EEOC Appeal 2026001895

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lorriane L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Marco Rubio,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001895
Agency No. DOS-344-24
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
March 5, 2026, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint 	of 	employment 	discrimination 	in 	violation 	of 	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
finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Foreign
Service Officer at the Agency’s Office of Central American Affairs, Bureau of
Western Hemisphere Affairs facility in Washington, D.C. 	On October 11, 2024,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency harassed and
discriminated against her based on disability (mental, physical) and in reprisal
protected EEO activity (requesting a reasonable accommodation) when:
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.

2026001895	2
1. 	On 	June 	10, 	2024, 	Complainant 	received 	a 	negative 	Employee
Evaluation Report for 2023-2024.
2. 	On May 20, 2025, Complainant was informed that her request for
reasonable accommodation for alternative deadlines and a flexible
work arrangement was denied.
3. 	Complainant’s leave request approvals from October 2024 to January
2025 were delayed, resulting in her ineligibility to participate in the
Shared Leave Program.
4. 	Beginning 	in 	July 	2023 	and 	as 	recently 	as 	January 	13, 	2025,
Complainant 	was 	subjected 	to 	a 	hostile 	work 	environment
characterized by, but not limited to negative and derogatory comments
about her performance, scrutiny, assignments of vague and non-
substantive portfolios, tasks that were not commensurate with her
rank/position or considered excessively administrative or disfavored by
her peers, reduced responsibilities and duties, frequent reassignment to
different teams, micromanagement, denial of sick leave, travel, and
training requests, and unfavorable performance ratings.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation2 and notice of her right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge. When Complainant did not request a hearing within
the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	The decision concluded that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. Complainant filed the instant appeal.
Upon careful review of the evidence of record, we conclude the Agency’s finding
of no discrimination is consistent with the law and facts of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Complainant indicated that management unfairly assessed her
performance for the 2023-2024 period and made statements that were vague and
2 Notably, despite several requests, Complainant did not complete the investigator’s
affidavit in support of her claims .

2026001895	3
inaccurate. 	The record indicates Complainant’s evaluation indicated that her
performance was “satisfactory or better.” Complainant did not identify with
specificity which statements she found to be inaccurate, offensive, or vague, but the
record indicates Complainant’s then first line supervisor (S1A) sent Complainant
drafts 	of 	his 	comments 	and 	incorporated 	her 	feedback 	in 	the 	final 	review.
Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with his review and S1A scheduled a meeting
to discuss, which Complainant ultimately cancelled and did not reschedule.
Regarding Claim 3, the record indicates Director initially approved Complainant’s
October 2024 leave requests but informed her on October 22, 2024, that additional
medical documentation was required for the extended dates. Director later learned
Complainant had a negative leave balance, and on October 25, 2024, she sought
Human Resources (HR) guidance. HR contacted the Voluntary Leave Bank (VLB)
on October 28, 2024, and they informed Complainant the same day that her
shared‑leave participation was extended, and she was required to complete and
submit Leave Accounting Worksheets. She was informed that failure to submit the
required worksheets could result in the return of all leave donations. Complainant
was directed to submit a worksheet for each relevant pay period.
Complainant did not provide the requested medical documentation and on December
13, 2024, in an email she also asked Director to sign her shared‑leave application.
On December 14, 2024, Director sought guidance from HR on how to handle leave
requests when employees show a negative balance. Complainant followed up with
Director via email on December 19, 2024, requesting her to confirm her leave
requests and sign her shared leave program form. The same day, Director informed
Complainant she was still awaiting guidance from HR on the correct process to
follow. On December 20, 2024, Director confirmed she was authorized to sign the
shared‑leave application, which she did, and was informed that without donated
leave, Complainant would be placed in leave without pay status. On December 31,
2024, Director was advised to reject the pending leave requests due to insufficient
leave balance.
Regarding Claim 4, Director denied making negative or derogatory comments about
Complainant’s performance and asserts that management provided direct feedback
to Complainant on how to reach her performance potential and correct areas of
deficiencies. Director further explained Complainant’s tasks were adjusted per her
request to align with her medical constraints. Director asserts that all the tasks she
was assigned were substantive tasks that the team needed to be performed.

2026001895	4
S1B (a first line supervisor after S1A) denied making negative or derogatory
comments about Complainant’s performance. S1B indicated that as Complainant’s
supervisor she did question her or follow up on tasks that had not been completed.
S1B noted that Complainant failed to complete several tasks for a high-priority
assignment, and in response she asked a seasoned team member to mentor
Complainant, which was standard practice. 	S1B noted that Complainant was not
completing priority assignments without explanation, which caused conflicts for the
employee who was supposed to mentor Complainant with a significant case load, so
they moved Complainant to another team where they could adapt a different
caseload to her needs. S1B noted that the Agency denied Complainant’s request to
take the Foreign Service Institute’s Economic Foundations for Foreign Affairs
training due to budget constraints. The record indicates that during that period the
Agency was limited to only essential travel for high-level front office priorities
through the end of the fiscal year.
Complainant has not presented any evidence that persuasively suggests that the
Agency was motivated by her disability or retaliation for protected activity.
Complainant has not identified any similarly situated employees outside her
protected 	classes 	that 	were 	treated 	more 	favorably 	than 	her. 	Furthermore,
Complainant 	has 	not 	met 	her 	burden 	of 	rebutting 	the 	Agency’s 	asserted
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Complainant 	also 	has 	not 	shown 	the 	Agency 	denied 	her 	a 	reasonable
accommodation as alleged in Claim 2. 	The record indicates Complainant worked
remotely and was part-time. She asserts that management told her she did not work
enough hours. Complainant further asserts that in June 2023, she was directed to a
FS-03 First in Cone Assignment (FICA) Economic Officer position in the Nicaragua
Desk. 	She communicated that she would require remote work and flexible hours,
and management said she could not fulfill the required duties working remotely –
noting that the position was high stress and that access to classified systems was
required implying only in-person, in-office access was needed. Complainant asserts
she was instead assigned to a FS-03 Economic Officer position in the Strategy Team,
which was a remote position.
Director indicated that before joining the team, Complainant disclosed to her that
she had an unspecified but serious medical condition that required specialized care
thousands of miles from their office.

2026001895	5
Over the course of onboarding her to the team, Director worked closely with
Complainant directly to accommodate her to the maximum extent possible based on
what she understood Complainant’s limitations to be. 	Director also indicated that
she 	separately 	consulted 	the 	Department’s 	Disability 	and 	Reasonable
Accommodations Division (DRAD) and Human Resources (HR) officials for
guidance.
Director indicated that she understood that a doctor advised Complainant to work
onsite and that she generally could only work approximately 20 hours per week, but
that this would vary without predictability depending on Complainant’s physical
reactions to medical treatment each day. 	Director stated that the portfolio that
Complainant had been assigned by Human Resources could not meet these
limitations, noting that her assigned position required long hours – historically
beyond a 40-hour week – on secure communication systems with highly sensitive
often classified information that could not be accessed remotely. Director indicated
that the office accommodated Complainant by creating a portfolio based on
unclassified work that could meet demands from their chain of command, which was
subject to constant revision as needs shifted to meet the foreign policy objectives of
the day.
Both S1A and S1B indicated they were aware that Complainant has an undisclosed
medical condition that caused work limitations. They noted she worked remotely,
was approved for the voluntary leave donation program, was permitted to use 20
hours of leave each week and worked flexible hours. 	They denied rejecting any
reasonable accommodation request.
The record indicates that on September 20, 2023, management held a call with
Division Chief of DRAD to determine if Complainant submitted any reasonable
accommodation requests, which she had not. Management noted Complainant was
approved for a business class flight to Korea in November 2023 as a reasonable
accommodation, but no other formal requests had been received.
The record indicates that the Agency engaged in the interactive process in good faith,
including fashioning a role and assignments that fit Complainant’s limitations.
Complainant has not shown that she was required to work outside her limitations.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

2026001895	6
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).

2026001895	7
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.

2026001895	8
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 __________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 23, 2026
Date