0120093730
03-27-2015
Complainant v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Complainant
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120093730
Hearing No. 531-2008-00217X
Agency No. OCO-07-0467
DECISION
Complainant timely filed an appeal from the Agency's final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C.
� 791 et seq. The Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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 AJ's finding that the Agency's requests for additional medical documentation to support Complainant's request for accommodation were reasonable under the Rehabilitation Act.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Benefit Earnings Technician, GS-7, Office of Central Operations (OCO), in Baltimore, Maryland. Report of Investigation (ROI). Complainant worked on the second floor of the Agency's Security West Building. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 28. The Agency provides parking to employees at the Security West Building. An employee working at the Security West building can be provided with a reserved numbered parking spot or an Area-Reserved permit immediately next to the building. The Area-Reserved lot is a parking area right next to the Security West Building with no reserved or numbered spaces. Hr'g Tr., Vol. 2, at 55-56. The Area Reserved lot has a limited numbers of spaces available on a first-come, first-serve basis, and fills up in the mornings. Id. An employee without a permit for a reserved space or the Area-Reserved lot must park anywhere from one to two blocks away from the Security West Building in one of the outlying parking areas. Id.
Complainant has had back pain and spinal issues ever since a 2002 car accident. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 5. In 2003, Complainant's doctor found that Complainant had ruptured discs in her spinal column. Hr'g Tr., Vol 1, at 15. On May 12, 2003, Complainant underwent cervical spine fusion surgery. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 5. Complainant used a walker after the surgery. Hr'g Tr., Vol 1, at 72. After her surgery, Complainant underwent physical therapy to relieve back and neck pain. During this time, the Agency granted Complainant a "temporary disabled" parking permit expiring on October 31, 2003. Id. at 74. On December 4, 2003, Complainant's physical therapist requested that Complainant be allowed to park closer to the building, but Complainant was not granted a permit at that time. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 6.
Subsequently, in April 2006, Complainant submitted a request to the Contract Medical Officer1 for a closer parking spot to the Security West Building due to her spinal condition. Id. at 28-30. On April 21, 2006, Complainant sent an e-mail to the Medical Officer regarding her medical parking application. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 29. Therein, Complainant noted that she had sent medical reports to the Medical Officer. Id. Complainant noted that the reports sent showed that she had "a triple cervical fusion with [a] titanium plate and screws put in place" for ruptured discs in her neck. Id. In the e-mail, Complainant further noted that she sent documentation from her doctor requesting medical parking. Id. Complainant noted that her doctor explained that she had ruptured discs and experienced pain from her spinal condition. Id. Complainant also noted in the April 21, 2006, e-mail that she sent "two MRIs explaining [the] pain from [her] lower back radiating into [her] left leg due to ruptured or herniated discs ...." Id.
On April 25, 2006, the Contract Medical Officer replied to Complainant's e-mail. Therein, the Medical Officer noted there was no documentation submitted by Complainant that showed a "severe disability" regarding her spine. Id. at 28-29. The Contract Medical Officer also noted that Complainant's two-year-old MRI scan did not show any severe herniations, and therefore he could not assist her with parking at Security West. Id. The Medical Officer advised Complainant that she could submit additional medical documentation if she wished. Id.
On July 19, 2006, Complainant was scheduled to have surgery on a disc in her lumbar spine. Hr'g Tr., at 154. The surgery's purpose was to alleviate pain that Complainant had been experiencing from her spine. Before the surgery, on June 21, 2006, Complainant submitted another request for medical parking to the Contract Medical Officer. Agency's Motion for Decision without a Hearing, Ex. 7. Along with the parking application, Complainant submitted her doctor's examination/MRI report dated May 6, 2006. Id. Complainant also submitted a neurosurgical consultation report dated May 12, 2006, from her doctor. Id. Therein, Complainant's doctor, among other things, described the pain that Complainant experienced:
[Complainant experiences] low back pain that radiates from right to left in the lumbosacral region. It then continues posterolaterally into the buttock down her leg with numbness and tingling along the sole of her foot. Her pain is associated with muscle spasms which she feels has been worsening in recent months. She has also noticed occasional stumbling and suspects that her left leg muscles are steadily weakening.
Id.
Along with her parking application, Complainant submitted a follow-up note from her doctor dated June 15, 2006, indicating that she would have surgery on her spine as set forth above. Id.
The Contract Medical Officer thereafter provided Complainant with an Area-Reserved Medical Parking Permit valid from June 2006 to January 31, 2007. Hr'g Tr., Vol 2, at 55-57. Complainant, however, experienced complications during the July 19, 2006, surgery. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 9. The post-operative note indicated that a nerve root was caught in a surgical instrument. ROI, Ex. 3g, at 11-13. Complainant testified that her doctor said there were complications during the surgery:
[My doctor] told me that there was a problem and that they clipped a nerve while they were in there and that the numbness that I feel on my foot and the pain in my foot, they're going to give me something for that. [My doctor] also told me that with this kind of nerve damage, he can't tell me if it's going to heal today, tomorrow, or never, but we can only hope.
Complainant's September 18, 2008, Dep., at 121.
Complainant returned to work from her surgery in October 2006. On October 5, 2006, Complainant e-mailed the Contract Medical Officer and explained there were complications from her surgery. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 10. Complainant further explained that her doctor provided her with prescriptions for a cane and medical parking for a period of one year. Id. On October 6, 2006, Complainant faxed the Contract Medical Officer the prescriptions for the cane and medical parking for one year. Id. at 13. On October 10, 2006, the Contract Medical Officer in an e-mail to Complainant wrote that he could not assist Complainant with parking because her doctor did not submit any recent test results to substantiate that her disability was "severe." Id.
On October 12, 2006, Complainant again e-mailed the Contract Medical Officer, explaining that when she would attend doctor's appointments there would be no spaces available in the Area-Reserved lot and she would have to park further away from the building. Id. at 17. Complainant explained that her doctor indicated that she needed a reserved parking spot for one year. Id. The same day, the Contract Medical Officer called Complainant on the telephone and explained that he would be requesting an assigned reserved parking spot for her. Hr'g Tr., Vol. 2, at 65-71. The Contract Medical Officer explained that Complainant would only receive a reserved space on temporary basis. The Contract Medical Officer felt that Complainant's condition was not severe enough to warrant a longer permit. Id. at 71. Complainant was assigned a reserved parking space, expiring on January 31, 2007. Hr'g Tr., Vol. 1, at 100.
On December 18, 2006, Complainant again e-mailed the Contract Medical Officer. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 12. Therein, Complainant noted that her doctor had telephoned the Contract Medical Officer several times to request that Complainant have a yearly permit. Id. Complainant reminded the Contract Medical Officer that her permit would be expiring the next month. Id. On January 18, 2007, Complainant's doctor faxed another signed parking application to the Contract Medical Officer. ROI, Ex. 3d. Attached to the parking application, Complainant's doctor submitted several forms of medical documentation, including follow-up medical notes, an examination report, and a physical therapy report. Id. This documentation indicated that Complainant was receiving injections and had been prescribed pain medications. Id. In the December 8, 2006, follow-up note attached to the application, Complainant's doctor wrote:
Since her last visit with me [Complainant] has had no relief from her low back and left leg pain. In fact things have steadily worsened to the point that she feels there may be changes in her spine precipitating this. [Complainant] describes constant tingling in the left leg which follows a posterolateral distribution and extends into the toes. This is accompanied by on-going low back pain.
Id. at 6.
On January 19, 2007, Complainant e-mailed the Contract Medical Officer, noting that her doctor had sent another parking application. ROI, Ex. 3e, at 8. The Contract Medical Officer replied via e-mail, asking Complainant if an MRI had been done. Id. On January 25, 2007, the Contract Medical Officer and Complainant spoke on the telephone. ROI, Ex. 3, at 13. Therein, the Contract Medical Officer informed Complainant that he would only be able to extend Complainant's reserved spot for a couple of months. Id. The Contract Medical Officer told Complainant that he could not grant her a yearly parking spot based on the medical documentation that she provided. Id. The Contract Medical Officer believed that the documentation that Complainant provided did not establish that she was substantially limited in walking. Hr'g Tr, Vol. 2, at 78. Notwithstanding, the Contract Medical Officer provided Complainant with an extension of her reserved space until March 31, 2007. The Contract Medical Officer suggested that Complainant provide him with more medical documentation, including a report from the next MRI scan. ROI, Ex. 3f, at 12.
On March 15, 2007, Complainant submitted additional medical documentation for the extension of her reserved parking space, including her approved Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) handicapped parking permit and a February 6, 2007, MRI report. ROI, Ex. 3g, at 14. However, the Contract Medical Officer once again only extended Complainant's reserved parking spot on a temporary basis, until July 31, 2007. Contract Medical Officer's December 11, 2008, Decl., at 8. The Contract Medical Officer continued to feel that Complainant was not severely and permanently disabled at the time so as to warrant a longer, more permanent permit for a reserved space. Id. at 7-8.
On May 21, 2007, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity2 when management failed to grant her request for reasonable accommodation in the form of a permanent parking pass.3
AJ's Decision without a Hearing
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). 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 AJ. Complainant timely requested a hearing.
The Agency subsequently moved for summary judgment on December 11, 2008. Thereafter, at the December 15, 2008, pretrial conference, Complainant and the Agency agreed to frame Complainant's claim in the following manner:
Whether the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of disability when the Agency conditioned Complainant's request for reasonable accommodation on unnecessary requests for medical documentation.
On December 31, 2008, Complainant filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to the Agency's motion. On January 26, 2009, the Agency filed an opposition to the cross-motion and Complainant responded on February 10, 2009. On March 26, 2009, the AJ issued a bench decision, partially granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency. Therein, the AJ found that a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to only one request that Complainant made for a parking permit in January 2007. Specifically, the AJ found that a genuine issue of material fact existed when the Agency extended Complainant's disability parking permit for two months at the end of January 2007, rather than granting the usual four to six month extension.
AJ's Decision after Hearing
The AJ held the hearing on March 26 and April 30, 2009, and issued a decision on June 24, 2009. Therein, the AJ found that although Complainant had a physical impairment in the major life activity of walking, she did not establish that she had a substantial limitation in her ability to walk during the relevant period. The AJ found that, although Complainant was prescribed a cane to help her walk, she did not provide the Contract Medical Officer with adequate objective medical documentation to establish her claim that she was substantially or severely restricted in walking. The AJ wrote that Complainant's case hinged on the adequacy of the medical evidence she supplied to the Agency as of January 2007 to establish that she had a disability requiring reasonable accommodation. The AJ noted that Complainant's own subjective belief that she had a disability was not enough; the Agency was entitled to updated medical information from her before it assigned her a parking space.
The AJ further wrote that Complainant submitted the following medical documentation with her parking applications to the Agency by January 2007:
1) MRI scans from 2002, which indicated mild pressure on the ventral aspect of the spinal cord, but otherwise normal. A second MRI indicated a small central disc herniation;
2) MRI scan from August 2006, noting a mild condition;
3) a note scribbled on a prescription pad, indicating that she had degenerative disc disease and requesting a parking space for one year;
4) a prescription for a walking cane;
5) a record of pain management procedure, resulting in relief to her;
6) a physical therapy report from 2006 indicating that her ability to move and function had increased;
7) a doctor's follow-up note of October 2006, suggesting that she may need further surgery;
8) her doctor's follow-up note of November 2006, which noted that she was provided some temporary relief, while stating he did not know how she would do in the long run; and
9) her doctor's follow-up note from December of 2006, recommending that she get another MRI scan and an EMG of the low extremities to look for chronic nerve injury.
The AJ found that none of medical information submitted by Complainant as described above explained the specific nature, severity, and duration of Complainant's impairment, as required pursuant to Commission regulations. The AJ indicted that Complainant's doctor did not know what exactly was wrong and only suggested that she might need another surgery. The AJ also found no indication that Complainant's condition was severe, noting that her doctor only indicated that Complainant experienced some pain relief. The AJ also noted, with regard to expected duration, that Complainant's doctor was unsure how Complainant would do in the long run. The AJ noted that the medical documentation that the Agency received provided no indication of the nature and severity of Complainant's impairment. The AJ noted that Complainant's doctor's request for Complainant to have a parking spot for a year scribbled on a note pad did not establish why the request for reasonable accommodation was necessary.
The AJ also noted that the Contract Medical Officer requested via e-mail that Complainant submit an updated MRI result based on her doctor's recommendation of December 8, 2006. The AJ found that the February 2007 MRI did not show that Complainant was substantially limited. The AJ also indicated that Complainant had an electrocardiogram (EMG) in February 2007, but the results were normal. The AJ additionally made note that the Contract Medical Officer testified that he never received a copy of the operative report dated July 19, 2006, which documented inadvertent nerve compress of the left L5 nerve root during surgery. The AJ noted that the Contract Medical Officer testified that he had never seen the operative report until about five days to a week before the hearing. Having found that Complainant did not provide the Contract Medical Officer with the July 19, 2006, medical report, the AJ indicated there was nothing forwarded by January 2007, which would have led the Contract Medical Officer to believe that Complainant was disabled. The AJ wrote that, even if the Contact Medical Officer received the report, it indicated only that Complainant's nerve was compressed during surgery in July 2006. The AJ found no indication of a severe impairment due to the nerve compression.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order on August 11, 2009, adopting the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant's Brief on Appeal
On appeal Complainant, through her attorney, contends that undisputed evidence establishes that she is disabled under the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. Complainant believes that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking. Complainant says the Agency had an existing statement from her doctor that her impairment would be of uncertain duration. Complainant states the Agency asked her for a copy of her MRI report in order to make a judgment on what treatment she should undergo to improve her condition. Complainant asserts that the request for this MRI had only to do with the permanence of her impairment, not its severity, and therefore it was an improper request for medical documentation. Complainant contends that there was no basis for the Agency not to provide a lengthy extension of her parking permit.
Agency's Response
In response, the Agency argues that it provided Complainant with the exact accommodation that she desired. The Agency states that it provided Complainant with a parking space close to her duty station even though she did not submit any medical documentation to establish a substantially-limiting condition. The Agency notes that, during the pretrial conference, Complainant no longer contended that the she was not provided with accommodation, but rather, claimed that the Agency made inappropriate requests for medical documentation. The Agency also argues that Complainant has not appealed the AJ's March 26, 2009, bench decision, which partially granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency argues that Complainant has only appealed the AJ's June 24, 2009, decision following a hearing.
The Agency further maintains that substantial evidence in the record supports the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to establish that she was disabled under the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. The Agency states that no medical document provided by Complainant describes the specific nature, severity, or duration of her impairment. The Agency argues that no document supports Complainant's condition of neuropathy. The Agency states that, although Complainant asserted that she was in so much pain that she could not walk more than half a block, her doctor's clinical reports indicated that she had experienced relief from the pain. The Agency further maintains that Complainant's clinical reports made no mention that she had issues with walking. The Agency also argues that Complainant's diagnostic testing in both August and February 2007 contradicted the existence of a severe condition. The Agency believes that Complainant's doctor wanted her to walk, which is the reason why he prescribed her a cane.
The Agency maintains that substantial evidence of the record supports the AJ's decision that its request for additional medical documentation after January 2007 was appropriate. The Agency asserts that its request for additional medical were appropriate as part of the reasonable accommodation interactive process.
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 EEO Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, at � VI.B. (Nov. 9, 1999).
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
AJ's issuance of Partial Summary Judgment
Initially, we note the Agency's assertion that Complainant has not appealed the AJ's March 26, 2009, bench decision partially granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency. We agree, and note that, although Complainant cites to the AJ's March 26, 2009, bench decision on appeal, she does not specifically contest the AJ's Partial Summary Judgment ruling in favor of the Agency. Therefore, we do not address it in this decision, as the Commission exercises its discretion to review only those issues specifically raised on appeal. See EEO MD-110, Chap. 9, at � IV.A ("Although the Commission has the right to review all of the issues in a complaint on appeal, it also has the discretion to focus only on those issues specifically raised on appeal.").
AJ's Decision after Hearing
With respect to the June 24, 2009, decision after the hearing, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act as alleged, as explained below.
Requests for Documentation for Complainant's Accommodation Request
To the extent that Complainant is alleging that she was denied reasonable accommodation, under the Commission's regulations, an Agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless the Agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1630.2 (o) and (p). For purposes of analysis, the Commission assumes, without so finding, that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.
Under the Commission's guidelines, an agency may request additional information when presented with a request for reasonable accommodation in order to evaluate a complainant's proposed accommodation in comparison to her current medical needs in order to determine what accommodation would best serve the needs of the agency and complainant. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC No. 915.002, at Q. 6 (Oct. 17, 2002). Moreover, when an individual's disability or need for reasonable accommodation is not obvious, and she fails to provide reasonable documentation requested by the employer, the employer will not be held liable for failure to provide the requested accommodation. Id.
In the instant case, in January 2007, Complainant through her doctor submitted a parking application along with medical documentation to have her permit extended on a more permanent basis. However, the Contract Medical Officer advised Complainant that he could not grant her a permanent parking spot based on the medical documentation that she provided. The Contract Medical Officer felt the documentation that Complainant provided did not establish that she was substantially limited in walking. Hr'g Tr, Vol. 2, at 78. We note that, although Complainant testified that she faxed the July 19, 2006, operative report, the Contract Medical Officer testified that he did not receive a copy of the July 19, 2006, operative report until days before the hearing. We note that the AJ credited the Contract Medial Officer's testimony in this regard, based on Complainant's equivocation with regard to whether she had sent the document ("I believe so") and lack of reference to the operative report in the fax coversheet and list of documents provided to the Contract Medical Officer. The Commission generally gives deference to credibility determinations that are "not contradicted by record evidence." See Willis v. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., EEOC Appeal No. 0120111466 (June 29, 2011) (citing Ramsey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 07A10080 (July 18, 2003)). We see no reason overturn the AJ's credibility determination.
Further, when an individual's disability or need for reasonable accommodation is not obvious, and the individual fails to provide reasonable documentation requested by the employer, the employer will not be held liable for failure to provide the requested accommodation. See Palumbo v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073023 (Apr. 20, 2010) (agency did not fail to provide reasonable accommodation where complainant did not provide updated documentation to establish current need for reasonable accommodation); Miles v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120054224 (Jan. 19, 2007) (agency did not fail to provide reasonable accommodation where complainant did not provide updated documentation substantiating need for extended leave as reasonable accommodation); Ross v. Dep't of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01982708 (Aug. 3, 2001) (where complainant fails to provide necessary documentation, agency cannot be held liable for failure to accommodate complainant's disability). Here, the AJ found that the Contract Officer credibly testified that Complainant did not provide him with sufficient updated medical documentation to substantiate her need for a more permanent parking spot.
We note that the Contract Medical Officer nevertheless provided Complainant with an extension of her reserved space until March 31, 2007, and beyond. The Contract Medical Officer, believing that the medical documentation was insufficient, suggested that Complainant provide him with more medical documentation to support her need for a reserved spot on more permanent basis. Commission policy holds that an employer that requests additional information based on a good-faith belief that the documentation the employee submitted is insufficient, as is the case here, is not liable for discrimination. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Q. 11, (July 27, 2000) (available at www.eeoc.gov).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the AJ's decision, that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when it requested additional medical documentation for her request for accommodation, is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
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 adopting the AJ's decision.
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 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
March 27, 2015
Date
1 The Contract Medical Officer is a doctor assigned by the Agency to make medical decisions on applications submitted by employees for "medical parking." Hr'g Tr., Vol 2, at 37-38.
2 Complainant later withdrew the basis of reprisal.
3 Complainant withdrew her claim that the Agency failed to provide her with administrative leave on February 13 and 14, 2007.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120093730
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120093730