EEOC Appeal 2026002836

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Youlanda P.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002836
Hearing No. 460-2025-00123X
Agency No. 4G-700-14716-24
DECISION
On June 5, 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 May 8, 2026, final order concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 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 Carrier
Technician at the Agency’s Metairie Post Office in Metairie, Louisiana.
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.

2026002836	2
On December 6, 2024, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability (epilepsy) when:
1. 	On October 17, 2024, she was issued a Notice of Removal dated
October 15, 2024; and
2. 	On a date to be specified and continuing, she was not provided with a
reasonable accommodation for her epilepsy.
Complainant stated that she was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2018 and that because
of her condition, her doctor told her that she could not drive and she also has lifting
restrictions so she cannot lift more than 20 pounds. 	See Report of Investigation
(ROI) at 61. She was issued a Notice of Removal for excessive absences because
she had incurred over 1600 hours of Absent Without Leave (AWOL) since
November 16, 2023. 	See ROI at 82-83. 	She asserted that the Notice of Removal
was based on her disability because she did not attend work due to her medical
condition and the Agency told her that it could not accommodate her so she had no
choice. See ROI at 63. She stated that she requested light duty accommodation such
as clerk duties or supervising work because she acknowledged that her condition
does not allow her to perform an essential function of her position, which required
driving in order to deliver mail. See ROI at 65. The Agency closed Complainant’s
request for reassignment as reasonable accommodation after Complainant failed to
respond to the reassignment questionnaire the Agency sent her in order to determine
jobs for which she would be qualified and parameters for conducting a job search.
See ROI at 180.
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
before an AJ.
The 	Agency 	submitted 	a 	motion 	for 	a 	decision 	without 	a 	hearing, 	which
Complainant opposed. The AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.

2026002836	3
On appeal, Complainant argues that the AJ erred in granting summary judgment
because she ignored material facts in dispute regarding whether or not Complainant
attempted to timely appeal the Agency’s denial of a reasonable accommodation and
whether or not she communicated with the Agency regarding her inability to come
into work. 	Complainant also attached several documents in support of her
arguments.2 In response, the Agency filed a brief urging affirmance of the AJ’s
decision.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, the Agency's decision
is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO
MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (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”); see
also 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).
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when they
find that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue
of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in
favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). A fact is “material”
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When considering
summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009).
2 As a general rule, no new evidence will be considered on appeal unless there is an
affirmative showing that the evidence was not reasonably available prior to or during
the investigation, which Complainant did not establish. See EEO MD-110 at Chap.
9, § VI.A.3. The evidence Complainant submitted with her brief will, therefore, not
be considered. We note, however, that the evidence Complainant submitted would
not change the outcome.

2026002836	4
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must
identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing
further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material
under applicable law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing
is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated
by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such
a dispute. While Complainant insists that there are factual issues in dispute, she
offered little beyond her own beliefs to support her assertions. It is well settled that
mere assertions of a factual dispute without more are not sufficient to defeat a motion
for summary judgment. 	See Darrell C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
10200181833 (July 12, 2019); Quartermain v. U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120112994 (May 21, 2013). Upon our review of the record, we find
that the AJ correctly determined that Complainant failed to establish a dispute of
material fact and properly granted summary judgment.
We find that the record does not support Complainant’s assertions that she was
subjected 	to 	disparate 	treatment. 	The 	Agency 	articulated 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for removing Complainant and Complainant offered
nothing beyond her own unsupported assertions to indicate that the Agency’s
reasons were a pretext. We emphasize that Complainant does not dispute that she
was, in fact, absent from work continuously from November 2023 onwards, only
arguing that she should not be punished for it because her absence was due to her
medical condition and she made reasonable attempts to communicate with the
Agency. There is no evidence, however, to support Complainant’s assertion that she
provided the Agency with medical documentation to support her continued absence
from work and there is no dispute that Complainant did not have leave to cover all
her absences. At best, Complainant is asserting that she feels the Agency was unfair
because it is taking punitive action against her for a condition that she has no control
over. 	However, an Agency has no obligation to excuse misconduct as long as it
would impose the same discipline on an employee without a disability and the
conduct standard is job-related for the position and consistent with business
necessity. 	See Marlon H. v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 2022002862
(Sept. 29, 2022).
We 	find 	that 	Complainant 	did 	not 	establish 	that 	the 	Agency 	violated 	the
Rehabilitation Act when it denied her request for a reasonable accommodation. To
begin with, we note that Complainant acknowledged that she could not perform the

2026002836	5
essential functions of her position because she was restricted from driving and
driving is essential to performing her job. 	Complainant was, therefore, not a
“qualified individual with a disability” because the record shows that she was unable
to perform the essential functions of her position with or without a reasonable
accommodation. 	See Karolyn E. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No.
2019002343 (Nov. 19, 2019). Moreover, we find that the Agency did not violate the
Rehabilitation Act when it did not reassign her to a different position. 	In
reassignment cases, Complainant has the evidentiary burden “to present sufficient
evidence to support a finding that, more likely than not, there [existed] a vacant
funded position, for which she was qualified and to which she could have been
reassigned.” Laurence L. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019000894 (Apr.
19, 2019). Complainant presented no such evidence in this case. Complainant only
argues that she could perform clerk duties or supervisory duties. 	However, an
agency is not required to create a position as a reasonable accommodation, nor is it
required to transform a temporary light duty position into a permanent position as
an accommodation. 	See Mixon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec’y, EEOC Appeal No.
0120103442 (Oct. 4, 2012). 	At best, Complainant has only identified duties and
tasks she could perform which do not comprise an actual position, which does not
meet her burden of identifying a vacant funded position that she could perform. See
Talbot v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120055206 (July 5, 2007). 	In
addition, to the extent Complainant argues that she could perform supervisory duties,
an agency is not required to promote an employee as a form of reasonable
accommodation. 	See Dania S. v. Social Sec’y Admin., EEOC Appeal No.
0120142114 (Sept. 15, 2016).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable fact-finder could
not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the
evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the
AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that
Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.

2026002836	6
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.
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.

2026002836	7
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

2026002836	8
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 28, 2026
Date