Larissa E.,1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (National Cemetery Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 30, 2019

2019002088 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 30, 2019)

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

Larissa E.,1
Complainant,

v.

Robert Wilkie,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(National Cemetery Administration),
Agency.

Appeal No. 2019002088

Agency No. 2004-0659-2017101175

DECISION

On December 21, 2018, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s November 20, 2018 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint claiming 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., Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Medical Support Assistant at the Agency’s
Health Administrative Service, W.G. (Bill) Hefner VA Medical Center in Salisbury, North
Carolina.2

On April 7, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against her based on race (African-American), disability,3 age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when:

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.

2 The record reflects that Complainant was removed from Agency employment effective April
28, 2017.
2019002088

2

1. On November 28, 2015, her supervisor placed negative comments in her performance
appraisal.

2. On January 7, 2016, she was placed on sick leave certification for the period of April
22, 2015 through January 7, 2016.

3. On April 6, 2016, her supervisor told her to change her clothes, or to take the
remaining day off because she was not authorized to wear jeans. Complainant stated
that she took the rest of the day off.

4. On April 11, 2016, her supervisor accused her of taking a call from a veteran and
failing to send the veteran to the Emergency Room (“ER”). Complainant stated that
she had no idea what veteran they were talking about, but later learned it was her co-
worker who failed to send the veteran to the ER.

5. On July 29, 2016, her supervisor accused her of being rude because a “misconstrued
caller” perceived her as being rude on the telephone.

6. On August 10, 2106, she declined a request to attend a mandatory meeting because
management failed to provide her a written response as to what type of meeting she
was being required to participate in. Complainant stated that she was told the meeting
was regarding work assignments and that not attending was not an option.
Complainant stated that she was instructed to report to room 1099 in Building 3,
August 4, 2016 at 10:00 am.

7. On August 10, 2016, she received a harassing email demanding that she attend a
mandatory meeting. Complainant stated the Employee Relations (“ER”) Specialist
told her she only need to show up and listen. Complainant stated she respectfully
declined his request in an email because she needed representation.

8. On August 25, 2016, her supervisor humiliated her when the supervisor stormed into
her office and told her she needed to be mindful of how she answered telephone calls
because it was reported to the VA Director she was rude.

9. On September 2, 2016, her co-worker belittled her in the presence of her peers when
he complained to her supervisor that she was “goofing off” and not servicing
veterans.

3 Complainant identified her disabilities as right ear tinnitus, Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder/Chronic depression; pelvic inflammatory disease, left knee osteoarthritis, and anxiety.
For purposes of this analysis, we assume, without so finding, that Complainant was an individual
with a disability.
2019002088

3
10. On October 17, 2016, her confidentiality was violated when she received a large
confidential envelope from the ER Specialist that had been opened and taped.

11. From October 27, 2016 to January 6, 2017, she was denied leave and was put on
Leave Without Pay (“LWOP”) on several occasions.

12. On October 31, 2016, she was denied Facilitator Curriculum training in the Talent
Management System (“TMS”).

13. On December 4, 2016, she reported to her supervisor that her co-workers were
discussing and sharing her confidential matters with other employees, but her issues
were ignored.

14. On January 11, 2017, her emails were marginalized by her immediate supervisor and
second level supervisor when she informed them of the loss of her brother-in-law,
who was murdered. Complainant stated that she asked about the protocol for time off
when her second level supervisor unsympathetically told her she had no time and that
she needed to wait for management to get back with her.

15. On January 13, 2017, she continues to receive pranked (out of control) customer
service calls and when she reported it to her supervisor she cut her off saying “I get
calls all the time and my calls were not pranked calls.”

16. On January 13, 2017, her supervisor recorded her calls without her knowledge.
Complainant stated that she received ongoing non-stop calls after call from the call
center. Complainant stated that the callers told her that they spoke with her supervisor
who gave Complainant’s extension. Yet, Complainant stated her supervisor denies
recording her calls.

17. In January 2017, her second level supervisor and the Chief of Telecommunications
sent her harassing emails and would come to her office demanding that she answer
the telephone, knowing that she was serving customers in person. Complainant stated
that her phone rings nonstop compared to her co-workers. Complainant stated she
believes she is being set up for poor telephone courtesy and recorded to build a
negative profile that can be used against her for not servicing veterans.

18. On January 25, 2017, she received a hostile phone call from her supervisor who spoke
to her in a loud, snappy, and rude tone.

19. On January 25, 2017, her supervisor violated policy and security rules when she sent
a blind copy to outside agents while emailing Complainant. Complainant stated in
the past, she was told that she would be subjected to disciplinary action if she blind-
copied management.

2019002088

4
20. On January 26, 2017, the Privacy Officer violated policy and security rules when he
replied to Complainant’s email and included outside agents listed as a blind copy.

21. oO February 21, 2017, she met with her supervisor regarding the comments placed in
her appraisal, but she was ignored.

22. On March 23, 2017, she was issued a Letter of Proposed Removal. The proposal was
sustained by the Medical Center Director on April 24, 2017, with the effective date of
April 28, 2017.

After the investigation of the claims, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge. In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision on
November 20, 2018, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination.

In its final decision, the Agency found that Complainant failed to prove her discrimination
claims.

The instant appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Disparate Treatment (claims 2, 11 and 22)

A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, she
must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a
factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco
Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden,
the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance
of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally
consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases.
Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action
at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas
analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination.

2019002088

5
See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990);
Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8,
1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).

After careful review of the record, we conclude that management witnesses articulated legitimate
non-discriminatory reasons for the disputed actions. Beyond her bare assertions, Complainant
produced inadequate evidence to establish that these explanations were pretext designed to mask
the true, discriminatory motives.

Claims 2 and 11

Complainant asserted that on January 7, 2016, she was placed on sick leave certification for the
period of April 22, 2015 through January 7, 2016, and from October 27, 2016 to January 6, 2017,
she was denied leave and was put on LWOP on several occasions.

According to management, Complainant was placed on sick leave certification on January 7,
2016, due to abuse of sick leave for the period of April 22, 2015 through December 17, 2018.
The sick leave taken during the relevant period revealed a pattern of being taken in conjunction
with Complainant’s off days. In addition, management witnesses stated that Complainant also
had frequent unscheduled late arrivals and early departures, or excessive unscheduled sick leave
over the relatively short period. Management characterized her behavior as “leave abuse” and
required her to obtain medical documentation for the use of sick leave and placed her on LWOP
when appropriate documentation was not produced.

Claim 22

Complainant alleged that on March 23, 2017, she was issued a Letter of Proposed Removal
which proposal was sustained by the Medical Center Director on April 24, 2017, with the
effective date of April 28, 2017.

The record contains a copy of Complainant’s Proposed Removal dated April 24, 2017, which
stated she was being removed from Agency employment effective April 28, 2017 for failure to
follow supervisory instructions and unauthorized absences. The charge of failure to follow
supervisory instructions contained four specifications concerning her willful resistance to follow
instructions concerning proper leave procedures or to meet with management as requested to
discuss her leave and proper procedures. Management witnesses stated that Complainant would
not comply with instructions or counseling about her leave use, and instead persisted in coming
and going as she pleased. The second related charge of unauthorized absences from work
contained instances in support of the charge. The record shows that prior to the proposed
removal, Complainant had been both admonished and suspended for refusing to carry out a
proper order from her supervisor and multiple instances of unauthorized absence from work.

2019002088

6
Beyond her assertions that all the supervisors were white and took a “slavery approach,”
Complainant produced no evidence disputing management’s contentions about her leave use or
otherwise proving the proffered reasons for the removal decision were pretext designed to mask
discrimination.

Hostile Work Environment (claims 1, 3-10, and 12-21)

With regard to Complainant’s hostile work environment claim, to establish a claim of hostile
environment harassment, 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. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).

In other words, 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 protected basis – in this case, her race,
disability, age and prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements,
hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. Here, Complainant
simply has provided no evidence to support her claim that her treatment was the result of her
race, disability, age, and prior EEO activity.

Comments/Treatment by supervisors (claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 14-18)

Regarding claim 1, Complainant claimed that on November 28, 2015, her supervisor placed
negative comments in her performance appraisal.

The record reflects that Complainant later clarified that the negative comments were not made in
her performance appraisal but made in connection with her application for disability retirement.

Regarding claim 3, Complainant asserted that on April 6, 2016, her supervisor told her to change
her clothes or take the remaining day off because she was not authorized to wear jeans.

The record reflects that Complainant’s former supervisor informed her to change clothes or take
the day off due the fact she was in violation of the Agency’s dress code because she wore blue
jeans.

Regarding claims 4 and 5, Complainant alleged that on April 11, 2016, her supervisor accused
her of taking a call from a veteran and failing to send the veteran to the Emergency Room
(“ER”).
2019002088

7
Complainant stated that she had no idea what veteran the supervisor was talking about but later
learned it was her co-worker who failed to send the veteran to the ER; and on July 29, 2016, her
supervisor accused her of being rude because a “misconstrued caller” perceived her as being rude
on the phone.

The Chief of Health Administration Service (“Chief”) (Caucasian, disability, year of birth 1971,
no prior protected activity) explained that there was a consistent problem with Complainant
answering the telephones and claiming the supervisor constantly demanded her to answer the
telephones, even though knowing that Complainant was serving customers in person.

Regarding claim 6, Complainant alleged that on August 10, 2106, she declined a request to
attend a mandatory meeting because management failed to provide her a written response as to
what type of meeting she was being required to participate in. Complainant stated that she was
told the meeting was regarding work assignments and was not an option. Complainant stated
that she was instructed to report to room 1099 in Building 3, August 4, 2016 at 10:00 am.

The Chief stated “that may have been a meeting that I asked to have with her because she had
refused to meet with other supervisory people in our service. And the issue had been elevated to
me at that point and I asked to meet with her. She refused, and then I directed her to meet with
me so that we could resolve whatever concerns she had and she again refused.”

The ER Specialist (Caucasian, disability, year of birth 1963, unknown prior protected activity)
explained that he was “included on an email but it was not on August 10th. The date of the email
was August 3rd. I don’t know how [Complainant] could receive an email dated August 10th
instructing her to report on August 4th.”

Regarding claim 7, Complainant claimed that on August 10, 2016, she received a harassing
email demanding that she attend a mandatory meeting. Complainant stated the ER Specialist
told her she only need to show up and listen. Complainant stated she respectfully declined his
request in an email because she needed representation.

The ER Specialist explained what Complainant “is saying is along the lines of what our policies
and processes are though, and it’s not unreasonable for me to inform or advise employees of the
process in that knowing what this meeting was about, which was just a presentation of a letter,
that she had no other requirements for the meeting than to show up and listen to what was said.”

Regarding claim 8, Complainant claimed that on August 25, 2016, her supervisor humiliated her
when she stormed into her office and told her she needed to be mindful of how she answered
telephone calls because it was reported to the VA Director she was rude. The supervisor denied
Complainant’s allegation.

Regarding claim 14, Complainant asserted that on January 11, 2017, her emails were
marginalized by her immediate supervisor and second level supervisor when she informed them
of the loss of her brother-in-law, who was murdered.
2019002088

8
Complainant stated that she asked about the protocol for time off when her second level
supervisor unsympathetically told her she had no time and that she needed to wait for
management to get back with her.

The Lead Medical Support Assistant (African-American, year of birth 1979, disability, unknown
prior protected activity), also Complainant’s supervisor, stated at that time, management was
“very sympathetic. We did distribute out a card. We were very concerned for [Complainant].
She seemed like she was very distraught.” The supervisor stated she and Complainant had a
conversation with management in regards to her bereavement and “she decided that she did want
to take off and she did.” Furthermore, the supervisor stated that she did not marginalize her
emails.

The Chief stated “my only knowledge was it was eventually brought to my attention that she
needed to be off due to a reported death in the family. And that, she either had limited leave or
no leave to cover her time away. And my instruction was to ensure that we gave her a policy
driven answer, on what we could or could not do, as it related to approving her to be away from
work…but policy did allow for a certain a mount of time away from work and she was granted
that time.”

Regarding claim 15, Complainant asserted that on January 13, 2017, she continues to receive
pranked (out of control) customer service calls and when she reported it to her supervisor she cut
her off saying “I get calls all the time and my calls were not pranked calls.”

The Chief stated he believed Complainant’s perception “was, when she would get these calls she,
for some reason, took them as prank phone calls instead of, … just opportunities for customer
service that may or may not have been related to her particular work area. But we had no reason
to believe that anybody was directly prank calling her. There were veterans and other people
who were calling seeking assistance. And if they did not fall into her area of work, then she
perceived them to be a prank phone call.”

The Chief stated that it was an ongoing issue with Complainant because she felt she was being
harassed because “she was being held accountable for some of her behavior. She felt that she
was being harassed any time she was asked to attend a meeting. She felt that she was being
harassed when she would receive calls from veterans. She felt that she was being harassed when,
you know, a coworker may have said something she disagreed with.”

Regarding claim 16, Complainant asserted that on January 13, 2017, her supervisor recorded her
calls without her knowledge, the Section Chief for Inpatient Wards and Telecommunications
stated his role “as far as recording calls, I run the operators for this facilities and I do not know of
any systems that we have to record calls. Now, as a subsection chiefs and supervisors, and it’s
mandated by VACO [VA Central Office] that we do telephone observations with employees,
which means we sit there. We listen to the calls to be sure the proper ICARE values and the
customer service is taken care of. But as far as recording calls, I have never heard of that.”

2019002088

9
The Chief stated “it’s important to understand we do not even have the technology here to card
phone calls. We don’t have a way, on our automated call distribution system, to record phone
calls. So I don’t know why she would think we were recording her phone calls.”

Regarding claim 17, Complainant claimed that in January 2017, her second level supervisor and
the Chief of Telecommunications sent her harassing emails and would come to her office
demanding that she answer the phone knowing that she was serving customers in person.
Complainant stated that her phone rings nonstop compared to her co-workers. Complainant
stated she believes she is being set up for poor telephone courtesy and recorded, to build a
negative profile that can be used against her for not servicing veterans.

The Section Chief for Inpatient Wards explained at that time, the Section Chief was out and he
“observed the phones, and the ACE lines, but this was for all employees in Eligibility and not
just [Complainant]…if I see an unusual situation I alert them to it. That’s all I know about it. I
do not remember ever sending [Complainant] any emails.”

Regarding claim 18, Complainant claimed that on January 25, 2017, she received a hostile phone
call from her supervisor who spoke to her in a loud, snappy, and rude tone.

The supervisor acknowledged she was running late to work on that day and called two
employees’ line, but no one answered, and “I tried to call another extension, and no one
answered that line, but it rolled over to [Complainant’s] line. I wasn’t attempting to contact
[Complainant]. The particular person I was looking to speak to didn’t answer the phone but
[Complainant] did. She didn’t state her name, she didn’t say anything. She replied, who is this?
I addressed it, ‘well is this Eligiblity?’ And she said, that is [Complainant], and she said, is this a
prank call again because I’m going to hang up? And I said ‘no, [Complainant], I said this is
[supervisor].’ I said, ‘is [employee] there? … because I’m running late, and she said no.””
Furthermore, the supervisor denied speaking to her in a loud, snappy and rude tone.

Regarding claim 21, Complainant asserted that on February 21, 2017, she met with her
supervisor regarding the comments placed in her appraisal but she was ignored. The supervisor
denied Complainant’s allegation.

Interpersonal Issue with co-worker (claim 9)

The Supervisor of Eligibility and Travel stated that she was not recall the date but the co-worker
“had said that before to me.” She stated that if the co-worker had complained to her about
Complainant goofing off “I would have told [co-worker] to worry about him in his area and his
job, and that if [Complainant] is goofing off I would see it, but it’s not for him to know my
actions if she was goofing off and if I approached her.”

Privacy/Security Issues (claims 10, 13, 19 and 20)

2019002088

10
Complainant alleged that on October 17, 2016, her confidentiality was violated when she
received a large confidential envelope from the ER Specialist that had been opened and taped
and on January 25, 2017; on December 4, 2016, she reported to her supervisor that her co-
workers were discussing and sharing her confidential matters with other employees but her
issues were ignored; her supervisor violated policy and security rules when she sent a blind copy
to outside agents while emailing Complainant; and on January 26, 2017, the Privacy Officer
violated policy and security rules when he replied to Complainant’s email and included outside
agents listed as a blind copy.

The Privacy and Freedom of Information Act Officer (“Privacy Officer”) (African-American,
disability, year of birth 1966, prior protected activity, no disability) explained that he contacted
the individual who Complainant alleged breached her privacy and “got an email response from
the individual [individual]. And in his response, [individual] says that what she stated was true;
however, what she did not indicate in her complaint was that the – there were two letters in there.
The outer interoffice envelope was the one that was taped. And that was, … a reusable
document that people use the interoffice, you know, holey joes [perforated interoffice
envelopes], several times. But inside that holey joe, or interoffice email, envelope, was a
confidential envelope that was sealed and taped and had not been opened…I see no privacy
breach because the inner envelope had not been tampered with at all and it appeared that the only
thing to me was that they reused a holey joe, so I did not find it to be a privacy breach.”

With respect to Complainant’s allegation that her supervisor violated policy when she sent a
blind copy to outside agents while emailing Complainant, the Officer stated that Complainant
stopped by his office and asked for the guidance on the use of emails. He stated that he
explained to Complainant “that there are some regulations that prohibit emailing information to
outside email addresses and I provided her that - - the guidance in an email. And then I cc’d her
supervisor [supervisor], and her upper management [upper management], I also gave them the
guidance in the email because I believe [supervisor], prior to [Complainant] coming to my office,
told her that she shouldn’t cc’ing outside addresses on - - with certain sensitive information.”

Furthermore, the Privacy Officer stated that he does not recall or remember seeing anything
specific and “I looked and I couldn’t find anything. So, that was pretty much my extent of that
situation. And I looked for emails from [Complainant] and I could not find any, unfortunately.”

Regarding Complainant’s claim that on January 26, 2017, the Privacy Officer violated policy and
security rules when he replied to Complainant’s email and included outside agents listed as a
blind copy, the Privacy Officer stated “I did not blind copy anybody…there’s nobody outside
this facility that I emailed anything to and for me to blind cc her supervisor would not be a
breach of privacy.”

Training (claim 12)

Complainant alleged that on October 31, 2016, she was denied Facilitator Curriculum training in
the TMS.
2019002088

11

The supervisor denied Complainant’s allegation. Specifically, the supervisor stated that
Complainant “was highly encouraged from myself, and also from our chief to attend the
training.” The supervisor stated, however, Complainant did not attend training. The supervisor
stated Complainant “never said why.”

As detailed above, responsible Agency officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the disputed actions. Complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
her race, disability, age and/or retaliatory animus played any role in the disputed actions. Her
claim of discriminatory harassment is precluded based on our findings that Complainant failed to
establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by her protected bases. See
Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the Agency’s finding no discrimination because the preponderance of the evidence
of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.

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.
2019002088

12
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.

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.
2019002088

13
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 30, 2019
Date