EEOC Appeal 2025003821

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Ismael N.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003821
Agency No. 4E-852-0128-23
DECISION
On July 31, 2025, 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 July 1, 2025, final decision 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. 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 decision finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City
Carrier at the Agency’s Rio Saldo Sorting and Delivery Center facility in Phoenix,
Arizona. 	Complainant filed a complaint alleging he was discriminated against on
the bases of race (African-American), religion, color, and age when:
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.

2025003821	2
On or around May 19, 2023, Complainant became aware that he was denied
a new and better functioning vehicle being assigned to his route, as well as the
training for that vehicle, while others were not.2
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). When Complainant did not request a hearing
within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	The decision concluded that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions which Complainant failed to establish were mere pretext for discrimination.
Acting District Manager (ADM) stated that across Phoenix hundreds of vehicles
were being exchanged and decisions were made based on operations (by route rather
than by driver). ADM stated that on March 17, 2023, she observed Complainant and
pulled him from the street after repeated unsafe acts. ADM noted that Complainant
hit curbs with his right rear tire pulling in and out of roadways. ADM scheduled
Complainant for an 8-hour refresher training and noted that Complainant’s vehicle
was too large.
Postmaster stated that he took 	Complainant’s 	ProMaster vehicle after ADM
completed an evaluation of him. Postmaster explained ADM had Complainant
pulled from the street due to safety concerns. Postmaster stated that he and
Complainant had a conversation and both agreed on the ProMaster being too large.
Postmaster stated he gave Complainant a Ford Flex-Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which are
newer than the Long Life Vehicle (LLV), and noted there were not any Metris
vehicles at the time. Postmaster stated that neither LLVs nor FFVs had air
conditioning. ProMaster and Metris have air conditioning. Postmaster stated he did
not recall the specific dates on which the training occurred and noted that
Complainant may not have been at work on the days training was conducted for the
new vehicles. Postmaster explained that assignment of vehicles also depended on
the type of route.
2 In EEOC Appeal. No. 2024000678 (Feb. 4, 2025), the Commission affirmed the
Agency’s dismissal of other claims in the complaint and remanded the instant claim
for processing.

2025003821	3
Postmaster stated there were no City Carriers with a route similar to Complainant’s
route, who had safety issues driving a ProMaster. We find that the record does not
contain, and Complainant did not provide, evidence of similarly situated individuals
that in similar circumstances were treated more favorably.
The Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
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,

2025003821	4
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.
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.

2025003821	5
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 __________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 17, 2026
Date