EEOC Appeal 2026002771

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Sadie S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002771
Hearing No. 570-2024-01334X
Agency No. HS-TSA-00739-2024
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 29, 2026 final order 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 order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was assigned to the
Philadelphia Field Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as a Federal Air Marshal
candidate.
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.

2026002771	2
However, Complainant was stationed at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in Artesia, New Mexico, and the Training Center in Egg Harbor, New Jersey.
On March 13, 2024, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex (female)2 when:
1. On November 9, 2023, a management official verbally reprimanded
Complainant and required her to submit and redo an essay.
2. On November 16, 2023, management officials verbally reprimanded
Complainant.
3. On November 20, 2023, a management official removed Complainant from
class and from the training academy.
4. On November 22, 2023, management subjected Complainant to an
investigation.
5. On December 15, 2023, management terminated Complainant’s employment
during her probationary period.
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 (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The
AJ issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency finding no
discrimination. 	The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing
the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed.
2 During the Initial Status Conference, the parties mutually agreed that sex was the
only basis of discrimination. 	The AJ stated that Complainant’s representative
mentioned that he would file a Motion to Amend to include reprisal. However, the
Motion to Amend was not submitted and the AJ limited the analysis to sex as the
only basis of discrimination.

2026002771	3
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, 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 Chap. 9, § VI.A. (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”); see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an
administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the
decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
On appeal, Complainant challenges the AJ’s denial of her Motion to Compel
regarding the missing portions of the investigative report. 	An AJ has full
responsibility for the adjudication of the complaint, including overseeing the
development of the record, and has broad discretion in the conduct of hearings. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.109(a), (e). Given the AJ's broad authority to regulate the conduct of
a hearing, a party claiming that the AJ abused his or her discretion faces a very high
bar. Trina C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142617 (Sept. 13, 2016),
citing Kenyatta S. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720150016 n.3 (June 3,
2016) 	(responsibility 	for 	adjudicating 	complaints 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.109(e) gives AJs wide latitude in directing terms, conduct, and course of
administrative hearings before EEOC).
Here, we find that Complainant's disagreement with the AJ's decision to deny the
Motion to Compel does not amount to a showing of an abuse of discretion by the
AJ. 	The AJ found that the portion of the investigative report at issue fell within the
protections of deliberative process privilege, and Complainant did not show that her
need 	for the information outweighed the Agency’s interest in 	protecting 	its
disclosure.
Turning to the merits of the matter, the Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to
grant summary judgment when they find that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such
that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-49 (1986).

2026002771	4
A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When
considering summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586
(2009).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must
identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing
further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material
under applicable law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing
is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated
by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such
a dispute.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable factfinder could
not find in Complainant’s favor. 	We find that the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. 	Specifically, the Agency terminated
Complainant’s employment because an investigation revealed that Complainant
engaged in misconduct during her training period, which the Agency determined
made Complainant unfit to become a federal law enforcement officer. The record
reveals that Complainant was accused of making discriminatory and inappropriate
comments; attempting to or threatening to kick a fellow Federal Marshal candidate
in the groin area three times; and slapping the buttocks of two Federal Marshal
candidates. 	The deciding official noted that Complainant demonstrated a lack of
maturity needed for the job based upon the accusations and Complainant’s responses
to the accusations.
With 	respect 	to 	the harassment 	claim, we agree with 	the AJ's 	finding that
Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency's actions created a sufficiently
severe or pervasive work environment to constitute an unlawful hostile work
environment. 	Rather, the record reflects ongoing workplace tribulations during
Complainant’s training period. For example, Complainant was required to write an
essay concerning teamwork and accountability following an incident where she rode
in a different van from her training class. 	Management stated that Complainant was
verbally instructed to use the van assigned to her class going forward.

2026002771	5
Additionally, the vans were used to transport serialized inert red guns, which were
supposed to be secured when not in use, and there were concerns regarding how
Complainant was transporting her weapon back to her hotel.
Complainant received an additional verbal reprimand based on management’s
determination that Complainant was insubordinate and failed to follow the proper
chain of command when sending an email regarding the van incident.
With respect to Complainant’s removal from the training academy, management
officials affirmed that Complainant was removed from the training class due to
reports of inappropriate touching and unprofessional behavior, including a racial
comment about another student. Complainant was removed pending adjudication of
the Incident Tracking Report.
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the
parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the
preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated
against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.
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.

2026002771	6
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
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.

2026002771	7
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 __________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 17, 2026
Date