EEOC Appeal 2025001233

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Cristobal F.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025001233
Agency No. 4J-440-0114-24
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
December 23, 2024 final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint of 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 decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Carrier
Technician at the Poland Post Office in Youngstown, Ohio.
On July 17, 2024, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the basis of disability (Plantar Fascial Fibromatosis and
Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome) when:
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.

2025001233	2
1. On or around April 24, 2024, management conducted an Investigative
Interview and subsequently, on or around May 7, 2024, he was issued a
Letter of Warning for Unsatisfactory Attendance;
2. On 	July 	25, 	2024, 	he 	was 	issued 	a 	Seven-Day 	Suspension 	for
Unsatisfactory Attendance; and
3. Since February 2024, and continuing, management has failed to act on his
request for reasonable accommodation.
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. 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). In the decision, the Agency concluded
that Complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
The instant appeal followed.
Here, the record demonstrates that Complainant had no work restrictions during the
period at issue. 	Complainant’s medical documentation, however, indicated that
Complainant could possibly have absences of from one to three days when his
condition flared up. The documentation did not identify the potential frequency of
the flare-ups or the severity of the flare-ups. Complainant maintains that the Agency
should have reasonably accommodated him by essentially excusing his frequent
unscheduled absences. Such a request for an open-ended ability to report to work (or
call in absent) only when he felt able to do so, is not reasonable on its face. See Tom
S. v. Dep’t of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180345 (Dec. 18, 2019).
Even assuming arguendo that management and other officials failed to properly
engage in the interactive process with Complainant, we note that the Commission
has held that an agency cannot be held liable solely for a failure to engage in the
interactive process, and liability for a failure to engage occurs only when the failure
to engage in the interactive process results in an agency's failure to provide
reasonable accommodation. 	Broussard v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01997106 (Sept. 13, 2002), req. to reconsid. den’d, EEOC Request No. 05A30114
(Jan. 9, 2003). 	Thus, we find that even if the Agency failed to engage in the
interactive process, Complainant has not shown that this failure deprived him of a
reasonable accommodation.

2025001233	3
With 	respect 	to 	the 	claims 	involving 	discipline 	(i.e., 	letter 	of 	warning 	and
suspension) issued by management, we find that Complainant has not proffered
sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Agency's explanation for its actions was
pretext for discrimination. 	Management officials explained that they issued the
discipline at issue based on Complainant’s failure to be regular in attendance and
excessive use of unscheduled leave. 	We note that an employer may discipline an
employee with a disability for engaging in misconduct if it would impose the same
discipline on an employee without a disability. Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable
Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002).
Therefore, based on our review of the record, including Complainant’s arguments
on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final 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).
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.

2025001233	4
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.
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.

2025001233	5
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 21, 2026
Date