EEOC Appeal 2026002468

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Melba G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002468
Hearing No. 530-2025-00228X
Agency No. 2004-460-2024-161314
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
April 22, 2026 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. 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 finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Nurse
Practitioner at two outpatient clinics within the Agency’s Wilmington Healthcare
System in Wilmington, Delaware.
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.

2026002468	2
On October 28, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment based on race (Black), age
(61), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, as defined by the
Agency:
1. 	On June 12, July 15, and August 21, 2024, Complainant’s second-
level 	supervisor (S2), 	Associate 	Chief of Ambulatory 	Care, 	and
Complainant’s first-level supervisor (S1), Deputy Assistant Chief of
Staff, 	directed 	Complainant 	to 	write 	prescriptions 	(controlled
substances) without Agency Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
credentials;
2. 	On August 5, 2024, as the only board-certified Nurse Practitioner for
Women’s Health at her facility, Complainant was directed to attend a
women’s health residency program in Chicago for a week of training
for Nurse Practitioners, but her coworkers were allowed to continue to
perform women’s health care services;
3. 	On September 27, 2024, S1 denied Complainant overtime and was
subsequently the only provider denied overtime; and
4. 	On October 10, 2024, Complainant brought the matter to the attention
of S2, who supported S1’s denial of overtime due to the patient panel
size not exceeding the 800-patient threshold.
Complainant did not challenge the framing of the complaint.
After its investigation into the complaint, 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 requested a hearing.
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 or
harassment. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the
AJ’s findings. The instant appeal followed.
The AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions. 	Regarding claim 1, because Complainant had recently begun work at
the Agency, she was required to transfer her DEA licensure in order to write
prescriptions.

2026002468	3
S2 	told 	Complainant 	she 	should 	use 	the 	facility’s 	DEA 	number 	to 	write
prescriptions while waiting for the processing of her individual DEA licensure.
Complainant refused to do so, believing it violated various regulations and policy,
though Agency management stated that new hires were permitted to use the facility
DEA number. 	Complainant was not disciplined for not issuing prescriptions
during this interim period.
Regarding claim 2, management required Complainant to attend a Women’s
Health “mini-residency” in accordance with an Agency directive regarding health
services for women veterans. 	S1 averred that all women’s health practitioners
were expected to attend the training at some point to refresh their knowledge base.
The Agency reimbursed Complainant’s costs to attend the course, and the record
indicated that several other providers were required to attend similar training in
years past.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Complainant emailed S1 about her eligibility for
overtime, but S1 responded that it was the Agency’s practice not to grant overtime
or compensatory time to a provider unless the provider’s “panel size” (i.e., number
of patients) reached an average of about 750 to 800 patients. 	At the time of
Complainant’s 	inquiry, 	Complainant’s 	panel 	size 	was 	only 	around 	480, 	as
management was “ramping her up” and did not have her on a full patient schedule.
The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to present record evidence, outside of
her own subjective beliefs, indicating that the Agency’s explanations for its actions
were pretext for discrimination based on her protected bases. 	The AJ also found
that Complainant failed to show that similarly situated employees outside her
protected bases were treated more favorably. 	Because we find the AJ properly
concluded that Complainant failed to show the complained-of incidents were
motivated by her protected bases, they cannot comprise Complainant’s hostile
work environment claim. Moreover, we agree with the AJ that the alleged conduct
was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of harassment, as it
reflected 	routine 	supervisory 	instructions, 	personality 	conflicts, 	and 	general
workplace disputes and tribulations.
Complainant argues on appeal that there are disputes of material fact regarding
whether the Agency failed to follow or consistently adhere to its policies. 	For
instance, 	Complainant 	contends 	that 	other 	providers 	did 	not 	have 	to 	attend
women’s health training and received overtime despite being below the 800-patient

2026002468	4
threshold. However, the record indicates that several other providers were required
to attend the training, though one did so remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As for overtime, the provider named by Complainant had 736 patients, compared
to Complainant’s 480; this substantial difference between the number of patients
for Complainant and the other provider fails to indicate pretext. We therefore find
that such inconsistencies, to the extent they occurred, are insufficient to require a
hearing. 	Complainant 	has 	not 	presented 	record 	evidence 	beyond 	her 	own
statements 	and 	bare 	speculation 	that 	S1 	or 	S2 	harbored 	discriminatory 	or
retaliatory animus.
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 finding no discrimination.
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.

2026002468	5
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. 	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.

2026002468	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 15, 2026
Date