EEOC Appeal 2026002466

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Goldie G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Frank Bisignano,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002466
Hearing No. 420-2024-00245X
Agency No. ATL-24-0254-SSA
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 order dated May 12, 2026, 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 order finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Benefit Authorizer, GS-9, at the Agency’s Southeastern Program Service Center in
Birmingham, Alabama.
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.

2026002466	2
On 	March 	25, 	2024, 	Complainant 	filed 	an 	EEO 	complaint 	alleging, 	after
subsequent amendment, that the Agency discriminated against her based on race
(Black), sex (female), age (49), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
when:
1. 	Beginning December 19, 2023, and ongoing, the Agency subjected
Complainant to harassment in terms of inadequate training, lack of
effective mentorship, false accusations relating to working after hours
and 	sending 	social 	security 	numbers 	(SSNs) 	to 	personal 	email,
participation 	in 	Weingarten 	interviews, 	imposing 	threatening 	and
intimidation tactics, unfair and excess scrutiny by monitoring her
computer 	usage 	on 	a 	daily 	basis 	unlike 	how 	they 	treat 	other
individuals, assigning higher level and more complicated and difficult
cases to handle than her fellow trainees;
2. 	On December 19, 2023, Complainant’s mentor and back-up mentor
failed to assist Complainant with training;
3. 	On or about September 3, 2024, Complainant received a proposal to
suspend for two days from her first-line supervisor (S1), Assistant
Module Manager; and
4. 	On October 28 and 29, 2024, S1 suspended Complainant for two days
without pay.
After its investigation into the complaint, 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 requested a hearing.
After both parties submitted motions for a decision without a hearing, 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 findings. The instant appeal followed.
The AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its alleged actions in claims 2, 3, and 4. Regarding claim 2, both of Complainant’s
mentors managed their own caseload/responsibilities and mentored other trainees
in addition to Complainant, which could cause delays in their responsiveness.
Moreover, after Complainant raised the issue with her managers, they spoke with
both 	of 	the 	mentors 	about 	Complainant’s 	concerns 	and 	ultimately 	assigned
Complainant a new primary mentor.

2026002466	3
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the suspension at issue occurred because Complainant
repeatedly violated Agency policy that prohibited employees from performing
work during non-duty hours unless approved to do so. 	This was discovered
because S1 ran a report every week in the Agency’s “Comprehensive Integrity
Review Process” system, which indicated whether anyone under S1’s supervision
misused 	any 	Agency 	systems. 	After 	the 	first 	occurrence 	in 	August 	2023,
Complainant received a warning not to access Agency systems during off hours,
but Complainant did so again in December 2023, which led to a Weingarten
interview (i.e., an internal fact-finding interview) and a resulting reprimand in
February 2024. 	Complainant again accessed Agency systems during non-duty
hours in April 2024, after which another Weingarten interview was conducted and
S1 issued the proposed suspension.
The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to present record evidence, outside of
her own subjective beliefs, indicating that the Agency’s explanations for its actions
were pretext for discrimination based on her protected bases. 	The AJ also found
that Complainant failed to show that similarly situated employees outside her
protected bases were treated more favorably. 	Because we find the AJ properly
concluded that Complainant failed to show the above incidents (claims 2 – 4) were
motivated by her protected bases, to the extent Complainant’s alleges these
incidents contributed to a hostile work environment, they cannot comprise her
harassment claim.
As to Complainant’s remaining claim of harassment (claim 1), the AJ concluded
that Complainant failed to establish a link between the alleged incidents and her
protected bases. 	Outside of her own bare assertions, Complainant failed to show
she 	was 	denied 	adequate 	training, 	excessively 	scrutinized, 	threatened 	and
intimidated, or given more complex and difficult cases. For instance, regarding the
latter allegation, Complainant’s managers averred that trainees were given a range
of cases to prepare them, and that it was often difficult to assess whether a
particular case would be simple or complex at the time it was assigned.
As for the accusation regarding the SSNs, management received a notification
from the Agency’s “Center for Automation, Security, and Integrity” alerting them
that Complainant had sent screenshots to her personal email address of Skype
message exchanges she had with her mentors that contained SSNs. Thereafter, S1
instructed Complainant to cease sending SSNs to her personal email.

2026002466	4
The AJ further found that the complained-of conduct reflected routine supervisory
instructions/admonishments, personality conflicts, and general workplace disputes
and tribulations and therefore not sufficiently severe or pervasive (or reasonably
likely to deter EEO activity) to rise to the level of harassment.
On appeal, Complainant argues that numerous other employees and management
officials regularly worked beyond duty hours without investigation or discipline.
She also claims that a retired Agency employee and union representative told her
that 	the 	Agency’s 	actions 	were 	“extreme” 	and 	that 	historically 	the 	Agency
rewarded employees for working beyond business hours. 	This is insufficient to
create a genuine dispute of material fact requiring a hearing. 	First, the employee
named by Complainant as being treated more favorably had a different supervisor
than she did, and to the extent management officials worked beyond duty hours,
they are not similarly situated to Complainant, who was not a manager. As for the
retired union representative, Complainant does not explain why she failed to
submit his statement at the hearing level. Moreover, there is no indication that the
retired union representative had any direct knowledge of the facts at issue.
We find the record was adequately developed for summary disposition. 	Having
thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable fact-finder
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,2 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 finding no discrimination.
2 In addition to her brief on appeal, Complainant submitted a “rebuttal” brief in
response to the Agency’s opposition brief. 	Because the rebuttal was submitted
beyond 30 days of the filing of her appeal, it is untimely, and we decline to
consider it herein. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(d).

2026002466	5
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.

2026002466	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
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests.

2026002466	7
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 15, 2026
Date