EEOC Appeal 2026003275

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Gaynell A.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Request No. 2026003275
Appeal No. 2026001150
Agency No. 1C-231-10928-25
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	timely 	requested 	that 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No.
2026001150 (June 2, 2026). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision
issued 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405(a), 	where 	the 	requesting 	party
demonstrates 	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. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(c).
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.

2026003275	2
In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed a final agency decision finding
that, while Complainant had established that she was subjected to inappropriate
physical conduct based on her sex by a coworker (CW1) that created a hostile
work environment, the Agency was not liable for the harassment. The Commission
therein found that the Agency took prompt, effective remedial action after it
became aware of the harassment on July 31, 2025. Although Complainant argued
that the Agency had constructive notice of the harassment before she reported it to
management on July 31, 2025, the Commission’s decision stated that it had
carefully considered this argument and found that there was insufficient evidence
to conclude that the Agency was on constructive notice.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with
the previous decision and largely reiterates arguments previously made on appeal.
According to Complainant, the Commission’s analysis assigned insufficient legal
significance to management’s own observations in determining that the Agency
did 	not 	have constructive notice 	of the harassment prior to 	July 31, 2025.
Complainant notes that a supervisor (S1) stated during the EEO investigation that
she observed CW1 hugging multiple employees during meetings, that some of the
hugs appeared “unwarranted,” and that employees appeared to comply based on
CW1’s status as a union official.
We have reviewed the various arguments raised by Complainant in the instant
request for reconsideration, but we can find no basis to disturb the Commission’s
prior decision. Complainant presents arguments that were previously raised and
considered or could have been raised during the original appeal. The appellate
decision expressly stated that, based on the evidence in the record, there was
insufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged harassment observed by S1
(giving “unwarranted” hugs to multiple people) was so pervasive and widespread
that the Agency was on constructive notice prior to July 31, 2025. Complainant
argues in her request that this determination was undercut by the findings of the
Agency’s 	own 	internal 	investigation, 	which 	found 	that 	CW1 	had 	subjected
Complainant to inappropriate physical conduct based on sex that created a hostile
work environment and resulted in a proposal to remove CW1. However, the results
of an investigation conducted after July 31, 2025, are insufficient to show a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law with respect to the Commission’s
finding that the hugging observed by S1 before July 31, 2025, was not so pervasive
and widespread to place the Agency on constructive notice of harassment by CW1.

2026003275	3
The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second
appeal. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VII.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of
Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration
request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a
clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a substantial
impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not
done 	so 	here. 	Thus, 	we 	conclude 	that 	Complainant 	has 	not 	presented 	any
persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s decision.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds
that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No.
2026001150 remains the Commission’s decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0124)
This 	decision 	of 	the 	Commission 	is 	final, and 	there 	is 	no 	further 	right 	of
administrative appeal from the Commission’s decision. 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.
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.

2026003275	4
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 22, 2026
Date