EEOC Appeal 2026002497

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Art B.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002497
Agency No. 6X-220-09324-25
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
August 8, 2025, final decision concerning his 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. and Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §791 et
seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
decision finding no discrimination.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Personnel Processing Associate (Temp.) at the Agency’s Human Resources Shared
Services Center (HRSSC) facility in Greensboro, North Carolina.
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.

2026002497	2
On August 12, 2025, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (biracial), color (biracial), disability
(mental, physical), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On February 3, 2025, Complainant was reassigned to the Optional
Retirement Team.
2. 	On April 1, 2025, Supervisor (S1A) entered the training room and
snapped, “If you cannot complete seven cases in an eight-hour day, then
you are not needed.”
3. 	On unspecified dates after March 12, 2025, Complainant was not
offered overtime opportunities.
4. 	In April 2025, Complainant was not provided with adequate training
and was moved to a different training group.
5. 	On April 24, 2025, management never acknowledged the medical
documentation that Complainant submitted concerning his return to
work with restrictions.
6. 	On April 25, 2025, management forced Complainant to sign a PS Form
3971 which changed his absence on April 14, 2025, to AWOL despite
his having pending Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protection.
7. 	On April 25, 2025, Complainant was separated from his position as a
Personnel Processing Associate (Temp).
8. 	On May 5, 2025, the Optional Retirement Supervisor rejected and/or
bypassed Complainant’s career application.

2026002497	3
9. 	On or about July 21, 2025, the Agency provided false information in
relation to Complainant’s application for unemployment.2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge. When Complainant did not request a hearing within
the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	The decision concluded that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. Complainant filed the instant appeal.
Upon careful review of the evidence of record, we conclude the Agency’s finding of
no discrimination is consistent with the law and facts of record.
The record indicates Complainant began working in the Agency’s External Hiring
Unit. 	Regarding Claim 1, Complainant asserts that in January 2025 management
asked for volunteers from various departments to assist with the Optional Retirement
Unit. Complainant volunteered and was selected for the assignment, which began
on February 3, 2025. Complainant asserts he was told it was a temporary assignment
anticipated to end on April 30, 2025. 	Complainant asserts he later found out that
management treated his temporary detail as a permanent reassignment without his
knowledge.
Manager indicated that due to the new automated hiring system utilized in the
External Hiring Unit, management was looking for reassignment opportunities for
bargaining unit employees because they did not have enough work for the career or
temporary employees. The record indicates the External Hiring Unit downsized its
staff by twelve career and noncareer employees effective May 12, 2025, and
permanently assigned them to different HRSSC processes.
2 The Agency dismissed Claim 9 for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§1614.107(a)(1) as a collateral attack on an employment compensation proceeding.
Complainant does not challenge the dismissal of this claim on appeal. 	The
Commission exercises its discretion to address only those issues specifically raised
on appeal and declines to address this procedural dismissal. See Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) at
Chap. 9, § IV.A (Aug. 5, 2015).

2026002497	4
As to Claim 2, Complainant asserts his first line supervisor (S1A) in a “raised,
snapping tone” told the entire class that if they were unable to completed seven cases
in an eight-hour day, they were not needed. 	Another employee verified that this
occurred and confirmed the statement was directed at the entire group of trainees
present.
Regarding Claim 3, Complainant asserts that prior to March 12, 2025, he was
working overtime assisting with packaging, sorting, and organization. 	He asserts
that after his training group was split into two groups, he was not offered overtime
although other employees were offered overtime. Management denied splitting the
groups but indicated they had to make logistical changes and separate the trainees
based on space availability. 	Manager stated that upper management advised her
that employees were not completing enough assignments per day to justify the use
of overtime. Manager indicated that they decided to pull back overtime shifts and
provide more training and supervisory overview to increase productivity.
Regarding Claim 4, Complainant asserts he was provided with inadequate training
characterized by conflicting instructions, limited questions and answers, trainers
being pulled away and inaccurate work logging. A supervisor in Complainant’s unit
(S1B) indicated that Complainant was initially trained by S1A – the process unit
Supervisor – and that Employee A was asked to continue with his training and
provide feedback on the work she reviewed. 	S1B noted that Employee A had a
different training methodology. S1B noted that Complainant pointed out that some
of the links in the training were incorrect in the Standard Work Instructions but
Complainant was provided with a workaround with all the accurate information.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the record indicates Complainant suffered post-
concussion syndrome (PCS) after a car accident on April 10, 2025. 	Complainant
was absent from work from April 11-23, 2025. 	Complainant initiated the FMLA
approval process on April 10, 2025. He was given 15 days to return the paperwork
to HRSSC. On April 11, 2025, Complainant called Manager to indicate he would
not be at work and was directed to follow the Agency’s procedure of reporting an
unscheduled absence via the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System or using the
ELRA self-service online option through LiteBlue. Complainant failed to do so and
was marked absent without leave (AWOL).

2026002497	5
S1B indicated that she met with Complainant and presented his PS Form 3971 –
which is the form employees are required to complete when they need time off – and
reviewed each absence, explaining the appropriate leave type. 	She requested his
signature but denied forcing him to sign. 	Complainant did not submit his FMLA
paperwork on April 28, 2025.
Regarding Claim 7, the record indicates that on April 25, 2025 – one day after
Complainant’s return to work – management issued Complainant a letter of
termination. 	Management 	indicated 	Complainant 	was 	terminated 	due 	to
unsatisfactory performance. 	S1B reported that Complainant was given a verbal
warning about his performance on April 7, 2025, and was advised that he needed to
complete his work faster, but he expressed that he preferred to take his time to go
over his work for quality purposes.
Manager stated that Complainant had less than satisfactory productivity measures
regardless of the support and additional supervisor overview and training. 	She
asserts she was contacted by the supervisors multiple times because Complainant
was not proficient. She asserts Complainant called her cell phone at the end of April
to report that he was having trouble securing a doctor’s release to return to work.
Complainant had requested leave until noon but then indicated he needed the entire
day off because he was unable to see his physician. Manager told him to call in to
request additional time through the Agency’s system, so his supervisors would be
alerted to his absence. Complainant did not call in until later in the afternoon - hours
after his start time, failing to comply with Agency policy and Manager’s instructions.
Regarding Claim 8, Complainant applied for a career position at Human Resource
Shared Service Center (HRSSC) as a Personnel Processing Specialist. The position
was posted January 14-21, 2025. The record indicates there were 75 applicants, and
the interview team interviewed all of them. Complainant was interviewed on April
7, 2025.
Selecting Official stated that Complainant’s application was referred to her for
review. She explained that Complainant was considered in three separate rounds of
consideration but was not deemed the most qualified candidate in any of them, based
in part on her direct knowledge of the performance deficiencies that resulted in his
separation. 	Complainant subsequently received a system‑generated email on May
5, 2025, informing him that he was not selected for the position.

2026002497	6
Complainant has not presented any evidence that persuasively suggests that the
Agency was motivated by his protected classes. Complainant asserts his race was a
factor because his Caucasian mother and African American father were both
working in the Optional Retirements Unit with him during this period. Complainant
asserts S1A made racially charged and inappropriate comparisons between his father
and mother’s performance. 	Complainant indicated he was not present during the
confrontation but heard about the occurrence after the fact. Complainant asserts his
color was a factor based on the difference between how his mother and father were
treated. 	The record indicates Complainant’s mother was a career employee while
his father was a noncareer trainee. Complainant asserts his disability was a factor
because his attendance and performance were not treated as an issue until after he
was involved in a car accident and had to miss work due to a documented medical
condition. 	In response to the inquiry of why his protected activity was a factor,
Complainant summarily states, “likely factored.” 	Complainant has not presented
any evidence to support these contentions.
Complainant also has not identified any similarly situated employees outside his
protected 	classes 	that 	were 	treated 	more 	favorably 	than 	him. 	Furthermore,
Complainant 	has 	not 	met 	his 	burden 	of 	rebutting 	the 	Agency’s 	asserted
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions or shown the alleged incidents were
sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute unlawful harassment
Lastly, Complainant has not shown that he was denied a reasonable accommodation.
On April 24, 2025, Complainant emailed a doctor’s return to duty note to
management. 	The letter indicated that Complainant was to avoid heavy lifting,
straining, or engaging in any strenuous activities, monitor himself for worsening
symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, or fatigue. Should these symptoms occur
Complainant, was advised to stop working immediately. 	The note indicated
Complainant may require additional breaks. 	Complainant’s submission of a return-
to-work clearance did not qualify as a request for reasonable accommodation. 	In
addition, he does not allege he was required to work outside these restrictions.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

2026002497	7
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.
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.

2026002497	8
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. 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 16, 2026
Date