Drucilla F.,1 Complainant,v.Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary, Department of Commerce (International Trade Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 27, 2019

0120181642 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 27, 2019)

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

Drucilla F.,1
Complainant,

v.

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce
(International Trade Administration),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120181642

Agency No. 55-2017-00122

DECISION

On April 17, 2018, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the
March 8, 2018 final agency decision (FAD) concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Commission’s review is de novo.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Senior International
Trade Specialist, GS-1140-13, at the Agency’s Commercial Service - Global Markets facility in
Phoenix, Arizona. Complainant’s first-level supervisor was the Director (S1) and her second-level
supervisor was the Southwest Network Director (S2). Complainant worked at a workstation
directly next to S1’s office. The Agency shared office space in Phoenix with the Small Business
Administration (SBA).

Hostile Work Environment - Sexual Harassment

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120181642

2

Complainant claimed that S1 engaged in numerous instances of inappropriate behavior toward her
and made several sexual comments to her. Prior to S1 becoming the Director, Complainant stated
that they had a congenial work relationship and that he attended several social events she hosted.
In addition, Complainant alleged that S1 made several inappropriate comments prior to becoming
her supervisor including, that his wife was jealous of her because he was afraid that he had a crush
on her; that he had attended sex parties with his ex-wife in Germany; and about the lack of sex
with his current wife. Complainant affirmed that S1 became her first-level supervisor around
September 2014.

Complainant claimed that sometime around April 2015, S1’s behavior escalated. Around that
time, Complainant claimed that S1 came to her house unannounced at approximately 7:30 a.m.,
under the pretext of getting coffee together. Complainant alleged that S1 peered through the glass
transom above her front door while on her porch as she was getting ready for work. Complainant
claimed that in June 2016, a co-worker (CW-1) told Complainant that S1 could spy on
Complainant by looking into her workstation by the reflection in the glass of a poster in the hallway
outside of his office. CW-1 confirmed that S1 bragged about being able to spy on Complainant
by looking at the poster and that he informed Complainant. Complainant later asked the District
Director of the SBA, who was the landlord for the office, to remove the poster from the wall after
they confirmed that S1 could look into her workstation using the reflection in the glass.
Complainant and the District Director moved the poster approximately a foot away.

During an off-site staff retreat in mid-July 2016, Complainant claimed that S1 spied on her while
she was chatting with two co-workers (CW-2 and CW-3) in the pool area. Complainant alleged
that they saw S1 crawling on the ground by the bushes surrounding the pool area claiming that he
had lost his room key. Complainant alleged that S1 later approached them and asked if they had
any “bright ideas” while they were “dipping their feet in the hot tub.” CW-2 and CW-3 confirmed
that S1 eavesdropped on their conversation in the pool area. CW-2 believed, however, that S1 was
not specifically spying on Complainant and had been informed by CW-1 that S1 had eavesdropped
on his conversation with a colleague on more than one occasion.

In addition, Complainant claimed that S1 attended her wedding and commented to her husband
“I’ll kill you if you do anything bad to her.” Approximately a week later, Complainant alleged
that S1 asked if she expected to take maternity leave in the coming year.

S1 denied making any of the alleged comments or engaging in any inappropriate conduct. S1
denied spying on Complainant during the staff retreat but acknowledged approaching Complainant
and the co-workers while they were in the pool area.

Hostile Work Environment – Non-Sexual Harassment

0120181642

3
In February 2016, Complainant noticed that a newer, GS-12 International Trade Specialist (CW-
4) had vacated his cubicle. Complainant learned that S1 had moved CW-4 to an office in the
Federal building violating the Agency’s policy of assigning workstations based upon seniority and
grade. Complainant claimed that S1 informed her that he decided to move CW-4 to the Federal
building because he spoke Spanish. Complainant believed that S1 did not consider moving her to
the Federal building because he wanted to watch her.

Complainant alleged that S1 wrongfully accused her of being absent without leave (AWOL) on
several occasions. For example, Complainant claimed that she attended a business lunch with one
of the Agency’s business partners and upon her return to the office, S1 expressed his displeasure
and accused her of AWOL. Complainant stated that she had noted the business lunch on her office
calendar, of which S1 had access. In addition, Complainant claimed that S1 accused her of AWOL
and insubordination following her return from a business lunch with the City of Surprise despite
it being noted in her office calendar. Complainant added that S1 kept a close watch on everyone’s
time and attendance. Complainant stated that she later learned that S1 had contacted the Travel
and Tourism Team Leader to verify her participation in a team conference call. Complainant
claimed that S1 did not check up on other staff to verify their participation in conference calls or
meetings.

Complainant attended a meeting with a client on October 21, 2016. In late-October 2016,
Complainant alleged that CW-3 informed her that S1 made multiple requests for the client to draft
negative statements about Complainant’s work and that S1 had reassigned CW-3 to work with the
client. Complainant claimed that CW-3 additionally informed her that S1 was “in touch” with the
Office of General Counsel (OGC) to find a basis to place her on administrative leave. Complainant
requested a private meeting with S2. On November 15, 2016, Complainant met with S2 to discuss
several matters, including her belief that S1 had created a hostile work environment. Complainant
claimed that S2 did not act supportive or empathetic nor did he follow up on her claims. Following
the meeting, Complainant alleged that S1 and S2 began attempting to set her up for failure.
Complainant stated that she received a memorandum in December 2016, accusing her of being
under the influence of alcohol during the October 2016 meeting with the client and for failing to
timely respond to the client’s communications. Complainant responded with a written statement.

S2 stated that beginning in approximately the first quarter of 2015, S1 began to notify him that
Complainant would disappear for several hours at a time during the workday. S2 noted that S1
informed him of this approximately one or two times a month. S2 stated that Complainant had a
history of reporting to business meetings under the influence of alcohol. S2 added that S1 told
him that he was unable to reach Complainant and she had no documented meetings on the office
calendar. S2 stated that S1 provided specific facts and discussed issues regarding other employees
at the time. S2 affirmed that he instructed S1 to hold Complainant accountable for her work hours
and document occasions where he was unable to locate her.

Specific to the October 21, 2016 meeting with a client, S2 stated that S1 contacted him regarding
the client’s report to him that Complainant was under the influence of alcohol during the meeting.
0120181642

4
The client claimed that Complainant had bloodshot eyes and was unable to speak clearly and the
client requested to work with another International Trade Specialist. The client further reported
that Complainant had canceled five meetings with her and failed to respond to her in a timely
manner. S1 contacted the client to obtain a statement regarding the meeting. The client ultimately
declined to provide a statement.

S2 noted that during their November 15, 2016 private meeting, Complainant smelled of alcohol.
S2 stated that Complainant raised several issues with S1 during the meeting including the
maternity leave comment, comments about his sexual activities, and S1’s attempt to obtain a
negative statement from the business client and checking up on her during meetings. S2 affirmed
that he informed Complainant that he would look into her claims. S2 confirmed that S1’s conduct
was referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) which opened an investigation.

After consulting with several senior management officials, S2 contacted OGC regarding the
matter. S2 stated that after consulting with OGC, he proposed to suspend Complainant for 30 days
for lack of candor based upon her lack of candor in her December 2016 response memorandum.
S2 affirmed that he based the proposed suspension on his review of the materials collected during
the investigation and Complainant’s prior counseling related to alcohol impairment. Management
agreed, however, to hold the suspension in abeyance if Complainant agreed not to engage in further
misconduct.

In February 2017, Complainant claimed that S1 delegated her to catering duties for the Discover
Global Markets (DGM) conference. Complainant argued that she did not have the opportunity to
use her tradecraft skills while her male co-workers received duties related to counseling.
Complainant claimed that when she asked S1 why she could not participate in a more professional
capacity, S1 responded that she “really good with food.”

S2 affirmed that S1 sought volunteers to handle details for the conference and Complainant
volunteered to handle catering. S2 recalled that CW-2 volunteered to handle registration, which
was logical based upon her familiarity with the online registration. S2 noted that a male co-worker
had handled registration for another conference and that such duties were not assigned solely to
female employees. CW-2 confirmed that she volunteered to handle registration and that it was her
understanding that Complainant volunteered for catering because she enjoyed handling food and
beverages. CW-2 noted that all International Trade Specialists performed administrative work
related to the conference.

The record indicates that S1 subsequently resigned from the Agency effective September 8, 2017.

On June 15, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against her on the basis of sex (female) and subjected her to sexual harassment when:

1. In April or May 2015, the Director, her first-level supervisor (S1), came to her
house unannounced at around 7:30 a.m. under the pretext of getting coffee, then
0120181642

5
peered through a window above her door and observed her while she was dressing
and getting ready for work;
2. On October 24, 2015 at her wedding, S1 commented to her husband, “I'll kill you
if you do anything bad to her;”
3. In June 2016, S1 informed a colleague that he could stare into her cubicle from his
office using a reflection from a poster in the office's hallway, making her feel so
uncomfortable that she and a colleague had to move the poster; and
4. During a staff retreat on July 16, 2016 at around 10:00 p.m., S1 spied on her and
two female colleagues while they chatted in a pool area, then later asked if they
came up with any “bright ideas” while they were “dipping their feet in the hot tub.”

In addition, Complainant alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on
sex (female) as evidenced by the following incidents:

5. On September 1, 2015, S1 questioned her regarding whether she expected to take
maternity leave in the coming year;
6. In February 2016, a recently hired male colleague was offered a newly renovated
large office in a separate building while, despite having many more years of
experience and seniority, she sits in a cubicle adjacent to S1’s office;
7. On May 5, 2016, S1 wrongfully accused her of being Absent Without Official
Leave (AWOL) while she attended an office meeting as a means to intimidate her;
8. In late-October 2016, S1 attempted to coerce a client into writing a negative
statement above her and, when the client declined, he advised that he was "in touch"
with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and seeking a basis to place her
(Complainant) on administrative leave;
9. In an October 28, 2016 email, S1 accused her of being AWOL and “insubordinate;”
and
10. On November 9, 2016, S1 called an industry team leader to verify that she
participated in a conference call, while not similarly "checking up" on male
colleagues who participated in the call.

Further, Complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work
environment based on sex (female) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

11. Shortly after November 15, 2016, S1 accused her of being not responsive to an
assigned task;
12. On February 10, 2017, an unspecified supervisor proposed to suspend her for 30
days, alleging that she had been “under the influence” when she met with a client
and that she had exhibited lack of candor.
13. On February 15, 2017, S1 assigned her and a female colleague to perform
registration and catering duties at a conference, which is not commensurate with
their duties and level of professional training; and
0120181642

6
14. On an ongoing basis, S1 and her second-level supervisor (S2) have attempted to
find a “gotcha” reason to “set her up for failure,” despite her having received an
excellent rating on her performance appraisal in Fiscal Year 2016.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing
within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).

In the decision, as an initial matter, the Agency dismissed claim (6) as a discrete act for untimely
EEO Counselor contact pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency noted that it would,
however, be considered as part of Complainant’s overall hostile work environment claim.

Regarding Complainant’s hostile work environment claims, the Agency determined that the
alleged conduct was insufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment.
Further, the Agency found that Complainant had not established that the alleged incidents were
based on her protected classes. The Agency noted that to a large extent, the complained of
environment was due to S1’s management style and not because of Complainant's sex or prior
protected EEO activity. Additionally, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to show that
management’s reasons for its actions were pretext for unlawful discrimination or reprisal. As a
result, the Agency found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a
hostile work environment as alleged. The instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant argues that the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that S1 treated
women in the office differently than men, especially Complainant. Complainant contends that the
record shows that S1 exerted his power over Complainant to voyeuristically watch her and
constantly belittled and ridiculed her. Complainant argues there is significant evidence proving
that she was subjected to discrimination, reprisal, and a hostile work environment. As a result,
Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the final decision.

Hostile Work Environment - Sexual Harassment

To establish a case of sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment, Complainant must
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was
subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the harassment
affected a term or condition of employment, either unreasonably interfering with the work
environment or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is
a basis for imputing liability to the employer. Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from
the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.
0120181642

7
See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897
(11th Cir. 1982); Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No.
915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994).

As Complainant chose not to request a hearing, the Commission does not have the benefit of an
Administrative Judge's credibility determinations after a hearing. Therefore, the Commission can
only evaluate the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented. In the instant case,
Complainant alleged that S1 subjected her to sexual harassment based on several incidents. S1
denied engaging in any inappropriate conduct toward Complainant. The record establishes that
some of the incidents have been corroborated. Specifically, CW-1 confirmed that S1 bragged
about being able to spy on Complainant through the reflection of a poster outside of his office.
ROI, Ex. 12, at 5. The SBA District Director arranged for the poster to be moved to prevent this
from continuing. In addition, CW-2 and CW-3 confirmed that S1 watched and eavesdropped on
them while they were in a hot tub/pool area during a staff retreat. CW-2 noted, however, that she
did not believe that S1 was spying on Complainant specifically and that CW-1 had previously
informed her that S1 had silently listened in on conversations he had with a colleague on more
than one occasion. ROI, Ex. 10, at 2.

However, even assuming the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, Complainant would still be required to
establish a basis for imputing liability to Agency. With respect to element (5), described above,
an employer is subject to vicarious liability for harassment when it is created by a supervisor with
immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. See Vance v. Ball State Univ.,
133 S. Ct. 2434, 2443 (2013); Burlington Indus., Inc., v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); Faragher v.
City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). Where the harassment results in a tangible employment
action, such as a supervisor disciplining an employee for refusing the supervisor’s advances, the
action of the supervisor is viewed as the action of the employer, and strict liability attaches. See,
e.g., Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762-63. Here, where the harassment does not result in a tangible
employment action, the employer can raise an affirmative defense, which is subject to proof by a
preponderance of the evidence, by demonstrating: (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent
and correct promptly any harassing behavior; and (2) that the employee unreasonably failed to take
advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm
otherwise. See Burlington Indust., supra; Faragher, supra; Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious
Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999).

The Commission notes that there is no evidence that Complainant reported any of the alleged
inappropriate conduct until November 2016, after she learned that her own conduct during the
October 2016 client meeting was being reviewed by management and OGC. Further, even when
Complainant raised her issues regarding S1 during the November 2016 meeting with S2, the record
indicates that she was still not fully forthcoming about her allegations against S1. S2’s notes from
the meeting indicate that Complainant raised the maternity comment, S1’s prior comments about
“orgies with his ex-wife;” and S1’s scrutiny of her disappearances during work hours. ROI, Ex.
9, at 5; ROI, Ex. 24, at 2. Nonetheless, S2 inquired with employees regarding Complainant’s
claims and could not substantiate Complainant’s allegations. ROI, Ex. 9, at 5.
0120181642

8
The matter was later referred to OIG for an investigation. Id. There is no evidence that any similar
conduct recurred following the November 2016 meeting. The Commission notes that S1 later
resigned in September 2017. As a result, the Commission finds that there is no basis for imputing
liability to the Agency.

Hostile Work Environment – Non-Sexual Harassment

To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily
protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical
conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her
statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or
had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing
liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further,
the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
[complainant's] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

Therefore, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to
conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's
position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that
the conduct was taken because of her sex or prior protected EEO activity. Only if Complainant
establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability
present itself.

The Commission notes again that Complainant chose not to request a hearing; therefore, the
Commission can only evaluate the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented. The
Commission finds that Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to conduct sufficiently
severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Moreover, even assuming that the
alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment,
Complainant failed to show that the Agency's actions were based on discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. For example, with regard to claim (6), S2 confirmed that there was no established policy
or procedure mandating that office assignments be made upon seniority. ROI, Ex. 9, at 3. S2
stated that he and S1 decided to move CW-4 to the Federal building because he was a strong
performer and demonstrated that he could capably work independently. Id. By contrast, S1 and
S2 determined that Complainant required closer management oversight based on her
disappearances during work hours and her past counseling for intoxication. Id. With respect to
the AWOL and “checking up” claims alleged in claims (7), (9) and (10), S1 affirmed that he
accused Complainant of being AWOL on May 5, 2016 because she was not present in the office
during duty hours. ROI, Ex. 8, at 9. S1 stated he contacted the person with whom Complainant
claimed she was having a business lunch and she denied having lunch with Complainant. Id. S1
noted that he treated CW-1 in the same manner and questioned his attendance during a staff
meeting. Id. S2 added that S1 contacted him about Complainant’s October 28, 2016 disappearance
for several hours and could not corroborate her whereabouts. Id.
0120181642

9
Regarding the November 2016 conference call, S2 asserted that it was appropriate for S1 to
confirm Complainant’s whereabouts based on her history of disappearing for lengthy periods and
extending her lunch breaks and outings. ROI, Ex. 9, at 4. Ultimately, neither S1 nor S2 charged
Complainant with AWOL.

As to the events related to the October 2016 client meeting, S2 affirmed that S1 received a call
from Complainant’s client reporting that Complainant was under the influence of alcohol during
their meeting and that Complainant had canceled five meetings with her. ROI, Ex. 9, at 6. After
S1 reported the matter to S2, S2 contacted senior management officials based on the seriousness
of the alleged misconduct and Complainant’s history of similar misconduct. Id. Shortly thereafter,
management officials contacted OGC. Id. Following that consultation, S2 issued Complainant
the proposed 30-day suspension based on the evidence collected during the investigation and
Complainant’s prior counseling related to alcohol intoxication. Id. S2 added that Complainant
exhibited a lack of candor in her response. S2 noted that management agreed to hold the
suspension action in abeyance if Complainant agreed not to engage in any similar misconduct. Id.
at 7.2 S2 noted that S1 contacted the client to request a statement regarding the matter and that
ultimately the client declined. In addition, management agreed to reassign the client’s case to CW-
3 based upon her expressed desire to work with another employee. Id. at 7.

The Commission finds that Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to conduct
sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Moreover, even assuming
that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment,
Complainant failed to show that the Agency's actions were based on discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that she was
subjected to a discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment as alleged.

CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on
appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the
Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that discrimination occurred.

2 The record shows that no decision had been issued regarding the proposed suspension as of
September 2017.
0120181642

10
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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.

0120181642

11
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

September 27, 2019
Date