EEOC Appeal 2025003267

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Sona B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003267
Agency No. 200P-692-2024-154980
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
June 6, 2025, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et
seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
contract Registered Nurse at the Agency’s Medical Center in White City, Oregon.2
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.

2025003267	2
On January 8, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her based on disability (physical) when:
1. 	it subjected her to a hostile work environment when:
a. 	on or around August 24, 2023, Complainant learned that the Chief
Nurse 	asked 	about 	the 	reasons 	Complainant 	needed 	to 	take
personal leave for being sick all the time;
b. on August 30, 2023, the Chief Nurse questioned Complainant
about her timecards and cut her off from sharing “the nursing
process” during their conversation;
c. 	on September 5, 2023, the Chief Nurse told Complainant, “go
ahead and fill out the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
[request] that you want, but if it doesn’t meet the unit needs, then I
will 	just 	deny 	it,” 	and 	regarding 	training 	that 	Complainant
proposed, the Chief Nurse said, “not to say you don’t know what
you are doing, but our groups are vetted in education”;
d. on September 22, 2023, the Chief Nurse threatened to not sign
Complainant’s timecards;
e. 	on September 22, 2023, the Chief Nurse implemented policies that
targeted Complainant;
f. 	on October 4, 2023, the Chief Nurse requested that Complainant
provide medical documentation regarding her disabilities;
g. on October 6, 2023, the Chief Nurse told Complainant to follow
the instructions in an email regarding the Chief Nurse’s policy;
h. on October 6, 2023, the Chief Nurse told Complainant not to copy
her peers in an email response regarding the newly implemented
dress code policy;
i. 	on 	October 	20, 	2023, 	Complainant 	learned 	from 	a 	Union
Representative that the Chief Nurse was looking for a reason to
terminate Complainant, and that the Chief Nurse stated that she did
not believe that placing Complainant in the Flu Clinic would place
her at risk;
2 The Agency determined in its acceptance notice that it exercised sufficient
control over Complainant’s position to be considered a joint employer for the
purposes of her EEO complaint. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 415.

2025003267	3
j. 	on an unspecified date, Complainant learned that the Chief Nurse
told Complainant’s contracting company that the Chief Nurse did
not like Complainant’s relationship with the Nurse Manager;
k. on an unspecified date, Complainant learned that the Chief Nurse
told Complainant’s first-line supervisor (Supervisor) that the Chief
Nurse would not approve a direct hire for Complainant; and
l. 	on unspecified dates, Complainant learned that the Chief Nurse
sent other managers and employees within the facility negative
emails regarding Complainant;
2. 	on September 15, 2023, Complainant was accused of being late for
multiple shifts; told to show up promptly on time for her tour-of-duty;
and told to not work past the end of her shift;
3. 	on September 21, 2023, Complainant was assigned to the Flu Clinic;
4. 	on 	September 	22, 	2023, 	Complainant 	was 	not 	allowed 	to 	work
overtime;
5. 	on September 22, 2023, Complainant was not allowed to deviate from
her work schedule/assignments;
6. 	on September 27, 2023, Complainant’s day shift was changed to the
night shift, effective immediately;
7. 	on September 27, 2023, Complainant was not provided a reasonable
accommodation to remain on the day shift; and
8. 	on October 16, 2023, Complainant was terminated.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. In accordance with Complainant’s
request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).
The Agency determined that Complainant did not show a failure to accommodate
because she was allowed to remain on the day shift. The Agency then found that
management 	officials 	provided 	legitimate, 	nondiscriminatory 	reasons 	for 	the
disparate treatment claims. For example, Complainant was not allowed to work
overtime because supervisors were reducing overtime, and no contract nurses were
eligible for overtime. Complainant’s contract was recommended for termination
because she was argumentative and aggressive regarding the conditions of her
contract, the dress code, training, and the vacation policy. Complainant did not
show that the reasons were pretextual.

2025003267	4
The Agency also determined that Complainant cannot prevail on her harassment
claim because the evidence does not establish that she was subjected to conduct
based on her disability. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove
discrimination as alleged.
The instant appeal followed, but Complainant did not submit any statements in
support of her appeal. The Agency opposes Complainant’s appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (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, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
ANALYSIS
Reasonable Accommodation (Claim 7)
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of an individual with a disability unless the agency can
show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o),
(p). In order to establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined
by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a “qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See
EEOC 	Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable 	Accommodation 	and 	Undue
Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002
(Oct. 17, 2002) (Enforcement Guidance).

2025003267	5
Assuming for the purpose of analysis and without so finding that Complainant is
an individual with a disability and qualified for her position, we find no failure to
accommodate. Complainant emailed the Deputy Associate Director that she was
informed on September 5, 2023, that she would be moved to the Flu Clinic, but she
was unable to administer the flu vaccine because she experienced a severe reaction
and complications. The Deputy Associate Director responded that they would
adjust Complainant’s assignment to not include her in the Flu Clinic rotation. ROI
at 728. The other contract nurses were assigned to the Flu Clinic, and Complainant
was 	moved 	to 	the 	night 	shift 	to 	replace 	a 	contract 	nurse. 	ROI 	at 	635-6.
Complainant requested a reasonable accommodation to remain on the day shift.
ROI at 584. The Chief Nurse confirmed that Complainant remained on the day
shift. ROI at 642. Complainant did not dispute that she worked the day shift until
her removal, and we find that the Agency accommodated Complainant.
Further, the Commission has previously found no failure to accommodate when an
employee was removed during the interactive process for misconduct unrelated to
a disability or requested accommodation, discussed further below. See e.g., Davina
W. v. Social Security Admin., EEOC Petition No. 2025000309 (Dec. 30, 2024). As
such, we find no violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Harassment (Claims 1(a)-(l))
In order to establish a prima facie case of harassment, Complainant must prove, by
a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of five elements: (1) that she is a
member of a statutorily protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome
conduct related to her protected class; (3) that the harassment complained of was
based on her protected class; (4) that the harassment had the purpose or effect of
unreasonably 	interfering 	with 	her 	work 	performance 	and/or 	creating 	an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) that there is a basis
for imputing liability to the employer. See Celine B. v. Dep’t of Navy, EEOC
Appeal No. 2019001961 (Sept. 21, 2020); Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). See also Henson v. City of Dundee, 682
F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982), approved in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S.
57, 66-67 (1986); Flowers v. Southern Reg’l Physician Serv. Inc., 247 F.3d 229
(5th Cir. 2001). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective
viewpoint 	of 	a 	reasonable 	person 	in 	the 	victim’s 	circumstances. 	Oncale 	v.
Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998).

2025003267	6
In other words, to prove her hostile work environment claim, Complainant must
establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so
pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found
the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct
was taken because of a protected basis; in this case, her disability. Only if
Complainant establishes both of those elements – hostility and motive – will the
question of Agency liability present itself.
In claim 1(c), Complainant attested that the Chief Nurse announced that schedules
would be changing and staff could fill out “the ADAs” to request accommodations,
but if they did not meet the unit’s needs, she would deny them. The Chief Nurse
gave an example when a nurse requested an accommodation for telework, but her
job 	did 	not 	allow 	for 	that. 	Complainant 	responded 	that 	the 	reasonable
accommodation process required a back-and-forth, and that an accommodation
does not just get denied, and the Chief Nurse stated that she did not know, and
Complainant should follow up with the Supervisor or the Nurse Manager. ROI at
562-3. The Chief Nurse asked that Complainant provide medical documentation to
support her request to not work night shifts due to a medical condition (claim 1(f)).
ROI at 445. As part of claim 1(i), the Chief Nurse emailed that she did not
understand how being allergic to receiving a vaccine impacted Complainant’s
ability to administer one and questioned if this would require a reasonable
accommodation. ROI at 734. The Commission has held that events surrounding an
interactive process for a reasonable accommodation do not constitute harassment.
See Wilson v. Environmental Protection Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 0120082755
(Aug. 8, 2011); Dahlman v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120073190 (Apr. 15, 2010). Here, we find that the incidents related to
Complainant’s reasonable accommodation requests were not unlawful harassment.
For claims 1(a) and 1(b), Complainant attested that a coworker informed her that
the Chief Nurse was 	asking why Complainant was ill.3 When Complainant
approached the Chief Nurse to ask why she was questioning Complainant’s peers,
Complainant disclosed her disabilities. She also noted that the Chief Nurse asked
about Complainant’s timesheets and stated that she was looking at all contractors’
timesheets. ROI at 561-2. The Chief Nurse responded that she received complaints
from Nursing staff that Complainant was frequently late or a no-show and asked
3 This coworker informed the EEO Investigator that he did not have direct
evidence for any of Complainant’s claims. ROI at 775.

2025003267	7
the Supervisor if it was true. ROI at 597. Crediting Complainant’s version of
events and that these incidents were based on her disability, we find that they are
not severe or pervasive to unreasonably interfere with her work performance
and/or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
We find that Complainant did not provide evidence to show a connection between
the remaining events and her disability. As part of claim 1(b), Complainant
complained that the Nurse Manager cut her off when she tried to explain the
“nursing process.” ROI at 562. Complainant also alleged harassment when she
proposed training, and the Nurse Manager responded, “[n]ot that you don’t know
what you’re doing, but our groups are vetted in education” in claim 1(c). ROI at
563. 	Complainant 	accused 	the 	Chief 	Nurse 	of 	threatening 	not 	to 	sign
Complainant’s timecards for claim 1(d), and the Chief Nurse provided an email
revealing that she had concerns with nurses’ hours and procedures with checking
in and out. ROI at 598. In response to claim 1(e) that the Chief Nurse implemented
policies that targeted Complainant, the Chief Nurse explained that the pre-planned
vacation policy was sent to all nursing staff and did not involve Complainant. ROI
at 599. The Chief Nurse told Complainant to follow instructions in an email (claim
1(g)), and to not copy her peers (claim 1(h)), and the emails in question show that
Complainant was asked to follow directions to send input on the nurse dress code
just to the Chief Nurse. ROI at 602-3.
In 	claim 	1(i), 	the 	Union 	Representative 	corroborated 	that 	the 	Chief 	Nurse
contacted him about terminating Complainant. He noted that Complainant rubbed
the Chief Nurse the wrong way. The Union Representative added that he did not
believe that Complainant’s disability was a factor in the Chief Nurse’s actions.
Rather, she was a new supervisor in a disorganized unit and had to get the nurses in
line. The Union Representative agreed that most of the new policies were justified
and enacted correctly, and Complainant was the first to push back.4 ROI at 667-8.
For claim 1(j), Complainant spoke with her contract supervisor, who stated that the
Chief Nurse did not like Complainant’s close relationship with the Nurse Manager.
Complainant explained that she was mentoring the Nurse Manager in her master’s
program. ROI at 565. The Chief Nurse averred that all Registered Nurse positions
are competitive and must be posted to allow qualified candidates to apply in
response to the allegation that the Chief Nurse stated that she would not approve a
4 Complainant declined to add retaliation as a basis for her complaint. ROI at 765.

2025003267	8
direct hire for Complainant (claim 1(k)). ROI at 607. Regarding claim 1(l),
Complainant 	discussed 	with 	coworkers 	the implementation 	of 	the 	“rounding
procedure” and changes to the dress code, and she learned that the Chief Nurse
sent emails to other employees with her responses to Complainant’s comments.
ROI at 565.
The 	Commission 	has 	held 	that 	routine 	work 	assignments, 	instructions, 	and
admonishments do not rise to the level of harassment because they are common
workplace 	occurrences. 	See 	Gray 	v. 	U.S. 	Postal 	Serv., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
0120091101 (May 13, 2010). Unless it is reasonably established that the common
workplace occurrence was somehow abusive or offensive, and that it was taken in
order to harass Complainant on the basis of her protected class, we do not find
such common workplace occurrences sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the
level of a hostile work environment or harassment as Complainant alleges. See
Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130465 (Sept.
12, 2014). There is no evidence that the work-related incidents were taken in order
to harass Complainant on the basis of her protected class. Accordingly, we find
that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to harassment
based on disability.
Disparate Treatment (Claims 2-6, and 8)
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at
802 	n.13. 	The 	burden 	then 	shifts 	to 	the 	agency 	to 	articulate 	a 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

2025003267	9
Assuming, arguendo, a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the Agency
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for claims 2-6, and 8. For claim
2, the Chief Nurse provided emails showing that she instructed Complainant to
arrive to work on time, and Complainant responded that the Supervisor changed
her schedule with a start time of 6:15 a.m. The Chief Nurse noted that the master
schedule listed Complainant’s start time as 6:00 a.m., and the Supervisor replied
that she meant to update the schedule. ROI at 609-11. The Nurse Manager
corroborated that Complainant was tardy on many occasions. ROI at 713.
Regarding claim 3, the Associate Director stated that the contract for nurses was to
fill gaps in their operational areas, such as for flu season and night shifts. As such,
the Associate Director asked for the contract nurses to support flu vaccinations.
ROI at 705. Complainant was not reassigned to the Flu Clinic after she explained
her allergy to the flu vaccine. ROI at 625. For claim 4, the Chief Nurse averred that
the Supervisor would have received any requests for overtime, and the Associate
Chief of Staff made the decision to not allow overtime for contract nurses. ROI at
630. The Associate Chief of Staff noted that supervisors across the service line
were reducing approved overtime hours at the time. ROI at 688.
The Chief Nurse attested that Complainant was not allowed to deviate from her
work schedule or assignments that were in her contract (claim 5). ROI at 633. The
record contains an email from the Chief Nurse to all contract nurses instructing
them to properly sign in and out, and to obtain prior approval for any overtime.
The Chief Nurse explained to the Supervisor that leave had not been inputted
correctly on timecards the past month and was a “nightmare.” ROI at 449. For
claim 	6, 	the 	Associate 	Director 	stated 	that 	when 	she 	was 	informed 	of
Complainant’s allergy to the flu shot, she was assigned to nights due to operational
needs. ROI at 705. The Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff added that contract nurses
were hired to cover shifts that were needed, and they were informed at the start of
the contract that they might need to work overnight shifts. ROI at 698.
The Chief Nurse confirmed that she requested cancellation of Complainant’s
contract, and the Associate Director agreed. The Chief Nurse specified that
Complainant was argumentative and aggressively involving herself in matters that
do not involve the contract nurses. For example, the Chief Nurse messaged the
Associate Director that Complainant was “causing havoc” in the unit regarding the
uniform allowance. The Chief Nurse also cited to an email from Complainant
regarding the Nurse Dress Code, including her opinion for men with beards.

2025003267	10
The Chief Nurse emailed Complainant’s contracting company about the status of
Complainant’s contract and noted that she was inserting herself into matters that do
not pertain to her. ROI at 647-9.
Complainant did not show that the proffered reasons are not worthy of belief, and
her 	bare 	assertions 	that 	management 	officials 	discriminated 	against 	her 	are
insufficient to prove pretext or that their actions were discriminatory. In addition,
the Commission has long held that an Agency has broad discretion to set policies
and carry out personnel decisions, and it should not be second-guessed by the
reviewing authority absent evidence of unlawful motivation. See Texas Dep’t of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259 (1981); Vanek v. Dep’t of the
Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940906 (Jan. 16, 1997). In this case, there is no
evidence of unlawful motivation for the Agency’s actions. Accordingly, we find
that Complainant did not establish disability discrimination for claims 2-6, and 8.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final 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.

2025003267	11
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.
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.

2025003267	12
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 __________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 17, 2026
Date