No Reprisal Despite a Complainant’s Job Offer Being Withdrawn After She Opposed Alleged Discriminatory Practices
By Deborah J. Hopkins, February 24, 2026
A few days ago during a compliance training on EEO reprisal, the discussion turned to whether there was ever a time where anagency’s “adverse” treatment of a complainant was found NOT to be reprisal, even when that adverse treatment was directly connected to a complainant’s EEO activity.
A recent case explored that very topic, Remona P. v. IHS, EEOC App. No 2025000727 (Dec. 11, 2025). Let’s explore the details.
Complainant’s Argument
On July 27, 2023, the complainant, a Supervisory Clinical Nurse, filed an EEO complaint alleging reprisal for protected EEO activity when on May 19, 2023, the Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Director of Nursing (Director) told her that the agency had rescinded its tentative offer for a new position Assistant Director of Nursing. According to the complainant the agency rescinded the offer because she “opposed discriminatory practices in writing.” Id. at 1.
The complainant explained that after receiving the tentative offer she was sent a Service Agreement to sign, after it had already been signed by four management officials. When the complainant signed it, she added this statement to the bottom of the document: “I agree to these terms with the exception of bullying, harassment, discrimination or any other illegal activities or conduct towards me or witnessed by me during the one year period.” Id. at 2.
She returned this Service Agreement to HR, and alleged that shortly thereafter her tentative offer was rescinded because management “saw [her] as someone predisposed to engage in EEO activity.” Id.
Agency’s Argument
An agency HR Specialist stated that the complainant had modified two official government forms after they had already been signed by management officials, and the HR Specialist sent the modified forms to those officials to check whether they approved of the complainant’s additions. Id. at 2-3.
Two of the officials – the Director and the CEO – described the complainant’s amendment to the forms as deceitful, lacking in candor, and dishonest. According to the Director, “it gave the impression that the officials had agreed to the modifications,” and according to the CEO “the way she modified the agreement made it appear as if all the parties had mutually agreed to the statement which they had not.” Id. The CEO also noted that he was particularly concerned because “accurate documentation was an important part of the role Complainant would be filling.” Id.
EEOC’s Decision
On appeal the Commission sided with the agency, finding the rescission of the job offer was not retaliatory, despite that the content of the complainant’s unauthorized modifications concerned potential discrimination:
We find that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rescinding its tentative offer because Complainant’s action in modifying the official form without getting prior approval was deceitful because modifying the form after the management officials had already signed it made it appear as if the management officials had also agreed to those changes.
Id. at 5-6.
Although participation in EEO-related speech in the workplace may constitute a protected activity, it does not confer absolute immunity from disciplinary or other consequences resulting from any associated misconduct. hopkins@feltg.com
Related training
- EEOC Law Week, March 23-27
- Stay up to Date: Hostile Work Environment Harassment in 2026, April 16
- EEO Counselor and Investigator Refresher Training, June 3-4
- Advanced EEO: Navigating Complex Issues, June 23-25
The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
