EEOC Appeal 2025003932

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Debbi V.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War
(Department of War Education Activity)2,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003932
Hearing No. 570-2023-00243X
Agency No. EU-FY22-068
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 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. 	For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
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.

2025003932	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Guidance Counselor, TP 1701, ED 15 at the Agency’s Europe East District,
Ramstein Intermediate School in APO AE. On May 18, 2022, Complainant filed an
EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of
race (African American), sex (female), age (over 40 years old), and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	a. From October 2018, to present, the Principal denied Complainant
important 	information 	regarding 	students, 	entertained 	false 	and
misleading information about her, and questioned whether she could
perform her duties as a Guidance Counselor;
b. From October 2018 to January 26, 2022, Complainant was excluded
from attending Case Study Committee (CSC) meetings;
c. From August 31, 2019, to present, Complainant was assigned duties
involving 	a 	student 	with 	special 	needs 	and 	denied 	records 	and
documentation related to the student;
d. From August 31, 2020, to present, the Assistant Principal plotted
with teachers to dictate how she performed her duties;
e. From September 2021, to present, Complainant was accused of
disagreeing 	with 	administrators 	regarding 	her 	duties, 	spying 	on
colleagues, and being rude and unprofessional towards coworkers,
parents, and administrators;
f. From December 2021, to present, the Principal and Assistant
Principal 	subjected 	Complainant 	to 	interrogations, 	investigations,
micro-managed, second-guessed, and undermined her performance as
Guidance Counselor;
g. On January 21, 2022, and March 9, 2022, the Principal threatened
Complainant with disciplinary action if she continued to complain
about how she was being treated; and
h. On or about March 1, 2022, management selected Complainant to
work two days out of the work week to assist Landstuhl Elementary
School.
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 requested a hearing. After both
parties submitted motions for a decision without a hearing, the AJ assigned to the
case issued a decision without a hearing on July 9, 2025. The Agency subsequently

2025003932	3
issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that
the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Having reviewed the record, we find that Complainant cannot prevail on the merits
of her complaint. While Complainant argues that the Agency’s actions were based
on discriminatory animus, the record does not include evidence on which a
reasonable factfinder could find that the conduct occurred because of Complainant’s
protected 	classes. 	Complainant 	only 	offers 	broad 	allegations 	that 	she 	was
discriminated 	against 	because of her protected 	bases 	without 	any 	details 	or
supporting evidence. Her bare assertions are insufficient to prove that the alleged
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus.
Further, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Specifically, regarding Claim 1(a), Agency stated all counselors were denied
information 	about 	the 	students, 	not 	just 	Complainant. 	Furthermore, 	several
witnesses affirmed that Assistant Principal had questioned whether other members
of the department could perform their duties, not just Complainant.
Regarding Claim 1 (b), the Agency stated that counselors are included on a Child
Study Committee (CSC), on an as-needed basis, but that the standard operating
procedure was to exclude counselors from the CSC. Assistant Principal explained
that guidance counselors were asked to attend meetings if they had relevant
information or if a parent requested their attendance. The record shows that
Complainant admitted, and other witnesses affirmed, that counselors were invited if
they had pertinent information about the student to contribute during the CSC
meeting.
Regarding Claim 1(c), the Agency states that all counselors were provided with the
same information from the Principals when they requested copies of a student
Individual Education Plan (IEP). School counselors were told they could not access
the special education files. If a counselor is a related service provider, then the IEP
is made available. Moreover, the Agency stated that if needed, counselors can make
an appointment with the Special Education Case Manager and/or Assistant Principal
to review the records together. The record shows that Complainant admitted that she
contacted Special Education Assessor Technician (Assessor) to access student
information because Assessor had access to the special education computer.

2025003932	4
Regarding Claim 1(d), the Agency stated that a part of the Assistant Principal’s
duties was to shape Complainant’s counseling services and outline the objectives
and procedures to be used in accomplishing the objectives. Complainant was
instructed to provide a solid date and time to meet with a high need student because
even with a set schedule they had not been able to meet.
Regarding Claims 1(e) and (f), the Agency stated that the School Psychologist
confirmed that she and Complainant were accused by Teacher 1 of spying when they
noticed a student was having similar issues that the student had experienced in the
previous year. Complainant and Psychologist explained that they were being
proactive by going to Teacher 1 to implement a positive process. The Agency stated
that no disciplinary actions resulted from Teacher 1 reporting or Complainant’s
assertions.
Regarding 	Claim 	1(g), 	the 	Agency 	stated 	no 	disciplinary 	action 	was 	taken.
Complainant explained that this incident involved being threatened with discipline
for not providing extra test time for a student. Complainant has not shown that others
were treated differently under similar circumstances.
Regarding Claim 1(h), the Agency stated that Complainant was assigned to work
two days out of the week to assist Landstuhl Elementary School because the
guidance counselor retired, leaving the school without a counselor. Complainant was
considered a good option on a part-time basis because she lived by the school, had
been in the community for five years, and other counselors were not available due
to extreme needs at their schools.
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. We note that anti-
discrimination statutes are not general civility codes designed to protect against the
“ordinary tribulations” of the workplace. See Liz M. v. Dep’t of Vet. Affs., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120160016 (Jan. 18, 2018). We find, even accepting Complainant’s
assertions as correct, no persuasive evidence of discrimination based on any of the
alleged bases, including reprisal.
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.

2025003932	5
STATEMENT 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). 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.

2025003932	6
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.

2025003932	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
___________________________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 28, 2026
Date