EEOC Appeal 2026002222

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Dong R.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002222
Agency No. 1C-131-06446-26
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated April 8,
2026, 	dismissing 	his 	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. Upon review, the Commission finds that Complainant's
complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), due to
stating the same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or
Commission.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail
Handler at the Agency’s Syracuse Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) in
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.

2026002222	2
Syracuse, New York. On March 31, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint
alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of race
(Arabic), and religion (Muslim) when:
1. 	On August 1, 2022, and ongoing, Complainant has been denied a
204(B) (Acting Supervisor) position.
The Agency issued a final decision dismissing Complainant’s formal complaint
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for stating the same claim that is pending
before or has been decided by the agency or Commission. In its decision, the
Agency found that the instant complaint raised a claim identical to the claim
Complainant raised in a prior informal EEO complaint (Agency No. 1C-131-
05833-26). The decision noted Complainant withdrew his prior complaint on
February 26, 2026.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
In support of his appeal, Complainant submitted several documents, including an
email he sent to the EEO Counselor asking to reactivate his informal EEO
complaint. In the email, Complainant explains that he withdrew his previous
informal 	EEO 	complaint 	because 	when 	he 	previously 	spoke 	with 	the 	EEO
Counselor, he was frustrated and felt his case would not be successful.
ANALYSIS
The Commission has previously found that where a complainant knowingly and
voluntarily withdraws his complaint, the Commission considers the matter to have
been abandoned. See Complainant v. Dep't of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No.
0120092893 (Sep. 28, 2011) (citing Complainant v. Dep't of Transp., EEOC
Request No. 05930805 (Feb. 25, 1994)). Further, Complainant may not request
reinstatement of an informal complaint. See id. (citing Allen v. Dep't of Defense,
EEOC 	Request 	No. 	05940168 	(May 	25, 	1995)). 	Once 	a 	complainant 	has
withdrawn an informal complaint, absent a showing of coercion, a complainant
may not reactivate the EEO process by filing a complaint on the same issue. Id.

2026002222	3
Here, Complainant initiated EEO counselor contact in his previous informal EEO
complaint (Agency No. 1C-131-05833-26) on February 20, 2026. In the previous
matter, Complainant alleged that since August 2022, he has not been offered a
204(B) or supervisor position. He alleged that since he submitted his request to
become a 204(B) or a supervisor, he has witnessed around ten people who have
been given 204(B) and supervisor positions. Complaint File at 56. On February 26,
2026, Complainant requested to withdraw his informal complaint. Complainant’s
Appeal Submission at 11. That same day, the EEO Counselor sent Complainant an
email 	confirming 	his 	request 	to 	withdraw 	his 	informal 	EEO 	complaint 	and
notifying him that his case would be closed. Id.
On 	appeal, 	Complainant 	has 	not 	identified 	or 	provided 	evidence 	of 	any
misrepresentation 	or factually 	inaccurate 	information 	by 	the 	EEO 	counselor.
Complainant only identifies that the conversation with the EEO Counselor left him
feeling frustrated and made him feel his case would not be successful. Id.
Complainant has not submitted any evidence showing that the EEO Counselor
made specific statements regarding the likelihood of success of his claim, just his
own feelings following the conversation with the EEO Counselor. See Allen v.
Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A33203 (Feb. 25, 2004) (Despite
complainant’s 	assertion 	that 	she 	believed 	the 	EEO 	counselor 	was 	filing
complainant’s formal complaint on her behalf, there was no evidence in the record
that the EEO counselor misled Complainant into that belief). This is insufficient to
establish that the EEO Counselor provided misleading information or improperly
dissuaded 	Complainant from filing 	a EEO 	complaint. We find 	Complainant
knowingly and voluntarily withdrew his prior case during informal processing.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides that the Agency shall
dismiss a complaint that states the same claim that is pending before or has been
decided by the agency or Commission. It has long been established that “same”
does not mean “similar.” The Commission has consistently held that in order for a
complaint to be dismissed as identical, the elements of the complaint must be
identical to the elements of the prior complaint in time, place, incident, and parties.
See Jackson v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No 01955890 (April 5,
1996), rev'd on other grounds, EEOC Request No. 05960524 (April 24, 1997).
In Complainant’s previously withdrawn informal EEO complaint, Complainant
alleged that since August 2022, he has not been offered the position of a 204(B).

2026002222	4
Since he submitted his request to become a 204(B), there have been around 10
people who have been given a 204B and supervisor position. Complaint File at 56.
Complainant provided the same information 	in his 	March 31, 2026, formal
complaint that he gave during his prior informal EEO complaint. Id. at 35.
Complainant has not provided sufficient information to enable a fact-finder to
determine whether or not the claim is new or identical to his previous claims.
Complainant has not provided any details or information specifying how the
instant claim differs from his earlier raised claims. Given Complainant’s reference
in both the instant and prior claim to August 2022 and the ten people who have
become 	a 	204(B) 	or 	supervisor 	since 	he 	submitted 	his 	request, 	along 	with
Complainant’s lack of specificity showing how the two claims differ, we find that
Complainant raises the same claim as his previous EEO informal complaint. See
Hou Hsu v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal 0120122398 (Sept. 12, 2013).
Accordingly, we find that the Agency properly dismissed the claim for stating the
same 	claim 	that 	is 	pending 	before 	or 	has 	been 	decided 	by 	the 	agency 	or
Commission.
CONCLUSION
The Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision dismissing Complainant’s
complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
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

2026002222	5
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 (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.

2026002222	6
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 __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 15, 2026
Date