EEOC Appeal 2025003838

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Phyllis F.,1
Complainant,
v.
Marco Rubio,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003838
Agency No. DOS-0167-24
DECISION
On August 5, 2025, 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 August 11, 2025, final decision 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 decision finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Foreign
Affairs Officer, GS-13, at the Agency’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs (INL), Office of Europe and Asia (INL/EA) in Washington,
District of Columbia. 	On June 11, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
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.

2025003838	2
1. 	On January 17, 2024, Complainant was counseled by management for
being unprofessional;
2. 	On February 26, 2024, Complainant was given a lower rating on several
competencies in her Employee Evaluation Report, calendar year 2023;
3. 	On or around May 15, 2024, Supervisor did not approve her Temporary
Duty Station (TDY) Request; and
4. 	Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment beginning
November 2022 and as recently as May 15, 2024, characterized by, but
not limited to:
a. Verbal and written attacks;
b. Physical expressions of anger;
c. Interference with her portfolio and duties;
d. Exclusion from messages and meetings;
e. Dismissive comments; and
f. Demeaning statements.
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. 	In accordance with Complainant’s request, the
Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision
concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged.
On 	appeal, 	Complainant 	argues 	that 	Supervisory 	Foreign 	Affairs 	Officer’s
(Complainant’s first-level supervisor (Supervisor 1)) statement included examples
to justify the lower rating on her performance evaluation, however, these examples
were not supported by the facts. Complainant argues that she was threatened with
receiving a lower evaluation if her “behavior” with Coworker 1 (male) continued.
However, the context leading to her “behavior” was not considered. Complainant
alleges that not only was Coworker 1 not held to the same standard, but she, despite
refraining from engaging with Coworker 1 after this threat, was still given a lower
performance evaluation. When concerns regarding Coworker 1’s conduct were
raised, her concerns were dismissed, and Coworker 1’s behavior was excused.
In addition, Complainant argues that she was prohibited from traveling to her
assigned countries less than her colleagues. Further, Complainant argues that
contrary to management’s assertions, travel records would show that (Coworker 2

2025003838	3
(male)), Coworker 3 (male), Coworker 4 (female), Coworker 1, Coworker 5,
Coworker 6 (female), and Coworker 7 (male) had completed TDYs during the
timeframe in question.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the arguments entered by the parties, we
find that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Agency’s finding
that Complainant failed to establish that her protected classes was 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Division Chief (Complainant’s second-level supervisor
(Supervisor 2)) stated that on July 11, 2023, Complainant sent an email to Coworker
1 that she categorized as needlessly aggressive. She privately offered Complainant
constructive feedback via email encouraging her to “think through how to best frame
your disagreement in the most professional way possible…” Complainant’s mid-
year review on July 27, 2023, noted areas for improvement. Specifically, Supervisor
1 noted, “[s]pecific to Core Competency #3 Relational Effectiveness, [Complainant]
needs to improve her performance on cultivating positive teamwork and cooperation
to achieve team goals.” Complainant was counseled on the need to consistently
engage in respectful and professional written and oral communications with her
colleagues.
Supervisor 1 and 2 stated that on January 17, 2024, Complainant had her end-of-the-
year performance review in which Complainant’s unprofessional email exchanges
with Coworker 1 on July 11, 2023, and September 12, 2023 were noted. Regarding
the 	September 	12, 	2023, 	email 	exchange, 	Supervisor 	1 	explained 	that 	both
Complainant 	and 	Coworker 	1 	were 	speaking 	to 	each 	other 	extremely
unprofessionally and refusing to disengage. Further, Supervisor 1 raised the same
unprofessional email exchange with Coworker 1 and counseled him on the same
performance issue during his 2023 performance review. Supervisor 2 stated that
Coworker 1 was given a lower rating on his performance review as a result of his
handling 	of 	the 	interpersonal 	dispute 	and 	communication 	between 	him 	and
Complainant throughout the 2023 rating period.
Regarding Claim 3, the Agency stated that none of Complainant’s TDY requests
were denied. Further, the Agency stated that Complainant was approved to go on
TDYs to Netherlands, Malta, and Cyprus in March 2023, Slovakia and Czech

2025003838	4
Republic in October 2023, Malta and Cyprus in April 2024, Greece in April 2024
and September 2024, and Latvia in August 2024. 	Complainant has provided no
evidence showing any TDY request was denied. Regarding the May 15, 2024 date
it appears from the record it was rescheduled. 	There is no indication the May 15,
2024 TDY request was denied or any response to any TDY request was somehow
influenced by discrimination.
As for Complainant’s allegations of harassment, we find that even if the alleged
incidents occurred in the manner described, the Agency’s actions are not sufficiently
severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment or reasonably likely to
dissuade Complainant or others from engaging in protected EEO activity. We note
that anti-discrimination statutes are not civility codes designed to protect against the
“ordinary tribulations” of the workplace. Rather, they forbid “only behavior so
objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” Oncale
v. Sundowner Offshore Service, Inc., 23 U.S. 75 (1998).
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final 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
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).

2025003838	5
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.

2025003838	6
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 22, 2026
Date