EEOC Appeal 2024005168

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Janay H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Pete Hegseth,
Secretary,
Department of War2
(Defense Finance and Accounting Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2024005168
Hearing No. 532-2023-00056X
Agency No. DFAS-00005-2023
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
August 30, 2024 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., Section 501
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §
791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
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.

2024005168	2
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Military Pay Technician, GS-0545-05, at the Agency’s office in Cleveland, Ohio.
On January 25, 2023, Complainant filed (and later amended) an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile
work environment on the bases of race (African American), disability (Physical),
and age (60) when:
1. 	On November 15, 2022, she received a Letter of Reprimand;
2. 	On March 6, 2023, she received a decision to suspend for 14 calendar
days;
3. 	On April 13, 2023, her promotion to GS-06 was delayed; and
4. 	She further alleged she was subjected to harassment when:
a. 	On March 13, 2023, the Pay Adjustment Authorization training
was cancelled,
b. On February 10, 2023, her first line supervisor issued Complainant
a proposal to suspend her for 14 calendar days,
c. 	On January 27 and February 8, 2023, Complainant received five
“fails” from her supervisor,
d. On February 7, 2023, her supervisor returned 30 of 164 cases to
Complainant for corrections,
e. 	On February 7, 2023, her supervisor recorded her conversation
with Complainant without notifying Complainant,
f. 	On November 4, 2022, the Supervisory Military Pay Technician
informed 	Complainant 	that 	her 	Family 	Medical 	Leave 	Act
(FMLA) request was incomplete,
g. On October 18, 2022, the Branch Chief told Complainant that her
telework privilege was being revoked,
h. On 	September 	19, 	2022, 	Complainant 	received 	a 	Letter 	of
Warning,

2024005168	3
i. 	On August 22, 2022, Complainant’s privileges on GO-DOCS3
were restricted,
j. 	On 	July 	11, 	2022, 	her 	supervisor 	cancelled 	Complainant’s
Fundamentals 101 class, and
k. Since July to November 21, 2022, her supervisor has not been
consistently assigning her cases.
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 timely requested a
hearing. 	The AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motion and issued a
summary 	judgment 	decision 	finding 	that 	Complainant 	was 	not 	subjected 	to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed.
Even 	construing 	any 	inferences 	raised 	by 	the 	undisputed 	facts 	in 	favor 	of
Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 	The
undisputed 	record 	showed 	that 	the 	Agency 	articulated 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for each of the actions. For example, Complainant made
repeated 	errors, 	failed 	her 	Fundamental 	Trainings, 	and 	received 	a Letter of
Warning for being unsuccessful in passing the training courses necessary for her
position. Her telework privileges were revoked due to her inability to process cases
correctly. Complainant offered no evidence to suggest that the Agency acted with
discriminatory animus or that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual.
In addition, we find that the alleged incidents, even assuming they occurred as
described by Complainant, were more likely the result of routine supervision,
personality 	conflicts, 	and 	general 	workplace 	disputes 	and 	are 	therefore
insufficiently 	severe 	or 	pervasive 	to 	establish 	a 	discriminatory 	hostile 	work
environment. 	In addition, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show
that the alleged conduct was based on discriminatory animus.
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, we conclude
that 	the 	AJ 	correctly 	determined 	that 	the 	evidence 	did 	not 	establish 	that
Complainant was subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment as
alleged.
3 GO-DOCS is the Agency’s system for assigning work assignments to employees.

2024005168	4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	we 	AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order 	implementing 	the 	AJ’s
decision.
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,

2024005168	5
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.

2024005168	6
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 24, 2026
Date