EEOC Appeal 2025003476

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Nannette T.,1
Complainant,
v.
Adam Telle,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003476
Agency No. ARPINE23AUG2980
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 30, 2025, 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 was employed by
the Agency as a Security Specialist, GS-6, at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine Bluff,
Arkansas.
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.

2025003476	2
On May 19, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination based on sex (female) and in reprisal for engaging
prior protected EEO activity when management on June 26, 2023, and July 7,
2023, questioned whether she was wearing an undershirt and visually inspected her
undershirt and uniform; and on August 14, 2023, terminated her probationary
employment.
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, or a final decision from the agency.
Complainant requested a final decision. 	The Agency subsequently issued a final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), concluding that Complainant failed
to prove her allegations of discrimination. Complainant then filed the instant
appeal.
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 (EEO MD-110), at 9-16 (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”).
With 	respect 	to 	claim 	1, we 	find 	that 	the Agency 	articulated 	a 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Specifically, the Directorate of Emergency
Services Investigator (Investigator) observed that Complainant reported for duty in
a uniform that was skintight and appeared to have been altered to achieve such a
fit. According to the Investigator, several guards stated that they did not want
Complainant working on their shift because they believed her uniform was too
tight. During a new-hire in-brief, the Supervisory Security Specialist (Supervisor)
explained that the Agency’s uniform policy prohibited tight-fitting uniforms and
advised that such attire could draw unwanted attention. Consistent with that policy,
the Supervisor inspected Complainant’s uniform to determine whether it complied
with the applicable regulation and concluded that it did not.

2025003476	3
The Supervisor also addressed a separate uniform requirement concerning the T-
shirt worn underneath the uniform. When Complainant began to unbutton her
uniform shirt to demonstrate that she was wearing a V-neck T-shirt, the Supervisor
immediately instructed her to stop and explained that the applicable regulation
required a navy blue or black crew-neck T-shirt. Accordingly, we find that the
record reflects that the Supervisor’s actions were undertaken to determine and
correct Complainant’s noncompliance with established uniform requirements and
not based on any discriminatory reason.
Concerning 	claim 	2, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	Supervisor 	properly 	recommended
Complainant’s 	termination 	during 	her 	probationary 	period 	because, 	despite
completing the prescribed weapons training, she failed to qualify with all assigned
weapons and, therefore, did not satisfy a mandatory condition of employment. The
Commission has long held that where a complainant is a probationary employee,
he or she is subject to retention, advancement, or termination at the discretion of an
agency so long as these decisions are not based on a protected category. Kaftanic
v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01882895 (Dec. 27, 1988) (citing Arnett v.
Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 152 (1974)).
As we find no persuasive evidence of discrimination or harassment, 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.

2025003476	4
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.

2025003476	5
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
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 14, 2026
Date