EEOC Appeal 2026002565

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Martina S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002565
Hearing No. 830-2026-01076X
Agency No. 200I-509-2025-162483
DECISION
On May 12, 2026, 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 April 21, 2026, 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
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 	2026002565
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Psychiatrist 	at the Agency’s
Charlie Norwood Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Augusta,
Georgia.
On March 16, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of disability (mental) and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On December 4, 2024, Chief, Mental Health Service (CMHS), included
“in person call/in person rounds” as criteria in Complainant’s Pay for
Performance evaluation despite being aware of Complainant’s Reasonable
Accommodation which prohibits her from being on call or performing in-
person rounds;
2. 	On December 10, 2024, CMHS sent Complainant an email accusing her
of unprofessional communication;
3. 	On April 11, 2025, CMHS sent Complainant a Return to Office (RTO)
Memo;
4. 	On July 30, 2025, CMHS denied Complainant’s attendance at a training
event/conference;
5. 	As of August 2, 2025, CMHS has put in place processes and procedures
that are outside of Complainant’s control and have adversely affected her
utilization, which will prevent Complainant from receiving her full Pay for
Performance for FY26.
After an 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 (AJ). 	Complainant
timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her request. 	Consequently,
the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision
concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged. More specifically, the Agency found that Complainant’s
claims

3 	2026002565
The instant appeal followed.
Disparate Treatment - Claims 1, 3, and 4
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-party analysis first
enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For
complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination
by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of
discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse
employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction
Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to
articulate 	a 	legitimate, 	nondiscriminatory 	reason 	for 	its 	actions. 	See 	Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the
agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to
persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on
the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502
(1993).
The Agency properly found no discrimination regarding these claims. 	Even
assuming arguendo Complainant raised a prima facie case, legitimate and non-
discriminatory reasons were provided, which Complainant did not show were
pretextual.
Regarding Claim 1, the Pay for Performance form is a standard Agency form, and
Complainant did not explain who the mere inclusion of items listed on the standard
form prevented her from receiving full performance pay. Regarding claim 3, a return
to office memo was issued to all employees. 	Nevertheless, Complainant received
an email notifying her that she was not required to return to the office and her
reasonable accommodation remained unaffected. Regarding claim 4, attendance at
the training was denied because of multiple workplace concerns and Complainant’s
failure to secure required supervisory approval
Because the Agency properly determined that there was no discrimination for these
three disparate treatment claims, we will dispense with a discussion of them in the
context of a harassment claim, reflected in claims 2 and 5, which are discussed
below.

4 	2026002565
Harassment - Claims 2 and 5
To establish a prima facie case of harassment, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the existence of five elements: (1) that she is a
member of a statutorily protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome
conduct related to her protected class; (3) that the harassment complained of was
based on her protected class; (4) that the harassment had the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) that there is a basis for imputing
liability to the employer. See Celine B. v. Dep’t of Navy, EEOC Appeal No.
2019001961 (Sept. 21, 2020); Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). See also Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th
Cir. 1982), approved in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66-67
(1986); see generally Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,
EEOC Notice No. 915.064 (April 29, 2024).; Flowers v. Southern Reg’l Physician
Serv. Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated
from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances.
Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, EEOC Notice No. 915.064
(April 29, 2024).
CMHS was Complainant’s second-level supervisor (S2) (no prior EEO activity), and
the Outpatient Medical Director was Complainant’s first-level supervisor (S1). On
December 10, 2024, in response to that day’s email from Complainant where she
repeatedly refused to sign the performance for pay, S2 responded in part that “[n]o
employee has the right to expose their colleagues to the unsubstantiated allegations,
inaccurate assumptions and unprofessional communication as you have chosen to
do.” Report of Investigation (ROI) at 125, 126.
Complainant stated that, as of August 2, 2025, S2 implemented procedures that
adversely impacted Complainant’s utilization, which would prevent her from
receiving her full Pay for Performance Fiscal Year (FY) 2026. ROI at 141.
Complainant first learned of these changes in February or March of 2025. Id. at 143.
Complainant stated that the changes affected her utilization drastically in decreasing
her new patient intakes by 40 per month. Id. S2 denied any implementation of new
processes. Id. at 177. S2 stated that Complainant was reminded to following existing
procedures that had been in place since Spring 2025. Id.

5 	2026002565
Regarding claim 2, a fair reading of the email correspondence demonstrates that,
while Complainant may have felt that S2’s response was unfair or unwarranted, anti-
discrimination law are not a “general civility code” that guarantees a pleasant
working environment. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. Inc., 523 U.S. 75,
80 (1998). Finally, regarding claim 5, taking the matter in a light most favorable to
Complainant and the totality of the evidence, it does not support a claim of
discrimination.
We AFFIRM the Agency’s finding of no discrimination for all the subject claims for
the reasons discussed above.
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.

6 	2026002565
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
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.

7 	2026002565
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 	Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date