EEOC Appeal 2026003018

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Renaldo V.,1
Complainant,
v.
Frank Bisignano,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003018
Hearing No. 560-2024-00109X
Agency No. DAL-23-0653-SSA
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
June 16, 2026, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint 	of 	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
finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Claims
Specialist at the Agency’s Field Office, District 797 in Ada, Oklahoma. On
September 29, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging the Agency
subjected him to discrimination based on disability (PTSD, anxiety disorder, major
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.

2 	2026003018
depressive disorder) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when his request
for the reasonable accommodation of full-time telework was denied.
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 or a final decision from the Agency. Complainant
requested a hearing, but subsequently withdrew his request. The Agency then issued
a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).
The Agency found that management did not fail to offer Complainant a reasonable
accommodation, as they offered alternatives to Complainant’s request for full-time
telework. The alternatives included a personal ultraviolet (UV) air filter, flexible
breaks, 	return-to-office 	on 	a 	progressive 	schedule, 	episodic 	telework, 	noise
canceling headphones, and moving Complainant’s desk to a more isolated area in
the office. Without trying any of these alternative accommodations, Complainant
rejected them as ineffective. The decision concluded that Complainant did not prove
that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed
the instant appeal.
As an initial matter, while Complainant argues that the record was inadequately
developed, we note that Complainant withdrew his hearing request and elected to
receive a final decision from the Agency without a hearing. By making this election,
Complainant chose to forgo his opportunity to develop the record through further
discovery or examination of witnesses. See Irene W. v. Dep’t of Vet. Affs., EEOC
Appeal No. 2021003834 (Mar. 9, 2023). Furthermore, we find the investigation by
the Agency was adequate.
Upon review, we find that the Agency met its obligations under the Rehabilitation
Act when it offered Complainant alternative accommodations in good faith. While
Complainant rejected the alternatives offered as ineffective, he did not try the
alternatives and offered no evidence to show that they would not have been effective.
Furthermore, the Agency provided evidence that the Ada Field Office where
Complainant was assigned received 45-50 in-person clients per day, with only six
Claims Specialists to meet this demand. Management determined that granting
Complainant’s request for full-time telework would create an undue hardship and
place outsized burdens on the few Claims Specialists working in office.

3 	2026003018
While Complainant disagrees with the Agency that in-person duties were “essential”
functions of his position, the record establishes that Complainant’s duties included
serving in-person clients, receiving and sending mail at the office, and processing
social security cards. Although some of these duties were suspended temporarily in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission has held that temporary
suspension of certain duties does not render these duties inessential. See Estefana
M. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2025000637 (Sept. 30, 2025) (citing
Arlette W. v. Dep’t of Vet. Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2022005174 (Oct. 11, 2023)).
Agencies are not required to accommodate employees by eliminating essential
functions of their jobs. See Lynette B. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.
2019003392 (Aug. 25, 2022).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.
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).

4 	2026003018
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. 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.

5 	2026003018
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 __________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 30, 2026
Date