EEOC Appeal 2025000032

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
January B.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000032
Agency No. 4E-913-0031-24
DECISION
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
September 12, 2024 final decision 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. 	For
the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Postmaster, EAS-18, at the Agency’s Post Office in Cambria, 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.

2025000032	2
On April 3, 2024, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of sex (female/pregnancy)
when:
1. On April 10, 2023, Complainant inquired about the Templeton Post
Office and was told to apply for the position;
2. On July 18, 2023, Complainant’s request via email to be detailed as
Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and/or lateral into the Creston Post Office was
not addressed;
3. On August 8, 2023, Complainant’s request via email to OIC in Creston
Post Office to assist with her pregnancy was not granted. Complainant
stated that on August 9, 2023, Manager-1 stated someone was covering
the office; and
4. On December 22, 2023, Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to
apply 	for 	the 	Postmaster 	position 	at 	the 	Creston 	Post 	Office 	and
Complainant’s request for a lateral assignment was not granted.
On April 23, 2024, the Agency accepted claim 4 for investigation and dismissed
claims 1 – 3 pursuant to 29 C.F.R § 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO Counselor
contact. 	The Agency noted that Complainant’s initial contact was on January 3,
2024, which was beyond the 45-day time limit for the events at issue in claims 1 –
3.
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. 	When Complainant did not request a
hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency
issued 	a final 	decision 	pursuant 	to 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	The decision
concluded 	that 	Complainant 	failed 	to 	prove 	that 	she 	was 	subjected 	to
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), 	the 	Agency's 	decision 	is 	subject 	to 	de 	novo 	review 	by 	the
Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 	See Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5,
2015) 	(explaining 	that 	the 	de 	novo 	standard 	of 	review 	“requires 	that 	the

2025000032	3
Commission 	examine 	the 	record 	without 	regard 	to 	the 	factual 	and 	legal
determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant
submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
ANALYSIS
Timeliness
EEOC 	Regulation 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.105(a)(1) 	requires 	that 	complaints 	of
discrimination 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 personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.
The Commission has adopted a “reasonable suspicion” standard (as opposed to a
“supportive facts” standard) to determine when the 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.
We find that the Agency properly dismissed claims 1 – 3 for untimely EEO
counselor contact. 	Regarding claims 1 – 3, the record supports that Complainant
had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination as of April 10, July 18, and August 9,
2023, respectively. As Complainant initiated EEO counselor contact on January 3,
2024, 	dismissal 	of 	claims 	1 	– 	3 	for 	untimely 	EEO 	counselor 	contact 	was
appropriate.
Disparate Treatment
Regarding the alleged discriminatory non-selection, we find Complainant failed to
establish a prima facie case. 	A prima facie case of discriminatory non-selection
may be established by showing: (1) the complainant is a member of a protected
group; (2) the complainant applied and was qualified for a position for which the
employer was seeking applicants; (3) that complainant was not selected for the
position; and (4) that an applicant not in complainant's protected group was chosen
for the position under circumstances that, if explained, would support an inference
of discrimination.

2025000032	4
Emery S. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., EEOC Appeal No. 2020001130 (Sept. 11,
2020) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).
In the instant case, the record establishes that Complainant failed to apply for the
position, meaning that Complainant cannot establish the second element of the
prima facie case. Furthermore, the record does not establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Agency posted the job opening in such a manner that
Complainant could not apply for the position. 	Rather, the record shows that a
Human Resources (HR) Specialist, who was unaware of Complainant’s interest in
the upcoming vacancy or Complainant’s sex or pregnancy, posted the vacancy in
October 2023 which happened to coincide with Complainant’s leave related to
childbirth.
Regarding the denial of Complainant’s request for a lateral reassignment in
December 2023, Manager-1 stated that Complainant could not lateral into the
position because the position had already been filled. After a review of the record,
we find Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reason for the
action was a mere pretext for discrimination. 	Complainant failed to present any
evidence on which to question the Agency’s asserted reason for the denial in
December 2023 other than her own beliefs and assertions.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s decision finding no discrimination.
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.

2025000032	5
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.
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.

2025000032	6
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 24, 2026
Date