EEOC Appeal 2025002942

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Leanne H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Department of War Education Activity),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025002942
Hearing No. 480-2025-00110X
Agency No. PE-FY23-092
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
May 1, 2025, final decision 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., and Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et
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.

2025002942	2
seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as an Instructional Systems Specialist, TP OE-15, at the Pacific East
District Superintendent’s Office located at Yokota Air Force Base in Tokyo, Japan.
On July 21, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging the Agency
subjected her to discrimination and harassment based on sex (female), disability
(associational-family member with mental and physical disabilities) and in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On May 26, 2023, she discovered that a document, written by the
C1, the former Pacific East Community Superintendent for Yokosuka
Schools, that referenced her prior sexual harassment allegations against
him was saved to the shared drive and was therefore accessible by over
a hundred employees.
2(a). On May 26, 2023, she discovered a copy of a document, written
by C1 that referenced her prior sexual harassment allegations was saved
to the shared drive accessible by over a hundred employees; and
2(b). 	On 	June 	16, 	2023, 	S1, 	the 	new 	Pacific 	East 	Community
Superintendent for Yokosuka Schools initiated an investigation against
her and on June 20, 2023, she was compelled to participate in an
interview regarding the allegations against her.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing but later withdrew her
request. The Agency subsequently issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.110(b), concluding that Complainant did not prove that the Agency subjected
her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency’s 	decision 	is 	subject 	to 	de 	novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 1614.405(a). 	See 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Management Directive for 	29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-16 (Aug. 5,
2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission
examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and
testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties,

2025002942	3
and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record
and its interpretation of the law”).
Assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination
based on sex, disability, and prior EEO activity, we find no persuasive evidence of
discrimination 	or 	harassment. 	Regarding 	claims 	(1) 	and 	2(a), 	according 	to
Complainant, she was sexually assaulted by C1 on September 26, 2022, and reported
the incident to A1, an Agency official on October 17, 2022. After A1 questioned C1,
about 	Complainant’s 	allegations, 	C1 	prepared 	a 	written 	statement 	rebutting
Complainant’s claims and his proposed disciplinary action. The record indicates that
C1 inadvertently saved a document titled “Inappropriate Actions with Another
Employee” to the shared drive, which was accessible to approximately 130
employees. The document described his interactions with Complainant, including a
kiss and other encounters that he characterized as mutual and consensual; the
document did not recount that Complainant alleged she was sexually assaulted. On
or around May 23, 2023, Complainant learned of the document when Agency
officials discovered it, at which time the document was removed. 	There is no
evidence that C1 disclosed Complainant’s EEO activity/allegations of sexual
harassment. Moreover, C1 stated that if a document was stored on a shared drive, it
was by accident, and that he never intended to save it to a share drive. We find no
persuasive evidence that C1 disclosed Complainant’s sexual harassment allegations.
With respect to claim 2(b), we find that management’s investigation of Complainant
did 	not 	constitute 	discriminatory 	or 	retaliatory 	harassment. 	Specifically,
management commenced the investigation after multiple teachers alleged that
Complainant created a hostile work environment and potentially misused her
position to obtain 	preferential treatment 	for her son in 	connection with his
Individualized Education Program (IEP). Even assuming management acted in
response to Complainant’s IEP advocacy, the record does not demonstrate that such
advocacy qualified as protected EEO activity or that the investigation was motivated
by 	discriminatory 	or 	retaliatory 	animus. 	Rather, 	management 	initiated 	the
investigation in response to employee complaints, consistent with its responsibility
to address allegations of workplace misconduct.
As we find no persuasive evidence of discrimination or harassment based on
Complainant’s protected EEO classes, including reprisal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s
final decision finding no discrimination.

2025002942	4
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).

2025002942	5
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.

2025002942	6
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 	_________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 22, 2026
Date