not
complete the work he assigned, walked out of meetings when he began speaking,
skipped meetings led by complainant, and management failed to take effective
action) see also, e.g. Lincke v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120103339 (Dec. 29, 2010) (the complainant’s coworker subjected him to more
than 	a 	dozen 	instances 	of 	harassment 	that 	impacted 	the 	completion 	of 	the
complainant’s duties, including stalking and threatening the complainant, making

2026002475	5
false reports about the complainant, telling other employees he would “deal with”
the complainant, and “expressing high levels of anger” towards employees).
Complainant contends that Coworker’s harassment unreasonably interfered with
his ability to perform his job duties as a supervisor. He explains that although
Coworker is not his supervisor, her position as a Nurse Educator “carries weight
with management and the employees who hear and listen to her on a daily basis
(the majority of [whom] are under my supervision).” Thus, by acting disrespectful
in front of Complainant’s subordinates (including, but not limited to rolling eyes,
smirking, 	raising 	her 	voice, 	providing 	contrary 	instructions, 	disparaging 	and
spreading lies about Complainant, then attempting to recruit his subordinates to
support her lies), Coworker undermined his credibility and authority. Complainant
also asserts that Coworker placed his subordinates in a position where they have to
choose whether to follow his or Coworker’s instructions. 	Complainant further
asserts that SPS Chief was aware of the hostile work environment but failed to take
effective action.
Taking Complainant’s allegations as true, we find them sufficient to state a claim
of hostile work environment. In addition to allegedly undermining Complainant’s
authority as a supervisor, Coworker’s comments implicate his age and gender and
potentially threaten violence. 	Coworker continued to engage in the alleged
conduct even after SPS Chief became aware of the alleged harassment.
We also note that under Commission policy, a complainant is protected from any
retaliatory discrimination that is reasonably likely to deter complainant or others
from engaging in protected activity. Maclin v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120070788 (Mar. 29, 2007) see e.g., Torie A. v. Dep’t of Agriculture,
EEOC Appeal No. 2023001578 (June 22, 2023) (management official’s comments
indicating that the complainant was a “snitch” because she engaged in EEO
activity, 	and 	implying 	that 	he 	condoned 	other 	employees 	discussing 	the
complainant’s EEO activity, reasonably likely to deter protected EEO activity)
citations omitted. We find SPS Chief’s alleged failure to act when Coworker spread
rumors about Complainant’s EEO activity (Claim 7), describes conduct that is
reasonably likely to deter Complainant or others from engaging in protected
activity. The Agency is strongly reminded that there is no place for this type of
behavior from any manager of the federal government.

2026002475	6
Moreover, agencies have an obligation to ensure that managers and supervisors
perform in such a manner as to insure a continuing affirmative application and
vigorous enforcement of the policy of equal employment opportunity. 29 C.F.R.
§1614.102(5); Binseel v. Dept of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970584 (Oct. 8,
1998).
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is
REVERSED. 	We 	hereby 	REMAND 	the 	matter 	for 	further 	processing 	in
accordance with this decision and the following order.
ORDER (E0224)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has
received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this
decision was issued. 	The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the
investigative file, and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights
within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision was
issued, 	unless 	the 	matter 	is 	otherwise 	resolved 	prior 	to 	that 	time. 	If 	the
Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a
final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant’s request.
As 	provided 	in 	the statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of the
Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the Agency’s
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and 3) either a copy
of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the final agency decision
(“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(c) 	and 	§ 	1614.502, 	compliance 	with 	the
Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. 	Within seven (7) calendar days of
the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format
required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under
which compliance was being monitored. 	Once all compliance is complete, the
Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format
required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).

2026002475	7
The Agency’s final report must contain supporting documentation when previously
not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
Complainant and his/her representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 	If the Complainant files a civil
action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition
for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.
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.

2026002475	8
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 (R0124)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of
your complaint. 	However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to
file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90)
calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you
may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the
date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission.

2026002475	9
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. 	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 16, 2026
Date