EEOC Appeal 2025003523

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lauralee C,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Defense Contract Audit Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003523
Hearing No. 410-2025-00251X
Agency No. DCAA-CASE-LM24-030
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, 2025, final order concerning her 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 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.
2 Pursuant to Executive Order 14347, Restoring the United States Department of
War, issued on Sept. 5, 2025, the Department of Defense is to be known as the
Department of War. Any references in the record or decision to the Department of
Defense should be read interchangeably as the Department of War.

2025003523	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was hired as an
Auditor, GS-0511-11, at the Agency’s office in Marietta, Georgia.
On July 5, 2024, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against and subjected her to a hostile work environment on
the bases of disability (mental and physical) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity when:
1. 	On 	or 	about 	January 	31, 	2024, 	the 	Travel 	Specialist 	informed
Complainant that the Agency would not compensate her for travel and
accommodation costs;
2. 	Since approximately February 25, 2024, Complainant was not afforded
the benefits of the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and the Federal Employees
Retirement System (FERS);
3. 	Since approximately March 7, 2024, Complainant’s Federal Employees
Health Benefits (FEHB) were not transferred from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to the Agency;
4. 	Since 	approximately 	March 	7, 	2024, 	the 	Agency 	did 	not 	offset
Complainant’s salary by the amount of her retirement annuity;
5. 	Since 	approximately 	March 	7, 	2024, 	the 	Agency 	mismanaged
Complainant’s eligibility for other employee benefits including Federal
Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI);
6. 	On or about March 21, 2024, the Recruitment Team Supervisor (RTS)
requested that Complainant choose between continuing to receive a
disability retirement annuity or remaining employed in her position
with the Agency;
7. 	Since on or about April 1, 2024, RTS and the Human Resources
Specialist (HRS) sent repeated emails and messages that pressured her
to make a decision regarding whether she wished to continue receiving
a disability retirement annuity;
8. 	In May and June 2024, Complainant’s attendance was recorded as
absent without leave (AWOL);
9. 	On or about June 11, 2024, Complainant was escorted out of the
building; and
10. 	On or about June 15, 2024, Complainant was removed from her
position with the Agency.

2025003523	3
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The
AJ issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency finding that
Complainant 	was 	not 	subjected 	to 	discrimination 	or 	reprisal. 	The 	Agency
subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s findings. The instant
appeal followed.
Upon careful review of the record, we find that Complainant has not established by
a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s actions were motivated by her
disability or protected EEO activity. The record establishes that the Agency’s
concerns regarding Complainant’s employment arose from her continued receipt of
retirement annuity payments and the stated restriction in the vacancy announcement
against filling the position through the appointment of a reemployed annuitant. The
Agency initially informed Complainant that her annuity payments presented an
eligibility issue but nevertheless continued to process and select her for the position
after she represented that she would discontinue the payments. Once Complainant
began employment without terminating the annuity, the Agency processed her as a
reemployed annuitant and subsequently informed her that she could not remain in
the position unless she ended receipt of the annuity. The record further reflects that
Complainant was given multiple opportunities to address the issue before the
Agency removed her from the position.
Similarly, the record does not establish that the Agency’s handling of Complainant’s
leave was based on disability or reprisal. Complainant initially received leave
without pay (LWOP), but her first-line supervisor stopped granting LWOP after
Complainant failed to provide documentation necessary to support Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, after which her absence was recorded as AWOL.
The record does not establish that this action was taken because of Complainant’s
disability or EEO activity. Likewise, the record does not establish that the Agency’s
refusal to reimburse Complainant for relocation, travel, or accommodation expenses
was discriminatory. The vacancy announcement expressly stated that relocation
expenses would not be reimbursed, and the training location was within commuting
distance of the Marietta Office.
The record does not support a finding that the Agency’s stated reason for its actions
was a pretext for disability discrimination or reprisal.

2025003523	4
Furthermore, to the extent that Complainant alleged that she was subjected to a
hostile work environment, that allegation is precluded by the determination above
that the Agency's actions were not based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s 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.

2025003523	5
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.
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

2025003523	6
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 __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 23, 2026
Date