[Redacted], Corazon P., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 20, 2021

Appeal No. 2021003565 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 20, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Corazon P.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021003565 Hearing No. 530-2020-00438X Agency No. 1C-441-0094-19 DECISION On June 7, 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 June 11, 2021 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Tractor Trailer Driver (Part-Time Flexible), P-08/FF, at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) in Cleveland, Ohio. On December 26, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (female), color (Black), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2021003565 2 1. Since on or around June 26, 2019, Complainant's pay rate was not the proper hourly wage; 2. On dates to be specified, Complainant was not given training for her position; 3. On dates to be specified, Complainant's co-workers refused to help her; 4. On dates to be specified, a co-worker yelled and cursed at Complainant, made sexual advances toward her, drove the postal truck recklessly when she was a passenger; 5. On dates to be specified, Complainant's postal truck was sabotaged; 6. On July 12, 2019, Complainant was not paid for hours worked; and 7. On or around August 13, 2019, Complainant was issued a Letter of Separation. The Agency accepted these claims and conducted an investigation into the matter. The investigation showed that on November 9, 2018, Complainant submitted an Application for Employment for a Part-Time Flexible Tractor Trailer Operator (TTO) position at the Cleveland P&DC. She entered on duty for this position on June 22, 2019. She was on a probation period until September 19, 2019. Claims 1 and 6 (Wage issues) In claim 1, Complainant alleged that, since around June 26, 2019, she was not paid the proper hourly wage. In claim 2, she alleged that she was not paid for hours worked. The Vacancy Announcement under which Complainant applied reflected a salary range of $22.26 per hour to $29.77 per hour to be paid on a bi-weekly basis. Complainant alleged that, during her interview, she was told she would start the TTO position at a pay rate of $24.50 per hour, based on her experience and years of driving commercial vehicles. Complainant entered on duty on June 22, 2019. She stated that on July 12, 2019, she called a Field Recruiter to ask why she was not receiving a paycheck and she was informed that she was not in the system yet and she would need to be given a pay advance. Complainant stated that she asked about her hours and pay rate and she was told she would be paid $22.26, not $24.50. Complainant’s PS Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action (Form 50) showed that Complainant’s base salary was based on an hourly wage of $22.26. The Manager, Transportation Networks (Manager) attested that she had no knowledge of Complainant being promised a higher rate of pay when she was interviewed. The Field Recruiter attested that, while Complainant reported not being paid the correct pay rate, he denied that he was responsible for making the decision regarding her pay rate. 2021003565 3 The Learning Development and Diversity Specialist attested that he was responsible for posting jobs, including the position at issue. He attested that he would have told Complainant the starting pay, which he believed was $21.60 at the time. He attested that pay rates were the same across the board for all starting positions and he had no involvement in deciding Complainant’s pay rate. Regarding claim 6, Complainant indicated that, since she did not receive a paycheck on July 26, 2018, she asked for a pay advance which was denied. However, Complainant stated she did receive a pay advance, but it was for only 60% of her pay. She stated that the Field Recruiter told her the Agency withholds 40% from everyone to cover taxes and fees. Record evidence includes Complainant's Pay Journal for Pay Period (PP) Week 14/Year 2019 which was from June 22, 2019 through July 5, 2019. According to the Pay Journal Complainant's net pay was $269.21. It was noted that Complainant was given a pay advance of $1,055.00. Thereafter, for PP 15/2019, which covered from July 6, 2019 through July 19, 2019, Complainant was paid a net of $238.93 in addition to a salary advance of $1,076. The correlating pay adjustments were confirmed in a PS Forms 2240, Pay, Leave, or Other Hours Adjustment Record (Pay Adjustment). A Supervisor, Transportation Operations (Supervisor1) attested that Complainant was paid for all hours worked. Another Supervisor, Transportation Operations (Supervisor2) attested that Complainant was given a pay advance. Claims 2 and 3 (Training Issues) In claims 2 and 3, Complainant alleged that she was not given training and her co-workers refused to help her. She stated that, during her orientation, she was the only Tractor Trailer Operator in the class and none of the information presented pertained to her job. She indicated that she was advised as to safety procedures and protocols. She indicated there was a speaker who had previously been a Tractor Trailer Operator and the remainder of the training related to other positions. Complainant indicated that once on the job, she was told that she would receive training from other Motor Vehicle Operators but that never happened. She described her co-workers’ behaviors and alleged there were instances when they pulled out as she was backing, parked too close to her, or otherwise generally interfered with her parking. She also indicated that she was told to ride with each driver and observe and, while she complied the co-workers refused to work with or assist her. She described instances when she was told to drive a route and she did not do so because of a lack of cooperation from co-workers. 2021003565 4 Supervisor1 disagreed with Complainant’s allegation that she was not properly trained and attested that all drivers received the same training. He explained that new drivers are trained by a driver instructor and the new driver drives to every station for training. Claim 4 (Co-worker Behavior) In claim 4, Complainant alleged that a co-worker yelled and cursed at her, made sexual advances towards her, and drove the postal truck recklessly when she was a passenger. Complainant stated that she reported to the P&DC the week of July 1, 2019. She maintains that one of the MVS drivers (“MVS Driver”) took a liking to her and she informed him that she was not interested. However, she states that every day, he would ask her to call him and he repeatedly gave her his business card. She stated that she continually refused his advances. She claimed that she was instructed to ride with MVS Driver to learn where and what his route entailed, and that following that ride, MVS Driver asked Supervisor1 to let Complainant ride with him again. Complainant stated she told Supervisor1 she had already ridden with MVS Driver so then Supervisor1 informed MVS Driver that Complainant needed to drive his route. She stated that MVS Driver gave her the keys in front of Supervisor1, but once they left, MVS Driver refused to let her drive the truck. Complainant stated he did relent and allow her to drive and things were going fine until he saw her blow her horn at a former male co-worker. She stated MVS Driver became reckless, giving her incorrect directions and blocking her view when she would attempt to back up. She claims this behavior caused her to stop the truck and tell MVS Driver to get out because he was trying to cause an accident. Complainant states that when she was backing up, he began yelling “come on and get yo ass outta the truck so you can unload the truck. You said you a truck drive[r] so let's go.” Complainant says she told MVS Driver to watch his language to which he replied, “you heard what the fuck I said, get yo ass outta the truck cuz I'm not unloading shit.” Complainant states MVS Driver refused to help her unload so she began doing it herself, at which point a female dock worker told her they did not take Brooklyn mail, only Shaker mail. Complainant responded that she was following MVS Driver’s directions to unload everything, and the dock worker said to MVS Driver “while you’re dogging and yelling at her being funny you know we don’t take Brooklyn.” Complainant says she then told the dock worker that she did not load the truck, MVS Driver did, and at that point, MVS Driver became angry and began yelling and cursing again. She went to the restroom and when she returned, MVS Driver was in the driver’s seat of the truck. She contends MVS Driver said he would leave without her if she did not get in, so she sat on the passenger side. She contends MVS driver drove recklessly, almost hitting three people and four cars, and running four lights. Complainant states that when they returned to the P&DC, she spoke to Supervisor1 about what had happened and showed him the business cards MVS Driver had given her. She maintains that Supervisor1 asked Complainant if she wanted to write it up, but she said she did not want 2021003565 5 any trouble as a new employee and asked that Supervisor1 talk to MVS Driver. She said Supervisor1 said he would. Supervisor1 attested that he was not told about things and cited the Agency’s Zero Tolerance Policy. MVS Driver attested that his job was to assess the skills of new employees to make sure they were capable of performing truck driving duties in a safe and correct way. He acknowledged working with Complainant during the month of July 2019 and that he was instructed to ride with Complainant and support her as she demonstrated everything she had learned on the job. However, he generally denied Complainant’s allegations regarding his behavior and personal interest in her. Claim 5 (Sabotage of Complainant’s Postal Truck) In claim 5, Complainant alleged that her postal truck was sabotaged on various dates. She stated that she reported this to Supervisor1, but no action was taken. She believed her truck had been sabotaged because she would pull into the dock ready to load or unload, but upon returning to her truck, she might find her air-line disconnected, her mirrors pointing to the sky or the ground, or, when she would pull off, her trailer would slide off the fifth wheel and onto the truck tires. She stated she would see or hear her co-workers laughing while she fixed her truck and she stated they would mumble or make comments to themselves. Supervisor1 denied that Complainant reported that her truck was being sabotaged and cited the Agency’s Zero Tolerance Policy. Manager attested that, around June or July 2919, Complainant reported to her that her postal truck had been sabotaged. She attested that there was no evidence and she told Complainant that she would monitor the situation. Claim 7 (Separation) Complainant’s allegations in claim 7 concern her separation from the Agency. Complainant disputed the reason she was terminated and generally alleged that she was not given a fair chance. Supervisor2 attested that he issued Complainant a Letter of Separation on August 13, 2019 due to unsatisfactory performance during her probationary period. He attested that a Pre- Disciplinary Interview (PDI) was conducted on July 31, 2019. He attested that Complainant was hired to drive a tractor trailer and could not perform the job she was hired to do. 2021003565 6 Manager attested that she was the concurring official on the Letter of Separation and Complainant was issued a Letter of Separation for failure to perform the requirements of the job. The Letter of Separation dated August 13, 2019 indicates that Complainant was to be separated, effective August 14, 2019, for failure to demonstrate acceptable performance during her probationary period and failing to meet the requirements of the job. A Disciplinary Action Proposal (DAP) dated July 31, 2019 documents several instances of Complainant’s violations. It indicates that, on July 25, 2019, Complainant failed to unload her trailer; on July 27, 2019, Complainant failed to report to work as scheduled; and during the PDI, Complainant acknowledged that she left mail in her trailer. A Pre-Disciplinary Interview (PDI) includes Complainant’s statements regarding leaving mail on the truck and not showing up for work. An Employee Evaluation and/or Probationary Report dated July 30, 2019 indicates Complainant’s performance in all six measurable categories was unacceptable. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. However, on May 11, 2021, the AJ sanctioned Complainant for failure to comply with the AJ’s orders regarding pre-trial submissions and the initial scheduling conference. The AJ found Complainant had not substantiated that she was incapacitated and/or unable to comply with the Orders and dismissed Complainant’s hearing request. The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency for a final decision. On June 7, 2021, Complainant filed this appeal with the Commission. On June 11, 2021, 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.2 On appeal, Complainant asserts that she faced multiple issues in not knowing how to navigate the Commission’s portal and file and answer the AJ’s requests. She also asserts that she was not computer/tech savvy, had a double concussion and was under a neurologist’s care. She asserts that, when she was employed at the Agency, she followed all of the rules and regulations and did her job to the best of my ability. She reiterates her contentions that the Agency failed to pay her the rate discussed in her interview and then improperly withheld pay and states that her failure to show up for work on July 27, 2019 was directly related to not being paid and not having gas money. She asserts that she did arrive at work at 4:08 pm that 2 The Agency originally issued a FAD on May 1, 2020 dismissing Complainant’s complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(7) for failure to cooperate and provide relevant information. However, on June 22, 2020, the Agency rescinded this FAD and reopened Complainant’s case. 2021003565 7 day and, after she spoke with Supervisor about MVS Driver’s behavior, things got worse and then she was terminated. The Agency did not file an appeal brief. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). Premature Appeal We note that Complainant prematurely filed this appeal before the Agency issued a final decision. However, the Agency subsequently issued a final decision, so Complainant's appeal is now ripe for consideration. See Hebb v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120072789 (July 1, 2009) (finding that while Complainant's appeal was premature, the Agency subsequently issued a final decision and Complainant's appeal was now perfected). Therefore, we will analyze the appeal below. AJ's Dismissal of the Hearing Request Complainant’s statement on appeal suggests that she is appealing the AJ’s dismissal of her hearing request. The AJ dismissed Complainant's request for a hearing after finding that Complainant failed to comply to the AJ's instructions and orders regarding pre-trial submissions, the initial conference, and the need to show cause for her failure to comply. EEOC regulations state that an AJ may dismiss a complaint as a sanction for failure to cooperate pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(0(3). See Hale v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03341 (December 8, 2000). The record shows that Complainant did not file her Preliminary Case Information (PCI) and failed to appear for the Initial Scheduling Conference on March 24, 2021. Therefore, on March 24, 2021, the AJ issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Complainant via email giving Complainant ten calendar days to file a written response as to why her request for a hearing should not be dismissed and advising her that failure to comply with this or any duly issued Commission order would result in the issuance of sanctions, including the dismissal of her request for hearing. On April 5, 2021, Complainant sent a letter by email stating that she 2021003565 8 had never received a letter in the mail regarding a meeting on March 24 and she was not aware. She stated that she was recovering from two concussions and provided some medical notes. The AJ found Complainant had not substantiated that she was incapacitated and/or unable to comply with the Orders and dismissed Complainant’s hearing request. We agree with the AJ that the record shows that Complainant was able make contact when she needed something and the does not reflect that she was so incapacitated by her concussions that she was not able to meet the deadlines imposed in the AJ’s orders. Complainant alleges she suffered concussions on February 24, 2021 and March 15, 2021. A March 18, 2021 doctor’s note stated she was still recovering from a concussion and recommended no return to work until further clearance, but the doctor did not note any specific restrictions. Visit notes from that day state that Complainant’s “concussion symptoms are slowly improving, slowed by…aches and pains and ear/balance symptoms, also slowed by…fall on March 15, 2021.” He “recommend[ed] limiting screen time. No more than 2 hours/day of total screen time is a reasonable amount.” A May 4, 2021 doctor’s note indicated Complainant’s post-concussion syndrome was improving and she could return to work remotely from home full time. These restrictions should not have prevented Complainant from submitting her PCI or attending the initial conference by phone. Complainant states she was unaware of the initial conference on March 24, 2021, but the record shows the initial scheduling order was emailed to her on February 3, 2021, well before she ever received a concussion. Therefore, we agree with the AJ’s conclusion that Complainant did not present sufficient cause to justify her failure to file her PCI and attend the initial conference. Disparate Treatment Claim Complainant’s allegations in claim (7) regarding having been issued a Letter of Separation gives rise to a claim of disparate treatment.3 A claim of disparate treatment, such as this one, is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate 3 To the extent Complainant’s allegations in claims (1), (2), (3), and (6) suggest discrete acts of discrimination, we agree with the Agency that these claims are untimely as such. Complainant entered on duty on June 22, 2019 and was informed of her pay rate on July 12, 2019; she began training shortly after entering duty; and allegedly was not paid for hours worked on July 12, 2019. These events, as alleged in claims (1), (2), (3), and (6), occurred more than 45 days prior to Complainant’s initial contact with an EEO Counselor, which was September 11, 2019. Therefore, they are untimely claims of discrimination. However, they are still relevant to the overall harassment claim. 2021003565 9 responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). Complainant must show that the agency's action was more likely than not motivated by discrimination, that is, that the action was influenced by legally impermissible criteria. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253; Baker v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. (May 13, 1999). Absent a showing that the agency's articulated reason was proffered to mask discrimination, complainant cannot prevail. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256; Crosland v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Petition No. 03990018 (July 1, 1999); Mongere v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01970738 (March 18, 1999). Here, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case, her claim still fails, as we find the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. The Agency explained that Complainant was issued the Letter of Separation because Complainant had failed to demonstrate acceptable performance during her probationary period, including following instructions. We note that the record shows Complainant’s performance was rated as unacceptable in all areas during her evaluation and the record documents her performance and attendance problems. Although Complainant alleges discrimination and reprisal, the record does not establish that the Agency’s actions were related to her color, sex, or prior EEO activity. Therefore, this claim fails. Harassment Claims Complainant has alleged the Agency subjected her to harassment, noting several alleged instances. To establish a claim of a hostile work environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). In other words, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis -in this case her color, sex, or prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. Complainant's allegations can generally be described as relating to disagreements over how work should be done, trivial slights, personality conflicts, and/or petty annoyances between Complainant and her supervisors and/or co-workers. Without evidence of an unlawful motive, we have found that similar disputes do not amount to unlawful harassment. See Complainant v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122676 (Dec. 18, 2014) (the record established that the 2021003565 10 issues between the complainant and the supervisor were because of personality conflicts and fundamental disagreements over how work should be done and how employees should be supervised, and there is no indication that the supervisor was motivated by discriminatory animus towards the complainant's race, sex. or age); Lassiter v. Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between a supervisor and a complainant do not rise to the level of harassment). Here, although Complainant has alleged the Agency acted discriminately or in retaliation, the record does not establish that the Agency’s actions were related to her color, sex, sexual orientation, or prior EEO activity. Thus, her allegations are insufficient to establish a claim of discriminatory harassment. We recognize that Complainant has also alleged sexual harassment by the MVS Driver. To establish a claim of sexual harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her sex, including sexual advances, requests for favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer, in other words, did the agency know or have reason to know of the sexual harassment and fail to take prompt remedial action. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982); Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the complainant's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). Here, we find Complainant’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim of sexual harassment, particularly as the record does not establish that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her sex, including sexual advances, requests for favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Although she alleged that MVS Driver liked her, tried to give her a business card, and suggested he call her, we find these acts as presented here are not, in and of themselves, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Furthermore, her allegations are completely uncorroborated and lack evidentiary support. Therefore, the record is insufficient to establish a prima facie case and her sexual harassment claim fails. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision. . 2021003565 11 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. 2021003565 12 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). 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 December 20, 2021 Date