Complainant,v.Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 14, 2013

0120112028 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 14, 2013)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120112028

Agency No. 200P-0691-2010101932

DECISION

On February 8, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s January 19, 2011, final
decision 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 decision.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-9 Human
Resources Security Specialist at the Agency’s VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in
Los Angeles, California. Complainant was hired on September 2, 2008, under the Federal
Career Intern Program and was subject to a two-year probationary period. During the relevant
time, Complainant’s immediate supervisor was the Human Resources Specialist Supervisor,
GS-13 (Person A). Person B, Human Resources Specialist GS-12, served as the Acting
Security Supervisor during this period. Complainant was terminated from the Agency
effective February 26, 2010.

Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated April 9, 2010, alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American) and age (58) when:

A. On February 17, 2010, Complainant received notice that she was being discharged
during her probationary period, effective February 26, 2010.

B. Management discriminated against and harassed complainant, as evidenced by 41
events dated between May 2, 2009, and February 26, 2010.
0120112028

2

1. On May 2, 2009, Person B made belittling and embarrassing comments to
Complainant, such as, "you're an ex-teacher, how can you make this mistake?"
2. On May 22, 2009, Person B demeaned Complainant in front of the staff and
customers.
3. On June 10, 2009, Person B embarrassed Complainant by verbally reprimanding
her in front of staff and customers.
4. On July 2, 2009, Person B made a “mark” against Complainant with regard to
her lack of proficiency with the EQip.
5. On July 8, 2009, Person B blamed Complainant for a problem with some work
folders.
6. On July 9, 2009, Person B maligned, embarrassed and humiliated Complainant
in front of staff and customers.
7. On July 13, 2009, Complainant was held responsible for not knowing the EQip
process.
8. On July 14, 2009, Person B made her feel stupid, inept, and incompetent in
front of staff/customers, and made a slur about Complainant having been a
teacher when she asked for assistance.
9. On July 14, 2009, Person B made fun of Complainant for having a Master’s
degree, and loudly chided her for not having a card in the slot.
10. On July 15, 2009, Complainant was accused of losing some paperwork.
11. On July 16, 2009, Person B subjected Complainant to a tirade in front of others
because she missed scanning a page, and she marked her down for making a
mistake.
12. On July 20, 2009, Person B marked Complainant down for a mistake, and
embarrassed her in front of staff customers.
13. On July 27, 2009, Complainant was “written-up” for a work error, and/or
accused of coming in late.
14. On July 30, 2009, she was “written-up” for being late.
15. On July 30, 2009, Person B belittled and taunted Complainant in front of staff
and customers and asked, “How could an ex-teacher with a Master’s make this
mistake?”
16. On July 31, 2009, Person B loudly made derogatory comments to/about
Complainant in front of staff and customers when she found a mistake she had
made.
17. On August 3, 2009, Person B loudly demeaned Complainant for having to
resubmit some paperwork, and publicly berated her for needing a review of the
work process.
18. On August 4, 2009, Person B verbally abused Complainant about a work
matter, and then still made a note of the incident, even though the issue had
been clarified.
19. On August 5, 2009, Complainant was subjected to verbal harassment for
reporting late.
20. On August 11, 2009, Complainant was “written-up” for being late.
0120112028

3
21. On August 12, 2009, Person B made another “note” on her.
22. On August 13, 2009, Complainant was “noted” for forgetting her password and
for calling the Office of Personnel Management.
23. On August 17, 2009, Person B debased and publicly berated Complainant for
leaving some folders under the door.
24. On August 20, 2009, Complainant was “noted” for making a mistake on an
identification badge; and Person B berated her in front of staff and customers.
25. On August 26, 2009, Complainant was “written-up” for being late, and for
making a mistake.
26. On September 2, 2009, Complainant was “written-up” for being late.
27. On September 3, 2009, Complainant was “written-up” for being late.
28. On September 4, 2009, Complainant was “written-up.”
29. On September 30, 2009, Person B had Complainant sign the “retrain” sheet.
30. On October 5, 2009, Person B made a note on Complainant with regard to the
weekly statistics.
31. On October 13, 2009, Person B made Complainant look incompetent, and
loudly ridiculed her in front of customers and staff.
32. On October 19, 2009, Person B “noted” Complainant for putting an incomplete
file away.
33. On October 23, 2009, Complainant was accused of being late and/or of
submitting an insufficient number of cases.
34. On November 2, 2009, Person B “noted” Complainant because the finger print
machine was not transmitting properly, and stayed close by her so that she could
see and hear everything that Complainant did.
35. On November 18, 2009, Person B “noted” Complainant because the laptop
computer was inoperable for a time.
36. On November 20, 2009, Complainant was “noted” for not providing proper
customer service.
37. On November 24, 2009, Complainant was “noted” for a mechanical error.
38. On December 29, 2009, Complainant was “noted” for issuing temporary badges
while the PIV (Personal Identity Verification) system was down.
39. On December 31, 2009, Person B faulted Complainant when she could not find
a case; when, in actuality, Person B was unable to find it because she was using
an incorrect spelling of the person's name.
40. On January 29, 2010, Person B threatened to sit with Complainant everyday in
order to see what she was doing, and told her that she was not going to help her
any more.
41. On February 17, 2010, Complainant received notice that she was being
discharged during her trial period; effective February 26, 2010.

At the conclusion of 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). 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.
0120112028

4
§ 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination as alleged.

In its final decision, the Agency assumed that each of the events cited in Complainant’s
complaint occurred as alleged by Complainant. The Agency found that Complainant failed to
show that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive. The Agency stated that
Complainant’s allegation of harassment consisted primarily of her dissatisfaction with
management’s job-related decisions. The Agency found Complainant failed to establish that
she was subjected to discriminatory harassment.

The Agency addressed issues (A) and (B)(41) under a disparate treatment analysis. The
Agency noted it provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency
noted that management stated that despite repeated security training and on-the-job assistance,
Complainant committed ongoing and numerous security and computer errors and other clerical
mistakes that adversely affected the security, safety, and welfare of employees at the facility.
The Agency noted the performance concerns included: (a) in two instances Complainant
brought employees on board before they cleared their security background checks; (b)
Complainant lost the personnel folders for newly processed volunteers and new folders had to
be created; (c) Complainant lost employee folders that contained personal identifiers and social
security numbers; (d) Complainant departed her work area to attend a party leaving a customer
waiting. A supervisor found the employee waiting for her to return and took care of him; (e)
Complainant was frequently late for work or abused the use of leave. For example,
Complainant inappropriately entered the use of sick leave and when her supervisor brought it
to her attention, she failed to correct her leave entry; (f) Complainant frequently forgot her
computer password; (g) Complainant made frequent computer entry errors. For example, for
one employee Complainant typed in the wrong “city” and instead of reviewing and correcting
that entry herself, she required the employee to leave his work site and review the matter with
her in person; and (h) due to Complainant’s ongoing performance and attendance problems,
management issued Complainant the February 16, 2010 “Discharge During Trial Period”
letter, which terminated her during her probationary period, effective February 26, 2010.

The Agency determined that Complainant failed to establish the Agency’s actions were a
pretext for discrimination. The Agency noted that Complainant provided the statement of
Witness 1 who stated Complainant was subjected to discrimination because “everything she did
was written down.” The Agency noted, however, that Witness 1 failed to rebut management’s
substantial evidence showing that Complainant had ongoing performance and attendance
problems. The Agency also concluded that Complainant failed to provide persuasive evidence
indicating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated management, that
management’s articulated reasons were unworthy of belief, or that management had a policy or
practice that disfavored her protected classes.

On appeal, Complainant states the daily micromanaging and verbal attacks Person B made
created a hostile working environment for her to try to learn the procedures and function at her
job. Complainant alleges that Witness 1’s statement concurred that she was working in a
0120112028

5
hostile environment. Complainant claims the atmosphere in the office made training and
retaining information impossible. Complainant states that Person B told her she asked too
many questions which left her unsure and nervous. In addition, Complainant explains that she
received an admonishment for misreading a clearance and states she was unable to ask a
question for fear of being written up by Person A. Complainant also states that the folders that
were brought in by the new employees were not exclusively handled by her, so she argues
being accused of mishandling such folders was improper.

Complainant also states that she was relieved by Witness 1 on one occasion when an employee
who was a Police Officer candidate came in and Complainant was unsure of the procedure to
follow. Complainant states that since she was unsure of the procedure, Witness 1 said she
could go to the farewell party.

Complainant notes that she had problems with her starting time since she had to ensure her
children were safely dropped off at school. Complainant explains that she requested a later
start time and it was adjusted. Complainant claims she never abused leave. She states that she
used sick leave as she had done at her prior job thinking she could use either annual or sick
leave at her discretion. Complainant states that Person A called her and told her she should
not use sick leave for the incident at issues, so she immediately put in annual leave to correct
the error.

Complainant explains that she forget the “new” PIV system password as it was a new
program. Complainant states that Person A made remarks about how Complainant talked to
customers but never said anything to Employee X when he talked to new employees about his
former military career. Complainant acknowledges on one occasion she typed in the wrong
city on some paperwork. She states she wanted the paperwork to be accurate so she called the
employee in to get the correct city/town for the paperwork.

In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency states Complainant offers no evidence that
the criticism and micromanagement she alleges she was subjected to were due to her race or
age. The Agency notes that Complainant’s employment was terminated, in part, because she
lost personnel folders. The Agency states that on appeal, Complainant argues that the folders
“were not exclusively handled by” her and therefore, it was improper for management to have
concluded that she lost the folders. The Agency notes Complainant does not identify any other
employee who might have lost the folders. However, the Agency states assuming arguendo
that Complainant did not lose some of the folders in question or even that she did not lose any
of the folders in question, she does not address the numerous other reasons for the termination
of her employment.

In addition, the Agency notes that in response to management's contention that Complainant
once left her work area to attend a party and left a customer waiting to be helped, she asserted
that she had permission to leave her work area. The Agency notes that Complainant offers no
evidence to support this assertion. However, the Agency states that assuming arguendo that
0120112028

6
she had permission to leave her work area to attend a party, she does not address the numerous
other reasons for the termination of her employment.

Finally, the Agency states that while she was employed, Complainant had significant time and
attendance problems, which contributed to management's decision to terminate her
employment. The Agency notes that on appeal, Complainant does not dispute that there were
such problems. Rather, the Agency notes she asserts that before her employment was
terminated, she was in the process of adjusting to a new schedule that would have assisted her
in addressing these problems. Similarly, the Agency notes Complainant does not refute
management's claim that she frequently forgot her computer password; and once typed the
wrong “city” on a form, and then instead of correcting the error herself, required the
employee to leave his work site and review the form with her.

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
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”).

Upon review, we note that Complainant identified 14 occasions between May 2 and October
13, 2009, when Supervisor B spoke to her in such a way that she felt ridiculed, embarrassed,
and demeaned. Among the comments alleged, Complainant claimed that on several occasions
Person B stated in front of customers and co-workers how could Complainant make so many
mistakes since she was an ex-teacher with a Master’s Degree; loudly chided Complainant for
not having her ID card in the computer properly; and went on a tirade when Complainant
missed scanning a page. Complainant acknowledged that the office consisted of an open
workspace, had no partitions or cubicles, and that everyone saw and heard everything that
went on in the office. Complainant also alleged that Person B berated her for leaving folders
under a supervisor’s door and that Person B made everyone aware, even customers, that
Complainant should have put the folders in an envelope. Complainant also explained that she
was talking to a customer and mentioned her murdered son and that Person B told her this was
a business and that she should not discuss her son’s murder with customers. In contrast,
Complainant claimed that Employee X was allowed to talk about his former military career.

Person B denied making comments that since Complainant was an ex-teacher with a Master’s
Degree she should not be making the mistakes she made. Person B acknowledged speaking to
Complainant when she failed to scan a page or attach a necessary form in her submissions to
OPM; made mistakes with the EQip system; and had problems at the proctor station. Person B
0120112028

7
acknowledged speaking to Complainant about her mistake in not having her ID card properly
in the computer; however, he denied speaking to Complainant loudly. In addition, Person B
explained that in August 2009, Complainant finished working on new hire folders and then
stuck the folders under a supervisor's door without any privacy notice or securing the folders
in an envelope. Person B noted the folders at issue had full social security numbers on them.
Person B explained that he spoke to Complainant about this incident, and told her in the future
to make sure she either puts a privacy notice on it or puts them in envelopes due to the Privacy
Act. Person B denied debasing or publicly berating Complainant as she alleged.

Complainant also alleged that on eight occasions between July 27 and October 23, 2009, she
was harassed for being late. Complainant noted that she had difficulty with her original
starting time and subsequently requested a later start time. Person B stated Complainant was
late on all the dates identified. Person B Complainant noted Complainant had a pattern of
arriving late for work, sometimes she would say her alarm did not go off, or her tires were
out, she had to pick up her daughter, or she had to drop off her daughter. Person B noted that
eventually Complainant asked for and was granted a start change. Complainant acknowledged
being late on a number of the identified occasions. Complainant also claimed that Witness 1
told her that Employee Y was frequently late. Witness 1 acknowledged telling Complainant
that Employee Y was frequently late; however, he stated he did not know if Employee Y took
leave or had other arrangements with management.

In addition, the Agency stated that Complainant inappropriately entered the use of sick leave
and when her supervisor brought it to her attention she did not have an appropriate excuse for
her actions. The record reveals on the date in question, Complainant and fifteen other co-
workers attended a television show. Complainant submitted a request for sick leave on the
date she attended the television show. The rest of the employees attending the television show
requested annual leave. Person B stated that Complainant’s request for sick leave was
improper and he noted he gave her the opportunity to change the leave from sick leave to
annual leave.

Complainant also claimed that on 11 occasions between July 2, 2009, and November 24, 2009,
Person B kept notes on her mistakes in a notebook. Complainant acknowledged making a
number of the mistakes regarding the EQip process, misspelling a person’s name, problems
with adjudication when she misread a clearance, forgetting her password, and incorrectly
listing someone’s city of birth.

Complainant also stated that on one occasion, she was faulted for problems with some work
folders. Complainant argued she was not the only person to handle the folders and she felt she
should not have directly been blamed for that issue. With regard to this issue, Person B noted
that Complainant fingerprinted some volunteers and the next day the folders were missing.
Person B stated what when he asked where the folders were, she stated that the folders might
have been among the items she sent back to the volunteer service. Person B noted that these
items were never sent back to the service. Person B stated they had to request the volunteer
service to provide new folders for them since the folders were never found. Person B
0120112028

8
acknowledged speaking to Complainant about keeping track of where things are. Person B
explained that he told Complainant once she finished fingerprinting someone it needed to be
forwarded to the person who enters them into the system. Person B noted that in this case that
process never occurred because it was not in the system.

In addition, Complainant stated she was “noted” for not providing proper customer service.
Complainant denied the charge that she did not provide proper customer service. Complainant
stated that she had a number of customers that compliment her on the service that she provided
them. Complainant acknowledged there was an issue with the folders on November 20, 2009;
however, she did not elaborate on this issue.

Person B stated that on November 20, 2009, Complainant was supposed to complete new hire
folders. Person B noted that Complainant received 20 folders to complete and she only
completed eight of them. Further, Person B stated that five out of the eight had errors on
them. Person B stated she talked to Complainant regarding her mistakes.

Complainant also alleged discrimination when she was forced to sign the re-train sheet. She
stated that a re-train sheet is a record of activities she supposedly had knowledge of and if she
asked a question about it she had to sign the retrain sheet. Person A noted that in September
2009, he prepared a “Training Program form” for Complainant and asked Person B to make
sure the appropriate training was provided. Person A stated he recommended Complainant be
asked to sign a sheet confirming that she received the training listed. Person B noted that she
and Complainant’s co-workers constantly trained Complainant. Person B stated that Person A
recommended a checklist because of the constant training provided to Complainant and based
on the fact that Complainant stated she said did not have training. Thus, Person B stated the
re-training sheet was created which listed every time Complainant was trained and required
Complainant initial the sheet.

Additionally, Complainant alleged on four occasions between November 2, 2009, and
December 29, 2009, Person B faulted her for fingerprinting errors, for failing to provide
proper customer service, and for mistakes associated with issuing temporary ID badges.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that on November 2, 2009, Person B “noted” her because
the fingerprint machine was not transmitting properly, and stayed close by her so that she
could see and hear everything that she did. Person B explained that on that date there were a
few cases where Complainant had fingerprinted people and there were no results on the
background system. Person B stated they had checked the background system machine and
the fingerprint machine and the results were not in either location. Person B stated that this
had happened a few times and as a result, Person A asked her to shadow Complainant to see
what the problem was. Person B said that Complainant told her that she was not going to show
her what she was doing and that instead she was going to use another machine. Person B
stated Complainant then used another machine and it worked. Person B denied stating that she
would stay close by Complainant so she could see and hear everything she did.

0120112028

9
Complainant stated that on November 18, 2009, Person B wrote down in her notes that one of
the customers came in to find out if his fingerprints had cleared. Complainant stated that she
fingerprinted the customer and he was not on the machine. Complainant stated that she did not
think that she should be held accountable for that because she “put it in with complete
confidence that it was going to work.” Complainant stated she believed she was subjected to
discrimination based on race and age because “quite possibly the same situation occurred to the
other staff members.” Complainant did not specifically identify anyone else who had a
problem with the machine on the day in question.

Person B stated on this date Complainant fingerprinted more people than went through the
system. Person B stated the machine was working properly at the time. Person B explained
that she advised Complainant that the next time Complainant fingerprints somebody, she could
watch Complainant and see what it is that the machine is doing or what the problem is;
however, Complainant declined that offer.

Complainant also alleged that on November 24, 2009, she was “noted” for a mechanical error
on the laptop. Complainant stated that on that day a customer came in to see if his fingerprints
cleared and it did not show up because it did not transmit on the machine. Complainant stated
that she signed a fingerprint sheet for the customer and since the fingerprints did not submit,
he had to come back in to be re-fingerprinted. Complainant claimed that there were always
problems with the computer laptop.

In response, Person B stated that on this occasion another person came in that was
fingerprinted by Complainant and there was no record of it. Person B noted that Complainant
stated she fingerprinted the customer on the portable fingerprint machine. Person B stated she
asked Complainant to show her the next time she uses the machine; however, Complainant
declined to do it.

Complainant also alleged that on December 29, 2009, she was “noted” for issuing temporary
badges while the PIV system was down. Complainant stated that she was marked down for
attempting to issue a temporary badge to a contractor. She stated the person had all the
information necessary and she was preparing to issue him a temporary badge. Complainant
acknowledged that the PIV system enabled them to go in and further verify their
documentation provided. Complainant claimed that in the past if a temporary badge was
needed, they would issue one. Complainant stated she even discussed the issue with Witness
1. Complainant stated she questioned Witness 1 regarding giving the contractor the temporary
badge as had been done in the past, and she said that Witness 1 responded that they now had
the new system. Complainant claimed that she did not actually issue the temporary badge, and
was unfairly marked down for thinking about issuing the badge.

In response, Person B explained the PIV system was a badge system. Person B explained that
everybody knew that no badges were issued to anybody without their fingerprints being
cleared. Person B stated that Complainant had just fingerprinted a contractor and then minutes
later proceeded to make the person a badge. Person B stated she asked Complainant if the
0120112028

10
person's fingerprints cleared and Complainant said that she just fingerprinted the person.
Person B stated she explained to Complainant that they cannot badge anybody until their
fingerprints clear. Person B also noted that the badge system was currently working at the
time.

Complainant also alleged that on December 31, 2009, Person B’s supervisor incorrectly faulted
Complainant for not finding a case. Complainant explained that on this date, Person B was
looking for a case and the name that Person B had written down was spelled incorrectly.
Complainant stated she received a write-up for this incident.

In response, Person B stated that on this day, Complainant improperly cleared somebody on
the checklist; however fortunately it had not gone to staffing yet. Person B stated she went
through Complainant’s work and realized the person did not clear and that Complainant had
listed that they had cleared. Person B stated she talked to Complainant about it and
Complainant said she did not know what happened. Person B noted that Complainant stated
that she had called OPM regarding the matter; however, Person B stated that was not possible
because OPM in Washington, D.C. was already closed at the time.

Complainant also claimed that on January 29, 2010, Person B told her that she “would not
assist her any more” and threatened to sit with her everyday to observe her performance.
Specifically, Complainant stated on the afternoon of January 29, 2010, Person B loudly said
for everyone to hear that she going to sit with Complainant everyday to see what Complainant
was doing. Complainant stated that she told Person B that she had her notes and that Person B
could sit with her, but she really preferred Person B not to sit with her as she worked.
Complainant claimed that in response, Person B stated that she was not going to help
Complainant anymore.

In response, Person B stated that the office constantly got complaints that things were not being
completed in a timely fashion and work was piling up on Complainant’s desk. Person B said
that Person A asked her to start sitting with Complainant at the end of every day and go over
her work priorities work and examine what she had left for the day. Person B stated that while
she was sitting with Complainant going over her workload, Complainant received a call from
her mother and ignored Person B. Person B stated she was responsible for Complainant
succeeding and that she needed to sit down with Complainant and go over the workload.
Person B stated Complainant refused to do this.

With regard to her claim of harassment, Complainant claims that Witness 1’s testimony
supports her claim of harassment. In his statement, Witness 1 stated that he never heard
Person B belittle, embarrass, or harass Complainant in front of staff or customers. Witness 1
stated he did believe that there was a nervous type of atmosphere in the office because
Complainant made a lot of mistakes. He stated that he saw Person B try to correct
Complainant’s mistakes and that everything Complainant did was being written down. Witness
1 stated he tried to train Complainant to do this job; however, he stated this job was not for
her. Specifically, Witness 1 noted that he trained Complainant on EQip; however, she still
0120112028

11
continued to make mistakes. Witness 1 opined that Complainant did not pay attention to detail.
Witness 1 stated he had no knowledge that Complainant was subjected to a hostile work
environment based on her race or age. He stated he did not see Person B talking loudly to
Complainant or singling her out for mistakes. Additionally, he stated he did hear Person B
talking to Complainant about being late, but stated Person B used a normal tone when speaking
to Complainant.

With regard to Complainant’s termination, the Agency noted that Complainant had repeated
performance concerns and errors including bringing employees on board before they cleared
their security background checks; losing personnel folders; frequent tardiness; and frequent
computer errors.

Upon review, we find Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment based on her race or age. We note
Complainant acknowledged making a number of mistakes and frequently being late to arrive at
work. The record reveals that as a result of concerns with performance and attendance Person
B began documenting Complainant work habits and attendance issues. We find Complainant
failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED.

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 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 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
0120112028

12
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

(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

(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
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

June 14, 2013
Date