EEOC Appeal 2025000831

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Carl Y.,1
Complainant,
v.
Todd Blanche,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000831
Hearing No. 560-2024-00051X
Agency No. BOP-2023-00596
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
October 31, 2024, final order concerning his 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 finding no discrimination.
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 	2025000831
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Mechanical Engineer, GS-0830-13 at the Agency’s North Central Regional Office
in Kansas City, Kansas. On May 3, 2023, Complainant filed a complaint alleging
that the Agency discriminated against him based on religion (Christian), disability
(physical), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when
management failed to follow the reasonable accommodation process and delayed his
request for over a year, and he was made to use leave pending approval of his
reasonable accommodation request, forcing him to retire.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. On July 8,
2024, the Agency motioned for a decision without a hearing. Over Complainant’s
objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision by summary
judgment in favor of the Agency finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that although the Agency was slow to process Complainant’s request
for accommodations, it was Complainant who was responsible for the breakdown in
the interactive process because he never provided medical documentation supporting
his purported need for 100% telework. The AJ found no evidence that Complainant
was treated less favorably than any employee outside of his protected classes, nor
any other evidence to support an inference that the Agency acted with discriminatory
animus. Without evidence of discriminatory animus, the AJ found that Complainant
could not support his harassment claims, and further found that Complainant’s
claims did not include actions sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a finding
of a hostile work environment.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to support his request
for 100% telework with medical documentation. Complainant’s initial request for
accommodations made on September 30, 2021, did not describe a medical condition
in this request or attach medical documentation.

3 	2025000831
While Complainant was not required to use “magic words” or specific language in
requesting an accommodation, he was required to establish a nexus between his
requested accommodation and his medical condition. Jackqueline G. v. Social
Security Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2023003279 (Mar. 20, 2025) (citing Struthers
v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40043 (Jun. 29, 2006)). Here, we find
no 	evidence 	that 	Complainant 	established 	a 	nexus 	between 	his 	desired
accommodation of full-time telework and his medical condition.
Furthermore, the record indicates that in-person duties were an essential function of
Complainant’s position. Although these duties were suspended temporarily in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission has held that temporary
suspension of certain duties does not render these duties inessential. See Estefana
M. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2025000637 (Sept. 30, 2025) (citing
Arlette W. v. Dep’t of Vet. Aff’s., EEOC Appeal No. 2022005174 (Oct. 11, 2023)).
Agencies are not required to accommodate employees by eliminating essential
functions of their jobs. See Lynette B. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.
2019003392 (Aug. 25, 2022), req’ for recons. den., EEOC Request No. 2022005179
(Feb. 22, 2023).
Regarding Complainant’s claim of constructive discharge, we agree with the AJ that
the evidence in the record does not support this claim. Given that Complainant failed
to establish that his request for 100% telework was medically necessary, we find that
the Agency’s requirement for 20% in-person work was not a condition that a
reasonable employee would consider intolerable, providing no choice but to retire.
Regarding harassment, we affirm the AJ’s finding that Complainant’s allegations
were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a finding of actionable
harassment. 	Furthermore, 	Complainant’s 	failure 	to 	prove 	that 	the 	incidents
discussed above were motivated by discrimination or retaliation precludes a finding
of discriminatory harassment regarding these claims. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
We AFFIRM the Agency’s decision finding no discrimination.

4 	2025000831
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. 	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.

5 	2025000831
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.

6 	2025000831
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 __________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 15, 2026
Date