EEOC Appeal 2026003062

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Bryan R.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003062
Agency No. 4J-530-14667-25
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
final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of
employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 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 was employed by
the Agency as a Full-Time City Letter Carrier, 01-Q, 	at the Hampton Station in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On December 6, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on physical disability
(skin condition) and in reprisal for protected activity (complaints filed with EEO,
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.

2026003062	2
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Office of
Inspector General (OIG))2 when management: (1) on September 2, 2025, issued him
a Notice of Removal for Improper Conduct; (2) on October 2, 2025, issued him a
Notice of Removal for Improper Conduct; (3) on October 7, 2025, and continuing,
failed to grant his request for a reasonable accommodation and singled him out for
wearing his uniform in the office despite his existing medical restrictions; (4) on
December 2, 2025, subjected him to an investigative interview; (5) on December 3,
2025, asked him to work overtime and, when he declined, harassed him and failed
to provide him with safety equipment; and (6) on December 17, 2025, instructed him
to clock out and go home and subsequently on December 18, 2025, placed him on
Emergency Placement in an Off-Duty Status.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge, or a final decision from the agency. When
Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.108(f), 	the 	Agency 	issued 	a 	final 	decision 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), which concluded that Complainant did not prove that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	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 9-16 (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”).
With 	respect 	to 	claim 	1, we 	find 	that 	the Agency 	articulated 	a 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory 	reason 	for 	its 	action. 	Specifically, 	on 	August 	14, 	2025,
Complainant violated the Agency’s Zero Tolerance Policy, local traffic laws, and
Article 15 of the Joint Contract Administration Manual when he approached the
2 The EEOC has no jurisdiction over alleged acts of retaliation due to complaints
filed with OSHA or the OIG.

2026003062	3
Manager, Customer Services Operations (MCSO), in a postal vehicle and yelled,
“Hey, Hey, Hey Nigga.” In response, the MCSO asked, “Excuse me, who are you
talking to?” Complainant stated, “Nigga, I’m talking to you.” Since the MCSO
assumed that Complainant was upset about a problem that was going on in the
facility concerning mold, he instructed Complainant to speak with the Station
Manager regarding his concerns. However, Complainant drove erratically, while not
wearing a seat belt, proceeded against traffic through a one-way parking lot, and
accelerated the postal vehicle toward the MCSO nearly striking him.
The Administrative Action Report also identified two prior incidents involving
Complainant’s 	alleged 	misconduct 	toward 	management 	officials, 	including
disrespectful behavior, physical aggression, threats, and use of vulgar or derogatory
language. In particular, on December 11, 2024, Complainant physically pushed the
Acting Manager during a work-related interaction, and on January 17, 2025, he
directed the racial slur “Nigga” toward management personnel.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, we find that the Agency properly issued the Notice
of Removal for Improper Conduct. In particular, Complainant repeatedly failed to
wear 	the 	prescribed 	postal 	uniform 	despite 	management’s 	instructions 	and
applicable uniform requirements under the Employee and Labor Relations Manual,
the National Agreement, and the Agency’s Uniform Policy. Instead, he wore thick
hoodies, jeans, sneakers, and Timberland boots in the office. Although letter carriers
who 	successfully 	appealed 	could 	wear 	non-uniform 	apparel 	in 	the 	office,
Complainant never filed such an appeal. Moreover, the medical documentation he
submitted from his dermatologist, which expired in April 2024, indicated that his
skin condition required breathable, moisture-wicking3 clothing while working
indoors but did not exempt him from wearing the prescribed uniform. Management
explained that breathable, moisture-wicking uniforms were available through the
Agency’s uniform program and could be purchased using a $600 annual uniform
allowance provided to letter carriers.
We 	also 	find 	that 	the 	Agency 	did 	not 	deny 	Complainant 	a 	reasonable
accommodation. By his own admission, he verbally requested an accommodation in
October 2025 but failed to submit the requested medical documentation or otherwise
3 Moisture-wicking fabric is designed to pull sweat away from your skin to the outer
surface of the garment, where it can evaporate quickly.

2026003062	4
participate in the interactive process, thereby preventing the Agency from assessing
his 	accommodation 	needs 	and 	identifying 	an 	appropriate 	accommodation.
Moreover, the record indicates that despite Complainant’s failure to provide the
requested documentation, management permitted him to work without wearing the
prescribed uniform pending the submission of his reasonable accommodation forms.
Concerning claim 4, we find that the Agency was justified in conducting an
investigative interview and subsequently issuing Complainant a Letter of Warning
for failing to properly record his operational moves using the Mobile Delivery
Device (MDD) scanner, as required by Agency Handbook M-41. The record shows
that letter carriers are required to use the MDD scanner to provide management with
accurate, real-time information concerning their delivery operations. Complainant’s
failure to comply with established scanning procedures prevented management from
accurately tracking his work activities and assessing operational efficiency.
As to claim 5, we find that Complainant has not established that he was subjected to
discriminatory harassment. The record shows that after Complainant indicated that
he was unavailable for overtime, the Manager of Customer Services (Manager)
instructed him to complete the required documentation declining overtime and to
work 	an 	eight-hour 	shift. 	The 	Manager 	further 	explained 	that 	he 	assigned
Complainant to place salt in the parking lot because the area required treatment and
multiple vehicles were parked there. Complainant maintained that management
should wait until the vehicles had left the parking lot before salting it. Moreover,
there is no indication that he requested safety equipment. We find no persuasive
evidence that management’s actions were motivated by discriminatory animus.
Finally, as to claim 6, we find that management’s decision to send Complainant
home and place him on Emergency Placement was based on his conduct, which the
Agency characterized as being “unacceptable, disrespectful, and intimidating.”
Specifically, Complainant interrupted a management meeting by banging on the
door and opening it while the meeting was in progress, demanded hand warmers,
and refused management’s instruction to wait until the meeting concluded. After the
meeting, Complainant loudly mocked a management official’s appearance and
clothing and, despite being instructed to stop and return to his assignment,
approached the management official in an aggressive manner.

2026003062	5
Given Complainant’s escalating conduct and repeated failure to comply with
management’s instructions, management directed that he “clock out” and leave the
facility and subsequently put him on Emergency Placement.4
We note that the Commission has repeatedly held that personality conflicts, general
workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances do not rise to the level of
harassment. See Liz M. v. Dep’t of Vet. Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 0120160016 (Jan.
18, 2018). As we find no persuasive evidence of harassment based on any protected
EEO class, including reprisal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding 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.
4 Notably, both the Notice of Removal and the Emergency Placement were later
rescinded due to procedural deficiencies, rather than a determination that the
underlying charges against Complainant lacked merit. Similarly, although the Letter
of Warning was reduced to a job discussion through the grievance process, there was
no determination that the underlying conduct did not occur as indicated.

2026003062	6
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. 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.

2026003062	7
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 22, 2026
Date