EEOC Appeal 2025003668

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Sharon G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Adam Telle,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army
(National Guard Bureau),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003668
Hearing No. 531-2022-00237X
Agency No. 4-2021-MD-TT
DECISION
On July 22, 2025, 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 17, 2025, 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., 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 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.

2025003668	2
At the time of events, giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human
Resources Specialist, GS-09-04, with the Agency’s Recruitment and Retention
Battalion, Camp Fretterd, located in Reisterstown, Maryland. On December 23,
2021, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her
to discrimination and harassment based on sex (pregnancy), disability (mental), and
age (42) with respect to reprimands, time and attendance matters, requests for
situational telework, assignments, and working conditions.
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 held a hearing on March 3-5, 2025, and issued a decision on May 19, 2025. The
Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we find substantial evidence establishes that
the alleged incidents, even assuming they occurred as described by Complainant,
were more likely the result of routine supervision, personality conflicts, and general
workplace disputes and tribulations and are therefore insufficiently severe or
pervasive to establish a discriminatory hostile work environment. Furthermore, the
record is devoid of evidence beyond Complainant’s mere speculation and suspicion
that the alleged conduct was based on discriminatory animus. We also find that
Complainant failed to establish that the explanations for the employment actions at
issue herein2 were a pretext for discrimination.
In addition, the undisputed record shows that the Agency provided Complainant with
an effective accommodation once she provided documentation by her medical
provider.3 The Agency was not obligated to provide Complainant more telework
than was medically necessary.
2 For example, the record indicates that Complainant was issued reprimands because
she acted in a discourteous and unprofessional manner and lost her composure in the
workplace on multiple occasions, was found sleeping on duty and had unexcused
incidents of tardiness.
3 On 	August 	31, 	2021, 	Complainant 	returned 	with 	medical 	documentation
recommending two to five days of telework. Accordingly, the Agency settled on
allowing Complainant to telework three days per week.

2025003668	3
The Agency presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for rejecting
additional teleworking (i.e., Complainant’s history of performance issues and the
needs of the office).
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, including the
arguments on appeal, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the AJ’s determination that Complainant did not establish that she was
discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. 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. 	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.

2025003668	4
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. 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.

2025003668	5
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 24, 2026
Date