EEOC Appeal 2025003160

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Angelica P.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003160
Agency No. 1F-741-0274-24
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
May 14, 2025 final decision 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. and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621
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 Supervisor, Maintenance Operations at the Agency’s Processing
and Distribution Center in Santa Barbara, California.
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.

2025003160	2
On October 5, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and age (over 40) when, on
May 14, 2024, Complainant was not selected for the Manager, Distribution
Operations position (Job Posting Number NB 11796914). 	Complainant further
alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in reprisal for protected
EEO activity when the Plant Manager accused Complainant of writing negative
letters about her that were anonymously sent to the District Office; the Plant
Manager accused Complainant of stealing the administrative keys; Complainant was
removed from her office and forced to work in the parts/supplies room; and someone
broke into two locked drawers in Complainant’s desk.2
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 Administrative Judge, or a final decision from the agency. The Agency issued a
final 	decision 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 1614.110(b) 	in 	accordance 	with
Complainant’s request. In the decision, the Agency concluded that Complainant did
not 	prove 	that 	she 	was 	subjected 	to 	discrimination 	or 	reprisal 	as 	alleged.
Complainant then filed the instant appeal.
Having 	thoroughly 	reviewed 	the 	record, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	record 	supports
management’s explanation that Complainant was not selected for the position at
issue because she was among the six candidates that received zero points for her
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) responses. Management affirmed that the two
candidates that moved forward in the process addressed the KSAs properly in the
STAR format. 	Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that Complainant
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.
As for Complainant’s allegations of a retaliatory hostile work environment, we
ultimately concur with the Agency that Complainant failed to proffer sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the alleged acts of harassment were based on
Complainant’s protected classes. Rather, the record shows that the alleged incidents,
even assuming they occurred as described by Complainant, were more likely the
result of routine supervision, personality conflicts, and general workplace disputes
and tribulations and are therefore not sufficiently material to deter protected activity.
2 Complainant withdrew the allegation that someone broke into two locked drawers
in her desk.

2025003160	3
Regarding the anonymous letter allegation, the record reveals that the allegations
concerned a rumor that Complainant and another maintenance employee encouraged
other supervisors to oppose the Plant Manager’s promotion. 	The Plant Manager
acknowledged that she discussed the matter with the Maintenance Manager but
stressed that she only wanted to make him aware of the issue and did not ask him to
address or discuss the matter with Complainant. 	She stated that Complainant
eventually stopped by her office and questioned why the Plant Manager did not
address the issue with her directly. According to the Plant Manager, Complainant
admitted that she told employees to write letters about the Plant Manager based on
her belief that many did not want the Plant Manager to be promoted.
In terms of the missing keys, the Plant Manager denied accusing Complainant of
stealing the keys. 	However, the keys were lost, and she was informed that
Complainant and others knew where the keys were.
With respect to the allegation that her office was moved, the Plant Manager affirmed
that she asked Complainant’s manager to move Complainant and another employee
back to the maintenance wing because they were only supposed to be there
temporarily during a training period until another employee retired. She noted that
that maintenance wing was the location where they should have been working.
Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the Agency's
explanation for its actions was pretext for discrimination or reprisal.
CONCLUSION
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.
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

2025003160	4
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.
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).

2025003160	5
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
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 16, 2026
Date