EEOC Appeal 2026002240

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Shena O.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002240
Agency No. 1A-538-14528-25
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
March 30, 2026, final decision concerning her 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 General Expeditor at the Agency’s Suburban Processing and
Distribution Center in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
On October 6, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination
by the Agency on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), religion
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.

2026002240	2
(Christian), and color (Black) when: On or around July 25, 2025, and other dates to
be specified, she was placed on Emergency Placement and subsequently, on a date
to be specified, she was issued a Letter of Warning.
Complainant stated that the Manager told her to go work with a coworker
(Coworker) who had harassed her, which would place her in a hostile work
environment, and if she did not, she should go home. 	See Post-Report of
Investigation (ROI) at 17-18.2 She asserted that she filed an EEO complaint against
the Coworker and was told that she would be separated from the Coworker but then
management contradicted that and told her that they all had to work together. See
Post-ROI at 19. She stated that she was given a Letter of Warning on September 12
or 13, 2025, for failure to follow instructions. See Post-ROI at 18-19.
The Manager stated that on September 10, 2025, she was informed by the acting
Supervisor (Supervisor) that Complainant walked off the platform and he was not
aware of her whereabouts. See ROI at 114. She asserted that she paged Complainant
twice, but Complainant did not respond. See ROI at 114. She stated that she waited,
thinking that Complainant might be at lunch, but then when Complainant returned
about 30 minutes later, she asked Complainant if Complainant had been at lunch and
when Complainant said no. 	She asserted that she then told Complainant that
Complainant had to stay on her assignment. 	See ROI at 114. 	Complainant then
started to complain about her Coworker and said that she did not want to work with
the Coworker because doing so caused anxiety but when the Manager asked
Complainant if she had any medical documentation to support Complainant’s claim
that working with the Coworker caused her anxiety, Complainant said no. See ROI
at 114; 119. The Manager averred that this was not the first time Complainant had
refused to do her work and so she was sent home. See ROI at 114. The Manager
denied that Complainant was ever issued a Letter of Warning. See ROI at 115. The
record includes contemporaneous documentation of a report filed by the Coworker
which stated that she did not feel safe working with Complainant because after a
disagreement she and Complainant had, Complainant has started behaving strangely
around her and when the Coworker is doing her job, Complainant has started
recording the coworker on her phone. The Coworker also reported that Complainant
had once told her that Complainant was licensed to carry a gun and that she now
feels threatened by Complainant. See ROI at 122-23.
2 Complainant did not initially respond during the investigation but after the
investigation submitted her affidavit, which was then added to the record.

2026002240	3
The Supervisor confirmed that Complainant has more than once refused to stay on
assignment and that Complainant has also taken to refusing to scan certain drivers,
causing the mail to be delayed. See ROI at 128-29. The evidence in the record does
not indicate that Complainant actually was issued a Letter of Warning.
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 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), [or after they requested a decision]
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 her to
discrimination as alleged. Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
On appeal, Complainant argued that the Agency manipulated the exhibits in the
record and that management officials made false statements to cover up the bad
behavior of the Coworker and Complainant was only acting reasonably to try to
avoid or limit the harm caused by the Coworker’s harassment.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”).
3 Complainant also submitted evidence relating to her other EEO complaint in which
Complainant alleged that the Coworker had harassed her. 	This evidence was not
submitted during the investigation and will not be considered now because the
Commission has stated that complainants may not submit new evidence for the first
time on appeal. 	See Sunday S. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No.
2019005172 (Sept. 3, 2020).

2026002240	4
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/she 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).
As an initial matter, we note that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case
based on any of her protected classes. 	There is no evidence in the record that the
similarly-situated employees who Complainant mentioned were treated differently
under similar circumstances. 	Even if Complainant could establish a prima facie
case, 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. 	While Complainant insists on appeal that the management
officials were not truthful, there is no evidence to support her assertions and in any
event, because she did not request a hearing, we do not have the benefit of an AJ’s
credibility determinations and can only evaluate the facts based on the evidence
presented. See Liz M. v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150805 (April
5, 2017).
We emphasize that Complainant does not dispute that she did, in fact, refuse to work
with the Coworker and left her assignment without permission, only arguing that her
actions were justified because she was reasonably trying to avoid the Coworker who
she insists was harassing her. 	However, mere disagreement with the Agency’s
reason for putting her on Emergency Placement is not sufficient to establish pretext.
See Juanita K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No. 2021002594 (July 26,
2022). 	We further note that while Complainant and the Coworker clearly have a
tense interpersonal relationship, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the
conflict between them was due to a protected class. 	Moreover, the mere fact that
Complainant clearly disagrees with managerial decisions over how the conflict
between Complainant and the Coworker has been handled does not establish that

2026002240	5
Complainant has been subjected to either discrimination or unlawful harassment.
See Dino V. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2024004733 (Sept. 15, 2025).
The Commission has repeatedly stated that anti-discrimination law are not a “general
civility code” that guarantees a complainant the right to a pleasant or stress-free
working environment. See Teresa W. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., EEOC Appeal No.
2023002984 (May 6, 2024).
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

2026002240	6
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.
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.

2026002240	7
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 15, 2026
Date