EEOC Appeal 2026002700

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Belia A.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Army and Air Force Exchange Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002700
Hearing No. 410-2024-00379X
Agency No. AAFES-24.012
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 4, 2026 final order 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.
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.

2026002700	2
§ 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s
final order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Food
Service Worker at the Agency’s Army and Air Force Exchange Service at the
Dunkin' Donuts at Fort Benning (formerly known as Fort Moore) in Georgia.
On December 12, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment based on
race (Asian), national origin (Philippines), disability (Mental), and in reprisal for
prior protected activity when:
1. 	On 	September 	19, 	2023, 	the 	Restaurant 	Manager 	denied
Complainant’s sick leave request;
2. 	On September 27, 2023, the Restaurant Manager denied her sick leave
request for October 5, 2023;
3. 	On or about November 9, 2023, the Agency denied Complainant a
reasonable accommodation for taking sick leave from November 6,
2023 to November 20, 2023; and
4. 	From November 2021 to the present:
i. 	the Food Service Foreman would greet other employees but
ignore Complainant,
ii. 	the Food Service Foreman would turn her back on Complainant
when Complainant spoke to her,
iii. 	Complainant was assigned to work alone with the Food Service
Foreman,
iv. 	Complainant would be left to manage the sandwich station
alone,
v. 	on or about August 11, 2023, the Food Service Foreman caused
Complainant to have an anxiety attack and made her go to the
emergency room, and
vi. 	the General Manager told Complainant, “This [is] just the way
it is” and “Just tell the person upsetting you.”
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).

2026002700	3
Complainant timely requested a hearing. 	The AJ issued a summary judgment
decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal.
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. 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
are therefore insufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a discriminatory hostile
work environment. 	Furthermore, we find that the conduct was not sufficiently
material to deter protected activity.
In addition, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the alleged
conduct was based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Regarding claim 1, the
undisputed record showed that Complainant’s request for sick leave on September
19, 2023 was denied because that day was Complainant’s regularly scheduled day
off and she could not be paid sick leave on her regular day off. Regarding claim 2,
her request was denied because the facility’s schedule was posted two weeks in
advance, and the schedule was already posted. In addition, the schedule was based
on the availability of the employees and the operational needs. Another employee
had previously requested the same time off.
The 	record 	demonstrates 	that 	Complainant 	was 	not 	denied 	a 	reasonable
accommodation because the Agency engaged in the interactive process and offered
her alternative dates and Complainant agreed to instead take leave on alternative
dates. The record showed that Complainant confronted her supervisor about what
she perceived to be hostile facial expressions. The supervisor told her that she did
not feel well.
Moreover, to the extent that Complainant is alleging disparate treatment regarding
her claims, Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the
Agency's explanation for its actions was pretext for discrimination or reprisal.

2026002700	4
CONCLUSION
Based on our thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we conclude that the entry of
summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
order implementing the AJ’s decision.
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.

2026002700	5
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.

2026002700	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 15, 2026
Date