EEOC Appeal 2025001553

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Emerson S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025001553
Agency No. 2003-671A-2024-155571
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
January 3, 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. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Lead
Officer (Sergeant), GS-8, at the Agency’s South Texas VA Healthcare System in
San Antonio, Texas. On February 11, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of religion (Eastern
Orthodox) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
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.

2025001553	2
1. On November 9, 2023, Complainant’s direct supervisor (Supervisor1)
denied 	Complainant’s 	religious 	accommodation 	request 	to 	work 	on
Thursdays so that he could have Sundays off; and
2. On January 14, 2024, Supervisor1 told Complainant that he had not
worked the past several Sundays and his leave requests established a
pattern and told him that the Deputy Chief was looking for “something to
use against you.”
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. 	In accordance with Complainant’s request, the
Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In the decision,
the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Disparate Treatment and Hostile Work Environment
Aside from bare, uncorroborated assertions, the record is devoid of evidence that
Complainant’s supervisor made the alleged derogatory statement. Accordingly, we
find insufficient evidence to establish that Complainant was subjected to any
unwelcome or offensive conduct whatsoever. To the extent that conflicts existed
between Complainant and the Agency supervisor, such conflicts were more likely
the result of routine supervision, personality conflicts, and general workplace
disputes and tribulations and are therefore insufficiently severe or pervasive to
establish a discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment. Complainant also
failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Agency's explanation for
its actions was pretext for discrimination or retaliation. 	The record demonstrates
that Complainant took leave for two Sundays a month beginning in November 2023
but was not issued any discipline or negative work consequences. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or
a hostile work environment as alleged.
Denial of Religious Accommodation
Under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious observance,
practices, and beliefs of their employees unless doing so would impose an undue
hardship. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1). The traditional framework
for 	establishing 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of 	discrimination 	based 	on 	religious

2025001553	3
accommodation requires an employee to demonstrate that: (1) he has a bona fide
religious belief, observance or practice that conflicted with a requirement of his
employment; (2) he informed the agency of the religious belief, observance, or
practice and the specific conflict; and (3) the agency nevertheless enforced its
requirement against the employee. McKinney v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal
No. 07A10112 (June 27, 2002); Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir.
1993); Turpen v. Mo.-Kan.-Tex. R.R. Co., 736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir. 1984); see
generally, EEOC Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination, Section 12 (Jan.
15, 2021).
The evidence shows that Complainant’s religious beliefs conflicted with the office’s
requirement that he work two Sundays per month. Complainant also demonstrated
that he informed management of the conflict and requested that he be allowed to
work Thursdays in lieu of his scheduled Sundays, and that management denied his
specific request for accommodation.
Management explained that granting Complainant’s request would violate an
agreement with the Union and disrupt other employees’ schedules and operations.
Management discussed several options with Complainant, but he rejected changing
shifts or a move to a Clinic which would provide him with a Monday to Friday
schedule. The Commission recognizes that Complainant did not wish to change his
shift, 	but 	we 	have 	found 	that, 	where 	there 	is 	more 	than 	one 	reasonable
accommodation that would not pose an undue hardship, the employer is not obliged
to provide the accommodation preferred by the employee. Enforcement Guidance:
Religious Discrimination, No. 915.063 (Jan. 15, 2021); Rodriguez v. City of
Chicago., 156 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 1998) (employee is not entitled to his choice
of reasonable accommodation); Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th
Cir. 1987) (same); cf. Opuku-Boateng v. State of Cal., 95 F.3d at 1475 (ruling that
employer 	violated 	Title 	VII 	because 	it 	offered 	no 	accommodation, 	such 	as
employee's suggestions of scheduling him instead for other equally undesirable
shifts, and employer did not show undue hardship).
Thus, the undisputed record shows that the Agency offered Complainant alternative
accommodations which Complainant rejected. Complainant presented no evidence
demonstrating that these offered alternative accommodations would have been
ineffective. 	Accordingly, the record establishes that Complainant was not denied
religious accommodation in violation of Title VII.

2025001553	4
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. 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).

2025001553	5
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.
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.

2025001553	6
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 21, 2026
Date