EEOC Appeal 2026002753

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Arthur F.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002753
Agency No. 4J-606-07271-26
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated May 14,
2026, 	dismissing 	his 	complaint 	of 	unlawful 	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, 	we AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	decision 	dismissing 	Complainant’s
formal 	complaint 	pursuant 	to 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.107(a)(1) 	and 	29 	C.F.R. 	§
1614.107(a)(2).
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.

2026002753	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Manager, Customer Services at the Agency’s Roger P. McAuliffe facility in
Chicago, Illinois. On April 28, 2026, Complainant filed a formal complaint
alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of national
origin (Hispanic/Latino), sex (male), color (white), disability (Major Depressive
Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress 	Disorder (PTSD)), and 	reprisal 	(unspecified)
when:
1. 	On 	October 	16, 	2025, 	Complainant 	was 	informed 	an 	employee
threatened him and when Complainant informed management, they
did nothing;
2. 	On December 25, 2025, Complainant was moved to another station
pending an investigation; and,
3. 	On March 23, 2026, management completed the supervisor portion of
an Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs (OWCP) Form CA-2
Complainant had submitted and stated, “Employee was not in a
threatening environment.”
The Agency issued a final decision dismissing Complainant’s formal complaint for
failure to state a claim and for untimely EEO counselor contact. Specifically, the
Agency dismissed Claims 1 and 2 for untimely EEO counselor contact pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency dismissed Claim 3 for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), due to lodging a collateral attack on
the forum of another proceeding, specifically, the Department of Labor’s OWCP.
Complainant filed the instant appeal. On appeal, Complainant argues the Agency
erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and untimely EEO
counselor 	contact. 	Complainant 	argues 	that 	because 	there 	was 	uncertainty
regarding management’s investigation following his report of a workplace threat,
the issue was prevented from being a closed or complete event. Additionally,
regarding Claim 3, Complainant argues that he is challenging management’s
actions when management issued an official statement regarding the incident on
the CA-2 Form, not appealing the results of an OWCP determination.

2026002753	3
ANALYSIS
Claim 3 - Failure to State a Claim
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).
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). Here, Complainant
argues on appeal that his issue is with management issuing an inaccurate statement
to OWCP resulting from the alleged impartial and incomplete investigation.

2026002753	4
While Complainant provided background information with his issues concerning
management’s 	investigation 	into 	the 	workplace 	incident, 	the 	focus 	of
Complainant’s 	allegation 	surrounds 	management’s 	inaccurate 	statements 	to
OWCP. The proper forum for Complainant to have raised his allegations regarding
management submitting inaccurate or incomplete information to OWCP was with
the Department of Labor’s OWCP. We find the Agency properly dismissed the
claim for failure to state a claim because it constitutes a collateral attack on the
proceedings of another forum.
Claim 1 and Claim 2 - Timeliness of EEO Counselor Contact
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2) provides, in relevant part,
that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable
time limits, unless the agency extends the time limits in accordance with 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.604(f), which states these time limits are subject to waiver, estoppel and
equitable tolling. Complaints of discrimination should be brought to the attention
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within 45 days of the date of the
matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45
days of the effective date of the action. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1).
The Commission has adopted a “reasonable suspicion” standard (as opposed to a
“supportive facts” standard) to determine when the forty-five (45) day limitation
period is triggered. See Howard v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No.
05970852 (Feb. 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation is not triggered until a
complainant reasonably suspects discrimination, but before all the facts that
support a charge of discrimination have become apparent.
The Commission finds the Agency properly dismissed Claim 1 and Claim 2 for
untimely EEO counselor contact. The alleged discriminatory events occurred on
October 16, 2025, and December 25, 2025. However, Complainant did not initiate
contact with an EEO counselor until March 26, 2026, which is beyond the 45-day
limitation period. Complainant argues that the 45-day deadline should be tolled
due to the continuing uncertainty regarding management’s investigation of the
October 16, 2025, workplace threat. He argues that the first definitive position
from management concerning the threat was communicated on March 23, 2026.

2026002753	5
In his formal complaint, Complainant states that he made multiple follow-up
requests regarding the status of the Agency’s investigation his report on October
16, 2025, of the workplace threat. He also stated that after he reported and
escalated the workplace threat, he was removed from his assigned station and
directed to report to another facility on December 15, 2025. Complaint File at 29.
The record contains an email from Complainant to a Postal Inspector, dated
December 16, 2025, where Complainant stated that there were multiple complaints
about the employee who threatened Complainant, and that he was not sure if the
complaints about the employee were being paid the attention that was necessary.
Id. at 64. While the Postal Inspector had been inquiring into a complaint made by a
customer regarding the employee, it is apparent from Complainant’s response that
Complainant was already concerned about the Agency’s inaction regarding his
own complaint against the employee.
Complainant argues his EEO counselor contact on March 26, 2026, was timely due
to the continued uncertainty regarding management’s investigation into his report
of a workplace threat. Complainant states that management’s first communication
of the results of his report was on March 23, 2026, when management asserted
Complainant was not in a threatening environment on his CA-2 form. However,
Complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination prior to March 23,
2026. There are multiple statements in the record from Complainant that he
repeatedly sought clarification from management regarding the investigation from
October 	16, 	2025, 	when 	he 	reported 	the 	threat. 	Therefore, 	we 	find 	that
Complainant reasonably should have known that the discriminatory matter and
personnel action occurred as early as December 25, 2025, when he was reassigned
to another station. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has presented no
persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension of the time limit for
initiating EEO counselor contact. Therefore, we find that the Agency properly
dismissed the complaint.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision dismissing Complainant’s complaint is
AFFIRMED.

2026002753	6
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.

2026002753	7
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. 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 16, 2026
Date