EEOC Appeal 2026002720

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Cassondra S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Request No. 2026002720
Appeal No. 2026001237
Agency No. 4J-630-01921-26
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2026001237
(May 21, 2026). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c).
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.

2026002720	2
At the time of events, giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Rural
Carrier, at the Agency’s Post Office facility in Sterling, Kansas. On January 8, 2026,
Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination on the basis of disability (unspecified) and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when:
1. Since April 2023, Complainant has not been accommodated in accordance
with her medical restrictions when she has not permitted to return to work;
2. On or around September 22, 2023, a grievance settlement stated Complainant
would be made whole, but that has not happened;
3. On unspecified dates, management delayed or interfered with the grievance
procedure;
4. On an unspecified date, Complainant was issued a 14-Day Suspension, based
on fabricated past discipline that does not exist;
5. On various dates management sent Complainant letters instructing her to
report for Fitness for Duty exams; and
6. On unspecified dates, Complainant’s P.O. Box, and then her home, were
surveilled and monitored by management.
Our previous decision affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Claims 1, 4, and 5 for
asserting the same claims as were raised in prior complaints. We also affirmed the
Agency’s dismissal of Claims 2 and 3 for constituting a collateral attack on the
grievance process and failing to state a claim. Finally, we affirmed the Agency’s
dismissal of Claim 6 for failure to state a claim as Complainant had not suffered a
harm or loss to a term, condition, or privilege of her employment and any purported
harassment was neither severe nor pervasive enough to state a claim.
We have reviewed the various arguments raised by Complainant in the instant
request 	for 	reconsideration. 	However, 	we 	can 	find 	no 	basis 	to 	disturb 	the
Commission’s 	prior 	decision. 	Complainant 	presents 	arguments 	which 	were
previously raised and considered or could have been raised during the original
appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a
second appeal. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29

2026002720	3
C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VII.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez
v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a
reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a
substantial 	impact 	on 	the 	policies, 	practices, 	or 	operations 	of 	the 	Agency.
Complainant has not done so here. Thus, we conclude that Complainant has not
presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s
previous decision.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds
that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No.
2026001237 remains the Commission’s decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0124)
This 	decision 	of 	the 	Commission 	is 	final, and 	there 	is 	no 	further 	right 	of
administrative appeal from the Commission’s decision. 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.
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

2026002720	4
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 28, 2026
Date