EEOC Appeal 2026002426

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
James R.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002426
Hearing No. 471-2025-00022X
Agency Nos. 66-230-0001-24
66-230-15675-24
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
April 13, 2026, 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., Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 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.
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.

2026002426	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postal
Inspector at the Agency’s Inspection Service facility in Detroit, Michigan. On May
31, 	2024, 	Complainant 	filed 	an 	EEO 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the 	Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (White), sex (male), color (white),
disability (mental), and age (year of birth: 1977) when:
1. 	On unspecified dates, Complainant was not given the opportunity to
detail into the Team Lead position.
2. 	On or about February 20, 2024, Complainant was not selected for the
position of Team Leader, ISLE-14.
3. 	On March 15, 2024, Complainant was not selected for a detail to Cyber
Investigations.
On November 10, 2024, Complainant filed a second complaint alleging the Agency
discriminated against him based on race (White), color (white), sex (male), age (year
of birth: 1977), disability (mental), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
4. 	On September 5, 2024, Complainant was not selected for a position on
an Executive Protection Detail (ISLE-14).
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 requested a hearing. 	Over
Complainant's objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion for a decision without
a hearing and issued a decision in favor of the Agency on March 31, 2026. 	The
Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.
Complainant filed the instant appeal.
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 Complainant’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that
the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish
that Complainant was subjected to discrimination as alleged.

2026002426	3
Regarding Claim 1, Complainant asserts that on unspecified dates he was not given
the opportunity to detail into the Team Lead position. The record indicates the Team
Lead position became vacant and Inspector in Charge (INC) was responsible for
temporarily filling the role. INC indicated the detail was offered to any personnel
in the division who had not done any high-level details during INC’s leadership
tenure. Four different inspectors served in the temporary detail while the role was
vacant – including Comparator 1, who was a White male. 	The record indicates
Complainant had served a remote six-month detail to the Cyber Crimes Unit. INC
indicated he was unaware of Complainant’s interest in the detail. 	Complainant
admitted that he did not apply or have a direct conversation with leadership about
his interest in the role, but because he was in the leadership development program,
he felt management should have offered him the opportunity.
Regarding Claim 2, the record indicates Complainant applied for the position and
there were a total of six applicants including Complainant. A three-person review
committee independently scored the applications based on knowledge, skills, and
abilities (KSAs) in the vacancy announcement. 	The panel recommended the top
three candidates to the Selecting Official. Complainant scored second to last with a
total score of 8 and was not recommended.
Panelist 1 indicated Complainant was minimally qualified. 	He indicated that
consensus from the review panel was that Complainant may benefit from training in
the 991 (KSA) process. 	Panelist 2 indicated Complainant failed to specifically
identify the actions in which he was responsible for within some KSA responses and
used generalizations that did not identify his skills and contributions. 	Similarly,
Panelist 3 indicated Complainant did not meet the majority of the KSA requirements.
Panelist 3 noted that Complainant’s responses to the KSA questions lacked detail
and focus and there were multiple questions where the elements of the specific
questions were not addressed by Complainant in their responses. 	The review
committee did not recommend Complainant to the Selecting Official for further
consideration because he was not scored in the top three. 	Notably, the panelists
indicated they were unaware Complainant had any disability.
Regarding Claim 3, CCU Supervisor was the Selecting Official for the position. The
record indicates Complainant was one of three applicants who applied for the remote
detail. All three applicants were interviewed.

2026002426	4
Applicants were evaluated based on past performance review ratings and alignment
of applicants experience and training to the qualifications outlined in the detail
posting. 	Selectee – a White male – was selected based on his exceptional
performance review ratings in the prior two fiscal years and the fact that he had
experience 	with 	the 	online 	criminal 	marketplace, 	cloud-based 	messaging,
eCommerce, cryptocurrency, and he spoke Spanish. 	CCU Supervisor indicated
Complainant has previously served a six-month detail with CCU, but that Selectee’s
qualifications were more closely aligned with the detail’s desired requirements and
investigative interests. CCU Supervisor indicated he was unaware of Complainant’s
disability.
Regarding 	Claim 	4, 	the 	record 	indicates 	Complainant 	applied 	for 	and 	was
interviewed for the position, but on his application, he did not follow instructions
which required that under “Postal Positions,” he list permanent positions first then
temporary/detail 	assignments 	of 	thirty 	or 	more 	consecutive 	days 	in 	reverse
chronological 	order. 	Complainant 	instead 	intermingled 	his 	permanent 	and
temporary assignments in the same list rather than separating them per the
instructions. 	Assistant Inspector in Charge (AIC) participated in the selection
process and further noted that Complainant’s application included several errors
including the incorrect job title and vacancy number. 	AIC indicated that during
Complainant’s interview he was asked to describe a time he disagreed with someone
at work and what he learned from it. AIC indicated that Complainant advised that
even if his boss has an opinion he often goes with his gut. AIC noted that he found
it concerning that Complainant stated that while investigating an armed robbery, he
went with his gut rather than following directions from his supervisor or established
policy and procedure. AIC rated Complainant as minimally acceptable (one point)
on each required KSA. In making these ratings, the review board considered
relevance, responsibility, complexity, feedback, breadth, and recency of experience.
Complainant addressed eight of the nine required KSAs, offering only four examples
drawn from his most recent work with the Inspection Service since 2021. The record
indicates the Selectee – scored 17 of 27 possible points and Complainant scored 9
of 27 possible points. AIC indicated he was unaware of Complainant’s disability.
Complainant has not shown such disparities in qualifications that would indicate his
qualifications were plainly superior to the Selectees. Complainant has also not
presented any evidence that persuasively suggests that the Agency was motivated by
his protected classes. 	Furthermore, the record indicates the decision-makers were
unaware of his disability.

2026002426	5
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.
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.
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.

2026002426	6
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. 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 14, 2026
Date