U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Angelica P,1 Complainant, v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency. Appeal No. 2021003338 Hearing No. 480-2020-00312X Agency No. HS-TSA-00906-2019 DECISION On April 30, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s March 23, 2021 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Transportation Security Manager (TSM) at the Agency’s Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (DKII) in Honolulu, Hawaii. Complainant’s first-line supervisor was another TSM (Supervisor 1) and her second-line supervisor was a Deputy Assistant Federal Security Director (DAFSD [Supervisor 2]). 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 2021003338 Report of Investigation (ROI) at 83. On January 12, 2018, Supervisor 1 issued to Complainant a Letter of Counseling (LOC). The counseling pertained to Complainant’s failure to report an incident to the TSA’s Workplace Violence Coordinator involving a Transportation Security Officer (TSO 1), who was the victim of a mock chokehold (later referred to as a workplace violence). ROI at 377 and 535-36. While the incident occurred on November 21, 2014, TSO 1 complained to upper management in 2017, after Complainant issued to TSO 1 a reprimand that TSO 1 alleged was retaliatory. ROI at 406-07, 410, and 543-544. Sometime in January or February 2019, Complainant directed a second Transportation Security Officer (TSO 2) and other TSOs serving as the Divestiture Officer to stand closer to the X-ray tunnel opening so that they could assist in moving the passenger queue. TSO 2 challenged this direction as contrary to his training. ROI at 353-55. He also cited to Complainant’s decision to exempt a female Transportation Security Officer (TSO3) from this same direction because she was pregnant. ROI at 459-60. Complainant directed a Supervisory Transportation Security Officer (STSO 1) to annotate TSA’s Airport Information Management System (AIMS) with TSO 2’s failure to follow Complainant’s direction. ROI at 488. STSO 1 considered this annotation a verbal reprimand for misconduct that she did not directly observe. ROI at 361. STSO 1 made the AIMS entry as directed but later deactivated it when attempting to edit the entry. ROI at 361 and 481. On February 3, 2019, Complainant emailed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) senior managers a form that she created, called “OJT (On the Job Training) Mentor Qualifier Guide.” The body of the email was empty, but the subject line stated, “PLS. REVIEW OJT MENTOR GUIDE FOR INPUT, GUIDANCE AND APPROVAL.” ROI at 292 and 450-52. According to her meeting notes, Complainant was seeking approval for a “Mentor Criteria Guideline,” but she did not receive a response from upper management. ROI at 85 and 452-53. On February 10, 2019, after observing TSO 2, Complainant suggested that TSO 2 should be placed on a two-week “trial period” as an OJT mentor. Complainant’s coworker, also a TSM (TSM 1) agreed, and placed TSO 2 on the trial period. ROI at 93 and 306. On or around February 12, 2020, Complainant revised her “OJT Mentor Qualifier Guide,” emailed it to a second Supervisory Transportation Security Officer (STSO 2), and also met with STSO 2 and a Lead Transportation Security Officer (LTSO 1). During the meeting, STSO 2 and LTSO 1 expressed concerns about Complainant’s form lacking approval and being unnecessary in light of other written guidance. ROI at 316-19. STSO 2 later raised her concerns to Supervisor 2 who instructed STSO 2 not to use the form until he could discuss the issue with Complainant. ROI at 243, 341, and 344. On February 16, 2019, TSO 2 lodged a written complaint about Complainant to Supervisor 2, citing to his placement on a two-week trial period of extra scrutiny and an allegation that Complainant targeted him as evidenced by her use of an unauthorized form. ROI at 316-17, 322, and 458-60. 3 2021003338 On February 19, 2019, consistent with applicable policy, the Agency issued Complainant a No Contact Order (NCO) with respect to TSO 2, and Supervisor 2 assigned Supervisor 1 to conduct an investigation. ROI at 223, 448, and 458. TSA then assigned Complainant to a different location but also allowed her to remain at her current work assignment if performing administrative tasks on the 3rd floor where TSA had an office. ROI at 82-4. That same day, Complainant called a meeting with STSO 2 to discuss Complainant’s cancellation of an aspect of the OJT-C[Coach] program that involved STSO 2 acting as a point of contact. ROI at 509. Complainant informed STSO 2 that instead, Complainant would take over this responsibility because STSO 2 was not abiding by Complainant’s direction to use Complainant’s form. Id. Also on February 19, 2019, Complainant directed a second Lead Transportation Security Officer (LTSO2) to direct LTSO 1 to repeat a screening procedure, which upset LTSO 1 to the point of her yelling, shaking her finger, and raising her arm at Complainant who was at the back of the passenger checkpoint, several feet away. ROI at 473. Shortly thereafter, LTSO 1 met with Supervisor 2 to report that Complainant humiliated her when her peer gave her direction instead of Complainant, and Supervisor 2 agreed that Complainant should not have provided her direction through a peer. ROI at 329 and 476. Complainant also attempted to meet with LTSO 1 to review video footage of the screening procedure, but a third Transportation Security Officer (TSO 3), who also served as a union representative, advised LTSO 1 to reschedule any meeting so that he too could attend. ROI at 124, 334, 476, and 479. On February 20, 2019, Complainant emailed Supervisor 2 to lodge a “formal complaint” against her subordinate, LTSO 1 for “retaliatory and aggressive behavior.” ROI at 462. Supervisor 2 responded that as LTSO 1’s manager, Complainant “can hold her accountable for any violations of procedures or policy.” ROI at 96 and 463. On February 22, 2019, STSO 1 reported that Complainant was harassing and bullying her. ROI at 364. Amongst other incidents, STSO 1 cited to Complainant’s earlier direction to enter an AIMS entry regarding TSO 2 for misconduct that she did not observe directly. ROI at 351 and 364. On February 25, 2019, Complainant requested that Supervisor 2 contact the Agency’s Anti- Harassment Coordinator. Supervisor 2 complied with her request. ROI at 466-67 and 470. Supervisor 2 also informed Complainant that TSA would investigate her complaint and assigned yet another Transportation Security Manager (TSM 2) to investigate. ROI at 468. On March 6, 2019, Complainant sent a LOC that she intended to issue to LTSO 1 to Supervisor 2 for review. He questioned it and directed Complainant to seek approval from TSA’s local Human Resources (HR) Specialist and local attorney. On March 13, 2019, Complainant issued the letter to LTSO 1. ROI at 477 and 517. On that same day, Complainant also issued a Letter of Counseling to STSO 2. ROI at 509-11. Complainant cited to STSO 2’s refusal to complete the “OJT Mentor Qualifier Guide” that Complainant created. ROI at 509. 4 2021003338 After her subordinates lodged additional complaints against Complainant, on Friday March 15, 2019, consistent with applicable agency policy, Supervisor 2 informally expanded the existing NCO, to now include all TSA officers at the Inter-Island Terminal. ROI at 213-14 and 248-49. On March 16, 2019, Complainant lodged another complaint against LTSO 1 alleging workplace violence for the same February 19, 2019, incident that Complainant already had reported as harassment. ROI at 122-23, 467, 470, and 474-75. On March 19, 2019, the Agency formalized the NCO, clarifying that it only applied as to STSO 1, STSO 2, LTSO 1, a fourth Transportation Security Officer (TSO 4), and a second Lead Transportation Security Officer (LTSO 2), in addition to TSO 2. This second NCO included a direction that Complainant “cease and desist” from any verbal or physical offensive unwanted conduct. ROI at 122-23 and 448. That same day, LTSO 1 also received a NCO, to include direction to “cease and desist” contact with Complainant. TSA consolidated its investigation for all complaints lodged against and by Complainant, and assigned a different investigator, a Transportation Security Manager (TSM3) from a different airport. TSA completed its investigation on May 31, 2019. ROI at 478. The employees who lodged complaints received notice beginning on August 16, 2019, that the investigation had concluded. On September 3, 2019, Complainant participated in a pre- decision discussion. ROI at 566. On October 7, 2019, Supervisor 2 issued Complainant a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for inappropriate conduct, failure to exercise courtesy and tact, defamatory and irresponsible statements, and failure to follow instructions. ROI at 524. Specifically, Supervisor 2 reprimanded Complainant for creating an unauthorized form that was designed to exclude an employee, directing others to utilize the unauthorized form, and ignoring their concerns about using the form. Id. Supervisor 2 also reprimanded Complainant for issuing a counseling letter to STSO 2 about using the unauthorized form because Supervisor 2 had directed that the form not be used. Id. He noted how Complainant took adverse action against employees simply because they consulted with him, which they are allowed to do. ROI at 525. Supervisor 2 also reprimanded Complainant for ordering “SPOT” (undefined acronym) corrections by others without proof of violations and directing them to enter the information into AIMS. ROI at 524. Supervisor 2 specifically cited to Complainant’s direction to stand at the entrance of the X-ray tunnel. ROI at 525. On October 10, 2019, Complainant emailed questions to the TSA’s Ethics group within the Chief Counsel’s office. She described her contentions against Supervisor 2 but without naming him specifically. ROI at 577. A Local TSA attorney (Attorney), responded to all recipients of Complainant’s questions and asked them not to respond without first contacting the management team (as he was departing TSA for another job). ROI at 428 and 569-70. Attorney also informed them generally about certain facts, such as the rescission of STSO 2’s LOC. ROI at 570. Attorney copied Complainant on the email. ROI at 573-74. According to Complainant, four named TSMs, including TSM 1, received more favorable treatment than she did. Management noted that when one of the identified TSMs, (White, born in 1978) was an STSO, his supervisor issued him a LOC for engaging in inappropriate physical contact with coworkers. ROI at 455. 5 2021003338 Complainant claimed that in 2017, a named employee yelled at officers to shut up and that he could have them fired. ROI at 91. She also claimed that in 2017 another named employee pulled and held the hair of a coworker and that TSM 1 was present when this happened. Id. On May 20, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Caucasian/Japanese), sex (female), and age (YOB 1951) when the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment based on the following claims: 1. On March 20, 2018, Complainant was issued a Letter of Counseling (LOC) three years after the incident occurred; 2. On February 19, 2019, management placed Complainant under a No Contact Order, restricting her access to the entire Inter-Island Terminal (IIT), after two employees filed a complaint against Complainant; 3. On February 19, 2019, an employee alleged that Complainant was targeting and harassing him; 4. On February 19, 2019, management failed to address an employee who yelled at Complainant, "You want to see this re-done, [Complainant], then you get over here!" 5. On February 19, 2019, management reassigned Complainant from the IIT to the Overseas Terminal, denying her access to the second floor and preventing her from interacting with subordinates; 6. On February 19, 2019, a union representative instructed an employee not to follow Complainant's instructions; 7. In or around March 2019, management failed to address employees who "targeted and ganged up" on Complainant; 8. In or around March 2019, an employee and management insinuated that Complainant was bullying other employees; 9. On March 13, 2019, an employee complained to a TSA manager about an incident for which Complainant had already apologized and altered a TSA electronic order that had documented disrespectful conduct by an employee toward Complainant; 10. In or around March 2019, management encouraged employees to file complaints against Complainant; 11. On October 7, 2019, management issued Complainant a Letter of Reprimand; 6 2021003338 12. On October 9, 2019, Complainant became aware that management used the March 2018 LOC for progressive discipline; 13. On October 21, 2019, an agency attorney made false statements via email and shared Complainant's EEO protected information with other parties that did not need to know the information. 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. On or about September 23, 2020, the Agency filed a motion for a decision without a hearing. On October 13, 2020, Complainant filed an opposition. Having read the Agency’s motion, Complainant’s opposition, the investigative file, and making all reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant, the AJ found that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish that there was a genuine dispute and/or that credibility determinations needed to be rendered necessitating a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case issued a decision without a hearing on February 18, 2021. With respect to disparate treatment, the AJ determined that Complainant failed to identify any similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably regarding any of her claims because all four employees identified as comparators by Complainant were TSM’s but were not under Supervisor 2’s direct supervision. Therefore Complainant failed to state a prima facie case that any illegal bias was a factor in any of the alleged employment actions. Even if Complainant could state a prima facie case, which she could not, asserted the AJ, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. With respect to claim 1, the AJ found that Supervisor 1 issued the LOC because Complainant’s investigation of the employee complaint had been insufficient. With respect to claim 12, the AJ found that Supervisor 2 had considered the LOC in determining the appropriate corrective action consistent with Agency policy regarding progressive discipline. With respect to claim 7, the AJ found that TSO 3 advised LTSO 1 not to meet alone with Complainant to review the footage because LTSO 1 had already reviewed the footage with Supervisor 2 and because the meeting could result in disciplinary action. ROI at 384-85. According to the AJ, Complainant failed to identify evidence sufficient to establish that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions regarding claims 1, 7, or 12 were a pretext for discrimination on any basis, and none appeared in the record. With respect to claims 2 and 8, the AJ found that management issued the NCO’s to Complainant to protect her from additional harassment claims and under the advice of legal counsel. ROI at 249. The AJ noted Complainant’s argument that other TSM’s were not issued NCO’s after they had been accused of misconduct. However, asserted the AJ, none of the four TSM’s identified by Complainant were similarly situated to her. 7 2021003338 With respect to claim 3, the AJ noted Complainant’s argument that TSO 2’s complaint against her was a pretext because TSM 1 also agreed that he was not keeping his focus on the employee he was mentoring and also that a two week period of review of TSO 2’s performance as a mentor would be appropriate. However, the AJ observed that TSO 2’s email complaint to Supervisor 2 alleged several other acts of harassment by Complainant, including fabricating evidence, developing and using the mentor checklist for the purpose of removing him, instructing his supervisor to remove TSO 2 from the performance of his duty and to create a record that TSO 2 had been insubordinate, telling TSO 2’s coworkers that he was not fit to be a mentor, and falsely telling another coworker that Complainant had met with TSO 2 to review Close Circuit Television (CCTV) footage. According to the AJ, TSO 2 did not allege that TSM 1 had also engaged in those acts of harassment, and there was no evidence that he did so. With respect to claims 4 and 5, the AJ noted Supervisor 2’s testimony that all employees were able to seek guidance from other higher-level supervisors like himself. ROI at 526. With respect to claim 11, the AJ found that Supervisor 2 instructed TSM 2 to issue Complainant a LOR because (1) Complainant had created and used an unauthorized checklist and incorrectly issued STSO 3 a LOC for refusing to use the checklist; (2) Complainant had informed other employees that TSO 2 had “ADD” (undefined acronym) without evidentiary support; (3) Complainant ordered employees to conduct spot corrections to be later entered into AIMs; and (4) Complainant falsely stated she had reviewed CCTV footage with TSO 2. ROI at 524-25. Regarding claim 13, the AJ found that Attorney advised the recipients of Complainant’s email not to answer Complainant’s inquiries until contacting DKII management because the issues Complainant raised were under investigation in other Agency proceedings and Complainant may have been attempting to use the information to influence those investigations. ROI at 569-70. The AJ observed that Complainant did not allege and the Agency did not accept for investigation any claim of retaliation. However, the AJ noted that after Complainant received the email described in claim 13, she responded to Attorney on October 22, 2019 and stated that she hoped that he had not taken retaliatory action against her. ROI at 163. The AJ determined that there was no indication that Complainant submitted her email response to the Agency’s Civil Rights Division, EEO Management Branch pursuant to her request to amend her hostile work environment claim. Nevertheless, for summary judgment purposes only, the AJ assumed that Complainant provided sufficient notice to the Agency that she wished to amend her complaint to include an allegation that the email identified in claim 13 was retaliatory. According to the AJ, Complainant’s mere disagreement with the accuracy of the statements contained in the email, without more, are insufficient as a matter of law to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the reasons for sending the email were a pretext to mask a retaliatory motive. Accordingly, asserted the AJ, Complainant failed to identify evidence, and none appeared in the record, that the email constituted an act of retaliation. 8 2021003338 The AJ noted Complainant’s statement that Supervisor 2 should not have acknowledged the complaints that LTSO 1 and STSO 2 raised to him because Complainant’s actions had been correct. She also disagreed that the LOR accurately described her conduct; and she challenged the accuracy of statements that Attorney made in his email. However, asserted the AJ, whether Complainant did or did not engage in the conduct addressed in those claims is not necessarily material to the question of discrimination. According to the AJ, what matters is whether LTSO 1, STSO 2, Supervisor 2, or Attorney were discriminatorily motivated. On that front, the AJ found that Complainant had produced insufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. The AJ noted Complainant’s assertion that she did not engage in the alleged misconduct. However, stated the AJ, that was beside the point and not a genuine dispute of material fact. According to the AJ, assuming Complainant was correct and she did not engage in the conduct, she had not offered any evidence tending to suggest that the managers’ stated beliefs were in fact a pretextual dissimulation or that they were otherwise motivated by discrimination. With respect to harassment, the AJ found that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that an illegal animus was a factor in any of the alleged harassing conduct because she did not identify specific evidence of a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably. The AJ also observed that Complainant did not allege, and there was no evidence that any of the comparators failed to sufficiently investigate a claim of workplace violence, nor were any of them supervised by Supervisor 1. The AJ also found that Complainant failed to identify competent, admissible evidence, and none appeared in the record, that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that (1) any employee identified as “bullying” Complainant’s instruction given to TSO 2 and other employees, as alleged in claim 6; (2) STSO 1 complained to Supervisor 2 that Complainant had called STSO 1 rude, as alleged in claim 9; or that (3) any employee encouraged STSO 2, LTSO 2, or LTSO 2 to file complaints against Complainant, as alleged in claim 10. According to the AJ, Complainant did not allege, and there was no evidence that any of the four managers Complainant identified as comparators had been issued LOCs that were not considered in subsequent disciplinary actions; and there was no evidence that Supervisor 2 had any knowledge or involvement in the correction of any of their alleged misconduct. 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. This appeal followed. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, among other things, Complainant reiterates her allegations. She alleges that the Agency’s response to her allegations contain false statements. Complainant also presents text messages and email exchanges that she asserts were provided to her after the investigation as support for her position that management interfered with her ability to perform her job duties. 9 2021003338 Complainant alleges, without evidence, that management and coworkers used profane and insulting language against her behind her back. According to Complainant, Supervisor 2 failed to support her supervisory decisions and undermined her supervisory authority. On appeal, among other things, the Agency reiterates its stated reasons for the challenged actions. The Agency asserts that Complainant failed to establish her harassment claim, stating that while the alleged profane term used by her coworker is offensive, such a stray comment is neither severe nor pervasive enough to have affected a term, privilege, or condition of Complainant’s employment. The Agency argues that Complainant’s allegations that upper management failed to support some of her supervisory decisions cannot constitute discrimination under the specific circumstances of this case. The Agency asserts that it looked into Complainant’s own harassment allegations as part of its lengthy investigation, and the undisputed record of evidence showed how Supervisor 2 properly deferred to Complainant’s supervisory decisions when warranted. According to the Agency, the record of evidence cannot support a finding of subordinate harassment. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD- 110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Given that Complainant had access to the ROI concerning her complaint and the opportunity to develop the record significantly during the EEO investigation, we find that summary judgment was appropriate in this case. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. 10 2021003338 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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). 11 2021003338 COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations September 12, 2022 Date
