EEOC Appeal 2026002312

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Alex L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Michael Obadel,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002312
Hearing No. 570-2024-007-94X
Agency No. AREUANS23AUG02607
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s April
8, 2026, 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. For the reasons that follow,
we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a General Engineer, Branch Chief, GS-12, at the U.S. Army Garrison
Ansbach in Ansbach, Germany. On September 6, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on sex (male)
when the Chief Engineer: (a) selected the Supervisory General Engineer to assume
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.

2026002312	2
all acting responsibilities as Acting Chief of the Engineering Divisions instead of
Complainant; (b) caused two of Complainant’s subordinate employees to abandon
weekly required meetings; (c) repeatedly disparaged and undermined Complainant;
(d) frequently excluded Complainant from pertinent information, meetings and
discussions related to the Agency’s mission, work assignments/projects and the
performance of duties; (e) sent Complainant an email requesting a meeting to discuss
his performance and when Complainant disagreed with the subject matter and
reported it to the EEO Counselor, cancelled the meeting; (f) stated he was so excited
about photovoltaic (PV) panels that he would have to hold down his desk,
insinuating his erect penis would cause the desk to lift; (g) visually simulated
masturbating two penises onto his face and allowed a coworker to place a writing
utensil in his groin area simulating an erect penis; (h) said “I’m trying not to say
anything about things six inches long” which prompted others in the office to make
sexual jokes; and (i) sexually assaulted Complainant when he placed his hand on his
knee and inside leg.
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). On November 27, 2024, the Agency filed a
motion for summary judgment. On December 11, 2024, Complainant filed a timely
response opposing the Agency’s motion. On September 4, 2025, the AJ issued an
order granting, in part, the Agency’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically,
the AJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency with respect to claims (a)
to (e) and Complainant’s retaliatory harassment claim but denied summary judgment
with respect to his sexual harassment claim as alleged in claims (f) to (i).
The AJ held a hearing on March 9 and 10, 2026, and subsequently issued a decision
in favor of the Agency, finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination
as alleged. The Agency thereafter issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s
decision. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
With respect to claims (a) to (e), we find that Complainant’s conclusory assertions
without supporting evidence identifying any genuine issue of material fact are
insufficient to demonstrate that the AJ erred in granting summary judgment.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order regarding these claims.

2026002312	3
Claims (f) – (i)
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will
be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence
is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” 	Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (internal
citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed
is a factual finding. See EEOC Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO
MD-110), Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015). 	An AJ's conclusions of law are
subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. Id. An
AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of
voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so
contradicts the testimony, or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable
fact finder would not credit it. Id.
EEO-MD-110, Chap. 9 § VI.C, further provides that on appeal to the Commission,
the burden is squarely on the party challenging the AJ’s decision to demonstrate that
the AJ’s factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence. 	See id.
In this case, this means that Complainant has the burden of pointing out where and
why the AJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Cf. id. (pointing
out that “[t]he appeals statements of the parties, both supporting and opposing the
[AJ’s] decision, are vital in focusing the inquiry on appeal so that it can be
determined whether the [AJ’s] factual determinations are supported by substantial
evidence”).Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences
raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable
factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor.
Concerning claims (f) to (i), we find that substantial evidence supports the AJ’s
determination that Complainant failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to
discrimination as alleged. We find no merit to Complainant’s contention that the AJ
improperly required him to prove the alleged harasser’s sexual intent or sexual
orientation. Rather, the AJ properly applied the evidentiary principles articulated in
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), to determine
whether Complainant established that the alleged harassment occurred because of
his sex. The record contains no credible evidence to conclude that the alleged
conduct was sex-based.

2026002312	4
Specifically, Complainant failed to establish that the Chief Engineer was motivated
by sexual desire; that he demonstrated a general hostility toward men in the
workplace; or that he treated men and women differently in a mixed-sex workplace.
Nor did Complainant present any other evidence establishing a nexus between the
conduct and Complainant’s sex. Accordingly, Complainant has not established that
the AJ applied an improper legal standard or erred in concluding that he failed to
prove discrimination based on sex. The record supports the AJ’s determination that
“[t]he preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant was the victim
of crude and vulgar teasing, joking, and horseplay which were expressions of
juvenile provocation, and not discrimination because of sex.”
We also reject Complainant’s contention that the AJ denied him a full and fair
hearing merely because only two witnesses testified. The number of witnesses
presented, standing alone, does not establish that a hearing was inadequate or unfair.
Rather, Complainant must demonstrate that the exclusion of additional testimony
materially impaired his ability to present his case. He has not done so here.
Complainant failed to identify any excluded witness who possessed material
evidence supporting his claim or to explain how the testimony of any additional
witness could have affected the outcome of the proceeding. Significantly, none of
the witnesses Complainant sought to call purported to have knowledge that the Chief
Engineer was motivated by sexual desire, demonstrated a general hostility toward
men in the workplace, treated men and women differently, or otherwise engaged in
the alleged conduct because of Complainant’s sex. Thus, Complainant has not
shown that the excluded testimony would have supplied evidence material to an
essential element of his sexual harassment claim. Accordingly, we find no basis to
conclude that the AJ’s limitation of witness testimony prejudiced Complainant or
deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to present his case.
Finally, we note that the record indicates that the Agency took corrective action in
response to the Chief Engineer’s inappropriate conduct by issuing him a letter of
reprimand, and the record does not indicate that he subsequently engaged in similar
conduct.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.

2026002312	5
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.
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.

2026002312	6
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
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 21, 2026
Date