0120102630
07-26-2012
Alicia Fletcher, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Alicia Fletcher,
Complainant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120102630
Agency No. 200H-0561-2009101545
DECISION
On June 8, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's April 27, 2010, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission MODIFIES the Agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-6, Patient Service Assistant probationary employee at the Agency's work facility in Lyons, New Jersey.
On May 9, 2009, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein she claimed that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female), age (44), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when:
1. Complainant was treated in a disparate manner regarding disciplinary action when on January 14, 2009, management issued her a Letter of Counseling for inappropriate behavior and being Absent Without Leave (AWOL).
2. Complainant was treated in a disparate manner when on February 13, 2009, she was terminated from her Patient Services Assistant position during her probationary period.
Complainant also claimed that she was subjected to harassment based on her age, sex and reprisal when:
1. On October 22, 2008, a coworker sexually assaulted her.
2. On or about October 23, 2008, management failed to follow appropriate procedures in the investigation of Complainant's allegation of sexual harassment.
3. On an unspecified date in December 2008, Complainant's lunch hour was changed.
4. On January 14, 2009, Complainant was issued a Letter of Counseling for inappropriate behavior and being Absent Without Leave (AWOL).
5. On February 13, 2009, Complainant was terminated from her Patient Services Assistant position during her probationary period.
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). 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).
The Agency determined that Complainant failed to prove that it subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Final Agency Decision at 18. The Agency determined with regard to claim (1) that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. Id. at 12. According to the Agency, a similarly situated younger employee, age 35, received the same treatment as Complainant for engaging in inappropriate behavior and for being AWOL. Id. at 13. The Agency also determined that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination as there is no evidence that a similarly situated male employee was treated more favorably. Id. The Agency determined that Complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal with regard to the issuance of the Letter of Counseling. Id.
The Agency further determined that it articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for issuing Complainant the Letter of Counseling. Id. The Agency explained that the Letter of Counseling was issued to Complainant in response to Complainant rudely informing a coworker that it was not her job to give Complainant instructions on what she needed to do. Id. With regard to Complainant being AWOL, the Agency stated that Complainant was away from her desk from 4:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. even though Complainant was only entitled to a half hour lunch break and two fifteen minute breaks. Id. at 4. Complainant also received another written counseling dated January 14, 2009, which charged her with inappropriate behavior for engaging a coworker in a loud argument while others were taking calls from patients seeking to schedule appointments. Id. at 13. The Agency explained that a memorandum had been issued to Complainant and her coworkers instructing them to maintain an appropriate noise level while other staff fielded telephone calls. Id. The Agency rejected Complainant's arguments to establish pretext. Id. at 13-14. The Agency noted that Complainant claimed that her allegation of the sexual assault on October 22, 2008, resulted in her being subjected to disparate treatment. Id. at 14. However, the Agency stated that management began counseling Complainant about various workplace issues in early April 2008, several months before her report of the alleged sexual assault. Id.
With regard to Complainant's termination, the Agency determined that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of age or sex discrimination. Id. The Agency stated that a similarly situated younger employee, age 38, received a letter terminating her employment during her probationary period for disrespectful conduct toward a supervisor, failure to follow proper leave procedures, unauthorized absence and inappropriate conduct. Id. The Agency stated that there is no evidence that a similarly situated male employee was treated more favorably. Id. The Agency determined that Complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal. Id. The Agency reasoned that Complainant was terminated effective February 13, 2009, within a few months of Complainant complaining of the aforementioned sexual assault. Id. at 14-15.
The Agency determined that it articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Complainant during her probationary period. Id. at 15. The Agency explained that Complainant was terminated primarily due to her unacceptable performance and attendance. Id. According to the Agency, Complainant's mid-year performance appraisal, dated October 8, 2008, indicated that she had performed at a less than fully successful level in the area designated Administrative Duties and Functions. Id. An Agency competency assessment, also dated October 8, 2008, specified that Complainant needed to improve in areas forming her primary job functions: Accuracy in patient appointment scheduling and organization of records. Id. With respect to Complainant's attendance, a written counseling memorandum, dated October 31, 2008, informed Complainant that she needed to improve her attendance if she was to remain in her position. Id. The Agency noted that Complainant had received twenty written letters of counseling and numerous verbal counselings regarding her inability to answer an adequate number of incoming phone calls and scheduling errors. Id. The Agency determined that Complainant failed to establish that the aforementioned reasons for her termination were pretext. Id. The Agency stated that Complainant's sex, age, or the reporting of the alleged sexual assault were not factors in her termination. Id. The Agency noted that Complainant began having problems with performance and attendance in April 2008, several months before she reported the alleged sexual assault. Id.
With regard to Complainant's claim concerning the change in her lunch hour schedule, the Agency determined that management articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for reducing the duration of Complainant's lunch break from 45 minutes to 30 minutes. Id. According to the Agency, the lunch break for the entire Centralized Scheduling staff was reduced in order to bring their office in compliance with Agency regulations. Id. Thus, the Agency determined that the lunch break change affected not only Complainant, but the entire staff. Id. The Agency determined that there is no evidence that management subjected Complainant to disparate treatment with regard to any of the alleged bases in this claim. Id.
Complainant claimed that on October 22, 2008, a coworker sexually assaulted her. Id. at 17. The Agency dismissed this claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) on the grounds that Complainant failed to initiate contact with an EEO Counselor in a timely manner. 1 Id. at 2. The Agency stated that Complainant elected not to pursue the matter any further after she raised the incident with a management official the day after it occurred. Id. 1-2. According to the Agency, Complainant subsequently initiated contact with an EEO Counselor on January 30, 2009, the same day that she received a notice of termination. Id. at 2. The Agency noted that in order to be timely, the incident had to be raised with an EEO Counselor no later than December 6, 2008. Id.
As to the claim of harassment concerning management's alleged failure to follow appropriate procedures in the investigation of Complainant's allegation of sexual harassment, the Agency noted that the investigation of the matter revealed no evidence to support a finding that sexual harassment occurred. Id. at 17. The Agency explained that Complainant contacted her supervisor the day after the alleged harassment and on October 24, 2008, accepted an apology from the alleged harasser. Id. The Agency stated that its investigation revealed that none of the witnesses heard or observed either party say or do anything inappropriate. Id. The Agency determined that management took prompt, effective action in addressing Complainant's concerns. Id. According to the Agency, management advised Complainant of her right to pursue this matter through the EEO process. Id. The Agency stated that the alleged harasser worked in another area of the facility and therefore separating the involved parties resulted in the alleged harasser not returning to Complainant's work area. Id. The Agency noted that Complainant elected not to pursue the matter by filing an official Agency police complaint or by contacting the EEO Office. Id. The Agency further noted that Complainant claimed that she did not pursue the EEO process because she was unaware of the availability of EEO counseling. Id. The Agency rejected Complainant's position by stating that Complainant had received EEO training and that copies of the Agency's sexual harassment policy poster are conspicuously displayed throughout the facility. Id. The Agency reasoned that Complainant initially elected not to pursue a sexual harassment claim and then changed her mind upon learning of her impending termination. Id.
As to Complainant's claim of harassment with regard to the issuance of the counseling letter, the adjustment of her lunch hour schedule and her termination, the Agency determined that Complainant's claim consists solely of her dissatisfaction with management's job-related decisions. Id. at 18. The Agency relied on its disparate treatment analysis in deciding that it is unnecessary to review the alleged conduct as harassment merely because Complainant has labeled it that. Id. Nevertheless, the Agency determined that Complainant was not subjected to harassment. Id.
On appeal, Complainant notes that the Agency failed to indicate in the record whether the coworker involved in the verbal discussion with her received a letter of counseling for inappropriate behavior. As for receiving an AWOL for being away from her desk, Complainant questions whether the relevant management official could have determined that she was not physically at her desk between 4:30 PM and 5:45 PM given that this official is not in the same office area as her. Complainant maintains that she left her desk at 4:55 PM for her 15 minute break and then promptly returned to her desk.
With respect to her termination, Complainant disputes the Agency's assertion that she was issued notices of deficiencies in her work activities with verbal counseling and written letters of counseling. Complainant maintains that after she reported the alleged sexual harassment to management, there was a shift in her job approval ratings and subsequently the Agency instituted the termination action. As to her sexual harassment claim, Complainant argues that the Supervisor of Centralized Scheduling failed to properly investigate a harmful or offensive touching, sexually explicit verbal communication and physically threatening incident. According to Complainant, this official arranged a private meeting on October 24, 2008, between Complainant and the alleged harasser, thereby subjecting Complainant to more harm and intimidation after Complainant was threatened by the alleged harasser's verbal comments. Complainant states that she reported to management officials that the alleged harasser had approached her office area on several occasions making lewd and sexually explicit comments that caused her fear and intimidation, and on one occasion cornered her in the work area hallway and took his hand and slapped her on the buttocks violently, physically assaulting her and demanding that she submit to his sexual advances. Complainant argues that the management official failed to take prompt and appropriate action although she was aware of the harassment. Complainant contends that this was a violation of the Agency's sexual harassment policy. Complainant maintains that an inference can be drawn that she suffered reprisal for reporting the alleged sexual harassment incident, because on January 15, 2009, it was recommended that she be terminated.
In response, the Agency reiterates the arguments and conclusions set forth in its final decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the Agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
To establish a claim of harassment, a Complainant must show that: (1) he or she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he or she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the Complainant's statutorily protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903-905 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been "sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of complainant's employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994).
With regard to the Letter of Counseling set forth in claim (1), we shall assume arguendo that Complainant set forth a prima facie case under the alleged bases. The Agency stated that the Letter of Counseling was issued based on Complainant's inappropriate behavior and her being AWOL. The alleged inappropriate behavior involved a loud verbal altercation between Complainant and a coworker and another instance where Complainant rudely informed a coworker that it was not her job to issue Complainant instructions on what she needed to do. As for the AWOL, Complainant was cited for being away from her desk for 75 minutes given that she only had a half hour lunch break and two fifteen minute breaks. We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its issuance of the Letter of Counseling.
Complainant attempts to establish pretext by questioning how the official who cited her as AWOL could have known she was not at her desk for 75 minutes since she was not located in her work area. Complainant also states that she was not previously counseled for her time and attendance. Complainant argues that the Agency subjected her to disparate treatment after she raised an allegation of sexual harassment. We find that the arguments submitted by Complainant are not sufficient to establish pretext. Complainant has not refuted the Agency's explanation of her misconduct and unscheduled absence as being appropriate grounds for the Letter of Counseling and AWOL charge.
With regard to Complainant's termination, we shall assume arguendo that Complainant set forth a prima facie case of discrimination under the alleged bases. The Agency stated that Complainant was terminated based on her deficiencies in attendance and job performance. According to the Agency, Complainant was counseled on numerous occasions concerning her scheduling errors and attendance. Complainant was cited in her mid-year performance appraisal for performing at a less than fully successful level in Administrative Duties and Functions. Complainant was also regarded in a competency assessment as needing to improve in patient appointment scheduling and organization of records. Additionally, the Agency stated that Complainant handled an inadequate number of incoming telephone calls compared to her coworkers. We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant's termination.
Complainant disputes the Agency's assertion about her receiving letters of counseling and numerous verbal counselings. Complainant also claims that the Agency began subjecting her to disparate treatment after she raised the alleged sexual assault with management. However, the record reveals that Complainant was issued twenty written letters of counseling and verbal counselings regarding incoming telephone calls and scheduling errors on sixteen days during her probationary period. Further, many of the counselings issued to Complainant were before she raised the alleged sexual assault. We find that Complainant has failed to establish that the Agency's explanation for her termination was pretext intended to mask discriminatory intent.
With respect to the change in Complainant's lunch hour, the Agency asserted that the Chief of Medical Administration Service directed the Supervisor of Centralized Scheduling to change the lunch break from 45 minutes to 30 minutes for Complainant as well as the entire staff so as to comply with standard Agency policy. We find that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for this action.
Complainant contended that the Agency reduced her lunch break to prevent her from staying with the road running team. According to Complainant, as a result of the shortened lunch schedule, she could no longer go to the gym at lunchtime. This argument is not sufficient to establish that the Agency's explanation is pretext. The reduced lunch break was applied to the entire staff, not just Complainant. There is no persuasive evidence that the policy was enacted in order to retaliate against Complainant for raising the alleged sexual assault or due to Complainant's age or sex.
With respect to the portion of Complainant's claim of harassment that references her termination, the Letter of Counseling and the reduction in her lunch break, as the aforementioned discussion indicates, discriminatory intent was not a factor in any of these actions. Thus, we find that Complainant was not subjected to discriminatory harassment with regard to these matters.
It is well-settled that sexual harassment in the workplace constitutes an actionable form of sex discrimination under Title VII. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). In order to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment, the Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of five elements: (1) that she is a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her sex; (3) that the harassment complained of was based on her sex; (4) that the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; (5) and that there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. Hanson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the case of coworker harassment, an Agency is responsible for acts of harassment in the workplace where the Agency (or its agents) knew or should have known of the conduct, unless it can be shown that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. See Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999). An Agency can raise an affirmative defense when it shows that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. Id. What is appropriate remedial action will necessarily depend on the particular facts of the case, such as the severity and persistence of the harassment and the effectiveness of any initial remedial steps. See Taylor v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05920194 (July 8, 1992).
Complainant claimed that a coworker sexually assaulted her. The Agency dismissed this claim on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. A proper reading of this claim makes it evident that this claim of sexual harassment cannot be separated from the claim that alleges management failed to follow appropriate procedures in the investigation of the allegation of sexual harassment. In light of the fact that the Agency accepted for investigation and decided the merits of this claim concerning the investigation procedures, we find that it was inappropriate for the Agency to dismiss the claim of sexual harassment on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. In fact, the record reflects that the claim of sexual harassment was initially accepted and investigated before it was subsequently dismissed on the grounds of untimely EEO contact. We find that the claim of sexual harassment and the claim of harassment concerning an inappropriate investigation of the allegation of sexual harassment should be considered as portions of one claim.
As for the alleged sexual harassment, Complainant claimed that she was subjected on several occasions to lewd and sexually explicit comments by the alleged harasser that caused her to experience fear and intimidation. Complainant stated that on one occasion, this coworker cornered her in the work area hallway and took his hand and slapped her on the buttocks violently and demanded that she submit to his sexual advances.
As to the alleged harassment concerning the Agency's investigative procedures, Complainant stated that the Chief of Medical Administration Service, Supervisor of Centralized Scheduling and her evening supervisor failed to follow the harassment manual as they should have investigated and reported the alleged sexual assault to the EEO Office or Human Resources. According to the Chief of Medical Administration Service, the Supervisor of Centralized Scheduling reassured Complainant that the alleged conduct would not be tolerated and asked her if she wished to utilize the EEO process. The Chief stated that the Supervisor of Centralized Scheduling reported to her that Complainant did not intend to pursue the EEO process and therefore the procedure followed was to document what happened, keep a record of it, and leave it at that. The Chief noted that she was informed that Complainant believed the coworker would no longer bother her.
Furthermore, we observe that the Supervisor of Centralized Scheduling organized a meeting between Complainant and the alleged harasser. At that meeting, the alleged harasser apologized to Complainant and Complainant purportedly accepted the apology. We note that the EEO Manager was critical of the Supervisor's decision to have Complainant and the alleged harasser meet without witnesses and without the involvement of the EEO Office or Human Resources.
In light of the fact that the sexual harassment claim has been investigated and should not have been dismissed for untimely EEO contact, and that it should not have been separated from the claim of an inappropriate investigation, the appropriate disposition of this matter is for the Agency to issue a final decision on the merits of all aspects of this claim.2 Therefore, these matters are REMANDED to the Agency for further processing pursuant to the Order below.
CONCLUSION
The Agency's final decision is MODIFIED. The Agency's dismissal of the claim alleging sexual harassment on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact is REVERSED. The Agency's determination of no discrimination with regard to the harassment claim alleging inappropriate procedures in the investigation of the sexual harassment claim is VACATED. These claims are REMANDED for further processing in accordance with the Order below. The Agency's determination of no discrimination as to claims (3-5) is AFFIRMED.
ORDER
The Agency is ORDERED within 90 calendar days of its receipt of this decision to issue a final decision that addresses the merits of both the claim of sexual harassment and the claim of discriminatory harassment concerning the procedures utilized by the Agency in its investigation of that claim.
A copy of the final decision must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your 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(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0610)
This decision affirms the Agency's final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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 his or her 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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 26, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The Agency initially accepted the claim and included the claim in the investigation.
2 We are not making any finding regarding whether the Agency's investigation of the sexual harassment claim was prompt, effective and appropriate overall. The Agency shall upon remand review again its handling of the sexual harassment claim and issue a new final decision accordingly.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120102630
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120102630