EEOC Appeal 2025003554

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Simon V.,1
Complainant,
v.
David P. Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003554
Agency No. 1F-741-06398-25
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated December
18, 2024, dismissing his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the reasons below, the Commission
REVERSES the Agency’s decision and REMANDS the complaint for further
processing.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Parcel
Distribution Machine Clerk at the Agency’s Fresno Processing and Distribution
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.

2 	2025003554
Center in Fresno, California. On May 5, 2025, Complainant resigned from the
Agency.
On May 27, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination and harassment on the basis of reprisal (not
specified), citing various incidents that led to his constructive discharge. The Agency
framed Complainant’s allegations in the following manner:
Complainant alleged he was subjected to discrimination based on retaliation
(not specified) when:
1. On 	March 	15, 	2025, 	management 	failed 	to 	respond 	to
Complainant’s report of harassment.
The Agency dismissed the matter pursuant to 29 C.F.R §1614.107(a)(1) for failure
to state a claim. Specifically, the Agency reasoned that Complainant failed to state
a claim because Complainant had not shown that he had engaged in prior protected
activity. Additionally, the Agency’s decision found that Complainant abandoned the
following additional claim that he raised during informal counseling, “On February
28, 2025, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning.” The Agency concluded that
since Complainant raised this claim during informal counseling but failed to include
this claim in his formal complaint, he abandoned the claim and could not raise it
later during processing or file another complaint concerning the claim.2
The instant appeal followed. In support of his appeal, Complainant, through his non-
legal representative, argues that the Agency dismissed the complaint without giving
proper consideration of the facts, and Complainant’s protected activity. Complainant
argues that he alleged harassment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment based
on protected EEO categories. Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the
Agency’s decision dismissing his formal complaint.
The Agency did not file a response to Complainant’s appeal.
2 Complainant did not raise the issue of the claim regarding the Letter of Warning
on appeal. Therefore, the Commission agrees with the Agency that Complainant
abandoned this claim.

3 	2025003554
ANALYSIS
Framing the Claims
As a preliminary matter, the Commission finds that the Agency incorrectly framed
the claims in Complainant’s formal complaint. The Agency failed to address
Complainant’s 	allegations 	of 	harassment 	and 	constructive 	discharge 	that
Complainant raised in his formal complaint and during informal counseling. We
reframe Complainant’s allegations as follows:
Whether the Agency subjected Complainant to discrimination and harassment
on the basis of reprisal (prior protected EEO activity) when:
1. After reporting harassment including the T2 Manager, Distribution
Operation (T2 Manager’s) homosexual comments, verbal and physical
aggression from his supervisors and coworkers, and getting no response
from 	management, 	Complainant 	suffered 	increased 	harassment
including, excessive scrutiny and threats to his job security; and,
2. On or about May 5, 2025, Complainant resigned from his position as a
Parcel Distribution Machine Clerk as a result of the treatment he was
experiencing in his work environment (constructive discharge).
During informal counseling, Complainant described a supervisor that had made
inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments of a homosexual nature towards
multiple employees, creating a hostile work environment. Complainant stated that
those who raised concerns about the supervisor’s harassment faced retaliation,
increased scrutiny and threats to their job security. Complaint File at 58, 62. The
EEO Counselor described that Complainant alleged discrimination and harassment
when 	T2’s 	Manager 	made 	inappropriate 	sexually 	suggestive 	comments 	to
Complainant about other employees, and that the Plant Manager did not respond to
Complainant’s email about being harassed by management and receiving threats
from a coworker who was also a supervisor’s spouse.
In support of his allegation of reprisal and harassment, Complainant included
supporting documentation such as his reports of harassment and his resignation
letter.

4 	2025003554
This 	supporting 	documentation 	reiterates 	that 	same 	allegations 	raised 	during
informal counseling - that T2 Manager was making sexually suggestive comments
of a homosexual nature to Complainant and other employees, and that Complainant
faced retaliation including increased scrutiny, and threats to his job security after
raising concerns about T2 Manager. Additionally, Complainant included his May 5,
2025, Letter of Resignation, where he stated that he was resigning from his position
due to the Agency’s failure to respond to his reports of harassment and retaliation,
which contributed to a steep decline in his physical and mental health.
In his appeal, Complainant states multiple witnesses signed statements confirming
T2 Manager made inappropriate comments involving homosexual references, that
management attempted to exclude and discredit Complainant, other employees were
encouraged to find negative information about Complainant, he was micromanaged,
excluded from work updates, and the Plant Manager did not intervene after he was
informed of the harassment. Due to the continued harassment and management’s
lack of intervention, Complainant states that he experienced a significant decline in
his physical and mental health. After no protective measures were implemented to
improve the hostile work environment, Complainant resigned from his position to
avoid further harm to his health.
Basis of Reprisal and Prior Protected EEO Activity
An agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.107(a)(1). 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). An “aggrieved employee”
is 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).
Regarding the Agency’s dismissal of the formal complaint for failure to state a claim,
the only questions for an agency to consider in determining whether a complaint
states a claim are: (1) whether complainant is an aggrieved employee; and (2)
whether complainant raises employment discrimination on a basis covered by EEO
statutes. If these questions are answered in the affirmative, an agency must accept
the complaint for processing regardless of its judgment of the merits. See Odoski v.
Dep't of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 01901496 (April 16, 1990).

5 	2025003554
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.101(b) provides that no person shall be subject
to retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by title VII of the Civil Rights
Act (title VII) (42 USC 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) (29 USC § 621 et seq.), the Equal Pay Act (29 USC § 206(d)) or the
Rehabilitation Act (29 USC 791 et seq.) or for participating in any stage of
administrative or judicial proceedings under those statutes. Section 704(a) of Title
VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) provides that it shall be unlawful for an employer to
discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment because “he
has opposed any practice made unlawful by this title, or because he had made a
charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing under this title.” Kaul v. DHS, EEOC Appeal No. 01A54163
(Dec. 5, 2005). In addition, when an individual alleges retaliation in a complaint,
they do not need to make a showing of adverse employment action if the action can
be shown to deter an individual from utilizing the EEO process. EEOC Management
Directive (MD) 110, Ch.5, Sec. IV(A)(3).
A review of the record shows two clear instances where Complainant engaged in
protected EEO activity. The first instance was when he initiated EEO counselor
contact on March 4, 2025. The second instance was when he submitted a letter on
March 10, 2025, reporting amongst other things, a supervisor’s sexually suggestive
comments toward multiple employees, including Complainant, that was creating a
hostile work environment. Complaint File at 44. The record contains a second letter
dated March 10, 2025, that appears to be from Complainant, stating, “Following my
attempts to raise concerns about [T2 Manager’s] behavior, I faced immediate
reprisals…” Id. at 43.
Here, 	Complainant’s 	allegations 	involve 	incidents 	of 	harassment 	based 	on
experiencing 	and 	reporting 	sexual 	harassment, 	and 	subsequent 	retaliation.
Complainant alleges that management’s failure to address his reports of a hostile
work environment, resulted in Complainant resigning from his position because he
could not withstand working in an environment that was affecting his physical and
mental well-being despite his reports of harassment and retaliation to management,

6 	2025003554
The Commission finds that the Agency erred in finding Complainant had not
engaged in prior protected EEO activity. We find Complainant identified a protected
basis 	– 	reprisal 	opposing 	discriminatory 	actions.3 Claims 	1-2 	occurred 	after
Complainant raised his concerns about the T2 Manager, Distribution Operations
making sexually suggestive comments. A fair reading of the record, reiterated by
Complainant’s arguments on appeal, is that Complainant is asserting a pattern of
ongoing 	retaliatory 	harassment 	including, 	the 	alleged 	incidents 	of 	excessive
supervision, threats to his job security, and management’s lack of intervention,
which resulted in Complainant’s resignation. If true, these actions, particularly when
considered together, are of the type that may reasonably deter others from protected
EEO activity, and thus sufficient to state a claim for retaliatory harassment.
Therefore, we find that Complainant states actionable claims based on reprisal.
Any additional analysis determining whether or not the identified prior protected
activity constitutes protected EEO activity goes to the merits of Complainant’s
complaint and is irrelevant to the procedural issue of whether he has stated a viable
claim under the 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 regulations. See Peggie T. v. Dep’t of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2019002979 (Aug. 18, 2020) citing Candi R. v. Dep’t of
Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 2019001053 (Mar. 8, 2019) (finding that the Agency
improperly 	addressed 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	complaint 	when 	it 	determined 	that
Complainant did not engage in prior protected EEO activity when she filed an
Inspector General complaint).
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 following
framing (a total of 2 claims) and the ORDER below.
Whether the Agency subjected Complainant to discrimination and harassment
on the basis of reprisal (prior protected EEO activity) when:
3 Additionally, Complainant initiated informal processing of the instant complaint
during the time management failed to respond to his report of harassment and before
he was constructively discharged.

7 	2025003554
1. After 	reporting 	harassment 	including 	the 	T2 	Manager, 	Distribution
Operation (T2 Manager’s) homosexual comments, verbal and physical
aggression from his supervisors and coworkers, and getting no response
from management, Complainant suffered increased harassment including,
excessive scrutiny and threats to his job security; and,
2. On or about May 5, 2025, Complainant resigned from his position as a
Parcel Distribution Machine Clerk as a result of the treatment he was
experiencing in his work environment (constructive discharge).
ORDER (E0224)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims (Claims 1-2) 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.
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).

8 	2025003554
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.
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.

9 	2025003554
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).
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.

10 	2025003554
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. 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 14, 2026
Date