EEOC Appeal 2026003388

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Ivelisse S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2023003388
Agency No. 1F-541-11386-25
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 17, 2026, final decision 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. For the following
reasons, 	the 	Commission 	AFFIRMS 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	decision 	finding 	no
discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Mail Processing Clerk, PS-6 at the Agency’s Portland Processing
and Distribution Center (P&DC) facility in Portland, Oregon. 	On October 17, 2025,
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.

2023003388	2
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency on the
bases of race (Caucasian) and color (white) when:
1. On June 11, 2025, Complainant was sent home.
2. On July 7, 2025, Complainant was sent home.
3. On July 13, 2025, Complainant became aware she was in Leave Without
Pay (LWOP) status.2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before
EEOC Administrative Judge or a final Agency decision. As Complainant failed to
request a hearing, the Agency issued a final decision. 	The Agency found that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. Thereafter, Complainant filed the instant appeal.
Upon review, we find that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions. Regarding claim 1, the Supervisor of Distribution Operations
(SDO) stated that management was advised that Complainant had not been released
to report back to work, and since management had not received a release from the
Labor Relations, Complainant was sent home, and she was not allowed to work.
SDO noted this information was explained to Complainant. The Acting Manager of
Distribution Operations (AMDO) stated that he was the management official who
made the decision to send Complainant home because Complainant did not have any
medical documentation clearing her to work.
As to claim 2, the SDO stated that Complainant was sent home at the direction of
AMDO. SDO stated that management had not received clearance from Labor
Relations 	that 	Complainant 	could 	return 	to 	work 	as 	she 	was 	still 	pending
2 Complainant also raised a claim alleging that she was subjected to discrimination
when in July 2025, her wages were garnished. On November 4, 2025, the Agency
issued a decision dismissing this issue. 	Complainant does not challenge the
dismissal of this claim on appeal. 	The Commission exercises its discretion to
address only those issues specifically raised on appeal and declines to address this
procedural dismissal. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) at Chap. 9, § IV.A (Aug. 5, 2015).

2023003388	3
termination. AMDO stated that Complainant was sent home because Complainant’s
employment status was in arbitration for removal, so Complainant was to remain off
duty pending an arbitration decision.
With respect to claim 3, another Supervisor of Distribution Operations (SDO1)
stated Complainant had been in a Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status since
December 2023. SDO1 reported that when he arrived at the plant (January 2024), he
kept Complainant in a LWOP status pending her termination. SDO1 said that
ADMO instructed him to put Complainant in a LWOP status while they waited for
further information from the Labor Department about her status. SDO1 stated that
Complainant did not have sufficient sick or annual leave, so Complainant was placed
in LWOP.
An additional Supervisor of Distribution Operations (SDO2) explained that if an
employee had no leave, then LWOP would be the leave type entered by the
supervisor, which was likely what occurred with Complainant. 	Management
affirmed the reason Complainant was sent home and in a LWOP status were for
insufficient documentation for her absences.
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.

2023003388	4
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).
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.

2023003388	5
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 17, 2026
Date