[Redacted], Otto D., 1 Complainant,v.Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 15, 2023

Appeal No. 2022000791 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 15, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Otto D.,1 Complainant, v. Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Appeal No. 2022000791 Hearing No. 420-2021-00149X Agency No. 20-00204-02142 JURISDICTION On November 28, 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 October 28, 2021 final order concerning his 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Library Technician for Moral, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR), NF 1410-03, at the Agency’s Commander Navy Installations Command (CNIC), Naval Air Station (NAS) in Pensacola, Florida. Complainant had been in that position since September 2005. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 19 and 66. Complainant’s employment was terminated effective June 5, 2020. 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 2022000791 On July 17, 2020, Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor and filed a formal EEO complaint on November 2, 2020, alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), color (Black), age (60, Year of Birth:1960), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on June 2, 2020, Complainant was terminated from his position as Library Technician, NF-1411-03, and not offered the option of retirement in lieu of termination. The Agency conducted an investigation into the EEO complaint which showed the Operations Manager (Manager) and the Morale, Welfare and Recreation Director (Director) were in Complainant’s chain of command. Both officials were aware of Complainant’s protected classes, including his prior EEO activity. ROI at 74. According to Complainant, his then-supervisor (Supervisor) had enrolled him in a Marketing class that he knew nothing about. Complainant averred that he was not interested in the class and questioned her about why she enrolled him in the class when she did not let him know what was going on in the library. Complainant stated that he was on sick leave at that time and by the time he returned to work, the class had already started, and he was behind. Complainant said that the instructor had said on the third day that if one had not completed the modules, one would be dropped from the class immediately. Complainant asserted that he told Supervisor that he hoped she did not think he was going to go to the class while on sick leave, since sick leave did not work that way. According to Complainant, he presumed the issue of the class was the main reason for his termination, although he was never told the class was mandatory. ROI at 68-9. According to Manager, Complainant’s termination was due to his failure to follow direct orders from his supervisor to take classes online that he did not complete. Manager also asserted that Complainant was rude and hostile with his coworkers. He stated that Complainant was the only male at the library at that time; that Complainant did not enjoy working for or with females; and that he treated them subserviently. Director contended that Complainant failed to provide a rebuttal to the proposed removal and therefore, Director upheld the decision. According to Director, Complainant was aware that his alleged conduct was not acceptable because Complainant had been suspended for past conduct prior to being terminated. Director stated that there had been ongoing conduct issues with Complainant for some time. ROI at 81. Complainant believed that his race, color, and age were factors in his termination because management did not want him in the library. Complainant asserted that, although he worked the Circulation desk, he was not privy to programs and events that took place at the library. He believed many patrons would ask about certain scheduled events, but he had no idea or any information, yet other employees were informed. ROI at 70. He also asserted that management never gave him an option to express himself; that Manager claimed there was a “book” of things against him but could not produce anything concrete; and that he had to go through many hoops if he ever wanted to meet with Manager, but a white person was given a chance to explain themselves. ROI at 69. 3 2022000791 In his rebuttal statement, Complainant challenged the assertions that he was a poor performer, noting that his last evaluation was September 2017 with Manager instead of his immediate supervisor. He asserted that this evaluation was above satisfactory, and he received a small raise. He stated that he was selected as employee of the month. Complainant contended that Manager expressed in his evaluation that Complainant went above and beyond his duties to ensure the library was fully operational in his supervisor’s absence. He concluded that after this evaluation, he never received another annual evaluation. ROI at 84. The record also reflected that there were no performance appraisals done for 2018 or 2019. ROI at 100. Complainant contended that this has affected him for numerous years and kept him at a level of pay that was different to others and new employees. He also contended that other employees got their evaluations and pay raises, which was a yearly requirement of management. ROI at 70. and 80 Complainant stated that he was never suspended in his twenty-nine and a half years for any prior conduct or disciplinary issues throughout his work history with the Agency. He stated that it was not unacceptable conduct on his behalf, and that all of this took place because of his EEO complaints and the fact that he was not going to be bullied by anyone. Complainant contended that he has asked for copies of any prior write-ups in his file, but the response was there is nothing in the file except the letter of termination. ROI at 84. Complainant also stated that early retirement was offered to a named female employee who was his supervisor at the time of his termination. According to Complainant, she stated that he should have received a letter of early retirement as well because Complainant met all the criteria. ROI at 84. Director explained that Complainant was eligible to retire when he met the minimum requirements for the retirement system. He asserted his belief that Complainant was confused in what he was stating about not receiving a regular retirement versus the incentive the Librarian received to retire. According to Director, there is a retirement incentive that is often issued for GS employees and a separate one for NAF employees called a VISP/VERA (undefined acronyms). Director also explained that this was a Headquarters initiative that was initiated at the installation level; and that it was new for NAF employees. Director stated that this incentive started five years ago (at the time) and was not offered every year. He asserted that the incentive to retire early has only been offered twice on the NAF side; that it was not offered in 2020 during the time Complainant was terminated; and that Complainant should have inquired about any options during the termination proposal phase. According to Director, the librarian Complainant identified as having received the incentive did so during a year it was offered by the government. ROI at 81. Director asserted that when he was notified that Complainant was not offered retirement, he worked with the Human Resource (HR) department and the Office of General Counsel lawyer to create a package that offered Complainant the opportunity to retire with immediate annuity, despite applying for benefits after thirty days from the date of separation. Director also stated that he was going to remove the termination action and negative references from Complainant’s personnel file. According to Director, this was done through direct communications with Complainant. However, when the final offer was made, Complainant declined. ROI at 82. 4 2022000791 At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant was provided a copy of the investigative file and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On May 11, 2021, an initial scheduling conference (ISC) was held. At the ISC, Complainant indicated he would need written discovery. The Agency stated it would need written discovery and up to 3 depositions. The AJ assigned to the case approved 60 days (June 11, 2021 - August 11, 2021) for discovery, including supplementation of the investigative record. The parties were also ordered to attempt case settlement. The Agency supplemented the ROI by submitting a Memorandum for the Record (MFR). On September 13, 2021, the Agency filed a Motion for Decision Without a Hearing (Agency’s Motion). On September 25, 2021, Complainant filed a Response (Complainant’s Response). On September 31, 2021, the Agency filed a reply to the Complainant’s Response (Agency’s Reply). In the MFR, Manager stated that on or around October 15, 2019, a staff meeting was held in which Supervisor (who is no longer employed at the Agency) told Complainant that he would need to take an Event Planning Course from November 6, 2019 to November 21, 2019. ROI at 228. Following the staff meeting, Complainant initialed a sign-off sheet acknowledging everything that was discussed during the meeting, including Complainant’s attendance of the Event Planning Course. Id. Complainant was on notice that taking this course was a requirement and a priority for Supervisor. On or around November 13, 2019, Supervisor asked Complainant how the course was going. In response, Complainant informed Supervisor that he would not be completing the course. ROI at 228 and 254. According to management, on or around October 23, 2019, towards the end of the workday, Complainant’s coworker (Coworker) overheard Complainant yelling at Supervisor in Supervisor’s office and speaking to her in an aggressive and disrespectful manner. ROI at 229. See ROI at 262 for Coworker’s witness statement. Coworker made a note of the incident. She asserted that Complainant began yelling at Supervisor so loud that it could be heard by patrons and staff in the library; and that a patron observed Complainant’s behavior, and Supervisor was visibly shaken after the altercation with Complainant. Id. Supervisor also took very detailed notes of all of Complainant’s performance and misconduct related issues. The notes reflected that Complainant was frequently disrespectful to Supervisor and his coworkers. ROI at 232-60. On January 6, 2020, Supervisor charged Complainant with, among other charges, insubordination. ROI at 228. As a result of the multiple charges and multiple specifications for each charge, Supervisor proposed that Complainant’s employment be terminated. The Notice of Proposed Removal (the Notice) dated January 6, 2020, showed that Complainant, “displayed these behaviors, per reference (c), on at least 04 October, 15 October, 22 October, 30 October, 04 November, 05 November, 13 November, and 14 November 2019.” ROI at 229. The Notice also stated, “Reference (c) shows a pattern of insubordinate behavior and a lack of respect for policies and coworkers. These behaviors combined, over time, have created an atmosphere that cannot be allowed to continue.” ROI at 229. 5 2022000791 On January 17, 2020, Complainant responded to the proposal for his termination. In his response, Complainant acknowledged that he was aware of his enrollment into the event planning course as of October 15, 2019, over two weeks before the course was scheduled to begin. ROI at 254. Complainant also stated, “…[i]f you did further investigation into this allegation, the facts will show that I signed off on a meeting sheet with everything that was discussed that day. [Supervisor] stated that she had already enrolled me in the class. If you review my sick leave, I was out on sick leave at the time this course was presented.” Id. Complainant was not out on sick leave for the entirety of the course, only the first two days, November 6 and November 7, 2019. ROI at 268. On June 2, 2020, Manager, the deciding official, issued a decision to terminate Complainant’s employment. ROI at 268-72. In the decision letter, Manager responded to the claims Complainant made in his response to the proposal and Manager also addressed all of the charges included in the proposal letter. Manager upheld the charges where he thought Complainant’s responses were insufficient. In the one area where Manager thought Complainant’s response was adequate, that charge was stricken. Manager ultimately determined that the sustained charges warranted Complainant’s removal. ROI at 270. In the Complainant’s Response, he raised six contentions, including that he was never counselled about most of the allegations made against him; and that he was not given the same opportunity as his counterparts to train and learn for career advancement “taking relevant course.” Complainant also stated that the Agency did not contact him to attempt case settlement as ordered by the AJ, adding that he did not receive an acceptable response when he contacted the Agency’s representative. In the Agency’s Reply, the Agency stated that responsibility to contact each other, in an attempt to achieve settlement, did not fall solely on the Agency, as insinuated by the Complainant. The Agency did not respond to or address Complainant’s remaining contentions. The AJ stated that she considered the Agency’s Motion, Complainant’s Response, and the Agency’s Reply dated September 30, 2021, and the entire Investigative File and Record. According to the AJ, after reviewing the entire evidence produced in the light most favorable to Complainant, she concluded that there was sufficient information upon which to base a decision without a hearing, and that there were no material facts in dispute. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g), the AJ issued a decision without a hearing on October 1, 2021, finding no discrimination was established. The Agency’s final action implemented the AJ’s decision. This appeal followed. Complainant did not submit a statement in support of his appeal. The Agency submitted an Appeal Statement, reiterating its reasons for terminating Complainant’s employment, and requesting that the Commission uphold the decision and order finding no discrimination. 6 2022000791 STANDARD OF REVIEW 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). This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ’s, and Agency’s, factual conclusions and legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. 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. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and (4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary. 7 2022000791 According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary judgment “where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount of discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that an AJ could order discovery, if necessary, after receiving an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing). The courts have been clear that summary judgment is not to be used as a "trial by affidavit." Redmand v. Warrener, 516 F.2d 766, 768 (1st Cir. 1975). The Commission has noted that when a party submits an affidavit and credibility is at issue, "there is a need for strident cross- examination and summary judgment on such evidence is improper." Pedersen v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05940339 (February 24, 1995). After a careful review of the record, we find that the AJ erred when she concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case. It appears that the AJ’s decision improperly credited management’s version of the events over Complainant’s version. See Calvin D. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120140022 (Feb. 2, 2017); Ralph E. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150169 (Jun. 6, 2017). Here, in finding no discrimination, the AJ failed to discuss the reasons for granting summary judgment beyond a one-page summary order. Nor did the AJ even state that she was adopting the Agency’s motion for summary judgment. Without an actual decision, the AJ’s order is more of an implicit crediting of the Agency’s position over that of Complainant. The record reflects management’s statements that Complainant’s one time “clear,” malicious disregard for an order/task given to him by his supervisor, and Complainant’s allegedly repeated disrespectful behavior are a violation of Agency policy; and a first offense in both instances is punishable by anything from reprimand to removal. ROI at 164. In fact, however, management did not provide a copy of the policy that served as the basis for Complainant’s termination. Also missing from the record is any documentation of prior disciplinary action taken against Complainant, including any inspection of hostile work environment with the women of the department that was initiated by the command, admonishment, suspension or even the Letter of Requirement for leave that are mentioned by the Agency. The Proposed Removal and the termination decision are the only two documents provided. Management also offered Complainant a retirement package, and to remove negative references from his personnel file only after Complainant filed the instant complaint. We also note that there is conflicting and inconsistent evidence regarding the alleged incidents in the instant case. Missing from the record are witness statements and any documentation to counter Complainant’s assertions, including that Complainant was never counselled about most of the allegations made against him; that he had asked for copies of any prior write-ups in his file but was told there was nothing except the letter of termination; and that he was not given the same opportunity as his counterparts to receive relevant training and learn for career advancement. 8 2022000791 In fact, there is no evidence that discovery actually occurred as the parties requested and as the AJ approved or, if it did occur, that it was adequate. See September 25, 20 21 email in which Complainant states that the Agency’s attorney conveyed to Complainant that he was on paternity leave starting May 12th to mid-July. The AJ had approved sixty days (May 11 to August 11, 2021) for discovery and record supplementation. Importantly, the record includes a statement that the EEO Investigator contacted Supervisor, but she did not respond and is no longer an employee with the Agency. Therefore, her testimony was not included in the ROI. However, Supervisor is the only witness to Complainant’s alleged failure to follow instructions. She was also responsible for allegedly writing Complainant up for performance issues, insubordination, and disrespectful conduct. As such, the AJ’s summary judgment decision was made without relevant witness affidavits or testimony. Therefore, under these circumstances, summary judgment is inappropriate. We note that the hearing process is intended to be an extension of the investigative process, designed to ensure that the parties have "a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and supplement the record and, in appropriate instances, to examine and cross-examine witnesses." See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD- 110), 7-1 (Aug. 5, 2015); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(e). “Truncation of this process, while material facts are still in dispute and the credibility of witnesses is still ripe for challenge, improperly deprives Complainant of a full and fair investigation of her claims.” Bang v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01961575 (March 26, 1998). See also Peavley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05950628 (October 31, 1996); Chronister v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05940578 (April 25, 1995). In summary, there are simply too many unresolved issues which require an assessment as to the credibility of the various management officials, co-workers, and Complainant, himself. Therefore, judgment as a matter of law for the Agency should not have been granted. CONCLUSION Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including Complainant's arguments on appeal, the Agency's response, and arguments and evidence not specifically discussed in this decision, the Commission VACATES the Agency's final action and REMANDS the matter to the Agency in accordance with this decision and the Order below. ORDER Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency is directed to resubmit a request for a hearing on this complaint on Complainant’s behalf, a copy of the complaint file, and a copy of this appellate decision to the Hearings Unit at EEOC’s Birmingham District Office. The Agency shall provide written notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below that the complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. 9 2022000791 Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall hold a hearing and issue a decision on the complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109 and the Agency shall issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719) Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and § 1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency’s final report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409. Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency. 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. 10 2022000791 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). COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610) This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the Commission. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. 11 2022000791 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 March 15, 2023 Date