EEOC Appeal 2026003089

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Colene M.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Request No. 2026003089
Appeal No. 2026002257
Agency No. 4B-190-04185-26
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	requested 	that 	the Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission
(EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2026002257
(June 23, 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 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).
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.

2026003089	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Sales,
Services Distribution Associate at the Agency’s Southwark Station in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging discrimination based
on race and disability when:
1. on November 25, 2025, management did not investigate Complainant’s
harassment claim against a coworker; and
2. on December 11, 2025, management controverted Complainant’s Office of
Workers’ Compensation Program (OWCP) claim.
The Agency dismissed claim 1 for untimely equal employment opportunity (EEO)
contact and claim 2 for failure to state a claim. Complainant appealed.
The Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s claims. The
appellate decision noted that Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor on January
12, 2026, which was beyond her 45-day deadline after November 25, 2025. In
addition, the Commission has held that it is an Agency’s obligation to controvert
an OWCP claim where there is a dispute as to the employee’s entitlement.
The 	instant 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	followed. 	The 	Agency 	opposes
Complainant’s request.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with
the previous decision. She asserts that the appellate decision erred in noting that
her initial EEO contact occurred on January 12, 2026, and that it was January 5,
2026. The Agency responds that the January 5 th contact was for a different EEO
complaint. Regardless, the Agency’s dismissal clearly noted the EEO contact date
as January 12, 2026, and Complainant stated in her appeal brief that her EEO pre-
complaint was initiated on January 12, 2026. Complainant now presents this
argument and new evidence for the first time in her request. However, the
Commission has consistently held that arguments and/or evidence presented for the
first time in a request for reconsideration cannot be considered. See Orval T. v.
Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 2020004014 (Nov. 19, 2020), citing Sierra
P. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 0520170104 (Mar. 9, 2017) that “[t]he
presentation of new evidence is not one of the stated grounds for reconsideration.”

2026003089	3
Complainant also asserts that claim 1 was mischaracterized as a discrete event, but
it involved a hostile work environment claim. The Supreme Court has held that a
complainant alleging a hostile work environment will not be time-barred if all acts
constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act
falls within the filing period. See National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,
536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061 (2002). Here, Complainant alleged harassment
through November 25, 2025, and her 45-day deadline for EEO contact was January
9, 2026. As such, we find that the dismissal of claim 1 as untimely was proper.
Complainant repeats her assertions that claim 2 was not simply that the Agency
exercised its authority to dispute her OWCP claim, but that management officials
engaged in conduct intended to undermine or interfere with her OWCP claim, and
that her EEO deadline should be tolled due to her psychological injury. We have
reviewed the various arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for
reconsideration but find no basis to disturb the Commission’s prior decision.
Notably, 	a 	review 	of 	Complainant’s 	formal 	complaint 	shows 	that 	she 	only
specified that a management official was “attempting to controvert [her] OWCP
claim” for claim 2. Appeal File at 34.
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, 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 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 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. 2026002257 remains the Commission’s decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.

2026003089	4
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
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 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 21, 2026
Date