Complainant,v.Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 26, 2013

0120113282 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 26, 2013)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

Charles F. Bolden, Jr.,
Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120113282

Agency No. NCN-08-GRC-A002

DECISION

On June 28, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s May 23, 2011, 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 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
MODIFIES the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Research
Engineer, GS-13, Step 10, in the Combustion Branch, Glenn Research Center (GRC) in
Cleveland, Ohio.

Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated October 1, 2007, alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian) and disability (epilepsy) when:

From May 3, 2007, to present, Complainant had been continuously subjected to
harassment, disparate treatment, and denial of reasonable accommodations which have
created a hostile work environment.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a copy of the
investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). In accordance with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).

0120113282

2
In a May 29, 2009 final decision, the Agency found Complainant had not been subjected to a
hostile work environment and/or disparate treatment based on his race and disability.
However, the Agency found it improperly denied Complainant's reasonable accommodation
request. As a remedy for the denial of accommodation claim, the Agency ordered the Glenn
Research Center to grant Complainant's request to telecommute three days a week; to provide
its supervisors and Human Resources staff training in reasonable accommodation to the known
physical and mental limitations of qualified individuals with disabilities; post a notice to all
employees of their rights to be free of unlawful discrimination; and gave Complainant the right
to submit objective evidence in support of his claim for compensatory damages.

In June 2009, Complainant filed an appeal to the Commission’s Office of Federal Operations
(OFO) on the hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims. Complainant did not
appeal the Agency's finding of discrimination on the issue of reasonable accommodation or the
remedies ordered by the Agency. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120092779 (February 26, 2010), the
Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision concluding that Complainant was unlawfully
denied reasonable accommodation for his disability, but was not subjected to disparate
treatment or unlawful harassment because of his race or disability. Complainant filed a request
for reconsideration which was denied in EEOC Request No. 0520100316 (May 25, 2010).

Thereafter, the issue of compensatory damages relating to the Agency's finding on the
reasonable accommodation claim was investigated between November 24, 2010, and January
11, 2011. Specifically, we note that in a December 6, 2010 letter, the investigator afforded
Complainant an opportunity to provide information to support his claim for compensatory
damages.

In a December 21, 2010 response, Complainant clarified he was requesting pecuniary damages
in the amount of $110,000. Specifically, he requested payment for a nine-day stay at the
Cleveland Clinic sometime between October 1, 2004, and May 6, 2005; for five days at the
Cleveland Clinic in late 2007, for a brain EEG study; for treatment at Southwest General; for
primary care physician fees paid since 2000; for medication costs; and for three days in a
hospital caused by a seizure while driving, resulting in a hospital stay and therapy.
Complainant noted that at the time he did not have the supporting documentation on all these
activities, but he stated that within the month he should have the documentation.

Complainant also requested future pecuniary damages for his non-selection for a promotion in
May 2009. Specifically, Complainant requested lost wages and lost annuity as a result of the
May 2009 non-selection.

In addition, Complainant requested additional non-pecuniary, compensatory damages in the
amount of $51,120. Specifically, Complainant stated as a result of the denial of
accommodation, he was inconvenienced when he had to ride a bus for 234 days totaling four
hours of daily travel. Complainant alleged he suffered indignity after the denial of his
reasonable accommodation for the multiple seizures he suffered in the presence of his co-
workers. He stated that he worried about losing his job and his interactions with Person A.
0120113282

3
Complainant also stated at home he was “constantly on edge and easily riled, partly because of
fatigue, partly because of the increased seizure activity due to management’s discrimination.”
Complainant stated that he suffered loss of self-esteem in that he felt an inability to “make his
managers appreciate him for his accomplishments” because of the alleged discrimination.
Complainant claimed his colleagues avoided him and staff viewed him as a “loose cannon” not
liked by management. Additionally, Complainant stated that the hostile work environment has
profoundly affected his life, specifically, the long commutes, extreme stress, exhaustion caused
by his medication, his inability to take naps when he was not allowed to telecommute, and his
dissatisfaction with his job. He also noted that he had insomnia, which he said was caused by
anxiety and depression. Complainant stated he suffered from a loss of appetite which he said
was caused by stress, resulting in a loss of 14 pounds in a year. Finally, he stated he suffered
from nightmares caused by stress and which he alleged resulted in sweats and panic attacks.

Complainant supplied a statement from his wife in support of his request for compensatory
damages. Complainant’s wife stated that prior to 1999, Complainant would only have 1 to 2
seizures a year. She noted that from 1999 – 2005, the number of Complainant’s seizures
increased and he would have 15 – 30 per year. Complainant’s wife described their marriage as
“very good” prior to 1999, and as “somewhat strained” from 1999 – 2005. Complainant’s
wife noted that prior to 1999, Complainant exhibited very little stress at home but then after
1999, he “got more irritable probably because of the medicine and his difficulties at work.”
Complainant’s wife also stated that in late 2006, after he started taking the bus to work,
Complainant “got very irritable and excitable at home” and would shout and swear about his
boss. Complainant’s wife also noted, among other things, that Complainant was tired,
complained about the long commute on the bus, was afraid of losing his job, would sometimes
cry, stated he felt isolated at work, and suffered from insomnia sometimes sleeping only four
hours a night. Complainant’s wife also stated that, “Life is back to where it used to be (before
2006) since he started telecommuting.”

The record reveals that in a January 10, 2011 electronic mail message the investigator asked
Complainant for further clarification on his request for pecuniary damages. Specifically, the
investigator noted all the dates Complainant claimed for medical expenses and asked whether
the claimed hospital costs, doctor bills, and costs for medication were out-of-pocket expenses
or were they covered by insurance.

In a February 7, 2011 electronic mail message, Complainant notified the investigator that he
was still waiting for his insurance company to send records of payments for the hospital bills
claimed. Complainant stated that on January 12, 2011, he sent a letter asking for the
information but he had not received a response so far. Complainant noted he recently called
the insurance company and they stated the request was being processed.

On May 23, 2011, the Agency issued a final decision on Complainant’s request for
compensatory damages. In its decision, the Agency noted that although Complainant was
asked to clarify the nature of his medical expenses and to explain whether the costs were out-of
pocket or whether they were covered by his medical insurance, he never submitted any
0120113282

4
documentation before the investigation concluded or at any time prior to the issuance of this
decision.

With regard to his request for pecuniary damages, the Agency noted that Complainant did not
ask to telework three days a week, which lead to the finding of discrimination, until May 16,
2007. Thus, the Agency determined that any medical expenses that occurred prior to May 16,
2007, cannot be linked to the proven discrimination. The Agency noted that the only instance
apparently subject to a pecuniary damages award would be the nine-day hospital stay and the
outpatient care at the Cleveland Clinic for five days in 2007, for a brain EEG, which it noted
appeared to be within the orbit of care necessitated by the denial of reasonable accommodation
thus producing his increased seizure activity. However, the Agency determined that
Complainant did not provide any evidence to establish his overall claim for pecuniary damages
and thus, the Agency did not award Complainant any past pecuniary damages. Similarly, the
Agency found Complainant was not entitled to future pecuniary damages because he provided
no evidence in this regard

With regard to the request for non-pecuniary damages, the Agency noted that it engaged in a
good faith interactive process in order to address Complainant’s reasonable accommodation
request. Specifically, the Agency stated that Person A made a good faith effort to engage in
the interactive process and that Person A’s efforts were thwarted by Complainant, who
verbally abused Person A in a June 20, 2007 meeting causing Person A to leave the room.
The Agency argued that despite this incident, Person A still offered to accommodate
Complainant by allowing him to make up for his lost time by coming in on Saturdays. The
Agency argued that Complainant’s behavior impeded the interactive process, and thereby
contributed to the denial of a reasonable accommodation. Thus, the Agency found
Complainant was not entitled to an award of compensatory damages.

On appeal, Complainant raises objections with the investigation on compensatory damages.
Complainant notes there was no deadline given for supplying information related to the
compensatory damages investigation. Complainant claims the investigator said that he was
considering terminating his investigation once but did not make such a statement after he was
assured that data on Complainant’s damages claim was forthcoming. Rather, Complainant
states the investigator said that he would continue the investigation. Complainant explains the
delay in obtaining the requested information was caused by several factors: the fact that the
request was made in December which was near the holidays and at the end of the year; the
difficulty he had in traveling to the medical centers to sign approval for authorization to release
the finance information of a patient; and the confusion on the part of the medical centers on
just what was required of them. Complainant explains the large part of the data was not
supplied until after May 2011. He states that by the time he arranged the financial data in a
presentable form for the Agency, they had already issued their decision.

With regard to the Agency’s contention that its good faith in the interactive process precluded
an award of compensatory damages, Complainant states he does not understand why this
section is part of the Agency's final decision. He notes the Agency has already ruled that there
0120113282

5
was an illegal act when he was denied a reasonable accommodation. Complainant claims that
as a result of the denial of reasonable accommodation, he suffered severe medical and mental
harm as well as mental anguish and distress. Complainant states his medical condition became
more severe as a result of the denial of accommodation. He notes that having since received
the reasonable accommodation, he is gradually getting much better, i.e., the seizures are much
less severe and much less frequent. Complainant also states that just because the Agency
thinks it entered a good faith discussion with him does not automatically give the Agency the
right to deny damages. Additionally, Complainant disputes that the Agency made a good faith
effort to address his accommodation claim and notes it was management who walked out of the
June 20, 2007 meeting.

In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency notes that Complainant had nearly two years
to obtain the necessary documents and other evidence in support of his claim for damages.
Specifically, the Agency noted that the final decision finding discrimination was issued on May
29, 2009, and that the decision instructed Complainant to provide information in support of his
claim for damages. The Agency noted that it received Complainant’s initial damages
submission on August 19, 2009. The Agency noted that in November 2010, it retained an
investigator to conduct interviews and assemble relevant documents in regards to
Complainant’s claims for damages. The Agency noted it issued a final decision on
compensatory damages on May 23, 2011, based on the information derived from
Complainant’s initial submission and the information obtained from the investigation. Thus,
the Agency argues Complainant had two years within which to provide relevant medical
evidence in support of his claim for damages. The Agency states that the fact that it placed no
time limitation on its effort to obtain information is in part a function of the fact that there is no
regulatory time proscription, and in part owing to the fact that the Agency wanted to have as
much documentation as possible in order to conduct an open and fair assessment of damages.

With regard to pecuniary damages, the Agency notes that all the evidence Complainant
provided in support of his claim was an affidavit from his wife and a bevy of medical bills.
The Agency notes there was no evidence that Complainant’s wife is a medical professional, so
it was difficult to assess her conclusion that Complainant’s medical condition was made worse
due to the failure to accommodate. The Agency notes that in the absence of documentation
from medical professionals, it concluded that Complainant’s medical treatments were for his
disabling condition, which he would have incurred whether he was accommodated or not.

With regard to non-pecuniary damages, the Agency reiterates its contention that it engaged in
the good faith interactive process. The Agency claims that the fact that the process failed is
evidenced by its finding of discrimination. However, it argues that because management
engaged in a good faith effort, Complainant is not entitled to compensatory damages.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
0120113282

6
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the
factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the
record and its interpretation of the law”).

At the outset, we will address Complainant’s contention that the Agency failed to properly
conduct an appropriate investigation into his claim of damages. We note that the Agency
began its investigation into Complainant’s claim for damages in November 2010. The
investigator properly contacted Complainant and afforded him the opportunity to provide
information to support his claim for compensatory damages. In a December 21, 2010
response, Complainant clarified the damages he was seeking and noted that he was in the
process of obtaining documentation to support his damages claim. The record reveals that the
investigator properly followed up with Complainant in January 2011, seeking further
clarification on Complainant’s request for pecuniary damages. The record reveals that
Complainant responded in February 2011, informing the investigator that he was still waiting
for his insurance company to send records of payments for the hospital bills claimed.
Specifically, Complainant stated that on January 12, 2011, he sent a letter asking for the
information and recently called the insurance company. Complainant also noted that the
insurance company informed him the request was being processed. Based on Complainant’s
good faith effort in trying to obtain the documentation from his insurance provider and the fact
that he timely informed the investigator and the Agency of his attempts to obtain this
information, we find the investigation should have been extended to allow Complainant the
opportunity to obtain this relevant information. Thus, we will consider all the medical bills
that Complainant supplied on appeal.

Section 102(a) of the 1991 Civil Rights Act authorizes an award of compensatory damages for
post-Act pecuniary losses, and for non-pecuniary losses, such as, but not limited to, emotional
pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to character
and reputation, and loss of health. See West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212 (1999). In this regard,
the Commission has authority to award such damages in the administrative process.
Compensatory damages do not include back pay, interest on back pay, or any other type of
equitable relief. To receive an award of compensatory damages, complainant must
demonstrate that he has been harmed as a result of the agency's discriminatory action, the
extent, nature, and severity of the harm and the duration or expected duration of the harm.
Rivera v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01934157 (July 22, 1994), request for
reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05940927 (December 11, 1995); EEOC's
Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 11-12, 14 (July 14, 1992)
(“Guidance”).

0120113282

7
Non-pecuniary damages are available to compensate an injured party for actual harm, even
where the harm is intangible. Carter v. Duncan-Higgins, Ltd., 727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir.
1984). Emotional harm will not be presumed simply because complainant is a victim of
discrimination. Guidance at 5. The existence, nature, and severity of emotional harm must be
proved. Id. We note that for a proper award of non-pecuniary damages, the amount of the
award should not be “monstrously excessive” standing alone, should not be the product of
passion or prejudice, and should be consistent with the amount awarded in similar cases. See
Ward-Jenkins v. Dep’t of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483 (March 4, 1999) (citing
Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 848 (7th Cir. 1989)). Finally, we note that in
determining non-pecuniary, compensatory damages, the Commission has also taken into
consideration the nature of the Agency's discriminatory actions. See Utt v. U.S. Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070001 (March 26, 2009).

In Carle v. Dep’t of the Navy, the Commission explained that evidence of non-pecuniary
damages could include a statement by complainant explaining how she was affected by the
discrimination. EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993). Complainant could also
submit documentation of medical or psychiatric treatment related to the effects of the
discrimination. Id. However, evidence from a health care provider is not a mandatory pre-
requisite to establishing entitlement to non-pecuniary damages. Sinnott v. Dep’t of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 01952872 (September 19, 1996).

At the outset, we will address Complainant’s claim for pecuniary damages. Upon review, we
find Complainant failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the claimed medical
expenses were proximately caused by the Agency’s failure to accommodate his May 16, 2007
request to telework from home for three days per week. Thus, we deny Complainant’s claim
for past and future pecuniary damages.

Next, we address Complainant’s entitlement to non-pecuniary damages. We reject the
Agency’s argument that Complainant is not entitled to compensatory damages. Specifically,
we note that this is not a situation in which the Agency engaged in a good faith effort to
reasonably accommodate Complainant, but rather, the record reveals the Agency issued an
outright rejection of Complainant’s May 16, 2007 request to telework three days per week.
Complainant’s alleged inappropriate conduct during the interactive process on one occasion did
not excuse the finding of discrimination and does not render the Agency’s actions to
accommodate Complainant to be in good faith. First, the discriminatory denial of
accommodation occurred prior to Complainant’s misconduct. Second, we note that
Complainant also submitted another request to telework three days per week on September 21,
2007, which was also rejected in its entirety.

In the present case, Complainant did not provide medical documentation to support his
damages claims. Instead, Complainant supported his damages claim through his own statement
and with a statement from his wife.

0120113282

8
We find that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Agency's
actions caused him stress, a long commute, humiliation, fear of losing his job, loss of
enjoyment of life, sleeplessness, and loss of self-esteem. With regard to his contention that the
denial of accommodation resulted in increased seizures, we note the record reflects that
Complainant suffered from epilepsy since 1956. Moreover, both Complainant and his wife
note that Complainant suffered an increase in seizures prior to May 16, 2007. In the present
case, we find Complainant failed to show that his epilepsy was exacerbated by the Agency’s
discriminatory actions.

After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we find an award of $10,000 for non-
pecuniary, compensatory damages is appropriate. This amount takes into consideration the
severity of the harm suffered, the length of time Complainant suffered the harm, and is
consistent with prior Commission precedent.1

See Rowan v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120070384 (June 19, 2009) (The Commission awarded Complainant $10,000 for
non-pecuniary damages where Complainant established that at least some of his stress,
humiliation, anxiety, sleeplessness, fears of termination, and depression were attributable to
the discriminatory conduct. The Commission noted that the evidence was vague regarding how
the pre-existing condition was exacerbated); Hedgepeth v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A52869 (Sep. 7, 2006), request for recons. den., EEOC Request No. 0520070022
(December 7, 2006) (The Commission awarded Complainant $10,000 for non-pecuniary
damages when the Agency's denial of a reasonable accommodation resulted in Complainant
having depression with suicidal tendencies, fatigue, inability to sleep, frequent crying, and fear
that she would lose her job). Accordingly, we conclude that an award of $10,000 will
adequately compensate Complainant for the harm he suffered as a result of the Agency's
failure to reasonably accommodate his disability.
CONCLUSION

The Agency’s final decision awarding no pecuniary damages is AFFIRMED and the Agency’s
decision not awarding non-pecuniary, compensatory damages is REVERSED. We REMAND
the matter so that the Agency shall comply with the Order herein.

ORDER

The Agency shall take the following remedial action:

Within sixty days of the date on which this decision becomes final, the Agency shall
pay Complainant the sum of $10,000 in non-pecuniary, compensatory damages.

1 The record reflected that on February 20, 2008, the Agency granted Complainant’s request to
telework three days per week.
0120113282

9
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement
entitled “Implementation of the Commission's Decision.” The report shall include supporting
documentation verifying that the corrective action has been implemented.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)

Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit
its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered
corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013. The Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must
send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the
Commission’s order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the
order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to
enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative
petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the
underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil
action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing
of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See

29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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 tends to
establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material
fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,
or operations of the Agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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
0120113282

10
of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The request or
opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See

29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

(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 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

(Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an
attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or
denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney
with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and
0120113282

11
the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to
File a Civil Action”).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

March 26, 2013
Date