EEOC Appeal 2026002860

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Maxie S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Marco Rubio,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002860
Agency No. DOS-154-26
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated May 15,
2026, 	dismissing 	her 	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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as the
Diplomatic Technology Unit Chief, FS-03, at the Agency’s U.S. Embassy in
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
On April 10, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint, which the Agency
framed as alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of
national origin (Russian) when:
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.

2026002860	2
1. 	Complainant was denied access to the Defense Attache Office at the
U.S. Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
The 	Agency 	dismissed 	the 	complaint 	as 	framed 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.107(a)(1), finding that she had ultimately been granted access and therefore
she had not suffered an adverse action affecting a term, condition, or privilege of
her employment. The Agency also dismissed the complaint for failing to state a
claim against the Agency, finding that Complainant alleged that Department of
War2 (DOW) employees engaged in discriminatory behavior in a DOW-controlled
space, and that the Agency did not employ these individuals, exercise the authority
necessary to impose the requested relief, and was not responsible for processing
EEO claims against DOW personnel. Complainant filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant contends the Agency erred in dismissing her complaint
because she suffered harm to a term, condition, or privilege of employment when
she was denied access needed to perform her official duties based on her ethnicity.
She 	states 	the 	hostile 	work 	environment 	was 	further 	aggravated 	when 	a
Department of War employee sarcastically used the term “spasibo” (Russian for
thank you) when interacting with Complainant. Complainant asserts that the
Agency has failed to address the misconduct of the Department of War employees
who are subject to the authority of the Ambassador.
The Agency contends on appeal that Complainant has failed to identify a harm or
injury and does not meet the definition of an aggrieved employee. The Agency
states that Complainant was granted access to the controlled area 20 days later and
she makes no claim that the temporary denial of access resulted in a loss of pay,
grade, duties, or other tangible harm to the terms, conditions, or privileges of her
employment. Nor does Complainant claim that she was unable to do her job or that
the lack of access for 20 days laid the foundation for later disciplinary action.
The Agency’s decision to dismiss a complaint is subject to de novo review by the
Commission, which requires the Commission to examine the record without regard
to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker and issue its
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.

2026002860	3
decision 	based 	on 	the Commission’s 	own 	assessment 	of the record 	and 	its
interpretation of the law. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). The Commission should
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the complainant and take the
complaint’s allegations as true. 	See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC
Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997). Thus, all reasonable inferences that may
be 	drawn 	from 	the 	complaint’s 	allegations 	must 	be 	made 	in 	favor 	of 	the
complainant.
At the outset, we find the Agency improperly framed the complaint. A fair reading
of the complaint shows that Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment on the basis of
national origin (Russian) when:
1. 	Complainant was denied access to the Defense Attache Office at the
U.S. Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; and
2. 	On or about March 24, 2026, a DOW employee told Complainant
“spasibo” (thank you in Russian) after she was granted access to the
Defense Attache Office and fixed a piece of equipment.
Complainant was clear that she believed she was experiencing ongoing harassment
contributing to a hostile work environment.
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part,
that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency shall
accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who
believes that she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§
1614.103, .106(a). An “aggrieved employee” is one who suffers a present harm or
loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there
is 	a 	remedy. 	Hyo 	E. 	v. 	Dep't 	of 	Homeland 	Security, 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
2023004515 (Aug. 7, 2024), citing Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request
No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). Terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
include, inter alia, promotion, demotion, discipline, reasonable accommodation,
appraisals, awards, training, benefits, assignments, overtime, leave, tours of duty,
etc. Cobb v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13,
1997); Becerra v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120083490 (Jan. 13,
2012).

2026002860	4
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme Court
reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986),
that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
conditions of the complainant's employment. The Commission has repeatedly
found that unless the conduct is very severe, a single incident or group of isolated
incidents will not be regarded as creating a hostile work environment. Complainant
v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Request No. 0520110581 (Jan. 12, 2012).
Here, we agree with the Agency that Complainant is not aggrieved within the
meaning of the regulations because she has not suffered a harm or loss with respect
to a term, condition, or privilege of her employment. While Complainant alleges
that she was denied access needed to perform her duties, she admits she was
granted access and able to perform the specific task 20 days after the initial denial.
She does not allege that she was disciplined or otherwise suffered negative
consequences related to the denial of access. Nor are Complainant’s allegations
sufficiently severe or pervasive to set forth an actionable claim of harassment or
hostile 	work 	environment. 	Complainant 	lists 	only 	two 	related 	instances 	of
harassment. As noted by the Supreme Court, “simple teasing, offhand comments,
and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory
changes in the terms or conditions of employment”. Faragher v. City of Boca
Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). EEO laws are not a civility code. Rather, they
forbid “only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the
victim's employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81
(1998).
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing the formal complaint is
AFFIRMED.3
3 Because we find Complainant failed to state a claim, it is not necessary here to
join the Department of War as a party. However, the Agency is reminded that it is
the policy of the Commission that, when two agencies bear joint responsibility for
an act of alleged discrimination, both agencies are proper respondents and the
complaint must be jointly processed. See Carol K. v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC
Appeal No. 2019004395 (Sept. 17, 2019) (holding both the Air Force and the Navy
jointly responsible for a complaint by a Navy employee about the Air Force's
negative assessment of the Navy employee's performance on the inter-agency
project to develop the joint strike fighter aircraft). See also, Fauntroy v. Dep’t of
the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01980259 (finding that Department of Treasury

2026002860	5
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.
employee allegedly harassed by security guard employed by General Services
Administration should be jointly processed by both agencies). This policy ensures
that all agencies that are indispensable parties to the adjudication
of a complaint are joined.

2026002860	6
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.
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.

2026002860	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 __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 17, 2026
Date