EEOC Appeal 2026001738

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Phyllis F.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026001738
Hearing No. 460-2025-00040X
Agency No. 4G-770-0246-24
DECISION
On March 27, 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 February 18, 2026, final order concerning her
equal 	employment 	opportunity 	(EEO) 	complaint 	alleging 	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.

2026001738	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Carrier Technician at the Agency’s Albert Thomas Post Office in Houston, Texas.
On July 30, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of disability (On-the-job injury/Ankle
Sprain, Neuritis, Foot Sprain) and reprisal (prior protected EEO activity, current
EEO complaint) when:
1. 	Beginning on March 20, 2024, and continuing, Complainant was not
provided reasonable work accommodations for eight hours per day
and [was] not allowed to sit on a stool while casing mail.
Complainant stated that her disability comes from an on-the-job injury that
occurred on October 5, 2022. Her Office of Worker’s Compensation Program
(OWCP) paperwork states the clinical findings for Complainant are Ankle Sprain,
Neuritis, and Foot Sprain. Record of Investigation (ROI) Ex. 6 at 00166-170. CA-
17 	Duty 	Status 	Report 	(CA-17) 	stated 	Complainant’s 	position 	required
intermittently eight hours of walking, eight hours of standing, eight hours of
climbing, and lifting up to 25 pounds. Id. at 00166. 	The CA-17 from 2023 show
Complainant was limited to 30 minutes of standing and 20 minutes of walking per
day, zero hours of climbing, and a 15-pound lifting restriction. CA-17s dated May
13, 2024, and May 24, 2024, show Complainant was medically restricted to four
hours of standing and walking work per day, with a 20-minute break every hour.
Id.
Pursuant 	to 	the 	Duty 	Status 	Reports, 	Complainant 	was 	offered 	Form 	2499
Modified 	Job 	Assignments 	(Limited 	Duty) 	that 	complied 	with 	her 	medical
restrictions. The Offer of Modified Job Assignment dated April 30, 2024, stated
Complainant was a full-time employee, however, due to medical restrictions, EA
(not defined) was able to give four hours of work. ROI Ex. 5 at 00163. The offer
was revised on May 17, 2024, offering Complainant five work hours for a total of
five and a half hours, including the 20-minute breaks. Id. at 00159-160. On
September 30, 2024, a new Offer of Modified Job Assignment was issued listing
one hour of casing was available. Id. at 00157. Complainant received a second on-
the-job injury on December 11, 2024, and was not released to work until her
medical appointment in May 2025. Complaint File at 55-62.

2026001738	3
She alleged the Manager, Customer Service (Manager) did not allow her to work
eight hours. However, three coworkers with similar medical injuries or medical
restrictions were provided with eight hours of work per day. 	Complainant also
alleged Manager told her that her coworkers would not allow her to sit on a stool to
case mail. ROI at 00078-80, 00082.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. 	Complainant 	filed 	a 	response 	opposing 	the 	Agency’s 	Motion 	for
Summary Judgment, to which the Agency filed a reply. On February 4, 2026, the
AJ issued a decision without a hearing in favor of the Agency.
In the AJ’s decision, the AJ found that summary judgment was appropriate because
Complainant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to warrant a
hearing. Assuming Complainant had established a prima facie case of disparate
treatment based on disability and reprisal, the AJ found that the Agency articulated
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Complainant was medically
restricted to four hours of standing and walking work per day, including 20-minute
breaks, amounting to five and one-half hours of work per day. On September 30,
2024, Complainant was permitted to do one hour of casing, and her records
showed that Complainant worked between five and six hours. However, Manager
explained that Complainant’s medical restrictions made it so she could not work
her job as a Carrier Technician delivering mail and the Agency did not have more
indoor work available. Additionally, Complainant could not work from December
2024 until May 2025, due to her second injury. The Agency could not provide
Complainant with eight hours of work per day due to her medical restrictions. The
AJ found that Complainant failed to present evidence showing the Agency’s
reasons for its actions were pretext for discrimination. The AJ further noted that
Complainant could not show she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Next, 	to 	the 	extent 	the 	claim 	could 	be 	considered 	a 	denial 	of 	reasonable
accommodation, the AJ assumed Complainant was a qualified individual with a
disability. 	The 	AJ 	found 	that 	the 	Agency 	provided 	Complainant 	with 	an
accommodation that enabled her to perform the essential functions of her position.

2026001738	4
The record evidence showed that the Agency offered Complainant Modified Job
Assignments (Limited Duty) which provided Complainant with work that also
adhered to her medical restrictions. Further, there was no evidence in the record
showing Complainant’s medical restrictions required a stool for Complainant to
perform the essential functions of her limited duty job. The decision noted that an
employer is not required to create a job for a disabled employee, nor is it required
to transform its temporary light or limited-duty assignments into permanent jobs to
accommodate an employee's disability. See Mengine v. Runyon, 114 F. 3d 415,
418 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Woodard v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01A21682 (July 29, 2003); EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Workers Compensation
and the ADA, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 21 (September 3, 1996). The AJ
concluded that Complainant did not provide evidence showing that the Agency’s
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions were not the real reasons for
its actions.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged.
The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not file any arguments in support of
her appeal. In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency requests that the
Commission affirm the Agency’s final action adopting the AJ’s decision finding
that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination.
ANALYSIS
We determine whether the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing.
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing
upon 	finding 	that 	there 	is 	no 	genuine 	issue 	of 	material 	fact. 	29 	C.F.R.
§ 1614.109(g). EEOC’s decision without a hearing regulation follows the summary
judgment procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The U.S. Supreme
Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no genuine
issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a summary judgment
motion, the judge is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial, as
opposed to weighing the evidence. Id. at 249. At the summary judgment stage, the
judge must believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must draw justifiable
inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. A “genuine issue of fact” is

2026001738	5
one that a reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving party. Celotex
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d
103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A “material” fact has the potential to affect the outcome
of a case.
An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the
record has been adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal
No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). We carefully reviewed the record and find that it is
adequately developed. To successfully oppose a decision without a hearing,
Complainant must identify material facts of record that are in dispute or present
further material evidence establishing facts in dispute. Here, Complainant failed to
establish such a dispute. Therefore, the AJ’s issuance of a decision without a
hearing was appropriate.
Disparate Treatment
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the
three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish
a 	prima 	facie 	case by 	demonstrating 	that 	she was 	subjected 	to 	an 	adverse
employment 	action 	under 	circumstances 	that 	would 	support 	an 	inference 	of
discrimination. 	Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof
of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency
to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. 	Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 	133, 143
(2000); St. Mary's Hon. Ctr. 	v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 	502, 519 (1993); Tx. Dep’t of
Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981).
Assuming arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of disability and
reprisal discrimination, the Commission finds, the Agency articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. As described above, the Agency offered
Complainant modified job assignments that adhered to her medical restrictions.
Further, Manager explained that the Agency did not have more indoor work
available to provide Complainant. ROI at 00103.

2026001738	6
The Customer Service Supervisor (Supervisor) denied Complainant’s allegation
that two coworkers with medical restrictions, who did not have 2499 modified job
offers, would work eight hours. Supervisor stated that one of the coworkers had
been full-duty for the past year, and the other coworker worked four hours while
she had a reasonable accommodation. Id. at 00094-95. The record contains TACs
information 	showing 	hours 	worked 	per 	pay 	period 	for 	both 	coworkers 	that
generally 	support 	Supervisor’s 	statements. 	See 	ROI 	Exh. 	9. 	at 	00209-336.
Supervisor also denied Complainant’s allegation that a third coworker with a
reasonable accommodation 	also worked 8 	hours. Supervisor stated 	the third
coworker had not been on a 2499 modified job assignment and to her knowledge,
had not had any injury. ROI at 00095. Manager further explained that job offers
are based on the current medical information provided and are decided case-by-
case. Id. at 00105.
With regards to Complainant’s allegation that she was not allowed to use a stool,
Manager denied having knowledge of this allegation, but explained that for safety
reasons, one foot is required to remain flat on the ground. Id. at 00102. Aside from
Complainant’s 	mere 	speculations, 	the 	record 	evidence 	does 	not 	show 	that
management’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
Moreover, an agency has broad discretion to set policies and carry out personnel
decisions and should not be second-guessed by the reviewing authority, absent
evidence of unlawful motivation. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 259; Vanek v. Dep't of
the 	Treasury, 	EEOC 	Request 	No. 	05940906 	(Jan 	16, 	1997). 	We 	find 	that
Complainant failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s
reasons for its actions were pretext for discrimination.
Harassment and Retaliatory Harassment
To prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected
to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in
Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive.
Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of her protected
classes. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and
motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. See Henson v. City of
Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S.
17, 21 (1993). See also, Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,
EEOC Notice No. 915.064 (April 29, 2024).

2026001738	7
The 	threshold 	for 	establishing 	retaliatory 	harassment 	is 	different 	than 	for
discriminatory hostile work environment. 	For Complainant to prevail on her
allegation of retaliation, she must show that she (1) engaged in protected activity;
(2) she was subjected to a materially adverse action taken by her employer; and,
(3) there is a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse
action; and, (4) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues (Retaliation Guidance),
EEOC Notice No. 015.004, § II(B)(3) & n. 137 (Aug. 25, 2016).
Here, Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to harassment. As
described above, management offered Complainant the available work that was
within her medical restrictions. Management explained that a stool presented a
safety issue. Taken as a whole, we find the alleged incidents are not sufficiently
severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment. The Commission has
held that routine work assignments and instructions, such as the ones described
above, do not rise to the level of harassment because they are common workplace
occurrences. See Gray v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120091101 (May
13, 2010). Furthermore, aside from Complainant’s assertions, the record evidence
does not show that the alleged incidents were based on her protected EEO activity.
We find that Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to harassment
and retaliatory harassment as alleged.
Reasonable Accommodation
An agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical
and mental limitations of an individual with a disability unless the agency can
show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o)
and (p).
In 	order 	to 	establish 	that 	she 	was 	denied 	a 	reasonable 	accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined
by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is “qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See
EEOC 	Enforcement 	Guidance 	on 	Reasonable 	Accommodation 	and 	Undue
Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Enforcement Guidance on
Reasonable Accommodation), No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002).

2026001738	8
The Commission has held that management is not required to provide the precise
accommodation the employee wants, so long as the accommodation offered is an
effective one under the circumstances of the situation. See Linn L., v. Dept. of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151074 (June 2, 2017) (citing U.S.
Airways v. Barnett, 533 U.S. 391 (2002)). Additionally, the Commission has held
that 	employees 	must 	provide 	evidence 	demonstrating 	that 	the 	provided
accommodations and alternative accommodations were ineffective and show how
the requested accommodations are needed to enable the employee to perform the
duties of their position. See Craig G. v. Dept. of Homeland Security, EEOC
Appeal 	No. 	2021002012 	(July 	25, 	2022) 	(finding 	no 	denial 	of 	reasonable
accommodation when complainant did not provide evidence showing the provided
alternative accommodations were ineffective nor evidence demonstrating how the
requested accommodations were needed to enable complainant to perform the
duties of his position).
Assuming arguendo Complainant can show she is a qualified individual with a
disability, the record does not establish the Agency failed to provide her with an
effective accommodation. Management included the 20-minute breaks per hour
into her schedule, and provided Complainant with modified job offers within
Complainant’s work restrictions adhered to her medical restrictions. Additionally,
Complainant’s medical documentation does not show that Complainant needed to
use a stool to perform her duties and Manager stated a stool presented safety issues
because 	one 	foot 	needed 	to 	be 	on 	the 	ground 	while 	casing. 	We 	find 	that
Complainant has not shown that the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation.
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 subjected to
discrimination as alleged.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order
implementing the AJ’s decision.

2026001738	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
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.

2026001738	10
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.

2026001738	11
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 15, 2026
Date