EEOC Appeal 2026002027

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Cherie F.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002027
Agency No. 1I-506-03533-26
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's final decision dated March 11, 2026,
dismissing her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 et seq. Complainant's complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim.
During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a General Expeditor, Level 7, at
the Agency’s New Orleans Main Office in New Orleans, Louisiana.
On February 13, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination based on disability (mental and physical)
and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
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.

2 	2026002027
1. On unspecified dates, Complainant became aware that management had
violated her American Health Insurance and Accountability Act (HIPPA)
rights, by unauthorized disclosure of medical information, attempts to obtain
her medical information, and discussion of her restriction in front of others;
2. On December 1, 2025, a co-worker said Complainant was faking her medical
condition, over a walkie talkie; and,
3. On January 21, 2026, a manager told Complainant that a modified duty
assignment was not required because Complainant could perform her regular
duties, and manager really wanted to fire Complainant.
Thereafter, the Agency issued the instant final decision. The Agency found that
Claim 1 failed to state a claim in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a) and that
she had lodged a collateral attack on the proceedings of another forum as expressed
within the Privacy Act Notice. Regarding Claim 2, the Agency determined the claim
failed to state an actionable claim of harassment in accordance with 29 C.F.R.
1614.107(a)(1). Finally, Claim 3 was dismissed under 29 C.F.R. §1614.103 or 29
C.F.R. §1614.106(a), as Complainant was not aggrieved with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy.
Complainant filed the instant appeal. On appeal, Complainant contends the dismissal
was improper.
The Agency did not submit a brief on appeal.
The Agency’s decision to dismiss a complaint is subject to de novo review by the
Commission, which requires the Commission to examine the record without regard
to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker and issue its
decision 	based 	on 	the Commission’s 	own 	assessment 	of the record 	and 	its
interpretation of the law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). The Commission should construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the complainant and take the complaint’s
allegations as true. 	See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No.
05970077 (March 13, 1997). Thus, all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from
the complaint’s allegations must be made in favor of the complainant.

3 	2026002027
Regarding Claim 1, the Agency dismissed this matter as a collateral attack. A
complaint shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim where the complainant
impermissibly uses the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on another
forum's proceeding. A claim that can be characterized as a collateral attack, by
definition, involves a challenge to another forum's proceeding, such as the grievance
process, the workers' compensation process, an internal agency investigation, or
state or federal litigation. See Fisher v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Request No.
05931059 (July 15, 1994).
The Agency also noted Complainant was alleging a violation of her privacy, and
found as such a claim is outside the purview of the Commission. Specifically, the
claim is associated with improper disclosure of her personal information, which
relates solely to the Privacy Act. The Agency cited to prior Commission precedent
in its dismissal. We agree with the dismissal of this claim.2
Turning to Claims 2 and 3, the Agency properly dismissed these claims for failure
to state a claim. 	Complainant failed to show that she suffered harm or loss with
respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy.
See Diaz v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
Complainant is alleging, among other things, that based on her protected status
management failed to investigate rumors she heard around the office of her
coworker’s comment and a manager’s comments. Complainant failed to even allege
how she was aggrieved by the incidents alleged.
Regarding Claim 3, the Agency noted in the dismissal that EEOC precedent has
repeatedly held that remarks unaccompanied by a concrete agency action are not a
direct or personal deprivation sufficient to render an individual aggrieved. The
dismissal noted that the alleged harassment must be ongoing and continuous to
constitute a claim of hostile work environment and that a few isolated incidents will
not be sufficient to constitute discriminatory harassment. After reviewing the
dismissal, Complainant’s formal complaint, and record itself, the Commission notes
Complainant failed to state a claim of discrimination or harassment based on her
protected status. Complainant failed to even allege how her protected bases played
a role in management’s actions or how she was aggrieved by management’s actions.
2 As we find the dismissal as a collateral attack was proper, we need not address the
alternative grounds for dismissal.

4 	2026002027
Taken together, Complainant’s alleged discriminatory incidents are not sufficiently
severe or persuasive as to constitute a hostile work environment and render
Complainant aggrieved. Thus, we hold that Complainant has not stated a viable
harassment claim.
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. 	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.

5 	2026002027
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.

6 	2026002027
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 16, 2026
Date