EEOC Appeal 2026002683

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Rachael F.,1
Complainant,
v.
Hung Cao,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002683
Agency No. 24-68778-01451
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
May 21, 2026 final decision 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. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Supervisory Industrial Enterprise Manager/Supervisory Management Specialist,
GS-0343-13, at the Agency’s Naval Air Systems Command, Fleet Readiness Center
(COMFRC), Aviation Support Equipment in Patuxent River, Maryland.
On November 29, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases
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.

2026002683	2
of race (African American), sex (female), color (Black), and in reprisal for protected
EEO activity when:
1. 	In or about April 2024, Complainant discovered her rating had been
reduced;
2. 	On or around May 3, 2024, Complainant spoke to her second-line
supervisor, the Director, regarding the lower rating on one of her
objectives and learned he was the official who lowered this rating; the
Director reasoned that Complainant did not hold all of her subordinates
to the same standard;
3. 	On or around August 8, 2024, Complainant emailed her third-line
supervisor, the Executive Director, informing her of the harassment by
the 	Director, 	but 	Executive 	Director 	did 	nothing 	to 	address
Complainant’s concerns;
4. 	In or about August 2024, during a meeting, Executive Director again
failed 	to 	address 	Complainant’s 	concerns; 	Executive 	Director
mentioned that Complainant may be realigned to a different position;
5. 	The Director listed Complainant’s subordinates as his out-of-office
contact when he was on leave instead of listing her; and
6. 	In or about April 2023, Complainant was made aware that during a site
visit the Director attended, he made negative comments regarding her.2
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). 	In accordance with Complainant’s request,
the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	In the
decision, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that she was
subjected to discrimination or reprisal. The instant appeal followed.
2 The Agency dismissed claim 6 as an untimely raised discrete act. Complainant did
not challenge the Agency’s dismissal on appeal. The Commission has the discretion
to review only those issues specifically raised in an appeal. See Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at
Chapter 9, § VI.A.3 (Aug. 5, 2015). Accordingly, we will not address this claim on
appeal; however, we will consider it as background evidence in support of
Complainant’s hostile work environment claim.

2026002683	3
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant maintains that an August 1, 2024, management inquiry
substantiated the existence of a toxic and harassing work environment. She also
argues that 	the Agency improperly characterized her allegations 	as ordinary
workplace disagreements, disrespect, and personality conflicts and improperly
discounted circumstantial evidence of racial tension. Complainant further contends
that 	inconsistencies 	concerning 	her 	performance 	ratings 	demonstrate 	pretext;
management knew of protected activity beyond her formal EEO complaints; the
Agency failed to apply the broader standard applicable to retaliation; and the
explanation for removing or realigning her from the organization was pretextual.
Finally, Complainant asserts that the Agency failed to consider the cumulative effect
of management’s treatment.
In response, the Agency requests that the Commission affirm its final decision. The
Agency argues that the August 1, 2024, inquiry concerned friction between
government employees and contractors and identified Complainant and other
government personnel as contributing to the toxic environment. The Agency asserts
that the inquiry did not find that Complainant was subjected to harassment based on
protected classes.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency's 	decision 	is 	subject 	to 	de 	novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 	See Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015)
(explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission
examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and
testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties,
and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record
and its interpretation of the law”).

2026002683	4
ANALYSIS
Disparate Treatment
Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to establish that the
Agency’s actions were based on her protected classes. Moreover, we find that the
Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions.
Regarding the performance ratings (claims 1 and 2), Complainant’s first-level
supervisor, the Deputy Director, initially proposed two Outstanding ratings and one
Fully Successful rating. As the higher-level reviewer, the Director questioned the
proposed Outstanding ratings based on concerns regarding employee accountability,
award recommendations, and employee development. Following further discussion,
management revised the appraisal, and the record contains a final version reflecting
two Outstanding ratings and one Fully Successful rating. These contemporaneous
communications support the Agency’s explanation that the ratings resulted from a
performance-calibration process rather than discriminatory animus.
Regarding the potential restructuring (claim 4), the Executive Director explained
that COMFRC developed a strategic restructuring plan to address more than 50
priority-position 	requirements 	by 	realigning 	personnel 	from 	lower-priority 	or
overlapping positions. Management believed Complainant’s experience could be
better utilized elsewhere and informed her as such.
Although 	Complainant 	disagrees 	with 	management’s 	actions 	and 	decisions,
disagreement with management’s judgment does not establish discrimination. The
record 	contains 	insufficient 	evidence 	demonstrating 	that 	similarly 	situated
employees outside Complainant’s protected classes were treated more favorably
under comparable circumstances. Nor does the record establish that the Agency's
stated reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination or reprisal.
Hostile Work Environment
To prove harassment, a complainant must show that the conduct at issue was based
on a protected characteristic and was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Harris v.
Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).

2026002683	5
Regarding retaliatory harassment, Complainant only needs to show that such actions
are the type of action that would dissuade a reasonable employee from making or
supporting a charge of discrimination. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
White, 548 U. S. 53 (2006); see also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation
and Related Issues, No. 915.004 (Aug. 25, 2016); Carroll v. Dep’t of the Army,
EEOC Request No. 05970939 (Apr. 4, 2000).
Regarding her allegations of harassment (claim 3), after receiving Complainant’s
August 8, 2024 email, the Executive Director referred the matter to the Deputy EEO
Officer. After Complainant submitted an August 14, 2024, allegation regarding
harassment 	and 	racism, 	the 	Deputy 	Commander 	appointed 	an 	independent
investigator, who found Complainant’s allegations unsubstantiated. Although the
record does not clearly document the Deputy EEO Officer’s follow-up, the record
does not support Complainant’s allegation that the Executive Director ignored her
concerns or responded differently because of a protected basis.
We acknowledge Complainant’s appellate reliance on the separate management
inquiry completed on August 1, 2024. That inquiry, which began on June 3, 2024,
addressed workplace unprofessionalism, contractor oversight, blurred lines of
authority, and strained relations between government employees and contractors.
Although it found that the workplace was toxic and dysfunctional, it did not find that
Complainant was subjected to harassment because of a protected characteristic.
Notably, it identified Complainant and other government employees as participants
in the conduct contributing to the workplace dysfunction.
Regarding claim 5, the Director explained that the employees identified in the out-
of-office message were selected based on the operational functions they performed.
The record reflects a series of workplace disagreements, interpersonal conflicts, and
dissatisfaction 	with 	management 	decisions. 	However, 	the 	evidence 	does 	not
establish that the incidents occurred because of Complainant's race, color, sex, or
prior EEO activity. Moreover, even considered collectively, the incidents are not
sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment under the federal
EEO statutes. The Commission has long held that ordinary workplace disputes,
personality conflicts, and management actions, absent discriminatory animus, do not
constitute a hostile work environment.

2026002683	6
Lastly, considering the incidents individually or collectively, Complainant has not
established that the Agency subjected her to conduct that would dissuade a
reasonable employee from engaging in protected EEO activity because she engaged
in such activity.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, 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).

2026002683	7
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. 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.

2026002683	8
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
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 __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 17, 2026
Date