0120090111
04-11-2012
Rebecca Bartman, Complainant , v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
Rebecca Bartman,
Complainant ,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090111
Agency No. 4B-852-0008-08
DECISION
On July 29, 2008, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s June 27,
2008, final decision 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a City Carrier at the Agency’s Capital Station in Phoenix, Arizona.
During the relevant time, Person A was the Customer Services Manager of
the Capital Station. Person B was the Customer Services Supervisor for
the morning shift at the Capital Station and Person C was the Customer
Services Supervisor for the afternoon shift.
The record contains a June 19, 2007 Duty Status Report showing that
due to her pregnancy Complainant was limited to walking from four to six
hours per day and was restricted to working intermittently in temperatures
between 90 to 115 degrees. On July 5, 2007, Complainant submitted a light
duty request for the period of July 5, 2007, through February 11, 2008.
The request stated Complainant could work eight hours per day; however,
she was limited to standing intermittently for four hours per day,
walking no more than four hours per day, and working less than four hours
per day in the heat/sun and in temperatures greater than 100 degrees.
A subsequent light duty request was submitted on August 29, 2007, with
an anticipated duration through February 11, 2008. The request stated
that Complainant could work eight hours per day and five days per week;
however, she was restricted to standing intermittently for four hours
per day, walking no more than four hours per day, working less than four
hours per day in temperatures 100 degrees or greater, and working at most
five days in a row. On October 1, 2007, Complainant submitted a Light
Duty Work Disposition Form indicating similar restrictions and stating
she may work eight hours per day and no more than five days in a row.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated January 11, 2008, alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment from
June 2007 through November 2007, on the bases of race (Caucasian) and sex
(female). The Agency noted Complainant cited the following incidents
in which she alleged she was subjected to hostile work environment with
respect to working conditions:
1. On June 28, 2007, Complainant turned in a medical restriction form
indicating that she could only work intermittently in 90 to 115 degree
temperatures due to pregnancy. Person A then told her that she needed
to start coming in at 9:30 a.m., and someone else would case her route
and she would carry it. Complainant informed a supervisor identified as
"Junior" that this was opposite of what the doctor wanted, as it would
increase her time working out of air conditioning. She was told that
this was what the "big cheese" wants. Complainant spoke with Person A
about the situation later that day, and he asked her whether she could
case and carry her route in eight hours. Complainant said she might
be able to do it if the circumstances were just right, but it would
probably take longer. Person A then told her that she could come in at
8:00 a.m. only if she could do her route in eight hours.
2. On July 2, 2007, Complainant brought mail back to the station and
was questioned by Person C as to why. Complainant told Person C about
the heat, her pregnancy, and not feeling well. Person C advised her
to drink more water and informed Complainant that just because she does
not feel well does not mean she can bring mail back.
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with respect to threats being made:
3. On June 28, 2007, Person A threatened to shift Complainant’s working
hours and assign her to just carry her route without casing it.
4. October 2, 2007, Person C said that Complainant cannot come in every
day as scheduled; she must call every morning to see if they have work
for her first, even though she is a Regular Carrier with her own route.
5. On October 3, 2007, Person B sent another co-worker out on
Complainant's route with a Light Duty form filled out stating that
Complainant must perform her duties in the times specified, and if she
would not sign the form she could not come to work.
6. On October 10, 2007, Person C again told Complainant she could not
come to work unless she called to see if there was work available.
7. On November 27, 2007, Person A threatened to turn November 21-24 LWOP
(Leave Without Pay) into AWOL (Absent Without Leave) if Complainant did
not give him medical documentation. When Complainant told him it was a
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protected pregnancy, Person A said
he could still turn it into AWOL.
8. Person A and Person B told Complainant that she would need to have her
doctor change her medical restrictions, which were eight hours a day no
more than five days in a row. They said if Complainant could not work
more than five days in a row then she cannot perform her job because
this is not a "9 to 5" job and she would have her route taken away.
9. On November 30, 2007, Complainant received a fact-finding for not
following her manager's orders. The order was to request in writing
time to speak with the union. She was told that management was aware
that she had called the union during work hours without authorization.
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she
was subjected to hostile work environment with respect to offensive,
insensitive, and inappropriate comments made:
10. On July 2, 2007, Person A stated that it does not matter if you do
not feel well, you are not to bring mail back.
11. On July 10, 2007, Person A told her that she does not have the
right to double case to get her eight hours because pregnancy is not
work related.
12. On October 27, 2007, Person B loudly stated from the Supervisor's
desk "too many frickin' people have frickin' restrictions around here;
I’m not going to be sensitive!"
13. Person B told Complainant he did not know why she was tired and stated
his ex-wife worked through her entire pregnancy and had tons of energy.
14. In response to requesting extra time due to a third bundle, Person
B exclaimed "fine, leave the frickin' mail."
15. Person A stated to another employee while discussing Complainant's
situation: "my wife worked through her whole pregnancy and she had twins.
[Complainant] doesn't care about that baby, because if she did she
wouldn't be trying to work with all the problems she's having."
16. On November 30, 2007, the restrooms were not working, and a co-worker
advised Person A that Complainant might have a problem with that due to
her pregnancy. Person A replied "[Complainant] would have a problem no
matter what."
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with respect to being forced to
clock out early:
17. On July 10, 2007, Person A forced her to punch out early and told
her she has no right to extra work.
18. On October 10, 2007, Person C forced Complainant to punch out early,
when over ten feet of mail needed to be cased.
19. October 26, 2007, Complainant was forced to punch out at 2:51 p.m.,
and carriers that cased auxiliary routes got time-and-a-half when she
could have done it for straight time.
20. On October 29, 2007, Complainant was forced to punch out at 3:24
p.m. by Person A when mail on several routes needed to be cased.
21. On many other occasions, Complainant was told to punch out early
instead of double casing. Complainant stopped keeping track.
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with respect to not being allowed
to return to work unless work was available:
22. On October 2, 2007, Person C told her that she would have to call
every morning to see if they had work for her.
23. On October 10, 2007, Person C again told her that she would need to
call the next day to see if they had work for her.
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with respect to being required to
sign a Light Duty form before she would be permitted to return to work:
24. On October 3, 2007, a co-worker was sent to her route to have her sign
a Light Duty form stating that she must carry her route and case it in
the amount of time specified, and, because of her medical restrictions,
if they force her to punch out early instead of letting her double case
she has to use annual, LWOP, or sick leave.
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with regards to an altercation on
the workroom floor:
25. On October 10, 2007, Person C yelled at her for bringing mail back,
even though she had informed Person A that it would be likely. Person A
continued to yell at her regarding bringing mail back, and insisted
she clock out immediately and call before she returns to work to ensure
there is work for her
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with regards to being charged LWOP:
26. On July 10, 2007; October 10, 2007; October 26, 2007; October 29,
2007, Complainant was charged LWOP due to management not letting her
work when she could at least have cased mail to help get eight hours.
27. Between October 11, 2007, and October 24, 2007, Complainant was
unable to come to work due to stress and anxiety from her altercation
with Supervisor C.
Complainant cited the following incidents in which she alleged she was
subjected to hostile work environment with regards to not being treated
with dignity and respect:
28. October 10, 2007, Person C yelled at Complainant "like [she was]
a child."
29. July 2, 2007, Person C yelled at her in front of other employees.
30. October 27, 2007, Person B made loud comments about restrictions.
31. Person B made comments about leaving the "frickin' mail."
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 EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance
with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged.
On appeal, Complainant reiterates her contention that Person B told
her that someone else would case her route and she would only carry it
and that he told her she did not have the right to double case because
she did not have a work related injury. Complainant also argues that
she was treated differently from Co-worker 1 who was also pregnant
with a high-risk pregnancy in 2007, while working for the Agency.
Complainant stated that Co-worker 1 was restricted by her doctor to
working four hours per day and she was allowed to case her route and any
other uncovered routes for the full four hours or deliver small hot case
mail or express mail. Complainant claims that her doctor restricted her
to working eight hours per day for five days per week with some heat
restrictions, yet she was told that she would have to come in to work
later and someone else would case her route and she would only carry.
She also argues that she was told that she could not “double case”
because she did not have a work related injury.
Complainant argues that Person B went along with Person A in stating
that Complainant needed to have the doctor remove the five-day a week
restriction. Complainant explains that the comment that she made that
casing other mail was "too risky" was said on two occasions when she had
plenty of mail on her own route to case and carry to make an eight hour
day and she did not want to case something else and then bring back mail.
Complainant claims the comment was done in a joking manner and she said
she was never advised that she was not going to be allowed to case
because of that comment. As an attachment to her brief, Complainant
provides for the first time on appeal a statement from Co-Worker 1,
letters of character from several co-workers written in July 2008,
and her own written comments on the affidavits of Person B and Person A.
In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency notes that Complainant
claims she was treated differently than Co-Worker 1, but argues that
Co-Worker 1 is not similarly situated to Complainant. The Agency
notes that Complainant carried one route but Co-Worker 1 was a "T-6"
carrier, which meant that she was a relief carrier for five routes, and
was responsible for casing her five routes. Thus, the Agency states
Complainant and Co-Worker 1 performed different functions when casing
mail and were not similarly situated for the purpose of Complainant's
claim. Additionally, the Agency states it has offered legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency argues Complainant
has not shown that the reasons articulated by management are untrue or
are a pretext to mask intentional discrimination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As a preliminary matter, we first address Complainant’s submission of
new evidence on appeal.
As a general rule, no new evidence will be considered on appeal unless
there is an affirmative showing that the evidence was not reasonably
available prior to or during the investigation. Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110),
at Ch. 9, § VI.A.3. Here, Complainant failed to make such a showing.
Accordingly, we decline to consider this new evidence on appeal.
Even if we considered such evidence, it would not change the decision
in this appeal.
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. (November 9, 1999) (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”).
We note that Complainant does not challenge the definition of the
complaint by the Agency or the issues of alleged harassment listed in
the Agency’s final decision. Moreover, we find the record in the
present case was fully developed.
With regard to issues (1) and (3), Complainant alleged that after she
submitted her medical restrictions on June 28, 2007, Person A told her
she needed to start coming in to work at 9:30 a.m. and that someone would
case her route and she would carry it. She also claimed that Person A
told her she could come in at 8:00 a.m. only if she could do her route
in eight hours. In his affidavit, Person A stated he did not recall
telling the Complainant to come into work at 9:30 a.m. and he stated he
never told her she could come in at 8:00 a.m. only if she could deliver
her route in eight hours. Moreover, the Agency noted that the Time and
Attendance Clock Ring Reports in the record indicated that Complainant had
a Begin Tour time of approximately 8:00 a.m. on all days that she worked.
We find Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that
the alleged incident occurred.
With regard to issues (2) and (10), Complainant alleged that on July 2,
2007, she brought mail back to the station and was questioned by Person
C as to why she brought mail back. Complainant stated that she told
Person C about the heat, her pregnancy and not feeling well. Complainant
claimed that Person C advised her to drink more water and told her just
because she does not feel well does not mean she can bring mail back.
Complainant also stated that Person C yelled at her on July 2, 2007 (issue
(29)). Person C stated she does not remember making the alleged comment
on July 2, 2007, but she said she recalled one incident where she spoke to
Complainant about bringing mail back. Upon review, we find Complainant
failed to show that the Agency’s actions with regard to the July 2,
2007 incident were a pretext for discrimination based on her race or sex.
With regard to issues (4) and (22), Complainant alleged that that on
October 2, 2007, Person C told her that she must call every morning to
see if they have work for her. Complainant also alleged that Person
C told her on October 10, 2007, that she could not come to work unless
she called to see if there was work available the next day (issues (6)
and (23)). Person C did not recall making the statement to Complainant
that she must call in every morning to see if they have work for her.
Moreover, we note that Person C was the afternoon shift supervisor while
Complainant’s work day began in the morning. The record reveals that
Person C was not Complainant’s direct supervisor and only supervised
carriers in the afternoon or evening after their regular supervisor’s
left for the day. We find that even if Person C made the alleged comment,
Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions were a pretext
for discrimination based on her race or sex.
With regard to issues (5) and (24), Complainant alleged that Person B
sent another co-worker out on Complainant’s route with a Light Duty
form filled out stating that Complainant must perform her duties in
the times specified, and if she would not sign the form, she could not
come to work. Person B stated that any information that he needed was
given to Complainant directly. He stated that Complainant’s route
requires 1.30 to 2.00 hours of standing in the office and she could only
carry mail for four hours. He stated at first he gave Complainant the
auxiliary routes to case until one day she said this was “too risky.”
Person B stated that after that he had her case her own route and carry
for four hours since that was what was stated in her restrictions.
We find Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that
the alleged incident occurred.
In issue (7), Complainant alleged that on November 27, 2007, Person A
threatened to turn November 21-24 LWOP into AWOL if Complainant did not
give him medical documentation. Complainant stated that when she told
him it was FMLA-protected leave, Person A said he could still turn it
into AWOL. Person A denied threatening Complainant and stated that
if Complainant was scheduled to work and did not show up, she would
have been placed on AWOL status, just like everyone else. He noted
that Complainant was AWOL on November 15 and 19 and was on FMLA LWOP
from November beginning November 22. The Time and Attendance Records
confirm that Complainant was on FMLA LWOP from November 21 – 24.
Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that she was
threatened by Person A on November 27, 2007, as alleged.
With regard to issue (8), Complainant alleged that on an unspecified date
Person A and Person B told her that her doctor would need to change her
medical restrictions which were eight hours a day no more than five days
in a row. Complainant stated that Person A and Person B said that if
Complainant could not work more than five days in a row, then she could
not perform her job because this is not a “9 to 5” job and she would
have her route taken away.
Person A acknowledged that he and Person B asked Complainant to have
her doctor update her medical restrictions because at the time she
could not adhere to her restrictions. Person A stated that at the
time of the alleged incident, Complainant’s medical restrictions
did not reflect that she could not work five days in a row. Person B
acknowledged requiring Complainant to update her medical restrictions and
explained that he did so because employees were being mandated to work
by seniority. He noted Complainant had low seniority and would be forced
to work despite the fact that she said she could work more than five days
per week. Person B stated that Complainant told him that her doctor
said she could only work five days a week, but there was no statement
from her doctor, to cover her from being mandated to work extra days.
Thus, he stated that in an attempt to avoid a union grievance that
she was being given preferential treatment by being passed over for
mandatory work over more senior carriers, he requested she update her
medical restrictions. The record reveals that Complainant ultimately
updated her medical restrictions on August 29, 2007, to indicate that
she could only work five days were week; however, there is no indication
that this information was contained in her medical restrictions at the
time Person A and Person B asked her to update her medical restrictions.
Upon review, we find Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s
actions were a pretext for discrimination based on her race or sex.
With regard to issue (9), Complainant stated that she received a
fact-finding on November 30, 2007, for not following her manager’s
orders regarding contacting the union. Person B acknowledged that he
conducted a fact-finding interview based on the fact that when requesting
time to speak to the union, a carrier must request time from management
to set aside time for this so as to not delay mail delivery. Person B
stated that when Complainant was questioned, she stated she was on her
lunch break when she called the union hall. Person B stated that based on
her response, he left the matter as a discussion and told her that instead
of calling the union hall, she should contact her local stewards who were
at the station. Additionally, Person A stated that a standup was held
prior to the incident at issue informing that all employees need to ask
management before talking with the union stewards because the office was
having issues with employees leaving their routes to speak with union
stewards. Person A stated the fact-finding at issue was conducted to
find out if Complainant received permission from any of the supervisors
prior to contacting the union. Person A noted that when Complainant
stated she called the union during her lunch, the fact-finding ceased.
Upon review, we find Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s
actions were a pretext for discrimination based on her race or sex.
With regard to issues (11), (17) – (21), and (26) Complainant alleged
that she was told that she does not have the right to double case to get
her eight hours because pregnancy is not work related and that on several
occasions she was told to clock out early. In his affidavit, Person A
stated that only employees who are on limited duty due to an on the job
injury are guaranteed eight hours of work. He noted that Complainant was
not on limited duty, but was on light duty. In addition, Person C stated
that carriers are not allowed to case afternoon mail. Person C confirmed
that management is not required to provide eight hours of light duty work.
The Agency stated that it had the flexibility to manage Complainant’s
work hours so long as she remained within her restrictions, and that this
was the reason she was told to clock out early on the days in question.
Complainant alleged that she was treated differently than Co-Worker 1 who
she states was allowed to case more than one route. The record reveals
Complainant, a City Carrier, was assigned to a specific route while
Co-Worker 1 was a “T-6” carrier, which meant that she was a relief
carrier for five routes and was responsible for casing her five routes.
Person B noted that Co-Worker 1’s restrictions limited her to only
performing casing and that is all the work Co-Worker 1 performed.
Person B explained that Complainant had been casing the auxiliary
routes in the morning until she told him it was “too risky” and
he stated that thereafter she just cased her own route and worked her
allowable four hours of street time. Complainant acknowledged that she
made the comment that casing other mail was "too risky" on two occasions;
however, she said this was meant in a joking manner. Upon review, we find
Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions in sending her home
on the dates in question were a pretext for prohibited discrimination.
With regard to issues (12) and (30), Complainant alleged that on October
27, 2007, Person B loudly stated that “too many frickin’ people have
frickin’ restrictions around here; I’m not going to be sensitive!”
In his affidavit, Person B denied making this comment. Upon review,
we find Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that
this incident occurred.
With regard to issue (13), Complainant claimed that Person B told her
that he did not know why she was tired and stated his ex-wife worked
through her entire pregnancy and had tons of energy. Person B denied
making this comment. Upon review, we find Complainant failed to show
by a preponderance of evidence that this incident occurred.
With regard to issues (14) and (31), Complainant alleged that in response
to her notice that she needed extra time due to a third bundle, Person
B said “fine, leave the frickin’ mail.” Person B denied making
this comment. Person B noted that extra time is based on mail volume and
is not based on third bundles because third bundles were carried during
the route inspections. Complainant failed to show by a preponderance
of evidence that this incident occurred.
With regard to issue (16), Complainant claimed that on November 30,
2007, the restrooms were not working and a co-worker advised Person A
that Complainant might have a problem with that due to her pregnancy and
Person A replied “[Complainant] would have a problem no matter what.”
Person A denied making this comment. He explained that he said that
Complainant would need to go to McDonald’s and use the restroom there,
like everyone else. Assuming the comment was made, we find Complainant
failed to show that Person A’s actions on November 30, 2007, were a
pretext for discrimination based on sex or race.
With regard to issue (18), Complainant alleged that on October 10, 2007,
Person C forced her to punch out early, when there was over ten feet of
mail that needed to be cased. Complainant also alleged that on October
10, 2007, Person C yelled at her for bringing mail back even though she
had informed Person B that it would be likely (issues (25) and (28)).
Moreover, Complainant stated that she could not work between October
11, 2007, and October 24, 2007, due to the stress and anxiety from
her altercation with Person C (issue (27)). Person C denied yelling
at Complainant. Person C recalled telling Complainant to go home one
day when there was not sufficient light duty work; however, she did not
remember the particular date in question. Person C noted that carriers
are not allowed to case afternoon mail. Person C stated that management
is not required to provide eight hours of light duty work. Person C
also noted that carriers are not permitted to case afternoon mail.
Upon review, we find Complainant failed to show that Person C’s actions
on October 10, 2007, were a pretext for discrimination based on her sex
or race.
Upon review, we find that with regard to the issues discussed above,
Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that issues (1),
(3), (5), (7), (12), (13), (14), (24), (29), (30), and (31) occurred.
Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions with regard to
issues (2), (4), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (16), (17), (18), (19),
(20), (21), (22), (23), (25), (26), (27), or (28) were a pretext for
discrimination based on race or sex.
With regard to issue (15), Complainant alleged that Person A was
discussing Complainant’s situation with another employee and stated
that “my wife worked through her whole pregnancy and she had twins.
[Complainant] doesn’t care about that baby, because if she did she
wouldn’t be trying to work with all the problems she’s having.”
Person A denied telling another employee that the Complainant must
not care about her pregnancy. Person A explained that he had a private
discussion with Complainant in which he told her that his own wife carried
mail with twins, and thus, he understood what she was going through.
Person A also stated that he told Complainant that she should stay home
and take care of herself if she was experiencing a high risk pregnancy.
Upon review of the record we find the isolated comment in issue (15)
was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute harassment.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 9-18 (November 9, 1999).
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 (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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within
the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with
the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits
as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to File a Civil Action”).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 11, 2012
__________________
Date
2
01-2009-0111
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
12
0120090111
13
0120090111