EEOC Appeal 2026003160

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Malinda F.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003160
Hearing No. 830-2026-02398X
Agency No. 4J-630-11963-25
DECISION
On June 22, 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 May 27, 2026, final order 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. 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 finding no discrimination.
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.

2026003160	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Lead
Mail Processing Clerk, Level 07, at the Agency’s HAZ-Hazelwood FIN S facility in
Maryland Heights, Missouri. 	On September 8, 2025, Complainant filed a formal
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race
(African American), sex (female), color (black), and age (over 40) when on July 7,
2025, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW).
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 (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing before an AJ.
On April 29, 2026, the AJ issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating her intent to
issue a summary judgment order in favor of the Agency. Complainant submitted a
response opposing the NOI. On May 13, 2026, the AJ issued a decision without a
hearing entering judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency subsequently issued
a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal
followed.
We agree with the AJ’s determination that the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory 	reasons 	for 	its 	decision 	to 	issue 	Complainant 	a 	LOW.
Complainant stated that the Supervisor of Customer Services (Supervisor) was the
management official who issued her the Letter of Warning (LOW) dated June 25,
2025, but that Manager of Customer Services (Manager) was the management
official who ordered Supervisor to issue the letter. Complainant reported that
Manager instructed Supervisor to issue Complainant the LOW dated June 25, 2025,
for Failure to Follow Instructions to attend scheduled meetings on June 5 and 12,
2025.
Supervisor stated that she was the management official responsible for issuing
Complainant the LOW for Failure to Follow Instructions. Supervisor said that she
discussed the issue with the Postmaster prior to issuing the letter to Complainant.
Supervisor 	said 	the 	LOW 	was 	issued 	because 	on 	two 	separate 	occasions
Complainant did not follow her instructions to provide a list of her duties and
responsibilities at the Union hall and she failed to report to the Maryland Heights
Post Office for a Pre-Disciplinary Interview.

2026003160	3
Manager stated that she was not the management official responsible for issuing
Complainant the LOW and denied that she instructed Supervisor to issue the letter
to Complainant. She said the LOW was issued because Complainant did not follow
instructions and failed to report to the Maryland Heights Post Office for a Pre-
Disciplinary Interview.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, and construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, we find that a reasonable factfinder 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
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. 	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).

2026003160	4
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.

2026003160	5
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 __________ 	Gul Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 29, 2026
Date