EEOC Appeal 2026002904

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Wanita Z.,1
Complainant,
v.
Daniel Driscoll,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002904
Agency No. AREURHPFZ26MAR000037
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated May 8,
2026, 	dismissing 	her 	complaint 	of 	unlawful 	employment 	discrimination 	in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, we REVERSE the
Agency’s final decision dismissing the formal complaint and REMAND the matter
to the Agency for further processing.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postal
Operations Assistant at the Agency’s Rhineland-Pfalz Postal Operations facility in
Kaiserslautern, Germany.
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.

2026002904	2
On April 24, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination on the bases of disability (mental) and reprisal
(prior protected EEO activity (Agency Case No. AREURHPFZ25SEP000193),
requests for reasonable accommodation, instant EEO case) when:
a. 	Since January 2026, and continuing to the present, the Agency has failed to
provide 	Complainant 	with 	a 	reasonable 	accommodation 	(RA) 	for 	her
disabling conditions;
b. Since January 2026, and continuing to the present, she has been left with no
option but to exhaust her accrued leave and take Leave Without Pay
(LWOP) to avoid being charged AWOL (Absent Without Leave) as a result
of the Agency’s continued failure to accommodate her disabling conditions;
and,
c. 	On April 16, 2026, Complainant requested a RA and it was denied, and she
was instead offered an ineffective alternative RA that did not adequately
accommodate her disabling conditions.
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for
failure to state a claim. The Agency’s final decision determined that Complainant
failed 	to 	establish 	that 	she 	was 	“aggrieved” 	under 	the 	regulations 	because
Complainant 	re-engaged 	the 	interactive 	process, 	and 	her 	reasonable
accommodation request (RA-2026-12620) remained open as of April 22, 2026.
Therefore, Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request was not denied. The
Agency also dismissed the basis of reprisal finding that the protected EEO activity
identified by Complainant was not valid for a claim of reprisal.
Complainant filed the instant appeal. Complainant argues, through counsel, that the
Agency erred in dismissing the formal complaint for failure to state a claim.
Complainant argues that she identified valid prior protected EEO activity for her
claim of reprisal – her previous EEO matter initiated in September 2025, her
requests for RA on multiple occasions in 2025 and 2026, and the initiation of the
instant matter on March 9, 2026. Next, Complainant states that her complaint
alleges common claims of failure to accommodate, loss of accrued leave and use of
LWOP due to the Agency’s failure to accommodate, and the denial of her
requested RA. Complainant argues that alleged actions and events are clearly
sufficient to show she was “aggrieved” within the meaning of the regulations and
therefore, sufficient to state a claim.

2026002904	3
In the Agency’s response to the instant appeal, the Agency requests that the
Commission dismiss the appeal for mootness because the Agency fully accepted
Complainant’s EEO complaint upon further review of the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS
Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a
complaint from an aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes
that they have been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). The
Commission's 	federal 	sector 	case 	precedent 	has 	long 	defined 	an 	“aggrieved
employee” as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep't of
the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). If the complainant
cannot establish that they are aggrieved, the agency shall dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
The proper focus for dismissals of individual EEO complaints under the EEOC
Regulations is on whether the complainant is allegedly aggrieved due to an
unlawful employment practice, and a dismissal will be reversed where the agency
bases 	that 	action 	on 	its 	view 	of 	the 	ultimate 	merits 	of 	the 	complaint
allegations. Yost v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A33585 (Feb.
11, 2004); Fulmer v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40186 (Feb. 19,
2004); King v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40422 (Mar. 17, 2004).
Here, Complainant established that she is “aggrieved” because she alleges that she
is a qualified individual with a disability who has not been granted a reasonable
accommodation and has exhausted her leave due to the Agency’s lack of providing
her with an effective reasonable accommodation. Therefore, Complainant has
alleged various actions that constitute a present harm or loss with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz, 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.107(a)(1).
The Agency's dismissal erroneously addresses the merits of the claim without a
proper 	investigation 	as 	required 	by 	EEOC 	regulations. 	The 	Commission
emphasizes that explanations about why the Agency took a particular action are
irrelevant to the procedural issue of whether Complainant stated a viable claim
under the Rehabilitation Act and the 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 regulations.

2026002904	4
See Dollie T. v. Dep't of Veterans Aff., EEOC Appeal No. 2023001591 (Jul. 6,
2023) citing Osborne v. Dep't of the Treas., EEOC Request No. 05960111 (July
19, 1996) other citations omitted. Specifically, the Agency’s articulated reasons for
the 	actions 	in 	dispute, 	i.e., 	that 	Complainant’s 	request 	for 	a 	reasonable
accommodation was not denied, goes to the merits of Complainant’s complaint,
and is irrelevant to the procedural issues of whether she has stated a viable claim
under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
Additionally, the Agency erroneously dismissed Complainant’s basis of reprisal. In
her formal complaint, Complainant identified the following prior protected EEO
activity as the basis for her allegation of reprisal: Complainant’s prior EEO case,
requests for reasonable accommodations, and the instant EEO matter. Requesting a
reasonable 	accommodation 	is 	protected 	EEO 	activity 	and 	Complainant 	has
requested the Agency provide her with a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, II. Elements of a
Retaliation 	Claim, 	A. 	Protected 	Activity 	(Aug. 	25, 	2016). 	Additionally,
Complainant’s 	previous 	EEO 	complaint 	(Agency 	Case 	No.
AREURHPFZ25SEP000193) and filing the instant matter are clearly protected
EEO activity. We find that Complainant appropriately cited prior protected EEO
activity to establish a basis of reprisal in her discrimination complaint.
Complainant’s 	claims 	are 	sufficient 	to 	render 	her 	an 	aggrieved 	employee.
Therefore, Complainant has raised a claim within the purview of the EEOC
Regulations. 	The 	Commission 	finds 	the 	Agency 	improperly 	dismissed
Complainant’s formal complaint of discrimination for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Agency has indicated that the Agency has fully accepted the instant
complaint, rendering the instant appeal “moot.” In order to determine whether the
issues raised on appeal are moot, the factfinder must ascertain whether (1) it can be
said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged
violation 	will 	recur; 	and 	(2) 	interim 	relief 	or 	events 	have 	completely 	and
irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation. See County of Los
Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Kuo v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC
Request No. 05970343 (July 10, 1998). We agree with the Agency on appeal that
the instant complaint states a claim. However, we cannot dismiss the appeal for
mootness because there is no evidence the Agency rescinded its final decision
dismissing the formal complaint.

2026002904	5
While the Agency’s brief cites Enclosure 1 as evidence the Agency fully accepted
Complainant’s formal complaint, the Agency failed to include Enclosure 1.
Further, the Commission has previously remanded a complaint to the Agency
where the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss stated the appeal was moot because the
Agency’s final decision dismissing the complaint had been rescinded and the claim
accepted for investigation. See Cherie F. v. U.S. Gov’t Publishing Office, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120162469 (Sept. 26, 2016) Under these circumstances, we will
remand the matter to the Agency for further processing, to the extent it has not
already done so.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is
REVERSED. 	We 	hereby 	REMAND 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	Agency 	for 	further
processing in accordance with this decision and the Order below.
ORDER (E0224)
To the extent that it has not already done so, the Agency is ordered to process the
remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall
acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within
thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision was issued. The Agency shall
issue to 	Complainant 	a copy 	of the investigative file and 	also 	shall 	notify
Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar
days of the date this decision was issued, unless the matter is otherwise resolved
prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing,
the Agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of
Complainant’s request.
As 	provided 	in 	the statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of the
Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the Agency’s
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and 3) either a copy
of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the final agency decision
(“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.

2026002904	6
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(c) 	and 	§ 	1614.502, 	compliance 	with 	the
Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of
the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format
required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under
which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the
Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format
required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency’s final
report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her
representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil
action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition
for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.
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:

2026002904	7
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.
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).

2026002904	8
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0124)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of
your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to
file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90)
calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you
may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the
date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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.

2026002904	9
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 17, 2026
Date