EEOC Appeal 2026000408

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Luia N.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000408
Agency No. 4B-070-13236-25
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's final decision dated
October 	28, 	2025, 	dismissing 	a 	formal 	complaint 	of 	unlawful 	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. 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 MODIFIES the Agency’s final decision.
During the relevant time, Complainant was a Customer Services Manager at the
Agency’s Camden Post Office in Camden, New Jersey.
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.

2026000408	2
On 	October 	14, 	2025, 	Complainant 	filed 	a 	formal 	EEO 	complaint 	alleging
discrimination based on color (not specified), religion (Muslim), sex (LGBT) and
age (48) when:
1) On April 18, 2025, Complainant was sent an email that stated “You
should consider this. See me tomorrow to discuss it.”
2) On June 6, 2025, she received an email while she was on scheduled leave
that stated, “Please do not come to work [-] we are covered.”
3) On June 7, 2025, management failed to respond to her complaint of
someone in management starting a group chat with her supervisors; and
4) On July 15, 2025, she was issued a Proposed Letter of Warning in Lieu of
14- Day Suspension.
On October 28, 2025, the Agency issued a final decision dismissing the formal
complaint. In dismissing Claims 1-3, the Agency found that Complainant failed to
state a claim under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). 	Specifically, the Agency found
that 	Complainant did not demonstrate a loss of a term, condition, or privilege of
employment nor indicate that she was subjected to any adverse actions. The
Agency further found that even if the actions described in Claims 1-3 occurred as
Complainant described, they were insufficiently severe or pervasive to state a
claim of harassment.
The Agency also dismissed Claim 4, finding that it alleged that a proposal to take a
personnel action was discriminatory and was therefore subject to dismissal under
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(4). The Agency noted that the record did not indicate that
Complainant had received a letter of decision affecting a personnel action and that,
therefore, she did not suffer a present harm with respect to a term, condition or
privilege of employment. It noted that if management implemented the proposed
action, Complainant would have 45 days to seek EEO counseling to file a
complaint.2
2 The Agency stated in a footnote that although Complainant raised the additional
issue of a suspension, at the informal stage of the complaint process, she failed to
include the issue in her formal complaint, and it was therefore abandoned.

2026000408	3
On appeal, Complainant asserts that her complaint addresses ongoing harassment,
discrimination, 	and 	retaliation, 	and 	she 	describes 	numerous 	incidents 	which
occurred between May 16, 2025, and November 4, 2025, only some of which
(Claims 1-4 listed above) were raised during EEO counseling or in the formal
complaint. 	Complainant also asserts that the proposed discipline was issued in
August 2025, when the Agency issued a letter of warning.
The Agency did not file a response to Complainant’s appeal.
The Agency’s decision to dismiss a complaint is subject to de novo review by the
Commission, which requires the Commission to examine the record without regard
to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker and issue its
decision 	based 	on 	the Commission’s 	own 	assessment 	of the record 	and 	its
interpretation of the law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for
employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that
agency 	because 	of 	race, 	color, 	religion, 	sex, 	national 	origin, 	age, 	genetic
information, 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 (April 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).
Regarding the dismissal of Claims 1 – 3, where, as here, a complaint does not
challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or
privilege of employment, a claim of harassment may survive if it alleges conduct
that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's
employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). Thus,
not all claims of harassment are actionable.
In the instant case, Complainant alleged that on two occasions she received emails
with instructions about work and that, on another occasion, management failed to
respond to her complaint that an EAS official created a new group chat with

2026000408	4
individuals she supervised and instructed them to use it.3 These alleged incidents
of harassment constitute common workplace interactions such as work assignments
and instructions that are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile
work 	environment. 	See Complainant 	v. 	Dep't 	of 	State, 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
0120123299 (Feb. 25, 2015). To the extent Complainant argues that the emails and
creation of a group chat made her feel undervalued or demeaned, we have
repeatedly 	stated 	that 	such 	ordinary 	friction 	in 	supervisor-employee
communications do not rise to the level of unlawful harassment. See Wen Y. v.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2021002631 (July 11, 2022); Marine V. v.
Social Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2019001434 (July 7, 2020). Not every
unpleasant or undesirable action that occurs in the workplace constitutes an EEO
violation. Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120120158 (May
15, 2014)
Thus, 	even 	if 	proven 	to 	be 	true 	and 	viewed 	in 	a 	light 	most 	favorable 	to
Complainant, the isolated actions alleged, without more, are simply insufficiently
severe or pervasive to state a claim of harassment. Therefore, Complainant's
complaint of harassment fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
We now turn to Claim 4 (the proposed letter of warning) which the Agency
dismissed because it involved only a proposal to take a personnel action. On
appeal, Complainant asserts that the Agency issued a Letter of Warning in August
2025. 	The record supports this assertion (See Complaint File, p. 90, Letter of
Warning dated August 20, 2025.) The Commission has held that “[w]here an
individual 	received 	EEO 	counseling 	on 	a proposed action 	and 	the 	agency
ultimately 	carries 	out 	the proposed action, 	the 	otherwise 	premature
allegation merges with the effectuated action.” Siegel v. Department of Veterans
3 Although Complainant raised other incidents of alleged harassment on appeal,
she did not raise these incidents during EEO counseling or in her formal complaint
although most of these matters occurred prior to the filing of her complaint and
therefore constitute evidence previously available to Complainant. Complainant
cannot raise new claims for the first time on appeal. See Deboy v. Dep’t of State,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120083975 (March 19, 2012) (declining to address additional
allegations of harassment raised for the first time on appeal where the complainant
was aware of the incidents before and during the investigation).

2026000408	5
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960568 (Oct. 9, 1997) (citations omitted). The
Commission finds that the Notice of Proposed Letter of Warning merges with the
actual issued Letter of Warning removal and that the agency should process the
allegation related to the letter of warning.4 Id.
The Agency’s dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED with respect to Claims 1-3, and
REVERSED with respect to Claim 4, and Claim 4 is REMANDED for further
processing in accordance with the ORDER below and applicable regulations
ORDER (E1092)
The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded allegation in accordance
with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the appellant that it
has received the remanded allegation within thirty (30) calendar days of the date
this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue to appellant a copy of the
investigative file and also shall notify appellant of the appropriate rights within one
hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the appellant requests a final
decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60)
days of receipt of appellant's request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to appellant and a copy of the
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights must be sent to the
Compliance Officer as referenced below.
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
4 We further note, in 	response to 	the Agency’s 	assertion 	in 	the FAD 	that
Complainant abandoned the claim, raised before the EEO Counselor but not in her
complaint, that she was issued a 14-Day Suspension, the record indicates that
although Complainant was originally issued a Suspension, she appealed that
suspension through the grievance process and it was reduced to the letter of
warning that is the subject of Claim 4.

2026000408	6
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:
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.

2026000408	7
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).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0124)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires
the 	Agency 	to 	continue 	its 	administrative 	processing 	of 	a 	portion 	of 	your
complaint.

2026000408	8
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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has
affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued
administrative processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the
Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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 	_________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 22, 2026
Date