EEOC Appeal 2026003195

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Brant C.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003195
Agency No. 1C-131-09597-26
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC 	or 	Commission) 	from 	the 	Agency’s 	decision 	dated 	June 	30, 	2026,
dismissing 	his 	equal 	employment 	opportunity 	(EEO) 	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 the Agency’s final
decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail
Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Providence Processing and Distribution Center in
Providence, 	Rhode 	Island. 	On 	June 	10, 	2026, 	Complainant 	filed 	an 	EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on
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.

2026003195	2
disability (depressive disorder/ADHD) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity when, as defined by the Agency, on April 20, 2026, management did not
make Complainant whole when a settlement was made on his behalf with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as a collateral attack on an OSHA proceeding. 	The
Agency concluded that OSHA had sole jurisdiction over Complainant’s reports of
safety issues at his facility. The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant
argues that he is not requesting that the Commission review or alter the OSHA
settlement 	but 	claims 	that 	the 	settlement 	agreement 	was 	unauthorized 	and
“deceptive[ly]” executed by an Agency attorney, which he argues is evidence of a
continuous pattern of harassment based on “discriminatory animus” and reprisal.2
We find that the complaint as defined by the Agency fails to state a claim and was
properly dismissed. An employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge
a collateral attack on another forum’s proceeding, including challenges pertaining
to the OSHA process. See, e.g., Maxie S. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2023001325 	(Apr. 	3, 	2023), 	req. 	for 	recons. 	denied, 	EEOC 	Request 	No.
2023002757 (Sept. 14, 2023). 	Even though Complainant alleges that the claim is
related to a pattern of harassment, the Commission still has no jurisdiction over
conduct that occurred as part of the OSHA administrative process.
We also find that Complainant made additional claims in his formal complaint
relating to: denial of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA);
unsafe equipment in the workplace; and improper/deficient EEO counseling. 	To
the extent Complainant still raises these claims, we find all these matters are also
properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
2 Complainant submitted dozens of documents on appeal, some of which relate to
the underlying merits of his complaint and subsequent allegations, evidence of
damages, and alleged unfair labor practices. 	These are irrelevant to the issue of
whether the Agency properly dismissed his complaint. 	Complainant also filed
numerous 	submissions 	beyond 	30 	days 	of 	the 	filing 	of his 	appeal. 	These
submissions are therefore untimely, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(d), and we
decline to consider them herein.

2026003195	3
The denial of rights under the FMLA is a collateral attack on the forum of another
proceeding, in this case the Department of Labor. 	See Stensgard v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122478 (Sept. 26, 2012). 	As explained above, a
complaint regarding hazardous work conditions is under OSHA’s jurisdiction, not
ours. The claim regarding the EEO Counselor’s conduct should be raised with the
Agency’s EEO Office and does not state an independent claim of discrimination.
The Agency’s final decision dismissing Complainant’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
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.

2026003195	4
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. 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.

2026003195	5
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 16, 2026
Date