0120111230
10-22-2015
Lonnie H.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Lonnie H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111230
Hearing No. 370-2005-0051X
Agency No. 4F-940-0033-03
DECISION
On December 9, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's November 16, 2010, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission MODIFIES the Agency's final decision.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues presented are whether the Agency has fully complied with the Order in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019, and whether Complainant has obtained full relief.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, Complainant was part of a class of 28 Special Delivery Messengers who filed a class complaint against the Agency regarding the Agency's decision to dismantle the central Special Delivery unit and reassign the Special Delivery Messengers to various facilities in the surrounding San Francisco, California area. The Special Delivery function and Special Delivery Messenger craft were to be phased out on a nation-wide basis. In 1997, the Special Delivery Messengers in the San Francisco District were all transferred to the San Francisco Postal Data Center (SFPDC). The class filed a second class complaint claiming that they had been retaliated against for the original complaint. After a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), the AJ issued a decision in 2002 in which she found that the Agency had discriminated against the class, and that the Agency had denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation for his disabilities. In Abordo, et al. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 07A20066 (Nov. 6, 2003), req. to reconsider denied, EEOC Request No. 05A40305 (Sept. 29, 2004), we reversed the AJ's finding of reprisal discrimination with respect to the class, and reversed the finding of denial of reasonable accommodation specific to Complainant.
While the class complaint and appeals were pending, in July 1997, Complainant reported to the SFPDC to perform the Clerk/Messenger position to which he had been reassigned. When his physical limitations could not be accommodated, he stopped reporting to work in October 1997. Complainant was granted a disability retirement in May 1998, and applied for Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) benefits in 2001, based on his depression and anxiety disorders. The OWCP benefits were granted retroactive to January 1998. In December 2001, Complainant's psychologist found that Complainant was mentally recovered enough to return to work with a phased-in return to full time work starting in March 2002. His physician prepared a work capacity evaluation to outline Complainant's physical limitations, so that the Agency could determine the appropriate position for Complainant.
Concurrently, the AJ's January 2002 decision in Abordo ordered the Agency to provide interim relief to the class members during the pendency of the Agency's appeal in EEOC Appeal No. 07A20066. As more fully detailed in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019 (Feb. 24, 2009), the Agency proceeded to attempt to place Complainant in a position through two different, and often conflicting, processes, the OWCP process and the interim relief process ordered by the AJ.
On December 20, 2002, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability (major depression and anxiety disorders) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity arising under the Rehabilitation Act when: 1) he was notified by the Department of Labor that he would be rehabilitated outside of the Agency; and 2) the Agency engaged in a pattern of action in denying him his right to return to duty. The Agency's procedural dismissal of claim 1 was affirmed in EEOC Appeal No. 01A32065 (March 17, 2004), but the dismissal of claim 2 was reversed and it was remanded for further processing.
Complainant requested a hearing on his complaint, and the AJ issued a decision in September 2006, in which she found that Complainant's claim was that his request to return to work with a reasonable accommodation had been denied since March 1, 2002. She found that Complainant had established that the Agency had discriminated against him based on reprisal. She additionally found that the Agency had failed to reasonably accommodate Complainant in the Clerk/Messenger position, had acted in bad faith in the interactive process, and had failed to show that it would have been an undue hardship to accommodate Complainant. She specifically noted that the Agency had taken no "meaningful action" to comply with her earlier interim relief order in the Abordo case, issued in January 2002. The AJ ordered reinstatement/placement of Complainant in a full-time Clerk/Messenger position, or a position with similar duties that he could perform, and ordered the Agency to reasonably accommodate Complainant. She ordered backpay from March 1, 2002, through the date of Complainant's placement in a position, offset by OWCP payments already received. Compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 were awarded. The Agency appealed the AJ's decision.
In EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019 (Feb. 24, 2009), the Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of discrimination, and modified the AJ's Order of relief. The decision specifically noted that as the complaint alleged a failure to reasonably accommodate Complainant, it did not fall under the interim relief provisions found at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.505, which only apply to cases of an Agency appeal of a finding of discrimination involving a removal, separation, or suspension continuing beyond the date of the appeal.
The Agency submitted a supplemental brief one year after the filing of its appeal, in which it detailed its then-on-going efforts to comply with the AJ's September 2006 order to reinstate/place Complainant in a full-time Clerk/Messenger position, or similar position, and to reasonably accommodate him. It asserted that it had made good faith efforts to place Complainant in a position as ordered by the AJ, in either a "full-time Clerk/Messenger position or other position with similar duties that he can perform." It asserted that there were no vacant Clerk/Messenger positions into which Complainant could be placed, and it offered him the position of Collector, a position similar to that of a Clerk/Messenger. Over the course of 8 months, Complainant and the Agency engaged in the interactive process, and the Agency, believing that it had addressed all the issues, ordered Complainant to report to duty on August 20, 2007. On August 16, 2007, Complainant's physician informed the Agency that Complainant was "temporarily totally incapacitated," and that he "cannot work in any capacity." Our decision found that the Agency had satisfied its obligation to comply with the order of the AJ to place Complainant in a Clerk/Messenger or substantially equivalent position. It declined to order the Agency to continue to attempt to place Complainant in a Clerk/Messenger or substantially equivalent position, and concluded that the Agency's liability for back pay terminated with Complainant's declination of the position offered. Based on the documentation in the Agency's supplemental brief, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019 modified the AJ's Order of relief.
The modified Order of relief ordered the Agency to do the following:
(1) Issue Complainant the amount of back pay due from March 1, 2002, through August 16, 2007, offset by the OWCP payments already received.
(2) Issue Complainant compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000.
(3) Pay Complainant's costs, as associated with the processing of this case. Complainant has 30 days from the date this decision becomes final to submit a petition to recover costs, with appropriate supporting documentation. The Agency has 30 days from the submission of the costs petition to issue a decision regarding costs, along with payment to Complainant of the undisputed costs.
(4) Provide a minimum of eight (8) hours of EEO training, with special emphasis on the areas of reprisal and reasonable accommodation requirements, for all involved management officials still employed with the agency.
(5) Consider taking appropriate disciplinary action against the responsible management officials still employed by the agency. The Commission does not consider training to be disciplinary action. The Agency shall report its decision to the Compliance Officer. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline. If any of the responsible management officials have left the Agency's employ, the Agency shall furnish documentation of their departure date(s).
Neither Complainant nor the Agency filed a request for reconsideration with the Commission following the issuance of EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019. The Agency's compliance was monitored in EEOC Compliance No. 0620090331. The Agency submitted documents on January 6, 2010, February 4, 2010, and June 9, 2010, in which it documented its efforts on compliance with the Order.
Complainant disputed that the Agency had fully complied with our Order in several letters to the Commission. He further filed three petitions for enforcement, on December 4, 2009, May 10, 2010, and June 18, 2010, in which he detailed his belief that the Agency was not in compliance with the Order of the AJ or the Order in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019.
On November 16, 2010, the Agency issued a decision, with appeal rights, in which it detailed its position regarding the issues of compliance disputed by Complainant. The Agency found that Complainant was not entitled to interest on the $50,000 in compensatory damages awarded in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019. It found that the Agency had not unreasonably delayed the payment of the compensatory damages award, such that an award of interest was due, as per prior Commission precedent. The Agency found that Complainant had been reimbursed for the health benefits payments he had made, totaling $5,422.64, and that he had not provided documentation to support his claims for additional reimbursement. As to Complainant's claim that the Agency should be responsible for the additional tax consequences incurred as a result of the back pay award made on October 15, 2009, the Agency stated that the AJ's Order and the Order in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019 had not specified that the adverse tax consequences should be part of the award. It denied Complainant's request for reimbursement for the work performed by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to determine Complainant's additional tax liability, and found that he had not presented evidence of increased tax liability at the hearing or initial appeal stages. Finally, the Agency stated that it had complied with the part of the Order in which it was ordered to "consider" disciplinary action for the responsible management officials, had documented its decision not to do so, and had previously provided it to the Commission. Complainant filed the instant appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant presented his arguments and documentation in support of his belief that the Agency had not complied with the Order in the previous decision. Complainant claimed that he is entitled to interest on the payment of compensatory damages, claiming that the Agency unduly delayed paying the $50,000 through the filing of its appeal in November 2006. He argued that under the regulation at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.505(a)(3), and Chapter 9, Section B of the MD-110, pertaining to interim relief, the Agency was required to pay interest on the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the AJ, dating to the issuance of the AJ's decision in 2006.
Complainant argued that he should be compensated for the increased tax liability he incurred when the Agency paid him his back pay in a lump sum award in 2009. He stated that he had an increased tax liability of $26,883. He submitted copies of tax returns from 2002 through 2009, which he claimed represented his returns from that period, and copies of what his returns would have been had he been paid the back pay in the years it was to have been earned, in support of his claim. Complainant noted that these returns were not available at the time of the AJ's decision or the previous appeal decision, and could not have been calculated until he actually received the back pay award. The Agency withheld $22,831.98 in federal taxes.
Complainant claimed he should be reimbursed for the $875 in fees he paid to a CPA to prepare the tax returns, and to determine the impact of the lump sum payment on his tax liability.
Complainant disputed the Agency's calculations on the health benefits payments he made from December 7, 2001, through December 19, 2009. He stated that there was a gap in the reimbursement payment from the Agency that was from October 29, 2005, through September 26, 2009, with no explanation as to why this period was excluded.
Complainant was dissatisfied with the Agency's decision not to discipline one of the responsible management officials, RC, and disputed the Agency's conclusion that it was not appropriate.
Finally, Complainant argued that the Agency's supplemental brief, filed a year after its appeal in EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019, should not have been considered, and should not have affected the relief ordered. He argued that the back pay award should not have terminated on August 16, 2007, and should be ongoing, and that he should still have the option of returning to work at the Agency. He stated that, as of the date of his brief, he was continuing to receive OWCP benefits. He maintained that he was still entitled to a Clerk/Messenger position, as ordered by the AJ in her decision, and that the Agency was attempting to force him to take a disability retirement.
The Agency submitted a brief in which it opposed Complainant's appeal of its determination that it had complied with the Commission's Order. The Agency argued that in its previous submissions to the Commission, it had demonstrated that it had complied with our Order, and had provided proof of that compliance. It argued that interest on the award of compensatory damages was not warranted in these circumstances, and that it did not unreasonably delay the payment of non-pecuniary compensatory damages. It also argued that Complainant had not established that he was entitled to receive compensation for the increased tax liability he incurred as a result of the lump sum payment of his back pay award in 2009. The Agency noted that it was Complainant's burden to establish the entitlement to reimbursement, and to document the effect of the lump sum payment on his tax liability. It argued that the 2009 tax return provided by Complainant was insufficient to meet this burden, that Complainant should have provided evidence on the difference between the taxes paid on the lump sum and the amount of taxes which would have been due had his salary been paid over time. The Agency noted that, although Complainant claimed he had provided his actual returns from 2002 through 2009, those returns were unsigned and all were dated December 16, 2010. It also claimed that Complainant was attempting to include the amount of compensatory damages, interest, and terminal leave in his calculations on the tax liability, for which there was no provision in Commission case law for the payment of adverse tax consequences. The Agency stood by its decision not to discipline the responsible management official Complainant believed should receive discipline. It finally noted that Complainant's claim for additional health care payment reimbursements had been forwarded to the appropriate manager for a determination on his claim, and that he would be notified of the outcome of that determination.
Complainant submitted a response brief to the Agency's opposition, in which he argued that the Agency's brief was untimely filed. He also stated, in reply to the Agency's argument that the tax returns provided were not signed, that his submissions had been signed electronically, and he provided an "e-file" IRS Form 8879 for the tax year 2009 which was dated February 16, 2010.
The Agency responded to Complainant's brief by noting that it had been granted an extension to submit its brief and had responded within that extended time frame. It also provided documentation that Complainant's reimbursement for health care benefits payments had been reviewed and it had been determined that he was entitled to an additional reimbursement of $1,754.20. By letter dated March 24, 2011, Complainant was informed that he would receive a check for the period of March 16, 2008, through June 6, 2009, and stated he had received previous payment for the period of June 7, 2009, through September 26, 2009.
Complainant responded to the Agency's letter and claimed that he was still entitled to payment for health benefits for June 7, 2009, through September 26, 2009, in the amount of $403.12.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the 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").
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We first note that Complainant did not file a request for reconsideration of EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019. Therefore, any objections he has expressed with respect to our previous findings on whether the Agency was required to provide interim relief, the Commission's consideration of the arguments in the Agency's supplemental brief, submitted past the briefing period for the Agency's appeal, and the decision to modify the Order of relief will not be entertained here.
Interest on compensatory damages
Complainant cited 29 C.F.R. � 1614.505(a)(3) and the EEO MD-110 sections that pertain to interim relief awards in support of his claim that he should be awarded interest dating to September 2006 on the AJ's award of compensatory damages. As found previously, the provisions at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.505(a)(3), and in the EEO MD-110, Chapter 9, IX., Section B, pertaining to interim relief, do not apply to Complainant's claim, as he had not alleged a removal, separation, or suspension, but rather a failure to accommodate. Complainant did not file a request for reconsideration on EEOC Appeal No. 0720070019, contesting that determination. Therefore, we find that the Agency properly determined that it was not obligated to pay interest on the $50,000 in compensatory damages award dating to September 2006.
Health benefits reimbursement
The Agency provided documentation that purported to show that Complainant had been reimbursed for the health benefits payments he had made, totaling $5,422.64, for the period of December 7, 2001, through December 19, 2009. Complainant disputed that this was the full amount owed, and stated that the Agency had not fully explained the gap in reimbursements for the period of October 29, 2005 through July 4, 2009. By letter dated March 24, 2011, the Agency notified Complainant that it had reviewed further documents, and determined that he was entitled to an additional payment to reimburse him for health benefits. It represented that he would receive a check for $1,754.20, to cover the period of March 16, 2008, through June 6, 2009.
The record contains a letter to Complainant from the Health & Resource Management Manager, dated August 5, 2010, in which she explained that OWCP did not pay health benefit premiums for Complainant from October 31, 2005, through June 7, 2009, when his claim had been disallowed.
We find that the gap in reimbursements from October 29, 2005, to March 16, 2008, and for the period of June 7, 2009 through September 26, 2009, has not been adequately explained to either Complainant or to the Commission. On remand, the Agency shall delineate, in a chart, the time period from December 7, 2001, through December 19, 2009; the amount due to be reimbursed Complainant; explanation for why he is or is not receiving payment for any particular segment of that period; and proof of payment.
Tax consequences on lump sum back pay award
The Commission has held that, where an agency pays back pay and other income payments in a lump sum payment, the agency is responsible for a petitioner's proven increased income tax burden. Goetze v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01991530 (Aug. 22, 2001); Holler v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01982627 & 01990407 (Aug. 22, 2001). In these cases, the Commission held that an award to cover additional tax liability for receipt of back pay in a lump sum is available and that a complainant bears the burden to prove the amount to which he claims entitlement. Id. In the present case, Complainant, who retains the burden of establishing the amount of his increased tax liability to the Agency, has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that he is entitled to reimbursement. He did not present his actual tax returns from each tax year represented, as all were dated December 16, 2010, and therefore, not filed during the filing period for each tax year. As explained below, Complainant's tax return for tax year 2009, although timely prepared for that tax year, also does not support his claim.
Complainant is required to establish that he is entitled to reimbursement on the additional tax liability incurred by receiving his back pay in a lump sum award. Complainant received back pay from March 1, 2002, through August 16, 2007, in a check dated October 15, 2009. The Agency calculated that he would have received $91,327.92 in gross pay, after the OWCP payments Complainant had received during that time period were offset from his gross salary. It deducted $22,831.98 (and other relevant deductions) from the gross pay due.
Complainant attempted to demonstrate that he would have had no tax liability absent the lump sum payment. His argument appears to be that the income he would have received in those back pay years would not have incurred a tax liability. The OWCP payments received were not considered taxable income. In support of his argument Complainant submitted copies of tax returns that represented tax years 2002-2009. We note however, that the tax returns for 2002-2008, which should have been Complainant's actual returns, are all dated either in November 2009 (in Complainant's first petition for enforcement submission dated December 4, 2009), or December 16, 2010 (in Complainant's submission in support of his appeal). This discrepancy in dates is not explained. Complainant submitted his 2009 tax return, dated February 9, 2010, as well, along with the e-file signature authorization.
However, if Complainant had been reasonably accommodated, and been at work during the relevant time period, he would not have been receiving OWCP benefits. He would have received his full salary amount, which would have been 100-percent taxable. Therefore, what Complainant was required to demonstrate was the amount of his tax liability had he been working during the relevant portions of tax years 2002 to 2007; the amount of his tax liability in tax year 2009 due to the lump sum payment; and the difference between those two figures. That dollar amount would represent his increased tax liability. The Agency calculated Complainant's tax liability based on what his salary would have been each year had he been back at work and not receiving OWCP benefits. We find this was the proper determination; Complainant is not entitled to any additional payment for the tax liability he claims to have incurred.
CPA fees
In Ulloa v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 0420080001 (Feb. 22, 2008), the Commission found that a complainant could be reimbursed for the fees paid to a CPA to successfully determine an additional tax liability due to a lump-sum back pay award. As we find that Complainant is not entitled to any additional payment because he has not met his burden of proof, we likewise find that Complainant is not entitled to be reimbursed for the fee paid to his CPA to prepare his tax returns in support of his claim.
Discipline of RMO
We find that the Agency has made a determination that the responsible management official RC should not receive discipline for his actions in this matter. The compliance record in this case reflects that the Agency did, in fact, consider imposing discipline on the RMO, but determined that discipline was not appropriate because the discrimination was not intentional, and "was the direct result of miscommunications between the Labor Relations and Injury Compensation functions of the San Francisco District."
We note that our Order directed the Agency to consider imposing discipline, and to explain its reasoning if it did not. The Agency has done that.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM in part the Agency's determination of compliance, and REVERSE in part the Agency's determination and REMAND for further action based on our Order below.
ORDER
Within sixty (60) days, of the date this decision becomes final, the Agency is ordered to produce a report showing Complainant's entitlement to reimbursement for health care payments, as delineated in the decision above. The Agency shall delineate in a chart, the time period from December 7, 2001, through December 19, 2009; the amount due to be reimbursed Complainant; explanation for why he is or is not receiving payment for any particular segment of that period; and proof of payment.
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation verifying that the corrective action has been implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 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, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0610)
This decision affirms the Agency's final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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, Director
Office of Federal Operations
Oct. 22, 2015
Date
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
0120111230
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120111230