EEOC Appeal 2025001293

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Dion H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Kelly Loeffler,
Administrator,
Small Business Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025001293
Agency No. 24-003
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
final decision 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. 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 finding
no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Loan
Specialist, GS-1165-11/5 at the Agency’s Office of Capital Access, COVID EIDL
Servicing Center (CESC) facility in Fort Worth, Texas. 	On December 4, 2023,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against
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.

2025001293	2
him on the bases of race (African American), sex (male), age (born in 1973), and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On September 9, 2023, Complainant was terminated.
2. 	From September 9, 2022 through September 9, 2023, due to his status
as a temporary appointment Complainant did not receive within-grade
increases, and he was not eligible for overtime pay.
3. 	On January 23, 2023, Complainant was not selected for a Lead Loan
Specialist position within CESC.
4. 	On or around March 23, 2023, Complainant was not selected for a Lead
Loan Specialist position.
5. 	On or around May 6 or 7, 2023, Management delayed processing
Complainant’s leave request until June 12, 2023.
6. 	On May 22, 2023, Complainant was officially realigned from the
Processing Disbursement Center (PDC) to the CESC and his duties
were changed.
7. 	On August 1, 2023, Complainant’s doctor's note was not processed.
8. 	On September 9, 2022, Complainant was placed on a Not to Exceed
(NTE) one-year, Temporary (Temp) appointment.
9. 	On September 9, 2022, Complainant was assigned to the CESC but
remained stationed at the PDC until May 22. 2023.
10. 	In April 2020, Complainant was stripped of his term seasonal status
appointment.2
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. 	In accordance with Complainant’s request, the
Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision
2 The Agency dismissed Claims 2 – 10 as not timely raised with an EEO Counselor.
The Agency, however, analyzed Claims 2 - 10 under Complainant’s claim of hostile
work environment. Complainant did not appeal the Agency’s decision dismissing
Claims 2 - 10. We exercise our discretion to review only those issues specifically
raised in an appeal and will not address claims 2 – 10, apart from considering them
in the hostile work environment claim. See EEOC Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614, (MD-110), Chap. 9, § IV.A. (Aug. 5, 2015).

2025001293	3
concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Having reviewed the record, we find that Complainant cannot prevail on the merits
of his complaint, as the evidence of record supports the Agency’s finding that
Complainant failed to establish that his protected classes were the reason for the
alleged conduct and/or actions.
Regarding Claim 1, Senior Supervisory Loan Specialist (SSLS), Complainant’s
third-line supervisor stated that Complainant was not terminated. Complainant’s
NTE one-year temporary appointment was to expire on September 9, 2023. He
explained that Complainant was approved eight weeks of annual and sick leave,
which covered the period from June 7, 2023, through September 8, 2023. On or
about August 1, 2023, Complainant requested an additional eight weeks annual/sick
leave and non-pay leave for any uncovered period and provided a doctor’s note to
justify his request. The additional leave request was also approved. SSLS stated that
in August 2023, the CESC leadership began to work on the extension/renew of the
NTE temporary 400 contracts that were to expire on September 9, 2023. On or about
August 29, 2023, Complainant was notified that his temporary employment would
expire on September 9, 2023, with last day of work being Friday, September 8, 2023.
SSLS denied that these actions were motivated by Complainant's protected bases.
The record does not 	show, and Complainant did not provide evidence that
Complainant contacted the Agency 	when 	he was notified of the impending
expiration of his contract.
Regarding harassment, Claims 3 and 4, SSLS explained that the leadership decided
to hire in the lead positions only individuals that had been working in the CECS
division. Complainant was not working in the CECS division at that time.
Further, SSLS explained that in 2020 his PDC’s team rehired Complainant in a NTE
temp appointment after having been placed in a non-pay status in 2019 due to lack
of work. SSLS also explained that Term Seasonal was a type of appointment they
used 	before 	but 	were 	not 	authorized 	to 	use 	anymore. 	All 	Term 	Seasonal
appointments expired in 2020. Individuals under the previous Term Seasonal
appointment 	were 	converted 	to 	NTE-Temp 	as 	per 	the 	Office 	of 	Personnel
Management (OPM)’s instructions. We find that Complainant failed to persuasively
show that any of the actions alleged were motivated by any of his protected classes,
including reprisal.

2025001293	4
Finally, to the extent that Complainant is alleging that he was subjected to a hostile
environment, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems,
Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant's claim of a hostile work environment
must fail. A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination
that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were
motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
Accordingly, 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. 	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

2025001293	5
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. Such requests do not alter the

2025001293	6
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 28, 2026
Date