Irene S.,1 Complainant,v.Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 4, 2020

2019000736-2019000737 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Irene S.,1 Complainant, v. Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency. Appeal Nos. 2019000736, 2019000737 Hearing Nos. 430-2018-00027X, 430-2017-00293X Agency Nos. HS-TSA-01048-2017, HS-TSA-25128-2016 DECISION Complainant appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s October 24, 2018, final order consolidating two of her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 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. As a threshold matter, EEOC regulations allow the Commission to consolidate two or more complaints filed by the same Complainant. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606. Accordingly, for the sake of clarity and administrative efficiency, we exercise our discretion and consolidate the above- referenced appeals. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. 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. 2019000736, 201900737 2 BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to these complaints, Complainant worked as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) at the Agency’s Columbia Metropolitan Airport facility in Columbia, South Carolina. Supervisory Transportation Security Officer (STSO), (Supervisor One) was a senior TSO responsible for supervising TSOs, including Complainant, at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. STSOs are also responsible for specific TSA checkpoints or baggage areas. Complainant’s first-level supervisor, STSO (Supervisor Two) was responsible for conducting Complainant’s performance evaluations. Transportation Security Manager (Manager), was Complainant’s second-level supervisor. From the time she transferred to the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, Complainant and Supervisor One did not get along. At that time, Supervisor One was the lead STSO. At that time, Complainant had no EEO activity. Complainant alleged Supervisor One harassed her but stated she was unaware of the reason why Supervisor One did not like her or harassed her. Prior to the events giving rise to the instant complaints, Complainant filed an EEO complaint in 2014 alleging race discrimination by Supervisor One. Complainant’s formal complaint alleged Complainant was subjected to harassment based on her race (Caucasian) as evidenced by seven separate incidents involving Supervisor One and management officials from November 2013 through July 2014. Complainant further alleged in the complaint she was subjected to harassment based on race (Caucasian) and retaliation (the instant EEO complaint) when Supervisor One cut her off in front of passengers and coworkers in January 2015. An EEOC AJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding Complainant failed to establish discrimination or harassment as alleged. Complainant did not file an appeal on this complaint. On August 31, 2015, Complainant emailed Manager for permission to attend a barbecue event for the Feds Feed Families campaign on September 1, 2015. Manager replied via email instructing Complainant to seek permission from her assigned floor manager on the day of the event. On the morning of September 1, 2015, Complainant requested permission to attend the barbecue from Supervisor One, her floor manager that day. Supervisor One refused to give Complainant permission to attend. Complainant alleged Supervisor One rudely answered, “I will talk to [Manager] about that later.” Supervisor One denied the request because there was a personnel shortage at the checkpoint that morning. On October 11, 2015, Supervisor One was the only supervisor working at the time. Supervisor One instructed an employee to open the baggage area. Complainant observed that employee completing paperwork to open the baggage area and offered assistance. While helping the coworker with paperwork, Complainant alleged Supervisor One antagonized her by saying, “I am the STS0 and I told him to do it.” Supervisor One instructed Complainant to help another employee in the baggage area instead due to bags piling up. Complainant reported this incident a few days later to Manager alleging Supervisor One harassed her. Manager reviewed security footage and investigated the incident. 2019000736, 201900737 3 Manager informed Complainant later that month that his investigation determined that Supervisor One had not engaged in the behavior alleged by Complainant. On October 21, 2015, while assigned a screening officer position, Complainant alleged Supervisor One aggressively stated that “if no one is coming through, you need to get the expedited passengers.” Complainant alleged she told Supervisor One that she did not feel comfortable leaving her position to which Supervisor curtly responded to her, “That's your job.” Complainant also alleged that during this exchange Supervisor One kept using her hands and pointing her finger in a forceful manner at Complainant. Complainant stated she was embarrassed and reported this incident the same day to Manager and Supervisor Two. Supervisor One denied speaking aggressively or rudely and confirmed Complainant stated that she did not feel comfortable leaving her fixed position. Supervisor One replied that was part of Complainant’s job, but she denied interrupting, waving her hands, or pointing at Complainant. Another TSO, who was present, recalled Supervisor One’s instructions to Complainant but denied Supervisor One yelled, interrupted, or pointing her hands at Complainant. Manager reviewed video footage and investigated the matter, ultimately determining the evidence did not support Complainant’s allegations. On January 10, 2016, Supervisor One was assigned to the morning shift at the security checkpoint. Complainant approached Supervisor One and sought guidance on proper security screening for a passenger in a neck brace and wheelchair. Supervisor One asked Complainant the passenger’s age which Complainant stated she did not know. Complainant responded that these were questions that a supervisor had to ask and a TSO would not be asking. After giving Complainant directions how to screen the passenger, Supervisor One tried to talk to Complainant about what had happened and offer her a non-disciplinary on-the-spot correction. Complainant became upset and requested a witness to the conversation in the screening area. Supervisor One agreed, however, Complainant walked away before Supervisor One could offer the screening correction. Complainant felt she was berated in front of passengers and fellow coworkers, and Supervisor One violated her personal space. Supervisor One refuted violating her space, rather stating it was Complainant who raised her voice. Complainant left her screening post, Supervisor One followed her to a supervisor’s desk to continue the conversation, and Complainant filled out a leave form (SF-71) that was on the supervisor’s desk. Complainant said that she submitted SF- 71 right then so that she could leave for the rest of the day after the incident with Supervisor One upset her but Supervisor One refused to sign it. Supervisor One stated she denied the leave request because there was a personnel shortage and heavy passenger traffic. After Complainant reported the January 10, 2016, incident to Manager, Manager reviewed video footage of the incident which revealed Complainant’s demeanor and body language was aggressive. Supervisor One also reported the incident to management officials. Complainant was issued a notice of proposed seven-day suspension stemming from the January 10, 2016, incident. Thereafter, Complainant was issued a Notice of Decision informing her the Agency determined she was suspended without pay from April 24, 2016 through April 30, 2016, for failure to follow instructions and failure to exercise courtesy and tact stemming from Complainant’s actions on January 10, 2016. 2019000736, 201900737 4 The Notice of Decision found Complainant engaged in unprofessional, rude behavior by raising her voice and refusing to follow her supervisor’s instructions to return to her assigned post. The Notice of Decision also cited to Complainant’s previous disciplinary history for similar conduct including a Letter of Reprimand for disrespectful conduct towards a supervisor in January 2015 and a Letter of Counseling for discourteous conduct in April 2014. On October 18, 2016, Complainant received a score of 4.1 on her Transportation Officer Performance System (TOPS) from Supervisor Two, her rating official for 2016 TOPS evaluation. Manager served as rating official and concurred with Supervisor Two’s evaluation of Complainant. On October 18, 2016, Supervisor Two met with Complainant and told Complainant that she scored 4.1 (Exceeded Expectations) out of 5 possible points. Complainant complained to Supervisor Two during their meeting that she should have received a higher score. Supervisor Two explained to Complainant that she needed to use her excellent communication skills to improve her interactions with management and treat others with respect constantly. As an example, Supervisor Two referenced the January 2016 incident when Complainant was cited for unprofessional conduct. Supervisor Two informed Complainant that she must continue to improve her conflict resolution abilities to receive a higher score. Supervisor Two denied referring to or considering Complainant’s prior EEO activity when evaluating her performance. On November 13, 2016, while working a screening checkpoint, Complainant asked a female passenger going through an expedited passenger station to remove her jacket, and the passenger agreed to do so. Supervisor One then appeared and told the passenger, “Put your jacket back on.” Supervisor One told Complainant “I’m the DO [divestiture officer] I’m in charge. I give the final answer.” Complainant stated Supervisor One verbally reprimanded her in the presence of the female passenger. Complainant attempted to explain her actions, but Supervisor One interrupted, saying “I give the final decision.” Supervisor One denied issuing a verbal reprimand. Supervisor One refuted the allegation that she was rude or harassing, instead stating it was Complainant who was disrespectful, hostile, and always refusing to follow instructions from a supervisor. Manager was informed of the incident the following day. After investigating the incident, Manager stated both Complainant and Supervisor One were in the wrong. Concerning the accusation of Supervisor One speaking to Complainant in a rude and aggressive manner, Manager found no evidence that would point to Supervisor One using rude comments directed at Complainant. However, Manager stated he had concerns about how the issue was addressed, especially in front of a passenger when secure radios could have been utilized. Manager stated he was addressing his concerns with Supervisor One and how communication could have been improved on her part as well. On January 1, 2017, Complainant signed out a radio with the correct checkmarks and a signature. However, Supervisor One noticed Complainant neglected to check the boxes when she returned the radio and signed the radio log. Supervisor One stated that on January 1, 2017, she entered the breakroom and asked the Complainant if the circled signature was hers. Supervisor One requested that Complainant complete the boxes on the radio log. Supervisor One stated Complainant replied aggressively and loudly, “Yes, just like yours!” Supervisor One asked Complainant to step into the hall because of Complainant’s behavior and response to her inquiry. 2019000736, 201900737 5 Complainant refused and requested a non-management witness but Supervisor One asked another STSO join them in the hallway and later provide a statement. This other STSO corroborated Complainant’s behavior. Complainant refused to go into the hallway. Shortly thereafter, Complainant alleged another TSO entered the breakroom, informing her that Supervisor One stated everyday Complainant has a problem with the radio sign out sheet. Complainant admitted she inadvertently failed to sign the radio log that day and typically provides her initial, rather than her signature, as procedurally required. On March 6, 2016, and subsequently amended, Complainant filed a formal complaint in Agency No. HS-TSA-25128-2016, alleging the Agency subjected her to harassment and discriminated against her in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On September 1, 2015, Supervisor One treated Complainant rudely when Complainant requested to leave the floor to help with a barbeque event for Feds Feed Family at the airport. 2. On October 11, 2015, while working in the baggage area, Supervisor One antagonized Complainant by saying, "I am the STS0 and I told him to do it" in reference to Complainant helping a coworker with paperwork. 3. On October 21, 2015, while at the screening officer position, Supervisor One aggressively stated that "if no one is coming through, you need to get the expedited passengers," and curtly "cut off" Complainant and said, "That's your job." Complainant also alleged that Supervisor One kept using her hands and pointing her finger in a forceful manner at Complainant, while Complainant attempted to explain her reasoning. 4. On January 10, 2016, Supervisor One berated Complainant in front of passengers and fellow coworkers and violated her personal space. Complainant further alleged that Supervisor One refused to sign her SF -71. 5. On June 3, 20162, management issued Complainant a seven-day suspension. 6. On October 18, 2016, Complainant received a score of 4.1 on her TOPS evaluation. 7. On November 20, 20163, Supervisor One reprimanded Complainant in front of passengers and coworkers. On March 22, 2017, Complainant filed another formal EEO complaint (Agency No. HS-TSA- 01048-2017) alleging that the Agency subjected her to harassment and discriminated against her in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 8. On January 1, 2017, Complainant was asked to step out into the hallway. 9. Complainant was not allowed to have a witness for a discussion concerning her inadvertent failure to mark certain boxes on the radio log. 2 The record shows the Notice of Decision was issued April 20, 2016. Complainant was suspended without pay from April 24, 2016 through April 30, 2016, as a result of the incident on January 10, 2016, with Supervisor One. 3 Evidence including emails from Complainant, Manager and Supervisor One establish this incident occurred on November 13, 2016, not November 20, 2016. 2019000736, 201900737 6 10. Management advised Complainant's coworker, everyday Complainant has a problem with the radio “sign out.” At the conclusion of the investigations on both complaints, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigations and notices of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing on both complaints. The same AJ was assigned to both complaints. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s November 28, 2017, and August 24, 2018, motions for a decision without a hearing. On September 12, 2018, the AJ issued two separate decisions on the instant complaints.4 The Agency subsequently issued a final order consolidating the two complaints and adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant appealed the AJ’s decisions to the Commission. On appeal, Complainant argues the AJ erred in finding no discrimination or harassment as alleged.5 Complainant requests this Commission reverse the Agency’s final order and remand the matter for a hearing. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) (stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review . . .”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ’s, and Agency’s factual conclusions and legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal employment discrimination statute was violated. See Id. at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the 4 In both decisions on the instant complaints, the AJ mentioned Complainant’s other pending complaint in EEOC Hearing No. 430-2018-00492X (Agency No. HS-TSA-00388-2018). The AJ stated all pending complaints were considered as a part of Complainant’s ongoing allegation of hostile work environment based on reprisal. The AJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency on October 16, 2018. EEOC Hearing No. 430-2018-00492X (Agency No. HS-TSA- 00388-2018) was not consolidated with the two instant complaints in the Agency’s final order issued on October 24, 2018. Complainant did not file a separate appeal on that complaint and did not challenge those findings in her instant appeal brief. Accordingly, the Commission will not address EEOC Hearing No. 430-2018-00492X (Agency No. HS-TSA-00388-2018) in this decision. 5 Complainant’s brief on appeal only addresses arguments regarding her 2017 complaint. However, exhibits for the brief address both 2016 and 2017 complaints. 2019000736, 201900737 7 factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).We determine whether the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing. The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing upon finding that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). EEOC’s decision without a hearing regulation follows the summary judgment procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The U.S. Supreme Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no genuine issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the judge is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial, as opposed to weighing the evidence. Id. at 249. At the summary judgment stage, the judge must believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must draw justifiable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. A “genuine issue of fact” is one that a reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A “material” fact has the potential to affect the outcome of a case. An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the record has been adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). We carefully reviewed the record and find that it is adequately developed. To successfully oppose a decision without a hearing, Complainant must identify material facts of record that are in dispute or present further material evidence establishing facts in dispute. Here, Complainant failed to do so. In the instant case, the AJ adopted and incorporated the Agency’s motion for a decision without a hearing and found that Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to a discrimination as alleged. We find the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing to resolve Complainant’s complaint as there is no disputed issue of material fact. In order to prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Moreover, to establish a prima facie case of reprisal Complainant must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the agency was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently, he was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a nexus exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment. Whitmire v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340 (Sept. 25, 2000). 2019000736, 201900737 8 Here, assuming arguendo Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Additionally, Complainant failed to show that these reasons were pretextual. As an initial point we agree with the AJ’s finding that Complainant’s argument fails because her own testimony undermines reprisal as the cause or motive. Complainant testified unequivocally that she and Supervisor One did not get along even well before she filed her EEO complaint in 2014. We will address Complainant’s allegations of discrete acts of discrimination first. With regard to her suspension, Supervisor One explained her leave request was denied due to staff shortage and heavy personnel shortage. Complainant walked away from her assigned position in the middle of screening passengers when she became upset after Supervisor One attempted to provide instructions on screening protocol. Witnesses confirmed the checkpoint was very busy that morning with passengers waiting for screening and Complainant immediately vacating her post would have increased the staff shortage. Supervisor One wrote on the denied leave request at that time there were only three female TSOs on duty including Complainant. Yet, Complainant refused orders from her supervisor to return to her post to assist with passenger screening. Complainant’s failure to follow instructions and unprofessional conduct towards Supervisor One lead to her suspension. Additionally, Manager explained he proposed Complainant’s suspension after his investigation, which included interviews with Complainant, witnesses, and Supervisor One, confirmed that Complainant had failed to follow instructions and failed to exercise courtesy and tact. Manager also cited Complainant’s prior similar disciplinary behavior as an aggravating factor in the determination to issue a suspension. Complainant failed to follow Supervisor One’s instructions as the assigned STSO where Complainant was working on January 10, 2016. Complainant also refused to resume her job duties, raised her voice and interrupted Supervisor One. Manager denied proposing the suspension based on her protected status. Complainant failed to provide any evidence to establish the suspension was discriminatory. With regard to Claim 6, Complainant received a 4.1 (Exceeds Expectations) score out of 5 on her TOPS evaluation from Supervisor Two. Supervisor Two explained while Complainant has excellent communication skills, in order to achieve a score of excellent she needed to improve how she uses those skills to interact with management and by treating others with respect at all times. Supervisor Two noted that Complainant needed to continue improving in the area of conflict resolution. While Supervisor Two used the January 10, 2016, incident as an example of how Complainant should work in improving her conflict resolutions skills with management, Complainant has provided no evidence that this rating or reference were based on her prior EEO complaints against Supervisor One. Moreover, Complainant has not alleged similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably in order to establish pretext. For a retaliatory harassment claim, the alleged retaliatory actions need not impact a term, condition, or privilege of employment. See Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). A complainant need only show that a materially adverse action “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. 548 U.S. at 68. 2019000736, 201900737 9 The Commission’s guidance states if the conduct would be sufficiently material to deter protected activity in the given context, even if it were insufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, there would be actionable retaliation. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, No. 915.004 (August 25, 2016). Upon review, regarding Complainant’s claim of retaliatory harassment, we find she has not provided evidence showing a causal connection between her EEO activity and her verbal exchanges with Supervisor One or any other management official. Accordingly, we agree with the Agency’s final order that the alleged incidents could not be attributable to Complainant’s prior protected EEO activity. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order. 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. 2019000736, 201900737 10 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 (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 August 4, 2020 Date