Whitney G.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 8, 2019

0120172204 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 8, 2019)

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

Whitney G.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172204

Agency No. 4B-100-0099-16

DECISION

On June 9, 2017, 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
May 12, 2017 final decision 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Our review is de novo. 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 Laborer, Custodial,
PS-04, at the FDR Station in New York, New York.

On August 15, 2016 (and twice amended), Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein he
claimed that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race/national origin (Hispanic,
Puerto Rico)2, age (72), and in reprisal for his prior protected EEO activity when:

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 Although Complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race (Hispanic), the Commission
notes that it considers the term “Hispanic” to be a national origin rather than a racial group.
0120172204

2
1. Complainant’s promotion to the Electronic Technician Level 11 position was not
processed;

2. Complainant was not placed on the seven craft categories Promotion Eligibility
Register (PER) List;

3. Complainant did not receive his Sick Leave Saver Certificates and Pin Awards;

4. On August 8, 2016, Complainant was charged 64 hours Absent without Official Leave
(AWOL);

5. On August 9, 2016, Complainant was charged five minutes Annual Leave;

6. On August 9, 2016, Complainant’s locker was vandalized and management took no
action;

7. During Pay Period 22 of 2016, Complainant’s scheduled annual leave was canceled
and he was charged AWOL and/or Leave Without Pay (LWOP); and

8. During Pay Period 22 of 2016, management removed 24 hours of annual leave and
twelve hours of sick leave from Complainant’s pay.

Complainant also claimed that he was denied union representation. In a partial dismissal dated
September 20, 2016, the Agency dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). Complainant further claimed that he had not been afforded official time.
The Agency notified Complainant that such an allegation must be brought in writing to the
Manager, EEO Compliance and Appeals.

At the conclusion of the investigation, 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). When Complainant did not request a hearing
within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency determined that Complainant failed to prove
that it subjected him to discrimination or reprisal as alleged.

With regard to claim (1), Complainant claimed that his promotion to an Electronic Technician,
Level 11 position was not processed. According to Complainant, he and 100 other Agency
employees completed a 10-week, 432 hours Maintenance Skills Program. Complainant claimed
that upon completion of the program, he and the other employees were allowed to choose their
desired craft. Agency officials observed that Complainant received a Certificate of Completion
for this program on August 29, 2003. According to management, Complainant took the eligibility
exam on August 17, 2000, and he was deemed ineligible for the position because he failed several
components of the exam. Management stated that the Permanent Posting Book for New York
Maintenance Craft Positions updated September 16, 2016, showed there was no Electronic
0120172204

3
Technician, Level 11 position and the Supervisor stated in his affidavit that the Area abolished the
position.

With respect to claim (2), Complainant stated that he was never placed on the seven craft categories
PER list (Promotional Eligibility Register). Complainant referenced a P2-597 form (Employee
Maintenance Selection Form) dated March 6, 2000, that he submitted with the understanding that
he could choose his promotion craft. Management stated that Complainant checked boxes for the
following position titles: Building Equipment Mechanic, PS-07; Building Maintenance Custodial
(PS unknown); Maintenance Electrician, PS-06; Maintenance Mechanic, PS-05; Maintenance
Mechanic, PS-04; Electronic Technician, ET-09; Electronic Technician, ET-10; and Maintenance
Mechanic, MPE—7, PS-07. According to Agency officials, Complainant was only eligible for the
positions of Maintenance Mechanic, PS-04, Maintenance Mechanic, PS-05, and Building
Maintenance Custodian, Level 4.

Management stated that a PER printed on December 15, 2003, listed Complainant as the top ranked
employee for the Maintenance Mechanic, Level 5 position. However, also in December 2003,
Complainant declined that position and requested that his name be removed from that PER list.
Management noted that in an email dated May 12, 2016, the Manager informed the Supervisor
that Complainant was requesting reconsideration. The Supervisor responded that the position was
now a Maintenance Mechanic, Level 7 and Complainant could provide her with a written request
to add his name back on the PER list. The Supervisor noted that the Manager provided
Complainant this information in a letter dated July 16, 2014.

The Agency dismissed claim (3) on the grounds of failure to state a claim except for the basis of
reprisal. Complainant claimed that he did not receive his yearly Sick Leave Saver Certificates
from 2010 and 2012- 2016 and Pin Awards. The Agency noted that Complainant did not indicate
there was any monetary value or compensation associated with the certificates or awards. In an
email dated July 20, 2016, after learning that Complainant had a sick leave balance of 1,580.6
hours and had not used any sick leave in 2015, the Manager informed Supervisor 2 that
Complainant should have received recognition in the form of a letter and certificate signed by the
Postmaster. On August 29, 2016, Supervisor 2 requested a “1,500 club” award for Complainant.
The Manager responded that the sick leave award program is a self-nomination program, but that
nothing precluded a supervisor from submitting an employee’s name for recognition. The Agency
found that Complainant received the “1,500” Pin award and Sick Leave Saver Certificate on
September 7, 2016.

With regard to claim (4), Complainant claimed that his pre-approved vacation batch from July 16,
2016 – August 5, 2016 was charged as AWOL retroactively by Supervisor 2. Complainant
maintained that his vacation batch had been approved by Supervisor 3 in January 2016. The
Agency found that the record included a leave request dated July 15, 2016 from Complainant
wherein Complainant requested 40 hours of annual leave from July 23, 2016 – July 29, 2016. The
Agency noted that Supervisor 2 disapproved the request on July 15, 2016, stating “Service
Needed.” The Agency determined that Complainant also submitted a leave request dated July 18,
0120172204

4
2016, wherein he requested 24 hours of annual leave from July 20, 2016 – July 22, 2016.
Supervisor 2 disapproved this leave request on July 18, 2016, again stating “Service Needed.”

The Agency observed that Complainant’s Time and Attendance Report reflects that Complainant
worked full days on July 18 and 19, 2016, and he was recorded as AWOL from July 20, 2016 –
July 29, 2016. Management stated that on January 29, 2016, Complainant identified his
preferences for vacation batches and his sixth and seventh preferences referenced July 16, 2016
through August 1, 2016. A memorandum from Supervisor 3 dated February 24, 2016, announced
choice vacation batches that had been approved, and mentioned three periods for Complainant,
none of which included the dates at issue. The Agency noted that a different employee was
previously approved to take leave from July 16 through July 29, 2016.

Complainant claimed with respect to claim (5) that he was improperly charged with five minutes
of annual leave. According to Complainant, on August 9, 2016, he swiped his time card at 12:59,
nine units past his scheduled start time of 12:50. Complainant claimed that employees are entitled
to five minutes of leeway but that Supervisor 2 stated there are only three minutes of leeway.
Supervisor 2 charged Complainant with .09 hours/five minutes of annual leave.

As for claim (6), the Agency dismissed this claim on the grounds of failure to state a claim except
for the basis of reprisal. Complainant stated that his locker was vandalized while he was on
vacation and management took no action. The Agency determined that Complainant did not
establish that he suffered a present harm or loss because of management’s alleged inaction.
Complainant reported to the Postmaster and Supervisor 2 that when he opened his locker on
August 9, 2016, he noticed that two of his work shirts were dirty and a computer was missing.
After Supervisor 2 reported the incident, on August 11, 2016, the Postal Police Officer informed
Supervisor 2 that the matter would be handled by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) because
it was an internal crime.

With respect to claim (7), Complainant claimed that his annual leave was canceled and he was
charged AWOL and/or LWOP. Complainant stated that he submitted a request for annual leave
for the periods of October 8, 2016 – October 14, 2016 (32 hours) and October 15, 2016 – October
21, 2016 (40 hours). According to Complainant, Supervisor 2 informed him on October 24, 2016,
that he had been charged with two weeks of AWOL because his leave requests were disapproved.
The Agency stated that the leave requests were denied by Supervisor 2 on October 6, 2016, with
the notation “Service Needed.” The Agency noted that Complainant’s preference of vacation
batches includes the dates at issue as his ninth and tenth preferences. These dates were not among
the periods that Complainant was approved for annual leave in the memorandum issued on
February 24, 2016.

Complainant contended as to claim (8) that during pay period 22 the Agency removed 24 hours of
his annual leave and 12 hours of his sick leave. According to Complainant, his paycheck for this
pay period should have shown earned annual leave of 176 hours and earned annual sick leave of
88 hours, but it did not.

0120172204

5
The Agency determined that assuming arguendo that Complainant had set forth a prima facie case
under the alleged bases, management had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation
for its actions. In terms of claim (1), the Supervisor asserted that Complainant was not promoted
to a Level 11 Electronic Technician position in 2016 because the positon has been abolished since
2012. The Supervisor further explained that Complainant was not eligible for an Electronic
Technician position as he would need to take the exam in order to become eligible for an Electronic
Technician Level 10 position. With respect to claim (2), the Supervisor stated that Complainant
was only eligible for the Maintenance Mechanic Level 5, now Level 7 position. The Supervisor
noted that Complainant requested in 2003 that his name be removed from the PER List for this
job. According to the Supervisor, Complainant needed to submit a written request to restore his
name to the PER list for this position.

As for claim (3), Supervisor 2 stated that he became Complainant’s Supervisor in March 2016,
and that he requested Complainant receive the Sick Leave Certificate once he became aware of the
situation. Supervisor 2 noted that the Sick Leave Certificate Program is a self-nominated program.
Supervisor 3 stated that she was Complainant’s supervisor from February 2011 – March 2016.
Supervisor 3 maintained that she did not give Complainant an award or certificate because she was
not aware that he was supposed to receive anything.

With regard to claim (4), Supervisor 2 asserted that he charged Complainant with being AWOL
because he took an unauthorized vacation. Supervisor 2 stated that Complainant submitted a leave
request and it was denied and returned to him. According to Supervisor 2, he denied the leave
request because another employee on the same tour had been previously approved to be off for the
same weeks.

With respect to claim (5), Supervisor 2 stated that he charged Complainant with nine units of
annual leave because he was late for work. Supervisor 2 explained that employees are given a
leeway of up to eight units to start work. In terms of claim (6), Supervisor 2 maintained that he
took appropriate action after being informed of the locker vandalism. Supervisor 2 stated that he
asked Complainant to write a report and that he forwarded the report to the Postal Police, and the
Postal Police instructed him to call the OIG. Supervisor 2 asserted that he contacted the OIG to
report the incident. According to Supervisor 2, neither the OIG nor the Postal Police followed up
with any action or guidance.

As for claim (7), Supervisor 2 stated that he charged Complainant with AWOL because
Complainant took a vacation even though his request for annual leave had been denied. Supervisor
2 claimed that he gave Complainant notice that his request had been declined on October 6, 2016,
when he placed the leave request form next to Complainant’s time card. According to Supervisor
2, Complainant had never been previously approved for leave on the October dates at issue.
Supervisor 2 reiterated that Complainant’s top three preferences for choice vacation batches had
been approved, but they did not cover the October absences. With regard to claim (8), Supervisor
2 stated that he cannot and does not have the authority to remove annual leave or sick leave from
an employee’s pay.

0120172204

6
The Agency found that Complainant failed to show that management’s reasons for its actions were
pretextual. As a result, the Agency found that Complainant had not been subjected to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant contends that management has denied his right to union representation
and has constantly refused to pay him for official time devoted to his EEO matters or assigned his
official time to annual leave or sick leave.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As an initial matter, the Commission notes that Complainant claimed that he was denied union
representation. The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process
to lodge a collateral attack on another proceeding. See Wills v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Request No.
05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05940585 (Sept.
22, 1994); Lingad v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 24, 1993). We agree
with the Agency’s dismissal of Complaint’s claim involving denial of a union steward. This matter
is more appropriately addressed under the negotiated grievance process in order to interpret the
relevant collective bargaining agreement.

Disparate Treatment

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). He must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference
of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima
facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S.
at 802 n. 13. To establish a prima facie case of reprisal, Complainant must show that: (1) he
engaged in protected EEO activity; (2) the Agency was aware of the protected activity; (3)
subsequently, he was subjected to adverse treatment by the Agency; and (4) a nexus exists between
his protected activity and the adverse treatment. Whitmire v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A00340 (Sept. 25, 2000).

The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with where the Agency articulated legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460
U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov.
13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex.
Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).

0120172204

7
Upon review of the record, we find that the Agency has presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
explanation for its actions with regard to each of the matters at issue in claims (1) – (8). With
regard to claim (1), we find that Complainant has not presented evidence to refute the Supervisor’s
assertion that Complainant could not be promoted to a Level 11 Electronic Technician position in
2016 because the positon has been abolished since 2012. With respect to claim (2), Complainant
has not refuted that he was only eligible for the Maintenance Mechanic Level 5, now Level 7
position. The Supervisor noted that Complainant requested in 2003 that his name be removed
from the PER List for this job. According to the Supervisor, Complainant needed to submit a
written request to restore his name to the PER list for this position.

As to claim (3), the Agency recognized that Complainant was deserving of the Sick Leave
Certificate and Pin award, but pointed out that it is a self-nominated program. The Agency
rectified the oversight once it was made aware of Complainant’s fulfillment of the criteria for these
awards. In terms of claim (4), we discern no persuasive evidence to support Complainant’s
contention that he was discriminatorily charged with being AWOL. The record does not contain
evidence to support Complainant’s argument that Supervisor 3 approved in January 2016 the dates
at issue he took as annual leave in July 2016. A memorandum from Supervisor 3 dated February
24, 2016, announced choice vacation batches that had been approved, and mentioned three periods
for Complainant, none of which included the dates at issue.

With regard to claim (5), Supervisor 2 stated in his affidavit that there is a leeway of up to eight
units to start work. The Agency’s method of calculations revealed that Complainant exceeded the
leeway as Complainant did not clock in until nine units after his official start time. We find that
Complainant has not refuted the Agency’s explanation for charging him with five minutes of
annual leave and has failed to establish that this action was attributable to discriminatory
motivation.

As for claim (6), Supervisor 2 addressed the vandalism incident by reporting it to the OIG and
Postal Police. We find no indication that Supervisor 2 failed to be responsive to this incident and
in any way acted in a discriminatory manner.

In terms of claim (7), Complainant maintained that Supervisor 3 approved his leave for the
vacation time he took in October 2016. However, the record does not contain evidence that
supports this argument. The record indicates that Supervisor 3 approved three preference vacation
batches for Complainant, but none for the October 2016 dates at issue. Thus, Complainant’s taking
of vacation time after Supervisor 2 declined his leave requests was inappropriate and the Agency
understandably cited Complainant for being AWOL.

With respect to claim (8), Complainant alleged that management officials “removed” 24 hours of
annual leave and 12 hours of sick leave from his pay. Complainant did not allege that he was
improperly charged annual and sick leave during this pay period; rather, Complainant claimed that
management “conspired to remove” the leave. Although the record does not contain a copy of the
pay stub for that pay period, Supervisor 2 affirmed that he could not remove annual or sick leave
from an employee’s pay and he was not made aware of this situation. We find that Complainant
0120172204

8
has failed to establish that any management official conspired to remove any leave from his pay
or that any inaccuracies in his pay were attributable to an unlawful motive.

As Complainant chose not to request a hearing, we do not have the benefit of an Administrative
Judge's credibility determinations after a hearing. Therefore, we can only evaluate the facts based
on the weight of the evidence presented. At all times, the ultimate burden remains with
complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he Agency's reasons were
pretext for discrimination or reprisal. Complainant failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged.

Denial of Official Time

Finally, the Commission notes that Complainant claims that the Agency denied him official time.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(b) provides that “if the complainant is an employee of
the agency, he or she shall have a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to
prepare the complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information.” The
Commission has the authority to remedy a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605 without a finding of
discrimination. Such a claim should not be processed in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108,
since the focus is not on the motivation, but rather the justification for why the complainant was
denied a reasonable amount of official time. Here, the record does not contain sufficient
information for such a determination. Therefore, we shall remand the matter so that the Agency
may issue a determination regarding Complainant’s claim of a denial of official time for his EEO
activity.
0120172204

9
CONCLUSION

The Agency’s determination that no discrimination occurred is AFFIRMED with regard to all
claims other than the claim of denied official time. The claim of denial of official time is
REMANDED to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the Order below.

ORDER
Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency shall take the
following actions:
(1) The Agency shall investigate the issue of whether Complainant was denied a
reasonable amount of official time. The Agency shall include in the record
documentation showing how much time was requested, for what stated purpose, how
much time was granted, if any, and the justification for the denial of any requested time.

(2) The Agency shall notify Complainant of the opportunity to place into the record any
evidence supporting his claim that he was denied a reasonable amount of official time.

(3) The Agency shall issue a decision as to whether Complainant was denied a reasonable
amount of official time. The Agency’s decision shall provide appeal rights to this
Commission. A copy of the decision must be sent to the Compliance Officer as
referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0618)
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s corrective
action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion of each ordered corrective
action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents
in the digital format required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under
which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall
submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the Commission.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency’s final report must contain supporting documentation
when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the
Complainant and his/her representative.
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.
0120172204

10
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 (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).

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0610)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency to
continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. You have the right to file a
civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from
the date that you receive this decision on both that portion of your complaint which the
0120172204

11
Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for
continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one
hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency,
or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on
your complaint. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the
person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her
full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or
department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing
a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (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

February 8, 2019
Date