EEOC Appeal 2026002752

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Ricky S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002752
Hearing No. 510-2025-00157X
Agency Nos. HS-TSA-01464-2024
HS-TSA-01996-2024
HS-TSA-02432-2024
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
April 27, 2026, final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaints 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.
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.

2 	2026002752
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Lead
Transportation Security Officer at the Agency’s Fort Lauderdale International
Airport in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 13, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race (Caucasian), sex
(male), color (white), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when he was
assigned to the same checkpoint as a coworker with whom he was instructed to have
no contact; he was sent an email he believed was false and misleading; and he was
issued a suspension for 14 days. On October 2, 2024, Complainant filed another
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race, color,
and sex when he was notified he was not eligible for the Federal Air Marshall (FAM)
position, vacancy announcement number FAM-22-F002. On October 23, 2024,
Complainant filed another complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against
him based on race, color, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when he
was not selected for the position of Supervisory Transportation Security Officer
(STSO), vacancy number South-Q2-12374476-OC. The Agency accepted these
complaints and consolidated them for investigation.
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 requested a hearing. On March
10, 	2026, 	the 	Agency 	motioned 	for 	a 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing. 	Over
Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that the Agency stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions. 	Regarding 	the 	claim 	that 	Complainant 	was 	suspended 	for 14 	days,
management explained that Complainant was investigated after a coworker, CW-1,
with whom Complainant had a previous romantic relationship, accused Complainant
of harassment. CW-1 alleged that Complainant posted screenshots of their previous
conversations in a Telegram group chat, intending to harass and embarrass CW-1.
The Agency’s 	internal investigation 	did 	not 	conclude that Complainant 	was
responsible for the Telegram posts in question. However, the Agency determined
that Complainant made a false statement during the investigation when he claimed
not to have a Telegram account and not to know what Telegram was, despite
evidence that an account associated with Complainant’s phone number became
active shortly before the screenshots appeared in the group chat.

3 	2026002752
For 	making 	false 	statements 	during 	an 	official 	fact-finding 	investigation,
Complainant was suspended for 14 days.
Regarding the claim that Complainant was deemed ineligible for the FAM position,
the Agency explained that Complainant was initially offered the position but the
offer was withdrawn based on an active misconduct investigation initiated in
response to CW-1’s allegations against Complainant. Regarding the claim that
Complainant was not selected for the STSO position, the Agency explained that an
independent three-member panel evaluated the resumes of 64 candidates and ranked
them all based on suitability for the position. Complainant was ranked 55 th based on
his resume and was therefore not among the top 25 considered for selection.
Regarding harassment, the AJ found that Complainant’s allegations were not
sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment. Rather, the AJ
found that the Agency’s alleged actions were routine work assignments, instructions,
and admonishments not connected to Complainant’s protected classes. The Agency
subsequently 	issued 	a 	final 	order 	fully 	implementing 	the 	AJ’s 	finding 	that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
Upon thorough review of the record, we agree with the AJ that the Agency
articulated 	legitimate, 	nondiscriminatory 	reasons 	as 	described 	above. 	While
Complainant argues that the misconduct investigation cleared him of wrongdoing,
we note that the investigation actually concluded that Complainant provided a false
statement during an official fact-finding investigation in violation of Agency
Management 	Directive 	1100.73-5 	(Employee 	Responsibilities 	and 	Code 	of
Conduct). We find that, based on available evidence, the Agency reasonably
concluded that Complainant provided a false statement during an official fact-
finding investigation. This constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
issuing Complainant a suspension, as well as withdrawing the offer of promotion to
the FAM position. Furthermore, we agree with the Agency that Complainant offered
no evidence, beyond his own assertions, that the SA had discriminatory reasons for
recommending his nonselection for the FAM position.

4 	2026002752
Complainant argues that CW-1 and TSM-2 made false statements and were not
subjected to investigation or suspension. However, the record does not establish that
CW-1 or TSM-2 made false statements during the course of an official fact-finding
investigation.
Regarding the claim that Complainant was not selected for the STSO position, the
Agency explained that Complainant ranked 55 th of 64 applicants in a resume review
and failed to qualify for further consideration. The record reveals that the ranking
was based on an independent three-member panel review of all applicant resumes,
evaluating applicants’ experience in conflict management, teamwork, flexibility,
and coaching/mentoring. Complainant was given low ratings for lack of experience
in conflict management and coaching/mentoring.
Regarding the claim that Complainant was assigned to a checkpoint in proximity to
CW-1 despite a no contact order, the record indicates that Complainant alerted
management to the situation, and CW-1 was moved to a new location. Complainant
and 	CW-1 	saw 	each 	other 	but 	did 	not 	speak 	or 	otherwise 	interact. 	While
Complainant suggests that management was trying to set him up for a violation of
the order, there is no evidence in the record that Complainant was investigated or
charged with violation of the no contact order.
Regarding the claim that Complainant was sent a false or misleading email, the
record shows that this email contained management’s explanation to Complainant
of the actions they took in response to his allegations of harassment. While
Complainant disagrees with management’s actions and the description of them in
this email, he presents no evidence that the email was sent with discriminatory
animus. Furthermore, we find that this email had no material effect on the terms,
conditions, or privileges of Complainant’s employment; nor would it dissuade a
reasonable employee from engaging in protected EEO activity.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision
finding no discrimination.

5 	2026002752
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). 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.

6 	2026002752
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.

7 	2026002752
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 29, 2026
Date