EEOC Appeal 2024004494

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Walter B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Citizenship and Immigration Services),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2024004494
Hearing No. 510-2023-00216X
Agency No. HS-CIS-01981-2022
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
final order 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
order finding no discrimination.
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.

2024004494	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an
Immigration Services Assistant (ISA), 	at the Agency’s Tampa Field Office in
Tampa, Florida. 	On August 17, 2022, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of religion
(Catholic), disability (mental and physical), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity when:
1. 	In 2020, management instructed him not to wear a respirator designed
to stop airborne contaminants but to only wear cloth or medical masks
when returning to the office;
2. 	In 2020, management assigned his duties to other team members to
make it look like he was incapable of performing his duties from
home;
3. 	In 2020, his request for keyboard, mouse, and dual monitors was
denied;
4. 	On December 16, 2020, he was made to come to the office to pick up
files while approved for COVID-19 flexibilities;
5. 	In 2021, management requested him to return to the office and asked
him to submit medical documentation several times;
6. 	In 2021, he was assigned more work than his colleagues, required to
track thousands of files and conduct a “massive” inventory, then told
to manage his time better;
7. 	In 2021, he was required to pick up office files daily instead of
weekly, and management was dismissive when he came to pick up
files, making him wait on one occasion for almost two hours;
8. 	On unspecified dates, management denied making adjustment to his
time when he had to deliver files on his day off;
9. 	On an unspecified date, management “gave him a hard time” for not
printing the cover sheets for boxes he was bringing back to the office,
even 	though 	management 	refused 	to 	give 	him 	a 	printer 	until
coworkers complained of having to scan so many boxes;
10. 	In 2021, management ignored his e-mails, texts and phone calls after
returning to the office;
11. 	On March 24, 2022, he was denied a one-month extension of remote
work COVID-19 flexibilities;
12. 	On March 24, 2022, management took a screen shot of him during a
Teams meeting;

2024004494	3
13. 	On March 28, 2022, his access to the file room and mailroom was
denied;
14. 	On March 28, 2022, he was accused of displaying threatening images
in a virtual meeting;
15. 	On April 4, 2022, he was assigned substantially more work than his
colleagues without additional assistance;
16. 	On April 7, 2022, management responded to his request for assistance
with, “Yes Satan;”
17. 	In April/May 2022, management required him to process 50 boxes of
files within two hours with a coworker; and
18. 	On unspecified dates, management allowed coworkers to insult him
without consequences.
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). 	Complainant requested a hearing.
When the Complainant did not object, the AJ assigned to the case granted the
Agency’s motion and issued a decision without a hearing on June 27, 2024. 	The
Agency 	subsequently 	issued 	a 	final 	order 	adopting 	the 	AJ’s 	finding 	that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged.
The AJ considered claims 1 – 5 and 11, to constitute an alleged denial of a
reasonable accommodation. 	We find that Complainant failed to present evidence
to prove that the Agency failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation
or that the accommodations offered by the Agency would have been ineffective.
The record shows that Complainant was granted full-time telework from March 23,
2020 	to 	March 	26, 	2022, 	as 	part 	of 	the 	Agency’s 	temporary 	COVID-19
Flexibilities Program. The Agency gave him full-time telework as an alternative to
wearing a gas mask in a position where he had public-facing duties. Complainant
was provided with the option to wear a cloth or surgical mask and was instructed to
not wear a gas mask when in the office building. Further, since the ISA position
requires 	direct 	customer 	service 	(front 	facing) 	and 	office 	work, 	to 	allow
Complainant to telework full-time the Agency removed and made changes to some
of Complainant’s major functions and duties. Some of Complainant’s functions
and duties were temporarily redistributed and given to other ISAs.

2024004494	4
The evidence shows that during this timeframe Complainant was provided with
office supplies, which included a laptop with screen, touchpad, and a printer. In
addition, the Agency arranged for Complainant to receive his work files out of the
building so he did not have to come into the building. Further, the pick-up and
drop-off of Complainant’s work files were done during his duty hours. The
evidence shows that only on one occasion was Complainant asked to deliver a file
on his day off because of an urgent situation. Nevertheless, Complainant was paid
accordingly.
The record shows that Complainant admitted that on February 25, 2022, he
requested remote work. On or about March 4, 2022, the Agency notified all the
employees that the COVID-19 Flexibilities Program would end on March 26,
2022. The Agency advised that employees who required additional time to make
alternate work/life arrangements may have their flexibilities extended up to April
23, 	2022, 	with 	supervisory 	approval. 	In 	addition, 	the 	Agency 	advised 	that
employees could request a reasonable accommodation if the employee’s medical
condition met the reasonable accommodation criteria of having a disability as
defined by the Rehabilitation Act. In the same communication, the Agency
provided 	instructions 	to 	request 	such 	an 	extension 	and/or 	reasonable
accommodation. Complainant requested an extension of his full-time telework
under the COVID-19 Flexibilities Program extension. Also, during the same
timeframe Complainant continued inquiring about the possibility of reclassifying
his position as a remote position. On March 25, 2022, Complainant was informed
that under the criteria that would allow an extension he was not eligible. In
addition, he was informed that the reclassification of his position was not possible
due to the nature of the ISA position as a public front-facing position. Complainant
made no reasonable accommodation request concerning teleworking after March
25, 2022, that is at issue in this complaint.
To the extent that his request in 2020 for a keyboard, mouse, and dual monitors
was allegedly denied, the record shows that Complainant was given the same
equipment as other employees who teleworked and that such a request was never
part of a reasonable accommodation request or in any way linked to a claimed
disability.

2024004494	5
Regarding 	Complainant disparate treatment claim, we find that 	Complainant
cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination because the record does not
include evidence on which a reasonable factfinder could find that the alleged
conduct occurred because of Complainant’s protected classes. Complainant only
offers broad allegations that he was discriminated against because of his protected
bases 	without 	any 	details 	or 	supporting 	evidence. 	His 	bare 	assertions 	are
insufficient to prove that the alleged actions were motivated by a discriminatory
animus.
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.
Moreover, we find that even if the alleged incidents occurred in the manner
described, 	the 	Agency’s 	actions 	are 	not 	sufficiently 	severe 	or 	pervasive 	to
constitute a hostile work environment. In reaching this conclusion, we carefully
considered Complainant’s allegation that the Agency failed to respond to his
allegation of harassment by coworkers.
We find that Complainant identified only one incident, which he brought to his
Supervisor’s 	attention. 	The 	alleged 	incident 	occurred 	when 	Complainant
complained to Supervisor about a coworker’s behavior and Supervisor allegedly
responded “Yes, Satan.” Complainant explains that as a Roman Catholic he
interpreted such a comment as offensive and that it meant Complainant was an
“evil man.” Supervisor denied knowing what Complainant’s religion was and
denied making the comment. For purposes of summary judgment, we presume the
comment 	was 	made 	as 	alleged. 	The 	evidence 	shows 	that 	the 	incident 	was
addressed by the Supervisor and the coworker was verbally counseled. This one
remark, assuming it was made for the purposes of this decision, is insufficient to
constitute 	a 	discriminatory 	hostile 	work 	environment. 	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).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.

2024004494	6
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).
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.

2024004494	7
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.

2024004494	8
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