EEOC Appeal 2025003468

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Karleen R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Hung Cao,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003468
Hearing Nos. 550-2023-00088X & 550-2023-00327X
Agency Nos. DON-22-4523A-00694 & DON-22-4523A-01616
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
June 24, 2025, final order 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. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Business Agent, GS-1152-12, in the Agency’s Ocean Engineering Department at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Bremerton,
Washington.
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.

2025003468	2
Complainant filed two formal EEO complaints which collectively alleged that the
Agency discriminated against her and subject her to a hostile work environment in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	Beginning in June 2022, management denied Complainant’s request to
transfer to the Production Controller position at the Trident Refit
Facility, although others have been allowed to transfer;
2. 	Beginning in June 2022, management ignored Complainant’s attempts
to improve processes within the shop, enhance teamwork, and failed to
disseminate information about the changes taking place in work
processes that affected Complainant’s reports;
3. 	Beginning in June 2022, management’s retaliatory behaviors have
caused Complainant tremendous anxiety, damage to Complainant’s
career and 	reputation, lack of sleep, poor concentration, loss of
confidence and excessive leave;
4. 	Between July 11, 2022, and August 12, 2022, management provided a
negative reference check to hiring managers for employment with the
Business Operations Department, resulting in Complainant’s non-
selection for lateral transfer to a Production Controller position and her
non-selection for a Business Operations Manager position;
5. 	From September 2022 to October 2022, Complainant’s first level
supervisor harassed and intimidated Complainant during a midterm
performance review, a counseling session, and a fact-finding inquiry.
He 	disputed 	Complainant’s 	written 	inputs 	regarding 	process
improvement, collaboration 	and 	teamwork, brought 	in 	a security
manager to witness sessions; effectively setting Complainant up for a
subpar performance appraisal;
6. 	Between February 2022 and December 2022, management failed to
maintain privacy and confidentiality in the office by discussing or
allowing discussions of Complainant’s private medical information and
Complainant’s disciplinary information openly in front of those without
a need to know;
7. 	From October 21, 2022, to present, management failed to remove
Complainant from her first and second level supervisors’ supervision
even 	though 	Complainant 	complained 	about 	their 	inappropriate
behaviors of targeting, segregating, and withholding information from
her that directly impacted Complainant’s work performance;

2025003468	3
8. 	Since August 2022, management failed to address the negative change
in 	attitude 	of 	colleagues 	toward 	Complainant 	after 	Complainant
reported them. Management instead validated their change in attitude
towards 	Complainant 	by 	discouraging 	communication 	between
business agents;
9. 	On December 8, 2022, Complainant’s first level supervisor asked
Complainant to share and put scheduled breaks on her Outlook
calendar, but did not require any other employees to do the same;
10. 	Since December 13, 2022, Complainant’s first level supervisor allowed
another employee to remove a barrier to the cubicles, but has not
allowed Complainant to do so; and
11. 	Since October 2022, Complainant’s first level supervisor intimidated
Complainant to stop communicating freely with other employees for
purposes of collaboration and advancement.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with
copies of the reports of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant timely requested a
hearing. The AJ consolidated the complaints and issued a summary judgment
decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to reprisal as alleged. The
Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. The
instant appeal followed.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that the alleged incidents, even
assuming they occurred as described by Complainant, were more likely the result of
routine supervision, personality conflicts, and general workplace disputes and are
therefore insufficiently material to deter protected activity.
In addition, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the alleged
conduct was based on retaliatory animus. 	For example, the record shows that
Complainant was late returning from a break and did not notify a co-worker or
supervisor that she would be away from her workspace. The Agency’s reminder that
she notify others when leaving her desk was a routine workplace directive. The
record also establishes that Complainant was provided official time, a private office,
and equipment to work on her EEO complaint. The evidence does not support her
contention that she was denied official EEO time or prohibited from working on her
complaint at home.

2025003468	4
The record likewise does not establish retaliation based on the Agency’s inquiries
concerning Complainant’s work schedule and duties, interruptions related to work
assignments, or comments concerning the Phasing Plan. Complainant’s belief that
these actions were intended to interfere with her EEO activity or negatively affect
her performance is unsupported by the record. Indeed, Complainant received a fully
successful performance rating for the relevant period and her supervisor’s comments
in the midterm performance review were simply regular supervisory comments
based on observed issues.
Furthermore, 	Complainant 	has 	not 	established 	that 	the 	Agency’s 	decisions
concerning 	her 	transfer 	requests, 	counseling, 	or 	promotion 	application 	were
retaliatory. The Agency articulated legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for its actions,
including that Complainant did not pursue the appropriate process for one transfer
request, received negative workplace feedback concerning another transfer, and was
not selected for the promotion because another candidate was determined to be better
qualified.
Moreover, to the extent that Complainant is alleging disparate treatment regarding
her claims, Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the
Agency's explanation for its actions was pretext for reprisal.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.
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.

2025003468	5
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).
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.

2025003468	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 30, 2026
Date