EEOC Appeal 2025003624

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hortencia R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Department of War Education Activity),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003624
Hearing No. 480-2025-00112X
Agency No. PE-FY24-021
DECISION
On July 8, 2025, 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 12, 2025, final order 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 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.
2 Pursuant to Executive Order 14347, Restoring the United States Department of
War, issued on Sept. 5, 2025, the Department of Defense is to be known as the
Department of War. Any references in the record or decision to the Department of
Defense should be read interchangeably as the Department of War.

2025003624	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Principal, TO-1701-KE at the Ryukyu Middle School (“RYMS”), in Okinawa,
Japan. On March 19, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African American), national
origin (African American), and reprisal (instant complaint)3 when:
1. 	On 	October 	26, 	2023, 	the 	Pacific 	South 	District 	Superintendent
(Superintendent) 	denied 	Complainant’s 	October 	19, 	2023, 	leave
request, charged her with absence without leave (AWOL), and would
not discuss the issue with Complainant;
2. 	On January 2 – 4, 2024, Complainant served a three-day suspension
when on November 24, 2023, the DoDEA Pacific Director issued
Complainant the decision to sustain a proposed three-day suspension
she had received on November 1, 2023, from the Superintendent;
3. 	On 	April 	3, 	2024, 	and 	April 	30, 	2024, 	Superintendent 	issued
Complainant Letters of Instruction (LOI)4;
4. 	On May 2, 2024, Superintendent issued Complainant a proposed 10-
day suspension which was upheld by the DoDEA Pacific Director on
May 21, 2024, and set to be served from June 8-18, 2024;
5. 	Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment:
a. 	Since 	August 	2022, 	Superintendent 	did 	not 	provide
Complainant with professional support or feedback;
b. On 	February 	28, 	2024, 	the 	Superintendent 	issued
Complainant a “plan for improvement” (PI);
c. 	On April 3, 2024, and April 30, 2024, the Superintendent
issued Complainant LOIs;
d. On 	May 2, 2024, Superintendent 	issued 	Complainant 	a
proposed 	10-day 	suspension 	which 	was 	upheld 	by 	the
DoDEA Pacific Director on May 21, 2024, and set to be
served from June 8-18, 2024; and
e. 	On 	May 	31, 	2024, 	during 	Complainant’s 	end-of-year
conference, Superintendent made inaccurate comments and
3 Complainant amended her complaint to add Claims 3-5, which included the basis
of reprisal.
4 LOI informed Complainant of specific tasks related to her performance elements
that needed to be completed by the suspense dates specified in the letter.

2025003624	3
told Complainant she would be charged for abusing sick leave
while attending a Sorority Conference May 22 – 24, 2024.
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. 	Over
Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s April 9,
2025 motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing
on May 19, 2025. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s
finding 	that 	Complainant 	failed 	to 	prove 	that 	the 	Agency 	subjected 	her 	to
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Upon careful review, we find that Complainant cannot establish a prima facie case
of discrimination because the record does not include evidence on which a
reasonable factfinder could find that the alleged conduct occurred because of
Complainant’s protected classes. Complainant only offers broad allegations that she
was discriminated against because of her protected bases without any details or
supporting evidence. Her bare assertions are insufficient to prove that the alleged
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus.
We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the
alleged actions, and Complainant failed to establish that those reasons were a mere
pretext for discrimination. Regarding Claim 1, Superintendent stated that initially
Complainant’s leave request was denied and she was charged AWOL because she
failed to follow DoDEA Regulation 5630.4 - Absence and Leave, by not sending the
leave request in writing at least three workdays prior to her scheduled appointment,
despite being previously counseled over the same issue. Nevertheless, the AWOL
was never put into effect or was rescinded. Complainant asserted that Supervisee 1
and Supervisee 2, who are outside of her protected classes were treated more
favorably, with respect to the use of leave. However, we find that the individuals
identified by Complainant were not similarly situated. Besides both employees being
supervised by Complainant, their leave issues were completely different than
Complainant’s situation. One situation involved union business leave and the other
situation involved Complainant not being present to “check out” the employee from
work that day.
Regarding Claim 2, Superintendent stated that she issued Complainant a 3-day
suspension because she failed to hire timely for vacant positions (Guidance

2025003624	4
Counselor, Speech-Language Pathologist, and General Science Teacher) at the
RYMS, failed to follow leave procedures, and for unexcused absences. Complainant
asserted that Principal 1 and Principal 2, who are White, were treated more
favorably. However, the record does not show, and Complainant did not provide
evidence, that Principal 1 and Principal 2 had similar performance deficiencies
and/or under similarly circumstances they were treated more favorably.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5 (c), Superintendent stated that the first LOI was issued on
April 3, 2024, in lieu of the PI (Claim 5(b) – the PI was rescinded), to address nine
issues brought about by a January 2024 climate survey, in which parents, teachers,
and students participated. The second LOI gave Complainant a second chance to
complete the seven of the nine instructions that she failed to adequately address in
response to the first LOI. The second LOI granted Complainant until May 10, 2024,
to complete the outstanding tasks. Complainant asserted that Principal 1, Principal 2
and Principal 3 were treated more favorably. However, the record does not show,
and Complainant did not offer evidence that Principal 1, Principal 2 and/or Principal
3 had similar performance deficiencies and/or that the outcome of the climate survey
in their particular schools showed similar results, but they were treated more
favorably.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5(d), Superintendent stated that the 10-day suspension was
proposed because Complainant failed to follow instructions on seven instances.
Specifically, Complainant failed to work with her team to review all Special
Education (SpEd) service minutes by April 12, 2024; develop a plan by April 19,
2024, to make sure all SpEd service minutes had been met; develop a schedule for
the paraprofessionals with her SpEd team; enlist assistance from the District Force
Protection Office to conduct a safety inspection for the purpose of exiting the
building safely; and work with her Center for Instructional Leadership coach to gain
insight and develop a plan for changing the culture of the school. The Agency stated
that on May 21, 2024, the proposed suspension was sustained, and Complainant
served the suspension from June 9 to 18, 2024. Complainant asserted that the fact
that there are no disciplinary actions imposed on her White counterparts shows
Superintendent’s desire to retaliate, remove her, and damage her record. However,
the record does not support this assertion, and Complainant did not offer evidence
of other similarly situated employees outside of her protected classes who had
similar performance deficiencies as her and were treated more favorably.

2025003624	5
Regarding Claim 5(b), Superintendent stated that she issued Complainant a PI to
address the deficiencies found in various climate surveys done at RYMS between
June 2023 and February 2024. Specifically, the surveys found significant higher
rates of dissatisfaction among teachers, parents and students at RYMS, compared to
other schools in the same district.
Regarding Claim 5(e), the Agency stated that Complainant admitted that she sought
sick leave to attend to her mental well-being, but instead attended a sorority
conference in Hawaii from May 22 – 24, 2024. Thus, Superintendent’s comments
on Complainant’s possible leave abuse stemmed from legitimate concerns about the
discrepancy between her stated and actual reasons for the use of sick leave. The
record does not show that Superintendent acted on her comment.
We find that Complainant failed to show she was subjected to discrimination or
retaliation. 	Accordingly, 	we AFFIRM 	the Agency’s 	final 	order 	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).

2025003624	6
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.
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

2025003624	7
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
__________________________ul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 28, 2026
Date