EEOC Appeal 2025002468

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Florentino S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Brooke Rollins,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Rural Development),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025002468
Agency No. RD-2024-00070
DECISION
On April 8, 2025, 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 April 4, 2025, final decision concerning his 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. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Community Program Specialist, GS-1165-12, at the Agency’s Business Operations
facility in Newton, Kansas. 	On February 26, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of
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.

2025002468	2
religion (Christianity), disability (vision, heart, and mental), and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when:
1. 	Ongoing since August 30, 2024, management has failed to implement
his Assistive Technology (ZoomText Magnifier/Reader) and other
Task Management Applications recommended by the Target Center;
2. 	On an unspecified date in August 2024, his supervisor denied his
Reasonable Accommodation (RA) request to type in larger than 14 pt
font, work a 4/10 schedule, and to be able to make up requested sick
leave instead of using sick leave, without knowing the results of his
Assistive Technology Program review from the Target Center;
3. 	On July 15, 2024, management failed to contact him for a scheduled
RA meeting and on the same date sent him an electronic mail denying
his RA requested on or about July 9, 2024;
4. 	On June 13, 2024, his supervisor denied his request for nine hours of
overtime to review his EEO report and conduct an EEO interview;
5. 	On February 12, 2024, his supervisor directed him to provide daily logs
of his work activities and thereafter on May 15, 2024, issued him a
direct order to complete mandatory AgLearn courses and the daily work
activity logs within established timelines;
6. 	On April 26, 2024, management issued him a Letter of Warning as a
result of an Office of Special Counsel investigation;
7. 	On an unspecified date in March 2024, management reprimanded him;
8. 	On November 21, 2023, management denied him an opportunity to use
the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)2;
9. 	On 	November 	20, 	2023, 	management 	issued 	him 	a 	Letter 	of
Reprimand;
10. 	Since October 10, 2023, management denied his RA request for a 4/10
schedule and ongoing since approximately March 2022 management
failed to provide him with an RA during trainings and did not inform
him until March 2024 that he could utilize an RA advocate;
11. 	On approximately September 1, 2023, management denied him the use
of a Government Owned Vehicle (GOV);
2 During the investigation Complainant admitted that he was not denied FMLA leave
and that he was not discriminated against with respect to this issue. Thus, the Agency
dismissed this claim. We find no discrimination for claim 8.

2025002468	3
12. 	Ongoing since approximately September 1, 2023, management failed
to provide him with a copier/printer/scanner while teleworking full-
time;
13. 	Ongoing since approximately March 2022, management failed to
provide him with an employee orientation session and requisite job-
related trainings;
14. 	On several dates he was subjected to various incidents of harassment,
to include, but not limited to:
a. 	In approximately April or May 2022, he was verbally
reprimanded 	when 	he 	broke 	the 	window 	blinds 	and
purchased the replacement himself;
b. 	On or about September 1, 2022, he was told to remove his
church related materials from his workspace, and on
unspecified dates his church invite cards were removed
from the breakroom refrigerator and thrown in the trash
and on other occasions the invite cards were stolen off his
office desk;
c. 	On or about October 30, 2023, management forced him to
remove his belongings from his office and told him if he
returned the police would be called;
d. 	In December 2023, he had heart and eye surgery, and no
one called to check on him;
e. 	In July 2023, he was accused of stealing the office label
marker 	and 	thereafter 	in 	August 	2023 	accused 	of
taking/rearranging supplies in the storage room;
f. 	In August 2023, he was verbally reprimanded for raising
and lowering the thermostat too much;
g. 	On 	an 	unspecified 	date 	in 	2023 	he 	was 	verbally
reprimanded for parking a GOV in the wrong parking
space and on another occasion for leaving an insulin
needle tip in a GOV;
h. 	Since 	his 	return 	from 	FMLA 	(date 	unspecified) 	his
supervisor has not met with him to discuss his pre-FMLA
cases to update him on the current status;
i. 	Ongoing since an unspecified date management failed to
provide him with copies of requested policies regarding
FMLA, policies or regulations disallowing him to put
church invite cards on the office building refrigerator and

2025002468	4
the Newton Office Point of Contact (POC) policy and
instead, directed him to file a FOIA request regarding the
POC policy and as recently as February 2024, failed to
provide him the regulation requiring him to submit daily
logs;
j. 	On an unspecified date, the Newton Office POC called a
former USDA employee to dig-up dirt on him;
k. 	Between March 2022 and March 2024, management failed
to inform him he could make-up sick leave time within the
week; and
l. 	On May 22, 2024, his supervisor threatened him with
disciplinary action for not using proper email etiquette,
language, and font size no larger than 14.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing
within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	The decision concluded that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Regarding his denial of reasonable accommodation claims (Claims 1, 2, 3, and 10),
we find that Complainant failed to present evidence to prove that the Agency failed
to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. Here, the record shows that in
August 2022 and September 2023, Complainant requested to be allowed to work a
compressed schedule of four 10-hour days per week (4/10 schedule). In response to
this request, on October 16, 2023, the Agency granted him a compressed 5/4/93
schedule. On October 25, 2023, Complainant, through email communication, stated
that a 4/10 schedule “would allow [him] to better meet [his] disability needs and
schedule medical, doctor, and mental health visits.” Complainant was instructed to
submit a reasonable accommodation request, which he did in June 2024. The Agency
had granted Complainant full-time telework since September 19, 2023, after he was
not allowed in the building due to security concerns raised by the Federal agency
that shared office space with RD (Rural Development).
3 A 5/4/9 schedule is a compressed work schedule where employees work a total of
80 hours over a two-week period, eight 9-hour days and one 8-hour day.

2025002468	5
The record shows that on June 13, 2024, Complainant requested authorization to
make up sick leave by working extra hours. This request was accompanied by
medical 	documentation. 	However, 	the 	medical 	documentation 	stated 	that
Complainant would not be able to perform essential work duties even with the
requested accommodations. Complainant was invited to a Teams meeting on July
15, 2024, to discuss his request. However, Complainant did not attend the meeting.
On the same date the Agency notified Complainant, via email, that his request was
denied. Complainant then requested the meeting be rescheduled and the parties met
on July 19, 2024, at which Complainant inquired about reassignment as an
accommodation of last resort. On July 23, 2024, Complainant requested an assistive
technology evaluation to explore solutions for his visual limitations. On August 2,
2024, Complainant applied for reassignment. While the Agency was processing the
reassignment, on August 10, 2024, Complainant applied for disability retirement.
The record shows that on August 30, 2024, the USDA’s Target Center recommended
Zoom Text Magnifier/Reader software. The Agency procured the recommended
software, but the software did not arrive before Complainant’s disability retirement.
The record also shows, and Complainant admitted, that the Agency also provided
Complainant larger computer screens to accommodate his visual disability. In
addition, the Agency granted Complainant FMLA leave and offered him flexibility
for his medical appointments.
With regard to reasonable accommodation during training that took place in
Wisconsin, the record shows that Complainant requested the training in question and
traveled from Kansas to Wisconsin to attend the training. During the training,
Complainant contacted Supervisor 1 and told him that even sitting in the front row
he could not see the training presentation. Supervisor 1, who was not attending the
training and remained in his work office, told Complainant to just listen. The record
does not show, and Complainant did not offer evidence to the contrary, that
Complainant discussed accommodation before leaving for the training or contacted
the training staff before and/or during the training, to be accommodated and what
accommodation would work. Based on the above-described actions taken by the
Agency with respect to reasonable accommodation, we find that Complainant was
not denied reasonable accommodations as alleged.
Regarding discrimination on the basis of religion and in retaliation because of
opposition to religious discrimination (Claim 14(b)), the Agency stated that Federal
regulations limit the posting and distribution of materials in federal properties.

2025002468	6
Because Complainant did not follow the regulatory procedures to post materials in
federal property, the materials were removed by Farmers Service Administration
(FSA), which at that time was the principal lessee of the property and shared office
space with RD. 	FSA is also part of the Agency in this appeal, Department of
Agriculture. 	The incident was reported to RD, and Complainant was advised that
he needed to follow the established protocol to post an announcement in the building
(including the breakroom). Complainant did not identify individuals, or other posted
material that were treated more favorably with respect to the policy on posting in
Federal property. Furthermore, Complainant did not identify any individual/material
that was allowed to be posted without following the protocol for posting.
Regarding Claim 4, the record shows that Complainant requested nine hours of
overtime to review an EEO report and participate in an interview. Complainant’s
second-line supervisor denied the request because overtime was not justified under
Agency’s policies. However, Complainant was authorized to review the EEO report
and participate in the interview during regular work hours. Complainant argues that
he requested overtime because, at the time, he was on FMLA leave and according to
him could not perform work while on leave. We find that the record shows that
Complainant was allowed reasonable time to review his EEO report and participate
in the interview related to his EEO complaint.
Regarding Claim 7, Complainant alleges that he was reprimanded in March 2024.
The Agency stated Complainant was not reprimanded in March 2024, and the record
reveals no reprimand in March 2024.
Regarding Claim 11, the Agency explained that Complainant was not allowed on
the premises due to multiple complaints filed against him from different departments
within the office building. Thus, he could not access the GOV, but was allowed to
use his private vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12, the Agency explained that Complainant requested equipment
at the end of the fiscal year, when the Agency had no money left in its budget. On
October 2, 2023, Complainant was informed that a printer would be purchased as
soon as they had budgetary allowance. Additionally, the Agency stated that other
employees who telework as Complainant did not have printers.
Regarding Claim 13, Agency stated that Complainant attended two orientations
when he began working at the Agency in March 2022.

2025002468	7
Complainant could not obtain a government credit card due to his personal finance.
This posed a difficulty for Complainant to attend training for which he had to travel.
However, Complainant was advised that he could travel for training but would have
to pay in advance for expenses and request reimbursement.
We find that Complainant failed to identify similarly situated employees outside his
protected 	classes 	that 	were 	treated 	more 	favorably 	than 	him 	under 	similar
circumstances. For example, Complainant failed to identify similarly situated
employees outside his protected classes that were allowed to travel for training
despite not having a government credit card or who were not reprimanded after using
epithets when referring to their supervisor in office communications (Claims 9 and
14 (l)), or failed to timely complete their mandatory training (Claim 5), or violated
the Hatch Act (Claim 6), or were granted overtime while on FMLA leave (Claim 4).
Moreover, Complainant failed to identify similarly situated individuals who were
treated more favorably regarding conduct issues, including violence threats and
aggressive behavior at issue in Claims 14 (c) and 14(j).
As for Complainant’s allegation of harassment, even if the incidents alleged
occurred in the manner described, we find that Complainant failed to persuasively
show that his protected bases were the reason for the Agency’s alleged actions. We
note that anti-discrimination statutes are not civility codes designed to protect
against the “ordinary tribulations” of the workplace. Rather, they forbid “only
behavior 	so 	objectively 	offensive 	as 	to 	alter 	the 	conditions 	of 	the 	victim’s
employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service, Inc., 23 U.S. 75 (1998).
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.

2025002468	8
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.
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.

2025002468	9
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. 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 30, 2026
Date