0120080706
11-18-2010
Charmaine L. Anderson, Complainant, v. Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agency.
Charmaine L. Anderson,
Complainant,
v.
Gregory B. Jaczko,
Chairman,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080706
Agency Nos. NRC-06-11 and NRC-07-02
DECISION
On November 24, 2007, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's
November 5, 2007, final decision concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.
The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency's final decision.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the Agency properly dismissed claims raised by Complainant
in a prior EEO informal complaint.
2. Whether the Agency properly found that Complainant was not subjected
to unlawful discrimination.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Secretary at the Agency's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR) facility in Rockville, Maryland. On June 2, 2006, Complainant
filed an EEO complaint (Agency No. NRC-06-11) alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the basis of race (African-American) and
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. The Chief of the Engineering Mechanics Branch (Chief) refused to
give Complainant an employment reference because of fear of reprisal
from Complainant's supervisors (S1 and S2);
2. S2 created a hostile work environment by issuing Complainant a letter
of reprimand dated March 30, 2006; and,
3. On April 4, 2006, S1 denied Complainant's request to be reassigned
to another NRR area.
Additionally, in a formal complaint filed on July 21, 2006 (Agency
No. NRC-07-02), Complainant alleged that she was subjected to unlawful
discrimination on the bases of race, disability and in reprisal for
prior EEO activity when the Agency failed to select her for one of
five Licensing Assistant positions. Complainant further alleged that
the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for
her disability when it failed to reassign her to a position that would
not require extensive use of a computer monitor or excessive strain on
the eyes.
In an investigative statement, Complainant stated that she asked the
Chief for a written job reference so that she could apply for jobs at
other agencies. She stated that the Chief told her that he was reluctant
to put anything in writing because he feared that it would cause S1 to
retaliate against him. Complainant stated that S1 was aware that she
previously engaged in EEO activity on October 25, 2005, because she
often talked about issues pertaining to her work conditions with him.
Complainant stated that she was affected by S1's March 17, 2006 actions
because she was unable to apply for outside jobs, and she knew she would
not be hired because she needed the reference to counteract a negative
performance appraisal.
Complainant further stated that her race and protected EEO activity
were factors in the Agency's March 30, 2006 issuance of a letter of
reprimand because she informed S1 that she intended to file a complaint
in an email dated March 20, 2006. However, Complainant stated that she
could not identify any employee outside her protected classes who were
treated more favorably than she was treated under similar circumstances.
Nevertheless, Complainant stated that the Division Secretary sent S1
harsh emails, but was not disciplined.
Complainant also stated that S1 denied her request to be reassigned to the
Department of Engineering (DE) Electrical Group for the same reasons he
purportedly issued the letter of reprimand. She stated that the denial
deprived her of the opportunity to work for another supervisor who would
give her a fair appraisal and reference.
Regarding her non-selection, Complainant stated that two selection
panelists (P1 and P2) are close friends of another employee (C1) who is
a friend of her former co-worker and adversary (C2). She stated that C2
exercised control over P1 and P2, which undermined Complainant's chances
of being rating "best qualified" for the positions. She stated that
C2 knew that she and another African-American secretary were applying
for the GG-8 positions because of her past personal conflicts with C2.
Complainant further stated that since working at the Agency, she had
a medical procedure that was recommended by her physician to ease the
pressure in her right eye because of glaucoma. She stated that after the
filtration operation on her right eye, her physician suggested that she
stay out of the office for approximately two weeks. She stated that she
returned to the office after only one week, and for approximately three
months after the procedure, she could barely see out of her right eye.
Complainant stated that she sent a letter to the Division Director in
which she requested to be moved into a program that did not have a heavy
document flow. She stated that the Division Director reviewed the matter
and told her that she had to make the request through Human Resources.
Complainant stated that she made the request through Human Resources,
but Human Resources denied the request. Complainant stated that
she declined a rotational assignment offered by the District Director
because the supervisor of the unit she would have been rotated into a
division with a supervisor who had a poor reputation about dealing with
African-Americans.
S1 (Caucasian) stated that he was aware of Complainant's protected EEO
activity prior to March 17, 2006. He stated that the Chief made the
decision not to give Complainant a written job reference.
S1 stated that he did not subject Complainant to harassment or
discrimination. He stated that Complainant was issued the reprimand
because she had been counseled in December 2005 regarding her inflammatory
and unprofessional emails. He stated that despite the counseling and
warning, Complainant continued to write unprofessional and inflammatory
emails, and he therefore had no choice but to issue an official letter
of reprimand. S1 stated that he did not recall the Division Secretary
writing any unprofessional emails, and the Division Secretary did not
work for him.
S1 stated that he could not grant Complainant's request for reassignment
because she was needed at the work station where she was assigned to
support the workload on the ninth floor in the Division of Engineering
and the Division of Component Integrity. He stated that he informed
Complainant that the Agency was in the process of hiring several more
secretaries, and when there was sufficient coverage, she could be moved
to another work station within the division. As a result, he stated that
he informed her that her request was postponed so that the mission of
the Agency would not be disrupted.
The Chief (Caucasian) stated that he recalled Complainant stating that
she had addressed her concerns through the EEO process. He further stated
that Complainant's request for a written job offer appeared to be for a
job within the Agency, and therefore, he informed her that the protocol
is not to send a written reference to the applicant but to provide the
prospective supervisor with the names of references so that the hiring
official could contact them. The Chief stated that he offered to call
Complainant's prospective supervisor to provide his reference by phone,
but, Complainant refused to give him the name or telephone number of
the prospective supervisor.
The Chief further stated that Complainant was clearly upset that he
did not deliver what she requested and told him that he was afraid of
sending her a written reference out of fear of being retaliated against
from upper management. The Chief stated that he told Complainant that
such an accusation was totally unfounded.
P1 (Caucasian not disabled) stated that she did not believe that she
knew Complainant at the time she served on the rating panel. She denied
that anyone influenced her duties as a panelist who rated and ranked the
applications. She stated that she had no recollection of Complainant's
final ranking. She stated that any notes regarding applicants were
given to Human Resources.
P2 (Caucasian, not disabled) stated that she has never met Complainant
and had no knowledge of Complainant's EEO activity, race, or claimed
impairment. She stated that she has served on several rating panels
since 2006 and could not recall the specifics of this particular panel,
or what scores Complainant or any of the other candidates received.
She stated that she could not recall how she was selected for the panel
and did not recall keeping notes of her participation on this panel.
P3 (African-American, not disabled) stated that she did not know
Complainant. P3 also stated that she did not know Complainant's race,
disability, or EEO activity at the time she served on the panel.
She stated that she and other panelists attended a meeting with Human
Resources personnel, who informed them what the requirements were for the
position. She stated that after the meeting, Human Resources personnel
distributed the applicants' packets that included resumes, performance
appraisals, and responses to the rating factors and criteria. P3 stated
that P2 was designated as Chair of the panel. P3 further stated that
C1 did not influence the panel members and did not know who was selected
to serve on the panel.
C1 (Caucasian, not disabled) stated that she had no influence over any of
the panel members, nor did she know the identity of the panelists at the
time of the selection. She stated that she worked with P2 and knew P1.
C2 stated that she was not aware of Complainant's previous EEO complaint
and has had no contact with her since they were co-workers in 2005. She
stated that she did not speak with anyone about Complainant from September
2005 until October 2006, when she left the Division of Engineering for
another position in the Agency. C2 stated that she rarely had contact
with the NRR staff because her new job is in a different building.
The Division Director (Caucasian, not disabled) stated that Complainant
is a secretary in her division and apprised her of a visual impairment
(glaucoma). She further stated that she conferred with the Senior
Labor and Employee Relations Specialist to seek guidance on whether
Complainant's medical condition was covered by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. She stated that the Senior Labor and Employee Relations
Specialist informed her that Complainant was able to perform the essential
functions of her position without an accommodation.
Regarding Complainant's request for another assignment, the Director
stated that she had three discussions with Complainant and her first-line
supervisors about the matter in mid 2006. She stated that Complainant
and a Caucasian secretary responded to a solicitation of interest
for a secretarial position in the Division of Policy and Rulemaking.
She stated that when Complainant made her request, the workload in her
division was very high and could only support one rotation. She stated
that the Caucasian secretary was rotated into the assignment based upon
her seniority.
The Director also stated that in the fall of 2006, Complainant again
discussed her interest in a rotational assignment. She stated that
she conferred with Human Resources to determine whether Complainant
was covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Director
further stated that an offer of a rotation was made, but Complainant
refused the assignment.
The Senior Labor and Employee Relations Specialist (race unknown, not
disabled), stated that the Agency physician informed him that Complainant
was not disabled and was able to perform the essential functions of
her position without accommodation since her visual impairment did not
substantially limit one or more major life activities.
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). In accordance
with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged. Specifically, the decision determined that Complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment on the bases of
race, disability, or reprisal or prove that the Agency's articulated
reasons were pretext for unlawful discrimination. The Agency further
found that Complainant failed to prove that she was an individual with
a disability or that the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argued that the Agency improperly found no
discrimination. Complainant further maintained that the EEO Counselor
improperly dismissed some of her claims. Complainant also recounted
allegations from her complaint, including her claim that S1 accused
Complainant of sifting through his personal items and being a thief,
which precluded her from being selected from 41 positions and kept her
in a GS-7 position for two and a half years. Additionally, Complainant
recounted her allegation that C2 and another secretary attempted to frame
and sabotage her by taking a typewriter that was on her property account.
The Agency requested that we affirm its final decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), 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, at Chapter 9,
� VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (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").
Procedural Dismissals
In a letter dated July 21, 2006, the Agency notified Complainant of its
dismissal of the following claims:
A. Whether you were subjected to harassment and discrimination based
on your race when from March 2005, to December 20, 2005, S1 and the
Director created a hostile work environment in the following manner:
1. In March 2005, S1 accused Complainant of going through his
personal things.
2. On April 14, 2006, S1 yelled, "I just cleared out my box, and
here you come with more sh-t."
3. From August 22, 2005, to September 14, 2005, S1 and the
Director did not take corrective action regarding C2 when she sabotaged
Complainant's work involving three critical documents.
4. On August 29 and 30, 2005, S1 and the Director did not take
corrective action when C2 spoke to Complainant in a derogatory and
unprofessional manner for seeking assistance from another administrative
staff member.
5. On October 19, 2005, S1 denied Complainant's requests to be
reassigned to the Division of New Reactor Licensing or to the Geoscience
and Civil Engineering Branch.
6. Prior to October 25, 2005, S1 failed to counsel Complainant
regarding her performance.
7. On December 9, 2005, S1 took no action when Complainant discovered
and informed him that a typewriter was missing from her work station.
8. From December 9, 2005, to December 15, 2005, S1 and the Director
denied her requests to be moved to another location in the Division of
Engineering after she learned that a coworker who has a close association
with C2 would be temporarily place next to Complainant's work station.
9. On December 20, 2005, the Director threatened Complainant with
disciplinary action if she did not say that a light brown typewriter
was missing.
Additionally, the Agency dismissed Complainant's claim (B) that she was
subjected to a retaliatory hostile work environment when on October
25, 2005, S1 and the Director issued her a low performance appraisal
for the period February 21, 2005 to September 30, 2005, that had false
statements on it and did not include input from Branch Chiefs. Finally,
the Agency also dismissed Complainant's claim (C) that she was subjected
to harassment and discrimination based on race and reprisal when from
December 9, 2005 to December 15, 2005, the Director failed to conduct
a full investigation of the missing typewriter.
In its letter of dismissal, the Agency stated that on October 25, 2005,
Complainant filed an informal complaint in which she raised claims A (1 -
9), B, and C, and subsequently withdrew the complaint on January 6, 2006.
The record confirms that Complainant previously filed an informal EEO
complaint on October 7, 2005, in which she raised claims A (1 - 9),
B, and C. The record further reveals that in an email dated January
5, 2006, Complainant informed EEO officials that she was considering
withdrawing her EEO claims because of "medical circumstances." In an
email dated January 6, 2006, Complainant further stated that she would
withdraw the complaint, and "put this whole situation and [sic] God's
hands, he sees all." Complainant further stated, "Could you please tell
[management] we don't have to talk about anything-it's dropped."
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R � 1614.107 (a)(1) provides that the agency shall
dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim under � 1614. 103 or �
1614.106(a) or states the same claim that is pending before or has been
decided by the agency or the Commission.
In past cases, the Commission has found that where a complainant knowingly
and voluntarily withdraws his complaint, the Commission considers
the matter to have been abandoned. See Pedro C. Tellez v. Dept. of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05930805 (February 25, 1994). The
Commission has held that a Complainant may not request reinstatement
of an informal complaint. See Allen v. Dept. of Defense, EEOC Request
No. 05940168 (May 25, 1995). Once a Complainant has withdrawn an informal
complaint, absent a showing of coercion, a Complainant may not reactivate
the EEO process by filing a complaint on the same issue. Id. To allow such
a practice would, in effect, extend the limitations period for filing
a formal complaint ad infinitum and subvert the need for timeliness and
efficiency in the EEO process.
In this case, Complainant maintained that she was coerced to withdraw
her complaint because an EEO official did not inform her that she could
have continued with her complaint while she had "medical uncertainties."
However, such conduct is not coercion. Moreover, Complainant's email
correspondences reveal that Complainant knowingly and voluntarily
withdrew her informal complaint. There is no evidence that Complainant
was coerced or duped into withdrawing her informal complaint. Therefore,
we find that the Agency properly dismissed claims A (1 - 9), B, and C.
Additionally, Complainant contended that the Counselor faxed her a copy
of the counselor's report that was missing two out of eleven pages.
Complainant has not shown that the counselor's actions harmed her ability
to litigate her claims. Thus, we find that the counselor's actions
resulted in harmless error.
Accepted Claims
Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the
tripartite analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for
Experimental Biology. Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). For Complainant to prevail, she must
first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting
facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of
discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor
in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802;
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). For instance, to
establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment on the basis of race,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class;
(2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action concerning a term,
condition, or privilege of employment; and (3) he was treated differently
than similarly situated employees outside her protected class, or there
is some other evidentiary link between membership in the protected
class and the adverse employment action. McCreary v. Dep't of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120070257 (April 14, 2008); Saenz v. Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05950927 (January 9, 1998); Trejo v. Social Security Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120093260 (October 22, 2009).
To establish a prima facie case of reprisal, Complainant generally must
show that: (1) she engaged in protected EEO activity; (2) the Agency
was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently, she was subjected
to adverse treatment by the Agency; and (4) a nexus exists between her
protected activity and the adverse treatment. Whitmire v. Dep't of the
Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340 (September 25, 2000).
Once Complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden
of production then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the Agency is successful, the
burden reverts back to Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Agency's reason(s) for its action was a pretext
for discrimination. At all times, Complainant retains the burden
of persuasion, and it is her obligation to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited
reason. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. 509 U.S. 502 (1993); U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711.715-716 (1983).
In this case, Complainant contended that the Agency subjected her to race
discrimination when it failed to give her a written reference; issued
her a letter of reprimand; and, denied her request to be reassigned
to another area in NRR. Complainant is an African-American employee
who was subjected to these adverse actions. However, we determine
that Complainant failed to show that any similarly situated non-Black
employee was treated more favorably than she was treated under similar
circumstances with respect to these matters. Although Complainant
contended that the Division Secretary wrote harsh emails but was not
disciplined, the record reveals that she was not similarly situated to
Complainant because the Division Secretary was not supervised by S1.
Complainant has not provided any evidence that would establish an
inference of race discrimination. Thus, we find that Complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination for these matters.
With respect to reprisal, the record reveals that Complainant previously
engaged in EEO activity when she initiated EEO counselor contact for her
informal complaint on October 25, 2005. S1 and the Division Director
acknowledged that they were aware of Complainant's previous EEO activity.
There is a close temporal nexus between Complainant's previous EEO
activity and the alleged actions. Moreover, the alleged actions are
reasonably likely to deter EEO activity. Thus, we find that Complainant
established a prima facie case of reprisal for her claims (the reference,
reprimand, and reassignment).
Nonetheless, we further find that the Agency provided legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, as detailed above.
Complainant did not prove that the Agency's explanation is pretext for
unlawful discrimination. Thus, we find that the Agency properly found no
reprisal for the reference, reprimand, and reassignment claims. Further,
a finding that Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment is
precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that
any of the actions taken by the agency were motivated by discriminatory
animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01982923 (September 21, 2000).
Regarding Complainant's claim that she was subjected to race and
disability discrimination1 when she was not selected for one of five
Licensing Assistant positions, the record reveals that Complainant
applied for and was not selected for one of the positions. The record
further reveals that three of the five "best qualified" selectees were not
African-American. However, the panelists stated that at the time of the
selections, they did not know Complainant and were unaware of her race,
disability, and EEO activity. Complainant theorized that C2 exercised
control over P1 and P2, which undermined Complainant's chances of being
rating "best qualified" for the positions. However, Complainant has not
provided any evidence that supports this bare assertion nor has she shown
that the panelists were aware of her EEO activity, race, or disability.
Thus, we find that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of unlawful discrimination or reprisal with respect to her non-selection.
Finally, Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to provide her with a
reasonable accommodation for her disability when it failed to reassign her
to a position that would not require extensive use of a computer monitor
or excessive strain on the eyes. Under the Commission's regulations,
an agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known
physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual
with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would
cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9.
As a threshold matter, we again assume, for purposes of this decision,
that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability. The record
reveals that in a letter dated August 17, 2006, Complainant requested
to be placed in another position because she was diagnosed with Advanced
Glaucoma and could "no longer provide the extensive secretarial service
that is required." Exhibit 2, p. 25. After a thorough review of the
record, we note that before August 17, 2006, there is no evidence
that Complainant linked her request for a reassignment to her medical
condition. Thus, the Agency did not have a duty to accommodate
Complainant until August 17, 2006.
The record further reveals that despite Human Resources' determination
that Complainant was not disabled under the Rehabilitation Act, the
Agency offered to accommodate Complainant by reassigning her to a
position in another division in late 2006, but Complainant declined
the offered position because she believed that the supervisor in that
division harbored animus against African-Americans. Complainant has not
provided any evidence to substantiate her assertion about the supervisor
in that division. Thus, we find that Complainant failed to prove that
the Agency did not provide her with a reasonable accommodation.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision
because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that unlawful discrimination occurred.
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 (S0610)
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 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
November 18, 2010
Date
1 For purposes of analysis, we assume that Complainant is an individual
with a disability.
??
??
??
??
2
0120080706
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120080706