Joan S., Complainant,v.Jeff B. Sessions, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 3, 2017

0120151172 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 3, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Joan S.,
Complainant,

v.

Jeff B. Sessions,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120151172

Hearing No. 440-2013-0005X

Agency Nos. BOP-2011-0970;
BOP-2013-0370

DECISION

The Commission accepts Complainant’s appeal from the Agency’s January 5, 2015, final order
concerning his 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Education
Specialist at the Agency’s Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois. Complainant
entered her position in January 2009 and held the position until January 2013. Complainant
experiences complications from asthma. Complainant’s condition is exacerbated by extreme
stress. When Complainant experiences an asthma attack, her symptoms include shortness of
breath, tightness in the chest, and wheezing, which require treatment of steroids and a nebulizer.

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.
0120151172

2
Agency No. BOP-2011-0970

Complainant claims that her first-level supervisor (S1) criticized her and created a hostile work
environment from the beginning of their work relationship. S1 initially rated Complainant as
“Outstanding” on her May 2009 performance appraisal; however, Complainant began
communicating with her in a non-constructive manner soon thereafter. S1 reported that
Complainant began slamming doors, raising her voice at S1, and refusing to share important
work product. Additionally, S1 received complaints from other employees about Complainant
insulting them. S1 rated Complainant as “Minimally Successful” on her October 2009
performance review. Complainant raised the matter with the Union and the rating was later
raised to “Satisfactory.”

The Agency conducts performance logs on a quarterly basis to document an employee’s
performance throughout the year. In February 2010, S1 stated in Complainant’s performance
log: “Complainant gets upset with the running of the department, she becomes disgruntled and
refuses to communicate the issues to the supervisor...she ignores the supervisor when requests
are made and does not provide follow ups to work assigned to her.”

In April 2010, Complainant suffered an asthma attack at work. Complainant was out of work
from April 19, 2010 through July 12, 2010. On April 23, 2010, Complainant submitted a
reasonable accommodation request asking to be removed from S1’s supervision. On June 7,
2010, the Human Resources Manager and the Acting Associate Warden contacted Complainant’s
doctor for additional information regarding Complainant’s fitness for duty and her reasonable
accommodation request. Complainant’s doctor responded on June 9, 2010. On June 23, 2010,
the Acting Associate Warden responded to Complainant’s doctor stating that Complainant had to
work under S1 and asked Complainant’s doctor to base her assessment on Complainant’s
position description.

On June 29, 2010, Complainant’s doctor sent management Complainant’s progress notes and
stated that Complainant was mentally and physically fit for duty, but again recommended that
Complainant be transferred to another supervisor. Complainant’s doctor’s notes indicated that
Complainant was having violent thoughts about S1. In July 2010, the Warden convened a threat
assessment team to assess whether Complainant or S1 posed any threat of violence against each
other. The team concluded that there was no threat.

On November 16, 2010, S1 gave Complainant her performance review. S1 rated Complainant as
“Exceeds Expectations” overall, but as “Fully Satisfactory” in Communication. S1 noted that
Complainant did “not communicate with her supervisor and barely had civil communication with
others in the department.” Additionally, S1 stated that there were “many instances where the
lines of communication were attempted to no avail. Complainant has the ability to communicate
properly but has made the choice to not respond to requests and to provide no follow up to
assignments or tasks assigned.”

0120151172

3
On November 17, 2010, Complainant had an asthma attack at work and remained on leave for
six weeks thereafter. Complainant returned to work on or about January 3, 2011. On January
18, 2011, a new Warden entered duty at the facility. On January 27, 2011, Complainant
submitted a reasonable accommodation request to the Warden requesting to be moved out of the
Education Department. Complainant stated that she had experienced two severe asthma attacks
since she was under S1’s supervision. Complainant noted that any time she was away from S1
for an extended period of time, she experienced fewer asthma symptoms. On February 4, 2011,
the Warden informed Complainant that she could not be moved because a teacher was needed in
the Education Department for an upcoming Program Review. Nonetheless, that same day, the
Warden issued Complainant a memorandum granting her reasonable accommodation request by
removing her from S1’s supervision and placing her under the supervision of the Recreation
Supervisor (S2) temporarily. The arrangement required S2 to monitor Complainant’s work
schedule, approve leave requests, and convey information from S1 to Complainant. S1 was
instructed to limit her communications with Complainant. Complainant worked under S2 from
February 2011 until April 2011, when she then started reporting to the Associate Warden. On
one occasion, however, S1 told Complainant to escort a staff member downstairs. Complainant
did not answer S1 or follow her instruction. S1 returned to Complainant’s office and angrily
stated, “Did you hear what I said?”

On July 14, 2011, the Warden informed Complainant that she would be placed back under the
supervision of S1 effective August 1, 2011. The Warden believed that Complainant and S1’s
relationship had improved, that the Associate Warden should not supervise a line employee, and
that the Education Department could be more productive.

On July 27, 2011, the Associate Warden issued Complainant her performance appraisal.
Complainant received an overall rating of “Exceeds.” The Associate Warden noted, however,
that he encouraged “[Complainant] to continue to focus her efforts in the area of verbal
communication. It is imperative to foster open lines of communication within the department. I
encourage her to be more open to constructive criticism and direction from her supervisor.”

Additionally, on July 27, 2011, S1 and the Warden were contacted by the Northeast Regional
Executive Administrator to provide references for Complainant for a Supervisor of Education
position at FCI Fairton for which Complainant had applied. S1 rated Complainant as “above
average” on her written communication skills and technical expertise, but “below average” on
her oral communication skills and analytical ability. S1 added that she would not hire
Complainant for the supervisor position. The Warden rated Complainant as “above average” on
her written communication skills, but “average” in administrative skills and leadership skills.
The Warden noted that Complainant was a “wonderful teacher” and “very knowledgeable.”

On August 2, 2011, Complainant experienced an asthma attack at work. On August 15, 2011,
Complainant submitted a request for reasonable accommodation requesting to work under a
different supervisor. On August 25, 2011, the Warden denied Complainant’s request.

0120151172

4
On September 21, 2011 (and amended on October 18, 2011), Complainant filed a formal
complaint (Agency No. BOP-2011-0970) alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and
subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of disability and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when:

1. From July 1, 2011 to September 21, 2011, she was subjected to unwarranted
comments and criticisms;

2. On August 25, 2011, her reasonable accommodation request was denied; and

3. In July 2011, her supervisor and the Warden gave her a negative reference and made
unfavorable comments about her which resulted in her non-selection for a Supervisor
of Education position at FCI Fairton, New Jersey announced under Vacancy
Announcement No. NER-2011-0151.

On November 15, 2011, the Agency issued Complainant a letter informing her that claim (3)
would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the class complaint Turner v. Dep’t of
Justice, EEOC Hearing Nos. 320-2005-00046X and 320-2005-00333X. Complainant appealed
and, in Complainant v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120937 (Apr. 11, 2012), the
Commission determined that it was unclear from the record as to whether the reprisal portion of
the non-selection claim alleged in claim (3) fell within the scope of the Turner class complaint.
Further, the Commission determined that the Agency improperly held the disability portion of
claim (3) in abeyance. As a result, the Commission remanded claim (3) for the Agency to
reissue its abeyance decision if it determined that claim (3) fell within the Turner class or to
resume processing claim (3) on the basis of reprisal. Additionally, the Commission ordered the
Agency to resume processing the disability portion of claim (3). On May 12, 2012, the Agency
determined that claim (3) did not fall within the Turner class and resumed processing of the full
complaint.

Agency No. BOP-2013-0370

In February 2012, an Education Department employee reported a hostile work environment in
the department. The employee complained that Complainant and S1 often screamed at each
other. On March 5, 2012, the Warden notified Complainant and S1 that a second threat
assessment would be conducted to determine if a hostile work environment existed in the
Education Department. The Warden transferred Complainant to a pre-trial unit team pending the
outcome of the threat assessment. The threat assessment team determined that there was a threat
of physical violence between Complainant and S1 and recommended that their interaction be
kept at a bare minimum. On April 5, 2012, Complainant was reassigned back to the Education
Department, but not under S1’s supervision.

On April 23, 2012, Complainant applied for the position of Teacher Supervisor (Supervisor of
0120151172

5
Education), GS-1710-12, at FDC Honolulu, Hawaii. On June 6, 2012, the Warden at FDC
Honolulu asked the Warden to provide a reference for Complainant. The Warden rated
Complainant as “below average” on her oral communications and on her leadership skills. The
Warden stated that Complainant was qualified for this position, but she did not believe that
Complainant should be promoted. The Warden stated that Complainant had demonstrated
inflexibility and an inability to consider how she might have contributed to the conflicts with her
supervisor. On June 26, 2012, Complainant learned she was not selected for the position.

On May 16, 2013, Complainant filed a second formal complaint (BOP-2013-0370) alleging that
the Agency subjected her to reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

4. On June 26, 2012, she learned that the Warden provided a negative recommendation
to the selecting official for the position of Teaching Supervisor (Supervisor of
Education), GS-1710-12, advertised in Vacancy Announcement No. WRO-2012-
0154.

On June 4, 2013, the Agency issued a decision placing the matter in abeyance. The Agency
determined that the complaint fell within the scope of the Turner class action (now docketed as
EEOC Hearing No. 541-2008-00255X). Complainant appealed and, in Complainant v. Dep’t of
Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132514 (Nov. 19, 2013), the Commission reversed the Agency’s
decision finding that the Agency failed to produce evidence in support of its decision. As a
result, the Commission remanded the matter for further processing.

At the conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant with copies of the
reports of investigation and notices of her right to request hearings before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing.
On January 14, 2014, the AJ consolidated the two complaints. The AJ held a hearing on October
6, 2014, at which 8 witnesses testified. The AJ issued a decision on October 24, 2014.

In the decision, the AJ determined that the conduct at issue in claim (1) was insufficiently severe
or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Further, the AJ found that Complainant
failed to show that the comments alleged in claim (1) were based on retaliatory or discriminatory
animus. The AJ noted that Complainant testified that S1 criticized her and undermined her
authority from the outset of their relationship, well before her protected EEO activity and S1
learning of her asthma condition. Complainant also testified that S1 behaved similarly with
other employees. The AJ found that the record established that S1 sometimes micromanaged
employees and sometimes spoke to them in a rude and/or demeaning manner, but the comments
challenged in this case appeared to be efforts to get Complainant to follow instructions and to
recognize her authority.

With respect to claim (2), Complainant asked management to accommodate her asthma by
giving her a different supervisor. The AJ assumed arguendo that Complainant was a qualified
individual with a disability. The AJ determined that Complainant did not prove that continued
reassignment away from S1 was a reasonable accommodation. The AJ noted that an employer is
0120151172

6
generally not required to move an employee away from a particular supervisor as a reasonable
accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act. While the Agency did previously grant
Complainant’s request to be moved away from S1, it was not required to do so. The
arrangement proved to be impractical, requiring a third person to relay S1’s comments to
Complainant and vice versa. Accordingly, the AJ found that Complainant had not been denied
reasonable accommodation.

As to claim (3), S1 rated Complainant as “above average” on her written communication skills
and technical expertise, but “below average” on her communication skills and her analytical
ability. S1 testified that she based this description on the fact that Complainant had trouble
listening to and communicating with others. The Warden testified that he provided Complainant
a rating of “above average” on her written communication skills and technical expertise, but
“average” on the elements of administrative skills and leadership skills. The Warden testified
that she provided this reference because Complainant had shown inflexibility towards her
supervisor, and had no supervisory experience. Additionally, the Warden testified that the
Fairton prison had many educational programs, and Complainant needed to gain experience with
those programs before she could supervise those programs. The AJ found that the record
suggested that Complainant exhibited poor communication skills with respect to S1. Further,
several of Complainant’s coworkers agreed that her attitude and behavior towards S1 needed
improvement. Finally, the poor relationship between Complainant and S1 resulted in two threat
assessments, including one which found a risk of violence.

Regarding claim (4), the Warden told the Hawaii official who called for a reference that
Complainant was “below average” on her oral communications and leadership skills. The
Warden stated that Complainant was qualified for this position, but she did not believe that
Complainant should be promoted. The AJ determined that the Warden credibly testified that she
did not give Complainant a stronger reference because she was concerned that Complainant
would not be able to listen to and communicate well with subordinate employees.

The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were
pretextual. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination,
reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully implementing the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency discriminated against her when it denied her
reasonable accommodation request of being removed from S1’s supervision. Complainant
argues that the AJ ignored the evidence that moving her away from S1 would have been
reasonable and effective to improve her condition and the efficiency of the Agency. Further,
Complainant claims that the Agency failed to show that granting her request would have been an
undue burden. Next, Complainant argues that Agency officials retaliated against her by
providing negative references. Complainant claims the Warden sabotaged her chances for the
Hawaii position and S1 had no business giving a reference for her for the Fairton position.
0120151172

7
Complainant contends that the AJ’s decision is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly,
Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the final order. The Agency submitted a brief
in opposition to Complainant’s appeal in which it urged the Commission to affirm the AJ’s
decision and its final order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal
Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A
finding regarding whether discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-
Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ’s conclusions of law are subject to a de
novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).

An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a
witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the
testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it.
See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-
110), Ch. 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Hostile Work Environment – Claim (1)

To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily
protected class; (2) 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 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 to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or 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).

Therefore, 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 her protected classes. Only if Complainant establishes
both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.

Complainant asserted that based on her protected classes, management subjected her to a hostile
work environment. Complainant alleged several incidents of what she believed to be
0120151172

8
discriminatory and retaliatory harassment. In particular, Complainant claimed that S1 often
spoke to her in a harsh tone, unfairly criticized her work performance, undermined her authority
in front of co-workers and inmates, and interfered with her duties. The Commission finds that
substantial record evidence supports the AJ’s determination that Complainant has not shown that
she was subjected to conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work
environment. In so finding, the Commission notes that the anti-discrimination statutes are not a
civility code. Rather, they forbid “only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the
conditions of the victim's employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75,
81 (1998).

Moreover, even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create
a hostile work environment, Complainant failed to show that the Agency management’s actions
were based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The record reflects that the alleged incidents
were more likely the result of routine supervision, personality conflicts, and general workplace
disputes and tribulations. As a result, the Commission finds that substantial record evidence
supports the AJ’s finding that Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to a
discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment.

Denial of Reasonable Accommodation – Claim (2)

Under the Commission’s regulations, an Agency is required to make reasonable accommodation
to the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless the
Agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See 29 C.F.R. §§
1630.2(o) and (p). The Commission will assume without deciding (for the purposes of this
decision) that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.

Upon review, the Commission finds that the Agency did not deny Complainant a reasonable
accommodation. On August 15, 2011, Complainant requested to work under a new supervisor as
a reasonable accommodation. On August 25, 2011, the Warden denied Complainant’s request,
noting that Complainant was the only teacher assigned to the Education Department and that a
temporary arrangement in which Complainant reported to another supervisor caused confusion,
frustration, and a lack of productivity within the department. Generally, the Commission has
held that an employer does not have to provide an employee with a new supervisor as a
reasonable accommodation. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement
Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Question 33 (rev. Oct. 17, 2002) (employer not required to provide employee
with new supervisor as reasonable accommodation). Thus, the Commission finds that substantial
evidence supports the AJ’s finding that the Agency was not required to reassign Complainant to
a new supervisor as an accommodation. Moreover, Complainant has not shown that there was a
vacant, funded position for which she was qualified and to which she could have been
reassigned. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to prove that the
Agency denied her reasonable accommodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

Disparate Treatment – Claims (3) and (4)
0120151172

9

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, 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 Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). 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. Tx. Dep't of Cmty. 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 reasons for its actions are
pretext for discrimination. Id. 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 Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

Upon review, the Commission finds substantial evidence supports the AJ’s decision. Assuming
arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination and reprisal,
substantial record evidence shows that Agency officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for their actions. Specifically, S1 testified that she could not recommend Complainant
for the Fairton position because she believed that Complainant needed more training in
communication and emotional intelligence. Hr’g Tr., at 193-94. S1 testified that poor
communication and not getting along with others created security issues for the inmates and
staff. Id. at 194. The Warden testified that she could not provide fully positive references for
Complainant for the Fairton and Honolulu positions because she believed that Complainant
needed additional supervisory training and better communication skills. Id. at 235, 264. The
Warden noted that Complainant’s technical skills were never an issue and Complainant simply
needed to demonstrate better skills managing people. Id. at 264-65

The Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support that
Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s explanation for its actions was a pretext for
discrimination or reprisal. The record and facts gleaned at the hearing fail to disclose any
evidence purporting to show the Agency’s actions were pretext for discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. Thus, after reviewing the record and considering arguments on appeal, the Commission
finds that the AJ made reasonable credibility determinations, which are not contradicted by
objective evidence, and the AJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Therefore, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that she was subjected to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged.

0120151172

10
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
final Agency order because the Administrative Judge’s ultimate finding, that unlawful
employment discrimination was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by
the record.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405;
Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110),
at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Complainant’s request 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
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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).

0120151172

11
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 (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

August 3, 2017
Date