EEOC Appeal 2026000428

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Tyree B.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026000428
Agency No. 1F-541-10682-25
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated October
16, 2025, 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 reasons set forth below, the Commission
AFFIRMS in part, and REVERSES in part, the Agency’s final decision dismissing
Complainant’s formal complaint.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail
Handler at the Agency’s West Sacramento CA Processing & Distribution Center
(P&DC) in West Sacramento, California.
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.

2026000428	2
On September 25, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the
bases of disability (Cerebral Palsy) and reprisal (not specified). The Agency
framed Complainant’s claims in the following manner:
1. 	On 	May 	7, 	2025, 	Complainant 	was 	injured 	on 	the 	job, 	and
management failed to assist Complainant in submitting his paperwork
for Office of Worker’s Compensation and Continuation of Pay.
The Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 1614.107(a)(1) finding Complainant’s allegations were a collateral
attack on the proceedings of another forum, specifically, the Department of
Labor’s Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs (OWCP).
The 	instant 	appeal 	followed. 	On 	appeal, 	Complainant 	argues 	that 	he 	was
discriminated against following a workplace injury. He alleges his Manager of
Distribution Operations (Manager) was involved in the incident leading to his
injury and that Manager failed to properly document the incident.
The Agency did not file a brief in response to Complainant’s appeal.
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 him to discrimination and
a hostile work environment on the bases of disability (Cerebral Palsy) and reprisal
(not specified) when:
1. On May 7, 2025, Complainant sustained a workplace injury due to the
actions of his Manager of Distribution Operations (Manager);
2. On May 7, 2025, Manager failed to document Complainant’s injury and
did not assist Complainant in finding proper medical care;
3. Management failed to provide Complainant with information regarding
the 	Office 	of 	Worker’s 	Compensation 	Programs 	(OWCP) 	and 	for
Continuation of Pay;

2026000428	3
4. Complainant was misled regarding the documents he needed to submit,
despite having an active OWCP case number;
5. Complainant had to navigate the OWCP process alone, without support
from management or HR; and,
6. Complainant’s Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) request was denied
due to management’s failure to properly document Complainant’s injury
and leave status.
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).
Basis of Reprisal and Prior Protected EEO Activity
Concerning claims of reprisal, EEOC Regulations prohibit reprisal against an
individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act (Title VII) (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. 206(d)),
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), the
Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 791 et seq.), or for participating in any stage of
administrative 	or 	judicial 	proceedings 	under 	these 	statutes. 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.101(b).
Complainant has not identified any prior protected EEO activity for the basis for
his allegation of reprisal. To the extent that Complainant alleges he was subjected
to reprisal for asserting his rights, it would appear that Complainant is referring to
his rights under FMLA and OWCP, which are not a covered basis under Title VII
or the other EEO regulations which do not constitute protected EEO activity.
Complainant’s claim lacks the requisite prior EEO activity necessary for stating a
claim of reprisal. Therefore, we find that Complainant failed to state an actionable
claim of reprisal.

2026000428	4
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6: Collateral Attacks
The Commission has generally held that complaints involving other administrative
proceedings, including those related to the OWCP and its related processes, do not
state a claim within the meaning of its regulations. See Hogan v. Dep't of the
Army, EEOC Request No. 05940407 (Sept. 29, 1994). An employee cannot use the
EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on another proceeding. See
Wills v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05940585 (Sept. 22, 1994); Lingad v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05930106 (Jun. 25, 1993).
The Commission generally considers allegations regarding the processing of an
OWCP claim to be an impermissible collateral attack on the OWCP adjudicatory
process, even where the allegation concerns the actions of agency management
officials. See Belia A. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2022001871 (Jul.
18, 2021) citing Pirozzi v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970146 (Oct.
23, 1998) (allegedly false statements made by agency to OWCP during OWCP's
processing of a workers' compensation claim goes to merits of the compensation
claim); see also, Bell v. Dep't of Transport., EEOC Appeal No. 01991806 (Jan. 11,
2001) (allegation that the agency failed to ensure that the records it submitted to
OWCP were “accurate and complete” failed to state a claim) citing Hogan, supra
(reviewing an allegation that agency officials provided misleading statements to
OWCP would require the Commission to essentially determine what workers'
compensation benefits the complainant would likely have received, which is an
administrative process of OWCP). Likewise, we have found allegations where the
Agency delayed Complainant’s ability to obtain OWCP benefits by withholding
information or paperwork also fails to state a claim. See Irish M. v. Dep’t of the
Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162628 (Jan. 24, 2017).
Claims 3, 4, and 5 all allege incidents where agency officials intentionally withheld
information 	or 	paperwork, 	delaying 	Complainant’s 	ability 	to 	obtain 	OWCP
benefits. The proper forum for Complainant to have raised his allegations that
management failed to provide him with the proper information and paperwork to
file 	a 	workers 	compensation 	claim 	and 	continuation 	of 	pay 	was 	with 	the
Department of Labor’s OWCP.

2026000428	5
Similarly, Claim 6 alleges his FMLA request was denied because Agency officials
failed to properly document his workplace injury and leave status. The proper
forum for Complainant to have raised his challenges regarding the denial of his
FMLA rights was with the Department of Labor, which has jurisdiction over the
FMLA, rather than with an EEO complaint. See Thad P. v Dep’t of State, EEOC
Appeal No. 2021002632 (Sept. 21, 2021). The Commission has no jurisdiction
over claims based on the FMLA. Compl. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120122478 (Sept. 26, 2012) (finding a claim challenging denial of FMLA rights
to 	be a collateral 	attack 	on 	the FMLA process, which 	is regulated by 	the
Department of Labor, and outside the jurisdiction of the EEOC).
We find Claims 3,4, 5, and 6 fail to state a claim because they constitute collateral
attacks on the proceedings of another forum.
Claim 2: Improper Forum
Complainant 	alleges 	that 	Manager 	failed 	to 	document 	his 	injury 	or 	assist
Complainant in getting medical care. In his formal complaint, Complainant stated
that 	Manager’s 	actions 	violated 	USPS 	policy 	and 	federal 	workplace 	safety
standards. It appears Complainant is asking the Commission to enforce policies
that are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, as neither concern discrimination.
The proper venue for pursuing this allegation would be through the Agency’s
negotiated grievance procedure and with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), respectively. Therefore, we find that Claim 2 fails to state
a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(1). See Abe U. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 2021003512 (Aug. 4, 2021).
Claim 1: States a Claim of Harassment
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).

2026000428	6
After finding that Claims 2-6 fail to state a claim, discussed above, Complainant’s
allegation of harassment is solely comprised of the incident in Claim 1. In Claim 1,
Complainant is 	alleging 	that he was physically 	assaulted by his 	supervisor,
resulting in an injury. We find that this sole incident is sufficiently severe to create
a hostile work environment, therefore, Claim 1 states an actionable claim of
harassment. 	See 	Marcelina 	Q. 	v. 	Dep’t 	of 	the 	Army, 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No.
0120181762 (Aug. 9, 2018) citing Nichols v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120092008 (June 25, 2009) (finding that physical assault was sufficient to support
a claim of a hostile work environment).
We dismiss the reframed Claims 2-6 and the basis of reprisal for failure to state a
claim. We remand the following (reframed Claim 1) to the Agency:
Whether the Agency subjected Complainant to discrimination and a hostile
work environment on the basis of disability (Cerebral Palsy) when: (1) On
May 7, 2025, Complainant sustained a workplace injury due to the actions of
his Manager of Distribution Operations (Manager);
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's dismissal is AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in
part. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Claims 2-6 (reframed by the Commission
above) and the basis of reprisal. We REMAND Claim 1, as framed by the
Commission above, to the Agency for further processing in accordance with this
decision 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.

2026000428	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.

2026000428	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.

2026000428	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 (T0124)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires
the 	Agency 	to 	continue 	its 	administrative 	processing 	of 	a 	portion 	of 	your
complaint. 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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has
affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued
administrative processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the
Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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.

2026000428	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 14, 2026
Date