EEOC Appeal 2025003988

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
James S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Hung Cao,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003988
Hearing No. 480-2025-00187X
Agency No. DON 24-50210-00209
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
July 14, 2025, final order concerning his 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 worked as a Police
Officer Instructor, GS-09, at the Agency’s Naval Air Weapons Station in China
Lake, California. On March 6, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on race (Caucasian), color
(white), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when management (1) on
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.

2025003988	2
January 16, 2024, issued him a 14-day calendar suspension; (2) on November 21,
2023, issued him a proposed 14-calendar day suspension; and (3) on October 30,
2023, told him that an Inspector General (IG) investigation concluded and that he
could face termination.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. On
May 12, 2025, the AJ issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Decision without a Hearing.
Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ subsequently issued a summary judgment
decision in favor of the Agency, finding that Complainant was not subjected to
discrimination as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order on July 14,
2025, fully implementing the AJ’s decision.
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).
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). 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).

2025003988	3
We agree with the AJ that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions and that Complainant failed to establish that those reasons
were 	pretextual. 	Significantly, 	Complainant 	acknowledged 	falsifying 	official
training documents, which resulted in his suspension. The AJ further found that
management 	appropriately 	determined 	the 	disciplinary 	penalty 	following 	its
investigation, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, Complainant’s position
as a Police Officer Instructor, his lack of prior disciplinary history during more than
19 years of federal service, and his “Outstanding” performance ratings.
We agree with the AJ’s findings here. Complainant points to no evidence in the
record that the actions taken by management officials to suspend, propose, or warn
about possible termination were based on anything other than the sustained charge
of lack of candor. The record simply does not raise a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether the Agency’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory
animus with respect to the claims at issue. Like the AJ, we also find that, whether
considered collectively or in isolation, the matters at issue herein do not constitute
conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of prohibited
harassment/a hostile work environment.
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, argued that the AJ erred by denying
him additional time for discovery to supplement the record, and by not allowing him
to add sex as a basis. We find no abuse of discretion regarding the AJ’s evidentiary
or procedural rulings. Although Complainant had multiple opportunities to request
that his complaint be amended to include the basis of sex, he only did so after the AJ
filed her notice of intent to issue a decision without a hearing. Likewise, the record
indicates that Complainant had three months to engage in discovery. 	There is no
evidence that he raised any disputes with the Agency to the AJ before discovery
closed.
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. 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
find no basis to disturb the AJ’s determination and AFFIRM the Agency’s final order
implementing the AJ’s decision.

2025003988	4
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).

2025003988	5
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.

2025003988	6
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