0120121698
08-31-2012
Debra L. Legania, Complainant, v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.
Debra L. Legania,
Complainant,
v.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121698
Agency No. DOS-F-069-11
DECISION
On March 7, 2012, Complainant timely filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final Agency decision (FAD) dated February 9, 2012, 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 appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether Complainant was discriminated against based on her disability (legally blind in the left eye) and reprisal for prior EEO activity (filed a grievance about being disciplined for her error rate which was related to her visual disability) when after she requested reasonable accommodation on January 12, 2010, it was not provided until April 6, 2011.1
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Passport Specialist at the Agency's Chicago Passport Agency in Chicago, Illinois. On May 13, 2012, she filed an EEO complaint alleging the above issue. At the conclusion of the investigation the Agency notified Complainant of her rights, and she requested a FAD without a hearing. In its FAD the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove discrimination.
Complainant is legally blind in her left eye. When she was five years old she was hit there with scissors, and years later in 1973 cysts were discovered behind the eye. Complainant wrote that since her last corneal transplant in 1999 she has been diagnosed with edema in her left eye causing persistent clouding, that vision in the eye deteriorated over the years, and presently she sees light but no images in the left eye. In June 2000 Complainant's ophthalmologist wrote about her needing to be off work for two weeks due to swelling of the left cornea. In an undated letter a physician wrote that Complainant may be slower than usual as she recovered from an abrasion in the left eye, that she still had residual irritation, and may need breaks to use eye drops. In June 2005 Complainant's ophthalmologist wrote that she had chronic edema of her left cornea with poor vision, recurrent episodes of discomfort, and needed to be seen on a regular basis. In October 2008 the ophthalmologist wrote Complainant had extremely limited vision in the left eye due to persistent clouding of the left cornea, needed to be examined for this every three to six months, and had normal vision in the right eye. Complainant wrote that the tearing creates a crusty build up in the eye, that she uses an eye wash to clean the eyelid, and takes small breaks to rest the eye. She contended that her left eye gets irritated from overwork, missing a break, stress, or airborne irritants or germs, and this irritation will cause the right eye to get red, tear, and swell.2 Complainant wrote that she has the limitations of no night driving and has no peripheral vision on the left side.
Complainant's reviews passport applications and citizenship and identification documentation before approving or denying requests for United States passports at her desk; or at a public counter for in-person applicants. She stated that 75% of her work is adjudicating paper applications, and this includes verifying them against data entered on a computer screen. As an accommodation she was previously provided a larger computer monitor.
By email on January 12, 2010, Complainant contacted an Agency Human Resources staff member (HR 1) in Washington, DC (CA/EX/HRD) and wrote that she needed a large key/print keyboard because with her visual disability the standard keyboard was getting harder to see. HR 1 forwarded the email to HR 2, who was in or acted on behalf of the Disability/Reasonable Accommodation Division (HR/ER/DRAD). Under the Agency's reasonable accommodation procedures a reasonable accommodation request may be made directly to HR/ER/DRAD, which is the Agency's decision maker on all reasonable accommodation requests and delivers accommodations. Report of Investigation (ROI), at 292, 296, 298-99.
In March 2010 an Adjudication Manager, who prior to 2010 was Complainant's second line supervisor (S2-1), created a work schedule for all employees in the Adjudication section that included assigning Complainant to the public counter to accept passport applications. According to S2-1 Complainant then told her she could not work at the counter because she needed a large print keyboard. S2-1 wrote that she told Complainant management could purchase one for the counter and asked if she needed another for her desk, and Complainant replied she only needed one for the counter because the lighting in that area created glare. According to S2-1 Complainant said she did not need management to purchase a keyboard because she already requested one from Human Resources. S2-1 wrote that she told Complainant she did not have to work at the public counter until the keyboard arrived, and in the future to inform management of any requests for accommodations so management was aware of the request and could follow up, as needed. S2-1 stated Complainant never requested assistance from her in acquiring the keyboard and did not let her know one had not arrived.
On April 30, 2010, Complainant emailed HR 1 and asked about the status of the keyboard. This email was apparently forwarded to HR 2, who on May 4, 2010 responded to Complainant that HR/DRAD would order one that day if she advised of her preference of white on black or yellow on black. Complainant responded the same day that she preferred white on black, and wanted a keyboard for her desk and counter area. Complainant contended that on May 4, 2010, she received a call from S2-1 who said Complainant did not follow the proper chain of command in requesting the keyboard, and advised S2-1 would follow up with Human Resources. On appeal Complainant contended this was the only discussion she had with S2-1 about the keyboard and the reason she stopped working at the public counter was a foot injury, not vision. Subsequently on May 4, 2010, Complainant emailed HR 2 that S2-1 advised her she did not follow the chain of command in requesting a large keyboard for her desk and counter, and Complainant would follow the chain of command to request accommodations from HR 2's office. The record suggests that Complainant forwarded a copy of her email communications with Human Resources to her first level supervisor.3
On June 9, 2010, HR 2 emailed Complainant that she was informed by the vendor that the large print keyboard (black on white) was out of stock and was not available until July, and they were going to contact other vendors.4 In her affidavit Complainant wrote that after getting this status update she informed her immediate supervisor (S1) of this, that S1 then went online and showed her keyboards which would accommodate and said she would present this to upper management to see what they advised, but S1 never got back to her. ROI, at 77.
Complainant's second line supervisor (S2-2), an Adjudication Manager, stated she learned in November 2010 that Complainant was legally blind in one eye when she verbally told her this. She became Complainant's supervisor on June 7, 2010, when she entered on duty at the Chicago Passport Agency. S2-2 stated she first learned of Complainant's request for a large print keyboard in November 2010 when she said she requested one a number of months ago but it did not come. On December 2, 2010, S2-2 sent a status request email to HR 2 on the keyboard. On January 20, 2010, HR 2 replied that she had two yellow on black keyboards in stock that could ship immediately, and the white on black large keyboards were on back order and would be shipped on receipt. S2-2 asked for the yellow on black keyboards. Complainant tried them, but the contrast of the yellow on black was too strong for her to use. She informed S1 and S2-2 of this by February 7, 2011. On March 31, 2011, S2-2 sent HR 2 an email advising her of this, and asking when the white on black large keyboard was expected to arrive. HR 2 directed S2-2 to a website where the keyboard could be directly ordered.5 With Complainant's input S2-2 ordered the white on black keyboard on March 31, 2011, and it arrived and was installed on April 6, 2011. Complainant stated this addressed her accommodation needs.6
On April 6, 2011, Complainant provided S2-2 a note from her ophthalmologist stating she only had vision in her right eye, would benefit from a large screen monitor [which she already had] and keyboard for her computer, and she should take breaks to use warm compresses for her eyelid inflammations.
S2-2 stated Complainant was assigned to the public counter for the first time in over two years in April 2011. On March 31, 2011, Complainant sent S2-2 an email that while working at her desk with a regular keyboard she could work at a slower pace and take breaks when needed without the pressure of applicants staring at her waiting for her to finish their applications. Complainant wrote that she hoped that until she received the keyboard the slower pace caused by her visual disability would not impact her production rating, and if it did she would not be held accountable. S2-2 replied to Complainant the same day that absent medical documentation, she was expected to meet the counter production standard.
In her letter to the EEO counselor Complainant wrote that on April 4, 2011, she worked at the public counter without the large print keyboard to the best of her ability. She wrote she worked there again the next day, her eye got irritated and swelled, and she used ice packs. Complainant wrote the problem continued, and she went to her ophthalmologist first thing in the morning on April 6, 2011, and had her pupils dilated. Complainant arrived at work around 10 AM, explained her pupils were dilated, and asked her immediate supervisor if she could work at her desk until her vision returned to normal. The immediate supervisor granted the request, but S2-2 advised Complainant, after the large keyboard arrived, to report to the counter or take leave. Complaint chose to stay and the record suggests she reported to the counter sometime after 2 PM, some five hours after her pupils were dilated.7
Complainant contended that she was negatively impacted by the delay in accommodation. She contended that while she could perform her duties without accommodation, the delay caused continual eye strain and would slow her production and cause errors, and would take her production standard from exceeds acceptable to acceptable.8 She contended that the delay caused her eyes to tear from viewing smaller print and continual prescription changes in her glasses. Complainant contended that as a result of the delay in accommodation she had increased doctor appointments, an emergency room visit,9 continual flare of infections and irritation to her eyes, muscle spasms, and stress and a stomach ulcer for which she had to take medication. She asks that annual and sick leave she took for illness caused by the delay in accommodation be restored, and she be compensated for such leave without pay (LWOP) she took.
In its FAD the Agency found that Complainant is an individual with a disability because she had an impairment which substantially limited her in the major life activity of seeing. It found that she was a qualified individual with a disability, in relevant part, because S2-1 stated Complainant could fully perform her position with the accommodations of a large computer monitor and large print keyboard. The Agency found that Complainant received the alternate accommodation of not being required to work at the public counter until the large print keyboard arrived. It relied on S2-1's statements that Complainant told her she only needed the large print keyboard for the public counter, and that she told Complainant she would not be required to work at that counter until she received it. The Agency added that although Complainant contended she never received the large keycaps (stickers), there was no indication she advised management of this, and a yellow on black keyboard was tried in January 2011, albeit she indicated it did not work for her. The Agency found that once Complainant made her request for the large print keyboard to local management, it was provided. The Agency also found no reprisal discrimination.
On appeal Complainant reiterates facts she alleged below. She clarifies that her right eye just had discomfort and irritation periodically due to eye infections. The Agency makes no comment on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Under the Commission's regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodation of the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless it can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. �� 1630.2(o), 1630.2(p). Generally, an "individual with a disability" is one who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such impairment as described in the regulations. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g). Major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, working, and the operation of a major bodily function. 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(i). Because the Agency has conceded that Complainant is an individual with a seeing disability we need not further address whether she is an individual with a disability.
We agree with the Agency's finding that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is "qualified" if she satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position." 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m). It is uncontested that Complainant could perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation, and this is supported by the record.
As previously noted under the Commission's regulations an agency is required to make reasonable accommodation of the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless it can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. �� 1630.2(o), 1630.2(p).
On January 12, 2010, Complainant made a request to HR 1 for a large print keyboard explicitly for her visual disability, and this was forwarded to HR 2, who was in or acted on behalf of HR/ER/DRAD, the decision maker on reasonable accommodation requests and the provider of accommodations. On May 4, 2010, Complainant clarified to HR 2 that she was requesting large print keyboards for both her desk and public counter area, and wanted white on black keys. While Complainant emailed HR 2 later in the day that S2-1 advised her Complainant did not follow the chain of command in making the request, Complainant wrote she would do so do in requesting accommodations from HR 2's office. Complainant did not withdraw her request with HR 2 for an accommodation, and the record suggests she forwarded these communications to S1.
S2-1 stated that when she scheduled Complainant to work at the public counter in March 2010 Complainant told her she could not work there because she needed a large print keyboard. S2-1 wrote that she told Complainant management could purchase a keyboard for the counter and asked if she needed another for her desk, and Complainant replied she only needed one for the counter because the lighting in that area created glare. According to S2-1 Complainant said she did not need local management to purchase a keyboard because she already requested one from Human Resources. S2-1 wrote that she told Complainant she did not have to work at the public counter until the keyboard arrived, and in the future to inform management of any requests for accommodations so management was aware of the request and could follow up, as needed. Complainant denied that this conversation took place. Instead, Complainant contended that on May 4, 2010, she received a call from S2-1 saying Complainant did not follow the proper chain of command in requesting the keyboard, and advised S2-1 would follow up with Human Resources.
Regardless of whether the March 2010 conversation occurred and the varying recollections of Complainant and S2-1 the record shows that Complainant's request for the reasonable accommodation of a large print keyboard was received by the proper office in January 2010, and in May 2010 Complainant clarified to HR 2 that she was requesting a large print black on white keyboard for her desk and the public counter. We find the record shows that by May 2010 S1 was aware of the delays in securing the large print keyboard. Complainant's contention that S1 stated she would address the matter by asking management about purchasing a keyboard but never got back to her is uncontested (the investigation does not contain a statement by S1).
After Complainant informed S2-2 of her request for a large print keyboard in November 2010, S2-2 repeatedly followed up on the matter and then ordered one on March 31, 2011, and it was received and installed on April 6, 2011. S2-2 noted the white on black large print keyboard could be moved with Complainant from the public counter to her desk.
An employer should respond expeditiously to a request for reasonable accommodation. If the employer and the individual with a disability need to engage in an interactive process, this too should proceed as quickly as possible. Similarly, the employer should act promptly to provide the reasonable accommodation. Unnecessary delays can result in a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002, Question 10 (as revised Oct. 17, 2002). The guidance, at question 10, provides the following example:
An employee who is blind requests adaptive equipment for her computer as a reasonable accommodation. The employer must order this equipment and is informed that it will take three months to receive delivery. No other company sells the adaptive equipment the employee needs. The employer notifies the employee of the results of its investigation and that it has ordered the equipment. Although it will take three months to receive the equipment, the employer has moved as quickly as it can to obtain it and thus there is no ADA violation resulting from the delay. The employer and employee should determine what can be done so that the employee can perform his/her job as effectively as possible while waiting for the equipment.
Based on the above, we find the Agency engaged in undue unnecessary delay in securing the large print keyboard, which violated the Rehabilitation Act. The record suggests the Agency first ordered the large print keyboard on May 4, 2010, over four months after Complainant made her accommodation request, does not indicate there was only one supplier, and does not show the Agency's attempts, if any, to use alternate suppliers. The delay extended over a nearly 15 month period.
The Agency found that it provided Complainant an alternate reasonable accommodation, i.e., not being assigned to the public counter. An employer may choose among reasonable accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation is effective. Id. at Question 9. While Complainant wrote that she had more problems at the public counter than at her desk because she could work at a slower pace and take breaks at her desk when needed without the pressure of applicants staring at her while waiting for her to finish their applications, she still indicated she needed the accommodation of a keyboard at her desk. She requested this accommodation for both her desk and public counter by May 2010. Moreover, Complainant worked at the public counter without the accommodation of the large print keyboard on April 4, 2011, and April 5, 2011.
Complainant alleged she was retaliated against for filing a grievance in June 2009 about being disciplined for her error rate which was related to her visual disability. While the Agency's efforts at reasonable accommodation were half-hearted and disjointed, the record does not show this was related to her grievance in June 2009.
Complainant contended that because of the delay in providing the reasonable accommodation she took sick and annual leave, and LWOP. While her statement that she had to strain her eye before she was accommodated is credible, there is no medical evidence supporting her claim of increased doctor visits or leave because of the lack of a large print keyboard, and we decline to infer this based on the documentary and statement evidence in the record.
Complainant requests compensatory damages for the Agency's failure to reasonably accommodate her. Compensatory damages may be awarded for past pecuniary losses, future pecuniary losses, and non-pecuniary losses that are directly or proximately caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct. Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at www.eeoc.gov.) Non-pecuniary losses are losses that are not subject to precise quantification including emotional pain and injury to character, professional standing, and reputation. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate for losses or suffering inflicted due to discrimination. Punitive damages are not available against the federal government. Damages for past pecuniary damages will not normally be sought without documentation such as receipts, records, bills, cancelled checks, or confirmation by other individuals of actual losses and expenses. Id.
Where a discriminatory practice involves the provision of a reasonable accommodation damages may be awarded if the Agency fails to demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to provide the individual with a reasonable accommodation for her disability. 42 U.S.C. � 1981a(a)(3). Given the lengthy delay in providing Complainant the appropriate large print keyboard, and lack of a sufficient explanation therefore, we find that the Agency did not demonstrate it made a good faith effort.
Complainant has not established that she incurred any pecuniary (out of pocket damages) because of the Agency's failure to reasonably accommodate her by timely providing her a large print keyboard.
A proper award of non-pecuniary compensatory damages should consistent with the amount awarded in similar cases. See Ward-Jenkins v. Department of Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483 (March 4, 1999) (citing Cygnar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 827, 848 (7th Cir. 1989). While Complainant has not established that the delay in reasonably accommodating her resulted in a worsening in her medical condition, she has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it caused continual eye strain and slowed her production somewhat, albeit the record does not show she was penalized for the slower production. Complainant also expressed frustration about the delay. We conclude that an award of $1,000 is consistent with Commission precedent. See Lee v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091395 (Apr. 15, 2009) (award of 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages when as a result of a denial of a requested schedule change, the complainant suffered stress and had difficulty sleeping); Seda v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050090 (Mar. 20, 2007) (complainant was entitled to $1,500 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages for reprisal discrimination where Complainant provided only limited and non-descriptive testimony concerning emotional pain).
CONCLUSION
The Agency's finding of no discrimination based on disability is REVERSED and its finding of no discrimination based on reprisal is AFFIRMED. The Agency is directed to comply with the order below.
ORDER (D0610)
The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions:
1. Within 45 calendar days after this decision becomes final, pay Complainant $1,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages;
In addition, the Agency shall, within 120 calendar days after this decision becomes final:
2. Evaluate its HR/ER/DRAD program for whether it has a system in place, including ticklers, to track the processing of reasonable accommodation requests it receives from their initiation to completion (including delivery of the accommodation, where applicable), and if so whether it is being used and has problems, and if not considering implementing such a system;
3. require anyone responsible for the discrimination against Complainant to attend training on how to identify, respond, and handle requests for reasonable accommodation;
4. consider taking disciplinary action against anyone responsible for the discrimination against the Complainant. The Agency shall report its decision. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0610)
The Agency is ordered to post at its HR/ER/DRAD (location not in the record, but apparently in Washington, DC), and its Chicago Passport Agency in Chicago, Illinois copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the Agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0610)
If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this decision becoming final. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
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
August 31, 2012
__________________
Date
1 In her affidavit Complainant also alleged that she was retaliated against because after she filed a claim with the Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs about a 2000 on the job injury, she had to pursue the matter because the Agency sat on her paperwork and OWCP ruled in her favor. This does not state a claim of reprisal discrimination under statutes enforced by the EEOC. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.103(a). On appeal Complainant clarifies she is alleging she was retaliated against for filing the above grievance. The grievance was filed in June 2009.
2 There was no medical documentation supporting Complainant's contention of problems with her right eye.
3 The record contains copies of emails forwarded by Complainant to her first line supervisor. The copies contain subject matters, but not the body of the emails.
4 HR 2 also wrote that in the interim she would send out keycaps (stickers) for her use. Complainant has written she never received them, and this is uncontested.
5 The website was www.CAP.mil. The Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) provides, among other things, certain types of accommodation equipment to government agencies.
6 S2-2 sent an email on April 6, 2012 to Complainant advising that the large print keyboard would go with her when she returned to her desk. ROI, at 48.
7 See time stamps on emails at ROI, at 102. Complainant's reporting time was 7 AM, so it is likely she had to work at the counter less than 21/2 hours. ROI, at 51.
8 The record does not contain Complainant's performance appraisal, she does not state what rating she actually received, and Complainant did not raise her appraisal as a claim.
9 Complainant submitted notes of an emergency room visit for chest pain in February 2006. This was long before the alleged discrimination in this case.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120121698
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121698