EEOC Appeal 2025003910

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Majorie J.,1
Complainant,
v.
Todd Blanche,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Investigation),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003910
Agency No. FBI-2023-00120
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
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., 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 decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Supervisory Special Agent (GS-14) with the Agency’s Jackson Field Office (JFO)
located in Jackson, Mississippi. On May 26, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment
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.

2025003910	2
based on her race (Asian), national origin (American), sex (female), age (over 40),
and reprisal (current protected EEO activity) when:
1. 	Between January and July 2023, her first-line supervisor (Supervisor1)
engaged in a pattern of offensive behavior when the supervisor: (a) spoke
to Complainant like she was a “kindergartener” and as if Complainant
could not understand English, and did not respect complainant’s “cultural
differences;” (b) told Complainant not to ask her questions and said that
she did not have time for Complainant; (c) said that Complainant did “not
know what she was doing;” (d) accused Complainant of being rude, and
acted 	rude 	and 	hostile 	toward 	complainant; 	(e) 	micromanaged
Complainant, held excessive 	meetings, and 	gave 	Complainant 	short
deadlines on assignments; (f) did not respond to Complainant’s emails or
approve her documents in the computer system; (g) during meetings,
ignored Complainant, cut her off, put her on the spot, and asked the same
questions “over and over;” and (h) set Complainant up to fail, as she tried
to find something “wrong” with everything that Complainant did;
2. 	On January 30, 2023, Supervisor1 denied Complainant’s request to attend
a conference;
3. 	Between January and late May 2023, Supervisor1 tasked Complainant
with “unnecessary work” and did not let Complainant perform operational
work;
4. 	On 	February 28, 2023, management 	did not 	allow 	Complainant 	to
participate in the execution of a search warrant;
5. 	On March 23, 2023, management rated Complainant as an “inconsistent
performer,” placed her on a developmental plan, and Supervisor1 said that
she would ask the Agency to remove Complainant from her position;
6. 	On 	March 	23 	and 	28, 	2023, 	Complainant’s 	second-line 	supervisor
(Supervisor2) spoke to Complainant about her EEO complaint;
7. 	On March 28, 2023, Supervisor2 said that he “talk[ed] slower” to
Complainant because she did not “get the point of what he [was] saying;”

2025003910	3
8. 	After Complainant filed her EEO complaint, Supervisor1 always had a
witness when meeting with Complainant and chose witnesses who were
biased against Complainant;
9. 	On April 28, 2023, Supervisor1 did not select Complainant to serve as the
Acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge;
10. 	In May 2023, another Supervisory Special Agent continually ignored
Complainant and did not approve two of her documents in the computer
system;
11. 	On June 13, 2023, Supervisor1 required Complainant to give the Acting
Assistant Special Agent in Charge status updates;
12. 	On July 5, 2023, Supervisor2 spoke to Complainant disrespectfully and
“like she was a child;”
13. 	On July 10, 2023, Supervisor2 told Complainant that the Agency was
removing her from her Supervisory Special Agent position at the JFO and
transferring her to a Supervisor Special Agent position at the FBI
Headquarters;
14. 	On July 11, 2023, management removed Complainant’s access to a
database;
15. 	Around July 11, 2023, an Assistant Special Agent in Charge assigned
Complainant a “tedious” administrative project and spoke to her like she
was a “child;” and
16. 	On July 17, 2023, an Assistant Special Agent in Charge told her that she
did not need to attend a supervisor’s meeting and questioned the amount
of leave she planned to take.
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. When Complainant did not request a hearing within
the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final

2025003910	4
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.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	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 9-16 (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”).
We find that the alleged incidents were not objectively severe or pervasive to
establish a discriminatory hostile work environment and not sufficiently material to
deter 	protected 	activity 	to 	establish 	a 	retaliatory 	hostile 	work 	environment.
Furthermore, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the alleged
conduct was based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Moreover, to the extent
that Complainant is alleging disparate treatment regarding her claims, Complainant
has not proffered sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Agency’s explanation
for its actions was pretext for discrimination or retaliation. For example: (a)
Supervisor1 explained that she denied attendance to the conference because she
wanted Complainant to focus on counterintelligence and cyber matters, as those
were the JFO’s priorities and were more applicable to Complainant’s assigned work;
(b) Complainant was rated an inconsistent performer because she did not properly
communicate 	with 	management, 	dismissed 	others’ 	opinions, 	and 	acted
disrespectfully to other supervisors; (c) Supervisor1 explained that she selected a
Supervisory Special Assistant (SSA1) to serve as the Acting Assistant Special Agent
in Charge while she was away because SSA1 was the only one to volunteer for the
assignment at the time; and (d) Complainant was removed from her JFO Supervisory
Special Agent position because she did not successfully complete her supervisory
probationary period.
We also find insufficient evidence of per se retaliation. Complainant alleged that
during a meeting with Supervisor2, she brought up her EEO complaint and assured
him that she did not file it “out of spite.” Complainant asserted that Supervisor2 then

2025003910	5
asked her if she filed her complaint “out of spite,” and she again said no. The record
is devoid of evidence that any management official said anything that would have
deterred or had a chilling effect on EEO activity.
Therefore, based on our review of the record, including Complainant’s arguments
on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination or
retaliation.
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.

2025003910	6
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. 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

2025003910	7
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 28, 2026
Date