EEOC Appeal 2025003833

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Emma B.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003833
Hearing No. 510-2024-00135X
Agency No. 4G-320-0216-23
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
July 7, 2025, final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint of 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 	order 	finding 	no
discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Manager, Operations Integration (MOI) at the Agency’s Florida 1 District in
Jacksonville, Florida. On October 26, 2023, Complainant filed a complaint alleging
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 	2025003833
that the Agency 	discriminated 	against her based on 	sex 	(female) when her
supervisor, the District Manager, yelled at her in front of coworkers on telecoms; the
District Manager yelled and excluded her from a telecom; she was questioned by
management about her choices for leadership training; she was told she did not have
a backbone; she was told she was not respected by her coworkers; and she was placed
on a developmental detail to a lower level position.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before
an 	EEOC 	Administrative 	Judge 	(AJ). 	Complainant 	requested 	a 	hearing. 	On
September 16, 2024, the Agency motioned for a decision without a hearing. Over
Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision
by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that Complainant’s allegations were not sufficiently severe or
pervasive to support a finding of discriminatory harassment. The AJ also found that
while 	Complainant 	disagreed 	with 	the 	District 	Manager’s 	criticism, 	his
communication style, and his assignments, the AJ found she did not produce
evidence to establish that the District Manager acted based on her sex. Furthermore,
the AJ found that the District Manager’s actions had no adverse impact on
Complainant, as her reassignment did not result in a loss of pay or any other material
harm. Even if Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, the
AJ found that the District Manager articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for reassigning Complainant. Specifically, the District Manager explained that the
reassignment was intended to help Complainant improve her performance, provide
opportunities to interact with leadership, and gain credibility in the field. The AJ
found no persuasive evidence that this reasoning was pretext for discrimination
based on sex.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed. Upon review of the record, we agree with the
AJ that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions
which were not shown to be a pretext for discrimination. Regarding harassment, we
note that no witness was able to specify any particular comment by the District
Manager that was harassing in nature.

3 	2025003833
Several witnesses described the District Manager generally “not sugar coat[ing]
anything,” “calling… people out,” and otherwise speaking in a manner that could be
perceived 	as 	disrespectful. 	However, 	the 	record 	does 	not 	contain 	evidence
establishing that the District Manager treated Complainant differently based on sex.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s 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.

4 	2025003833
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.

5 	2025003833
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