EEOC Appeal 2026000411

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Donte L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000411
Agency No. 200H-630A-2023-152416
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
November 22, 2025, final decision 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. and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 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 Painter, WG-9, at the Agency’s VA NY Harbor Healthcare System
in Brooklyn, New York. Complainant’s first-level supervisor (Supervisor 1) was the
Maintenance 	and 	Repair 	Supervisor. 	Complainant’s 	second-level 	supervisor
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 	2026000411
(Supervisor 2) was Acting Chief of Engineering. Report of Investigation (ROI) at
106.
Complainant identified his disabilities as a left ankle disability and a right hip
disability. ROI at 108. Complainant stated that his disabilities prevent him from
lifting any object over 20 pounds, climbing ladders, and bending down to a 90-
degree angle. ROI at 131. Complainant identified his prior EEO activity as
requesting reasonable accommodations for his disabilities. ROI at 112.
On June 30, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint (with three subsequent
amendments) alleging discrimination by the Agency on the bases of race (African-
American), disability (physical/mental), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 when:
1. On April 24, 2023, management initiated the interactive process for a
reasonable accommodation without a request from Complainant and advised
Complainant that he did not need to be a painter anymore;
2. Since May 1, 2023, Complainant’s concerns about unfair treatment involving
work 	assignments, 	required 	completion 	of 	daily 	progress 	reports, 	and
communication about overtime have not been addressed;
3. On May 15, 2023, May 22, 2023, and May 29, 2023, Complainant was
assigned unnecessary work tasks;
4. On May 22, 2023, complainant was required to provide documentation of
completed training;
5. On May 30, 2023, Complainant was threatened with having his tour of duty
changed to day shift;
6. From November 25, 2023, to November 26, 2023, Complainant was denied
an overtime opportunity;
7. On several occasions from November 8, 2023, to December 12, 2023,
Complainant was assigned tasks originally designated for a coworker;

3 	2026000411
8. On January 11, 2024, management declined to collect the doctor’s note
detailing physical limitations related to Complainant’s upcoming surgery;
9. On February 4, 2024, Complainant was denied overtime;
10.On February 13, 2024, and February 20, 2024, Complainant was required to
use undisclosed acronyms to document time worked and task completion,
while his coworkers did not have similar requirements;
11.On February 22, 2024, Complainant was charged absent without leave
(AWOL);
12.On March 11, 2024, Complainant’s scheduled work hours were changed; and
13.On March 11, 2024, and ongoing, Complainant was tasked with duties that
exceeded his medical restrictions.
The Agency conducted an investigation. The investigation revealed that on April 24,
2023, Complainant met with Supervisor 2 in an interactive meeting in which he
explained his disability-related restrictions. According to him, Supervisor 2 offered
to search for a position to which Complainant could be reassigned in which he could
work within his disability-related restrictions. Complainant stated that he did not
agree to the offer and did not give Supervisor 2 permission to contact the reasonable
accommodation coordinator (RA Coordinator), but that Supervisor 2 contacted the
RA Coordinator, who then contacted Complainant. Complainant also stated that he
did not require reasonable accommodation and had no problem fulfilling his duties
as a Painter. ROI at 111.
According to Supervisor 2, she only offered Complainant options for requesting
reasonable accommodation after Complainant discussed his physical limitations due
to his hip disability and hip surgery. Supervisor 2 presented a copy of a May 1, 2023,
email she sent to Complainant as a follow-up to their conversation in which she
stated to Complainant, “As we discussed should you need to request RA for your
medical condition, please reach out to [RA Coordinator] to begin the process.” ROI
at 234. The document includes Complainant’s May 1, 2023, reply to Supervisor 2’s
email in which Complainant states, “I’m not taking reasonable accommodation. I
told you, I would decide after I spoke to my doctor.” Id.

4 	2026000411
The record includes a copy of the email sent from RA Coordinator to Complainant
on May 1, 2023, advising Complainant of the reasonable accommodation process
and providing instructions for requesting a reasonable accommodation. ROI at 397.
RA Coordinator stated that he received a reasonable accommodation request from
Complainant on February 4, 2024, and received all necessary forms and documents
from Complainant on February 16, 2024. ROI at 284. The record also includes a
doctor’s note dated February 13, 2024, stating that Complainant is a patient at a
mental health clinic and would benefit from working exclusively on the night shift.
ROI at 402.
Complainant stated that since May 1, 2023, he had been instructed by management
to paint large rooms that did not need to be painted and to provide the dimensions of
the rooms he painted although others were not required to do so. Complainant also
stated his belief that Supervisor 2 assigned him the unnecessary duties as reprisal for
not accepting the offered reasonable accommodation of reassignment. ROI at 111.
According to Supervisor 2, Complainant had only been assigned work within his
position description (PD) including painting and plastering areas within the hospital.
ROI at 239.
Complainant alleged that he was assigned unnecessary duties on May 15, 2023, May
22, 2023, and May 29, 2023, by the Team Lead at the direction of Supervisor 2.
Complainant stated his belief that Supervisor 2 assigned him unnecessary duties in
retaliation for him not accepting the offered reasonable accommodation and to get
him to leave the Paint Department. ROI at 116. Complainant also stated that other
Painters 	were 	given 	regular 	assignments 	while 	he 	was 	given 	unnecessary
assignments. ROI at 117.
Supervisor 1 stated that Complainant was not assigned unnecessary duties. ROI at
208. According to Supervisor 1, Complainant was assigned duties related to his
position as a plaster painter VA employee based on work orders received by the
department. ROI at 209. Supervisor 2 stated that Complainant was assigned to paint
rooms, which was within his expected duties. ROI at 249-50.
Complainant alleged that on May 22, 2023, he informed Supervisor 2 that he would
work on his required TMS (undefined acronym) training during his shift and that
Supervisor 2 responded by stating that she wanted to see the training certificates for
the training he completed during his shift. ROI at 111. According to Supervisor 2,
Complainant did not perform his assigned painting duties on the night in question,

5 	2026000411
so she asked him to present documentation of what he did with his time when he was
not performing his assigned duties. ROI at 240.
Complainant alleged that on May 30, 2023, Supervisor 2 stated to him that because
he was unable to gain access to an area he was supposed to paint during the night
shift on May 22, 2023, it might be time to move the painters to the day shift. ROI
at 112. Supervisor 2 stated that she did not threaten to move Complainant to the day
shift and did not move him to the day shift on May 30, 2023. According to her,
Complainant’s shift was changed in March 2024, to support the needs of the facility.
She also stated that Complainant was provided with over six weeks of notice as per
the union agreement. ROI at 241. A Human Resources Specialist (HR Specialist)
stated that Supervisor 2 requested and obtained HR guidance to change the tour of
duty of painters who were scheduled for the midnight tour due to insufficient
assignments allotted to the painters scheduled for the night shift. ROI at 101-02.
Complainant stated that he asked Supervisor 1 in November 2023, if there was any
available overtime and that Supervisor 1 stated that there was no overtime available.
According to Complainant, he observed a Hispanic employee working overtime on
November 24, 2023, and the overtime was assigned to the Hispanic employee by
Supervisor 1. ROI at 117-18.
According 	to 	Supervisor 	1, 	Complainant’s 	assertion 	that 	Complainant 	asked
Supervisor 1 for overtime and his request was denied is false. Supervisor 1 stated
that he offered Complainant overtime in November 2023 and that Complainant
refused to work overtime. ROI at 209. Supervisor 2 stated that Complainant had
informed management on multiple occasions that he did not want any overtime. ROI
at 251.
Complainant alleged that Supervisor 1 assigned him duties on several occasions
from November 8, 2023, to December 12, 2023, that were originally designated for
a Hispanic coworker. ROI at 105. Supervisor 1 asserted that he did not assign
Complainant tasks originally assigned to a coworker as alleged. According to him,
Complainant took it upon himself to take over and complete two assignments from
a coworker, and Complainant was not assigned by management to complete the
assignments. ROI at 110.
Complainant stated that he informed Supervisor 1 on January 11, 2024, that his
assigned duties were aggravating his disabilities. According to Complainant, he

6 	2026000411
informed Supervisor 1 that he was taking off work and that he had left a doctor’s
note with the VA police to excuse his absence. Complainant also stated that
Supervisor 1 did not pick up his doctor’s note and did not reply to his message. ROI
at 120.
Supervisor 1 stated that he did see the doctor’s note left by Complainant but that the
note was incomplete because it did not include a date. ROI at 207. Supervisor 2
provided supporting statements, adding that the note Complainant left was not valid;
and that Complainant agreed to submit another note with a recent date. ROI at 245.
An Executive Director also provided supporting statements, asserting that the
doctor’s note appeared to be a duplicate of a prior note. As a result of this,
Complainant was requested to provide a new note with a date on it; however, he
failed to do so. ROI at 102.
Complainant alleged that another employee informed him that they saw painters in
the facility on Sunday February 4, 2024, but that he had not been informed that there
would be an opportunity to work overtime on a Sunday. According to Complainant,
Supervisor 1 did not inform him of the opportunity because Supervisor 1 favored
Hispanic employees over African American employees. ROI at 121-22. Supervisor
1 stated that this alleged incident “never happened.” ROI at 211.
Complainant alleged that in February 2024, Supervisor 1 and Supervisor 2 both used
acronyms regarding the type of paint used and the time spent on each job.
Complainant stated that he did not believe Supervisor 1 and Supervisor 2 use
acronyms in communications with other painters, and he believed they were
harassing him in retaliation for him not accepting the reasonable accommodation
offered by Supervisor 2 in April 2023. ROI at 112. Complainant also stated his belief
that 	Supervisor 2 	preferred 	to 	have Hispanic employees working 	under her
supervision. ROI at 113. According to Supervisor 1, he only asked Complainant to
use standard operating procedure (SOP) language to document assignments and
materials used for the assignments. ROI at 208.
Complainant alleged that Supervisor 1 sent him an email toward the end of his shift
on the morning of February 22, 2024, asking him to meet at the end of his shift but
that he did not see the email until the night of February 22, 2024, when he replied to
the email. According to Complainant, Supervisor 1 sent him another email toward
the end of his shift on the morning of February 23, 2024, again asking to meet at the
end of his shift but that he did not respond until the night of February 23, 2024.

7 	2026000411
Complainant stated that Supervisor 1 charged him AWOL because he failed to meet
with Supervisor 1 as Supervisor 1 requested. ROI at 122-23.
According 	to 	Supervisor 	1, 	he 	charged 	Complainant 	AWOL 	for 	the 	time
Complainant was not responsive at work but did not have approved leave.
Supervisor 1 stated that he arrived early to meet with Complainant, but that
Complainant sent him emails before the end of his shift and was not thereafter
available to meet. ROI at 212. Supervisor 2 stated that Supervisor 1 asked to meet
with Complainant on three different days, but Complainant did not make himself
available to meet. Supervisor 2 also stated that Supervisor 1 arrived at 5:00 a.m.,
walked the entire facility, and called for Complainant on radio, but Complainant
“never showed up.” ROI at 253.
Complainant alleged that on March 11, 2024, Supervisor 2 moved him from the
night shift to the day shift. ROI at 128-29. According to Complainant, he had a
reasonable accommodation to work nights so that he could attend appointments
related to a mental disability during the day. ROI at 129-30. According to
Supervisors 1 and 2, Complainant’s shift was changed due to the needs of the
hospital. Supervisor 2 added that Complainant was given six-week notice before the
shift change. ROI at 213, 241, and 254.
According to Complainant’s supervisors, management decided to move the painters,
including Complainant, to the day shift when Supervisor 1 had a difficult time
communicating with the painters and other engineering employees who worked on
the night shift. Complainant also had difficulty accessing the areas in which he was
assigned to work on the night shift, whereas those areas were easily accessible to
employees during the day shift.
Complainant alleged that since March 11, 2024, he had been assigned painting and
wall and ceiling repair duties that exceed his disability-related restrictions because
they are higher than six feet or require him to bend at a ninety-degree angle. ROI at
130. According to Supervisor 1, Complainant was never instructed to complete
duties outside of his disability-related restrictions and that Complainant worked with
a partner who was instructed to perform any duties outside of Complainant’s
limitations. ROI at 213-14. Supervisor 2 also stated that Complainant was assigned
to paint the room in question with a coworker and that Complainant agreed to the
assignment. ROI at 254.

8 	2026000411
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, or a final
decision from the agency. After Complainant requested a decision, the Agency
issued a final decision (FAD) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency
concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency subjected him to
discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, contests the FAD, reiterating his
allegations. Complainant also asserts that his supervisors’ statements were false and
appears to state that neither Supervisor 1 nor 2 was his direct manager. Complainant
also states that he did not have to disclose his diagnoses as that would violate his
Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights. He also
asserts that liberal leave or flexible work schedules was never discussed and no
alternative accommodation was discussed. Complainant also asserts that his request
was ignored, and that he was never given any assistance at nighttime hours or
daytime hours. We will address Complainant’s arguments below.
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”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. 	Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at
802 n.13. 	The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,

9 	2026000411
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. 	Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Failure to Accommodate (Claims 1, 12, and 13)
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of an individual with a disability unless the agency can show
that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o) and
(p). In order to establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined by
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is “qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m);
and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under
the 	Americans 	with 	Disabilities 	Act 	(Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable
Accommodation), No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002).
The term “qualified,” with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the
individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related
requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with
or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such
position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).
Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation of an employee’s
disability, the employer may engage in an interactive process with the employee to
identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(o)(3) (2019). An Agency may choose among reasonable accommodations as
long as the chosen accommodation is effective, and while the preference of the
individual with a disability should be given primary consideration, an Agency has
the 	ultimate 	discretion 	to 	choose 	between 	effective 	accommodations. 	See
Enforcement Guidance, supra, at Q. 9.
Here, we find that Complainant is an individual with disability who was qualified to
perform 	the 	essential 	functions 	of 	his 	Painter 	position 	with 	reasonable
accommodation. Complainant had ankle and hip disabilities. He also appears to have
a mental disability with an unidentified diagnosis. See ROI at 402. Management was
aware 	of 	Complainant’s 	disabilities 	because 	he 	requested 	reasonable

10 	2026000411
accommodations in April 2023, when he made Supervisor 2 aware of his restrictions
resulting from his ankle and hip disabilities; and requested not to work outside of his
restrictions of not lifting anything over 20-pound, and a restriction not to climb
ladders.
Because agencies are required to accommodate the known disabilities of employees,
we do not find that Supervisor 2 violated the Rehabilitation Act when she advised
that 	Complainant 	contact 	RA 	Coordinator. 	After 	engaging 	in 	an 	interactive
discussion 	with 	Complainant, 	management 	accommodated 	Complainant 	by
assigning him light duty work within his restrictions. Complainant did not allege,
and the record does not reflect, that the provided accommodation was ineffective.
Supervisors 1 and 2 both stated, and the record reflects, that Complainant (and other
painters) was reassigned to the day shift to better suit the needs of the Agency.
Complainant did not allege that dayshift work was outside of his restrictions.
Complainant’s supervisors also denied requiring Complainant to complete duties
outside of his disability-related restrictions, asserting that Complainant was assigned
a work partner who completed tasks that were outside of Complainant’s work
restrictions.
Notably, included in the record are messages dated February 18, 2024, and March
7, 2024, from Complainant to his supervisors in which Complainant identified work
that he was not capable of completing due to his restrictions; and informed
Supervisors 1 and 2 that the day crew would perform the tasks he could not complete
during his night shift due to his disabilities. See ROI at 218 and 255.
Moreover, contrary to Complainant’s allegation in Claim 12, the record reflects that
Complainant requested to work exclusively on the night shift as a reasonable
accommodation on February 15, 2024. The record includes a February 13, 2024,
doctor’s note stating that Complainant was a patient at a mental health clinic and
would benefit from working exclusively on the night shift. ROI at 400-02. The
doctor’s note was, however, incomplete because it did not state Complainant’s
medical condition or how working the nightshift would enable him to perform the
essential functions of his position. We note Complainant’s appeal assertion that he
did not need to disclose his diagnoses. However, the Agency may request such
information in order to properly accommodate him for what appears to be a mental
disability that was not obvious. The Commission has long held that an employer may
ask an individual for reasonable documentation about that person’s disability and

11 	2026000411
functional limitations when the need for accommodation is not obvious. Roland T.
v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2023003953 at *2 (Jan. 3, 2024).
The only other evidence that Complainant requested reasonable accommodation is
that RA Coordinator stated that on February 5, 2024, Complainant submitted all
required documentation for a reasonable accommodation request but neither he nor
his supervisors followed RA Coordinator’s instructions to engage in the interactive
process regarding the request. ROI at 102.
Complainant’s appeal statements, however, demonstrate that no meeting occurred
because Complainant did not see either Supervisor 1 or 2 as his managers.
Complainant had also stated to Supervisor 2 that he did not require a reasonable
accommodation and had no problem fulfilling his duties as a painter. ROI at 111.
Under these circumstances, it appears that Complainant felt comfortable requesting
assistance 	from 	RA 	Coordinator 	but 	not 	his 	supervisors. 	However, 	as 	RA
Coordinator stated, a decision on Complainant’s requested accommodation was
needed 	from 	his 	supervisors. 	Therefore, 	the 	interactive 	was 	truncated 	by
Complainant’s 	belief 	that 	his 	supervisors 	were 	trying 	to 	impose 	on 	him
accommodations that he did not need. As such, Complainant’s appeal statements
that alternative accommodations were not discussed with him are unavailing.
In that regard, the Commission has found no violation of the Rehabilitation Act
where the complainant has disengaged from the interactive process when not
provided their accommodation of choice. Huong v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Appeal No. 2024002431 (Jul. 8, 2025).
Nonetheless, Complainant requested and was granted extended leave to recover
from hip replacement surgery from late-March 2024 through April 29, 2024, when
he would return to work in a light duty assignment until at least September 2024.
See ROI at 220. Nor was Complainant required to work the day shift when he
returned to work in the light duty position following his extended absence. ROI at
372-95. 	Therefore, 	Complainant 	did 	not 	prove 	that 	the 	Agency 	failed 	to
accommodate him as alleged.
Disparate treatment based on race, disability and reprisal (Claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 11)
We find that the Agency provided legitimate, non-discriminatory explanations for
the 	challenged 	actions 	but 	Complainant 	provided 	no 	evidence 	that 	those

12 	2026000411
explanations are pretextual. Nor did Complainant demonstrate that management
took any action that was based on his protected classes.
For example, management explained, and the evidence reflects, that Complainant’s
work assignments were within his position description and were based on work
orders submitted to the department. Complainant did not provide any evidence to
support his allegations that those assignments were unnecessary or more difficult
than the other painters’ assignments. Regarding allegations of overtime work,
Complainant did not dispute management’s explanation that he was offered and
declined overtime opportunities.
Complainant’s supervisors also denied assigning him tasks assigned to another
employee, 	asserting 	that 	Complainant 	took 	it 	upon 	himself 	to 	complete his
coworker’s assigned duties. Complainant did not refute their denials with any
evidence. Nor did Complainant identify any similarly situated coworker outside of
his 	protected 	classes 	who 	received 	more 	favorable 	treatment 	under 	similar
circumstances. Therefore, Complainant’s allegations fail as to Claims 3, 6, 7, 9.
As to Claim 11, the record reflects that a timekeeper, who was not in Complainant’s
supervisory chain, charged Complainant with AWOL when Supervisor 1 was unable
to reach Complainant or locate him at work. According to the timekeeper, once
Complainant was able to provide clarity on his whereabouts and the work he
completed, the AWOL was corrected on the timecard. ROI at 102. Complainant did
not identify any employee outside of his protected classes who was treated more
favorably or dispute that his timecard was corrected.
To the extent that Complainant is alleging harassment, a finding of a hostile work
environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant did not establish
that the incidents alleged in Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, and 11-13 occurred due to
discrimination or retaliation based on his race, disability or any prior protected
activity.
Likewise, Complainant’s harassment allegations in Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 fail
because the record is devoid of any evidence that Complainant was assigned unfair
duties, required to complete duties not required of his colleagues or prevented from
working 	overtime. 	Supervisor 	2 	also 	wanted 	to 	see 	what 	Complainant 	had
accomplished during his shift; and she denied threatening to move Complainant to
the day shift. Complainant did not dispute that Supervisor 2 may have mentioned

13 	2026000411
moving the painters to the day shift due to Complainant not being able to access an
assigned work area on the night shift. Complainant’s supervisors also retrieved his
undated doctor’s note from the Agency police, and Supervisor 1 only asked that
Complainant use SOP language when submitting completed work and needed
materials.
Therefore, the record does not support the conclusion that management subjected
Complainant 	to 	harassment 	(or 	retaliatory 	harassment) 	when 	his 	supervisors
allegedly 	dismissed 	his 	concerns 	about 	unfair 	treatment 	involving 	work
assignments, required completion of daily progress reports, and communication
about overtime. The record is also devoid of any evidence that management made
any comment or took any action that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to
constitute actionable harassment or that was based on Complainant’s protected
classes.
Rather, the crux of Complainant’s allegations is his disagreement with his managers’
attempts at monitoring his performance and requiring accountability. In that regard,
the Commission has repeatedly held that directing employees in the performance of
their duties and ensuring the efficiency of the operation entrusted to them is a matter
clearly within the realm of management prerogative and authority, and insufficient
to constitute a severe or pervasive hostile working environment. Christopher U. v.
USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161038 (Sep. 25, 2017) (holding that the “claims are
everyday work-related incidents that are not severe or pervasive enough to establish
a hostile work environment).
The Commission has also long held that the antidiscrimination laws are not civility
codes. Inquiry into, or comments about, an employee’s productivity does not meet
the severe or pervasive standard that is required to be shown in a successful hostile
work environment claim. Zada C. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No.
0120161460 (May 29, 2018) (common workplace occurrences and everyday events,
including instructions and admonishments, are not sufficiently severe or pervasive).
Therefore, based on our review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
decision finding no discrimination.

14 	2026000411
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.

15 	2026000411
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

16 	2026000411
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 28, 2026
Date