EEOC Appeal 2026003159

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Rosemarie G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003159
Hearing No. 803-2026-00345X
Agency No. 200I-508-2025-162521
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
May 26, 2026, final decision 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. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision finding no reprisal.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Re-Entry Specialist, GS-0185-12, in the Social Work Section at the
Agency’s Atlanta VA Health Care System facility in Decatur, Georgia.
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.

2026003159	2
On March 13, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging she was subjected
to a hostile work environment in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. From December 2023 to March 13, 2025, the Chief of Homeless Program
(S2), has not sent emails to the Homeless Program Department regarding
Complainant’s kudos from the National Office.
2. On November 14, 2024, the Social Work Supervisor (S1) issued Complainant
a Performance Appraisal with the rating of “Excellent”.
3. On December 9, 2024, S2 upheld Complainant’s performance rating of
“Excellent”.
4. From January 25, 2025, to March 27, 2025, S1 failed to adequately address
and resolve Complainant’s concerns regarding discrepancies in calculating
Relative Value Unit (RVU) (productivity) tracking.2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of Complainant’s right to request a
hearing before EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) or a final Agency decision. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.108(f). Complainant initially requested a hearing before an AJ, but
subsequently withdrew the request on February 20, 2026. Thereafter, the Agency
issued a final decision concluding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
Upon review, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Regarding claim 1, Complainant stated that S2 acknowledged
Complainant’s 	kudos 	prior 	to 	Complainant’s 	EEO 	activity 	but 	stopped
acknowledging them after Complainant’s EEO activity.
2 Complainant also raised a claim alleging that she was dissatisfied with the
mediation process. On April 10, 2025, the Agency issued a decision dismissing this
issue. Complainant does not challenge the dismissal of this claim on appeal. The
Commission exercises its discretion to address only those issues specifically raised
on appeal and declines to address this procedural dismissal. See Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) at
Chap. 9, § IV.A (Aug. 5, 2015).

2026003159	3
Complainant said that S2’s failure to acknowledge her kudos lowered Complainant’s
morale and resulted in Complainant not receiving credit for the kudos on her
performance appraisal. S2 stated that she periodically would forward staff members’
kudos to other staff members and to the Service Line Chief to share during her
weekly updates on Fridays with the entire Service Line. S2 said that she did not
forward Complainant’s kudos because Complainant has consistently refused to
provide S2’s contact information as point of contact. S2 reported that Complainant
typically bypasses her by adding the Service Line Chief as her supervisor to receive
acknowledgements. S2 mentioned that she often becomes aware of Complainant’s
kudos when S2’s supervisor includes her in email responses.
Claims 2 and 3 are effectively the same claim regarding Complainant’s appraisal for
fiscal year 2024. Complainant’s fiscal year 2024 performance appraisal shows that
Complainant received an overall performance rating of Excellent. The performance
rating included five levels: 	Outstanding; Excellent; Fully Successful; Minimally
Satisfactory; and Unacceptable. In order for Complainant to receive an Outstanding
rating, 	she 	needed 	to 	receive 	an 	Exceptional 	rating 	in 	four 	performance
elements/performance 	standards 	on 	her 	performance 	appraisal. 	Although
Complainant received an Exceptional rating in three elements on her performance
appraisal, she received only a Fully Successful rating in “Element 2 Part A. Section
2 Additional Core Competencies.” These Additional Core Competencies were
comprised 	of: 	Personal 	Mastery; 	Flexibility/Adaptability; 	Creative 	Thinking;
Technical Skills; and Occupational Health and Safety. S1 stated that Complainant
performed satisfactorily in these Additional Core Competencies but provided no
examples of any actions on Complainant’s part that aided the Agency goals and
deserved an Exceptional rating for this element.
With respect to claim 3, S2 stated that she upheld the excellent performance
evaluation because Complainant provided her self-assessment, which consisted of
her primary duties. S2 reported that Complainant did not submit accomplishments,
showing that she went above and beyond her stated duties.
In reference to claim 4, S1 stated there were not any discrepancies in calculating
Complainant’s RVUs. S1 said Complainant was using an incorrect metric and was
consequently inflating her RVUs. S1 reported that the old way of tracking RVUs
through the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture
(VISTA) was no longer being used, but a detailed reporting system was now being
used to track all aspects of social work performance, including RVUs.

2026003159	4
The record indicates that the tracking system applied to all employees, so there is no
indication of retaliation. There is also no indication that the new method of tracking
RVUs was created to retaliate against Complainant.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no reprisal.
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.

2026003159	5
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.
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.

2026003159	6
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 16, 2026
Date