0120150311
11-03-2016
Odilia M.,1 Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Odilia M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert McDonald,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120150311
Hearing No. 470-2014-00080X
Agency No. 200H-0539-2013100945
DECISION
On October 19, 2014, Complainant filed a timely appeal from the Agency's September 19, 2014, final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS in part and REVERSES in part the Agency's final order.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ) properly determined that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and/or reprisal.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Administrative Assistant at the Agency's Fort Thomas Community Living Center (CLC) in Fort Thomas, Kentucky. Complainant's first-line supervisor (S1) was the Nursing Home Administrator, and her second-line supervisor (S2) was the Associate Director of Patient Care Services. Complainant has previously filed EEO complaints.
Complainant was the timekeeper for the CLC. In September 2012, Complainant said that she asked the backup timekeeper (BT1) to post her time. According to Complainant, BT1 became argumentative and hit Complainant with the door in front of a Nurse Manager (NM1). Complainant said that NM1 asked her not to file a police report about the incident "because she wanted us to work it out." NM1 said that she suggested that Complainant not file a police report because she wanted to diffuse the situation. According to Complainant, S1 failed to take any disciplinary action against BT1. S1 said that he was not at the CLC that day and that, based on NM1's report of what happened, he asked NM1 to issue both BT1 and Complainant a no contact order and subsequently conducted a fact finding. According to S1, the fact finding resulted in a finding that BT1 did not intentionally or maliciously hit Complainant with the door. However, S1 said that he issued BT1 a written counseling for the incident.
In October 2012, S1 asked Complainant to arrange to have a patient bed picked up by the vendor. According to Complainant, there was a delay in having the bed picked up because there were two patients with the same name and beds had been moved around because of a fruit fly infestation. S1 said that he asked Complainant to have the bed picked up on October 9, 2012. According to S1, Complainant did not request that the vendor pick up the bed and accidentally sent him union-related text messages during her duty hours. Complainant said that S1 investigated her and insinuated that Complainant had deliberately caused the delay, causing the Agency to incur an additional charge. According to Complainant, the vendor did not charge the Agency for the additional time that the bed was at the CLC. S1 said that he conducted a fact-finding interview on October 26, 2012, regarding Complainant's failure to have the bed picked up on October 9, 2012, and conducting union business while not on official time. According to S1, the fact-finding did not result in any administrative or disciplinary action being taken.
On December 7, 2012, S1 issued Complainant a proposed 30-day suspension. S1 said that he issued the proposed suspension because of six inappropriate emails that Complainant sent. The proposal states, in relevant part:
This is to notify you that it is proposed to Suspend you for Thirty (30) days based on the following reason(s):
Charge I. Improper Conduct
Specification 1. On November 29, 2012 you sent an email entitled RE: RESPONSE TO [S1] perceived Workplace Bullying and Harassment to your supervisor with a courtesy copy to the Chief of Police Service requesting a "restraining order" against your supervisor. The email contains confrontational and disrespectful language directed toward your supervisor.
Specification 2. On November 29, 2012 you sent a restricted email entitled Official Time to your supervisor asking him to "explain himself" for a time and leave decision. The overall tone of the email was confrontational and disrespectful while accusing your supervisor of discrimination.
Specification 3. On November 28, 2012, you sent a message entitled Applicant Inquiries in which you questioned the "(Legitimacy) of the applicant being referred to me since in a meeting with the Union, I expressed that I perceived you were discriminatory towards African-American females." The tone of the email was confrontational and disrespectful towards your supervisor.
The Agency Table of Examples of Offenses and Penalties recommends a reprimand as the minimum penalty to removal as the maximum penalty for a first offense involving "[d]isrespectful conduct, use of insulting, abusive, or obscene language to or about other personnel, patients, or visitors." According to Complainant, the proposal was retaliatory because she had recently participated in mediation, during which she raised allegations of discrimination. Complainant said that she was not aware of any CLC employee being issued a proposed 30-day suspension. According to Complainant, the union submitted a request for information regarding Complainant's proposed suspension to Human Resources, but an Employee and Labor Relations Specialist (HR1) denied her request. HR1 said that all of the evidence and documents were contained in the evidence file, which Complainant had access to. S1 said that he subsequently withdrew the proposed suspension after there was an informal mediation session with Complainant, Complainant's union representative (UR1), HR1, and Complainant's grandfather.
According to Complainant, as timekeeper, she regularly pre-posted time because she worked Monday through Friday, the pay period ended on Saturday, and other CLC employees worked weekends. Complainant said that S1 told her that she could not pre-post time and denied her a backup timekeeper. S1 said that he permitted Complainant to pre-post time for the last Friday and Saturday of the pay period.
Complainant requested official time to attend Workers' Compensation training on January 25, 2013. According to Complainant, S1 denied her request because of her timekeeping duties. Complainant stated that there were other CLC employees who could have posted time. S1 said that Complainant was the primary timekeeper for CLC, so he denied her request. Complainant said that other employees have been permitted to attend training.
On April 5, 2013, the desktop computer was removed from Complainant's office while she was at EEO training in Indianapolis, Indiana. S1 said that Complainant had requested a laptop to bring to the training, so an IT employee removed Complainant's desktop because she had been issued a laptop. According to Complainant, she was initially told that her computer was taken because the Agency was upgrading to Windows 7, but she was later told that the Agency was issuing her a laptop as her assigned computer because she would "be mobile."
According to Complainant, she had not received a performance evaluation since 2008. Complainant said that she had disputed her position description because she had been tasked with duties that she had not been trained on. Complainant said that S1 subsequently issued her a performance appraisal but that she did not sign it because she did not agree with S1's narrative. According to Complainant, because she had not received a performance evaluation, her 2008 "Highly Successful" rating of record carried over.
On May 10, 2013, S2 notified Complainant that effective June 10, 2013, she was being reassigned to the Agency's Cincinnati, Ohio, facility, where she would report to the Quality Manager (S3). S2 said that she transferred Complainant because she was impeding S1's ability to do his job because she demanded that all communications take place through email and was very confrontational. According to Complainant, the atmosphere is much more positive in Cincinnati, but her commute is longer.
According to Complainant, in 2014, she was placed on "authorized absence," her badge and computer were taken away from her, and she was asked to meet with the employee threat assessment team (ETAT). Complainant said that the ETAT meets on the same floor as the closed psychiatric ward, so she believed that the ETAT was going to have her committed to the psychiatric ward. According to the Nurse Manager of the Acute Inpatient Mental Health Unit (NM2), who heads the ETAT, neither he nor any member of the ETAT have the authority to commit an employee to the Acute Inpatient Mental Health Unit during an ETAT meeting.
On February 13, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, which she subsequently amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), national origin (Hispanic), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. In approximately September 2012, a coworker caused a door to hit Complainant, and NM1 asked Complainant to not file a police report concerning the incident;
2. On October 10 and 26, 2012, S1 questioned, intimidated, and made accusations against Complainant concerning a patient bed pickup and subjected Complainant to a fact-finding investigation;
3. On December 7, 2012, S1 issued Complainant a proposed 30-day suspension;
4. On January 2, 2013, S1 failed to take corrective action concerning a September 2012 incident with a coworker;
5. On January 10, 2013, HR1 denied Complainant supportive information concerning her proposed 30-day suspension;
6. On January 10, 2013, S1 disallowed Complainant to pre-post time as it related to her duties as timekeeper;
7. On January 10, 2013, S1 denied Complainant official time to attend training;
8. On April 5, 2013, S1 had the desktop computer previously utilized by Complainant removed from her office, causing her to be unable to retrieve files and documents;
9. On March 14, 2013, S1 failed to issue Complainant a current performance rating;
10. On March 14, 2013, S1 failed to issue Complainant an updated position description and performance standards, and he has required her to perform job duties that are not in her current position description;
11. On May 10, 2013, S2 notified Complainant that effective June 10, 2013, she would be reassigned to the Vine Street campus and placed under the supervision of S3;
12. Complainant was placed on authorized absence;2
13. Complainant was instructed to meet with the employee threat assessment team;
14. Complainant's badge/computer were taken away from her;
15. Complainant's manager attempted to change her working conditions;
16. Complainant's supervisor threatened her with discipline if she did not submit a doctor's note showing that she went to see a doctor; and
17. In order for Complainant to return to work as directed, she would have to meet weekly on the closed psychiatric ward.
The Agency accepted issues 7, 10, and 11 as timely raised discrete acts and accepted all of the issues as a harassment claim. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an AJ. Complainant timely requested a hearing and the AJ held a hearing on July 9, 10, and 11, 2014, and issued a decision on September 8, 2014.
In the AJ's decision, the AJ determined that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment, noting that Complainant was confrontational towards him throughout the hearing and showed no respect for authority and that Complainant therefore likely contributed to any hostility in the workplace. The AJ also determined that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because she did not establish a causal connection between her prior protected activity and the issuance of the proposed 30-day suspension. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends, "The Administrative Judge wrote out his own version of the facts rather than the ones stipulated in the hearing." According to Complainant, the AJ improperly interfered with her ability to thoroughly question her witnesses.
In response to Complainant's appeal, the Agency contends that Complainant failed to demonstrate that the AJ's findings of fact were clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. The Agency requests that its final order be affirmed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at � VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).
Per Se Retaliation
Comments that, on their face, discourage an employee from participating in the EEO process violate the letter and spirit of the EEOC regulations and evidence a per se violation of the law. Binseel v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970584 (October 8, 1998) (complainant told that filing an EEO suit was the wrong way to go about getting a promotion); Woolf v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120083727 (June 4, 2009), request to reconsider denied, EEOC Request No. 0520090560 (August 21, 2009) (per se violation found when a labor management specialist told complainant "as a friend" that his EEO claim would polarize the office); Vincent v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120072908 (August 3, 2009), request to reconsider denied, EEOC Request No. 0520090654 (December 16, 2010) (per se violation found when supervisor during an employee meeting referenced that EEO complaints had been filed and said "what goes around, comes around"). When a supervisor's behavior has a potentially chilling effect on use of the EEO complaint process -- the ultimate tool that employees have to enforce equal employment opportunity -- the behavior is a per se violation.
Here, S1 issued a Complainant a proposed 30-day suspension for sending him six emails, including one with the subject RE: RESPONSE TO [S1] perceived Workplace Bullying and Harassment, another that "was confrontational and disrespectful while accusing your supervisor of discrimination," and a third in which Complainant stated, "I expressed that I perceived that you were discriminatory towards African-American females." Although S1 said that he issued the proposed suspension because of the "confrontational and disrespectful" tone of Complainant's emails, rather than their content, S1 specifically citing Complainant's allegations of harassment and discrimination in a disciplinary proposal has a chilling effect on the EEO process. Moreover, employees accusing their supervisors of harassment and discrimination inherently involves confrontation, so it would have been difficult for Complainant to avoid a "confrontational and disrespectful" tone. Further, although the Agency's table of penalties recommended between a reprimand and removal for a first offense of this type of charge, the length of the proposed suspension appears excessive, given Complainant's alleged conduct. Accordingly, we find that the Agency's issuance of the proposed 30-day suspension was a per se violation, REVERSING the Agency's final order finding no discrimination with respect to the proposed suspension and REMANDING the matter for further processing.
Disparate Treatment
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, 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 or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. 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, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. 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, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Here, we find that the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case with respect to her allegations of disparate treatment are well supported by the investigative and hearing record. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final order with respect to these claims.
Hostile Work Environment
To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [complainant's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 6 (Mar. 8, 1994).
With respect to element (5), an employer is subject to vicarious liability for harassment when it is created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. See Burlington Industries, Inc., v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 s. Ct. 2257, 2270 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2292-93 (1998). However, where the harassment does not result in a tangible employment action the agency can raise an affirmative defense, which is subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, by demonstrating: (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior; and (2) that complainant unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the agency or to avoid harm otherwise. See Burlington Industries, supra; Faragher, supra; Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999). This defense is not available when the harassment results in a tangible employment action (e.g., a discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment) being taken against the employee. In the case of co-worker harassment, an agency is responsible for acts of harassment in the workplace where the agency (or its agents) knew or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. Id.
Here, the AJ observed that Complainant was confrontational and disrespectful towards him throughout the hearing and concluded that she more likely than not contributed to any hostile work environment that may have existed. Moreover, there is no evident connection between any of the alleged harassment and Complainant's membership in any protected class. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final order with respect to Complainant's hostile work environment claim.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the Agency's final order, as the preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that Complainant was subjected to a per se violation when S1 issued her a proposed suspension because of her "confrontational and disrespectful" tone when she complained about discrimination, as described above. The matter is REMANDED and the Agency is ORDERED to comply with our Order below.
ORDER
The Agency is hereby ORDERED to take the following actions:
1. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of this decision, the Agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation on the issue of Complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages with respect to this complaint. Complainant will cooperate in the Agency's efforts to compute the amount of compensatory damages, if any, and will provide all relevant information requested by the Agency. The Agency shall issue a final decision on the issue of compensatory damages with appeal rights to the Commission. A copy of the final decision must be submitted to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision, the Agency shall expunge any Agency records related to the retaliatory proposed suspension.
3. The Agency will immediately take steps to ensure that all reprisal ceases and desists in the facility. The Agency will ensure that it takes steps to immediately address any reports of reprisal brought to its attention, and that employees know that they can bring EEO concerns to Agency leaders.
4. Within 120 days of the date of this decision, the Agency shall provide specialized, in person, 8 hour training to all Agency management officials at the Agency's Fort Thomas, Kentucky facility regarding employees' rights and managements' responsibilities with respect to EEO laws, with special emphasis on retaliation.
5. The Agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the responsible management officials who issued Complainant a proposed suspension for her "confrontational and disrespectful" tone while complaining about discrimination. The Agency shall report its decision within thirty (30) calendar days. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the actions taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline. The Commission does not consider training to constitute disciplinary action.
6. The Agency shall post the attached Notice of Discrimination, as described below.
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.
POSTING ORDER (G1016)
The Agency is ordered to post at its Fort Thomas Community Living Center (CLC) facility copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted both in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the date this decision was issued, and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within 10 calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1016)
If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), she is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision was issued. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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. The requests 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 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's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
11-3-16
__________________
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 The AJ granted Complainant's request to add claims 12 through 17 during the hearing process.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
01-2015-0311