EEOC Appeal 2026002345

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Geoffrey P.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002345
Hearing No. 471-2024-00069X
Agency No. 4J-481-0049-24
DECISION
On May 7, 2026, 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 4, 2026, notice of final action concerning
his 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. 	For the following
reasons, 	the 	Commission 	AFFIRMS 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	action 	finding 	no
discrimination.
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.

2026002345	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant held the position
of Sales Services Distribution Associate in the Agency’s Detroit Oak Park Station
in Detroit, Michigan. 	On March 20, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability (Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
Since November 3, 2023, management would not release the results of
Complainant’s Fitness For Duty (FFD) exam to his physician.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant requested a hearing.
While the matter was pending a hearing, Complainant sought to amend his
complaint. 	The AJ denied the amendment finding some of the claims were
untimely and noting the Commission lacked jurisdiction of other claims.
At the Initial Conference on September 10, 2024, the parties disputed whether
Complainant submitted sufficient information for release of this FFD exam. 	The
AJ ordered the Agency to search its records for the completed form Complainant
stated he submitted and to confirm whether the corrected form was sufficient for
release of the examination results. 	As a result of a subsequent search, in October
2024, the Agency confirmed it located the corrected form and determined it was
sufficient for release of the FFD exam results. 	On September 8, 2025, the AJ
scheduled a status conference for September 16, 2025, to discuss the outstanding
issues. 	On 	September 15, 2025, Complainant 	filed 	a motion 	for summary
judgment. 	At the status conference, Complainant claimed the FFD exam results
were not delivered to his medical providers. 	The Agency disputed Complainant’s
claim. 	The AJ ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status
report by September 23, 2025. 	The Agency submitted the requisite status report
confirming Complainant’s FFD exam results were sent to his medical providers.
Complainant did not participate in the status report. 	Instead, Complainant filed a
second motion for summary judgment on September 23, 2025. 	Subsequently, the
AJ denied Complainant’s motions for summary judgment without prejudice and
noted he could refile a summary judgment motion after the parties engaged in
further discovery. 	The parties were informed of their right to seek further
discovery and informed of the deadlines regarding discovery and motions. 	On
February 6, 2026, the Agency filed a motion for summary judgment. Complainant
responded on February 11 and 15, 2026.

2026002345	3
Over Complainant's objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion for a decision
without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing in the Agency’s favor on
April 29, 2026.
The Agency subsequently issued a final action on May 4, 2026. 	The Agency’s
final action fully implemented the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
that 	the 	Agency 	subjected 	him 	to 	discrimination 	as 	alleged. 	Thereafter
Complainant filed the instant appeal.
At the outset, we note on appeal that Complainant does not challenge the definition
of the claims identified in his complaint. Further, Complainant does not challenge
the AJ’s denial of his amendment. 	The Commission exercises its discretion to
address only those issues specifically raised on appeal and declines to address the
denial of his amendment. 	See Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) at Chap. 9, § IV.A (Aug. 5,
2015).
In support of his appeal, Complainant filed multiple briefs on June 8, 2026. 	He
requests the Commission accept his briefs, which he contends were untimely filed.
Complainant filed his appeal on May 7, 2026. 	We note that June 6, 2026, was a
Saturday and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(g) states that if the last day of a filing period
falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the filing period will be extended to
include the next business day. As such, we find that Complainant's appeal briefs
were timely filed on the next business day of June 8, 2026, and we considered his
submissions in reaching this decision.
Regarding his contention that the Agency failed to provide the entire record to the
Commission, we note the only document Complainant specifically identified as not
being in the record was an Inspection Service document. 	However, we note the
Inspection Service document provided on appeal was already part of the file.
Further, we find the document does not show a genuine issue of material fact was
in dispute.
Additionally, Complainant claims the AJ engaged in conduct that compromised the
fairness and impartiality of his hearing. 	Specifically, he argues that he filed a
motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2025, which the AJ ignored and
instead directed the parties to submit a Joint Status Report.

2026002345	4
As described above, the AJ did not ignore Complainant September 15, 2025
motion 	for summary 	judgment. 	Rather, the AJ 	denied 	the motion 	without
prejudice informing the motion could be refiled after the close of discovery.
EEOC regulations and Commission precedent provide AJ's with broad discretion
in the conduct of a hearing. See 29 C.F.R. 1614.109; Keene v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04830 (January 24, 2003). We note that it is well-
within the AJ's broad discretion to accept or reject parties' filings in accordance
with their orders. We have reviewed the record as other documentary evidence in
the record and are unable to find evidence of bias, or other reversible error,
resulting from the manner in which the AJ managed and adjudicated this case.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable factfinder
could not find in Complainant’s favor. 	Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision
and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence
did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as
alleged.
The AJ properly found the Agency asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions. 	The Agency noted it could not release the requested information
without the requisite authorization. 	Initially, the Agency claimed Complainant
failed to submit a properly completed form. 	However, after a further search this
turned out not to be true. 	The Agency noted once the corrected form was
discovered, it promptly mailed the information to Complainant’s medical providers
as requested. Complainant disputes that the Agency released the results of his FFD
exam to his medical providers in November 2024. However, the Agency produced
tracking 	information 	including 	signed 	receipts 	showing 	it 	mailed 	the
documentation to Complainant’s medical providers in November 2024. 	We find
the AJ properly determined Complainant failed to provide evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact regarding the Agency’s assertions that the documents
were mailed to Complainant’s providers. 	We note while the Agency made a
mistake by not processing Complainant’s properly completed form earlier, the
Commission has held that a mistake made by an Agency is not evidence of pretext
unless there is evidence that the mistake was based on Complainant’s protected
classes. Charlie K. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal
No. 2020002521 (October 13, 2021).

2026002345	5
Having reviewed the record, including Complainant's contentions on appeal, we
find that Complainant failed to make such a showing.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final action implementing the AJ’s
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).
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.

2026002345	6
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.
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.

2026002345	7
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 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 21, 2026
Date