EEOC Appeal 2023004522

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Alisia M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2023004522
Hearing No. 550-2021-00270X
Agency No. 200P-0612-2020104421
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
May 31, 2023, final order concerning her 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 MODIFIES the Agency’s final
order.
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.

2023004522	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an
Administrative Officer of the Day at the Agency’s Benefits and Data Management
Service, Emergency Department in Mather, California.
On July 29, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated 	against 	and 	subjected 	her 	to 	harassment 	on 	the 	bases 	of 	sex
(pregnancy), religion (Christian), disability (symptoms associated with pregnancy),
and 	in 	reprisal 	for prior 	protected 	EEO 	activity 	when 	the 	Agency 	directed
Complainant to work overtime for a period longer than initially directed; required
Complainant to get her reprimand letter with or without union representation; since
March 30, 2020, the Agency failed to provide her an accommodation for her religion
and pregnancy; did not select Complainant for a position;2 issued Complainant a
letter of counseling; and denied Complainant’s overtime request.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant timely requested a
hearing. Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and
issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no
discrimination. In the decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to present or
identify any material facts that placed the Agency’s articulated nondiscriminatory
and/or nonretaliatory reasons for its actions in dispute or demonstrate pretext. The
AJ found that the events alleged by Complainant did not meet the threshold of
severity or pervasiveness to support her hostile work environment claim, and that
Complainant did not present evidence that the Agency was motivated by an illegal
discriminatory reason.
In terms of the extended overtime, the AJ found that Complainant made the decision
on her own to work overtime and was not directed to do so by management.
2 Complainant’s non-selection claim was dismissed as an untimely filed discrete
event but retained as part of Complainant’s harassment claim. Complainant did not
challenge the dismissal as a discrete event.

2023004522	3
As for the reprimand without representation and letter of counseling, the AJ found
that Complainant was issued non-disciplinary counseling based on an email that
Complainant sent to the Assistant Chief and several others outside of her chain of
command. Management affirmed that the union was invited to the meeting but did
not attend.
With respect to Complainant’s request for religious accommodation, while the AJ
acknowledged that Complainant requested to adjust her schedule so that she could
attend church on Sundays, the AJ ultimately found that the claim failed because
Complainant failed to provide the requested documentation showing the name and
address of her place of worship. As for her request for reasonable accommodation
due to her pregnancy, Complainant was provided with interim accommodation as
well as final approval to take leave of her choice. Management affirmed that in the
instances where Complainant’s leave was not approved, there was no supporting
documentation and updates occurred once the supporting documentation was
submitted.
Regarding the denial of overtime, management explained that Complainant’s
overtime requests were generally approved. 	However, Complainant’s request for
overtime for lunch was denied due to concerns about lunch period coverage.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or
harassment as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Religious Accommodation
Under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious practices of
their employees unless a requested accommodation is shown to impose an undue
hardship. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1). A reasonable religious
accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the
employee to comply with his religious beliefs. See Ian S. v. Dep’t of the Treas.,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120160622 (Apr. 27, 2018); Complainant v. Dep’t of Justice,
EEOC 	Appeal 	No. 	0120132112 	(Apr. 	17, 	2015). 	The 	need 	for 	religious
accommodation most frequently arises where an individual's religious beliefs,
observances, or practices conflict with a specific task or requirement of the job. Id.

2023004522	4
The employer’s duty to accommodate will usually entail making a special exception
from, or adjustment to, the particular requirement so that the employee will be able
to practice his religion. Id. When an employee's religious belief or practice conflicts
with a particular task, appropriate accommodations may include relieving the
employee of the task or transferring the employee to a different position or location
that eliminates the conflict with the employee's religion. Id.
The traditional framework for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination based
on religious accommodation requires an employee to demonstrate that: (1) he or she
has 	a 	bona 	fide 	religious 	belief, 	the 	practice 	of 	which 	conflicted 	with 	his
employment; (2) he or she informed the agency of this belief and conflict; and (3)
the agency nevertheless enforced its requirement against the employee. 	Heller v.
EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir. 1993); Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
R.R. Co., 736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir. 1984).
“A refusal to accommodate is justified only when an employer ... can demonstrate
that an undue hardship would in fact result from each available alternative method
of accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(c). Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(d),
alternatives for accommodating an employee’s religious practices include, but are
not limited to, voluntary substitutes and swaps, flexible scheduling, and lateral
transfers and job changes. See Samuel R. v. Dep’t of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No.
2019001557 (Aug. 19, 2020). The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that an “undue
hardship” 	means 	that 	providing 	reasonable 	accommodation 	would 	result 	in
substantial 	increased 	costs 	in 	relation 	to 	the 	conduct 	of 	the 	employer's
business. Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023).
Having reviewed the record, we find that Complainant established a prima facie case
of failure to provide religious accommodation. While the record shows that Agency
officials declined to grant Complainant’s request for religious accommodation due
to her failure to provide adequate “proof of religion,” such as the name and address
of her house of worship, we note that the Commission has long held that employers
should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is
based on a sincerely held religious belief, as the Commission and the courts are not,
and should not, be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious
beliefs for the “proper” reasons. See EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12,
Discrimination (Jan. 15, 2021). As we find no basis to deviate from the general rule,
we find that Complainant did in fact have a “bona fide” religious belief.

2023004522	5
Next, it is undisputed that Agency officials were aware of Complainant’s repeated
requests to have Sundays off to observe her religion and nevertheless denied her
requests. 	As for the last prong, the parties do not dispute that the Complainant’s
requests remained unresolved despite Complainant providing additional information
about the name of her place of worship and her commute time to get there.
After a thorough review of the record, we find that the Agency failed to meet its
burden to demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to reasonably accommodate
Complainant’s religious beliefs, or that to do so would have imposed an undue
hardship upon the Agency’s operations. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record
that the Agency attempted to obtain voluntary substitutes or swaps for the Sundays
that Complainant was scheduled to work even though Complainant reported that a
coworker agreed to swap schedules. The Agency has provided no evidence as to why
Complainant could not have rotated schedules with other employees who had
Sundays off. We find the evidence in the record insufficient to demonstrate undue
hardship, as the Agency failed to present evidence of the impact to its operations if
it had allowed Complainant to have Sundays off without requiring her to utilize some
form of leave.
Therefore, we find that the Agency violated Title VII when Complainant’s request
for religious accommodation was denied by virtue of its inaction. Accordingly, we
REVERSE the Agency's decision regarding this claim and ORDER the Agency to
take further action in accordance with the Order below.
Remaining Claims
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, we find that
with respect to the remaining claims, the AJ correctly analyzed the facts and law of
this case to determine that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected
her to discrimination or harassment as alleged. Here, the record reflects that the
Agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations for its actions. 	In
addition, we find the alleged incidents were more likely the result of routine
supervision, personality conflicts, and general workplace disputes and tribulations.
Complainant has produced no evidence to establish that her religion, disability, or
prior EEO activity were factors in any of these actions.

2023004522	6
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we MODIFY the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.
We REVERSE the Agency's decision on the claim related to a failure to provide a
religious 	accommodation 	and ORDER the 	Agency 	to 	take 	further 	action 	in
accordance 	with 	the Order below. 	We 	AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	findings 	that
Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or
harassment based on disability or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.
ORDER
The Agency shall undertake the following remedial actions:
1. The Agency shall determine the amount of compensatory damages to which
Complainant is entitled and pay Complainant that amount:
a. 	Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation with respect to
Complainant’s claim of compensatory damages in connection with her
claim that she was denied religious accommodation.
i. 	The Agency shall allow Complainant to present evidence in
support of her compensatory damages claim. See Carle v. Dep’t
of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993).
ii. 	Complainant shall cooperate with the Agency in this regard,
including by responding to Agency requests for information and
by completing any Agency forms. Complainant shall reply to any
Agency requests for information within thirty (30) calendar
days.
b. Within 	thirty 	(30) 	calendar 	days 	of 	the 	completion 	of 	the
supplemental investigation, the Agency shall issue a final decision,
with 	appeal 	rights 	to 	the 	Commission, 	addressing 	the 	issue 	of
compensatory damages.

2023004522	7
c. 	Within 	sixty 	(60) 	calendar 	days 	of 	determining 	the 	amount 	of
compensatory damages due Complainant, the Agency shall issue a
check to Complainant for the undisputed amount.
2. To the extent that it has not already done so, the Agency shall, within thirty
(30) calendar days from the date this decision is issued, provide Complainant
with a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. 	This shall be
accomplished 	by 	having 	the 	Agency 	seek 	the 	voluntary 	swap 	of
Complainant’s 	Sunday 	work 	obligations 	with 	a 	substitute 	who 	has
substantially similar qualifications. The Agency shall disseminate information
to 	all 	individuals 	who 	share substantially 	similar qualifications 	of the
opportunity to swap Sunday work obligations with Complainant by email,
posting the information on a bulletin board, or by other means regularly used
by the Agency to advertise such opportunities. The Agency shall ensure that
Complainant is not placed in the position of having to seek volunteers herself.
Where voluntary swaps cannot fully accommodate Complainant’s religious
beliefs, the Agency shall consider alternative accommodations, including, but
not limited to, lateral transfers, or changes in job assignments or crafts. See
29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(d).
3. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall restore or reimburse any leave Complainant was forced to use
due 	to 	the 	Agency’s 	failure 	to 	provide 	Complainant 	with 	reasonable
accommodation for her religious beliefs beginning March 30, 2020.
4. Within ninety (90) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall provide four (4) hours of interactive EEO training to the Local
Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator, identified on page 553 of the ROI,
who improperly handled Complainant’s request for religious accommodation.
The Agency shall provide training as to the current state of the law on
employment discrimination, particularly the “Guidelines on Discrimination
Because of Religion” contained at EEOC Regulations 29 C.F.R. § 1605.
5. Within ninety (90) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the
Agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the Local Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator. The Commission does not consider training to
be 	a 	disciplinary 	action. 	The 	Agency 	shall 	report 	its 	decision 	to 	the

2023004522	8
Commission and specify what, if any, action was taken. If the Agency decides
not to take disciplinary action, then it shall set forth the reasons for its decision
not to impose discipline.
6. The Agency shall post a notice in accordance with the paragraph entitled,
“Posting Order.”
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the
statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission's Decision.” The report shall
include supporting documentation verifying that the corrective action has been
implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0617)
The Agency is ordered to post at its Benefits and Data Management Service,
Emergency Department, copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after
being signed by the Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted both
in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the
date this decision was issued, and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to
be submitted to the Compliance Officer as directed in the paragraph entitled
“Implementation of the Commission's Decision,” within 10 calendar days of the
expiration of the posting period. The report must be in digital format and must be
submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1019)
If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), she is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred
in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's
fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of
fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office
of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision.
The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.501.

2023004522	9
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s
corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion of
each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector EEO
Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the
Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance
was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit via
FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the Commission.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 	The Agency’s final report must contain supporting
documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of
all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C.
2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the
administrative 	processing 	of 	the 	complaint, 	including 	any 	petition 	for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the orders
set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the referral of this
matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(f) for
enforcement by that agency.
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

2023004522	10
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.
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).

2023004522	11
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0124)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires
the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint.
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 on
both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that
portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative
processing. 	In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and
eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency,
or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final
decision on your complaint. 	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.

2023004522	12
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 14, 2026
Date