EEOC Appeal 2025002165

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Romeo K.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025002165
Hearing Nos. 450-2023-00222X
450-2025-00006X
Agency Nos. 2003-549A4-2022-147508
2003-549A4-2024-157842
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
February 25, 2025, 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., 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 amended, 29
U.S.C. § 621 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.

2025002165	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Urologist at the Agency’s Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Complainant resigned
from this position in June 2023.
Agency Case No. 2003-549A4-2022-147508
Complaint 1
On October 5, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, which was subsequently
amended, alleging that the Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment and
discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian), national origin (East India),
and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On May 18, 2022, the Supervisor issued Complainant a Summary
Suspension of Privileges letter;
2. 	On May 18, 2022, the Supervisor changed Complainant’s assignment
of duties from surgical to non-surgical (clinical duties);
3. 	On May 23, 2022, the Supervisor denied Complainant sick leave for
May 23-29, 2022;
4. 	On 	or 	about 	June 	15, 	2022, 	Complainant 	received 	a 	Summary
Suspension 	of 	Privileges 	letter 	indicating 	his 	Operating 	Room
privileges remain suspended;
5. 	On July 11, 2022, the Supervisor threatened to report Complainant to
the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB);
6. 	On July 11, 2022, the Supervisor issued Complainant a Summary
Suspension of Privileges letter;
7. 	On July 29, 2022, the Supervisor denied Complainant annual leave for
September 26-29, 2022;
8. 	On August 10, 2022, September 2, 2022, September 30, 2022, October
5, 2022, November 4, 2022, December 2, 2022, December 27, 2022,
February 2, 2023, February 28, 2023, and June 1, 2023, Complainant
received Summary Suspension of Privileges letters indicating his
Operating Room privileges remain suspended.

2025002165	3
Complainant 	also 	alleged 	that 	the Agency 	subjected 	him to 	a hostile work
environment and discriminated against him on the bases of age (over 40), race
(Asian), national origin (East India), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
when:
9. 	on or about August 3, 2023, and August 31, 2023, reports were made
to the NPBD and State Medical Licensing Boards indicating adverse
actions were taken against Complainant’s Title IV clinical privileges.
On December 5, 2022, the Agency issued its Notice of Partial Acceptance. Claims
1-3 were dismissed for untimely Counselor contact but accepted as part of the overall
hostile work environment claim. Reprisal was dismissed as a basis as Complainant
had identified non-EEO activity as the basis of his reprisal claim.
After requesting a hearing, on April 3, 2024, the AJ granted partial summary
judgment for claims 3, 5, and 7, finding that the record showed no genuine dispute
of material fact and no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer
discrimination, reprisal, or harassment. Regarding claim 3, the AJ found that
Complainant's sick leave for May 23–27, 2022, was approved and properly recorded,
contradicting the allegation that it had been denied. The AJ also noted that May 28th
and 29 th fell on a weekend and did not require leave approval. For claim 5, the AJ
determined that the July 11, 2022, letter concerning possible reporting to the
National Practitioner Data Bank and state licensing boards was informational rather
than threatening and merely explained applicable reporting requirements. As to
claim 7, the AJ accepted the Agency's explanation that Complainant's requested
leave for September 26–29, 2022, was denied because of staffing shortages, noting
that alternative leave dates were offered and approved. Because Complainant failed
to 	present 	evidence showing 	these explanations 	were false or 	motivated 	by
discriminatory or retaliatory animus, the AJ concluded that no hearing was necessary
on those claims.
Agency Case No. 2003-549A4-2024-157842
Complaint 2
On April 2, 2024, Complainant filed a second EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment and discriminated against him
on the bases of disability (unspecified), age (over 40), race (Asian), national origin
(East India), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

2025002165	4
10. 	On 	August 	3, 	2023, 	August 	31, 	2023, 	and 	February 	20, 	2024,
management submitted three similar NPDB Title IV clinical privileges
action reports against Complainant; and
11. 	On February 27, 2024, management failed to respond to Complainant's
allegations of reprisal.
At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant requested a hearing on
Complaint 2. 	The AJ ultimately consolidated the complaints. On December 18,
2024, the Agency filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 24, 2025, the
AJ dismissed the hostile work environment claim as to allegations (claims 9 and 10)
based on post-employment reports made by the Agency. The AJ noted that the post-
employment reports cited occurred after Complainant’s resignation, and thus failed
to state a hostile work environment claim. Therefore, the AJ dismissed the hostile
work environment claim based on disability, race, national origin, and age regarding
the claims related to the reports.
Following a hearing, on February 21, 2025, the AJ issued her decision concluding
that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Regarding the suspension of Complainant’s operating room privileges in May 2022,
and the repeated extension of the suspension, the AJ found that management became
concerned about patient safety after several of Complainant’s patients encountered
surgical complications. Moreover, review panels, including the Focused Clinical
Care Review, Executive Council of the Medical Staff, and Professional Standards
Board, independently evaluated those concerns. The AJ found no credible evidence
that these actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory intent, nor that the
Agency’s explanations were pretextual. The AJ also upheld the Agency’s reports to
the NPDB after Complainant resigned, finding the reports were made pursuant to
Agency procedures and not because of any protected classes or prior EEO activity.
The AJ further determined that the evidence did not establish a hostile work
environment or discrimination. The AJ ultimately concluded that there was no
discrimination or reprisal.

2025002165	5
The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Summary Judgment – Claims 3, 5, 7
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 or retaliatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to
establish such a dispute.
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 with regard to those matters subject to summary
judgment. 	The 	record 	shows 	that 	the 	Agency 	articulated 	a 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Like the AJ, we find no persuasive
evidence of pretext
Hearing Portion
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

2025002165	6
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”).
We ultimately find that substantial record evidence supports the AJ’s finding that
the alleged incidents were insufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile
work environment. Furthermore, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to
show that the alleged conduct was based on discriminatory animus. Moreover, to the
extent that Complainant is alleging disparate treatment regarding his claims,
Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the Agency's
explanation for its actions was pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, 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.

2025002165	7
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.
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.

2025002165	8
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 __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 15, 2026
Date