EEOC Appeal 2025002976

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Judson P.,1
Complainant,
v.
Eric Scott Turner,
Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025002976
Hearing No. 550-2023-00138X
Agency No. HUD-00073-2022
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
May 1, 2025 final order concerning his 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. 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 Program
Support Specialist (PSS) in the Agency’s Office of Disaster Recovery (ODR) in San
Francisco, California.
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.

2025002976	2
On September 26, 2022, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases
of national origin (Hispanic) and sex (male) when:
1. 	On June 10, 2022, Complainant reported rude and harassing conduct by
his colleague, Coworker, also a Program Support Specialist, and
management did not resolve the matter;
2. 	On June 29, 2022, the Director, Disaster Recovery and Special Issues
Division (Director), inaccurately advised that she was unaware of the
situation between Complainant and Coworker and she did not take the
necessary action to deter further harassing behavior by Coworker;
3. 	On March 6, 2023, Complainant learned that Coworker was attempting
to alienate him from other Agency employees by discussing her
intention to file an EEO complaint against him; discussing mistakes in
Agency correspondence; and requesting that employees substantiate
claims against him without evidence; and
4. 	from March 29, 2023, and ongoing, management continues to fail to
respond to Complainant’s reports of harassment by Coworker.2
Coworker was also a GS-11 PSS. Although Coworker was the same grade level and
position as the other PSS employees, her role differed from the others as her duties
included reviewing correspondence prepared by the other PSS employees before
submitting it to the ODR Director for final review and signature. The record reflects
that Complainant and Coworker experienced recurring disagreements concerning
correspondence, 	work 	procedures, 	availability, 	meetings, 	and 	workplace
communication.
2 The Agency dismissed two additional claims. Complainant attempted to reinstate
these claims during the hearing phase; however, the AJ did not grant the request. On
appeal, Complainant has not challenged the Agency's decision to procedurally
dismiss those claims. The Commission has the discretion to review only those issues
specifically raised in an appeal. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chapter 9, § VI.A.3. (Aug. 5,
2015). As such we will not address the dismissed claims herein.

2025002976	3
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 timely requested a hearing. The
AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a summary judgment decision finding
that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination. The AJ determined that the
evidence 	did 	not 	establish 	that 	the 	complained-of 	conduct 	was 	related 	to
Complainant’s protected classes; was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a
hostile work environment; or provided a basis for imputing liability to the Agency.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision.
The instant appeal followed.
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or
she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g).
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); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact
is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. 	In rendering
this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions,
and 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	order 	adopting 	them, 	de 	novo. 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall
be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (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).
Upon careful review of the entire record, including the parties’ submissions on
appeal, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing.
In order to establish a hostile work environment claim, Complainant must prove, by
a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that complainant is a member of a statutorily
protected class; (2) that complainant was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to
complainant’s protected class; (3) that the harassment complained of was based on
complainant’s protected class; (4) that the harassment had the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with complainant’s work performance and/or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) that there is a basis for
imputing liability to the employer. See Celine B. v. Dep’t of Navy, EEOC Appeal
No. 2019001961 (Sept. 21, 2020)

2025002976	4
In cases of coworker harassment, the Agency is responsible for harassment in the
workplace where it (or its agents) knew or should have known of the conduct, unless
it can be shown that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. The Agency
can raise an affirmative defense when it shows that it took immediate and appropriate
corrective action. What is appropriate remedial action will necessarily depend on the
particular facts of the case, such as the severity and persistence of the harassment
and the effectiveness of any initial remedial steps. Taylor v. Dep’t Of Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05920194 (July 8, 1992).
Based on the record, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to establish
Agency liability for harassment. The record indicates that the Agency took prompt
and appropriate corrective action. For example, the undisputed evidence shows that
when Complainant first complained about Coworker in 2020, the Agency promptly
scheduled a meeting to discuss Complainant’s concerns and then scheduled a
meeting with Complainant and Coworker, for which Complainant declined to attend.
After Complainant renewed his complaints after the June 10, 2022 incident,
management referred the matter to EEO and the Anti-Harassment Program, offered
Alternative Dispute Resolution, monitored the employees’ communications and
meetings, provided anti-harassment guidance, and recommended civility training.
When the conflict continued, management prohibited direct communication and
established an intermediary workflow, after which Complainant made no further
complaints 	about 	Coworker. Although Complainant 	may 	not 	agree with 	the
Agency’s course of action, the record demonstrates that the Agency took prompt
action when Complainant brought his concerns to management. Accordingly, there
is no basis for imputing liability to the Agency.
Based on the foregoing, 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

2025002976	5
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.
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).

2025002976	6
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. 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 28, 2026
Date