Ashley S.,1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 10, 2019

0120170816 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 10, 2019)

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

Ashley S.,1
Complainant,

v.

Steven T. Mnuchin,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120170816

Hearing No. 443-2015-00024X

Agency No. IRS-13-0715-F

DECISION

Complainant timely 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 final order concerning
her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§ 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether substantial evidence in the record supports the EEOC
Administrative Judge’s (AJ’s) decision that Complainant was not subjected to disparate treatment
and a hostile work environment, as alleged.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human Resources
(HR) Assistant, GS-7, at the Agency’s Workforce Relations Division (WRD) in Chicago, Illinois.

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.
0120170816

2
Report of Investigation (ROI), at 16. Complainant worked an alternative work schedule,
encompassing a 4-day work week with 10-hour days. The Supervisory Human Resources
Specialist (Caucasian, 58 years of age) served as Complainant’s first-level supervisor (S1), and the
Acting Associate Director (African-American, 49 years of age) was assigned as Complainant’s
second-level supervisor (S2). ROI, at 264-265. Complainant was also supervised by the Associate
Director for Labor/Employee Relations Field Operations (African-American, 51 years of age) who
served as Complainant’s third-level supervisor (S3). Id.

In April 2013, all Agency employees nationwide received a Notice of Proposed Furlough, which
included instructions on how to submit a form requesting an oral reply or intention to submit a
written reply to the furlough. Id. at 289, 292-294. Employees had seven days to request an oral
reply and 15 days to submit a written reply. Id. The WRD was tasked to administer the oral reply
furlough process for employees nationwide. As a result, on April 18, 2013, S1 emailed
Complainant and other staff members that alternative work schedules would be suspended for
about a month until the completion of the furlough project. Id. at 159-160. Later that afternoon,
Complainant replied to S1’s email, writing that she was unaware that alternative work schedules
would be suspended so suddenly, and that she was had some personal scheduling conflicts due to
the suspension of her alternative work schedule. Id. at 159. Complainant specifically stated that
she had accepted an invitation for an out-of-town event; reserved a rental car; had a dental
appointment; had guests visiting her; and she was scheduled to visit her new grandson with airfare
already purchased. Id. According to S1, she did not respond to Complainant’s email because it was
overlooked due to heavy email traffic caused by the furlough project. Id. at 274. S1 averred that
she nevertheless promised Complainant that she could take her leave at the end May, after
completion of the furlough project. Id.

To deal with the daunting tasks associated with the furlough project, management organized staff
into separate units: Wage and Investment (W&I); Small Business and Self-Employer (SBSE); and
“All Other Business.” Id. at 289. Management established a process so employees in W&I, as well
as the other units, could mail their request forms to a specific mailbox. Id. Complainant was
specifically designated to receive emails from the W&I unit, and two other HR Assistants were
each separately assigned to either the SBSE or the All Other Business units. Id. However, the W&I
unit ultimately received a heavier workload than both the SBSE and the All Other Business unit
combined. Complainant specifically opened approximately 2,800 emails with oral reply request
forms, but only about 500 were actual legitimate requests. Id. at 205. In contrast, however, the HR
Assistant (African-American, 33 years of age) assigned to the SBSE mailbox opened
approximately 1,700 emails, which encompassed about 100 actual oral reply requests. In addition,
the HR Assistant (African-American2) assigned to the All Other Business unit only reportedly had
60 or so oral reply requests. Hearing Transcript (Hr’g Trans.), at 22.

On May 21, 2013, Complainant and S1 had a meeting discussing the furlough project, and S1
subsequently sent Complainant an email on June 7, 2013, regarding the meeting.

2 The age of the HR assistant is not identified in the record.
0120170816

3
In the email, S1 wrote that she discussed with Complainant that a number of requested oral replies
in W&I were not scheduled by Complainant, and therefore management was forced to devise a
plan to have the replies properly scheduled. ROI, at 162-164. S1 additionally wrote that
Complainant said to her that the furlough project was overwhelming, made her sick, and that she
felt that she was subjected to disparate treatment because she was made to do more work than the
other two HR Assistants assigned to the project. Id. S1 additionally stated in the email, among
other things:

When the dropped oral replies were discovered and we were describing the problem
in [S3’s] office, I did not hear any concern from you that we had a problem. You
immediately pointed the finger at [another employee] and took no responsibility for
your own actions. . . .

Id. at 163.

On July 15, 2013, Complainant responded to S1’s email writing in pertinent part:

It appears you are trying to punish me by connecting the unrealistic expectations and
workload dissemination disparity of the unprecedented intense furlough project to my
individual performance rating. I intend to address all of the inaccuracies and unfair
assumptions through the proper channels. . . .

Id. at 41.

On July 17, 2013, S1 replied to Complainant’s email writing that she placed a copy of
Complainant’s reply in Complainant Employee Performance File (EPF). S1 also nevertheless
wrote, inter alia, that she was proud of Complainant’s work and all she accomplished. Id. at 165.

In the interim, on May 15, 2013, S3 had called Complainant into her office over the oral replies in
W&I that were not scheduled. Hr’g Trans., at 46. During the meeting, a coworker overheard S3
yell at Complainant, and also heard Complainant responding she would appreciate if S3 would not
speak to her in that tone of voice. The coworker also heard S3 tell Complainant that she (S3) was
“not going down for this,” and if so, she would take Complainant “down with her.” The coworker
additionally listened to S3 tell Complainant that she (S3) had “ruined other people’s careers just
like that and she could ruin [Complainant’s]” career as well. ROI, at 559.

According to Complainant, after the meeting, S3 came out into the general office area and stated
in a loud manner to everyone in the section that they needed to devise a plan to correct
Complainant’s mistake. Id. at 76. Complainant also asserted that S3 stated that another employee,
who had not been assigned to the furlough project, would now have to get the job done correctly.
Complainant felt that the tone and delivery of S3’s comments were disrespectful and demeaning
towards her Id. at 77.

0120170816

4
On November 21, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of race
(Caucasian), age (60), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity3 when:

1. Management assigned her a heavier workload than her coworkers;

2. During the sequestration furlough project her work expectations were changed
throughout the project;

3. On June 7, 2013, she was sent an email from S1, which summarized a conversation she
had with S1 on May 21, 2013, but the email contained negative and inaccurate facts;

4. On July 17, 2013, S1 sent her an email which erroneously stated that S1 had given her
a previous performance counseling, and stated that her response to S1’s June 7, 2013,
email would be put in her EPF;

5. S3 made threatening comments in front of the entire staff regarding the negative
outcome on the portion of a project on which Complainant had worked; and

6. On April 18, 2013, she was informed that her alternate work schedule of 4, 10-hour
days was to be immediately suspended, and she emailed S1 to inform her that this
schedule change interfered with personal plans she had already made for her scheduled
days off, but S1 never responded.

Following the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of
investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ held a hearing on October 7, 2015, and
November 16, 2015. The AJ thereafter issued a decision on August 24, 2016, in the Agency’s
favor. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.

The AJ initially observed, with respect to claim 1, that the furlough project process was assigned
to the WRD under a very tight deadline with initial furlough letters being sent to employees on
April 22, 2013, and a requirement that all the oral responses must be scheduled no later than May
15, 2013. The AJ noted that while the W&I unit assigned to Complainant received the most work,
all HR Assistants assigned to the project were repeatedly told that if they required additional
assistance they should let their supervisors know and it would be provided.

In addressing claim 2, changes in work expectations, the AJ noted that the furlough process
changed several times simply due to unanticipated complications, which affected all members of
the furlough team.

3 Complainant filed an informal EEO complaint in 2012, which was ultimately settled.
0120170816

5
The AJ additionally noted, with regard to claims 3 and 4, that S1 met with Complainant on May
21, 2013, to discuss Complainant’s failure to schedule approximately 40 oral responses. The AJ
observed that S1 then followed-up the meeting with an email on June 7, 2013, which noted that
Complainant’s failure to schedule the oral response requests within the deadline impacted several
of her performance elements. The AJ also observed that S1 sent an email to Complainant which
stated she placed a copy of the performance counseling and Complainant's response in
Complainant’s EPF folder. The AJ found that S1 was simply providing Complainant performance
input in accordance with Agency policy, and S1, S2, and S3 all attested that Complainant’s failure
to schedule the oral responses at the last minute could have resulted in significant problems with
the Agency’s furlough process nationwide.

In addressing claim 5, the AJ noted that S3 was upset over Complainant’s failure to schedule the
oral response requests and that S3 was “calm but scared to death” because the failure to complete
the project as assigned could have had major consequences for her. The AJ moreover observed
that in order to rectify Complainant’s failure, S3 had to employ the assistance of all staff members
and needed to inform them of the problem so it could be solved quickly. This included going
through Complainant’s documentation and information regarding the oral response requests.

The AJ further found, with regard to claim 6, that all members of the furlough team had their
alternative work schedules temporarily suspended because the furlough project involved an
unprecedented amount of work in a very short time. The AJ found that the record showed that the
suspension of the alternative work schedule affected all members of furlough team equally, not
just Complainant individually.

The AJ therefore found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions, which Complainant failed to show were pretextual based on her protected classes. In so
finding, the AJ found that while employees observed that Complainant may have been treated
poorly, there was no evidence to support a finding that Complainant had been subjected to
discrimination based on her projected classes. The AJ therefore noted that while management’s
actions towards Complainant may have been rude and unprofessional, there was no evidence that
management was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The AJ specifically noted that
there was no dispute that Complainant ultimately received the most oral reply requests, but
management repeatedly told the furlough group that if they needed assistance they should ask for
it. The AJ observed, however, that Complainant never asked management for help on the project,
and had she done so, she would have clearly been given assistance on the project.

The AJ moreover found Complainant’s allegations that S3 treated her in a demeaning and
threatening manner credible but found no evidence that S3 acted in this manner because of
Complainant’s protected classes. The AJ found that S3 was instead angry with Complainant over
her failure to schedule her assigned oral response requests by the deadline, and she was upset over
the possible ramifications of Complainant’s mistake.

The AJ also noted that Complainant accused S1 of making ageist comments, including
commenting that S1 enjoyed the youth and enthusiasm in the workplace, among other things.
0120170816

6
The AJ however found nothing in the record to corroborate Complainant’s allegations that S1 was
motivated by discriminatory animus based on Complainant’s age.

In sum, the AJ found that Complainant did not establish that she was subjected to disparate
treatment or a hostile work environment.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Complainant’s Brief on Appeal

On appeal, Complainant, inter alia, maintains that the Agency attempted to ruin her career in
reprisal for her prior protected EEO activity. Complainant maintains that management subjected
her to multiple years of illegal disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, which left her
no choice but to eventually leave the Agency. Complainant additionally asserts that the Agency
failed to engage in good faith settlement talks with her and believes that the AJ should have
facilitated a settlement.4 Complainant also maintains that S3 threatened that she could ruin her
career and called her a liar, among other things. Complainant additionally asserts that the Agency’s
EEO Office engaged in conflicts of interest and showed bias in favor of management. Complainant
also asserts that Agency Counsel had a close working relationship with all management officials
and employees in this case, while she was made to represent herself pro se. Complainant states
that Agency Counsel extensively prepped witness and management officials throughout the
processing of her complaint, while she had no access to legal representation or Agency resources.
She moreover contends that she performed scheduling tasks for approximately 500 oral replies when
the other two HR Assistants only performed 160 oral replies combined. Complainant maintains that
management falsely stated that others were assigned to assist her with the project.

Agency’s Response

In response, the Agency argues that the AJ properly found that Complainant did not establish that
she was subjected to discrimination as alleged. The Agency specifically asserts that while
Complainant’s W&I unit received the most requests for oral replies, there was no evidence that
Complainant was assigned to that unit because of her protected classes or prior protected EEO
activity. The Agency maintains that Complainant was repeatedly told that she could ask for
assistance in scheduling oral replies, and Complainant acknowledged that she did not request such
assistance. The Agency argues, in addressing claim 2, that changes to work expectations were
announced to everyone at the same time and that any changes to work expectations applied to
everyone equally. The Agency further maintains, with regard to claims 3 and 4, that S1 acted

4 We note that the Commission has long held that an agency’s decision whether to offer to settle a
complaint and, if so, what terms and conditions to include in an offer, are actions wholly within
the discretion of the agency. See Pickard v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01940294
(Feb. 22, 1994); Tipton v U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 03910047 (Apr. 8, 1991) (citing
Bergh v. Dep't of Transportation, 794 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).

0120170816

7
consistently with Agency policy when she counseled Complainant over her performance and
placed Complainant’s response in her EPF. The Agency further states that Complainant’s failure
to schedule the oral response requests justified S1’s decision to counsel her. The Agency
additionally states, regarding claim 5, that while S3’s comments to Complainant were
unprofessional, the comments were not unlawful as they were not motived by discriminatory or
retaliatory animus. Lastly, in addressing claim 6, the Agency maintains that everyone assigned to
the furlough project had their alternative work schedules suspended, and therefore Complainant
was clearly not singled-out. The Agency argues that there is no evidence that S1 intentionally did
not respond to Complainant’s email about her alternative work schedule due to her protected
classes.5

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. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A
finding regarding whether or not 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.

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 EEOC
Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).

5 The Agency additionally asserts that Complainant filed her appeal outside the 30-day time
limitation, and therefore her appeal is untimely. The Agency specifically asserts that it served its
final order to Complainant on August 24, 2016, at Complainant’s last known address of record.
The Agency however argues that Complainant did not inform the Agency of her change of address,
and therefore Complainant constructively received the final order by September 14, 2016. As such,
the Agency maintains that Complainant’s appeal filed on January 4, 2017, is untimely. We note,
however, that the Agency only provides a certificate of service showing that it sent the final order
to Complainant via First Class Mail. However, it is unclear from the record if the final order was
actually received at Complainant’s address of record. We note that Complainant asserts that she
changed her address with the post office and should have received the final order through mail
forwarding. But she still nevertheless did not receive the final order until December 9, 2016.
Where, as here, there is an issue of timeliness, “[a]n agency always bears the burden of obtaining
sufficient information to support a reasoned determination as to timeliness.” See Guy v. Dep't of
Energy, EEOC Request No. 05930703 (Jan. 4, 1994) (quoting Williams v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC
Request No. 05920506 (Aug. 25, 1992). In the instant matter, we find that the Agency has not met
its burden.
0120170816

8

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Disparate Treatment (1 and 6)

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). 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). The prima facie inquiry
may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the Agency has 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
Products, 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); Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).

Upon review, we find that assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination based on her protected classes, the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. In particular, with regard to claim 1, S2 testified that
they could not anticipate the W&I receiving the most oral replies because there was simply no way
to predict who would request an oral reply, given that the Furlough was so widely publicized. S2
attested further that they put in place back-up employees to assist if one business unit got more
oral replies than another. However, according to S2, Complainant never came to her to ask for
assistance. Hr’g Trans., at 167. S1 also averred that all three HR Assistants, including
Complainant, received regular and ongoing inquiries from WRD management and the coordinator
asking whether they needed additional support or assistance. ROI, at 289. With respect to claim 6,
S1 stated that all alternative work schedules were temporarily suspended for staff assigned to the
furlough project due to the project’s high level of importance. According to S1, she also did not
respond to Complainant’s email about the suspension of her alternative work schedule because it
was overlooked due to heavy email traffic caused by the furlough project.

Upon review, we find substantial evidence in the record supports the AJ’s decision that
Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext
for discrimination with respect to claims 1 and 6. In so finding, we note that the record reflects
that management assigned Complainant to the W&I unit without specifically knowing how much
work the unit would actually receive. Hr’g Trans., at 153-154. The record reflects that both
management and Complainant were overwhelmed by the furlough project due to its importance
and the fact that they were given a very tight deadline. The record supports the AJ’s finding that
management made assistance available for Complainant that she did not take advantage of. Like
the AJ, we note that Complainant testified that she did not actively ask for help during the project.
Hr’g Tr., at 98.
0120170816

9
With respect to claim 6, there is no dispute that alternative work schedules were suspended for all
staff assigned to the furlough project. ROI, at 159-160. There is also no evidence that S1 was
motivated by Complainant’s protected classes when she failed to respond to Complainant’s email
about the suspension of her alternative work schedule. In any event, there is no evidence that
Complainant’s schedule was not reinstated after the furlough projected ended. In sum, we find
substantial evidence in the record supports the AJ’s finding that Complainant did not show that
the Agency was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus with respect to claims 1 and 6.
Hostile Work Environment
With respect to Complainant’s allegation that she was subjected to a hostile work environment,
the Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems. Inc., 510
U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement
Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 3, 1994).
Complainant’s harassment claim is precluded based on the Commission’s finding that she failed
to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory or
retaliatory animus with regard to claims 1 and 6. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 01932923 (Sep. 21, 2000).
We also find, with respect to claims 3 and 4, that the record supports the AJ’s determination that
S1 took action against Complainant because she failed to complete her assigned furlough project
and not because of her protected classes. In addressing claim 5, like the AJ, we note that while S3
may have acted unprofessionally with respect to her comments directed at Complainant, we find
that her comments were not motivated by Complainant’s protected classes or EEO activity. Rather,
S3 was upset that Complainant had not completed her part of the furlough project, which S3 felt
could have resulted in significant issues with the furloughs of Agency employees across the nation.
In sum, the record reflects that S3, and other management officials, were very concerned about the
daunting tasks associated with the furlough project they were assigned, which had implications for
employees nationwide. Management had not undertaken such a project before and were only given
a month to complete the project. The record simply reflects that any treatment of Complainant by
management was due to the stress and overwhelming nature of the project; the fact that
Complainant had not completed the project; and that Complainant had not sufficiently
communicated that she needed help with the project. As such, it is clear that management’s actions
were not because of Complainant’s protected classes or protected EEO activity. Moreover, while
not dispositive, we note that S1’s protected classes (Caucasian, 58 years of age) were the same as
Complainant (Caucasian, 60 years of age). Therefore, we find substantial evidence in the record
supports the AJ’s decision that Complainant was not subjected to a hostile work environment, as
alleged.

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 order implementing the AJ’s
decision finding that Complainant was not discriminated against as alleged.

0120170816

10
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 (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.
0120170816

11
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 10, 2019
Date