EEOC Appeal 2026002563

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Delphia F,1
Complainant,
v.
Douglas A. Collins,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002563
Agency No. 20015162026170888
DECISION
Complainant 	timely 	appealed 	with 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's May 11, 2026, dismissal
of her complaint of unlawful 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. 	Upon review, the Commission REVERSES the Agency’s
dismissal, and REMANDS Complainant’s complaint for further processing.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Nurse Manager, VA-3, for the C.W. Bill Young Department of
VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida. 	Complainant reported to the Assistant
Chief Nurse (Assistant Chief) as her first level supervisor, and Chief Nurse,
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.

2026002563	2
Perioperative Nursing (Chief) as her second level supervisor. The claim involves a
nurse in Complainant’s unit (Subordinate).
On April 7, 2026, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to a discriminatory hostile work environment on the bases of
sex (female), age (48), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:2
1. In 	or 	around 	May 	2025, 	Subordinate 	intimidated 	and 	chastised
Complainant when he raised his voice at Complainant;
2. On or around August 3, 2025, Subordinate addressed Complainant in
an agitated and harassing manner when she reported him for leaving
his shift one (1) hour early;
3. In or around September 2025, Complainant became aware from
coworkers that Subordinate was “out to get her;”
4. On or around December 1, 2025, Chief and Assistant Chief returned
Subordinate 	to 	Complainant’s 	work 	unit 	despite 	Complainant’s
September 2025, request for the Agency to separate him from her
work unit;
5. In or around December 2025, Subordinate intentionally missed team
meetings and disregarded Complainant’s instructions;
6. On or around February 17, 2026, Subordinate confronted Complainant
in a highly aggressive manner; and
2 The Agency’s dismissal improperly fragmented Complainant’s hostile work
environment 	claim 	by 	addressing 	the 	allegation 	in 	Claim 4 	separately. 	The
Commission 	reformatted 	the 	claims 	as 	a 	single 	hostile 	work 	environment
allegation comprised of seven events. See Henderson v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120132221 (Feb. 11, 2014) citing Meaney v. Dep't of the Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 05940169 (Nov. 3, 1994) (an agency should not ignore the
"pattern aspect" of a complainant's claims and define the issues in a piecemeal
manner where an analogous theme unites the matter complained of).

2026002563	3
7. On February 18, 2026, [Subordinate] stared at Complainant while she
retrieved her computer to leave work on medically recommended
leave.
Complainant raised Claims 1 and 6 with the EEO Counselor as a hostile work
environment claim. Complainant sought to amend her complaint to include the
allegations in Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 when she filed her Formal EEO Complaint.
The Agency properly accepted the amendments as “like and related” claims of
harassment pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(d).
The EEO Counselor’s Report reveals, with respect to Claim 1, that Complainant
notified her first and second level supervisors (Chief and Assistant Chief) in May
2025, that Subordinate told Complainant he was a sharp-shooter and a sniper.
With respect to Claim 6, the EEO Counselor’s Report reveals that on February 17,
2026, Subordinate followed Complainant, speaking in an aggressive manner after
she instructed him to join the daily huddle. Complainant recounted that she notified
Assistant Chief, who instructed Complainant to lock her door. In her Formal EEO
Complaint, 	Complainant 	emphasizes 	that 	the 	hostile 	work 	environment 	was
continuous, and that management was aware of the alleged harassing incidents yet
failed to take any action.
The Agency dismissed the matter pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for
failure to state a claim. For Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the Agency reasoned that as
a supervisor, Complainant had the authority to take appropriate corrective action
and/or discipline Subordinate for the alleged harassing actions. The Agency noted
that even if Complainant was not Subordinate’s direct supervisor, she could
forward 	her 	allegations 	“within 	the 	supervisory 	channel” 	to 	the 	appropriate
supervisor’s attention. For Claim 4, the Agency found that the alleged conduct was
not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency’s decision ignored documented
safety concerns affecting the severity of her harassment complaint. Complainant
feared Subordinate and perceived his actions as intimidating because he “has
repeatedly announced in the unit that he was a Veteran Army Sniper, and a ‘sharp
shooter.” Complainant states that she reported these comments, “and many others”
to HR, EEO and Hospital Administration, but was instructed that Subordinate is
allowed to speak about his veteran status. 	Complainant also describes how the

2026002563	4
alleged harassment triggered and exacerbated her PTSD symptoms to such an
extent that she was prescribed medication and had to take medical leave.3
In addition, Complainant provides context for the alleged harassment in Claim 2
(reported Subordinate for leaving 1 hour early); Claim 3 (coworkers informed her
that Subordinate was “out to get her”) and Claim 4 (Subordinate permitted to
return to Complainant’s unit). Complainant alleges that multiple female employees
on her team submitted Reports of Contact (ROC) alleging that Subordinate
subjected them to harassment. Complainant forwarded the ROCs to leadership, as
well as the incident in Claim 2. As a result, the Agency conducted an investigation
and temporarily detailed Subordinate to another unit on August 5, 2025. 	In
September, Subordinate allegedly approached employees in Complainant’s unit,
stating he would return and indicating that he was out to get Complainant.
Complainant provides a copy of an email she sent to Chief, dated September 24,
2025, explicitly voicing her concerns about Subordinate returning to her Unit after
the 	investigation. 	The 	email 	names 	5 	different 	employees 	who 	informed
Complainant 	that 	Subordinate 	was 	making 	concerning 	comments 	about 	his
upcoming return. She includes an incident on September 19, 2025, when two of the
employees submitted ROCs recounting that Subordinate approached them and
stated, “I will be back soon and all of those bitches who reported me will pay for
it! All of the things they said were lies!” Complainant notified Chief of a past
traumatic experience, and that Subordinate’s conduct was triggering her PTSD.
Ultimately, Subordinate was returned to Complainant’s unit in December 2025.
The September 24, 2025, email also reveals that Complainant took actions in her
capacity as a supervisor to address Subordinate’s conduct. She informs Chief, “I
have coached [Subordinate] on several occasions about focusing on himself and his
quality care to our Veterans rather than his team members. He would constantly
focus on the female team members within our department.” In her appellate brief,
Complainant states that she provided Subordinate with verbal and written coaching
about his repeated absences from the daily huddle. Complainant raised workplace
safety concerns with HR and management.
3 On appeal Complainant refers to her PTSD multiple times in relation to the
alleged harassment, however, she does not include disability as a basis for
discrimination in her complaint.

2026002563	5
Hostile Work Environment
The Commission has held that a claim of discriminatory harassment will survive if
it alleges conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
the complainant’s employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17,
23 (1993). When the Commission reviews a claim of harassment for viability, we
must consider complainant’s allegations together and assume them to be true. See
Cobb v. Dep’t of the Treas., EEOC Request No. 05970077 (Mar. 13, 1997). We
evaluate the harasser's conduct from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person
in the victim's circumstances. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harris v.
Forklift 	Systems, 	Inc., 	Notice 	No. 	915.002 	(Mar. 	8, 	1994). 	The 	evaluation
"requires careful consideration of the social context in which particular behavior
occurs and is experienced by its target." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523
U.S. 75, 81 (1998).
A claim that subordinate employees created a hostile work environment may be
actionable if the complainant’s supervisors or agency management “condoned” or
“tolerated” the subordinate’s harassing conduct, the agency exhibited a history or
culture of tolerance at the complainant’s work site, and/or the complainant’s
supervisors or agency management ineffectively responded when they were made
aware of the subordinate’s harassing conduct. Colene M. v. Dep’t of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2023000066 (Jan. 4, 2023) citing Norbert K. v. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2021001898 (Apr. 19, 2021), other citations
omitted, but see Shan D. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0120162394
(Dec. 	22, 	2016) 	(subordinate 	making 	false 	statements 	to 	the 	complainant’s
supervisor and other employees is insufficient, without more, state a claim of
harassment). 	Severity or pervasiveness may be demonstrated where the alleged
harassment unreasonably interferes with the complainant’s work performance. Id.
In cases involving subordinate harassment, the impact on work performance
typically 	manifests 	itself 	by 	reducing 	the 	complainant’s 	effectiveness 	as 	a
supervisor or undermining the complainant’s credibility or authority in the eyes of
other subordinates or coworkers. See, e.g., Opal v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal
No. 2020004444 (Oct. 8, 2020) (allegation that manager condoned the gender-
based 	comments 	(e.g. 	“mothering”) 	and 	harassing 	conduct 	of 	two 	of 	the
complainant’s subordinates, and told the subordinates to report to him (manager)
instead, thereby allowing the conduct to continue and rendering the complainant’s
supervisory role “irrelevant” states a claim).

2026002563	6
Complainant’s authority and ability to effectively supervise were undermined
when 	Assistant 	Chief 	and 	Chief 	allegedly 	failed 	to 	adequately 	address
Complainant’s safety concerns and returned Subordinate to Complainant’s unit.
Assistant Chief and Chief were aware that Subordinate’s return would aggravate
Complainant’s 	PTSD, 	and 	that 	Subordinate 	had 	a 	history 	of 	disregarding
Complainant’s instructions and coaching. From Complainant’s account of events,
Management appears to have tolerated Subordinate’s conduct. 	Given the context
of workplace safety, and management’s alleged tolerance of the harassing conduct,
we find Complainant states a viable claim of hostile work environment.
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is
REVERSED. 	The complaint is hereby REMANDED to the Agency for further
processing in accordance with this Decision and the Order below.
ORDER (E0224)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has
received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this
decision was issued. 	The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the
investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within
one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision was issued, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. 	If the Complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within
sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant’s request.
As 	provided 	in 	the statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of the
Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the Agency’s
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and 3) either a copy
of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the final agency decision
(“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(c) 	and 	§ 	1614.502, 	compliance 	with 	the
Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. 	Within seven (7) calendar days of
the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the

2026002563	7
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format
required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under
which compliance was being monitored. 	Once all compliance is complete, the
Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format
required by the Commission. 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 	The Agency’s final
report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her
representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 	If the Complainant files a civil
action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition
for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.
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.

2026002563	8
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.
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).

2026002563	9
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0124)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of
your complaint. 	However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to
file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90)
calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you
may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the
date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 	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. 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. 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 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 16, 2026
Date