EEOC Appeal 2026001355

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Alda F.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War
(Department of War Education Activity – Overseas Schools),2
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001355
Hearing No. 570-2024-00541X
Agency No. EU-FY23-097
DECISION
On January 26, 2026, 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 January 20, 2026, final order concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
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 September 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.

2026001355	2
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a 0425 Teacher, Moderately to
Severely Learning Impaired, TP-1701-CD, at the Agency’s Stuttgart High School
in Stuttgart, Germany.
On August 19, 2023, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female), age (YOB 1965), and
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (reporting hostile work environment to
her supervisor on March 24, 2023) when:
1. From March 2022 to June 15, 2023, the following events occurred:
a. 	Complainant’s supervisor did not assign enough paraprofessionals to
Complainant’s classroom, did not require paraprofessionals to assist
Complainant, 	and 	allowed 	paraprofessionals 	to 	engage 	in
unprofessional conduct directed toward Complainant;
b. Complainant’s 	supervisor 	allowed 	several 	parents 	to 	harass
Complainant; and
c. 	Between January 2023 and June 2023, the Assistant Principal and two
Instructional Support Specialists repeatedly blamed Complainant for
circumstances beyond her control, and accused Complainant of nine
false claims related to her duties as a Teacher.
2. On June 29, 2023, the Superintendent denied Complainant’s request to
rescind her June 8, 2023, resignation;
3. On June 8, 2023, she was forced to resign her position;
4. On multiple occasions between June 2022, and the present, Complainant
requested access to her OPF, but all such requests were ignored or denied.
After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ).

2026001355	3
Complainant timely requested a hearing. On November 7, 2024, the Agency filed a
motion for decision without a hearing. On November 13, 2024, Complainant
responded to the Agency’s motion, and on November 19, 2024, Complainant filed
her own motion for decision without a hearing. On January 16, 2026, the AJ issued
a decision without a hearing. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting
the AJ’s finding of no discrimination.
The instant appeal followed.
In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual
conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. 	See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405(a) (stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action
shall be based on a de novo review . . .”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B.
(Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a
decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. 	In other
words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ’s, and
Agency’s, factual conclusions and legal analysis – including on the ultimate fact of
whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any
federal employment discrimination statute was violated. 	See id. at Chapter 9,
§ VI.A. 	(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”).We determine whether
the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing.
An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the record
has been adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No.
01A24206 (July 11, 2003). We carefully reviewed the record and find that it is
adequately developed. To successfully oppose a decision without a hearing,
Complainant must identify material facts of record that are in dispute or present
further material evidence establishing facts in dispute.

2026001355	4
We determine that the AJ properly found that there were no dispute of material facts
which merited a hearing.
First, the AJ noted that Complainant largely asserted that the Agency was not in
compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
related 	to 	provisions 	of 	educational 	services. 	The 	AJ 	explained 	that 	the
Commission’s jurisdiction relates to unlawful discrimination for federal employees
and applicants of federal employment.
Second, regarding the various claims of harassment, the AJ properly determined that
the action of Agency officials, or her treatment by Agency employees, was
motivated by the raised bases. 	The AJ further properly determined that although
Complainant expressed frustration at her treatment at the work site, nothing in the
record reflects that any actions were motivated by discriminatory animus.
Finally, regarding Complainant’s separation from employment, the record reflects
that Complainant resigned on June 8, 2023, and asked that it be effective the same
day, which was accepted by the Agency. Almost three weeks after her resignation
and the Agency’s acceptance of the same, Complainant attempted to rescind the
resignation. By the time Complainant attempted to rescind her resignation, the
Principal was already in the process of filling her position.
We 	AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order 	adopting 	the 	AJ’s 	finding 	of 	no
discrimination.
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.

2026001355	5
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.
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.

2026001355	6
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. 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 23, 2026
Date