EEOC Appeal 2026002663

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Estelle H.,1
Complainant,
v.
David Steiner,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Field Areas and Regions),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026002663
Hearing No. 833-2026-00386X
Agency No. 4E-920-02615-25
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal 	with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's final action dated May 12,
2026, 	implementing 	the 	decision 	of 	an 	EEOC 	Administrative 	Judge 	(AJ),
dismissing her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the reasons set forth herein, we
AFFIRM the Agency’s final action.
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.

2 	2026002663
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s
facility in Loma Linda, California. On February 4, 2025, Complainant filed a formal
complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on
disability and age. Complaint File at 138.2
The Agency issued an initial final decision on February 27, 2025, dismissing the
complaint for failure to state a claim. 	Complaint File at 195-197. 	The Agency
reasoned that Complainant’s claim was a collateral attack on the Department of
Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Program (OWCP). 	Complaint File at
195-196. 	Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission. 	The Commission
reversed the Agency’s final decision and remanded the matter to the Agency for
further processing.3 EEOC Appeal No. 2025002356 (Sept. 4, 2025), Complaint File
at 18-22.
Upon completion of the investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an
EEOC AJ. On April 20, 2026, the Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint in
its Entirety (Agency’s Motion). 	Complaint File at 44-51. 	On April 30, 2026,
Complainant filed a response to the Agency’s Motion.
On May 7, 2026, the AJ issued a Dismissal Order, dismissing the complaint on
procedural grounds. 	Complaint File at 34-36. 	The AJ framed the claims in the
following fashion:
Whether Complainant was subjected to discrimination based on age
and disability when 1) On October 5, 18, 19, 2024-November 29, 2024,
and March 8, 10-12, and 21, 2025, management incorrectly entered her
clock rings.4 Complaint File at 34.
2 Our citations to the Complaint File reference the page number of the pdf document
before us on appeal.
3 In EEOC Appeal No. 2025002356, we reasoned that Complainant alleged that the
matter was not related to OWCP and she did not reference COP in her formal
complaint.
4 The AJ’s April 6, 2026, Case Management Order Following Initial Conference also
set forth that the parties agreed that this was the claim at issue in the instant matter.

3 	2026002663
The AJ dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim reasoning that the matter
was a collateral attack on the OWCP process. 	The AJ found that the clock ring
entries 	that 	Complainant 	challenges 	concern 	dates 	that 	she 	was 	coded 	as
Continuation of Pay (COP). 	Complaint File at 36. 	The AJ reasoned that claims
involving improper coding of COP are governed by the OWCP process. Complaint
File at 35-36. The AJ also dismissed the matter concerning the March 2025 dates
on the grounds that a final decision had already been issued on this matter regarding
a separate EEO complaint, Agency Case No. 4E-920-07118-25.5 Complaint File at
35-36.
On May 12, 2026, the Agency issued a final action implementing the AJ’s decision
dismissing the complaint. Complaint File at 30-31.
On appeal, Complaint requests that we reverse the AJ’s dismissal and remand the
matter for a hearing. Complaint File at 11. Complainant generally asserts that this
is not an OWCP matter and that she deliberately received less pay.
In response, the Agency asserts that Complainant’s clock rings from October 5,
2024-November 20, 2024, reflect that she was coded as COP. 	Thus, the Agency
asserts that these dates are a collateral attack on the OWCP process. Agency’s Brief
at 3. Regarding the dates in March 2025, the Agency asserts that these dates were
also coded as COP and part of the OWCP process.6 Id. 	Finally, for dates in late
November 2024, when Complainant returned to work, the Agency set forth that
Complainant has not shown she was aggrieved because clock rings indicate she was
approved for overtime on some of those dates. Id.
The Agency’s decision to dismiss a complaint is subject to de novo review by the
Commission, which requires the Commission to examine the record without regard
to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker and issue its
5 The AJ found these matters were barred under the doctrine of res judicata and
Commission Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) that complaints that state the
same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or Commission
shall be dismissed. Complaint File at 35.
6 The Agency also sets forth that a final decision has been issued regarding the March
2025 dates which was part of a separate EEO complaint, Agency Case No. 4E-920-
07118-25. Complainant’s Brief at 3.

4 	2026002663
decision 	based 	on 	the Commission’s 	own 	assessment 	of the record 	and 	its
interpretation of the law. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). The Commission should construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the complainant and take the complaint’s
allegations as true. 	See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No.
05970077 (March 13, 1997). Thus, all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from
the complaint’s allegations must be made in favor of the complainant.
The AJ properly dismissed this matter for failure to state a claim. 	The record
contains a copy of the Agency’s Leave Year 2024 Absence Analysis. This document
reflects that from October 5-November 20, 2024, Complainant was coded as either
her scheduled day off (SDO) or COP. Complaint File at 112. In addition, regarding
the March 2025 dates at issue in the instant matter, the record contains a copy of the
Agency’s Leave Year 2025 Absence Analysis. 	Complaint File at 106. 	This
document also reflects that Complainant was coded as either SDO or COP during
the March 2025 dates at issues.
Generally, the Commission considers an allegation regarding the processing of an
OWCP claim, even when the allegation concerns the actions of agency management
officials, to be an impermissible collateral attack on the OWCP adjudicatory process.
Lorita S. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2023001911 (Aug. 8, 2023). We
have previously found that improper coding relating to COP also constitutes a
collateral attack on the OWCP process. See Charles M. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 2022000218 (Jan. 18, 2022). Thus, to the extent Complainant is alleging
that she received improper pay or that her clock rings were not properly entered on
the dates she was coded as COP, we find these matters are properly dismissed for
failure to state a claim and are a collateral attack on the OWCP process.
Regarding the remaining few dates in late November 2024, Complainant has not
established how she was aggrieved on these dates. 	For example, the Employee
Everything Report reflects that Complainant’s clock rings indicate she received
overtime for several dates in late November 2024. Complaint File at 122. Based on
the foregoing, we find the remaining dates at issue are properly dismissed for failure
to state a claim because Complainant has not established, subsequent to an
investigation, that she is aggrieved with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of
employment.

5 	2026002663
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	herein, 	we 	AFFIRM 	the 	Agency’s 	final 	action
implementing the AJ’s Order of Dismissal.7
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. 	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.
7 Because we affirm the AJ’s decision for the reasons set forth herein, we need not
address the AJ’s alternate grounds for dismissal.

6 	2026002663
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. 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.

7 	2026002663
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 17, 2026
Date