0120170543
04-27-2017
Emiko S,1 Complainant, v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Emiko S,1
Complainant,
v.
Penny Pritzker,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120170543
Agency No. 51201500278
DECISION
On December 1, 2016, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(a), from the Agency's November 2, 2016 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an International Program Specialist ("IPS"), GS-9, in the Agency's Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP), Office of General Counsel, in Washington, D.C.
On October 22, 2015, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her when she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex (female) and unlawful retaliation for engaging in prior protected activity. In support of her claims, Complainant alleged the following:
1. She was subjected to verbal abuse by Agency officials when she was told she was "not humble enough," "overly confident," "too aggressive," "high maintenance," a "loose cannon" and that she "needed to smile more."
2. Her requests for a respectful work environment were met by her supervisors with obstinacy and condescension.
3. On March 9, 2015, her supervisor threatened to cancel approval for travel.
4. On June 24, 2015, her supervisor responded to her concerns regarding potential mismanagement of public funds by stating that her contract to continue working with the Agency was being evaluated.
5. Following a June 24, 2015 meeting, she was excluded from sitting in on interviews to hire a new attorney, and she was increasingly relegated to performing administrative tasks.
6. Following the June 24, 2015 meeting, her supervisor cancelled Complainant's planned travel and training, which were scheduled from June through September 2015.
7. On August 12, 2015, Complainant's supervisor made false accusations about Complainant to an attorney in the office, and advised the attorney to restrict Complainant's participation in the attorney's program.
8. On August 27, 2015, her supervisor advised Complainant that her contract would not be extended because she "did not fit in," adding that she was "welcome to file an EEO complaint."
9. On September 9, 2015, her supervisor attempted to exclude Complainant from her team meeting and social gathering.
10. On September 10, 2015, Complainant's supervisor did not approve her request for travel.
In correspondence to Complainant dated November 9, 2015, the Agency determined that allegation 4 failed to state a claim. The Agency found that Complainant's expressed concerns about the mismanagement of funds constituted whistleblower activity. Therefore, in accordance with EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), the Agency dismissed the basis of reprisal for Complainant's whistleblower activity.
The Agency also dismissed allegations 5 and 6 on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact to the extent that these matters were raised as discrete acts of discrimination. However, the Agency further stated, that allegations 5 and 6 were "accepted in their entirety to the extent that Complainant raises them as acts of alleged harassment."
The Agency conducted an investigation into the remaining allegations. In brief, the report of that investigation indicates the following:
Complainant was hired in November 2014, under a 13-month appointment that could be extended for up to four years. Others in her job series were similarly hired under temporary appointments. Complainant's term appointment was not renewed and her employment with the Agency ended December 17, 2015. According to Complainant, all the other employees similarly hired had their appointments extended beyond the initial 13-month term.
Complainant's supervisor, from November 2014 through August 2015 was the Senior Counsel (male). Her second-level supervisor was the Deputy Chief Counsel (male), who also served as her first-level supervisor from August 2015 until her employment ended in December 2015. Her third-level supervisor was the Chief Counsel (male).
Complainant first sought EEO counseling for the instant complaint on August 12, 2015, and asserted that the Chief Counsel and the Senior Counsel learned of it sometime between August 12 and 26, 2015. She claims that these management officials retaliated against her once they learned of the complaint.
Allegation 1: Verbal Abuse
Complainant alleges that both the Senior Counsel and the Chief Counsel treated her disrespectfully and dismissively, in a manner she believed they also exhibited toward other female employees. Complainant alleges that the Senior Counsel subjected her to verbal abuse by telling her that she was "too aggressive," "overly confident," "high maintenance" and "needed to smile more." She also alleges that he told her that "likeability" was more important than proficiency.
The Senior Counsel stated that he was initially very impressed with Complainant and repeatedly praised her work. However, he said that in March 2015, he began receiving complaints from the Attorney-Advisors with whom Complainant worked, indicating that she was difficult to work with and that she inappropriately tried to change aspects of the Attorney-Advisors' projects. The Senior Counsel also stated that Complainant defied his instructions on the manner of presentation for the Agency's position regarding a mining project to the Department of State. The Senior Counsel stated that Complainant sought more control over tasks performed by the Attorney-Advisors. He said he spoke to Complainant about not going outside the scope of her job description when working with the Attorney-Advisors. The Senior Counsel also advised her to "pick her battles" rather than criticizing broader aspects of the program in which she worked. According to the Senior Counsel, he specifically encouraged her at a meeting on June 10, 2015, to establish trust with her colleagues, indicating that her aggressive behavior was alienating staff members. He advised Complainant that, while her work was excellent, to some of her colleagues she was known as a "loose cannon."
Allegation 2: Request for Respectful Work Environment
Complainant alleges that her complaints about the work environment were met with condescension. The Senior Counsel denied the allegation, stating that, despite the difficulties he had managing Complainant, he took the time to listen to her recommendations, gave her autonomy to demonstrate her abilities, and told her she was talented and a valuable member of the team. He further contends that when Complainant brought her concerns to him regarding her work environment, he advised her that he was willing to work with her to resolve her concerns. However, he contends that most of the concerns Complainant raised with her supervisor related to how the Agency conducted and managed the program in which she worked.
Allegation 3: Threat to Cancel Travel
Complainant alleges that in March 2015, the Senior Counsel threatened to cancel planned travel to an Arbitration Program in Istanbul, Turkey, if Complainant and her colleague did not oversee the hiring of specific mining expert. Complainant further alleges that supervising the hiring of the expert was an administrative task outside the scope of her job. According to affidavit testimony from the Senior Counsel, the mining expert Complainant referred to is a lawyer uniquely qualified and critical to the success of programs in South American and Afghanistan to which Complainant was assigned. He said that Complainant advocated for hiring her father instead of the referenced expert to assist with the program. He said that Complainant was advised that the program required an attorney for the position. He further noted that Complainant's father was not an attorney and was known to have a strained relationship with the Afghanistan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum.
According to the Senior Counsel, he did not threaten to cancel any planned travel. He avers, however, that because Complainant persisted in advocating for her father for the position, she was told that hiring the mining expert was the Agency's "first priority." The Senior Counsel also indicated that Complainant was responsible for the logistics of the programs to which she was assigned, including administrative responsibilities such as hiring experts. The Senior Counsel further stated that it is his practice to consult with Attorney-Advisors regarding their program needs when traveling. According to the Senior Counsel, the Attorney-Advisor scheduled to attend the program in Istanbul, Turkey, informed the supervisor that he did not need the assistance of a Program Specialist at the event, so Complainant was not assigned to travel to Turkey.
Allegation 4: Raising Program Concerns
Complainant alleges that she raised concerns with the Senior Counsel and Chief Counsel regarding improper vetting of experts, excessive travel by Attorney Advisors, inadequate planning for programs, and abuse of accommodations provided to senior managers and experts. She asserts that the Chief Counsel was "incredulous" at her statements and indicated that management would have to consider whether or not she was a "good fit" for the organization when evaluating whether or not to extend her appointment. She also alleges that later the Senior Counsel cautioned her that "likeability" was important and that she should listen to the Chief Counsel rather than criticizing the program.
Allegation 5: Excluded from Attorney Interviews and Assigned Administrative Tasks
Complainant asserted that sometime in January 2015, she was asked by one of the Attorney Advisors to manage the interview process for the hiring of a new attorney for her team. However, she said that, without her knowledge, the Chief Counsel directly arranged interviews with two of the finalists, and did not invite her to participate, but rather asked a program specialist (male) from another team to sit in. In June 2015, Complainant stated that she was asked to participate in the interview of an attorney from another team, but when she showed up the Chief Counsel and two other interviewers were finishing up. She indicated that the Chief Counsel seemed "visibly shocked" by her arrival.
Complainant also asserted that she and other female program specialists were increasingly asked to perform administrative tasks that she did not believe were part of their job such as hiring experts, and completing their timesheets and travel. She alleges the male IPSs were not assigned similar administrative tasks.
Allegation 6: Denied Training and Travel from June through September 2015
Complainant alleged the Senior Counsel denied her permission to travel on several trips, including to Turkey, New York and Brazil. She indicated that the Senior Counsel stated that he was allocating funds to "higher priority programs." However, she noted that the Chief Counsel reserved the right to bring other support staff with him on trips, despite the fact that she believed they were lacking the appropriate knowledge and skill for the tasks required.
Allegation 7: False Accusations Restrict Participation
Complainant alleges that the Senior Counsel told an Attorney-Advisor she worked with not to let Complainant be on telephone calls or send emails to the Afghan mining delegation members regarding a mining project to which she was assigned. Complainant alleged that this seriously hampered her ability to do her job.
The Senior Counsel testified that he learned on August 9, 2015, from the Legal Director of the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum that its staff was not pleased with the way Complainant had treated them during an April 2015 program. In that regard, the Senior Counsel said he warned the Attorney-Advisor with whom Complainant worked that having Complainant on an August 12, 2015 conference call could cause further tension.
Allegation 8: Term Appointment not Extended
Complainant was advised on August 27, 2015, by the Chief Counsel that her term appointment would not be extended. According to management witnesses, there were several instances of performance difficulties and complaints from Attorney-Advisors about Complainant's work, including Complainant's act of disobeying the orders of United States Embassy security officials in Kabul, Afghanistan by arranging a meeting outside the Embassy while the facility was on "lockdown." The Senior Counsel indicated that Complainant struggled to accept the parameters of her position which was to support the Attorney-Advisors rather than attempting to assume their responsibilities. He said that when he tried to counsel her regarding her role, she continued to assert herself in ways that exceeded her position.
Allegation 9: Excluded from Team Meeting and Social Gathering
Complainant contends that she was excluded from team meetings held by the Senior Counsel and not invited to a farewell luncheon of a co-worker. The record indicates that, in August 2015, Complainant was reassigned to directly report to the Deputy Chief Counsel. In that regard, Complainant's email address was removed from the group listing her former supervisor kept and was then left off emails informing her of team meetings as well as the farewell luncheon. The Senior Counsel stated that when he learned of Complainant's concerns, he advised her that she was welcome to attend both the meetings and farewell lunch.
Allegation 10: Denied Request for Travel
As already noted, by September 2015, Agency management had decided that Complainant's term ("NTE") appointment would not be extended beyond December 2015. For that reason, management witnesses indicated that allowing Complainant to travel and attend scheduled training shortly before her employment ended did not make sense.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing, but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination or unlawful retaliation had been proven.
The instant appeal followed.
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. (Aug. 5, 2015) (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: Allegations 4 - 6
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of discrimination should be brought to the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within forty-five (45) days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action. The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the forty-five (45) day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999).
The record discloses that the events in allegations 5 and 6, occurred on or about June 24, 2015, but Complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until August 12, 2015, which is beyond the forty-five (45) day limitation period. We find, therefore that to the extent that allegations 5 and 6 are construed as discrete acts of discrimination, the Agency correctly determined that they were not actionable.
However, the Supreme Court has held that an employee alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period. See Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 (2002). We agree, therefore, with the Agency's determination to accept these allegations as part of Complainant's overall claim of discriminatory harassment.
Moreover, we determine that contrary to the Agency's disposition of allegation 4, the matter raised therein is also encompassed in the harassment claim, which addresses two separate bases: sex and reprisal. The Agency appears to dismiss the basis of reprisal on the grounds that Complainant was claiming retaliation for "whistleblowing activity." We note, however, that Complainant alleges reprisal for other reasons as well, including seeking EEO counseling in August 2012, as well as "opposing [to CLDP management] marginalizing women in the department by [management's] enforcing a culture of complacency." Accordingly, we find that Complainant has adequately alleged a viable retaliation claim resulting from both her participation in the EEO complaint process and her activities opposing alleged discriminatory attitudes and conduct towards female employees.
Disparate Treatment and Discriminatory Harassment
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie 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. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 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, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981).
In addition, to establish a claim of hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2)s he 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 her statutorily protected class; (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. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
In other words, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a "reasonable person" in Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis - in this case because or her sex and/or prior protected activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.
On appeal, Complainant through her attorney asserts that the Agency's articulated explanations for its conduct failed to meet the requirements of the Agency's burden of production. Specifically, Complainant notes that despite the Agency's contention that her employment was terminated because of her action and the fact that she "did not fit in," she had received numerous compliments on her performance from management, her coworkers, and from partners working with the Agency's CLDP program. For example, Complainant asserts that the Agency's Deputy Chief Counsel, who supervised Complainant from August to December 2015, described Complainant as having "an outstanding work ethic," and stated that she was "deeply dedicated to her work at CLDP, was very well organized and mastered logistics." Complainant's appeal brief at 3 quoting the Report of Investigation p. 556.
Complainant argues that the Agency's articulated reasons for the disputed actions were pretextual designed to mask sexist and retaliatory animus. Complainant asserts that in November 2014, the Agency's Deputy Chief Counsel admitted that several women complained about an "old boy's culture." Complainant argues further that when she complained to the Deputy Chief Counsel that she was not being respected by some of the Agency's male employees, he admitted that he advised Complainant to "smile when [she met] people," and that he informed her that she was perceived as "a loose cannon."
Complainant asserts that the Commission should reverse the Agency's final decision. Complainant contends that the Agency's defenses should be precluded as a sanction for conducting an improper investigation into Complainant's complaint of harassment and discrimination. The purported inadequacy of the investigation is identified by Complainant in the following fashion. First, Complainant indicates that the investigator failed to request documentation supporting her allegations of sex discrimination including emails from Agency officials that support her claim. Second, Complainant contends that the investigator failed to interview witnesses who could corroborate her claims of discrimination and harassment. Finally, Complainant's appeal brief includes statements from witnesses whom she believes support her claim, but who were not interviewed during the investigation of the subject complaint.
While we are not convinced that a sanction against the Agency is appropriate in this case, we are persuaded that the investigation was lacking in some critical respects. It is clear from the current record that Complainant, while generally regarded as a technically proficient employee, experienced significant conflicts with certain management officials that resulted in the decision not to extend her 13-month appointment. The investigation, however, does not contain sufficient evidence to ascertain whether or not those conflicts resulted from Complainant acting in an inappropriately contentious and challenging manner towards management, as the Agency contends, or because of sexist attitudes towards assertive women like Complainant, especially in light of her complaints about her treatment. Management witnesses recount receiving numerous complaints about Complainant from the Attorney Advisors and other staff, but the record contains little corroborating evidence of these complaints. The investigator failed to take statements from the staff members who allegedly lodged complaints with management about her. Complainant also asserts on appeal that there is evidence that management actively solicited negative information about her from the Attorney Advisors, citing to a September 2015 email she saw from the Deputy Chief Counsel to an Attorney Advisor asking for negative feedback on Complainant's work. Complainant asked that this email, and others like it, be produced by the Agency, but they were not provided to Complainant or included in the report of investigation.
We note that Complainant provided the investigator with a list of ten witnesses who Complainant believes would support her claims of sexism and retaliation. However, the record of investigation indicates that an affidavit was obtained from only one of the ten proposed witnesses. This witness stated that she admired Complainant's work ethic and saw that Complainant struggled with management. Complainant's witness noted that once Complainant began to report her complaints of mistreatment, her relationship with management "began spiraling downhill." The investigator chose not to contact the other names on Complainant's witness list, because he believed doing so "was not deemed probative." This decision by the investigator unfairly restricted Complainant's ability to prove her case. There is no evidence in the record that would establish that attempting to contact all of Complainant's witnesses would have been overly burdensome to the investigation.
In addition, the very close proximity of the decision not to extend Complainant's employment with her EEO counseling contact regarding her treatment by management also creates an inference of a possible retaliatory motivation. We note that both the Senior Counsel and the Chief Counsel admit they were aware of Complainant's EEO activity sometime in August 2015, the same time Complainant was advised that her appointment was not being extended. The Agency also conceded in its brief opposing this appeal that all the other IPSs hired around the same time on 13-month appointments were extended. Therefore, evidence in support of management's asserted reasons for ending Complainant's employment, beyond their own testimonial denials of discrimination or retaliation, may be critical in adjudicating Complainant's claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the Agency's procedural dismissals and VACATE its final decision finding no discrimination. The complaint, in its entirety is REMANDED back to the Agency for a supplemental investigation in accordance with the ORDER below.
ORDER
The Agency is ORDERED to conduct a supplemental investigation into Complainant's allegations of sex discrimination and unlawful retaliation.
The Agency investigator will contact, to the extent possible, all of the witnesses whom Complainant identified as supportive of her claims. These witnesses shall be specific questions about the alleged conduct and comments of the named responsible management officials towards Complainant and other female employees, as well as Complainant's work performance and any perceived performance problems. If any of Complainant's named witnesses are no longer employed with the federal government, and cannot be contacted or are unwilling to provide a statement, this shall be clearly stated in the report of the supplemental investigation.
The Agency investigator shall also ask the responsible management officials for the names of corroborating witnesses who are asserted to have lodged complaints about Complainant and her work. Those individuals shall be asked to provide affidavits concerning those complaints. The investigation will also include all relevant documentary evidence, including the emails Complainant asserts are missing from the record.
The Agency shall complete the supplemental investigation within 90 days from the date this decision becomes final. Thereafter, the Agency shall give Complainant a copy of the supplemental investigation, provide her an opportunity to respond, and include her response in the supplemental investigation. Once the supplemental investigation is completed, the Agency shall issue Complainant a new notice of right to request a hearing or an immediate final decision on the evidence gathered in both the original and supplemental investigations.
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 (M0416)
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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. 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 filed your appeal with the Commission. 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 bead, 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. 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. 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:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 27, 2017
__________________
Date
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
0120170543
12
0120170543