EEOC Appeal 2024000049

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Eleanore M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Department of War Education Activity),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2024000049
Hearing No. 570-2022-00692X
Agency No. EU-FY21-037
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 September 11, 2023, concerning her equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil
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 Pursuant to Executive Order 14347, Restoring the United States Department of
War, issued on Sept. 5, 2025, the Department of Defense is to be known as the
Department of War. Any references in the record or decision to the Department of
Defense should be read interchangeably as the Department of War.

2024000049	2
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 order finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-13,
Human Resources Specialist (HRS) in Labor Management and Employee Relations
(LMER) at the Agency’s European Regional office in Sembach, Germany. On April
8, 2021, Complainant filed a formal complaint, which was subsequently amended,
alleging discrimination and harassment based on race (African American), color
(black), disability (congestive heart failure, stress, and anxiety), and in reprisal for
prior EEO activity when:
1. On January 22, 2021, Complainant was issued a letter of reprimand.
2. On 	January 	29, 	2021, 	Complainant 	was 	subjected 	to 	a 	pre-action
investigation.
3. On April 12, 2021, Complainant was issued a notice of curtailment.
4. On April 14, 2021, management told Complainant to remove her “out of
office” notification from her email.
5. On April 14, 2021, management told Complainant that management would
submit her time and attendance.
6. On April 28, 2021, management denied Complainant access to the Agency
computer system by contacting the Information Technology (IT) office
requesting her system access be denied.
7. On June 23, 2021, Complainant became aware management rated her as “1”
Unacceptable on her 2021 performance appraisal.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of Complainant’s 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

2024000049	3
implementing the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that she was
subjected to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Regarding claim 1, Complainant’s supervisor (S1), GS-14, Supervisory HRS, Chief
LMER, Europe, stated that she had been Complainant’s supervisor since November
2020. 	S1 stated that she supervised two GS-13 (HRS), Complainant and her
coworker (C1), in LMER office. Complainant’s duties included drafting letters or
memoranda 	of 	disciplinary 	actions, 	resignations, 	and 	grievances, 	including
employees’ Request for Personnel Actions (RPAs), within her assigned school
districts. S1 noticed that Complainant was working on not only her RPAs but also
C1’s RPAs. Thus, on November 23 and 24, and December 4, 2020, S1 specifically
informed Complainant to work on personnel actions, including RPAs, only within
her assigned school districts.
Subsequently, on December 11 and 18, 2020, S1 was informed by Deputy General
Counsel and HR Staffing Chief that Complainant worked on an employee’s
resignation outside of her assigned districts which caused problems for that
employee to obtain funding for transportation back to the United States. 	On
December 22, 2020, S1 conducted a pre-action investigation, not a disciplinary
action, on Complainant regarding her working on a resignation RPA outside of her
assigned school districts. 	Based on Complainant’s foregoing conduct, S1, upon
Headquarter HRS’s approval, issued Complainant a letter of reprimand on January
22, 2021.
Regarding claim 2, S1 explained that on January 29, 2021, she conducted a pre-
action investigation because Complainant continued to work on RPAs outside of her
assigned school districts.
Regarding claim 3, S1 stated that upon her leadership’s approval, she issued
Complainant a notice of curtailment, dated April 12, 2021, effective May 22, 2021.
Therein, Complainant was notified to return to her former position with Civilian HR
Agency, West Region Directors Office in Ft. Hood, Texas. S1 indicated that from
December 2020 to March 2021: Complainant continuously failed to turn in her work
in a timely manner (specifying seven incidents); her written reports were returned
due to numerous errors; she failed to process 2020 performance awards for her
assigned districts as of March 9, 2021; and her written work, including disciplinary
letters and grievances, were continuously returned back to her for rewriting
(specifying eight incidents). 	The record contains Complainant’s drafted letters and

2024000049	4
memorandum of RPAs, dated December 17 and 22, 2020, January 20 and 29, 2021,
February 17, 2021, and March 4, 2021, which were edited by S1. Therein, S1 noted
her comments to Complainant for corrections, including spelling and grammatical
errors.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 6, Complainant had been working remotely since prior
to November 2020 (before S1 became her supervisor) until she left her position in
July 2021. 	She was on FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) sick leave from
April 14, 2021, through July 2021. Due to her extended leave, on April 14, 2021,
management told Complainant to remove her “out of office” email notification
because they believed the message was giving inaccurate expectations of an email
response to customers (claim 4). Further, since Complainant’s government-issued
laptop was scheduled to be picked up soon, S1 had the ultimate responsibility to
report her time and attendance (claim 5). Complainant does not claim her time and
attendance was recorded inaccurately. 	Despite her claim, Complainant provided no
evidence management or S1 was responsible for her inability to access her computer
on April 28, 2021 (claim 6). She acknowledged that she had access to her computer
system shortly after contacting IT personnel to fix her IT issues.
Regarding claim 7, on June 23, 2021, Complainant received her 2021 performance
appraisal rating of Unacceptable for the period from May 1, 2020, through April 30,
2021. 	The record reveals that in her January 29, 2021, progress review, S1
commented that Complainant was not meeting performance standards for Element
4, Communication and Interpersonal Relationship. Specifically, Complainant failed
to keep S1 informed of pending actions; her workload reports were submitted with
inaccurate or missing data multiple times; customer requests remained pending
without action or follow up months after receipt; and she showed a disregard for
supervisory authority. 	S1 stated that after the progress review, Complainant
continuously failed to perform her position duties as specified above.
Upon review, we find that Complainant failed to provide any evidence showing that
the Agency’s articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged
actions were pretextual. 	With respect to the harassment claim, we agree with the
AJ’s finding 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. 	After a review of the record, we find no evidence showing that the
Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation as alleged.

2024000049	5
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. 	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

2024000049	6
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.

2024000049	7
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
________________________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
9/21/2026
Date