EEOC Appeal 2026002179

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Myron S.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002179
Hearing No. 471-2025-00098X
Agency No. 1D-445-06783-25
DECISION
On April 26, 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 April 1, 2026, final order concerning his equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of 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.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Motor
Vehicle Operator at the Agency’s Toledo Post Office in Toledo, Ohio.
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.

2026002179	2
On May 19, 2025, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of disability (physical) and reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when: On or around October 8, 2024, he was issued a Notice
of Removal, which became effective on March 31, 2025.
Complainant stated that he has filed three previous EEO complaints. See Report of
Investigation (ROI) at 55. He asserted that he was injured at work on March 2, 2024,
and was not cleared to work until June 24, 2024 and although he provided medical
documentation to management for his absence from work, management denied
receiving any documentation. 	See ROI at 55; 58. 	The record includes a Work
Activity 	Status 	Report 	dated 	March 	22, 	2024, 	which 	noted 	that 	among
Complainant’s restrictions are “no commercial driving.” 	See ROI at 64. 	He also
attached a Limited Duty form dated March 26, 2024, which noted that there were no
jobs available within Complainant’s restrictions. See ROI at 65. Complainant did
not submit proof of his contention that he provided medical documentation to
management officials to justify his months-long absence from work.
The Supervisor stated that she knew that Complainant claimed he was injured at
work in March 2024 and was attending physical therapy but stated that she did not
have any medical documentation and was not aware of Complainant’s limitations.
See ROI at 93. She asserted that she has not seen or heard from Complainant since
March 2024 and he never called out to explain his absence from work. See ROI at
94. The Manager stated that he issued the Notice of Removal because Complainant
had been Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for a total of 488 hours between April 1,
2024, and July 31, 2024 and he has an extensive history of being injured on the job.
See ROI at 69-70; 116-17. He asserted that Complainant was repeatedly sent letters
asking him to 	provide documentation 	to 	justify his 	continuing 	absence, 	but
Complainant never did so. 	See ROI at 117. 	He further disputed Complainant’s
assertion that he was not provided with a scheduled time to report to work because
schedules are always posted weekly. See ROI at 118.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant timely requested a hearing
before an AJ.
Subsequently, the AJ notified the parties sua sponte of his intent to issue a decision
without a hearing and gave the parties the opportunity to respond.

2026002179	3
The Agency responded in favor of the AJ’s proposed summary judgment while
Complainant did not file a response. The AJ issued a decision by summary judgment
in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. The instant appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant argues that the investigation was incomplete because the
investigator did not interview his suggested witnesses 	and also because the
investigation did not properly consider all his past EEO complaints to provide a
complete record of the continuing harassment the Agency subjected him to. 	In
response, the Agency filed a brief urging affirmance of the AJ’s decision.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, 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 (EEO
MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard
of review “requires that the 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”); see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 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).
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). 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);
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). A fact is “material”
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Id. When considering
summary judgment, facts and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009).

2026002179	4
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. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24; see
also EEO MD-110, at Chap. 7, § III.E. 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. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such
a dispute. In addition, to the extent Complainant insists that the investigation was
inadequate because it did not interview all of his suggested witnesses, we reject
Complainant’s contention. The Commission has stated repeatedly that an EEO
Investigator is not necessarily obligated to pursue all of a complainant’s suggestions
regarding how the investigation is conducted. See Sid E. v. Dep’t of Transp., EEOC
Appeal No. 2019002597 (Sept. 22, 2020). Moreover, we note that Complainant did
not identify what additional information such witnesses would have provided that
was not already in the record. Upon our review of the record, we find that the AJ
correctly determined that Complainant failed to establish a dispute of material fact
and properly granted summary judgment.
We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions and Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s reasons are a pretext for
discrimination. Here, Complainant does not dispute that he was absent from work
for months following his injury in March 2024, only arguing that contrary to the
management officials’ statements, he provided medical documentation to justify his
absences. We note, however, that Complainant did not provide evidence supporting
his assertions that he provided sufficient medical documentation to the Agency. In
any event, we note that in a discrimination case involving an adverse action in
response to alleged misconduct, the question is not whether the misconduct
occurred, but whether the Agency’s asserted belief that the misconduct occurred is
a pretext for discrimination. See Ezequiel P. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2021002377 (March 28, 2022). To the extent that Complainant appears to argue that
his excessive absences should be excused because they were caused by his medical
condition, we note that an Agency is not obligated to excuse misconduct, even if the
past misconduct was based on the employee’s disability. See Gena C. v. Dep’t of
the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2024002902 (May 13, 2024).

2026002179	5
Finally, the Commission has repeatedly held that an Agency has broad discretion to
carry out personnel decisions, such as disciplinary decisions, and should not be
second-guessed by the reviewing authority absent evidence of unlawful motivation,
which is not present here. See Howerton v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No.
0120113177 (June 12, 2013).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable fact-finder could
not find in Complainant’s favor. 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 discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision.
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).

2026002179	6
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. 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.

2026002179	7
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 16, 2026
Date