EEOC Appeal 2026000111

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lynnette M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas J. Burgum,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(Geological Survey),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000111
Agency No. DOI-USGS-22-0204
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
September 19, 2025, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging 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
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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Research Ecologist, GS-13, at the Agency’s Fort Collins Science
Center (FCSC) in Fort Collins, Colorado.
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.

2 	2026000111
Complainant’s first-level supervisor at the time (Supervisor 1A) was the Research
Ecologist and Acting Branch Chief. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 139. Supervisor
1A retired, and subsequently on July 1, 2022, Complainant was notified that the
Deputy 	Center 	Director 	(Supervisor 	1B) 	was 	her 	new 	direct 	supervisor.
Complainant’s second-level supervisor (Supervisor 2) was the Center Director. ROI
at 546, 1055, and 1330. The Deputy Director for Pacific Island Ecosystems Research
Center (PIERC) in Hawaii (PIERC Deputy Director), the former Deputy Regional
Director for Science now Regional Director for Science (Regional Director), and the
current Deputy Regional Director for Science (Associate Regional Director) were
also identified by Complainant. ROI at 139-49.
Complainant stated that her disability is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Complainant had prior EEO activity, including filing a previous complaint in 2021;
filing a previous reasonable accommodation request in 2020; reporting harassment
to Employee Relations (ER) in August 2020; starting an “internal harassment
investigation” in January 2021; requesting reassignment in 2021; and filing a
reasonable accommodation request in May 2022. ROI at 103, 139-41, and 145.
Complainant 	initiated 	EEO 	contact 	on 	March 	2, 	2022. 	On 	May 	20, 	2022,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint (with subsequent amendment on July 6, 2022,
August 30, 2022, October 4, 2022, October 12, 2022, and March 3, 2023) alleging
discrimination and harassment by the Agency on the bases of disability (mental) and
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when:
1. On February 18, 2022, Complainant received an email from Supervisor 1B
removing duties assigned to Complainant and reassigning them to himself;
2. On February 18, 2022, Complainant received an email stating that Supervisor
2 and Supervisor 1B expected Complainant to finalize a manuscript over the
holiday weekend;
3. On March 2, 2022, Complainant did not receive a response when she asked
management about her removal as Team Lead (or project lead);
4. On March 2, 2022, Supervisor 1B agreed with Supervisor 2 and Regional
Director to remove Complainant as the project lead;

3 	2026000111
5. On 	March 	10, 	2022, 	after 	Supervisor 	1B 	received 	notification 	that
Complainant filed an informal EEO Complaint, Complainant was ordered to
return her United States Geological Survey (USGS) computer;
6. On April 6, 2022, Complainant discovered that her coworker submitted
Complainant’s work under another Research Ecologist’s name, and when
Complainant questioned the alleged plagiarism, Complainant was told that her
ideas are owned by the government and management;
7. On May 31, 2022, Supervisor 1B contacted Complainant and stated that he
would conduct an inquiry into Complainant’s potential misconduct;
8. On June 1, 2022, Complainant informed Supervisor 1B, a Human Resources
Representative (HR Representative) from Employee Relations (ER), and a
representative from the Regional Office that, due to Supervisor 1B’s conflict
of interest and lack of objectivity, Complainant requested a neutral party to
conduct the interview concerning Complainant’s potential misconduct;
9. On June 1, 2022, HR Representative stated that Complainant was required to
cooperate with the interview led by Supervisor 1B concerning Complainant’s
potential misconduct;
10. On July 1, 2022, Supervisor 2 notified Complainant through the center wide
email, that Complainant’s direct supervisor is Supervisor 1B, however, on
record her direct supervisor is Supervisor 1A;
11. On 	March 	23, 	2022, 	HR 	Representative 	informed 	Complainant 	that
Complainant could not engage in EEO matters while on Family Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) leave;
12. On 	April 	7, 	2022, 	HR 	Representative 	told 	Complainant 	that 	it 	was
management’s decision to direct Complainant not to contact her fellow
Research Ecologist, thereby ignoring Complainant’s claim that the fellow
Research Ecologist was creating a hostile work environment;
13. On April 11, 2022, Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request was
not granted;

4 	2026000111
14. On 	June 	22, 	2022, 	HR 	Representative 	informed 	Complainant 	that
management was reviewing a proposed harassment case against Complainant,
however, when Complainant spoke to management, they stated that they had
no knowledge of the harassment case against Complainant;
15. On June 28, 2022, the project Complainant worked on was moved to another
region and at the same time, Complainant received notice about a potential
work transfer to Guam or Hawaii;
16. In July 2022, Complainant was informed that the ER Office issued the no
contact orders, however, during Complainant’s communication with HR
Representative concerning the no contact order process, HR Representative
was disingenuous with Complainant;
17. On July 22, 2022, HR Representative directed Complainant to contact
leadership about any conduct concerns she may have. However, when
Complainant 	contacted 	leadership, 	they 	expressed 	that 	they 	had 	no
knowledge;
18. On September 30, 2022, PIERC Deputy Director in Hawaii stated that the
Agency may not reappoint Complainant as the representative for the project
she leads upon completion of her detail;
19. On October 12, 2022, Complainant received communication from PIERC
Deputy 	Director in Hawaii 	that 	the project 	Complainant initiated 	was
reassigned to her fellow Research Ecologist by Supervisor 1B;
20. On March 3, 2023, Complainant was issued a “Letter of Reprimand” by
Regional Director and the Associate Regional Director; and
21. On March 3, 2023, Complainant was issued a “Letter of Counseling” by
Regional Director and the Associate Regional Director.
The Agency conducted an investigation. The investigation revealed that Office of
Insular 	Affairs 	proposal-related 	duties 	were 	never 	assigned 	to 	Complainant.
According to Supervisor 1B, after reviewing and considering the proposal writing
issue, he decided that input from all center scientists would be used to finalize the
ranking of all proposals rather than Complainant creating the process on her own.

5 	2026000111
He stated that Complainant chose not to submit proposals or participate in the
discussions about the Center-level proposal submission. ROI at 1056-61.
Management stated that Complainant mischaracterized a simple work assignment
that she should have completed within a few minutes. According to Supervisor 1B
and Supervisor 2, the task was to restore a coworker (Coworker 1’s) name as a co-
author on a manuscript, and to send it to Coworker 1 by a certain deadline during
business hours. Supervisors 1B and 2 denied directing Complainant to work over the
holiday weekend. ROI at 1056-61 and 1331-32.
Supervisor 1B and Regional Director stated that Complainant went on FMLA leave
on March 2, 2022, and in compliance with FMLA, it was necessary to temporarily
reassign her duties and responsibilities for continued work productivity. Supervisor
1B denied any removal or reassignment of duties but specified a temporary
assignment of duties necessary to complete the business of the Agency. ROI at 1061-
63 and 1362-67. HR representative also denied informing Complainant that she was
not permitted to work on her EEO activity while on FMLA leave. Instead, he
asserted, he advised her that she was permitted to use duty time to work on EEO
activity so that she would not be required to work on her EEO activity while on
leave, although she was free to do so. ROI at 1507-08.
Supervisor 1B was unaware of communication stating that Complainant was
removed as Team Lead. ROI at 1055 and 1061. PIERC Deputy Director stated that
Complainant asked to let her know if he would like to counteract Supervisor 1B’s
and Supervisor 2’s decision to revoke her responsibilities. According to him, he was
not aware of what Complainant was speaking about and did not want to counteract
any decisions made by her supervisors, so he did not respond. PIERC Deputy
Director asserted that he had already explained that these types of decisions were the
responsibilities of science center supervisors and not at his level. ROI at 1342.
Regional Director also specifically stated that she was not aware that Complainant
was ever removed as lead for a project. According to her, multiple issues were
converging, specifically that Complainant would be going on a rotation and that
Complainant was discussing with Supervisor 1B as to what would happen to her
duties. ROI at 1362 and 1364. She also stated that reassigning tasks to make sure
work is completed while an employee is away has nothing to do with any EEO
activity.

6 	2026000111
She added that other than discussing the possibility of entering counseling with
Complainant’s supervisor in January 2021, and Complainant’s email in February
2022 asking for assistance in determining who Complainant should file against,
Regional Director knew of no EEO activity that would impact making sure USGS
delivered on science commitments. ROI at 1366. Complainant herself stated that she
did not know whether she had been removed as a Team Lead; and that management
has stated that she will return to her duties when she completes her detail. ROI at
154-57.
Complainant explained that she was not officially removed as a project lead, but that
all the team/project lead duties were removed except for managing funding, which
is an accounting role and not a leadership role. Complainant also stated that
Supervisor 2 started revoking and redelegating Complainant’s duties immediately
after Complainant consulted ER in August 2020, and that the changes continued by
the time Complainant started her detail in March 2022. ROI at 156-57.
Supervisor 1B denied awareness of communication that removed Complainant as a
project lead, asserting that Complainant remains the Project Chief in the USGS
project planning system as of July 8, 2022. According to him, Complainant started
FMLA leave on March 2, 2022, and that, to comply with the requirements under
FMLA, 	it 	was 	necessary 	that 	during 	her 	absence, 	management 	temporarily
reassigned Complainant’s usual duties and tasks. Supervisor 1B stated that this was
not a removal or reassignment of duties but, rather, a temporary assignment of duties
necessary to complete the business of the Agency. ROI at 1061-63. Regional
Director provided supporting statements. ROI at 1362-67.
Complainant stated that shortly after she filed an informal complaint, management
sent out an email the next business day after she was asked to return her laptop
stating that everyone was required to submit their laptops as all computers needed
to be backed up. Complainant also stated that all her files were stored in SharePoint
and she did not store information on her hard drive so no back up was required.
Complainant asserted that, ultimately, she did not return the laptop. ROI at 157-60.
Complainant provided a copy of an email showing that HR Representative emailed
Complainant on March 10, 2022, stating that Complainant would be contacted to
transition for her 6-month detail. HR Representative stated in the email that
Complainant needed to backup and patch her current laptop, and that she may need
a new laptop for her detail. ROI at 238.

7 	2026000111
According to Supervisor 1B, there was no request made for Complainant to return
her computer on March 10, 2022. Instead, Complainant was informed on March 23,
2022, that she needed to select an option for the USGS furnished computer assigned
to her to be backed up by March 28, 2022, prior to Complainant’s detail at the
Department of Homeland Security. On March 25, 2022, Supervisor 1B sent an email
notifying all employees that on their report date, they were to return all equipment
taken home during telework and to coordinate with their supervisor regarding a
backup of the USGS-furnished computers. Supervisor 1B stated that the notice was
sent in preparation for the return to the physical worksite of all permanent federal
employees on March 28, 2022. ROI at 1064-67.
Regional Director provided supporting statements, asserting that science centers
needed to ensure that all work products and data were backed up on their internal
systems and, all telework employees were asked to submit their laptops for back up.
She stated that when she learned that Complainant would be leaving a detail, she
asked Complainant to expedite her laptop back up before she went on detail to
prevent disruption. ROI at 1367-71.
Supervisor 1B stated that a complaint was made in early May 2022 about the process
leading up to the capture of wild lizards on Guam and Cocos Island and the care of
those lizards between June 2021 and Fall 2021. According to him, the complaint
alleged that many lizards died and that management agreed that the issue required
investigation. An inquiry was conducted to understand the situation and to determine
if there were changes required in policy to better manage the FCSC and ensure
compliance with rules and policies. ROI at 1241-44. Regional Director provided
supporting statements, adding that the inquiry only concerned what happened to the
lizards, not who was responsible for the deaths of the lizards. ROI at 1381-85.
DPM Director asserted that management refrained from having Complainant work
on Brown Tree Snake related matters while she was on detail so that she could focus
on her detail. He stated that Complainant expected to be restored every responsibility
that she had prior to the detail, asserting that this was a term of her detail. However,
DPM Director stated that per her detail agreement, Complainant was still subject to
a supervisor’s decisions about research assignments like other federal employees.
He also told her multiple times that he considered her a Project Leader for the Brown
Tree Snake project, so Complainant was still in that role. DPM Director also
explained that being appointed to a representative of a project was not a guaranteed
part of Complainant’s position. He was also unsure about what Complainant’s role

8 	2026000111
would be in the future due to the Agency’s collaborators requesting that DPM
Director serve as the representative for the Brown Tree Snake project for an
additional period. ROI at 1538-39.
DPM Director denied stating to Complainant that a research proposal, which
Complainant initiated, was reassigned to Coworker 1 by Supervisor 1B. According
to him, both Complainant and Coworker 1 were working on different proposals. He
also stated that there were inevitable similarities between the two proposals, as there
was limited universe relating to the subject matter. DPM Director stated that
Complainant’s allegation was a mischaracterization of what had occurred at a
meeting in November 2022, showing the origin of the proposals. He added that no
project was taken away from Complainant; and that he also told Complainant that
she was welcome to propose a research role that she could perform on the new
project, and she would still be welcome to participate. ROI at 1539-40.
Supervisor 1B stated that Complainant reported that Coworker 1 plagiarized
Complainant’s work by incorporating Complainant’s ideas into her project proposal.
Supervisor 1B told Complainant that idea generation is a normal part of group
discussions within a research team and that during Complainant’s medical leave and
subsequent detail, the project moved forward to propose potentially viable projects
for funding that were of interest to the team. According to him, Coworker 1 did not
plagiarize Complainant’s work as Complainant asserted. ROI at 1067-69. HR
Representative 	stated 	that 	an 	agency 	investigation 	was 	conducted 	into
Complainant’s claim that Coworker 1 plagiarized Complainant’s work and that the
investigation found that Coworker 1 had done nothing inappropriate. ROI at 1488-
89.
Supervisor 1B, Regional Director and HR Representative stated that Complainant
was issued a no contact order due to allegations that she was creating a hostile work
environment for Coworker 1, and ultimately Complainant’s own conduct. HR
Representative also stated that Complainant was issued the no contact order due to
Complainant contacting Coworker 1 and accusing her of plagiarism after the Agency
had determined that Complainant’s allegations of plagiarism were unfounded. ROI
at 1290-93, 1448-50, and 1510-12.
Regional Director stated that the Letter of Reprimand and Letter of Counseling were
warranted due to Complainant’s lack of candor. Associate Regional Director added
that Complainant failed to produce information during a harassment investigation

9 	2026000111
set forth in December 2020. According to her, Complainant made misrepresentations
to the investigator, which ultimately led to both disciplinary actions.
At the time she made her reasonable accommodation request in May 2022,
Complainant was serving a six-month detail with the Department of Homeland
Security that commenced on or around March 28, 2022. ROI at 252 and 1291.
Complainant also admitted that the agency did move her and the project on which
she was working to another region so none of these people (her supervisory chain)
were in her chain of command anymore. According to Complainant, a named
individual took action and moved the project and everyone involved in her
allegations from interacting with Complainant and had also largely removed them
from being able to evaluate and contact Complainant. Complainant stated that maybe
with the exception of one named employee, “it has probably effectively stopped the
harassment…” ROI at 546-47.
The Agency also searched for a vacant funded position to which Complainant could
be reassigned. ROI at 1510-12. Complainant admitted that on July 28, 2022, she was
notified by a third named individual that she would receive a reassignment to the
position identified in her reasonable accommodation request by her doctor; however,
she was ultimately notified on December 16, 2022, that her application package did
not meet the position requirements. ROI at 1986-88. As of February 7, 2023, the
Agency was looking for an accommodation of last resort. ROI at 1511.
DPM Director also granted Complainant an effective reasonable accommodation on
October 4, 2023, allowing her to remain in remote work status, duty-station in Fort
Collins, Colorado, subject to periodic review for effectiveness consistent with
Department policies including but not limited to PB 21-03: Processing Requests for
Reasonable Accommodation 	for 	Individuals 	with 	Disabilities 	and 	PB 	20-06:
Department Remote Work Policy. However, Complainant rejected the reasonable
accommodation. See FAD at 65-70.
DPM Director sent Complainant a memorandum seeking clarification of the
reasonable accommodation request on July 2, 2024. The memorandum stated that
DPM Director and Complainant were still undergoing an interactive dialogue to
discuss 	her 	voluntary 	reassignment 	of 	last 	resort. 	See 	FAD 	at 	72-7. 	The
memorandum also stated that on May 6, 2024, DPM Director was willing to discuss
the voluntary reassignment, and then subsequently on June 19, 2024, Complainant
sent 	DPM 	Director 	another 	email 	asking 	him 	to 	initiate 	the

10 	2026000111
reassignment/accommodation of last “process” and requesting leave in the interim.
According to DPM Director in the memorandum, on June 21, 2024, he provided
Complainant with information concerning her right to request leave under FMLA,
and on June 27, 2024, he approved Complainant’s request to take 152 hours of
annual 	leave 	unrelated 	to 	FMLA. 	Id. 	DPM 	Director 	subsequently 	approved
Complainant’s 	additional 	request 	for 	240 	hours 	of 	annual 	leave 	as 	an
accommodation for October 7, 2024, through November 19, 2024, consistent with
the medical documentation Complainant submitted on July 10, 2024, which stated
that Complainant was incapacitated for a continuous period of time through
December 15, 2024.
DPM 	Director 	also 	invited 	Complainant 	to 	provide 	additional 	medical
documentation that clearly outlined the limitations caused by her disability, how
these limitations impact her ability to perform specific essential job functions and
identify accommodations that would help her overcome these limitations while
allowing her to meet the essential requirements of her position as a Research
Ecologist, GS-0408-13. Complainant sent DPM Director an email on November 24,
2024, where she indicated that she would like to “discontinue pursuing this
[reasonable accommodation].” See FAD at 79-80.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, or a final
decision from the agency. 	After Complainant requested a decision, the Agency
issued a final decision (FAD) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency
concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, contests the FAD, reiterating her
allegations and arguing that dismissal of her claims is legally and procedurally
flawed. 	According 	to 	Complainant, 	the 	FAD 	ignores 	binding 	Commission
precedent, mischaracterizes key facts, and fails to apply and address appropriate
legal standards. For these reasons, Complainant asserts, reversal is warranted. We
will address Complainant’s arguments below.
The Agency, in pertinent part, argued that its final decision should be affirmed.

11 	2026000111
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”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. 	Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at
802 n.13. 	The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. 	Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Failure to Accommodate (Claim 13)
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of an individual with a disability unless the agency can show
that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o) and
(p). In order to establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined by
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is “qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m);
and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under
the 	Americans 	with 	Disabilities 	Act 	(Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable
Accommodation), No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002).

12 	2026000111
The term “qualified,” with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the
individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related
requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with
or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such
position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).
Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation of an employee’s
disability, the employer may engage in an interactive process with the employee to
identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(o)(3) (2019). An Agency may choose among reasonable accommodations as
long as the chosen accommodation is effective, and while the preference of the
individual with a disability should be given primary consideration, an Agency has
the 	ultimate 	discretion 	to 	choose 	between 	effective 	accommodations. 	See
Enforcement Guidance, supra, at Q. 9.
Here, we find that Complainant is an individual with disability who could perform
the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation.
Complainant stated that she had PTSD. While she did not describe any limitations
resulting from her disability, Complainant requested reasonable accommodation in
the form of a reassignment to a different supervisory chain. See ROI at 1510-1511
and 	1960 	for 	Complainant’s 	May 	16, 	2022, 	medical 	request, 	stating 	that
Complainant needed a reassignment. The request referenced a transfer into vacant
position USGS DEN22-11329663-ST-DEG, GS 13 0408/0486 or an equivalent
vacant position that would provide new management where Complainant would not
feel unsafe or threatened. Therefore, the Agency was aware of Complainant’s
disability.
Complainant’s requested accommodation reflects her belief that the only effective
accommodation was to be reassigned away from her management team. ROI at 578-
81. However, reassignment is an accommodation of last resort. As such, we concur
with the Agency’s observation that Complainant’s requested reassignment is
unreasonable as a matter of law. In general, reassignment is the reasonable
accommodation of last resort and should be considered only when: (1) there are no
effective accommodations that would enable an employee to perform the essential
functions of his or her current position; or (2) accommodating the employee in the
current position would cause an undue hardship. Charlie O. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120142688 (Dec. 2, 2016), citing 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, App.

13 	2026000111
Section 	1630.2(n); 	Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable 	Accommodation,
“Reassignment.”
Moreover, the Commission has held that an employer is not required to provide an
employee with a new supervisor as a reasonable accommodation. See Major D. v.
Off. of Pers. Mgmt., EEOC Appeal No. 2019004952 (Feb. 19, 2020), citing, Famber
v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal 	No. 0120101703 	(Aug. 15, 2012) and
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002, Question 33 (Oct.
17, 2002).
Yet, Complainant herself admitted that she and the project on which she was
working were moved from her chain of command, effectively stopping the alleged
harassment. Complainant also admitted that she was notified that she would receive
a reassignment to the position identified in her reasonable accommodation request,
however, her application package did not meet the position requirements; and the
Agency was still looking for an accommodation of last resort. We also note that
contrary to Complainant’s allegations, it was Complainant who truncated the
ongoing interactive process with DPM Director. As such, Complainant has failed to
show that the Agency did not accommodate her as alleged.
Disparate Treatment Based on Reprisal (Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 20, and 21)
We find that the Agency provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the
challenged 	actions. 	Complainant, 	however, 	failed 	to 	demonstrate, 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence, that the stated reasons were pretextual. She also
failed to establish a link between those actions and her protected EEO activity. Nor
do we find any evidence that management took any action that was motivated by
retaliatory animus against Complainant.
Regarding Claim 1, Supervisor 1B explained that the duties associated with
developing a proposal ranking process had not been assigned to Complainant, but
she declared on her own that she was responsible for creating a proposal ranking
process. Supervisor 1B, however, decided that the duty at issue would be best
performed by all researchers rather than by Complainant herself, so he instructed all
researchers to submit proposal ideas. ROI at 1057-59. Complainant did not dispute
that assigning duties is the responsibility of the supervisor and that it was up to
Supervisor 1B to assign the duty of developing a proposal ranking process.

14 	2026000111
Regarding Claim 2, management explained, and Complainant did not dispute, that
the task requested required that Complainant restore Coworker 1’s name to the
manuscript and send it to Complainant’s colleagues, a minimal task that required no
more than ten to fifteen minutes of her time. As such, the evidence does not support
a conclusion that Complainant was asked to complete a manuscript over the holiday
weekend.
As 	to 	Claim 	3, 	both 	Supervisors 	1 	and 	2 	explained 	that 	Complainant 	had
mischaracterized a simple task that should have been completed within a few
minutes. An email from Supervisor 1A, dated February 18, 2022, requested that
Complainant restore Coworker 1’s name on a manuscript and to provide each co-
author with the most recent draft of the manuscript no later than close of business
Tuesday, February 22, 2022. ROI at 226. Complainant herself confirmed that she
needed to add a co-author and address co-author comments by close of business on
February 22, 2022. She stated that there had never been any rush to complete the
manuscript; and that she earned overtime pay for finalizing the manuscript over the
weekend. ROI at 141-53.
As to Claim 4, Supervisor 1B and Regional Director stated that in compliance with
FMLA requirements, it was necessary to temporarily reassign Complainant’s duties
and responsibilities for continued work productivity.
As to Claim 5, according to Supervisor 1B, there was no request made for
Complainant to return her computer on March 10, 2022. Instead, Complainant was
informed on March 23, 2022, that she needed to select an option for the USGS
furnished computer assigned to her to be backed up by March 28, 2022, prior to
Complainant’s detail at the Department of Homeland Security. ROI at 1064-67.
Regarding Claim 6, Supervisor 1B confirmed that Complainant reported that
Coworker 1 plagiarized Complainant’s work by incorporating Complainant’s ideas
into her project proposal. HR Representative, however, stated that an Agency
investigation 	was 	conducted 	into 	Complainant’s 	plagiarism 	claim 	but 	the
investigation found that Coworker 1 had done nothing inappropriate.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, and 9, management explained, and Complainant did not
dispute, that the inquiry only concerned what happened to the lizards, not who was
responsible for the deaths of the lizards.

15 	2026000111
Regarding Claim 10, Complainant stated that her former first-level supervisor retired
and subsequently, on July 1, 2022, Supervisor 2 told Complainant that Supervisor
1B was her new first-level supervisor. Complainant asserted that she only provided
this information for context, it was not an allegation. As such, it was not investigated.
ROI at 546.
Regarding Claim 11, HR Representative asserted, and the record reflects, that he
advised Complainant that she was permitted to use duty time to work on EEO
activity so that she would not be required to work on her EEO activity while on
leave, although she was free to do so. See ROI at 2321 for a March 23, 2022, email
from HR Representative to Complainant stating, “any time you are addressing EEO,
harassment, work conditions, it is duty time, so therefore would 	fall under
leave/FMLA.” Complainant did not dispute HR Representative’s explanation or the
email.
Regarding Claim 19, DPM Director denied stating to Complainant that a research
proposal, which Complainant initiated, was reassigned to Coworker 1 by Supervisor
1B. Complainant did not dispute that she and Coworker 1 were working on different
proposals that had inevitable similarities due to limitations on the universe relating
to the subject matter.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Regional Director stated that the Letters of Reprimand
and Counseling were issued due to Complainant’s conduct. Complainant did not
deny her alleged lack of candor with an internal investigator regarding her conduct
toward Coworker 1.
To the extent that Complainant is alleging harassment, a finding of a hostile work
environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant did not establish
that the incidents alleged in Claims 1-13, and 18-21 occurred due to discrimination
based on her disability or prior protected EEO activity.
For example, it was Complainant who had been investigated and disciplined for her
conduct toward Coworker 1 in Claim 12.
As to Claim 14, HR Representative explained that management did know of
Complainant’s prior EEO activity because she was being investigated for her
conduct toward Coworker 1. However, Complainant was on detail at the time, and
her new work team was not informed that Complainant was under investigation for

16 	2026000111
an incident that occurred at Fort Collins (Science Center), not in her new place of
work. ROI at 1512.
Regarding Claims 15, 16, 17 and 18, DPM Director stated that per a July 8, 2022,
realignment order, the Brown Tree Snake project was realigned from FCSC in
Colorado to PIERC in Hawaii. Complainant did not dispute that the realignment
affected other employees, not just Complainant, and that the goal was to have all the
Guam staff stationed in Guam. DPM Director also asserted, and Complainant did
not dispute, that she was not required to relocate to Guam, and that realignment has
been ongoing. ROI at 1535-36. See also ROI at 1537 for DPM director’s denial that
he knew of Complainant’s harassment investigation.
HR Representative stated that Complainant misinterpreted his email response in that
he was not at liberty to provide confidential information about ER policies regarding
harassment allegations. He explained that he emailed Complainant, specifying that
there were no harassment allegations against her on July 22, 2022; and that she could
discuss her concerns with her leadership ROI at 1513-14.
We note Complainant’s repeated statement that management’s actions seemed
retaliatory because they occurred during the very time in which her EEO complaint,
which was initiated on March 2, 2022, was progressing through the Agency EEO
process. ROI at 72-6. The record, however, does not support Complainant’s
statements because we find no nexus between Complainant’s protected EEO activity
and the challenged management actions.
Moreover, contrary to Complainant’s appeal contentions, we do not find that
reversal of the FAD findings is warranted because the Agency addressed all of
Complainant’s allegations, including any previously dismissed claims. Therefore,
we find no evidence that the FAD is legally or procedurally flawed as alleged on
appeal.
Therefore, 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.

17 	2026000111
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.
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

18 	2026000111
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

19 	2026000111
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 28, 2026
Date