EEOC Appeal 2025002872

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Louise S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David P. Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025002872
Agency No. 4B-150-15819-24
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
April 23, 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 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2023. For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
At the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed
by the Agency as a City Carrier, Q-02, at the Chambersburg Post Office in
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. 	On October 29, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on sex
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.

2025002872	2
(female/ pregnancy) when, on September 23, 2024, a coworker shoved a hamper
into her stomach and management did nothing when she reported it.
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 EEOC Administrative Judge, or a final decision from the agency. 	In
accordance 	with 	Complainant’s 	request, 	the 	Agency 	issued 	a 	final 	decision
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), concluding that Complainant did not prove
her allegations of discrimination. The instant appeal followed.
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”).
According to Complainant, on September 23, 2024, C1, a coworker, shoved a
hamper into her stomach. Complainant was pregnant at the time. She immediately
reported the incident to her supervisor, S1. C1, she maintained, after kicking the
mail hamper into her, smiled, laughed and walked away. Complainant stated that
she felt pain and was concerned and anxious about her baby’s health and wanted to
see her doctor. S1, Complainant felt, was unprofessional in her tone and lack of
empathy with what she had just experienced even though she pleaded with her to
help. Complainant stated that she was treated at a local hospital and released for
duty the day after the incident.
S1 stated that she spoke to C1, and he maintained that he was trying to get through
and the hamper was in the aisle, so he pushed it a little bit to get it out of the way.
According to him, Complainant was nowhere near the hamper as she was at the
end of her case. S1 noted that Complainant came to her while she was talking to
another employee and told her that, “you need to do something about your boy,”
because C1 had pushed a hamper into her stomach. S1 indicated that C2, another
carrier who witnessed the incident, disputed 	Complainant’s version. S1 told

2025002872	3
Complainant to go to her office, but she refused and indicated that she was
reporting the incident to the police and was going to get checked out. 	Later that
day, Complainant, S1 stated, posted a picture of herself in a hospital bed alleging
workplace violence was real on social media and subsequently requested a form to
document a workplace injury.
An email statement from C1 indicated that the mail hamper was in the aisle, so he
pushed it slightly to get it out of the way and Complainant came “flying over” and
told him not to do that while glaring at him. 	C1 stated that he was still laughing
from a conversation that he was having with his coworkers, and Complainant
became more enraged and told him that she was not laughing. Because it appeared
that Complainant wanted a confrontation, C1 stated that he walked away. 	He
noted that he later had to talk to the police because Complainant claimed he
attacked her. 	He indicated that this was the fourth or fifth time Complainant had
made false allegations against him and the work environment was toxic because of
Complainant and the fact that nothing was being done about her.
In an email statement from C2 to S1, dated September 24, 2024, C2 stated that she
and C1 were laughing and joking because he was carrying a big mail tub, and he
had to go between the accountable cart and brush past a mail hamper on his way
through. According to C2, Complainant made a comment and C1 went directly to
his case and did not come back out.
In an email to S1 from C3, another co-worker, she stated that C1 accidentally
brushed the mail hamper as he was going by and Complainant stated it was not
funny. C3 stated that Complainant subsequently told S1 that C1 had shoved the
hamper into her and when S1 asked a question Complainant started yelling.
According to C3, S1 asked her to calm down and to go into the office but
Complainant refused, at some point, Complainant told S1 “fuck you” during her
outburst and then told another carrier she was leaving.
To establish a prima facie case of harassment, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the existence of five elements: (1) that she is a
member of a statutorily protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome
conduct related to her protected class; (3) that the harassment complained of was
based on her protected class; (4) that the harassment had the purpose or effect of
unreasonably 	interfering 	with 	her 	work 	performance 	and/or 	creating 	an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) that there is a basis

2025002872	4
for imputing liability to the employer. See Celine B. v. Dep’t of Navy, EEOC
Appeal No. 2019001961 (Sep. 21, 2020); Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). See also Henson v. City of Dundee, 682
F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982), approved in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S.
57, 66-67 (1986); Flowers v. Southern Reg’l Physician Serv. Inc., 247 F.3d 229
(5th Cir. 2001).
With respect to Complainant’s claim, we find that, even if the events on September
23, 2024, took place exactly as alleged, there is no persuasive evidence that her sex
or pregnancy played any role in C1’s actions or S1’s response to her complaints.
Therefore, she did not establish elements 2 or 3 of the above analysis. While
Complainant 	raises 	various 	arguments 	on 	appeal, 	we 	find 	that 	she 	has 	not
presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Agency’s response to her
accusations were motivated by discriminatory animus.
Accordingly, 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).

2025002872	5
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 (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.

2025002872	6
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
________________________ 	Gu Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
9/21/2026
Date