EEOC Appeal 2026003293

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Adena J.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 2026003293
Appeal No. 2025002712
Agency No. 4G-350-0226-23
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2025002712
(May 21, 2026). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c).
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.

2 	2026003293
In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed a final order finding that
Complainant had not established that the Agency discriminated against her based on
race, sex, age and reprisal regarding her claim of discrimination and harassment. The
Commission therein noted that the record was devoid of any evidence that created a
genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the Agency’s actions 	were
motivated by discriminatory animus.
On request, Complainant largely reiterates her allegations, asserting that the previous
decision was erroneous; and that her complaint should have been resolved by a
factfinder. According to Complainant, the Commission's error was not merely
reaching the wrong result but resolving disputed facts and credibility issues in
management's 	favor 	even 	though 	the 	record 	contained 	specific 	evidence 	of
discriminatory motive, retaliatory motive, hostile treatment, and unequal treatment.
We have reviewed the statement provided by Complainant in the instant request for
reconsideration, including that the Commission erred in resolving disputed facts and
credibility issues in management's favor even though the record contained specific
evidence of discriminatory and retaliatory motive. However, we can find no basis to
disturb the Commission's prior decision.
The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second
appeal. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VII.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of
Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration
request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a substantial impact on
the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so
here. Thus, we conclude that Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence
to support reconsideration of the Commission's decision.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds
that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No.
2025002712 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.

3 	2026003293
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0124)
This 	decision 	of 	the 	Commission 	is 	final, and 	there 	is 	no 	further 	right 	of
administrative appeal from the Commission’s decision. 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.
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 21, 2026
Date