EEOC Appeal 2026002946

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Stephine S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002946
Hearing No. 460-2025-00158X
Agency No. 4G-770-0278-24
DECISION
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 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 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.

2026002946	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City
Carrier at the Agency’s Greens North Post Office in Houston, Texas.
On September 17, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and disability
(physical), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, when:
1. 	on May 5, 2024, Complainant’s work schedule was changed and her
workstation moved.
Complainant alleged discrimination based on her race (African American), color
(Brown), sex, and disability when:
2. 	on or about October 21, 2024,2 management misused Complainant’s
annual leave.
Complainant 	also 	alleged 	discrimination 	based 	on 	her 	race, 	national 	origin
(“Black”), sex, and disability when:
3. 	on December 14, 2024, management charged Complainant with leave
and did not pay her for eight (8) hours of work; and
4. 	on January 4, 2025, management removed Complainant’s time and
charged her with absence without leave (AWOL).
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested
a hearing. Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and
issued a decision without a hearing on April 28, 2026. The AJ determined that
Complainant failed to dispute the Agency’s Statement of Undisputed Material
Facts with citations to the record, and there were no genuine issues of material fact.
The AJ concluded by entering judgment in the Agency’s favor.
2 Complainant later amended the date at issue as November 21, 2024. Complainant
Deposition at 36.

2026002946	3
The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged.
The instant appeal followed, but Complainant did not submit any arguments in
support of her appeal. The Agency opposes the appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
ANALYSIS
Decision Without a Hearing
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).

2026002946	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 did not provide
arguments on appeal, and she has not established a genuine dispute. A review of
the record does not reveal any genuine disputes of material facts. Therefore, the
AJ’s issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate.
Disparate Treatment
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at
802 	n.13. 	The 	burden 	then 	shifts 	to 	the 	agency 	to 	articulate 	a 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
As an initial matter, we find that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case
of reprisal because she did not engage in protected EEO activity. The Commission
defines protected activity as (1) opposing a practice made unlawful by one of the
employment discrimination statutes; or (2) filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or
participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the
applicable statute. EEOC Compliance Manual on Retaliation, No. 915.004 at II.A.
(Aug. 25, 2016). Complainant admitted that she does not have prior EEO activity,
and she claimed reprisal after the Station Manager was issued discipline. ROI at
75, 78.

2026002946	5
We 	also 	find 	that 	Complainant 	did 	not 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie 	case 	of
discrimination for claim 3. She clarified that this claim was based on disability, and
not her race, national origin, or sex. ROI at 101. While Complainant alleged that
this action occurred because she has a disability and her comparators did not, she
did not name any similarly situated non-disabled employee who was treated more
favorably. ROI at 102. Among other things, to be considered “similarly situated,”
the comparator must be similar in substantially all aspects, so that it would be
expected that they would be treated in the same manner. See Grappone v. Dep't of
the Navy, EEOC No. 01A10667 (Sept. 7, 2001), reconsideration denied, EEOC
Request No. 05A20020 (Jan. 28, 2002). Complainant did not submit any other
evidence to raise an inference of disability discrimination. Accordingly, we find
that Complainant did not establish discrimination for claim 3.
Assuming, arguendo, a prima facie case of discrimination for claims 1, 2, and 4,
the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions. For
claim 1, the Station Manager responded that Complainant was not delivering her
route 	at 	the 	time, and 	her 	schedule was 	adjusted 	because they 	needed 	her
assistance. The Station Manager added that Complainant’s workstation was always
located at the Caller Door desk, but she kept going to a supervisor’s office despite
never being authorized. He noted that employee files were stored in that office, and
they conducted investigative interviews there. ROI at 119, 121.
Two (2) supervisors explained that Complainant does not work full days on
Saturdays (claim 2), and she left early without authorization or notification to
management. Complainant did not request leave and gave supervisors “1260”
forms to put a false time for the end of her tour. ROI at 152, 166. Complainant
disclosed that on Saturdays, the phones are shut off and the door closed at noon,
and she normally leaves once she completes her work but believes she should be
paid for eight (8) hours. Complainant Deposition at 41. The Station Manager
instructed the supervisors to ensure that the hours Complainant claimed were
accurate and to correct her early departures and submission of falsified times. ROI
at 124.
In response to claim 4, the Station Manager stated that Complainant did not swipe
her timecard to begin or end her tours, or for her breaks, and she did not make any
clock rings with her badge. A supervisor informed Complainant that she was
AWOL but made an adjustment.

2026002946	6
ROI at 135-6. Complainant’s Leave Year 2024 Absence Analysis confirms that she
was not charged AWOL for January 4, 2025. ROI at 203.
Complainant did not show that the proffered reasons are not worthy of belief, and
her 	bare 	assertions 	that 	management 	officials 	discriminated 	against 	her 	are
insufficient to prove pretext or that their actions were discriminatory. In addition,
the Commission has long held that an Agency has broad discretion to set policies
and carry out personnel decisions, and it should not be second-guessed by the
reviewing authority, absent evidence of unlawful motivation. See Texas Dep’t of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259 (1981); Vanek v. Dep’t of the
Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940906 (Jan. 16, 1997). In this case, there is no
evidence of unlawful motivation for the Agency’s actions. Accordingly, we find
that Complainant did not establish discrimination or retaliation for her claims.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order
adopting the AJ’s decision without a hearing.
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.

2026002946	7
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.

2026002946	8
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