EEOC Appeal 2026000064

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Tianna M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Troy E. Meink,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000064
Agency No. 9R1M2400246
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
September 12, 2025, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging 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., Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as an Integrated Response Program Manager, GS-0101-13, at the
Agency’s Resilience Development Division, Manpower, Personnel, and Services
Directorate, Air Force Reserve Command in Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.
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 	2026000064
ROI at 22, 955-57, 2067, 2070, and 2194. Complainant had Anxiety and Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). According to Complainant, shortly after she
entered on duty, she started to feel that she was not psychologically safe and was
threatened based on her interactions in the workplace. Her submission indicates that
this affected her focus, her ability to concentrate, and her memory and led to her
feeling overwhelmed and to the exacerbation of the symptoms of her medical
condition. ROI at 630-34, 1704, 1956, and 2167-69.
Complainant's medical documentation consists of two notes, dated February 2, 2024,
and March 14, 2024, from a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). The former
stated that Complainant had an adjustment disorder, PTSD (Unspecified), and
"discord with bosses and workmates." The counselor stated that these conditions
impacted Complainant's ability to perform the essential functions of her position.
She added that she would continue to provide treatment until Complainant could
manage her symptoms which included difficulty concentrating, a heightened startle
response, heart palpitations, and panic attacks. The counselor acknowledged that
Complainant was having difficulties with relationships in the workplace and
recommended that she be allowed to telework on a full-time basis. The March 14,
2024, submission referenced Complainant's perception of workplace dynamics as
including bullying and intimidation, mentioned that her condition had deteriorated,
again stated that her ability to perform her job duties was adversely impacted, and
again recommended full-time telework. ROI at 876-77 and 1963-64.
Complainant 	identified 	her 	prior 	EEO 	activity 	as 	“opposition” 	beginning 	in
November 2023, less than a month after entering on duty. ROI at 1876 and 2201-02.
Complainant’s first-line supervisor (Supervisor 1) was the Acting Chief, Prevention
and Response Branch. Her second-line supervisor (Supervisor 2) was the Chief,
Resilience Development Division Complainant’s third-line supervisor (Supervisor
3) was the Director, Manpower, Personnel, and Services Directorate. Complainant’s
fourth supervisor (Supervisor 4) was the Chief, Air Force Reserve/Commander. A
named individual was a Supervisory Human Resources Specialist (SHR Specialist),
Civilian 	Personnel 	Branch. 	An 	Integrated 	Prevention 	Program 	Manager 	was
Complainant’s coworker (Coworker 1); and a Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Manager was Complainant’s second coworker (Coworker 2). Another
named individual was the Disability Program Strategic Advisor, EEO Strategy and
Integration (DP Manager). The Occupational Medicine Physician (OM Physician) a
Flight Chief, Occupational Medicine Clinic (Flight Chief) and a Commander, 78th
Occupational Medicine Readiness Squadron (Commander) were also identified by

3 	2026000064
Complainant as having taken adverse actions against her. ROI at 4611, 4618-19,
4635, 4691-92, 4702-03, and 4722-23.
The primary purpose of Complainant’s position is to lead the development,
implementation, and evaluation of all response efforts (to those seeking care and
victims of violence alike) to support comprehensive Airmen fitness and community
readiness, serving as the subject matter expert to ensure stakeholders understand the
risk and protective factors associated with self-directed harm and prohibited abusive
or harmful acts from a public health perspective. ROI at 417-26, 962-71, 1326-35,
2071-80, 3882-91, and 3929-38.
Complainant initiated EEO contact on January 3, 2024. On April 30, 2024,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint (with subsequent amendments) alleging
discrimination by the Agency on the bases of race (African-American), disability
(mental), age (58), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when:
1. Since October 2023, Complainant has not been provided clear guidance on
who is her first-line supervisor;
2. Between October 2023 and November 2023, Supervisor 1 gave Complainant
pushback and prolonged her house hunting request, insisting that Complainant
had work to do in the office but did not assign Complainant any work to
complete;
3. From October 2023 to February 28, 2024, Supervisor 1 and Supervisor 2 did
not provide Complainant with an interim accommodation;
4. From October 2023 to February 28, 2024, Supervisor 1 repeatedly entered
Complainant's personal space and sat on her desk after being asked not to;
5. From November 1, 2023, to March 7, 2024, Supervisor 1 and Supervisor 2
failed to provide Complainant with an updated version of the unit recall roster;
6. Since 	November 	2023, 	Complainant 	has 	been 	subjected 	to 	increased
monitoring of her comings and goings by Supervisor 1, Supervisor 2,
Coworker 1, and Coworker 2;

4 	2026000064
7. Since November 2023, Coworker 1 began acting as Complainant's first-line
supervisor and tasking her with work, but Complainant had not been told who
her official supervisor was;
8. On November 2, 2023, Coworker 1 asked where Complainant was going and,
when Complainant refused to tell her, Coworker 1 stated, "But I'm supposed
to watch you.";
9. From November 6, 2023, to December 8, 2023, Coworker 1 scheduled
meetings but would not inform Complainant in advance;
10. From November 6, 2023, to December 8, 2023, Coworker 1 would surveil
Complainant and report to Supervisor 1 when she was on the phone, when she
left the office area, and when she returned to the office area;
11. From November 6, 2023, to December 8, 2023, Complainant felt threatened
when Supervisor 1 stated, "I am going to check your resume.";
12. From 	November 	6, 	2023, 	to 	December 	8, 	2023, 	Coworker 	1 	would
continuously state, "Poor [Complainant], she's probably lost" or "She's
probably never seen this Program information.";
13. On November 7, 2023, Supervisor 1 shared Complainant's personal (non-
governmental) email address with staff without her permission;
14. On November 14, 2023, Supervisor 1 stated that since Complainant "dresses
so cute" she was going to have to give the work to Coworker 1;
15. On November 21, 2023, Supervisor 1 told Complainant that she did not fit in
with the culture and seemed uncooperative since she did not want her personal
contact information added to her unofficial social media text;
16. On November 21, 2023, Supervisor 1 made Complainant aware that she was
upset because Complainant did not want to ride with her to attend a briefing;
17. On November 24, 2023, Supervisor 1 shared Complainant's personal (non-
governmental) cellphone number in a group text message to unknown
recipients without her permission;

5 	2026000064
18. On 	November 	28, 	2023, 	Supervisor 	1 	and 	Supervisor 	2 	laughed 	at
Complainant's preferred name to be used in the workplace, Supervisor 1
stating that, "We are in a casual work environment, and you can call me by
my first name.";
19. On November 28, 2023, Supervisor 1 told Complainant that she was not
allowed to make direct contact with the Integrated Primary Prevention
Workforce (IPPW) Team at the Wing level and could not attend the 78th Air
Base Wing Community Action Board meeting;
20. From November 30, 2023, to December 8, 2023, Supervisor 1 failed to meet
with Complainant to discuss the division of duties;
21. On December 8, 2023, Supervisor 2 began a formal inquiry on Complainant;
22. On December 11, 2023, Supervisor 1 excluded Complainant from going on a
same-day Temporary Duty Travel (TDY) opportunity to Dobbins Air Force
Base;
23. On December 18, 2023, Supervisor 1 refused to provide Complainant with a
telework agreement;
24. On December 19, 2023, Supervisor 1 excluded Complainant from a Casualty
meeting;
25. On December 29, 2023, Supervisor 2 directed Complainant via text message
on her regular day off to sign her performance plan during the holiday
weekend;
26. On December 31, 2023, Coworker 1 declined to work with Complainant in
the conference room;
27. From December 2023 to the present (February 28, 2024), Supervisor 1 and
Supervisor 2 did not provide Complainant with an interim accommodation
after being made aware of her disability;

6 	2026000064
28. On January 8, 2024, Complainant became aware that Supervisor 1 and
Coworker 1 had excluded her from a STRATCOM (undefined acronym)
meeting;
29. On January 9, 2024, Complainant became aware that Supervisor 1 made a
false statement to Supervisor 2 that she did not attend an Integrated Primary
Prevention 	Workforce 	(IPPW) 	meeting 	and 	Sexual 	Assault 	Dashboard
training;
30. On January 17, 2024, Supervisor 2 questioned why Complainant was in the
office after her shift ended and told her that she could not sit at her desk and
do any personal work or use agency equipment;
31. On January 17, 2024, Complainant became aware that Supervisor 2 questions
her colleagues regarding how they felt about her leaving early from the agency
off-site event;
32. On January 19, 2024, Supervisor 1 stated during the facilitated discussion
that she never sat on Complainant's desk;
33. On January 19, 2024, Supervisor 2 stated that Complainant's co-workers were
disappointed in her for leaving early from the off-site event to attend an EEO
meeting on January 17, 2024;
34. On January 19, 2024, Complainant was directed by Supervisor 2 to attend a
non-voluntary facilitation with him and Supervisor 1;
35. On January 26, 2024, Supervisor 2 rescinded Complainant's compressed duty
schedule;
36. Between January 26, 2024, and February 7, 2024, Supervisor 2 created a false
narrative that she had not contacted a Resilience Integrator at one of the Wings
to offer a Critical Response Team (CRT) teleconference. Complainant claims
to have felt threatened after receiving emails and texts about this;
37. On January 29, 2024, Supervisor 2 stated that Supervisor 3's guidance was
that there would be no telework when he (Supervisor 2) denied Complainant
telework as a reasonable accommodation;

7 	2026000064
38. On January 29, 2024, Supervisor 2 sent an email indicating that employees
were not authorized to work on their reasonable accommodation packages
during official duty hours;
39. From January 30, 2024, to the present (March 18, 2024), Complainant was
directed to refrain from communicating with a Resiliency Integrator at one of
the Wings;
40. On February 14, 2024, Coworker 1 informed Complainant about a Prevention
Analyst meeting at the last minute;
41. From February 15 to February 19, 2024, Supervisor 1 did not allow
Complainant to go to the Yellow Ribbon Conference in Colorado after telling
her on December 11, 2023, that she would be attending the conference;
42. From February 16, 2024, to the present (March 11, 2024), Supervisor 1 and
Supervisor 2 told Complainant that she was not in compliance with the
SPARX (undefined acronym) I and II training requirements;
43. On February 20, 2024, Complainant was informed at the last minute about a
Sexual 	Assault 	Prevention 	and 	Response 	(SAPR)/Integrated 	Primary
Prevention Workforce (IPPW) meeting when similarly situated employees
were made aware in advance;
44. On February 21, 2024, Supervisor 2 waited over 16 days to request additional
medical documentation and delayed the reasonable accommodation process;
45. From February 22, 2024, to the present (March 18, 2024), Supervisor 2,
Supervisor 3, and SHR Specialist refused to provide Complainant with the
correct procedures for a DoD/DAF (undefined acronyms) hardship transfer
and refused to process her hardship transfer memorandum;
46. On February 26, 2024, Supervisor 2 did not provide Complainant with signed
telework agreement forms as previously stated;
47. On February 27, 2024, Complainant did not receive a response from
Supervisor 1 or Supervisor 2 regarding her request for a telework agreement
and adequate equipment to work from home;

8 	2026000064
48. On March 5, 2024, Supervisor 2 excluded Complainant from a Community
Action Network (CAN) Pre-Brief;
49. On March 6, 2024, Complainant became aware that Coworker 1 was given a
task by Supervisor 1 that was for the Integrated Response Team Program
Manager (Complainant's job);
50. On 	March 	7, 	2024, 	Complainant 	felt 	ostracized 	when 	Supervisor 	1,
Supervisor 2, and Coworker 1 refused to send her information and status
reports on the Co-Location Implementation tasker;
51. On March 7, 2024, Supervisor 2 refused to include Complainant on the
official recall roster because she had asked to be taken off an unofficial unit
group chat;
52. On March 11, 2024, Supervisor 2 contacted Complainant's spouse and
disclosed personal and health information to him without Complainant's
permission;
53. On March 12, 2024, Supervisor 2 removed Complainant from a volunteer
team;
54. On March 12, 2024, Supervisor 2 sent an email to have Complainant refrain
from attending a co-worker's retirement event even though she had received a
personal invitation;
55. On March 12, 2024, Supervisor 2 shared Complainant's medical information
with the individual who was retiring while trying to convince the retiree to
disinvite her and not allow her to volunteer at the retirement ceremony;
56. On March 14, 2024, Complainant felt forced to take leave to attend the
retirement ceremony and party, but her colleagues did not have to take leave;
57. From October 2023 to July 2, 2024, Complainant was not given access to
process and maintain the Response Program budget or make any purchases
and has not been allowed to get a Government Purchase Card (GPC);

9 	2026000064
58. From November 2023 to June 2024, Supervisor 2 has not allowed/funded
Complainant to go TDY and has not allowed her to get a Government Travel
Card (GTC);
59. From January 2024 to April 30, 2024, Supervisor 2 has been sharing and
disclosing Complainant's medical and reasonable accommodation request
information with Supervisor 1, who is not Complainant's supervisor, and does
not have a need to know;
60. On February 9, 2024, Supervisor 1 informed Complainant that she was going
to get someone to finalize the Air Force Reserve Command Casualty Guide
that Complainant was working on;
61. On 	February 	11, 	2024, 	Supervisor 	1 	sent 	out 	an 	email 	stating 	that
Complainant was not in compliance with her training;
62. From February 18, 2024, to June 2024, Supervisor 1 interfered with
Complainant's ability to perform her job duties in communicating with the
Wings and Tenants as stated in her position description;
63. On February 20, 2024, Supervisor 2 moved Complainant's team member
workspace 	away 	from 	Complainant, 	isolating 	Complainant 	and 	not 	in
alignment with her medical provider's recommendation;
64. On February 26, 2024, Complainant made reports of harassment in the form
of workplace violence to Supervisor 3, and he did not initiate an investigation
within the ten days required by Department of the Air Force Instruction 36-
147;
65. On February 27, 2024, Complainant emailed Supervisor 2 and texted
Supervisor 1 to get her the required technology and equipment, but neither
responded, causing Complainant to miss a training which she was scheduled
to facilitate;
66. On 	February 	28 	and 	February 	29, 	2024, 	Supervisor 	1, 	who 	is 	not
Complainant's supervisor, assigned Complainant entry-level training and
directed her to complete SPARX II training no later than March 29, 2024;

10 	2026000064
67. On March 4, 2024, Supervisor 2 held a Pre-CAN meeting with Coworker 1,
did not let Complainant know, and did not accommodate Complainant so she
could attend;
68. On March 6, 2024, in response to the agency's request, Complainant provided
additional medical documentation but Supervisor 2 has not held an interactive
conversation with her;
69. On March 7, 2024, Supervisor 2 insisted that the recall roster was the same
as an unofficial group text, threatened to take Complainant's name off the
recall roster, and would not give Complainant a copy of the recall roster as he
had her teammates;
70. On March 7, 2024, Coworker 1 sent Complainant a notice that the CAN
meeting was cancelled, but the meeting took place and Coworker 1 and
Supervisor 2 did not notify her;
71. On March 11, 2024, Complainant requested information from Supervisor 2
to process a constructive discharge; however, both Supervisor 2 and SHR
Specialist failed to provide assistance with this personnel request;
72. On March 18, 2024, Complainant was made aware that the Air Force
Personnel Center had sent out a Co-Location Implementation and Funding
Suspense for Complainant, as the Integrated Response Program Manager as
the lead, but Supervisor 1 and Supervisor 2 did not inform her of the tasker
which Supervisor 1 gave to Coworker 1, a younger Caucasian female;
73. On March 20, 2024, the individual appointed as the Investigating Officer,
who was not a higher rank than Supervisor 2, did not take accurate notes
concerning Complainant's narrative and changed her narrative;
74. On March 25, 2024, Complainant was tasked with sending an email to the
Air Force Reserve Command Wings to obtain the status of Connect to Care
and Supervisor 1 emailed Complainant to indicate her disapproval;
75. On March 28, 2024, Supervisor 2 did not permit Complainant to go TDY to
attend the ARC Athena Conference, even though ARC Athena Childcare is
one of her core functions; however, he approved Supervisor 1 to attend;

11 	2026000064
76. On March 29, 2024, Supervisor 1 took the Wingman Saves Awards which
Complainant had prepared and scheduled to submit for signature on April 1,
2024, as a core duty;
77. On April 1, 2024, Coworker 1 moved the IPPW Team Meetings without
letting Complainant know;
78. On April 1, 2024, while Complainant was on approved leave, Supervisor 2
continuously 	called 	and 	texted 	demanding 	to 	know 	Complainant's
whereabouts;
79. On April 3, 2024, Supervisor 1, who is not Complainant's supervisor, told the
Air Force Personnel Center to appoint Complainant as the primary point of
contact 	for 	Suicide 	Prevention 	Updates 	and 	Supervisor 	2 	reassigned
Complainant's essential duties and did not engage in an interactive process or
provide adequate reasonable accommodation;
80. On April 10, 2024, Supervisor 1 cancelled a staff meeting without letting
Complainant know;
81. On April 10, 2024, Supervisor 1, who is not Complainant's supervisor,
reassigned the Casualty Guide, one of Complainant's essential duties, and
Supervisor 2 did not engage in an interactive dialogue or provide an
accommodation;
82. On April 17-18, 2024, Supervisor 2 did not provide adaptive accessibility for
Complainant to attend the Headquarters Air Force AlZ (undefined acronym)
on-site visit presentations, meetings, and briefs;
83. On April 29, 2024, Supervisor 2 emailed Complainant her performance plan
to input data; however, he retrieved the plan before the duty day began, not
allowing her time to review and input the data;
84. From March 2024 to June 2024, Complainant made multiple reports of
disability discrimination, retaliation, and harassment to Supervisor 3 and a
General officer and there was no protection or help provided;

12 	2026000064
85. On May 28, 2024, Supervisor 2 falsely stated that Complainant did not sign
out of TEAMS at the end of her shift;
86. On June 3 and June 26, 2024, neither Supervisor 2 nor SHR Specialist
provided Complainant with an adequate reasonable accommodation;
87. On June 5, 2024, Supervisor 2 and SHR Specialist rescinded the established
reasonable accommodation agreed to on June 3, 2024;
88. On June 5, 2024, Supervisor 2 and SHR Specialist directed that Complainant
be reassigned, denying Complainant a reasonable accommodation;
89. On June 6, 2024, Supervisor 2 and SHR Specialist unlawfully changed
Complainant's position description to align her officially under Supervisor 1's
supervisory control;
90. On June 13, 2024, DP Manager contacted Complainant and interviewed her
about the claimed violation of the Air Force Instruction (on reasonable
accommodation) but did not do an investigation and conducted an inquiry
instead;
91. On June 17, 2024, Complainant was on approved sick leave and Supervisor
2 refused to certify her timecard for the pay period;
92. On June 21, 2024, Supervisor 2 emailed Complainant after duty hours at her
personal email address, denied her sick leave request, and violated leave
policy and her privacy by including others on the email who did not have a
need to know;
93. On June 5, 2024, and September 27, 2024, Supervisor 2 indicated that it was
a hardship for the agency to provide an effective accommodation, but he
neglected to send a denial of the reasonable accommodation request to the
Installation Commander for review and final decision/endorsement;
94. From August 19, 2024, to December 6, 2024, OM Physician refused to accept
Complainant's documentation from a licensed Clinical Psychologist as proof
of her meeting American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements regarding
her reasonable accommodation;

13 	2026000064
95. From August 30, 2024, to November 7, 2024, Complainant informed
Supervisor 4 multiple times that Supervisor 1, Supervisor 2, Supervisor 3, and
Coworker 1 had been harassing her and aggravating her medical condition
which affected her ability to concentrate and perform her job, but the agency
took 	no 	action 	to 	resolve 	the 	harassment 	or 	provide 	an 	alternative
accommodation;
96. From September 16, 2024, to December 6, 2024, Complainant made multiple
attempts to request and schedule an appointment with OM Physician to
discuss her documentation but was denied by Occupational Medicine Clinic
staff;
97. On 	September 	25, 	2024, 	and 	October 	7, 	2024, 	Supervisor 	2 	denied
Complainant's 	requests 	to 	discuss 	her 	requests 	for 	an 	alternative
accommodation, and she was forced to take annual leave;
98. On September 27, 2024, Complainant became aware that Supervisor 2 did
not inform her of internal vacancies and limited her access to potential jobs
when he informed her that she could only be reassigned to positions external
to the Resilience Development Division and its Branches, the Manpower,
Personnel, and Services Directorate, and the Air Force Reserve Command;
99. On September 27, 2024, Complainant became aware that Supervisor 2 and
SHR Specialist did not inform her of the vacant GS-12 Program Analyst or
the GS-13 Management and Program Analyst as a form of reasonable
accommodation and did not request or review a current copy of her resume
properly to rate or consider her for the vacancies;
100. On September 27, 2024, Supervisor 2 denied Complainant's request to be
realigned or to transfer her current position to another Branch;
101. On 	October 	16, 	2024, 	OM 	Physician 	and 	Flight 	Chief 	requested 	a
psychiatric assessment and to access Complainant's psychiatric notes in order
to review her reasonable accommodation request which was unlike the
treatment 	of 	other 	employees 	requesting 	accommodation 	of 	mental
disabilities;

14 	2026000064
102. From September 27, 2024 to October 17, 2024, management ignored or
refused to correct incorrect information on the 78th Occupational Medicine
Services Medical Evaluation of Work Status form.
Complainant’s amended complaint consisted of the following claims:
1. On April 15, 2024, the Alternate Dispute Resolution Program Manager (ADR
Program Manager) censored Complainant's speech and stopped her from
bringing up pre-submitted complaints for discussion;
2. On April 15, 2024, ADR Program Manager did not provide Complainant or
her representative prior notification of the change in the agency's settlement
authority and selection of its representative;
3. On April 28, 2024, Complainant was made aware that Supervisor 2 provided
a General officer false information that she had accepted another position;
4. On April 29, 2024, Supervisor 3 was the appointing authority for a Command
Directed Investigation which was a conflict of interest since he was named as
a responsible management official in the complaint;
5. On March 14, 2024, ADR Program manager informed Complainant that she
had to return the agreement to mediate within seven days but did not hold the
Settlement Authority to the same timeline;
6. On April 3, 2024, Supervisor 2 and Supervisor 3 provided the Settlement
Authority with false information that she had accepted another job to
negatively interfere with the EEO/ADR process;
7. On April 15, 2024, ADR Program Manager censored and stopped Complainant
from discussing reasonable accommodation during the ADR session;
8. On April 15, 2024, ADR Program manager admitted that she had knowledge
of Complainant's EEO case and reasonable accommodation request but was
also assigned as the mediator which did not offer neutrality;

15 	2026000064
9. On April 15, 2024, ADR Program manager did not make Complainant or her
representative aware of the change in the Settlement Authority official and
agency representative;
10. On May 30, 2024, the Deputy EEO Director did not initiate a prompt
investigation of violations of policy as requested in accordance with the
applicable Air Force Instruction and sent the complainant to multiple incorrect
agencies;
11. On June 3, 2024, during the facilitated interactive reasonable accommodation
mediation, Supervisor 2 and SHR Specialist insisted that Complainant be
moved from the official supervision listed on her position description which
was not related to reasonable accommodation;
12. On June 3, 2024, Supervisor 2 and SHR Specialist threatened to change
Complainant's position description from Supervisor 2 to Supervisor 1;
13. On June 26, 2024, DP Manager advised that an investigator also acted as a
mediator for the interactive facilitated/mediated session causing a conflict of
interest;
14. On June 5, 2024, and September 27, 2024, Supervisor 2 denied Complainant's
request for an alternative accommodation, reassigned her, and refused to
engage in interactive communication regarding her approved 100% telework,
the reassignment of her essential duties, changing her supervisory chain and
altering her Core Personnel Document because Complainant believed that the
accommodation was ineffective;
15. On 	June 	5, 	2024, 	and 	September 	27, 	2024, 	Supervisor 	2 	provided
Complainant an accommodation of last resort reasonable accommodation
decision and denied an effective accommodation for her hardship; and
16. On September 27, 2024, Supervisor 2 reassigned Complainant's essential
duties to Supervisor 1 and other team members and then accused Complainant
of not performing her duties.
On July 15, 2024, the Agency dismissed Claims 1-4 of the additional amended
claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(l) for failure to state a claim. Claims 1-

16 	2026000064
2 	involved 	an 	ADR 	proceeding. 	Claims 	3-4 	involved 	a 	command 	directed
investigation (CDI). We find that Claims 3-4 were properly dismissed because
Complainant’s sole allegation was that the agency failed to follow its own rules for
its internal investigation process. Claims 8 and 17 are also dismissed pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(l) for failure to state a claim; they too refer to the CDI process
and therefore, constitute a collateral attack as the proper forum to raise this kind of
issue would be within the process itself.
On July 30, 2024, the Agency dismissed Paragraph 2, Claims 1-9, pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(l) for failure to state a claim. Claims 1-5 and Claims 7-9, are
regarding the Dispute Resolution process. Claim 6 was dismissed pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8) as it alleged dissatisfaction with the processing of a
previously filed complaint.
On December 18, 2024, the Agency dismissed Claims 2, 3, and 8 of Paragraph 2 of
the second amended complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to
state a claim because these stated the same claims already made in previous accepted
complaints. Complainant did not contest the dismissed claims; and they will not be
analyzed in this decision except as part of her overall harassment claim.
The 	Agency 	conducted 	an 	investigation. 	The 	investigation 	revealed 	that 	on
November 6, 2023, Supervisor 2 sent an email to the Resiliency Development
Division staff, informing them that Supervisor 1 would be the Acting Branch Chief
for the Prevention and Response Branch to which Complainant was assigned.
Supervisor 1 would have operational responsibility for the Branch while Supervisor
2 would take care of administrative matters. ROI at 271, 857, 1304, 1349, and 1795.
On December 19, 2023, Complainant submitted a request to telework, and effective
February 28, 2024, Complainant was granted full-time telework in the interim while
the reasonable accommodation was processed. ROI at 308-10, 553-58, 560-69,
1467-68, 1712-13, 1719-20, 1832-34, and 3969-73. On February 22, 2024, in
connection with the reasonable accommodation process, Complainant was offered,
and the next day accepted, a compressed schedule. ROI at 404-06, 415, 428, 430-
37, 442-45, and 3941-42.
In 	her 	submissions 	for 	reasonable 	accommodation 	dated 	February 	6, 	2024,
Complainant stated that shortly after she entered duty, she started to feel she was not
psychologically safe and was threatened based on her interactions in the workplace.

17 	2026000064
Her submission indicated these issues affected her focus, ability to concentrate, and
memory, and led to her feeling overwhelmed and exacerbated her medical condition.
ROI at 630-34, 1704, 1956, and 2167-69. As a continued form of interim reasonable
accommodation, Complainant’s duties were lightened that same day. Her Suicide
Prevention and Critical Response Team duties were reassigned based on her claim
that these duties caused distress. On February 23, 2024, three coworkers were moved
farther away from Complainant’s workspace since she claimed to be adversely
affected by noise and crowding. Complainant’s training schedule was also amended
to provide some stand-off distance from a supervisor she claimed caused distress.
ROI at 859, 1723, 2361, 2366, 2409, 2437-38, 2449-52, 2626-27, 2645-46, 2666-
69, 2673, 2679-87, 2706-07, 2718-20, 2866-70, 3903-05, and 4730-38.
On February 22, 2024, the Agency sent Complainant’s Reasonable Accommodation
Request Form 4, requesting supplemental medical documentation. ROI at 574, 1958,
1983, and 2170. Afterward, among a number of email communications, there were
two 	facilitated 	interactive 	meetings 	with 	Complainant 	concerning 	her
accommodation requests. This culminated in a decision dated June 26, 2024,
whereby Complainant was offered the accommodation of last resort, reassignment.
However, Complainant rejected this accommodation. ROI at 621-24, 1959-60,
1967-72, 1976-82, 2172-78, 2056-58, 2360-74, 3621-35, 3664, 3727, 3735, 3745,
3922-24, 4533, 4539-48, and 4733. Supervision completed Form 6, Record of the
Interactive Process, that same day, indicating Complainant requested reassignment,
that her supervisory chain be changed, and that she continue on a full-time telework
status. 	The 	conclusion 	from 	supervision 	was 	that 	reassignment 	within 	the
organization was not possible based on nonexistence of vacancies, that restructuring
the current unit to change supervisors was not possible, and that full-time telework
had so far proven ineffective in addressing Complainant’s condition, performance,
job satisfaction, or behavior. ROI at 1957, 1967-72, and 2172-76.
Also on June 26, 2024, Supervisor 2 prepared Reasonable Accommodation Request
(RAR) 	Form 	7, 	Decision 	on 	Request 	for 	Reasonable 	Accommodation. 	He
determined that the appropriate response was the accommodation of last resort; i.e.
reassignment 	to 	a 	vacant, 	funded 	position 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	which
Complainant could perform with or without accommodation. Supervisor 2 asserted
that Complainant had been granted her requested interim accommodations, adding
his reasoning concerning the requests for reassignment/transfer, the change in
supervisory chain of command, and full-time telework and addressed new requests
presented by Complainant concerning the return of one hundred percent of her

18 	2026000064
duties, to be realigned in accordance with her Core Personnel Document to report
directly to Supervisor 2 or to the Resiliency Operations Branch, or to be reassigned
to either of two positions in the Resiliency Operations Branch. Management agreed
to provide Complainant with a written performance plan and to return all of her
duties contingent on her medical provider's clearance that she was able to do so. The
requested realignment was not possible because the reporting relationship in the old
Core Personnel Document was not the official determination of that relationship,
was inconsistent with the applicable manning document, and had been changed.
Finally, one of the two positions Complainant identified had been posted in
USAJOBS and a Certificate of Eligibles had been issued. Complainant was not on
the certificate and the Branch Chief who controlled the job would not agree to a non-
competitive placement due to the difference in skills required for the two positions.
ROI at 1959-60, 1976-82, 2177-84, 3737, and 4539-48.
After issuance of the June 26, 2024, decision, Complainant asked again for her
original requests and provided additional medical information which appeared to
return Complainant back to full duty. Agency supervisors referred the information
to Occupational Medicine Readiness Squadron for review of Complainant’s work
status, which culminated in an opinion issued August 15, 2024, stating that
Complainant could perform her duties provided that she be granted her reasonable
accommodation requests. Complainant again submitted information to attempt to
clarify her work status on September 14th; however, on September 27, 2024, Agency
supervision decided to close the process and confirm the decision provided in June
of 2024, since there was no indication that Complainant’s status would change
absent her requests to change the supervisory chain.
On March 14, 2024, Supervisor 3 initiated an internal inquiry in response to
Complainant's 	concerns 	about 	Supervisor 	1 	and 	Supervisor 	2. 	In 	particular,
allegations of abuse of authority, failure to treat individuals with respect and dignity,
and toxic leadership. On April 17, 2024, the investigating officer submitted his 500-
page report, which was transmitted to Complainant on April 29, 2024. Supervisor 3
concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations. ROI at 3975-83 and
4027-527.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, or a final
decision from the Agency.

19 	2026000064
After Complainant requested a decision, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency concluded that Complainant did not prove
that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed
the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, reiterates her allegations, citing to a
comment from a supervisor regarding her “fit” in the workplace. She also reiterates
her argument that the Agency’s not responding to her reasonable accommodation in
her desired manner evidenced intent to discriminate. Complainant also identifies
management officials who were younger than her as harassment perpetrators; and
alleges that a “litany” of adverse actions that she did not identify occurred due to her
protected bases. We will address Complainant’s arguments below.
The Agency, in pertinent part, argued that its final decision should be affirmed.
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 (EEO MD-110), at 9-16 (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 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”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at
804 n.13. 	The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).

20 	2026000064
To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination. 	Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of an individual with a disability unless the agency can show
that accommodation would cause undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o) and (p).
In order to establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant
must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined by 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(g); (2) she is “qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the
Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement
Guidance 	on 	Reasonable 	Accommodation 	and 	Undue 	Hardship 	Under 	the
Americans 	with 	Disabilities 	Act 	(Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable
Accommodation), No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002).
The term “qualified,” with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the
individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related
requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with
or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such
position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).
Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation of an employee’s
disability, the employer may engage in an interactive process with the employee to
identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(o)(3) (2019). An Agency may choose among reasonable accommodations as
long as the chosen accommodation is effective, and while the preference of the
individual with a disability should be given primary consideration, an Agency has
the 	ultimate 	discretion 	to 	choose 	between 	effective 	accommodations. 	See
Enforcement Guidance, supra, at Q. 9.
Here, we find that Complainant is an individual with disability who was not qualified
to 	perform 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	her 	position. 	The 	record 	reflects 	that
Complainant had mental health conditions, including PTSD and anxiety. The
medical documentation she provided also described the impact of those conditions
on Complainant’s ability to perform her job, showing that she was unable to perform
the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation.

21 	2026000064
Management 	was 	aware 	of 	Complainant’s 	disability 	because 	she 	requested
reasonable 	accommodations, 	including 	full-time 	telework 	and 	a 	modified
supervisory chain. The Agency engaged in an ongoing interactive process with
Complainant between December 8, 2023, and October 8, 2024. ROI at 1885-1955.
While exploring her request, management provided Complainant with interim
accommodations that she specifically requested, including the restoration of her
compressed work schedule, full-time telework since February 28, 2024, and the
reassignment of job duties associated with "traumatic incidences" which she claimed
caused her distress. The Agency subsequently observed that even with the interim
accommodation provided, Complainant could no longer perform the essential
functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the
Agency offered Complainant her chosen alternative, reassignment to a vacant
funded position as an accommodation of last resort.
As such, we find that the Agency did accommodate Complainant, but the provided
accommodations were ineffective. Moreover, modifying Complainant’s supervisory
chain so that she would not be triggered by the number of management officials she
identified is not a reasonable accommodation. Importantly, Complainant remained
employed in her position and was assigned to various limited duties pending
reassignment.
We also note that the Agency tried but could not identify any funded vacancies for
which Complainant qualified as none was available before Complainant left the
Agency. Nor was the Agency required to create such vacancies or bump other
employees from their positions in order to reassign or accommodate Complainant.
The record is also devoid of any evidence that Complainant identified any vacancies
to which she could have been reassigned, contrary to her allegation that she could
have been reassigned to a GS-12 or a GS-13 position as no other organizational unit
had GS-0101-13 positions.
To the extent that Complainant is alleging harassment, a finding of a hostile work
environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant did not establish
that the incidents alleged as failure to accommodate occurred due to discrimination
or retaliation based on her race, age, disability or any prior protected activity.

22 	2026000064
We also note that Complainant’s remaining claims involve harassment allegations.
As the Agency observed, there were four separate acceptance letters for the instant
complaint. Letter 1 was issued on May 31, 2024, accepting 56 alleged incidents;
Letter 2 was issued on July 15, 2024, accepting 27 incidents; Letter 3 was issued on
July 30, 2024, accepting 9 incidents; and Letter 4 was issued on December 18, 2024,
accepting 10 incidents. However, we find that many of the alleged incidents did not
occur. As to those that occurred, we find that while Complainant may have
considered the management conduct described to be unwelcome, those incidents
alleged were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment.
Nor was any of the alleged conduct based on Complainant’s race, age, disability, or
EEO activity.
For example, Complainant did not provide evidence of any derogatory, racist or
ageist comment attributable to any of the identified management officials in the
instant complaint. Complainant’s appeal statement allegation that Supervisor 1
commented 	about 	her 	“fit” 	in 	the 	workplace 	is 	no 	such 	evidence 	as 	it 	is
uncorroborated by the record; and even if it was, that one-time singe incident would
be insufficient to sustain a harassment claim on any basis. Moreover, Complainant
did not dispute that contrary to her allegations, management did investigate her
harassment allegations, but the claims could not be substantiated
Therefore, based on our review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, 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.

23 	2026000064
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).
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.

24 	2026000064
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. 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 __________s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 30, 2026
Date