EEOC Appeal 2026001359

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Chrystal S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001359
Hearing No. 570-2023-00668X
Agency No. 6Z-170-0001-22
DECISION
On February 25, 2026, 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 January 23, 2026 final order concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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 order.
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 	2026001359
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Senior Business Systems
Analyst (Team Lead) at the Agency’s Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
On June 9, 2022, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female), age (YOB 1967), and
reprisal (6Z-000-0005-20) for prior protected EEO activity when:
the former BSA (Bank Secrecy Act) Compliance Officer and Treasurer
dissuaded 	Complainant 	from 	participating 	in 	BSA 	Compliance 	Officer
development 	and 	other 	advancement, 	mentorship, 	and 	Task 	Force
collaboration, Complainant was not assigned for the BSA Compliance Officer
detail, and on March 28, 2022, Complainant was informed that she was not
selected for the BSA Compliance Officer job posting 10799073.2
After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant
timely requested a hearing. On October 27, 2023, over Complainant's objections, the
AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motion for a decision without a
hearing. On January 5, 2026, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing. On January
23, 2026, the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding 	of no
discrimination.
Complainant, through counsel, argues that she proffered sufficient facts to establish
her prima facie case of harassment and hostile work environment. She asserts that
she can demonstrate a disparity in treatment between herself and other employees.
In rendering this appellate decision, we must the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions,
and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)
(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based
on a de novo review . . .”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015)
(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without
a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
2 Complainant had a total of 17 claims. We find it unnecessary to delineate all these
matters separately, but have summarized and addressed them as necessary, in our
decision.

3 	2026001359
This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. 	In other
words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ’s, and
Agency’s, factual conclusions and legal analysis – including on the ultimate fact of
whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any
federal employment discrimination statute was violated. 	See id. at Chapter 9,
§ VI.A. 	(explaining 	that 	the 	de 	novo 	standard 	of 	review 	“requires 	that 	the
Commission 	examine 	the 	record 	without 	regard 	to 	the 	factual 	and 	legal
determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant
submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own
assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
We determine whether the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing.
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing
upon finding that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g).
EEOC’s decision without a hearing regulation follows the summary judgment
procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The U.S. Supreme Court held
summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no genuine issue of
material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a summary judgment motion,
the judge is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial, as opposed to
weighing the evidence. Id. at 249. At the summary judgment stage, the judge must
believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must draw justifiable inferences in the
non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. A “genuine issue of fact” is one that a
reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st
Cir. 1988). A “material” fact has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.
An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the record
has been adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No.
01A24206 (July 11, 2003). We carefully reviewed the record and find that it is
adequately developed. To successfully oppose a decision without a hearing,
Complainant must identify material facts of record that are in dispute or present
further material evidence establishing facts in dispute. 	We determine that the AJ’s
summary judgment finding in this instance was proper.
On appeal, Complainant reiterates that she established her prima facie case and that
the only way to properly resolve the matter was through a hearing.

4 	2026001359
The AJ determined that there was no genuine dispute of material facts. Additionally,
the AJ determined that, even if the claims were as Complainant described, the claims
did not meet the definition of a hostile work environment.
The AJ specifically noted for example, one claim addressed the actions of a former
BSA Compliance Officer who cancelled meetings, such as a “touch-base” with
Complainant. The former BSA Compliance Officer stated that all other meetings
were cancelled and other employees, not just Complainant, were impacted.
Moreover, another matter related to the Agency Treasurer attesting to a conversation
with Complainant where the Agency Treasurer tried to convey the idea that resting
all of Complainant’s ambitions on a BSA Compliance Officer vacancy, when there
were multiple applicants and other positions that Complainant may want to consider
available, may not be an advantageous strategy. In the AJ’s decision, the Treasurer
was paraphrased as stating that he conveyed the same sentiment to the others
applying for the BSA Compliance Officer position. Complainant’s allegation
regarding the BSA Compliance Officer detail was for a position that was never
designated as a detail. Complainant could demonstrate that the Agency’s articulated
rationale for her non-selection for the BSA Compliance Officer position was pretext
for discrimination, that she was the plainly superior candidate. The AJ further noted
that Complainant acknowledged that she was not the best qualified candidate for the
BSA Compliance Officer position.
The matters that are the subject of the formal complaint include the claims discussed
above, as well as a variety of other allegations including but not limited to:
discouragement of Complainant from coming into an official’s office as a means to
discourage Complainant from career opportunities; failure to allow Complainant’s
participation in a task force; and failure to being provided feedback and coaching for
a presentation.
However, to prove her hostile work environment claim, Complainant must establish
that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a
“reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be
hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because
of a protected basis; in this case, her age, sex, or engagement in prior EEO activity.
Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements – hostility and motive – will
the question of Agency liability present itself.

5 	2026001359
Complainant fails to demonstrate that she suffered from conduct so severe or so
pervasive, based on her protected bases, to rise to the level of harassment, and
subsequently hostile work environment.
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no
discrimination.
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,
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.

6 	2026001359
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.

7 	2026001359
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 	GuChaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 14, 2026
Date