EEOC Appeal 2026003029

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Rachael F.,1
Complainant,
v.
Scott Bessent,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003029
Hearing No. 560-2024-00112X
Agency No. IRS-23-1029-F
DECISION
On June 19, 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 May 19, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation
Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order finding no
discrimination.
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.

2026003029	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Contact
Representative (CR), GS-0962-08 at the Wage & Investment-Account Management
facility in Kansas City, Missouri. On October 9, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race
(Caucasian), sex (female), disability (physical), age (above 40 years-old), and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On July 11, 2023, Supervisory Contact Manager (Supervisor 1),
Complainant’s first-level supervisor, charged Complainant with Absent
Without Leave (AWOL) and continually contacted Complainant at
home despite her being approved for Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) leave from July 11 until October 23, 2023; and
2. 	On July 23, 2023, Complainant’s former manager (Supervisor 2) sent
her a sexually offensive and threatening text.
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. 	Over
Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s October
13, 2024, motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a
hearing on May 19, 2026. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting
the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the arguments entered by the parties, we
find that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to establish that her protected classes were the reason for the
Agency’s actions. Even assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima
facie case of discrimination based on the alleged bases, we find that the Agency
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, for which we find
Complainant failed to establish were mere pretext for discrimination.
Regarding Claim 1, the Agency explained that on July 11, 2023, Complainant
reported that she had to have surgery and requested leave. Shortly after, Supervisor
1 	informed 	Complainant 	that 	her 	Leave 	Without 	Pay 	(LWOP) 	request 	was
incomplete due to the lack of supporting documentation. On or about July 27, 2023,2
2 Complainant’s medical provider didn’t sign the WH380 form until July 27, 2023.

2026003029	3
Complainant submitted a Form WH-380 form (medical certification) for recovery
from surgery for the period from July 11, 2023 to August 27, 2023. Complainant
notified Supervisor 1 that she was having a second surgery on July 31, 2023, due to
further medical complications. Supervisor 1 denied the leave request explaining that
Complainant provided insufficient medical documents, which were required under
the National Agreement between the Agency and NTEU.
On August 4, 2023, Supervisor 1 emailed Complainant to inquire about the type of
leave being requested and informed Complainant that the request needed to be
elevated for approval. On August 11, 2023, Supervisor 1 informed Complainant that
she was being placed in AWOL status for 40 hours for her failure to follow the
procedures 	under 	the 	National 	Agreement. 	However, 	on 	August 	14, 	2023,
Department Manager (DM) informed Supervisor 1 that Complainant only needed to
provide the duration of her absences from her medical provider since she had already
provided information related to her surgeries. Thus, Complainant was informed that
her leave request was complete and was forwarded to the DM and Operation
Manager (OM) for approval. On August 21, 2023, OM approved Complainant’s
leave request. By August 23, 2023, Supervisor 1 had converted the AWOL charges
to LWOP.
On October 6, 2023, Supervisor 1 again contacted Complainant (via email) to
discuss her leave from October 4-6, 2023. Complainant was informed that she had
exhausted her FMLA leave and was then required to follow the procedures under
the National Agreement for any further leave requests. Complainant was initially
placed in AWOL status (October 4-6) to cover the days in question. On October 16,
2023, Complainant informed Supervisor 1 that she was able to work one day a week.
On October 17, 2023, Supervisor 1 notified Complainant that her request for leave
was being forwarded to the OM. On October 19, 2023, OM approved Complainant’s
leave from October 4, 2023, through October 20, 2023.
The record shows that Complainant was ultimately provided with the requested
leave once she provided the required documentation. The evidence does not
establish, and Complainant did not provide evidence to the contrary, that the
Agency’s reason for the way the leave request was processed was a pretext for
discrimination on any of the bases she alleges.
Regarding Claim 2, the Agency stated that Supervisor 2 was Complainant’s former
first-level supervisor from February 19, 2019, to November 2020.

2026003029	4
At the time in question, Supervisor 2 was assigned to a different unit and tour of duty
than Complainant. Supervisor 2 allegedly sent a text message to Complainant on
July 23, 2023, during off duty hours. Although Complainant states the text was
offensive (allegedly hoping Complainant is physically injured and attacked), there
is no evidence of that text in the record. 	Complainant affirmed that she contacted
Supervisor 2 and told him to stop sending message and that he did not message her
again. Further, Complainant affirmed that she had no interactions with Supervisor
2 after July 23, 2023, until she approached him to ask questions about time and
attendance. We find that even if the alleged incident occurred in the manner
described, the Agency’s actions are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute
a hostile work environment.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order 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.

2026003029	5
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.
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.

2026003029	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 ________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 29, 2026
Date