EEOC Appeal 2026001717

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Alexandria P.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001717
Agency No. 1A-538-03901-26
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated February
18, 2026, dismissing her complaint of unlawful 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. 	Upon review, the Commission finds that Complainant's
complaint was improperly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for
failure to state a claim.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
General 	Expeditor 	at 	the 	Agency’s 	Processing 	& 	Distribution 	Center 	in
Gaithersburg, Maryland.
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.

2026001717	2
On January 23, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint, which the Agency
framed as Complainant alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on
the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), religion (Christian), color
(Black), and reprisal (prior EEO activity), when:
1. 	On December 9, 2025, Complainant was given a job discussion.
The Agency issued a final decision dismissing Complainant’s complaint for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). First, the Agency’s
decision noted Complainant alleged she was issued a Letter of Warning on
December 9, 2025, and January 20, 2026; however, the record did not contain any
copies of any Letter of Warning issued to Complainant on December 9, 2025, or
January 20, 2026. The Agency found that the record showed Complainant received
a job discussion on December 9, 2025, not a Letter of Warning. The Agency’s
decision 	also 	determined 	that 	Complainant’s 	allegation 	did 	not 	qualify 	as
harassment because her allegation appeared to consist of one issue.
With regard to Claim 1, the Agency found that Complainant failed to show she was
aggrieved because she failed to show that she sustained any personal loss or harm
with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment as a result of the
alleged incidents. Citing Commission precedent, the decision noted that a Letter of
Warning reduced to a discussion is no longer a disciplinary action and that an
official discussion alone does not render an employee aggrieved. Additionally,
regarding the allegation of reprisal, the Agency found that the alleged incidents
were not of the type that would reasonably deter a person from engaging in
protected EEO activity.
Complainant then filed the instant appeal. On appeal, Complainant argues among
other things, that the Official Discussion and the Investigative Interview are Letters
of Warning that constitute adverse actions. She states that her supervisor drafted a
proposed Letter of Investigative Interview dated January 20, 2026, which is a
Letter of Warning and disciplinary action. Complainant submitted additional
documents in support of her appeal, including Complainant’s notes from an
investigative interview dated January 20, 2026; a Letter of Warning dated January
27, 2026; and an email from the Manager, Transportation/Networks (Manager) to a
contractor.

2026001717	3
ANALYSIS
Framing the claims
We 	first 	acknowledge 	that 	the 	Agency 	incorrectly 	framed 	the 	claims 	in
Complainant’s 	formal 	complaint. 	We 	reframe 	Complainant’s 	allegations 	as
follows:
Complainant alleges that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and a
hostile work environment on the bases of Race (African American), Color
(Black), Religion (Christian), Sex (Female), and in Reprisal (prior protected
EEO complaints: Agency Nos. 1C-231-04293-25; 1C-231-07965-25; 1A-
538-14528-25) when:
1. On or about December 9, 2025, Complainant received a Letter of
Warning; and,
2. On 	or 	about 	January 	20, 	2026, 	Complainant 	was 	given 	an
investigative interview that resulted in a Letter of Warning.
A complainant may amend a complaint at any time prior to the investigation to
include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint. 29 C.F.R.
§1614.106(d). The complainant is not required to seek counseling on these new
claims. See EEO MD-110, at Chap. 5 § III.B at p. 5-10 (Aug. 5, 2015) (citing
Braxton v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102410 (Oct. 29, 2010). A
later claim or complaint is “like or related” to the original complaint if the later
claim or complaint adds to or clarifies the original complaint and/or could have
reasonably been expected to grow out of the original complaint during the
investigation. See Mannon v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720070074
(Apr. 4, 2012); Scher v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940702 (May
30, 1995). If the new claim is like or related to the claim(s) raised in the pending
complaint, the agency must amend the pending complaint to include a new claim.
See EEO MD-110, at Chap. 5 § III.B.2 at p. 5-12 (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant did not raise the incidents in Claim 2 with an EEO Counselor,
however, 	they 	were 	included 	in 	her 	formal 	complaint. 	In 	her 	complaint,
Complainant alleged that Claim 1 and 2 were adverse actions that she received in
retaliation and continued harassment for her past EEO complaints.

2026001717	4
We determine that Claim 2 is related to Claim 1 because Complainant is alleging
the same adverse actions that comprise her overall claims of a hostile work
environment and retaliation.
Failure to State a Claim
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part,
that an Agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency shall
accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who
believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§
1614.103, 1614.106(a).
The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an “aggrieved
employee” as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep’t
of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
Complainant argues that the official discussion she received on December 9, 2025,
was 	a 	Letter 	of 	Warning. 	The 	record 	contains 	a 	document 	titled 	Official
Discussion, dated December 8, 2025, that states “cc: MDO, Official Personnel
File, L R Disciplinary File.” Complaint File at 33-34. Complainant submitted on
appeal 	an 	email 	dated 	December 	17, 	2025, 	from 	Manager 	to 	a 	contractor,
describing the incidents at issue in Claims 1 and 2. In the email, Manager states, “I
am writing because I know this can not [sic] be considered with the EEO that is
currently in the system. She [Complainant] will be receiving discipline for failing
to 	follow 	instructions.” 	Complainant’s 	Appeal, 	Affidavit 	B. 	Additionally,
Complainant’s appeal submission includes a copy of Article 16.4, Section 2.
Discussion, which appears to be from the relevant collective bargaining agreement.
Article 16.4, Section 2 states a discussion is not discipline and while there can be a
personal notation of a discussion, information pertaining to such a discussion shall
not be included in an employee’s personnel file. Complainant’s Appeal at 8.
The 	Commission 	has 	previously 	found 	that 	a 	complainant 	was 	sufficiently
aggrieved to state a claim when oral discussions were documented and placed in
the 	employee’s 	personnel 	file. 	Royster 	v. 	U.S. 	Postal 	Serv., 	EEOC 	Appeal
01A55512 (Mar. 31, 2006).

2026001717	5
Therefore, given the record evidence cited above, the alleged discriminatory acts in
Claim 1 are sufficient to render Complainant “aggrieved.”
Regarding Claim 2, Complainant alleged that she was issued a Letter of Warning
on January 20, 2026. In her appeal, Complainant argues she was given an
investigative interview, which is a Letter of Warning. On appeal, Complainant
submitted her notes from an investigative interview and a January 27, 2026, Letter
of Warning charging Complainant with unsatisfactory performance. Complainant’s
submissions on appeal indicate that as a result of the investigative interview,
Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning, rendering her aggrieved. See Aplin v.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal 0120091062 (May 28, 2009).
Therefore, given the record evidence cited above, we find Claims 1 and 2 state
actionable claims of discrimination because the alleged discriminatory acts are
sufficient to render Complainant “aggrieved.”
Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a
specific term, condition or privilege of employment, a claim of harassment is
actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment to which Complainant has allegedly
been subjected was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
Complainant's employment. Cobb v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Request No.
05970077 (March 13, 1997); Miller v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Request No.
05A10338 (Aug. 15, 2002).
Complainant alleges that she was subjected to harassment when her supervisors
subjected her to an investigative interview, and issued her two letters of warning in
a 	span 	of 	two 	months. 	The 	Commission 	finds 	that 	the Agency 	improperly
dismissed 	Complainant’s 	claim 	of 	a 	hostile 	work 	environment 	because
Complainant describes ongoing discipline and adverse actions in a short amount of
time that are sufficiently severe and pervasive to state a claim of harassment.
The Commission's guidance provides that an employee states a claim of retaliation
or reprisal when an Agency takes a materially adverse action against him for
engaging in protected EEO activity, such as participating in an EEO claim or
opposing a discriminatory practice in the workplace. The Commission considers
reprisal claims broadly. See Carroll v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Request No.
05970939 (April 4, 2000). The alleged retaliatory actions need not impact a term,
condition, or privilege of employment.

2026001717	6
See Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).
For retaliation, a complainant need only show that a materially adverse action
“well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a
charge of discrimination.” 	Id. 548 U.S. at 68. Complainants are protected from
any discrimination that is reasonably likely to deter protected EEO activity. See
EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, No. 915.004
(August 25, 2016); see also Carroll, supra. The Commission's guidance states if the
conduct would be sufficiently material to deter protected activity in the given
context, even if it were insufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work
environment, there would be actionable retaliation. Id.
We find that Claims 1 and 2 state actionable claims of reprisal because the alleged
adverse actions are of the type to reasonably deter protected EEO activity. See
Nevada R. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal 2024001644 (June 12, 2024).
Therefore, the Commission finds the Agency erred in dismissing Complainant’s
allegation of reprisal for failure to state a claim.
Therefore, we find that the Agency improperly dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	the 	Agency's 	final 	decision 	dismissing 	Complainant's 	formal
complaint for failure to state a claim is REVERSED, and the complaint is hereby
REMANDED to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the framing
reflected in this decision (a total of 2 claims) and the ORDER below.
ORDER (E0224)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has
received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this
decision was issued. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the
investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within
one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision was issued, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within
sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant’s request.

2026001717	7
As 	provided 	in 	the statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of the
Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the Agency’s
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and 3) either a copy
of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the final agency decision
(“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(c) 	and 	§ 	1614.502, 	compliance 	with 	the
Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of
the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format
required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under
which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the
Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format
required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 	The Agency’s final
report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her
representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil
action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition
for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.

2026001717	8
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.

2026001717	9
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 (R0124)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of
your complaint. 	However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to
file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90)
calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you
may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the
date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 	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. 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.

2026001717	10
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