EEOC Appeal 2025000152

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Matt B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000152
Agency No. 200H-0005-2023-150204
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
July 11, 2024, final decision concerning his 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 an
Information Technology Specialist at the Agency’s Regional Benefits Office in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
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.

2025000152	2
On March 3, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him based on disability (physical) when his request for a
reasonable accommodation was denied, beginning on December 19, 2022.
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).
The Agency found that Complainant is an individual with a disability and qualified
for his position, and there was a failure to accommodate. Complainant requested
telework, 	but 	the Agency 	did 	not 	grant 	him 	any 	telework 	days. 	It 	offered
alternative accommodations, such as an adjustable desk and ergonomic chair,
which did not address Complainant’s prolonged sitting restrictions related to his
commute, and as such, they were not effective accommodations. The Agency
determined that there was no showing of an undue hardship with allowing
Complainant some telework days. Management 	officials’ statements that the
majority 	of 	Complainant’s 	duties 	required 	in-person 	office 	presence 	were
inconsistent with other evidence. The Agency further found that the responsible
management officials did not act in good faith.
As part of the remedies, in relevant part, the Agency ordered an immediate
effective interim accommodation and engagement in the interactive process to
determine permanent reasonable accommodations, with such actions memorialized
and provided to Complainant, and restoration of any leave Complainant took due
to the discriminatory conduct.
The instant appeal followed. 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

2025000152	3
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
As an initial matter, there is no challenge to the Agency’s finding that it failed to
accommodate Complainant or the ordered relief. As such, we AFFIRM the finding
of disability discrimination when the Agency did not accommodate Complainant
since December 19, 2022.
In his appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency was not effectively engaging
in the interactive process to determine permanent reasonable accommodation, and
it has not restored leave or backpay from any leave without pay. As such, he filed
this appeal/petition for enforcement.
The Commission’s regulations provide that a final action that has not been the
subject of an appeal or civil action shall be binding on the agency. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.504(a). If the complainant believes that the agency has failed to comply with
the terms of a decision, he or she shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the
alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged noncompliance. Id. The agency shall resolve the matter
and respond to the complainant, in writing. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(b). If the agency
has not responded to the complainant in writing, or if the complainant is not
satisfied with the agency’s attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant may
appeal to the Commission for a determination as to whether the agency has
complied with the terms of the decision. Id. The complainant may file such an
appeal 35 days after he or she has served the agency with the allegations of
noncompliance but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her receipt of an
agency’s determination. Id.
Here, there is no evidence that Complainant contacted the EEO Director of the
alleged noncompliance of the orders in its final decision, in writing. Regardless,
the Agency responds with evidence that it approved temporary full-time telework
as an interim accommodation while it engaged in the interactive process. It
subsequently approved various accommodations based on Complainant’s medical
limitations and essential functions, including part-time telework, and issued a

2025000152	4
decision on or about July 25, 2024. However, the Agency states that Complainant
did not accept it or request a reconsideration.2
The Agency did not address Complainant’s allegation that it did not restore his
leave, and neither party supplied any relevant evidence. The Commission declines
to consider this claim because there is no indication that Complainant made the
necessary filing with the EEO Director.3 See Sana I. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC
Appeal No. 2022004995 (May 6, 2026).
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s finding of disability discrimination and find that it
complied with the order to provide interim accommodation and engage in the
interactive process for a permanent accommodation. However, we decline to
consider the unexhausted petition regarding restoration of leave.
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
2 To the extent that Complainant believes that the Agency failed to accommodate
him with this reasonable accommodation decision, he should contact an EEO
Counselor to initiate the administrative process for this new claim.
3 If the Agency has still not complied with this order, Complainant is advised to
follow the Commission’s regulations and contact the EEO Director in writing.

2025000152	5
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. 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.

2025000152	6
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 17, 2026
Date