EEOC Appeal 2026000077

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Porter P.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000077
Agency No. 4J-400-0082-24
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
September 10, 2025, final decision concerning his 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. 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 Carrier Technician at the Agency’s Florence Post Office in Florence,
Kentucky.
On 	September 	19, 	2024, 	Complainant 	filed 	an 	EEO 	complaint 	alleging
discrimination by the Agency on the bases of race (African-American) and reprisal
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.

2026000077	2
for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
when:
1. On or around April 4, 2024, he was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW);
2. On or around May 10, 2024, he was issued a 7 Day Suspension;
3. On or around July 18, 2024, he was issued a 7 Day Suspension;
4. On or around September 13, 2024, he was issued a 14 Day Suspension.
Complainant stated that he previously filed an EEO complaint in November 2023
that was still ongoing at the time of the events in question. 	See Report of
Investigation (ROI) at 76. He was issued a Letter of Warning dated April 4, 2024,
for Failure to Follow Instructions after he failed to fill out a Form 3996 indicating
he would need help to complete his workload even after he was informed by
management that he had certified mail to deliver and should fill out a Form 3996 but
instead he took unauthorized overtime. See ROI at 322-23. He took issue with this
because he asserted that he called the closing supervisor to make him aware of the
situation. See ROI at 79. Complainant filed a grievance challenging the Letter of
Warning and following the grievance, it was agreed that the letter would be
expunged from Complainant’s record after eight months. See ROI at 324.
Complainant further took issue with being issued a 7 Day Suspension on May 10,
2024, for Unsatisfactory Attendance, stating that it was unfair because three of the
dates he was absent were Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protected and on
another of the dates, he injured himself at work.2 See ROI at 84. He also insisted
that two Agency officials falsely accused him of faking the injury to get out of work.
See ROI at 84.
The Supervisor who made the initial decision to issue the Letter of Warning and the
Suspensions did not participate during the investigation. The Manager who was the
concurring official for the first 7 Day Suspension asserted that he agreed with the
Supervisor’s decision to issue the Suspension because the evidence showed that a 7
Day Suspension was warranted. 	See ROI at 139. 	Complainant filed a grievance
about the first 7 Day Suspension and the 7 Day Suspension was reduced to a Letter
of Warning. See ROI at 146.
2 There is no evidence in the record supporting Complainant’s assertion that his
absences were FMLA protected.

2026000077	3
On July 7, 2024, Complainant issued a second 7 Day Suspension for Improper
Conduct for failing to deliver all the mail on his assigned route. See ROI at 349-50.
Complainant asserted this was unfair because he was only following instructions as
on June 24, 2024, he had a tray of Delivery Point Sequence mail that was out of
sequence order and he checked with the closing supervisor to inform him that he was
getting close to the end of his full 8 hour shift but did not see the closing supervisor
so instead he put the out of sequence mail in the 3M case and clocked out because
he was not authorized overtime. See ROI at 88. He asserted that his union steward
told him that the Supervisor is trying to get rid of him. See ROI at 90. Complainant
filed a grievance challenging the second 7 Day Suspension and after a grievance, it
was expunged from Complainant’s file. See ROI at 284-86.
On September 13, 2024, he was issued a 14 Day Suspension for Unsatisfactory
Performance after an accident at work where Complainant backed into a parking
spot on August 8, 2024, and hit an awning which broke the top rear light of the post
office vehicle. 	See ROI at 368-69. 	He asserted that on August 8, 2024, he was
driving a newer Postmaster vehicle for the first time with no training and pulled into
a parking spot and hit the awning. 	See ROI at 93-94. 	He asserted that he
immediately reported the accident to his supervisor who commended him for
reporting it but then a month later, the Supervisor issued him the Suspension. See
ROI at 94. He stated that he should have been provided with training on the vehicle
and other vehicles have also been damaged but the Supervisor did not try to find out
how those vehicles were damaged. See ROI at 95. He filed a grievance challenging
the 14 Day Suspension that was still pending at the time of the investigation. See
ROI at 97.
The Agency initially dismissed one claim alleging that management made false
statements in his Office of Workers Compensation (OWCP) paperwork as a
collateral attack on the proceedings of another forum. 	See ROI at 43-48. 	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 Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission 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). The decision concluded that Complainant did not prove
that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed
the instant appeal.

2026000077	4
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, argues, firstly, that the Agency erred
by dismissing his claim that Agency officials made false statements in his OWCP
paperwork by not treating it as potentially actionable retaliatory conduct or evidence
of retaliatory motive. On the merits, Complainant argues that the fact that the Letter
of Warning and two of the Suspensions were challenged in union grievances that
were successful is evidence of impropriety in the Agency’s actions. 	In the
alternative, Complainant argues that a supplemental investigation is necessary
because the Supervisor did not participate in the initial investigation.3 The Agency
did not file a brief in response.
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”).
We will first briefly address Complainant’s argument that the Agency erred in
dismissing his allegation that management officials made false statements in his
OWCP paperwork. 	While Complainant insists that the claim should have been
considered as evidence of an improper motive, Complainant’s argument is without
merit as it presupposes the truth of the allegation and the Commission has repeatedly
stated that an allegation that Agency officials made false statements regarding an
OWCP claim goes to the merits of a compensation claim and as such, inherently
constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the OWCP’s proceedings. 	See
Willia R. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2026000761 (March 25, 2026);
Felix R. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2025003004 (Aug. 6, 2025).
3 We reject Complainant’s argument that a supplemental investigation is necessary.
If Complainant felt that additional evidence was necessary, he should have notified
the Agency in a timely manner or could have requested a hearing before an AJ.
Complainant failed to do either.

2026000077	5
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 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).
We note that the Agency does not dispute that Complainant established a prima facie
case of reprisal, conceding that the Supervisor was aware of Complainant’s protected
activity 	at 	the 	time. 	We 	find 	that 	the 	Agency 	articulated 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and Complainant did not establish that the
Agency’s reasons are a pretext for discrimination. We note that while Complainant
cites to an assertion that the union steward told him that the Supervisor was trying
to get rid of him as evidence of improper motive, there is no evidence in the record
to support that this comment was made nor does it, on its face, indicate any unlawful
motive. It is well settled that the pretext inquiry is not concerned with bad judgment,
impeccability, or dislike. See Efrain B. v. Envt’l Prot. Agency, EEOC Appeal No.
2026001367 (March 25, 2026). We also emphasize that for each of the disciplinary
actions, Complainant does not dispute that the incidents in question occurred, only
arguing that he should not have been disciplined for them. 	However, mere
disagreement with the Agency’s reasons is not sufficient to establish pretext. See
Juanita K. v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2021002594 (July 26,
2022). While Complainant argues on appeal that the fact that his union grievances
against the various disciplinary actions were successful is evidence of unlawful
motive, we reject Complainant’s argument as without merit. The union grievances
only found that the Agency’s actions violated the union agreement in different ways
but none of them found any discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The Commission
has repeatedly stated that mere assertions or conjecture that an agency’s explanation
is a pretext for intentional discrimination is insufficient because subjective belief,
however genuine, does not constitute evidence of pretext. See Jed T. v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec’y, EEOC Appeal No. 2022000805 (May 18, 2023); Juliet B. v. U.S.

2026000077	6
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120182519 (Oct. 8, 2019); Richardson v. Dep’t of
Agric., EEOC Petition No. 03A40016 (Dec. 11, 2003).
Finally, we do not find that Complainant established that he was subjected to
unlawful harassment as none of the incidents alleged were shown to be motivated
by discrimination.
Therefore, based on our review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, 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. 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,

2026000077	7
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.
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

2026000077	8
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