EEOC Appeal 2025003192

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Noah W.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003192
Hearing No. 520202200441X
Agency No. 4B120010222
DECISION
Complainant 	timely 	appealed 	with 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the 	Agency’s 	June 	9, 	2025, 	final 	order 	concerning 	his 	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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 	For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by
the Agency as a Sales Services Distribution Associate, PS-06, for the Poughquag
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.

2025003192	2
Post Office in Poughquag, New York. Complainant’s first level supervisor was the
Poughquag Postmaster, EAS-18 (Postmaster), and his second level supervisor was
the Manager, Post Office Operations, EAS-23 (Manager).
On May 9, 2022, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment,
on the bases of race (White), sex (male), age (60), and reprisal (protected EEO
activity related to the instant complaint) when:
1. Beginning in March 2022 and ongoing, Postmaster (male, age 45, race
not specified) made lewd, sexist comments about customers; when
Complainant 	told 	him 	it 	is 	inappropriate, 	Postmaster 	called
Complainant names and told Complainant he can do whatever the
f—k he wants;
2. During the first few weeks of March 2022, Postmaster would remove
his pants and shirt and exercise in front of his computer, when
Complainant informed him that Complainant felt sexually harassed by
Postmaster being in his underwear, Postmaster belittled Complainant;
3. On March 7, 2022, and ongoing, Postmaster picked on Complainant
about his uniform;
4. On April 9, 2022, Management took away Complainant’s before-tour
overtime, and expected Complainant to clean the office during his
duties at the window;2
5. On May 8, 2022, a notice was posted stating all personal items at the
post office needed to be removed; and
6. On May 11, and May 16, 2022, Postmaster videotaped Complainant
and took photos of him.
2 Complainant also filed a grievance on the issue of whether cleaning must be done
during the employee’s scheduled shift or during overtime. 	The grievance was
placed in abeyance, pending the outcome of National Case No. Q10C4QC.

2025003192	3
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant timely requested a
hearing. The parties were provided with an opportunity to further develop the
record through discovery. The AJ initially assigned to the case issued a Discovery
Order directing the Agency to “produce any existing report by [OIG Inspector] and
contemporaneous notes produced as a part of the investigation into Complainant’s
allegations 	against 	[Postmaster].” 	The 	Discovery 	Order 	also 	permitted
Complainant to submit a notarized statement from his former supervisor. The
Discovery Order noted that neither party requested to depose any witnesses. The
parties complied with the Discovery Order, then the Agency filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Complainant filed a Response.
On May 13, 2025, the case was reassigned to another AJ. 	This AJ directed the
Agency to issue a Reply Brief to Complainant’s Response. 	The AJ then issued a
decision without a hearing (summary judgment) in favor of the Agency. The
Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s conclusion that Complainant failed
to 	prove 	discrimination 	as 	alleged. 	Complainant 	filed 	the 	instant 	appeal.
Complainant noted that the complaint file did not include the supplemental
evidence filed in response to the Discovery Order, so he uploaded the OIG
investigative file and the notarized letter from his former supervisor for the
Commission’s review. 	As these documents were already part of the hearing
record, we have considered them when rendering the instant decision.3
Summary Judgment
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when they
find that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g).
3 Complainant submitted a number of additional documents on appeal, most were
already contained in the ROI. Generally, no new evidence will be considered on
appeal unless there is an affirmative showing that the evidence was not reasonably
available prior to or during the investigation. See EEO MD-110 at Chap. 9, §
VI.A.3, Alphonse L. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004230
(Dec. 13, 2021), see also, e.g., Su v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No.
01A54895 (Jan. 5, 2006) (declining to review affidavit from the complainant’s
coworker, which the complainant provided on appeal). 	Therefore, we have not
considered any evidence that was not already in the ROI or hearing record.

2025003192	4
An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder
could find in favor of 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
fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. 	In
rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual
conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action
shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, §
VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will
both be reviewed de novo).
In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant
must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by
producing further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are
material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is
necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated
by discriminatory animus.
The record reflects that Postmaster began working at Poughquag on March 7,
2022, during an Agency-wide effort to standardize its facilities. Manager instructed
Postmaster to create a plan of action to standardize the Poughquag Post Office.
Aside from Complainant and Postmaster, the only other Poughquag employee was
a part-time Sales Services Distribution Associate, PS-06, (Coworker). As a smaller
post office, Poughquag was subject to the Agency’s Small Office Variance (SOV),
an operational model used to evaluate efficiency. Additionally, on April 4, 2022,
Poughquag underwent an on-site National Retail GEMBA Audit (GEMBA review)
to assess whether it met the Agency’s standardization requirements.
Applying SOV metrics, Postmaster determined that Poughquag was expending too
many overtime hours and risked exceeding its allotted amount. He saw that
Complainant was using one hour of overtime each day to clean prior to his tour.
Postmaster posted the following notice: “Effective April 9, 2022. There will be no
more overtime for cleaning. This will be done during normal business hours.”
Postmaster required Complainant to log off Retail Systems Software, RSS, and log
in under the custodial function for 3 hours per day. Meanwhile, Postmaster
performed Complainant’s clerk duties at the window.

2025003192	5
Postmaster was permitted to perform bargaining unit work (BUW) under the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Union and the Agency. Emails
reflect that prior to implementing his plan, Postmaster notified Manager, who did
not object.
On April 23, 2022, Postmaster placed the following notice by the time clock:
“Attention all employees: Effective May 8, 2022, due to the Retail and Operations
Field Support GEMBA on April 4, 2022, any personal items that are in the
Poughquag Post Office will be removed…Any personal items in the back office
not in an assigned locker shall be removed as well.” 	The GEMBA review
identified and photographed numerous deficiencies in standardization, including,
but not limited to, a basketball hoop in the parking lot, “non postal items at the
[clerk] window,” such as photographs and cards, trash bags, and boxes of items,
such as holiday décor, in the back of the office and outside the building. 	These
non-postal items were all attributed to Complainant, as well as items in the lobby
and in the storage shed in the parking lot. The record contains an April 13, 2022,
email where Postmaster sought guidance from upper management, regarding the
GEMBA review. 	In the ROI, Manager testified that he and Postmaster discussed
the matter and agreed that Complainant needed to remove his personal belongings
from the premises.
Meanwhile, on April 18, 2022, Postmaster emailed Manager and several other
Agency officials voicing concern about Complainant’s conduct, and that four of
the 	Poughquag 	security 	cameras 	were 	inoperable. 	Postmaster 	states 	that
Complainant boasted about taking legal action against prior management officials
who “crossed him,” and that he “sees and hears everything.” 	The record reflects
that Complainant had an excellent reputation with customers but had a history of
conflict with Management and Coworker. On April 21, 2022, Postmaster contacted
the Postal Inspector from the New York Inspection Service. The Postal Inspector,
as well as another Inspector and a Special Agent met with Postmaster the next day.
Postmaster felt physically threatened and was concerned that four security cameras
did not work. 	Postal Inspector advised Postmaster to call the police if he felt
threatened, and that he could record Complainant if he believed he was being
threatened. 	Complainant alleges that Postmaster videotaped or photographed him
on May 11, 12, 16, 18, 23, and 31, 2022, and June 1, 2022.
On May 5, 2022, Union Representative notified Manager that Postmaster was
creating a hostile work environment for Complainant.

2025003192	6
Manager also stated that Coworker reported that Complainant was causing a
hostile work environment. 	Manager initiated an Initial Management Inquiry
Process (IMIP), which was conducted by two postmasters from different Agency
facilities, from May 6 through 10, 2022. 	The IMIP contains interviews with
Complainant, Postmaster, Coworker, and a former postmaster. 	The IMIP reflects
that both Complainant and Postmaster contributed to the hostile work environment.
The OIG Report of Investigation (OIG Report) the Agency provided during
discovery, also reflects that Complainant and Postmaster both contributed to the
hostile 	work 	environment. 	However, 	the 	OIG 	Report 	also 	confirms 	that
Postmaster acted inappropriately by, among other things, displaying an offensive
magnet at his workspace, hitting on customers, and staring at customers and
Coworker. In or around June 2022, Postmaster was reassigned to a different
facility.
Hostile Work Environment
To establish a prima facie case of harassment, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not), the existence of five
elements: (1) he is a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected
to unwelcome conduct related to his protected class; (3) that the harassment
complained of was based on his protected class; (4) that the harassment had the
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with his work performance and/or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) that there
is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Celine B. v. Dep’t of Navy,
EEOC Appeal No. 2019001961 (Sept. 21, 2020); Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). See also Henson v. City of Dundee,
682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982), approved in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477
U.S. 57, 66-67 (1986); Flowers v. Southern Reg’l Physician Serv. Inc., 247 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2001). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective
viewpoint 	of 	a 	reasonable 	person 	in 	the 	victim’s 	circumstances. 	Oncale 	v.
Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998).
As an initial matter, Complainant did not set forth sufficient evidence that Claim 1
(inappropriate comments) and Claim 2 (exercised in underwear), occurred as
alleged. Postmaster denies the allegations, and there are no witness statements.
Complainant had an opportunity to engage in discovery; therefore, his bare
assertions are insufficient to overcome summary judgment.

2025003192	7
See Corrina M. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004709 	(Apr. 22,
2021) (the complainant’s sworn testimony that her supervisor made comments and
taunts indicative of discriminatory animus, was insufficient to overcome summary
judgment because the complainant, despite an opportunity to engage in discovery,
did not offer any supporting evidence that the taunts and comments occurred as
alleged.); Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir. 2000) (“At
summary judgment stage . . . unsupported allegations do not create a material issue
of fact”). Complainant references the OIG Report and the IMIP documents as
supporting evidence. These documents establish that Postmaster acted in a manner
that made female customers uncomfortable, and that Postmaster and Complainant
had a contentious working relationship, they do not support the factuality of
Claims 1 and 2.
Applying the 	prima facie 	analysis, Complainant has not established that the
harassment was based on any of his protected classes with respect to Claim 3
(picked on about uniform), Claim 4 (elimination of pre-tour overtime, required to
perform custodial duties) and Claim 5 (directive to remove personal items) because
the Agency presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for these actions.
Namely, Postmaster was working to comply with and implement Agency-wide
standards. 	Supporting 	evidence 	includes 	contemporaneous 	emails 	between
Postmaster 	and 	Management, 	and 	a 	copy 	of 	the 	GEMBA 	audit 	results.
Complainant does not provide any evidence of a dispute of a material fact
regarding the Agency’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.
Alternatively, we find that Postmaster’s actions in Claims 3, 4, and 5 do not
constitute 	harassment 	because 	they 	were 	taken 	within 	the 	exercise 	of 	his
managerial authority to ensure efficient and orderly operations. Sandy S. v. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2022000765 (Feb. 14, 2023) citing Erika
H. v. Dep’t of Transport., EEOC Appeal No. 0120151781 (Jun. 16, 2017). We
emphasize that while an employee may prefer certain assignments over others, or
have a different idea about how operations should be run, “these are not issues
which should be pursued in the EEO complaint process since decision makers in
the complaint process cannot substitute their judgment on how to run the day to
day operations of an Agency for that of the managers involved.” Dewitt L. v. Dep’t
of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160682 (May 3, 2016).
Likewise, Complainant has not established a prima facie case of harassment for
Claim 	6, 	as 	he 	offers 	no 	evidence 	of 	discriminatory 	or 	retaliatory 	motive.

2025003192	8
Postmaster explains that he took photos and videos because he felt physically
threatened by Complainant, and feared Complainant would harm his reputation by
“telling stories.” 	The record reflects that Postmaster believed, based on his
discussion with an OIG Investigator, that he was permitted to photograph or video
Complainant when he felt threatened by Complainant. The Agency supports
Postmaster’s explanation with evidence, including statements from Postmaster, the
OIG Inspector, prior postmasters, and Manager, along with the IMIP documents
and the OIG Report. Complainant set forth no evidence to indicate a question of
material fact to indicate that Postmaster was motivated by discriminatory or
retaliatory animus.
Considering the totality of the record, the image that emerges is one of conflicts
and 	tensions 	regarding 	Postmaster’s 	managerial 	decision-making 	that 	left
Complainant feeling aggrieved. See 	Cathy V. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC
Appeal No. 2021001646 (Aug. 31, 2022) (“[T]he statutes under the Commission's
jurisdiction do not protect an employee against adverse treatment due simply to a
supervisor's personality quirks or autocratic attitude.”) Discrimination statutes
prohibit only harassing behavior that is directed at an employee because of their
protected bases. Id. Complainant has not established a question of material fact to
indicate that the Agency acted with discriminatory motivation.
Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
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.

2025003192	9
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 (R0124)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of
your complaint. 	However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to
file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90)
calendar days from the date that you receive this decision.

2025003192	10
In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180)
calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your
appeal with the Commission. 	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. 	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 22, 2026
Date