0120130553
03-24-2015
Complainant, v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary, Department of Commerce (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Penny Pritzker,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce
(National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120130553
Hearing No. 531-2009-00046X
Agency No. 54-2009-00092 (formerly 08-54-00092)
DECISION
On November 13, 2012, Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's October 11, 2012, final order 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Physical Scientist, ZP-1301-III, at the Agency's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution (OSDPD), Satellite Services Division (SSD) in Camp Springs, Maryland.
On April 3, 2008, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, as amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on his race (African-American/Black), and starting around November 2008, reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In a summary judgment decision, the AJ found no discrimination on some of Complainant's claims. Following five days of hearings on the remaining claims, in a 51 page bench decision the AJ found discrimination on one incident of reprisal, and no discrimination on the remainder of the complaint. The AJ ordered various remedies. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's decision.
On April 6, 2010, prior to the above decision, the AJ issued a memorandum and order finding that the parties agreed the issues were as follows: The Agency subjecting Complainant to a pattern of harassment and hostile work environment when it required him to perform as deputy secretary, executive secretary, and manager for Satellite Products and Services Review Board (SPSRD), took no action when his first line supervisor (S1) made discriminatory and demeaning comments to him, issued him lower performance appraisals, reprimanded him for not performing non-core duties, reprimanded him for taking leave, took no corrective action regarding an incident involving the wrapping of a microphone cord around his neck like a noose and reprimanding him for his behavior at the meeting where this occurred, denying him training, travel, transfer and promotional opportunities, and permitting a supervisor (not Complainant's) (S2) to attempt to persuade him to drop his EEO complaint. The parties agreed that greater detail regarding the incidents were in the Agency's acceptance letter and Complainant's amended complaint.
Thereafter, the AJ granted the Agency's motion for summary judgment in part, finding no discrimination on Complainant's appraisals, performance deficiency letters, and not being promoted, and denying the motion on the remainder of the complaint. Complainant does not contest this decision.
In his decision following the hearing, the AJ listed the issues in the Agency's acceptance letter - whether it subjected Complainant to disparate treatment and harassment constituting a hostile work environment when:
1. On November 7, 2007, when he met with S1 (Caucasian) about his fiscal year 2008 performance plan, S1 said "You are going to get your wish to not be SPSRB secretary and SPSRB manager because you are an embarrassment."
2. While his grievance to his third line supervisor was under her review from late November 2007 to early January 2008, concerning his negative performance rating for the period of October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2007, which Complainant received on November 16, 2007, S1 would visit his desk and make references regarding the grievance.1
3. On December 3, 2007, when in response to S1's questioning in S1's office on why he missed a meeting, Complainant explained that he decided to attend another meeting scheduled at the same time based on his understanding of priority, and S1 responded that Complainant "couldn't make that decision" and he would cite him for a performance deficiency. The AJ noted that while he previously upheld the performance deficiency, he heard the December 3, 2007, incident.
4. On December 6, 2007, when meeting with S1 in S1's office about Complainant's response to an inquiry request by a co-worker/customer, S1 asked Complainant if he could read and write, and then looked around his desk for something for him to read and asked him to read it to him. S1 than told Complainant he did not think he could write and ordered him to write a paragraph. In response, he told S1 he wrote SPSRB meeting minutes. S1 replied "Oh, those are bullets, you can't write complete sentences," adding "Your probably can't sign your name," and then ordered him out his office.
5. On December 17, 2007, he met with S1, and as S1's witness, Witness 1, to review a performance deficiency document and his performance plan - the AJ wrote he heard the performance plan incident part.
6. On December 19, 2007, at the monthly SPSRB meeting, he was assaulted by a female staff person (Caucasian) who, for purposes of the meeting, was acting for S1 (male). The assault occurred by her wrapping his neck in a loop from the microphone cord like a noose causing major discomfort, after which she smiled.
7. On December 21, 2007, after he told S1 the above, S1 smiled, said it was an accident, and walked out of his office leaving him standing there.
8. On January 10, 2008, S1 in S1's office asked him what time he came to work. When he responded 7 AM, and indicated this could be confirmed this with his co-worker, S1 responded "I asked you a question. Whenever I ask you a question, you better answer. Do you understand?" S1 then asked why he was not at his desk (that morning) and why on January 7, 2009, he went to the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility "all hands meeting." S1 later asked for his badge, wrote down his badge number, and dropped it down on S1's desk or table in front of him. S1 then discussed his investigation of the December 19, 2007, incident. Complainant replied he was sure the investigation was to "coordinate" a story, just as S1 coordinated the unfavorable grievance decision by Complainant's third line supervisor, and S1 responded "Yes, that's right" and commented the third line supervisor would support him "no matter what." During the same meeting S1 told him that he needed to contact him anytime he was away from his desk.
9. On January 11, 2008, he met with his second line supervisor who communicated the investigation indicated the incident at the December 19, 2007, SPSRB meeting was an "accident." The second line supervisor told Complainant he did not perform his duties at the above meeting, and S1 was going to give him something in writing to address his conduct there, which resulted in a reprimand.
10. On January 14, 2008, he met with S1 who asked him why he did not attend a staff meeting that day. When he told S1 that he sent him an email asking to be excused, S1 said that since he did not reply to the email, he had not been excused. S1 than issued him a written reprimand for not following a directive of the person acting for S1 at the December 19, 2007, SPSRB meeting, and advised him that the third line supervisor found no merit to his claim concerning the behavior of the person acting for him at the above meeting.
11. On January 17, 2008, he met with S1, and as S1's witness, Witness 1, where (in relevant part) S1 told him he "failed" the SPSRB, and that input regarding an action he gave to him was meaningless.
The AJ also addressed additional incidents on the merits which were not listed. This included whether on November 14, 2008, S2 (Black - Trinidadian) put pressure on him to drop his EEO complaint. All this was consistent with the agreed issues.
NESDIS develops and distributes environmental satellite data and products. Developing new or enhanced satellite derived data meteorological products requires considerable resources. Via a vote, the SPSRB determines which satellite projects go forward. Complainant's SPSRB Executive Secretary duties included posting presentations on an SPSRB website prior to the monthly SPSRB meeting, sending out meeting notification and agenda, loading the presentations on a laptop computer, preparing the conference room, dialing in teleconference participants, administrating the presentations on the computer, moderating the meeting, taking and posting meeting minutes, and participating in the weekly SPSRB Process Improvement Working Group (SPIWG), the purpose of which was to improve SPSRB processes. The role of the SPSRB Deputy Executive Secretary was to assist and/or back up the Executive Secretary. The role of the SPSRB Manager was to monitor user requests, meaning proposals for projects, making a preliminary assessment of them, and presenting them to the SPSRB executive board for action or denial, and documenting this. According to one SPSRB Manager, it took about an hour to do a preliminary assessment. Hearing Transcript (H.T. 355). At one time the Manager role was part of being an Executive Secretary.
Complainant was assigned by S1 to his various SPSRB roles. The AJ found that Complainant started serving as the SPSRB Deputy Executive Secretary around March 2006, and SPSRB Executive Secretary in June 2006, albeit he did not fully take over the later function until about a year later, at which time the former Executive Secretary stayed on as Deputy Executive Secretary. The AJ found that Complainant also took on the role of SPSRB Manager on an interim basis in June 2007, and was relieved of this in early January 2008 (along with all his other SPSRB duties). The AJ found that Complainant was not overworked by his SPSRB roles, rather he admitted once he realized they would not result in a promotion, he did not want to continue his SPSRB titles. See March 4, 2009 deposition of Complainant, at 32 - 33 (lost satisfaction in SPSRB roles in 2007). The AJ found that a substantial portion of Complainant's other work had transitioned from development to a maintenance mode, resulting in less work.
The AJ found that S1 was the type of person who would lose his temper and yell. He found S1 yelled and lost his temper with Complainant because he was rightfully irritated by him not doing his job and being unhelpful, not because of race discrimination, albeit there was one instance described below where the AJ found the supervisor went too far and he said things which had racial overtones.
Various witnesses, who were Physical Scientists, recounted S1 yelling at people, dating back some 15 years, including at a White male, a White female, a Black female, and a Black male, largely for work he perceived to be below standard, and also about an office move and attendance at a conference he perceived to be wasteful. H.T. 1169, 367 - 369, 414, 419, 581 - 587.
The AJ found that generally, Complainant was more credible than S1. He explained that Complainant testified with specificity, related details, documented what occurred at meetings, and relied on this documentation to refresh his recollection, when necessary, and much of the time S1 testified that he could not recall. The AJ found that Complainant was more credible on the details of incidents. Bench Decision, 19 - 20, 38.
In Complainant's April 12, 2007 mid-cycle progress review, S1 wrote that Complainant had a questionable commitment to assuming and performing as SPSRB Executive Secretary. Report of Investigation (ROI), Exh. 15, at 5. In November 2007, for Complainant's year end appraisal covering the period of October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2007, S1 elaborated that Complainant took a passive approach to completing tasks, relying on other employees, and there were several instances when other employees had to complete SPSRB secretary tasks. He wrote user requests (proposals) were sometimes not timely assigned for technical review, and Complainant provided minimal input in SPIWG meetings. Id. at 9 - 10. In a January 2008, deficiency writing, S1 recounted that Complainant's minutes from a September 21, 2007, SPSRB meeting remained uncompleted. ROI, Exh. 29. At an approximately November 20, 2007, performance plan meeting for fiscal year 2008, Complainant refused to sign his plan, insisting that all or much of the references to him serving in SPSRB roles be removed. ROI, Exh. 17 at 1, 3; H.T. 258 - 259.
Referencing Complainant's April 2007 mid-cycle progress review, and his pushing for his performance plan to be modified to delete SPSRB functions, the AJ found that Complainant was not fulfilling all his functions and duties and did not want too. Turning to incident 1, the AJ found that while S1 calling Complainant an embarrassment was insulting, it was not race based, rather S1 was justifiably irritated.
On November 14, 2007, Complainant sent out a widely distributed email canceling the monthly SPSRB meeting for November 2007, writing "Due to the unfavorably SPSRB agenda items for review, the Satellite Products and Services Review Board (SPSRB) meeting scheduled for November 19, 2007, is canceled." Complainant's second line supervisor asked S1 what this meant, and his third line supervisor called S1 expressing concern over the email. S1 asked Complainant to rewrite the email immediately, with an explanation of why the meeting was canceled and information on the next meeting, noting this is what an interested attendee would want to know. This is documented in email streams. See Agency Hearing Exhibits (HE) 15, 17.
By email to Complainant and S1 on November 27, 2007, a co-worker/customer requested a short summary of the current SPSRB process which could be used in training. On November 29, 2007, Complainant responded by email that he was not clear on what was needed, and directed the inquiry to S1. While S1 promptly replied he would take care of it, by December 6, 2007, the co-worker/customer sent a follow up email asking that his request not be forgotten. S1 provided the summaries the same day. On the same day S1 emailed Complainant that the summaries were on the SPSRB website which Complainant manages. S1 wrote Complainant he could have gotten clarification on what was needed by calling the co-worker/customer, and his lack of effort to answer the question was unacceptable. All this is documented in email streams. See Agency HE 20, at 3 - 5. S1 testified that it was Complainant's responsibility to fulfill the customer's request, that he would know the latest process brief because he maintained the SPSRB website, and Complainant was trying to push work onto him. H.T. 742, 967 - 968.
On December 6, 2007, an SPSRB participant sent an email that he had not seen SPSRB minutes for several months, and was extremely concerned that the decisions were not getting properly documented. He expressed further concern that decisions were not being entered into the request tracker, and wrote this was Complainant's responsibility. Agency HE 20. In a January 14, 2008, performance deficiency memorandum to Complainant, S1 charged that over the last three months there were continuing occurrences of Complainant not completing web-based tracker actions, sending out incomplete or erroneous agendas, not posting presentations and not generating meeting minutes, and this was unacceptable. ROI, Exh. 29.
The AJ credited Complainant's account of what occurred, as set out in incident 4. Citing Complainant's poorly written email canceling the SPSRB monthly meeting and his mishandling of the customer's request for a summary of the SPSRB process, the AJ found that S1 was justifiably angry. The AJ noted that a review of Complainant's written products in this case had some grammatical errors, and there was some legitimate concern about his writing. The AJ found, however, that what S1 said, as set out in incident 4, went too far, and may have been an incident of racial animus that played on a stereotype of Blacks being poorly educated.
Regarding incident 6, the AJ found that Complainant did not perform most of his duties to set up and run the December 19, 2007, monthly SPSRB meeting, and this was unreasonable. Because Complainant did not set things up, the female employee acting for S1 at the meeting spread two microphone pods which were wired to the main telephone pod to different parts of the room so people calling in could hear what was going to be said. She testified that in doing this, she attempted to lift one microphone pod above Complainant but missed and the wire snagged him, and this was an accident. H.T. 1121, 1127, 1132. The AJ found that the cord got looped around Complainant's neck, and the employee acting for S1 apologized. The AJ found that this matter was an accident, not harassment. He based this on S1's investigation of the incident, and the testimony of the employee who acted for S1, which he found credible.
On January 9, 2008, S1 reprimanded Complainant for his misconduct regarding preparing for and conducting the above SPSRB meeting. ROI, Exh. 28. Specifically, Complainant did not bring a laptop computer with meeting presentations, and refused to follow the direction of the person acting for S1 to initiate the meeting. The AJ found that Complainant did not moderate the meeting, nor take part in it except for calling to make a telephone connection. The AJ found that Complainant had not been excused from his SPSRB duties, and the reprimand was appropriate because he did not show he was disparately treated regarding the reprimand.
On January 7, 2008, Complainant attended an "all hands" Information Processing Division (IPD) meeting. Complainant was not in IPD, and had no role in the meeting. The meeting was located in off-site in Suitland, Maryland, some five miles away, reachable by metro. This resulted in Complainant being out of the building for an extended period for a meeting that did not involve him. S1's testimony, H.T. 780 - 781, 846. The AJ found that Complainant went to this meeting for another unit without informing S1, irritating him.
The AJ found that incident 8 occurred as alleged by Complainant on January 10, 2008. He found that this was attributable to Complainant irritating S1 due to his conduct, not race discrimination. The AJ found S1 asked for Complainant's badge because he was irritated and to write down the number to see if he was in the building (instead of going to the all hands meeting, as Complainant alleged), but S1 later found this was not appropriate. S1 testified he learned that it was against policy to use electronic entrance logs for conduct purposes, so this did not happen. H.T., 944 - 945. The record does not reflect that S1 thereafter required Complainant to contact him anytime he was away from his desk. Rather, he wanted Complainant to use his electronic calendar if he was going to be away for a significant length of time, as other employees were instructed to use.
While Complainant alleged he was denied travel to a meeting in February 2008, to Switzerland, the AJ found that this occurred because he was unable to submit his request for authorization for international travel six weeks in advance, as required, since the meeting time was only set two weeks in advance. The AJ also found that Complainant was legitimately denied some training due to funding issues.
The AJ found that among the numerous incidents of alleged race discrimination, only one, incident 4, involved racial animus. He found that incident 4, standing alone, was not severe and pervasive enough to rise to the level of actionable race harassment.
The AJ found that Complainant proved reprisal discrimination regarding the following. He found that S2 put pressure on Complainant to withdraw his complaint in a conversation by, among other things, telling him someone else who filed a complaint was completely shunned, and the same thing would happen to him. This occurred on November 14, 2008. The AJ found that S1 asked S2 to talk to Complainant about his complaint.
As remedy, the AJ awarded $8,000 in non-pecuniary damages, and $58,096.85 in attorney fees and costs (apportioned among three attorneys), EEO training for S1 and S2, the Agency considering disciplining S1 and S2, and a posting a "Notice to Employees" regarding the finding of discrimination and assurance of non-discrimination.
On appeal, Complainant writes that he does not contest the AJ's finding of non-liability on any claim except being discriminated against because of his race when he was subjected to harassment constituting a hostile work environment. He does not contest any elements of remedial relief except for the issue of the AJ's failure to compute damages due to race discrimination. Complainant writes that the Agency already paid the attorney fees and costs awarded by the AJ.
On appeal, referencing his testimony, Complainant emphasizes that with a number of the incidents S1 lost his temper, screamed and yelled, once to the point of getting red faced and trembling. We note he testified to another incident of S1 trembling, where he screamed in high pitch. H.T. 61. Complainant notes the AJ found his testimony to be credible. He argues that S1 screamed at him as often as twice a week. On this point Complainant testified that S1 screamed at him maybe twice a week - it was on and off, and mainly in relation to SPSRB and his grievance. H.T. 68. Complainant argues that the Agency did not show S1 treated Caucasian employees like this. He points to S1's screaming incidents at Blacks, referenced above.
In opposition to the appeal, the Agency argues that the AJ's decision should be affirmed. Referencing Complainant's argument about Caucasian employees, the Agency argues that Complainant has the burden to prove that similarly situated employees outside his protected classes were treated more favorably in similar circumstances.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at � VI.B. (November 9, 1999).
Following five days of hearings the AJ issued a thoughtful 51 page bench decision where he made credibility determinations. Regarding Complainant's race discrimination claim, the AJ's finding that S1's behavior was motivated by his irritation with Complainant not doing his work (often intentionally) and not race discrimination, except one incident where S1 went too far and said things with racial overtones, is supported by substantial evidence. We agree with the AJ that incident 4, where S1 said things about Complainant's ability to read and write, standing alone, does not rise to the level of actionable race harassment.
On appeal, Complainant points to his testimony that S1 screamed at him as much as often as twice weekly. The AJ did not discuss this testimony. Rather, the AJ focused on the yelling that came up on the context of incidents in the agreed issues. This was appropriate. Also, Complainant testified that the yelling was on and off, and mainly about SPSRB and his grievance. Hence, Complainant was not necessarily testifying that S1 yelled at him twice a week. Further, this referenced testimony is not inconsistent with the AJ's finding that the yelling was not racially motivated, except for the incident where S1 went too far and got into Complainant's ability to read and write. Complainant attributed the yelling to the SBSRB and his grievance.
CONCLUSION
The AJ's findings regarding race and reprisal discrimination are supported by substantial evidence, and are AFFIRMED.
ORDER
To the extent the Agency has not already done so, it is ordered to take the following remedial actions:
1. Pay Complainant $8,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
2. Pay attorney fees and costs, as ordered by the AJ.
3. Provide EEO training to S1 and S2 regarding the prohibition against the Agency taking reprisal action against any employee for having engaged in prior EEO activity.
4. Consider taking disciplinary action against S1 and S2. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the Agency does not take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reasons for its decision to not impose discipline.
5. Post copies of the notice entitled "Notice to Employees" provided to it by the AJ. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted and maintained for 90 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
To the extent it has not already done so, the Agency shall complete items 1 - 4 above within 60 calendar days after this decision becomes final. To the extent it has not already done so, the Agency shall post the Notice to Employees provided to it by the AJ within 30 calendar days after this decision becomes final.
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 evidence 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 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 24, 2015
__________________
Date
1 The AJ listed another issue about a negative performance review, but indicated he already found in favor of the Agency on this in his summary judgment decision.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120130553
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120130553