EEOC Appeal 2026002630

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Gregory F.,1
Complainant,
v.
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(U.S. Coast Guard),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002630
Hearing No. 430-2025-00004X
Agency No. HS-USG-01224-2024
DECISION
On May 21, 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 April 27, 2026, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.
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.

2026002630	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Night
Shift Painter/Supervisor, WS-9, at the Agency’s Aviation Logistics Center (ALC),
Industrial Operations Division (IOD), United States Coastal Guard (USCG) facility
in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. On April 29, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him in reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when:
1. On January 26, 2024, Complainant’s supervisor conveyed to Complainant
that management was losing trust in Complainant.
2. On February 21, 2024, Complainant’s supervisor issued Complainant a
Letter 	of 	Counseling 	(LOC) 	for 	allegedly 	improperly 	disclosing
information to his subordinate.
3. On April 29, 2024, Complainant’s supervisor issued him lowered ratings
on his performance evaluation.2
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 AJ. Complainant 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 retaliation. The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully implementing the AJ’s finding. The instant appeal followed.
The AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions. Claims 1 and 2 are connected to the same incident of the Aircraft
Mechanic Supervisor/General Foreman (Supervisor) identifying Complainant as
behaving 	improperly. 	Regarding 	claim 	1, 	Supervisor 	stated 	that 	he 	was
Complainant's 	first 	line 	supervisor 	on 	January 	26, 	2024. 	He 	denied 	telling
Complainant, "The Command is losing trust in you." He explained that he had a
meeting with Complainant due to the fact he was relaying information from
Industrial Operations Division (IOD) supervisors and management to the Paint Shop
Work Leader (PSWL).
2 The parties agreed to the issues as outlined in Complainant’s clarification of claims
during 	a 	conference 	with 	an 	EEOC 	Administrative 	Judge 	(AJ). 	See 	Initial
Conference, Deadlines and Records Completion Order dated November 20, 2024.

2026002630	3
Supervisor said that he told Complainant that conversations with supervisors and
management stayed between supervisors, management, and him (Supervisor), and
this information should not be relayed to subordinates to cause rumors and issues.
Supervisor stated that he did tell Complainant, "The last thing you want, is to have
management lose trust in you."
As to claim 2, Supervisor stated that he was Complainant's supervisor who formally
counseled him and issued an LOC. Supervisor said that any discussions Complainant
was having with senior level management were improperly being repeated by
Complainant to his subordinates.
With respect to claim 3, Supervisor stated that he was Complainant's supervisor who
issued him lowered ratings on his performance evaluation. 	Supervisor explained
that he marked Complainant weak in communication due to the fact he had sent
Complainant multiple emails on work related issues, specifically to pass down
emails for the night shift to share flow of work with the day shift, and he has never
received a response. Supervisor stated that supervisory, leadership, teamwork, and
safety 	were 	all 	evaluated, 	and 	Complainant 	was 	rated 	overall 	as 	"Meets
Expectations." Supervisor explained that at "Meets Expectations, “you are still doing
your job.” He further explained they do not use the evaluation from the last year to
base the evaluation for the current year.
The Program Manager (Program Manager) stated that Complainant got lower ratings
in 	communication, 	teamwork, 	and 	supervisory 	leadership. 	Program 	Manager
explained that in the progress review prior to his final evaluation, Complainant was
told 	that 	he 	needed 	to 	improve 	in 	administering 	performance 	management
responsibilities, 	improve 	in 	constructive 	and 	effective 	communication 	with
management, and to demonstrate good judgment in selecting proper modes of
communication when communicating with subordinates. Program Manager said that
Complainant needed to take control over the night shift as work leaders control the
night shift without direction or guidance from him.
The AJ found, and we agree, that Complainant provided no evidence that the
Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for retaliation.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision
finding no retaliation.

2026002630	4
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.

2026002630	5
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 	Acting Director's s 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 21, 2026
Date