EEOC Appeal 2026003602

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Roxane C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003602
Hearing No. 830-2026-01425X
Agency No. 200P-346-2025-163551
DECISION
On July 25, 2026, 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 June 26, 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 finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Vocation Rehabilitation Counselor, GS-12, at the Agency’s Seattle VA Regional
Office facility in Seattle, Washington.
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.

2026003602	2
On May 1, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (African American) and sex (female)
when, on December 31, 2024, Complainant’s request for a compressed work
schedule (CWS) was denied.
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 requested a hearing before an AJ.
The 	Agency 	submitted 	a 	motion 	for 	a 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing, 	which
Complainant opposed. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination. The
Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
We agree with the AJ’s determination that the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to deny Complainant’s request for a CWS.
Complainant said that she initially requested a CWS during her interview. After that,
Complainant stated that she followed up and reiterated her request through email
and Microsoft Teams messages. Complainant was initially assigned a Monday–
Friday training schedule of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Following the completion of the
training period, Complainant said that her schedule was modified to 7:00 a.m. to
3:30 p.m., with telework authorized on Monday, Thursday, and Friday, and in-office
duty on Tuesday and Wednesday. Subsequently, Complainant submitted a request
for a CWS consisting of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday from 6:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., with Tuesday and Wednesday designated as telework days and Monday
as a regular day off (RDO). Complainant reported that this schedule was requested
to support consistent work completion and to mitigate the worsening of symptoms
associated with her service-connected disabilities, including post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), anxiety, migraines, and musculoskeletal conditions affecting the
knees, back, shoulder, and neck, which were adversely affected by more frequent in-
person work requirements.
The Veterans Readiness & Employment Officer (VREO) stated that Complainant
began her employment with Veteran Readiness & Employment (VR&E) on May 19,
2024, and requested a CWS on September 25, 2024. VREO said that the request was
denied because Complainant did not meet the one-year on-staff requirement and was
still considered in training status at the time of each request.

2026003602	3
VREO stated that she, the Assistant Veterans Readiness & Employment Officer
(AVREO) 	and 	the 	Supervisory 	Vocational 	Rehabilitation 	Counselor 	(SVRC)
communicated this point to Complainant via email on October 2, 2024, November
27, 2024, December 26, 2024, and December 31, 2024. She also stated that
Complainant was offered the opportunity to change her gliding tour of duty to an
earlier start time, which she did effective pay period 1 of Calendar Year (CY) 2025
on January 12, 2025.
Complainant presented no evidence to support a conclusion that the Agency’s
articulated reasons are pretext for discrimination. Moreover, Complainant offered
no explanation for her belief that the Agency’s denial of Complainant’s request for
a CWS was connected to her race or sex. Although we note that the AJ included the
bases of disability and age in the AJ’s decision, those bases seem to have been
included by error as they were not raised in the complaint, not part of the accepted
claim by the Agency (which was not challenged by Complainant), and there is no
indication the complaint was amended before the AJ. Furthermore, we see no
evidence of any age or disability discrimination.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable fact-finder could
not find in Complainant’s favor. 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
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

2026003602	4
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
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).

2026003602	5
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
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 30, 2026
Date