EEOC Appeal 2026001459

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Billie S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001459
Agency No. 1C-531-15008-25
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated January 29,
2025, 	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. and 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 in part and REVERSES in part the Agency’s
final decision dismissing the complaint and REMANDS the matter for further
processing.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail
Handler at the Agency’s Macon LPC facility in Macon, Georgia.
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.

2026001459	2
On December 23, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of religion (Islam), disability
(kidney transplant), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (unspecified)2
when:
1. On unspecified dates from August 9 to September 2025, Complainant was
assigned more job responsibilities than a co-worker;
2. On 	November 	19, 	20, 	2025, 	a 	co-worker 	cursed 	at 	Complainant 	and
Complainant felt harassed; and
3. On September 22, 2025, Complainant’s prayer location was changed from
the second floor to the first floor.
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for
failure to state a claim, finding that Complainant had not alleged he was aggrieved
within the meaning of the regulations, nor had Complainant alleged conduct
sufficiently 	severe 	or 	pervasive 	to 	constitute 	harassment 	or 	a 	hostile 	work
environment. Complainant filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant contends his complaint should not have been dismissed
because he was subjected to harassment when a coworker cursed at him, creating a
hostile and offensive work environment that management knew or should have
known of, and management failed to take prompt and effective corrective action.
He further alleges that he was denied a religious accommodation when his prayer
location was changed because the new location was less peaceful and less private
and interfered with his ability to engage in religious prayer. Lastly, Complainant
asserts he was assigned more job responsibilities than a coworker resulting in
unequal terms and conditions of employment.
The Agency did not file a brief or statement in connection with this appeal.
The Agency’s decision to dismiss a complaint is subject to de novo review by the
Commission, which requires the Commission to examine the record without regard
to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker and issue its
decision 	based 	on 	the Commission’s 	own 	assessment 	of the record 	and 	its
interpretation of the law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
2 Review of the record shows that Complainant only alleged reprisal with respect
to Claim 1. (Complaint File, pp. 37, 40, 42).

2026001459	3
The Commission should construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
complainant and take the complaint’s allegations as true. See Cobb v. Department
of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997). Thus, all
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the complaint’s allegations must be
made in favor of the complainant.
An “aggrieved employee” is one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to
a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Hyo E.
v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 2023004515 (Aug. 7, 2024),
citing Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21,
1994). 	Terms, 	conditions, 	or 	privileges 	of 	employment 	include, 	inter 	alia,
promotion, demotion, discipline, reasonable accommodation, appraisals, awards,
training, benefits, assignments, overtime, leave, tours of duty, etc. Id., citing
Becerra v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120083490 (Jan. 13, 2012) &
Cobb v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (Mar. 13, 1997).
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme Court
reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986),
that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
conditions of the complainant's employment. The Commission has repeatedly
found that unless the conduct is very severe, a single incident or group of isolated
incidents will not be regarded as creating a hostile work environment. Complainant
v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Request No. 0520110581 (Jan. 12, 2012).
In Claim 2, Complainant asserts that a coworker cursed at him and management
failed to take action. While we understand this may have been upsetting to
Complainant, it does not allege a personal loss or harm regarding a term, condition
or privilege of his employment. Even if proven to be true and viewed in a light
most favorable to Complainant, the matter raised herein would not indicate that
Complainant has been subjected to harassment that was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. See Cobb v. Dep't of the
Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (Mar. 13, 1997). EEO laws are not a
civility code. Rather, they forbid “only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter
the conditions of the victim's employment.” Oncale v, Sundowner Offshore Serv.,
Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998).

2026001459	4
Further review of the record also shows that Complainant only alleged the basis of
reprisal with respect to Claim 2. (Complaint File, pp. 37, 40, 42). In his earlier
submissions, he stated the basis for his reprisal claim: that Co-worker “has
retaliated against me following a prior complaint she filed, which was unfounded.”
(Complaint File, p. 72). In his formal complaint, Complainant again stated that Co-
worker was retaliating against him and referenced a June 16, 2025, letter, which he
attached. The letter references an Internal Management Inquiry Process complaint
alleging that Complainant harassed Co-worker, and states there was insufficient
information to determine whether harassment or a violation of Postal Service
policy occurred. (Complaint File, p. 38). Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101(b), prior
protected activity includes opposing any practice made unlawful by the statutes
which the Commission enforces (i.e. Title VII, ADEA, etc.) or participating in any
stage of administrative or judicial 	proceedings 	under the statutes which the
Commission enforces. Formal complaints which fail to identify a purview under
EEO laws must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Alisa M. v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2021003515 (July 8, 2021); Almeda B. v. Dep't of
Veterans 	Affairs, 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No 	0120162291 	(Oct. 	16, 	2016). 	Because
Complainant did not engage in EEO activity as defined by the regulations, we find
he has failed to state a claim for reprisal.
Therefore, the Commission finds that Claim 2 was properly dismissed pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim.
However, we do find that Complainant has stated a claim for discrimination based
on religion and disability with respect to Claims 1 and 3.
In Claim 1, Complainant asserts he was assigned more job responsibilities than
another coworker based on his protected characteristics. On appeal, he clarifies that
he was assigned “additional job responsibilities.” This is essentially a directed
work assignment, and, as noted above, we have held that assignments are a term of
employment. Therefore, we find that the Agency's dismissal of Claim 1 for failure
to state a claim was improper.
In Claim 3, Complainant asserts that he was denied a religious accommodation
when his prayer location was moved from its previous location. A fair reading of
the record shows that Complainant asserts that his previously granted religious
accommodation involved a prayer location that “offered a private and peaceful
setting suitable for Islamic prayer” whereas the new location “does not meet [his]

2026001459	5
needs” and “is in a high traffic zone and lacks the privacy required for religious
accommodation.” (Complaint File, p. 70). Thus, we find Complainant has clearly
alleged that he was denied a religious accommodation when his prayer location
was moved to a setting that interfered with his religious practice. This allegation, if
true, renders Complainant aggrieved within the meaning of the regulations.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the Agency’s dismissal of Claim 2, but we REVERSE the
Agency’s dismissal of Claims 1 and 3 and REMAND the matter to the Agency for
further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER (E0224)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has
received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this
decision was issued. 	The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the
investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within
one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision was issued, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. 	If the Complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within
sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant’s request.
As 	provided 	in 	the statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of the
Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the Agency’s
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and 3) either a copy
of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the final agency decision
(“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(c) 	and 	§ 	1614.502, 	compliance 	with 	the
Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. 	Within seven (7) calendar days of
the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format
required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under
which compliance was being monitored. 	Once all compliance is complete, the
Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format
required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).

2026001459	6
The Agency’s final report must contain supporting documentation when previously
not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
Complainant and his/her representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 	If the Complainant files a civil
action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition
for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.
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.

2026001459	7
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.
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 (T0124)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires
the 	Agency 	to 	continue 	its 	administrative 	processing 	of 	a 	portion 	of 	your
complaint.

2026001459	8
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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has
affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued
administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one
hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint
with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the
Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 	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. 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