EEOC Appeal 2025003081

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hailey A.,1
Complainant,
v.
Eric Scott Turner,
Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003081
Agency No. HUD-00110-2024
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 24, 2025, 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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Temporary Employee, Equal Opportunity Specialist, GS-12, at the
Boise Field Office in Boise, Idaho. On August 31, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging the Agency subjected her to harassment (sexual) and a hostile
work environment based on sex (female), reprisal for engaging in prior protected
EEO activity, and disability (mental) when between August 2, 2023 and February
21, 2024, the Field Office Director of Policy and Management (Field Office
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.

2025003081	2
Director) made inappropriate comments2 to her and coerced her to touch and clean
him;3 on May 7, 2024, he was permitted to return to work at the same location as
Complainant; 	and 	on 	October 	11, 	2024, 	the 	Supervisory 	Equal 	Opportunity
Specialist issued her a memorandum terminating her temporary appointment and
denied her request for reasonable accommodation.
At the conclusion of the investigation, 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, or a final decision from the agency. In accordance
with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.108(f), which concluded that Complainant did not prove the Agency
subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 	1614.110(b), the Agency’s 	decision 	is 	subject 	to de novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(a). 	See 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Management Directive for 	29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-16 (Aug. 5,
2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission
examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and
testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties,
and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record
and its interpretation of the law”).
2 The Field Office Director, who was not Complainant’s supervisor, stated that he
never made inappropriate comments to Complainant and was not sure what her
allegation was in reference to. He did acknowledge, among other things, talking to
her about his advocacy work with young people and the questions that he received
regarding his dwarfism. These questions ranged from how he used the bathroom or
had sex. Complainant also noted two incidents where he bought a $50 restaurant gift
card for her and offered to buy her lunch.
3 According to the Field Office Director, he spilled soup on himself and, because of
his disability, asked Complainant for assistance, i.e., wiping the soup off his lower
legs and his scooter because he could not see exactly where the soup had spilled. He
also stated that because he did not have the use of his arms/hands, at that moment,
and was worried he would make the mess worse. Complainant stated that, under
duress, she wiped the soup from his chest, and that while wiping his shirt opened
slightly and she touched his skin.

2025003081	3
With respect to Complainant’s allegations concerning the Field Office Director’s
inappropriate sexual comments and the touching incident, as well as management’s
decision to permit him to return to the same workplace, the record establishes that
the Agency took prompt and appropriate action upon learning of Complainant’s
allegations. 	Management 	immediately 	sought 	additional 	information 	from
Complainant by requesting a written narrative detailing the alleged conduct and
promptly placed the Field Office Director on mandatory telework for 90 days during
the 	investigation, 	thereby 	separating 	the 	parties. 	Upon 	completion 	of 	the
investigation, management permitted the Field Office Director to return to the
workplace but required him to telework on Wednesdays, the only day Complainant
reported to the office, thereby addressing her concerns and preventing any further
workplace interaction between them. Thus, we find that the Agency took immediate
and appropriate corrective actions.
We are also not persuaded by Complainant’s contention that management terminated
her in retaliation for filing an EEO complaint. We find that the record supports
management’s determination that Complainant’s termination during her trial period
resulted from significant and documented performance deficiencies. Specifically,
Complainant had accumulated 383 open inquiries and, despite being expected to file
an average of six complaints per month, filed only one of the 30 complaints she was
expected to complete during the relevant period.
The 	record 	indicates 	that 	her 	performance 	deficiencies 	were 	not 	limited 	to
productivity. Management repeatedly followed up with Complainant regarding
outstanding assignments, provided specific instructions concerning tasks requiring
completion, 	and 	established 	deadlines 	for 	completing 	them. 	Nevertheless,
Complainant repeatedly missed deadlines, failed to complete assigned work in a
timely manner, and, in some instances, failed to complete assignments altogether.
Beyond her assertion of retaliation, Complainant has not shown that management’s
stated reasons for terminating her were false or otherwise a pretext for retaliation.
Further, we find no basis to conclude that the Agency improperly failed to consider
Complainant’s 	reasonable 	accommodation 	request 	because she submitted 	her
request on October 11, 2024, after management had already decided to terminate her
employment. Accordingly, there was no further consideration of the accommodation
request.

2025003081	4
While Complainant disagrees with management’s actions, we ultimately find no
persuasive evidence that she was subjected to discrimination or harassment based on
any protected EEO class. Accordingly, based on our review of the record and the
contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we
AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision 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. 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.

2025003081	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.

2025003081	6
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 __________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 15, 2026
Date