EEOC Appeal 2024002776

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Bill M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2024002776
Hearing No. 490-2023-00074X
Agency No. 200I-626A4-2022-145519
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the
Agency’s 	March 	8, 	2024, 	final 	decision 	concerning 	his 	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.,
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
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.

2024002776	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Police
Officer at the Agency’s Alvin C. York Medical Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
On July 20, 2022, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of race
(White), sex (male), disability (mental and physical), age (33 years old) and reprisal
(prior protected EEO activity) when:
1. 	On 	April 	26, 	2020, 	Complainant’s 	former 	first-level 	supervisor,
Supervisory Police Officer (Supervisor1A), called Complainant on his
personal phone and asked him to repair her vehicle and invited
Complainant to stay in her apartment and “hang out;”
2. 	On or around July 1, 2020, Supervisor1A sent Complainant a text
message stating that she was going to leave a key to her apartment in
the women’s locker room for him to check on her dog and her teenage
son while she was out of town;
3. 	On September 1, 2020, Complainant applied but was not interviewed
for a Supervisory Police Instructor position;
4. 	On and after December 29, 2020, Supervisor1A “forced” Complainant
to work night shifts and ignored his medical conditions;
5. 	On 	or 	about 	January 	1, 	2021, 	Supervisor1A 	told 	a 	coworker
(CoWorker1) that she “Fu*king hated Complainant;”
6. 	On January 7, 2021, Complainant applied and received a notification
that he was ineligible for a Lead Police Officer Instructor position;
7. 	On January 7, 2021, Supervisor1A sent a video in a group text message
of a dancing Santa figure that said the “N-word” several times;
8. 	On or about March 1, 2021, Supervisor1A “threatened” Complainant
with working the night shift and transferring him to another supervisor;

2024002776	3
9. 	On June 24, 2021, Supervisor1A requested to put Complainant on the
night shift after Complainant sent an email to Complainant’s second-
level supervisor, Police Operations Supervisor (Supervisor2), about
Supervisor1A making racial remarks;
10. 	On August 4 and 9, 2021, Complainant’s fourth-level supervisor, Chief
of Police (Supervisor4), sent out a group email advising staff that
another individual (not Complainant) had been selected for the Lead
Police Officer and Police Detective positions with Police Service in
Nashville, Tennessee;
11. 	On 	or 	about 	October 	1, 	2021, 	Complainant 	did 	not 	receive 	an
“Outstanding” rating on his Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Performance
Evaluation or the bonus that came with it;
12. 	On April 19, 2022, Complainant’s third-level supervisor, Deputy Chief
of 	Police 	(Supervisor3), 	asked 	for 	volunteers 	to 	take 	over
Complainant’s Lynx Security System administrator duties.
13. 	On March 25, 2022, Complainant’s first-level supervisor, Supervisory
Police Officer (Supervisor1B), entered the Police Operations office and
loudly stated, “I’m here and I’m Queer;”
14. 	On 	March 	26, 	2022, 	Supervisor1B 	called 	Complainant 	to 	the
supervisor’s office multiple times for no reason and stated, “I’m not
firing you today;”
15. 	On April 5, 2022, a Police Sergeant informed Complainant that he
“heard” Complainant was “passed over” (not selected) for the Police
Detective position in Nashville, Tennessee in August 2021, because “a
deal was struck” between the selectee for that position and Supervisor4;
16. 	On June 6, 2022, Complainant sent management a reminder to amend
his FY2021 Performance Evaluation;

2024002776	4
17. 	On 	June 	17, 	2022, 	Complainant 	was 	issued 	a 	temporary 	detail
assignment 	to 	the 	Personal 	Identity 	Verification 	(PIV) 	office 	in
Nashville, Tennessee;
18. 	On June 22, 2022, Associate Medical Center Director, Tennessee
Valley Health Care System, notified Complainant that Complainant
would be charged personal leave to cover his absences on June 18 and
19, 2022;
19. 	On December 14, 2022, Supervisor1B issued Complainant a FY2022
Performance Evaluation with a “Fully Successful” rating; and
20. 	On December 19, 2022, Complainant became aware that Supervisor1B
denied Complainant a performance bonus for FY 2022.
The Agency dismissed Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 as discrete acts of discrimination
for untimely EEO Counselor contact but considered these claims as background
evidence in support of Complainant’s overall hostile work environment claim.
Complainant did not challenge this on appeal. The Commission can find no basis to
disturb the Agency’s dismissal of these claims, with the exception of Claim 4 to the
extent 	that 	this 	claim 	alleges 	that 	Complainant 	was 	denied 	a 	reasonable
accommodation which we find to be timely raised. The remaining claims will be
considered as background evidence in support of Complainant’s hostile work
environment claim.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge. Complainant timely requested a hearing but
subsequently withdrew his request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In the decision, the Agency concluded that
Complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
Thereafter, Complainant filed this appeal.

2024002776	5
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/or general workplace disputes and tribulations and are therefore
insufficiently 	severe 	or 	pervasive 	to 	establish 	a 	discriminatory 	hostile 	work
environment and not sufficiently material to deter protected activity to establish a
retaliatory hostile work environment.
Furthermore, 	the 	record 	is 	devoid 	of 	evidence 	beyond 	Complainant’s 	mere
speculation and suspicion that the alleged conduct was based on his protected
classes. 	For example, Supervisor1A denied the bulk of Complainant’s allegations
in Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, and provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory
explanations for each incident. 	Notably, we also find insufficient evidence in the
record to establish that Complainant notified management of the incidents raised in
Claims 7 and 13. With respect to Claim 7, only one witness stated that he had
knowledge of the incident and that he believed the allegation was taken out of
context. 	Specifically, the witness stated that the video contained “a rap song that
stated the N-word [that] went along with the video.” 	Notwithstanding, Agency
management confirmed that the matter was investigated after another employee
raised the incident.
Complainant was not selected for the position in Claim 3 because his resume was
not scored in the top six based on his lack of training instructor experience and
training supervisory experience. 	Complainant was not deemed eligible for the
position in Claim 6 because he did not submit all of the required supporting
documentation with his application. With respect to Claim 10, the Chief of Police
stated that he routinely sent email messages regarding hiring and promotions to
congratulate the selectees and notify staff, the executive leadership team, and service
chiefs of the selections. Complainant was not selected for the position because he
was ranked second based on the interview and resume scoring.
As to Claim 11, Complainant received a performance rating of Fully Successful for
FY 2021 because he had not performed all of the duties of his position. 	Regarding
Claim 16, management indicated that performance awards are awarded only to those
receiving Excellent or Outstanding ratings.
We further find that Complainant failed to establish that the explanations for the
employment actions at issue herein were a pretext for discriminatory or retaliatory
animus.

2024002776	6
Finally, with respect to Claim 4, we find insufficient evidence in the record to
support the conclusion that Complainant requested an accommodation related to
working the night shift. 	Management explained that all officers rotated shifts,
worked irregular hours, and were called to duty as necessary pursuant to their
position descriptions. Complainant was advised to provide medical documentation
in support if he could not work night shifts. 	Despite this instruction, there is no
evidence demonstrating that Complainant submitted the requested documentation.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that Complainant was not denied reasonable
accommodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Therefore, based on our review of the record, including Complainant’s statement on
appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination or
retaliation.
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.

2024002776	7
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. 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.

2024002776	8
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 14, 2026
Date