[Redacted], Rayford H., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 31, 2022

Appeal No. 2020004634 (E.E.O.C. May. 31, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Rayford H.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Appeal No. 2020004634 Agency Nos. 200H-0307-2017104019 200H-0307-2019101230 DECISION On August 19, 2020, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s July 22, 2020, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS, in part, and REVERSES, in part, the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Senior Veterans Claims Examiner, GS-11 at the Agency’s Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) in Buffalo, New York. Complainant applied, was deemed qualified, and considered for both the Lead and the Specialist positions. Like other eligible candidates, Complainant was required to complete a one-hour written exercise to provide responses to questions specific to the respective position. Report of Investigation 2 (ROI 2) at 135, 198. 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 2020004634 The exercises for the Specialist and Lead positions were sent to the candidates in separate emails. Candidates’ responses to both position exercises were due by close of business (COB) that same day. The candidates were instructed not to open the email until they were ready to begin because they would be limited to one-hour for each exercise, starting from the time a candidate opened each email. The top scoring candidates from the exercises were then invited to the next step in the selection process, an in-person interview. ROI 2 at 137, 201. Complainant’s third-line supervisor (Assistant Education Officer 1) was responsible for reading and scoring the exercises for the Specialist position. Complainant’s other third-line supervisor (Assistant Education Officer 2) was responsible for reading and scoring the exercises for the Lead position. Interviews were conducted by both Assistant Education Officers for those candidates whose exercise score was high enough to be interviewed. Complainant’s fourth-line supervisor (Education Officer) was the selecting official for both positions. ROI 2 at 89-103, 104-16 There were 25 candidates for the Lead position. The points attained by the candidates ranged from a high of 30 (the maximum score) to a low of 13. Complainant’s score was 18. Assistant Education Officer 2 determined that a score of 23 was the cutoff for those to be interviewed. ROI 2 at 76-88, 93-4, 203-66, 267-320. There were 18 candidates for the Specialist position who were scored points with the highest possible of 45. The points attained by the candidates ranged from a high of 44 to a low of 30. Complainant’s score of 30 was the lowest. Assistant Education Officer 1 determined that a score of 38 was the cutoff for those to be interviewed. ROI 2 at 104-16, 141-85. Between 2016, and 2017, Complainant made several complaints to management regarding the work habits of a male coworker (Coworker) which Complainant found unacceptable and “obnoxious.” These include that Complainant received calls, some of which were allegedly aggressive, sexually explicit, and threatening, on Complainant’s office telephone number which he believed were made by Coworker; that Coworker interrupted Complainant’s work several times by beating his chest in an aggressive and threatening manner and acting disruptive; and that Coworker followed behind Complainant and his co-workers while they walked and made loud obnoxious noises. Other allegations include that Coworker was speaking loudly near Complainant’s cubicle; that Coworker was pounding papers against his chest and snorting as he walked by Complainant’s cubicle; that Coworker would loiter near Complainant’s cubicle while laughing and snorting. Report of Investigation 1 (ROI 1) at 42-4, 65, 68, 71. Complainant’s allegations were unsubstantiated by management’s internal inquiries which included Complainant’s first-line supervisor (Supervisor) walking to Complainant’s work area, sometimes multiple times in one day. Management reported the more serious allegations to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and the Buffalo, New York Police Department. ROI 1 at 244, 250-52, 254-55, 304-427, 265-66, 286, and 234. 3 2020004634 Complainant also raised other allegations, some of which may have occurred outside the workplace. These include that Coworker sent Complainant offensive, sexually explicit, aggressive, hostile, and physically threatening text messages; that Coworker called Complainant and yelled, "FUCK YOU" in a loud and angry voice; Coworker called Complainant at 10 p.m. and whispered, "you're dead;" Coworker has used Complainant's personal information to solicit brochures, memberships, websites and informational emails (homosexual, pornographic, financial, etc.); and that Coworker called Complainant on Complainant's personal cell phone and threateningly accused Complainant of having an affair with Coworker’s significant other. ROI 1 at 61-64 and 67. The Agency also investigated these allegations but could not substantiate them. Management however referred the allegations to the Lockport, New York Police Department and FPS. ROI 1 at 240, 252, and 261. Since management could not link Coworker to the alleged actions, and in an attempt to address Complainant’s concerns, they ordered that there be no further contact between Coworker and Complainant. ROI 1 at 75. Management also offered Complainant the option of moving his workstation on several occasions, but Complainant declined the offer until the summer of 2017. ROI 1 at 262-63, 265, and 305. On October 12, 2017, and February 5, 2019, Complainant filed two separate EEO complaints alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of sex (male) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when: Agency Case Number 200H-0307-2017104019 1. In August and September 2016, Coworker sent Complainant offensive, sexually explicit, aggressive, hostile, and physically threatening text messages; 2. On September 2, 2016, Coworker called Complainant and yelled, "FUCK YOU" in a loud and angry voice; 3. On October 28, 2016, Complainant received two calls on his office telephone number, the first one from an unknown individual who spoke in an aggressive, explicit, and hostile manner, and threatened Complainant; and the second from a caller who identified himself as "[false name omitted]" who made numerous "aggressive, explicit, and harassing comments" including calling Complainant a "FUCKING faggot” multiple times; 4. On or about December 15, 2016, Coworker called Complainant and whispered, "you're dead;" 5. Since January 2, 2017, Coworker has used Complainant's personal information to solicit brochures, memberships, websites and informational emails from the Church of Scientology and various websites (homosexual, pornographic, financial, etc.); 4 2020004634 6. On February 9, 2017, Coworker interrupted Complainant’s work several times by speaking loudly and acting disruptive in the office and setting up a drug deal in front of the office building; 7. On or about February 11, 2017, Coworker called Complainant on Complainant's personal cell phone and threateningly accused Complainant of having an affair with his wife or girlfriend; 8. Between June and August 2017, Coworker loitered outside Complainant's cubicle, snorting and beating his chest in an aggressive and threatening manner, laughing, and so forth; and 9. On various dates in September 2017, Coworker harassed Complainant as Complainant was walking with a group of coworkers. Agency Case Number 200H-0307-2019101230 In a second EEO complaint, Complainant alleged that he was subjected to the following events in retaliation for prior EEO activity when:2 10. Between December 6 and 18, 2018, Complainant’s managers displayed a hostile and confrontational attitude towards Complainant during a meeting, dominated the conversation, constantly interrupted him and trivialized Complainant’s former EEO complaint; 11. On December 6, 2018, Complainant learned he was qualified but not referred for further consideration for the position of Lead Veterans Claims Examiner (the Lead position), GS-12, under Vacancy Announcement No. CASF-10334241-19-DG; and 12. On December 6, 2018, Complainant learned he was qualified but not referred for further consideration for the position of Veterans Claims Examiner (Training and Quality Specialist (the Specialist position), GS-12, under Vacancy Announcement No. CASF-10330182-19-DG. The Agency accepted the complaints for investigation. At the conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew his request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision (FAD) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. 2 For ease of identification, we have modified the numbering of the claims. 5 2020004634 CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, Complainant asserted that the AJ engaged in reversible error and warrants remanding the matter to the Commission for a hearing before a new AJ. Complainant reiterates his allegations, stating that the Agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, that he has proven his claim by preponderant evidence and that the FAD should be reversed in Complainant’s favor with an investigation into damages. Among other things, Complainant argues that he established a prima facie case of both sexual and non-sexual harassment. To support his sexual harassment argument, Complainant cites to false actions and statements allegedly involving Coworker making sexual advances toward Complainant, touching his leg, and asking him on a date; and allegedly repeated, sexually- charged and often violent behavior that Complainant asserts had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with his work performance and/or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. To support his argument that the Agency erred in not finding that Complainant has established a prima facie case of non-sexual harassment, Complainant states that he was subjected to near- continuous harassing conduct by Coworker, spanning over one year, continuing beyond Coworker’s retirement, and culminating in Coworker’s plea of guilty to making a criminal threat of violence against a federal employee in 2020. Complainant argues that the Agency failed to timely or adequately address his discriminatory harassment allegations, stating that Coworker’s actions were based on Complainant being a heterosexual male. He asserts that management would have acted differently had Complainant been female. Complainant also states that the Agency should have removed Complainant from supervisory review of Coworker’s work product to address the alleged harassment. On appeal, the Agency reiterates its FAD explanations, asserting that Complainant failed to allege any conduct which would meet the threshold of severe or pervasive harassment. The Agency states that despite investigations into Complainant’s allegations, there was no evidence to prove that Coworker was behind any of the alleged telephone calls, text messages, or emails to Complainant. The Agency also asserts that Complainant failed to show a nexus between his protected bases and the alleged actions. The Agency requests that it’s FAD be affirmed. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 Chap. 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 6 2020004634 parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As a preliminary matter, we note that Complainant withdrew his hearing request, as such, we cannot grant Complainant’s request on appeal that we remand the matter back for a hearing before any AJ. Disparate Treatment - Claims 11 and 12 A claim of disparate treatment based on indirect evidence is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, he or 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). The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Aff. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder 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 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the Agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether Complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Dep’t of Transp., EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). As for claims 11 and 12, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Here, the record reflects that Complainant failed to complete the tests required for the positions. Therefore, his scores were extremely low, and he did not qualify for the interview stage of the process. ROI 2 at 34-5, 93-9, 95. For the Lead position, Assistant Education Officer 2 stated that Complainant’s lower score is because he did not answer the second exercise question with specific details or provide the outcome. ROI 2 at 79-85, 216-17, 279-80. 7 2020004634 For the Specialist position, Assistant Education Officer 1 stated that the candidates were scored based on the thoroughness and completeness of their answers with respect to articulating their experience, skills, judgment, and initiative. Complainant was not referred for an interview because his responses to the questions did not sufficiently demonstrate the proficiencies identified. ROI 2 at 93-9, 279-80, 108, 141. As the Agency has articulated legitimate non- discriminatory reasons for the alleged actions, we now turn to Complainant to show that these reasons are pretextual. In an effort to show pretext, Complainant argued that his sex, and an internal complaint he filed against Coworker were the reasons he was not referred for further consideration for the two positions. However, this argument is not supported by Complainant’s own acknowledgment that he was unable to complete the written exercises to their fullest extent due to his error in opening both exercises at the same time, and distraction by subordinates. ROI 2 at 51-2. Complainant also cited to his lengthy service, expressing his frustration that “an hour exercise would outweigh 24 years of experience towards these positions.” ROI 2 at 51-2. However, under Commission precedent, years of service, in and of itself, does not make one the most qualified candidate for a promotion and does not render one more qualified than those with less Agency experience. See Kenyatta S. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120161689 (Sept. 21, 2017); Dominica V. v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120182366 (Oct. 31, 2019). Harassment - Claims 1 - 9, and 10 To establish a claim of harassment, complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) 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 his 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). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 6 (Mar. 8, 1994). To ultimately prevail on a claim of retaliatory harassment, Complainant must show that he was subjected to conduct sufficient to dissuade a “reasonable person” from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. See Burlington N. and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, EEOC Notice No. 915.004, § II(B)(3) & n. 137 (Aug. 25, 2016). Only if both elements are present, retaliatory motivation and a chilling effect on protected EEO activity, will the question of Agency liability for reprisal-based harassment present itself. Janeen S. v. Dep't of Com., EEOC Appeal No. 0120160024 (Dec. 20, 2017). 8 2020004634 Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant alleged two separate claims of harassment. In claim 10, Complainant asserted that management displayed a hostile and confrontational attitude towards him during the December 18, 2018, feedback meeting, dominated the conversation, constantly interrupted Complainant and trivialized his former EEO complaint. The record, however, does not corroborate Complainant’s allegations. Complainant’s union representative who was also present at the meeting provided sworn testimony to this effect. ROI 2 at 71. Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant has not substantiated his claim that these event in claim 10 occurred or that the event was because of his prior protected EEO activity. In addition, Complainant alleged that Coworker subjected him to a hostile work environment as alleged in claims 1-9. Complainant is a heterosexual male. Coworker allegedly engaged in unwelcome conduct toward Complainant that included text messages and sexually suggestive language. Therefore, we find that Complainant has established elements 1, 2, and 3 of his prima facie case of sexual harassment. Now, we turn to element 4 of Complainant’s claim of harassment. Here, Complainant raised multiple allegations against Coworker regarding Coworker’s habits that Complainant found unacceptable and distracting in the workplace. These include that Complainant received calls, some of which were allegedly aggressive, sexually explicit, and threatening, on Complainant’s office telephone number which he believed were made by Coworker; that Coworker interrupted Complainant’s work several times by beating his chest in an aggressive and threatening manner and acting disruptive; and that Coworker followed behind Complainant and other coworkers while they walked and made loud obnoxious noises. Other allegations include that Coworker was speaking loudly near Complainant’s cubicle; that Coworker was pounding papers against his chest and snorting as he walked by Complainant’s cubicle; that Coworker would loiter near Complainant’s cubicle while laughing and snorting. ROI 1 at 42-4. We note that while Complainant’s descriptions of the alleged incidents are troubling because taken together, they could amount to harassment. However, we find that Complainant did not support his claim of harassment based on the preponderance of the record. In response to Complainant’s claim of harassment, Coworker denied the allegations. Coworker believed that Complainant was attempting to bait him. He acknowledged that he told Complainant that his breath stinks; and admitted that he has “talked crap before to [Complainant] but not since December 2016 when Supervisor spoke to him.” ROI 1 at 339 and 429. However, Coworker denied Complainant’s alleged incidents of harassment. See ROI 1 at 249, 292-97, and 429-31. He also maintained that he was not aware Complainant was alleging a hostile work environment. ROI 1 at 291 and 297. Additionally, on September 8, 2016, Coworker reported to Supervisor that as he walked by Complainant’s cubicle to sharpen his pencil, Complainant stated to Coworker under his breath, “you’re dead.” ROI 1 at 427. Complainant did not deny making this comment. We note that Complainant did not identify any witnesses to most of the alleged incidents against Coworker and asserted that no one wanted to get involved. ROI 1 at 481. 9 2020004634 Even those witnesses Complainant identified as to some of the alleged incidents could not corroborate Complainant’s version. See, e.g., ROI 1 at 254-55, 266, and 301. Therefore, we find that Complainant has failed to meet element 4 of his prima facie harassment case. The record indicates that when management investigated Complainant’s claims of harassment, their own investigations could not substantiate his claims. We note that the record contains sworn affidavits and several emails between Complainant and his supervisors showing that upon learning of the alleged actions, management conducted internal inquiries, including a fact- finding inquiry on September 21, 2017, but could not substantiate Complainant’s claims. ROI 1 at 255, 428-37, and 222. Assistant Education Officer provided sworn testimony stating that she learned of the alleged August 23, 2016, and September 2, 2016, text messages when she met with Complainant. She stated that Complainant showed her copies of messages and a copy of the screen capture showing the sender’s name. Assistant Education Officer spoke with Coworker during the fact-finding concerning this and other allegations in which Complainant identified Coworker as the perpetrator. Coworker denied sending Complainant the text messages and provided Assistant Education Officer with his current and past cell phone numbers, neither of which matched the number provided by Complainant. Assistant Education Officer also checked office records for Coworker’s phone numbers, but none matched that provided by Complainant. ROI 1 at 249, 252-53, 355, 415, 423-25, and 429. Even when, on July 21, 2017, Complainant complained several times in one day about Coworker, management investigated the allegations but were unable to substantiate them. ROI 1 at 71-3, 172-174, 178, and 399. Therefore, upon review of the record as a whole, we cannot find that Complainant has established that the events alleged in support of his claim of harassment by the Coworker actually occurred as alleged. While Complainant asserted that Coworker threatened him, Coworker asserted the opposite. Complainant's own identified witnesses did not remember any incidents from the dates at issue. Complainant bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. When the evidence is at best equipoise, Complainant fails to meet that burden. See Lore v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120113283 (Sept. 13, 2013) (complainant failed to establish that witnesses made false statements where he withdrew his request for a hearing and credibility determinations were unable to be made); Brand v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102187 (Aug. 23, 2012) (complainant failed to establish that his coworker made offensive comments in a “he said, she said” situation where complainant requested a final decision and an Administrative Judge did not make credibility determinations). Therefore, we conclude that Complainant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his sex as alleged in claims 1-9. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. 10 2020004634 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that tend to establish that: 1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or 2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). 11 2020004634 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 May 31, 2022 Date