EEOC Appeal 2025003696

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Maricela P.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003696
Hearing No. 540-2024-00230X
Agency No. 4E-852-0013-24
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
July 22, 2025, final order 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 order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postal
Support Employee at the Agency’s Roswell Carrier Annex in Roswell, New
Mexico.
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.

2025003696	2
On January 23, 2024, Complainant filed (and later amended) an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her in reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when:
1. 	Beginning on or around September 2, 2023, Complainant’s work
hours were reduced, and Complainant was given a later start time;
2. 	On or around November 15, 2023, Complainant was issued a 14-Day
Notice of Suspension for violating the Zero Tolerance Policy;
3. 	On or around November 21, 2023, Complainant was called into the
Postmaster’s office and told there was a suspicion that Complainant
was on drugs and threatened that if this happens again, Complainant
will be sent for a drug test, and told that the next corrective step will
be a Removal;
4. 	On or around December 14, 2023, due to a family emergency,
Complainant 	requested 	Leave 	Without 	Pay 	(LWOP) 	and 	was
incorrectly charged with annual leave and was told this would be
changed, but on December 28, 2023, it had not yet been changed;
5. 	On or around December 19, 2023, Complainant filed a PS Form 1767
(Report of Hazard, Unsafe Condition, or Practice) and the incident
was not investigated by management and Complainant was told by her
Postmaster, “That’s the environment you work in. If you don’t like it,
go somewhere else:”
6. 	On or around December 24, 2023, Complainant filed a PS Form 1164-
E (eTravel Expense Report), and on December 26, 2023, Complainant
noticed that the form was still on the manager’s desk with a note on it
that Complainant’s account was locked, and Complainant has not yet
been compensated, and her account is still locked;
7. 	On or around December 29, 2023, Complainant was told to clean in
order to make up custodial hours, and when Complainant told her
Postmaster 	that 	Complainant 	had 	an 	appointment 	that 	day,
Complainant’s Postmaster stated, “Now you are complaining about
your hours getting cut and I’m giving you hours,” and “don’t be
surprised if your work hours are cut,” and when Complainant asked
why, Complainant’s Postmaster said, “because you can’t work;”
8. 	On or around January 3, 2023, Complainant’s supervisor yelled at
Complainant to clock out and go home, and when Complainant
informed him that Complainant was on union time, he said, “I don’t
give a shit, clock out and go home;”

2025003696	3
9. 	On or around January 4, 2024, Complainant reported to work and was
told 	by 	the 	Lead 	Clerk 	that 	the 	Postmaster 	advised 	her 	to 	tell
Complainant not to clock in and to go home until Complainant got a
letter in the mail. After texting the Postmaster, Complainant was told
she will get a letter in the mail and until then she would be paid
administrative 	leave. 	Complainant 	then 	received 	an 	Emergency
Placement on Off-Duty Status letter and has not yet been paid; and
10. 	On or about June 12, 2024, Complainant’s job offer for another
position in a different office was rescinded based on disciplinary
information provided by the Postmaster to that office.
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 an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant timely requested a
hearing. 	The AJ issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency
finding that Complainant was not subjected to reprisal as alleged. 	The Agency
subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. The instant
appeal followed.
Even 	construing 	any 	inferences 	raised 	by 	the 	undisputed 	facts 	in 	favor 	of
Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 	We
find that the alleged incidents, even assuming they occurred as described by
Complainant, were more likely the result of routine supervision, personality
conflicts, and general workplace disputes and were not sufficiently material to
deter protected activity.
In addition, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the alleged
conduct was based on retaliatory animus. For example, Complainant’s work hours
were reduced because she requested not to work Sundays and Wednesdays and to
start her shift after 7:30 a.m. on all other workdays. Complainant was issued a 14-
Day Suspension after she violated the Agency’s Zero Tolerance Policy by trying to
throw packages at her co-worker. 	Management questioned Complainant about
drug use after co-workers reported that she was behaving strangely and “falling
asleep while standing up” for three consecutive days. 	Complainant was charged
emergency annual leave instead of LWOP because that was the type of leave she
originally requested.

2025003696	4
Complainant was told to clock out and go home on January 3, 2024, after it was
reported that she was again throwing packages at a co-worker. 	Complainant was
placed in an off-duty status following the incident. 	Complainant’s disciplinary
history prevented her from being hired at the Lovington Station Post Office .
Moreover, to the extent that Complainant is alleging disparate treatment regarding
her claims, Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the
Agency's explanation for its actions was pretext for reprisal.
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, we conclude
that the AJ correctly determined that the entry of summary judgment for the
Agency was appropriate. The evidence did not establish that the Agency subjected
Complainant to reprisal or a retaliatory hostile work environment as alleged.
CONCLUSION
Based on our thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
order.
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.

2025003696	5
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.

2025003696	6
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