EEOC Appeal 2025003640

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Carletta W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Todd Blanche,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003640
Hearing No. 460-2024-00159X
Agency No. BOP-2023-000463
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 action 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 AJ’s determination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Materials Handler Supervisor, WS-4, at the Agency’s Federal Correctional Complex
in Beaumont, Texas.
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.

2025003640	2
On June 28, 2023, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the basis of race (African American) and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On March 1, 2023, the Associate Warden disciplined Complainant in
the presence of staff and inmates. In addition, Complainant alleged that
the Unit Officer refused to open the door for her to deliver the
commissary;
2. 	On 	March 	2, 	2023, 	Complainant’s 	supervisor 	would 	not 	allow
Complainant to use annual leave instead of sick leave; therefore,
Complainant was placed on Absent Without Leave (AWOL) status;
3. 	On March 6, 2023, Complainant was issued a back-dated reassignment
letter in the presence of her coworkers;
4. 	On March 28, 2023, the Warden did not respond to Complainant’s
request to convert AWOL to annual leave;
5. 	On April 13, 2023, Complainant’s supervisor lowered her performance
rating from outstanding to excellent. In addition, Complainant alleged
that 	management 	continued 	to 	ignore 	her 	reported 	concerns 	of
harassment and her requests for a meeting; and
6. 	On July 23, 2023, Complainant was denied the opportunity to work
overtime.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. Over
Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a
summary 	judgment 	decision 	finding 	that 	Complainant 	was 	not 	subjected 	to
discrimination.
In the decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to establish that she was
subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving her protected classes,
and that the alleged harassment was based on her protected classes.

2025003640	3
The AJ found that even if Complainant had established those prongs of a hostile
work environment, the Agency’s actions were not sufficiently severe or pervasive
and were not likely to deter further protected activity. 	Ultimately, the AJ found the
incidents involved ordinary office interactions and reflected legitimate exercise of
managerial discretion.
The 	AJ 	acknowledged 	that 	Complainant 	undoubtedly 	believed 	that 	she 	was
subjected to hostile work environment harassment but determined that the record did
not support a discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment. Specifically,
the record revealed that Complainant believed she could not deliver commissary
items but when instructed to do so, Complainant and two Warehouse Worker
Foremen stated that they were sick and needed to go home. 	As a result, the
Department Heads were tasked with the delivery. 	Complainant and the two
Warehouse Worker Foremen were verbally notified that they were being reassigned
pending an investigation into the matter. 	Complainant did not receive her written
reassignment letter until she returned to work after her regular off days and sick
leave.
With respect to the AWOL allegation, the AJ found that the record showed that
Complainant did not have adequate leave to cover her sick leave request and was
placed in AWOL status. There was no dispute that the Warden did not respond to
Complainant’s request to convert the AWOL to annual leave, as Agency procedure
required Complainant’s supervisor to address the matter.
In terms of her performance rating, the AJ found that the rating was lowered based
on Complainant’s performance during the quarter. As for the overtime denial,
Complainant was not allowed to work overtime due to her reassignment.
The Agency did not issue a final order, and the AJ's decision became the Agency's
final action. 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 a reasonable factfinder could
not find in Complainant’s favor.

2025003640	4
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 	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.
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the
parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the
preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was subjected to
discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the AJ’s decision, which in the absence of an Agency
decision, became the Agency’s final action.
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).

2025003640	5
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. 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.

2025003640	6
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 16, 2026
Date