EEOC Appeal 2026002177

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Leif S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Frank Bisignano,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002177
Hearing No. 450-2025-00282X
Agency No. DAL-24-0891-SSA
DECISION
On April 25, 2026, 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 March 24, 2026, final order concerning his equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Claims
Specialist at the Agency’s Field Office in El Paso, Texas.
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.

2026002177	2
On December 2, 2024, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to harassment on the bases of
sex (male) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: beginning on August
22, 2024, and continuing to the present, Complainant was yelled at, forcefully
touched, pushed, ridiculed, and bullied, his work was jeopardized, he was denied
promotion and detail opportunities, and subjected to unwelcome working conditions.
Complainant previously filed an EEO complaint in October 2023 that he later
withdrew. See Report of Investigation (ROI) at 102. He stated that on August 22,
2024, he was summoned to his Supervisor’s desk to discuss a case and when he
arrived, his Supervisor did not allow him to respond but started to yell at him,
berating him for performance deficiencies, and when he tried to defend himself, the
Supervisor cut him off by saying, “That is bullsh**,” several times. See ROI at 102-
103. He asserted that after he asked the Supervisor not to speak to him in that manner
and to discuss it professionally, she stood up and put her hands on his shoulders,
forcefully pushing him backwards, causing him to stumble and almost lose his
balance. See ROI at 103-105. He stated that even though the Operations Manager
(Manager) was present and witnessed the entire incident, she took no action to defuse
the situation or tell the Supervisor to stop the inappropriate conduct. 	See ROI at
104. 	He 	asserted 	that 	immediately 	afterwards, 	he 	contacted 	the 	union
representatives about the incident and the next day, the Manager called him and told
him that the Supervisor was sorry for acting unprofessionally and cursing at him but
the Supervisor was not otherwise disciplined in any way. See ROI at 104.
Several of Complainant’s coworkers confirmed witnessing the incident when the
Supervisor pushed Complainant and yelled at him, noting that they believed it was
because Complainant spoke up about his issues and that Complainant has been
treated 	unfairly. 	See 	ROI 	at 	174-75; 	181-82; 	196-97; 	202; 	208. 	One 	of
Complainant’s female coworkers stated that she and Complainant were “always
being yelled at by [the Supervisor]” for talking even though they were always
speaking of work and that she thought it was because the Supervisor did not like
them so they were picked on. 	See ROI at 196-97. 	Another of Complainant’s
coworkers further noted that she thought management unfairly favored veterans. See
ROI at 202. Both the Supervisor and the Manager retired prior to the investigation
and did not respond to the requests for information.

2026002177	3
Complainant further stated that he has been subjected to public ridicule when the
Supervisor belittled his contributions during a team meeting and then on another
occasion, during an all-staff meeting, the Operations Supervisor from another unit
(Operations Supervisor) responded to his comment that management needs to lead
by example by turning to him and saying pointedly, “You need to lead by example.”
See ROI at 105 (emphasis in original). He also asserted that the Supervisor has also
bullied him by subjecting his casework to excessive and unwarranted scrutiny that
was not applied to his coworkers, pulling several of his cases for review on a daily
basis rather than the standard 1-2 cases per week. See ROI at 106. He further stated
that between September 2024 and February 2025, he submitted four formal
applications for work materials but the Supervisor denied all of them, even though
other coworkers with comparable or lower performance ratings were approved for
similar opportunities, and when he requested feedback from the Supervisor about
why his applications were denied, she only said dismissively, “some people just
aren’t detail material.” 	See ROI at 107. 	He asserted that in the office, males are
treated differently from women with management consistently showing preferential
treatment for women while subjecting male employees to higher scrutiny, harsher
discipline, and exclusion from professional opportunities. See ROI at 111.
The Operations Supervisor explained that at the staff meeting, Complainant was
defiant and did not act in a professional manner, continually interrupting her and the
manager. See ROI at 155-56. She stated that when she was speaking, Complainant
interrupted her by yelling that she should “lead by example,” and so she responded
that she thought they should all be doing their part. See ROI at 155-56. She asserted
that after the meeting when she found out that Complainant was upset, she sent him
a message telling him that she was there to listen if he had any concerns, but he never
responded. See ROI at 156.
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). 	Complainant timely requested a hearing
before an AJ.
The 	Agency 	submitted 	a 	motion 	for 	a 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing, 	which
Complainant opposed. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.

2026002177	4
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Complainant did not file a brief on appeal. 	The Agency filed a brief urging
affirmance of the AJ’s decision.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, 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 Chap. 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”); see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an
administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the
decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when they
find that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue
of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in
favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). A fact is “material”
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When considering
summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must
identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing
further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material
under applicable law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing
is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated
by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such
a dispute.

2026002177	5
Upon our review of the record, we find that the AJ correctly determined that
Complainant failed to establish a dispute of material fact and properly granted
summary judgment.
We find that the evidence in the record does not establish that Complainant was
subjected to unlawful harassment as alleged. At the outset, we acknowledge that the
record indicates that the Supervisor was harsh and very likely behaved in an
unprofessional manner but the Commission has repeatedly stated that federal EEO
laws do not protect employees from incivility. 	Rather, they forbid “only behavior
so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” See
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). Moreover, the
evidence does not support that the Supervisor was motivated by discriminatory or
retaliatory animus. 	We emphasize that one of Complainant’s female coworkers
stated that the Supervisor frequently yelled at her as well as Complainant and several
of the employees agreed that Complainant was treated unfairly but asserted that in
their opinion, it was because of favoritism. However, unfair treatment alone when
there is no evidence of any discriminatory motive is not within the Commission’s
jurisdiction to correct. See Jacki A. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2021004771 (June 20, 2023) (stating that the Commission cannot guarantee fairness
in every employment decision). Without evidence of an unlawful motive, we have
found that such rude interactions do not amount to unlawful harassment. Lassiter v.
Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality
conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between
a supervisor and a subordinate do not rise to the level of harassment).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable fact-finder could
not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the
evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the
AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that
Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.

2026002177	6
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.

2026002177	7
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 16, 2026
Date