EEOC Appeal 2025001898

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Allene R.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025001898
Hearing No. 450-2022-00314X
Agency No. 4E-852-0025-22
DECISION
On February 21, 2025, 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 January 14, 2025, final order 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 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 order.
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.

2025001898	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Part
Time Flexible (PTF), Sales 	Services Distribution Associate at 	the Agency’s
Lovington 	Post 	Office 	in 	Lovington, 	New 	Mexico. 	On 	March 	15, 	2022,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against
her on the bases of religion (Catholic), disability (mental and physical), and in
reprisal for protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On May 7, 2021, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning.
2. 	In September 2021, Complainant was left alone to work a Saturday shift
and voiced opposition about the bobblehead at her station and when she
asked her Supervisor if she needed to keep it there, the Supervisor
responded by yelling at her.
3. 	In November 2021, Supervisor provided her with a new password
“1Fabulouskidney” and also put an application on her desk.
4. 	On 	dates 	to 	be 	specified, 	Complainant 	received 	a 	change 	of
schedule/hours and was ordered to arrive before her start time.
5. 	On November 9, 2021, she was passed up for two promotional
opportunities.
6. 	On dates to be specified, coworkers subjected Complainant to a hostile
work environment and although she made repeated reports of the
harassment to management, nothing was done.
7. 	On September 9 and 20, 2021, Complainant was questioned and
disciplined for using sick leave when she and her daughter had COVID.
8. 	On September 20, 2021, management disclosed to other employees
Complainant’s and her daughter’s medical conditions.
9. 	On 	dates 	to 	be 	specified, 	management 	allowed 	Complainant’s
coworkers time off, leaving her shorthanded.
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 (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. Over
Complainant’s objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s July 7,
2023, motion for a decision without a hearing (Motion) in part (Claims 1 - 7 and 9)
and denied in part for Claim 8. The AJ dismissed claims for 1 and 2 for untimely
EEO Counselor contact, and found no discrimination for claims 3 - 7 and 9. Claim
8 was scheduled for hearing and modified as follows: “Did the Agency violate the
Rehabilitation Act when management allegedly disclosed Complainant’s medical
information to coworker(s) in connection with Complainant’s absence from work

2025001898	3
between September 9 and 19, 2021?” 	On December 13, 2024, the AJ issued a
decision finding a per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act for Claim 8. The Agency
subsequently issued a Final Order adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal
followed.
Complainant 	does 	not 	challenge the decision 	regarding 	Claims 	7 	and 	8 	on
appeal. 	The Commission exercises its discretion to address only those issues
specifically raised on appeal and declines to address Claims 7 and 8. 	See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO
MD-110) at Chap. 9, § IV.A (Aug. 5, 2015).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the record shows that Complainant initiated contact with
an EEO Counselor on December 13, 2021. 	We find both of these incidents were
untimely raised with an EEO Counselor as they were raised beyond the 45-day time
limit in 29 C.F.R. §1614.105(a)(2). Therefore, we find that these claims were
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2).
Furthermore, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions for which we find Complainant failed to establish were mere
pretext for discrimination. 	Regarding Claim 1, Supervisor stated the Letter of
Warning was for Complainant’s attendance. Complainant explained that she arrived
late to work because the electricity had gone out in the city and that turned off her
alarm that morning. Complainant has not shown that similarly situated people were
treated differently. 	Regarding Claim 2, 	Postmaster explained that an employee
called out on this day which caused Complainant to have to work alone at the
window. In addition, Postmaster stated that at the time in question Complainant did
not state the bobble head was against her religious beliefs, she merely stated she did
not like it. Nevertheless, the bobble head was removed.
Regarding Claim 3, Postmaster explained that the password was changed to “count”
Complainant’s drawer, and Complainant was told to change it once she returned to
work. Regarding the application, Postmaster stated that Complainant improperly
filled out a P.O. Box application. Thus, the document was placed back on her station
so that she would contact the customer and get what was needed on the application.
Complainant offers that the alleged action proves Postmaster’s awareness of her
medical issues and at the very minimum, that he regarded Complainant as having a
disability. She argues that Postmaster used the opportunity to belittle her and express
his views of her disabilities as a joke. It is noted that Complainant did not provide

2025001898	4
any explanation or evidence linking the mentioned password to any of her alleged
disabilities. Moreover, the record does not contain, and Complainant did not offer
evidence of any other instance where a reference to any medical condition or human
organ is made.
Regarding Claim 4, Postmaster stated that at the time in question, there were three
clerks. Complainant and 	Coworker 1 complained 	about 	the early 	schedules.
Postmaster stated that because Complainant was a Part-Time Flexible employee, her
schedule could change from one day to the next. Supervisor stated that the schedules
are changed subject to operational need.
Regarding Claim 5, the Agency explained that the supervisor position was awarded
to Supervisor in 2015, and Complainant did not apply for the position at that time.
Moreover, Postmaster stated that he does not recall what position/promotion
Complainant is referring to and that Complainant has not been passed up for
opportunities. During the investigation Complainant clarified that one opportunity
is from years prior, when the position of supervisor opened, and she was not asked
to “move up.” Regarding the alleged second opportunity, Complainant did not
identify a specific position, but a general dissatisfaction with lack of advancement.
Regarding Claim 6, Postmaster admitted that Complainant has told him that “it’s a
hostile work environment.” Postmaster explained that other employees do not speak
to Complainant. Postmaster stated that in the past they have tried to speak with
Complainant, but she gets mad and tries to fight them. Postmaster stated that if the
other employees laugh, Complainant thinks it is about her. Postmaster stated that he
has addressed the situation with the employees. Complainant indicated that the
hostile work environment created by her coworkers began when she did not agree
with Coworker 1 about filing a grievance. Complainant alleges that after this event
Coworker 1 made “everyone in the office turn against her.”
Regarding Claim 9, Postmaster stated two people are always scheduled to work
Saturday but if someone called in, that would leave one person. Postmaster always
reaches out to another employee to come in but if he cannot get a hold of someone
else, he will work Saturdays to make sure the employee gets their breaks and is not
alone. 	Supervisor explained that when employees call in, they are shorthanded.
However, he and the Postmaster are always there, and they help how they can.

2025001898	5
As for Complainant’s allegation of harassment, even if the incidents alleged
occurred in the manner described, we find that Complainant failed to persuasively
show that her protected bases were the reason for the Agency’s alleged actions. In
reaching this conclusion, we carefully considered Complainant’s allegation that the
Agency failed to adequately respond to her allegations of harassment. However, we
find no evidence that Complainant’s protected bases were the motive for the
coworkers’ alleged conduct. We note that anti-discrimination statutes are not civility
codes designed to protect against the “ordinary tribulations” of the workplace.
Rather, they forbid “only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions
of the victim’s employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service, Inc., 23 U.S.
75 (1998).
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final order regarding Claims 1 – 6 and 9.
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

2025001898	6
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.
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

2025001898	7
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
________________________ Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
09/21/2006
Date