EEOC Appeal 2025003665

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Zola R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003665
Hearing No. 480-2023-00075X
Agency No. 200P-501-2022-144041
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 23, 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. 	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.

2025003665	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Nurse
III, Step 14 (Nurse Manager), at the Agency’s VA Health Care System in
Albuquerque, 	New 	Mexico. 	On 	May 	4, 	2022, 	Complainant 	filed 	an 	EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a
hostile work environment on the bases of disability (Physical), age (61), and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On or about November 2021, Complainant asked her supervisor (S1)
if she could cover admissions in the hospital, and in response, S1 said
she would see and stated “what I am allowed to do” or words to that
effect;
2. 	On or about November 5, 2021, Complainant discovered she was not
considered for the Deputy Chief of Staff, Geriatrics and Extended
Care position when she saw a new organization chart2;
3. 	On January 28, 2022, Complainant was not selected for the position of
Chief Nurse, Geriatrics and Extended Care, Job Announcement No.
CBSX-11291709-22-JS;
4. 	On an ongoing basis since July 2022, S1 treated her in a dismissive
manner, devalued her abilities and contributions, and sought to force
her out of her position:
a. 	In August 2022, S1 wrote up Complainant for doing her Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) paperwork;
b. In August 2022, S1 pushed against support for Complainant’s
Ph.D., and allowing her flexible leave, and
c. 	In 	January 	2023, 	S1 	sent 	Complainant 	a 	threatening 	email
reminding Complainant that she has disciplinary authority over
her;
5. 	Since 	July 	2022, 	Complainant 	was 	excluded 	from 	conversations
regarding information impacting her position and duties, and was
undermined and isolated in the workplace when:
a. 	On or about April 28, 2023, Complainant’s position and her office
were moved under Connected Care, and
2 This claim was withdrawn as a discrete act but considered as background
evidence.

2025003665	3
b. On or about May 5, 2023, Complainant’s subordinate was removed
from under her;
6. 	On March 14, 2023, Complainant was issued a Proposed Reprimand;
7. 	On April 14, 2023, Complainant was issued an Admonishment; and
8. 	On May 5, 2023, Complainant was denied the ability to be Acting
Supervisor of Connected Care, and her subordinate was given the
opportunity.
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 requested a hearing.
The AJ held a hearing and issued a decision finding that Complainant was not
subjected to discrimination or reprisal. 	The Agency subsequently issued a final
order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. This appeal followed.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will
be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence
is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” 	Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding
whether discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. 	See Pullman-Standard
Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to
a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the
tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective
evidence so contradicts the testimony, or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a
reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110,
Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).
In 	this 	case, 	the 	AJ’s 	decision 	is 	supported 	by 	both 	fact 	and 	credibility
determinations. The Commission finds that substantial record evidence supports
the AJ's determination that Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to
conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
Furthermore, the Commission finds that substantial record evidence supports that
Complainant failed to show that the alleged conduct was based on discriminatory
or retaliatory animus.

2025003665	4
For example, regarding her non-selection, the record showed that Complainant
scored almost 50 points lower than the selectee after the resume review and
interview. In addition, Complainant was issued discipline because S1 believed that
Complainant was not managing her program properly and failed in her supervisory
duties. 	Further, there was a nationwide restructuring which led to Complainant’s
position being moved under the Office of Connected Care. Complainant was also
moved under a new supervisor based on several reasons including her own request
for a change in supervision. The supervisor felt Complainant had failed in her
supervisory 	duties 	which 	required 	disciplinary 	action. 	Finally, 	management
officials and the Office of Human Resources had reservations about Complainant
supervising 	more 	people 	because 	she 	had 	pending 	discipline. 	As 	a 	result,
management placed the Assistant Nurse Manager in the position temporarily until
a formal detail assignment could be filled.
Moreover, Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the
Agency's explanation for its actions was pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the AJ's finding that
Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work
environment as alleged.
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.

2025003665	5
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.

2025003665	6
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
thetime 	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 17, 2026
Date