EEOC Appeal 2026002839

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Milan S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Request No. 2026002839
Appeal No. 2025002418
Agency No. 4J-606-0139-24
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2025002418
(May 6, 2026). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), where the requesting party demonstrates that:
(1) the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
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.

2026002839	2
or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c).
During the period at issue, Complainant worked for the Agency as a city carrier
assistant in Barrington, Illinois. On April 12, 2024, Complainant filed a formal EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race
(Hispanic/perceived 	White), 	sex 	(male, 	LGBTQ), 	color 	(medium), 	disability
(physical – back) (mental – perceived), age (YOB 1976), and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO (reporting discrimination/harassment) when he was compelled to quit
his Agency position because:
1. On January 18, 22, and 25, 2024, a management official said Complainant
was slow, delusional, he got in Complainant’s personal space, and said that
Agency workers did not feel safe talking to him;
2. Between December 26, 2023, and January 25, 2024, he was given a larger and
harder workload; and
3. On January 25, 2024, Complainant was placed on Emergency Placement (EP).
Our previous decision affirmed the Agency’s finding that the alleged incidents were
not objectively severe or pervasive enough to establish a discriminatory hostile work
environment and not sufficiently material to deter protected activity to establish a
retaliatory hostile work environment. Furthermore, we agreed that Complainant
failed to show that the alleged conduct was based on discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. Moreover, to the extent that Complainant is alleging disparate treatment
regarding his claims, we agreed that Complainant did not proffer sufficient evidence
demonstrating that the Agency’s explanation for its actions was a pretext for
discrimination or retaliation.
We have reviewed the various arguments raised by Complainant in the instant
request 	for 	reconsideration. 	However, 	we 	can 	find 	no 	basis 	to 	disturb 	the
Commission’s 	prior 	decision. 	Complainant 	presents 	arguments 	which 	were
previously raised and considered or could have been raised during the original
appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a
second appeal. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VII.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez
v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a

2026002839	3
reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a
substantial 	impact 	on 	the 	policies, 	practices, 	or 	operations 	of 	the 	Agency.
Complainant has not done so here. Thus, we conclude that Complainant has not
presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s
previous decision.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds
that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No.
2025002418 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0124)
This 	decision 	of 	the 	Commission 	is 	final, and 	there 	is 	no 	further 	right 	of
administrative appeal from the Commission’s decision. 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.
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

2026002839	4
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