EEOC Appeal 2026002161

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Corrina M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Hung Cao,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002161
Hearing No. 430-2025-00213X
Agency No. 24-62688-01288
DECISION
On April 24, 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 March 30, 2026, final order concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a NF-
0188-3 	Fitness 	Specialist 	at 	the Agency’s 	Naval 	Station 	Norfolk 	facility 	in
Norfolk, Virginia.
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.

2026002161	2
On October 17, 2024, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African American), sex
(female), color (Black/Brown), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (prior
EEO complaint) when:
1. From on or around May 16, 2023, to present, the Fitness Coordinator
(Supervisor-1; Caucasian; male)2 and the Recreation Specialist (Supervisor-
2; Caucasian; male) told Complainant to wear Command Fitness Leader
(CFL) uniform apparel and teach CFL classes, but her certification had
expired after leadership provided incorrect information and she was not able
to attend the recertification course from May 16-18, 2023. Furthermore,
Supervisor-1 and Supervisor-2 had not rescheduled Complainant for the
recertification course despite her requests, but a coworker (Coworker-1;
White; female) and Supervisor-1 had been able to attend the CFL training.
2. From on or around May 1, 2024, to present, Supervisor-1 	repeatedly
confronted Complainant about the storage of personal belongings at the
Fitness 	Specialist 	desk 	and 	threatened 	her 	with 	disciplinary 	action.
Supervisor-1 never confronted and/or threatened other Fitness Specialists for
the same offenses.
3. From May 8-9, 2024, Complainant observed Supervisor-1 stalking and
spying on her during her lunch breaks. Furthermore, when Complainant
asked Supervisor-1 what he was doing, he admitted watching her from his
personal vehicle, which had negatively impacted her ability to perform her
job duties as well as her mental health.3
4. On June 13, 2024, although Complainant submitted her travel orders to the
Administrative Assistant for processing on June 9, 2024, she became aware
that Supervisor-1 cancelled her travel orders for upcoming training while she
was out sick, even though he never cancelled travel orders for other Fitness
Specialists. Complainant believed that Supervisor-1 cancelled her training
opportunity so he could use the funding for an upcoming training event he
was facilitating for all of the Fitness Specialists.
5. On June 13, 2024, during 	a conversation 	regarding 	her 	travel 	orders,
Supervisor-2 informed Complainant that her travel orders were cancelled
because she failed to submit her travel orders four weeks ahead of time and
her 	performance 	was 	in 	poor 	standing, 	despite 	being 	in 	constant
2 Supervisor-1 did not become the Fitness Coordinator until October 2023.
3 Complainant stated that she was not alleging discrimination based on disability.

2026002161	3
communication 	with 	the 	Administrative 	Assistant 	and 	Supervisor-1
regarding her travel arrangements since in or around April 2024 and never
being made aware of any performance issues or policy changes.
6. On June 25, 2024, following Complainant’s request via email for assistance
in resolving the cancellation of the trip, Supervisor-2 compared her to
having the mindset of a child, which she found demeaning, and accused her
of failing to ask for help. Furthermore, Supervisor-1, Supervisor-2, and the
Operations Manager (Supervisor-3; Caucasian; female) failed to address her
concerns that she was not being fairly considered for training opportunities
that would allow her to advance in her career.
7. On September 30, 2024, Supervisor-1 issued Complainant a written Oral
Admonishment for failing to follow directions when, on September 25,
2025, her personal belongings remained at the Fitness Specialist desk while
she was at lunch. Complainant was not aware of other Fitness Specialists
receiving the same disciplinary action for the same offense.
Although CFL certification does not expire, the Agency recommends that Fitness
Specialists attend the CFL course once every five years for a refresher. When
Complainant was nominated to attend the CFL course in 2023, Supervisor-1 asked
Complainant if she had a CFL uniform, and he obtained a shirt for her in advance
of the training. Supervisor-2 stated that a CFL uniform was not required for the
training. According to Supervisor-2, the limited opportunities to attend the CFL
course were rotated among the eight Fitness Specialists. Supervisor-3 stated that
management prioritized sending new employees to training ahead of those who had
already attended.
Supervisor-1 	and 	Supervisor-2 	observed 	Complainant’s 	backpack, 	coat, 	and
notebooks on a desk and chair in the common area on the fitness floor while she
was away for training, classes, or lunch. Supervisor-1 stated that, on May 6 and 7,
2024, he informed each staff member at the facility where Complainant worked
that they should not have any personal belongings on a desk unless they were
sitting at the desk. Complainant alleged that, on May 8 and 9, 2024, she noticed
Supervisor-1 watching her while sitting in his personal vehicle. On May 8, 2024,
Supervisor-1 warned Complainant that personal belongings should not be kept in
common areas after noticing that she left personal belongings at the shared desk
while on her lunch break.

2026002161	4
On June 20, 2024, Supervisor-1 reminded staff about the expectation not to leave
personal belongings in shared workspaces on the fitness floor during a staff
meeting. After the staff meeting, staff members, including Complainant, signed to
acknowledge Supervisor-1’s expectations.
On April 26, 2024, Complainant was notified that she had been accepted to attend
FMS training from June 25-27, 2024. According to Supervisor-1, he and the Lead
Fitness Specialist had conversations with Complainant about what she needed to
do for her travel arrangements. On Friday, June 7, 2024, Supervisor-1 directed
Complainant to meet with the Administrative Assistant that day to arrange her
travel. On Sunday, June 9, 2024, Complainant called out sick with a doctor’s note
stating that she could not return to work for three days. Also on June 9, 2024,
Complainant emailed the Administrative Assistant about her travel arrangements.
Supervisor-1 stated that, while Complainant was on sick leave, the Administrative
Assistant 	informed 	him 	that 	Complainant 	had 	not 	submitted 	the 	required
paperwork to make travel arrangements to attend the course. Supervisor-2 stated
that other employees’ travel orders were not cancelled because no one else had
issues meeting deadlines. Supervisor-1 averred that the funding for Complainant’s
training came from a different source than the training he was planning for all staff.
Supervisor-2 averred that, during a conversation with Complainant, he informed
her that she should not need constant reminders to complete the process for her
travel orders.
On 	September 	26, 	2024, 	Supervisor-2 	emailed 	Supervisor-1, 	stating 	that 	he
observed Complainant continue to leave her personal belongings on the shared
desk, including on September 24, 25, and 26, 2024. According to Supervisor-2,
Complainant would leave her backpack on the chair, giving the impression that no
one else could sit there. On September 30, 2024, Supervisor-1 issued Complainant
an admonishment. Supervisor-1 stated that other staff members stopped leaving
their 	belongings 	on 	the 	shared 	desk 	after 	they 	received 	verbal 	warnings.
Complainant stated that she observed other staff hiding their bags on the floor near
the desk.
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 timely requested a
hearing before an AJ.

2026002161	5
The 	Agency 	submitted 	a 	motion 	for 	a 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing, 	which
Complainant opposed. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant argues, among other things,4 that the AJ failed to analyze
audio recordings that she submitted during the course of the proceedings that raise
credibility issues. Complainant asserts that the Agency failed to consider her
medical documentation. Complainant contends that the Agency failed to present
evidence of a policy that required her to complete her travel orders within four
weeks. We will address Complainant’s arguments below.
The Agency argues, in pertinent part, that its final order should be affirmed.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, 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 Chap. 9, § VI.A. (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”); see also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an
administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the
decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when they
find that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g).
4 Complainant also raises events that occurred after the timeframe of the EEO
complaint at issue on appeal. To the extent that Complainant wishes to address
these matters in the EEO process, she is advised to initiate contact with an EEO
counselor if she has not already done so.

2026002161	6
An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder
could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-
23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). A fact is
“material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When
considering summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557,
586 (2009).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must
identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing
further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material
under applicable law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing
is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was
motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to
establish such a dispute.
On appeal, Complainant contends that the AJ failed to consider audio recordings
she provided that go to the credibility of management. In her response to the
Agency’s motion for summary judgment, Complainant stated that “management
clearly admits to canceling” her attendance at the FMS training in the audio
recordings. Response at 2. However, it is undisputed that management cancelled
Complainant’s participation in the June 2024 FMS training. Supervisor-1 stated
that he did so because she failed to complete her travel arrangements in a timely
manner. Although Complainant argues that the Agency failed to consider her
medical evidence that she was ill and could not report to work until June 13, 2024,
and that the Agency has not presented evidence of a policy requiring her to
complete her travel arrangements within four weeks, these asserted factual disputes
are 	not 	material 	to 	determining 	whether 	the 	Agency’s 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for cancelling Complainant’s travel orders were a pretext
for discriminatory and/or retaliatory animus. It is undisputed that Complainant did
not complete her travel arrangements as directed on June 7, 2024, nor has she
shown that the information she provided to the Administrative Assistant on June 9,
2024, was sufficient to complete her travel arrangements.

2026002161	7
Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant and drawing
all justifiable inferences, Complainant has not established the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact or an issue of credibility that would show that the
Agency’s 	legitimate, 	nondiscriminatory 	explanation 	was 	a 	pretext 	for
discrimination based on race, sex, color, and/or reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, and construing any inferences raised by
the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable factfinder
could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision
and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, including
those 	not 	specifically 	addressed 	herein, 	we 	conclude 	that 	the 	AJ 	correctly
determined 	that 	the 	preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence 	did 	not 	establish 	that
Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, 	we 	AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order 	implementing 	the 	AJ’s
decision.
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).

2026002161	8
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.

2026002161	9
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