[Redacted], Ricky S., 1 Complainant,v.Dave Uejio, Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 16, 2023

Appeal No. 2021003562 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 16, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ricky S.,1 Complainant, v. Dave Uejio, Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Agency. Appeal No. 2021003562 Hearing No. 520-2020-00524X Agency No. CFPB-0019-2019 DECISION On March 25, 2022, 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 May 12, 2021, final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue Complainant worked within the Agency’s Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending (SEFL) Division for its Northeast Region in New York, New York. Complainant began working for the Agency as an Examiner, Grade 40, Quartile 2 in September 2016. In September 2017, Complainant was promoted to Examiner, Grade 51, Quartile 1. According to Complainant, the Agency’s Grade 51 is equivalent to a GS-11. 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 2021003562 Initially, Complainant was assigned under the supervision of Field Manager 1. Field Manager 1 was a United States American and Caucasian/white woman. In August, 2019, Field Manager 1 promoted to Assistant Regional Director, and Complainant was reassigned to another supervisor, Field Manager 2, who was a United States American and Caucasian/white male. The record revealed that as part of his ongoing on-the-job training, Complainant also sometimes worked with fellow examiners acting as examiners-in-charge or as field managers. On August 22, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Hattian-American), national origin (Hattian), sex (man), color (Black), disability (post-traumatic stress disorder - PTSD), and in reprisal for EEO- protected activity when: Equal Pay Act Claims 1. From April 21, 2019 to the present, the Agency failed to pay Complainant the same compensation paid to similarly situated employees. 2. In September of 2017, Field Manager 1 and other officials successfully advocated for Complainant’s demotion by changing his pay quartile. 3. On or before September 3, 2019, Complainant was denied promotion to Grade 52, Quartile 4 through the updating of the Examiner position description to require Complainant to meet all of the requirements of the Examiner Commissioning Program (ECP), as opposed to applying the previous version which was in effect when he was hired which had provided for a non-competitive career-ladder promotion to Grade 52 without the ECP requirements. Harassment/Hostile Work Environment 4. Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment, as evidenced by the following incidents: a. On August 1, 2019 and August 5, 2019, Field Manager 1 verbally indicated to Complainant that he was not willing to do the necessary work. b. On August 5, 2019, Field Manager 1 asked Complainant in an email whether or not he was willing to do the necessary work, thereby implying that he was not willing to do so. c. On August 7, 2019, Complainant learned that Field Manager 1 and other Agency officials, in or around September of 2017, successfully advocated for his demotion by changing the applicable Quartile in which he was placed for salary-setting purposes. 3 2021003562 d. On August 14, 2019, the Agency assigned Field Manager 2 as Complainant’s new direct supervisor, who Complainant asserted “has a reputation that precedes him when interacting with minorities.” e. On August 15, 2019, the Assistant Regional Director inaccurately communicated the substance and tone of a conversation they had on August 8, 2019. f. Between August 16, 2019 and August 22, 2019, the Assistant Regional Director sent Complainant a series of emails questioning whether he was working, even though she should have known that he was working from home rather than on-site. g. On or before September 3, 2019, the Agency denied Complainant promotion to CN-52 (Quartile 4) by updating the Examiner position description to require Complainant to meet all of the requirements of the Examiner Commissioning Program (ECP) to attain promotion to CN-52, instead of applying the previous version of the position description that was in effect when Complainant applied and was hired for the position which provided for non-competitive, career-ladder promotion to CN-52 without satisfying the ECP requirements. Disability Discrimination 5. On certain dates including September 3, 2019 and October 9, 2019, Field Manager 2 failed to provide notes or provided incomplete notes of their conversations or meetings and failed to give Complainant additional time or a reasonable time to complete his tasks, as required by his approved accommodation. 6. On October 8, 2019, Field Manager 2 gave Complainant conflicting work assignments that required him to work outside of normal working hours and to account for the time as credit hours, as opposed to overtime. 7. On an unspecified date, during a conference call, Complainant became aware that his confidential medical information (diagnosis of post- traumatic stress disorder) had been disclosed to Field Manager 2 who had no need to know this information. 4 2021003562 Discrimination and/or Unlawful Retaliation 8. On October 28, 2019, Field Manager 2 sent Complainant an official reprimand. 9. On November 5, 2019, the Assistant Regional Director issued Complainant a negative performance evaluation. 10. Complainant was subjected to discriminatory and retaliatory harassment as evidenced by the following matters: a. Complainant was micromanaged, his tasks were made more difficult, and he was accused of poor performance. b. Complainant was followed. c. Complainant was threatened. d. Complainant was excluded from temporary duty (TDY) locations. e. False rumors were spread about Complainant, and he was falsely accused of retaliation and creating a hostile work environment. f. Complainant was “entrapped” in conversations purposely to find him at fault for various offenses. g. Complainant was denied his reasonable accommodation. h. Complainant was warned about his usage of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 11. In October 2019, Complainant was accused of making threatening gestures at another Examiner in an elevator which compelled Complainant to advise management from November 15, 2019 to December 6, 2019 that he feared for his life. 12. On January 10, 2020, management issued Complainant a proposed two- day suspension, followed by a February 26, 2020 letter of decision. 13. On January 10, 2020, management informed Complainant that his harassment complaint had been dismissed without a finding and management had shared Complainant’s complaint with one of the managers named in this EEO complaint. 5 2021003562 14. On January 22, 2020, management had still not investigated Complainant’s claims of harassment and he was advised that his harassment complaint was being reassigned. The complaint was subsequently closed on January 30, 2020. 15. On November 15, 2019 and ongoing, management has failed to address Complainant’s concerns about negative and conflicting information in his 2019 performance narrative. 16. On February 13, 2020, management threatened Complainant with disciplinary action up to and including removal from federal service;. 17. On March 9, 2020, management sent Complainant an email which addressed him by his first name only and failed to include a salutation. 18. On March 25, 2020, management issued Complainant a proposal to suspend him for seven days resulting in a June 15, 2020 letter of decision sustaining the suspension. 19. On March 31, 2020, management dismissed Complainant’s concerns and assigned him the work of another Examiner when that other Examiner had refused to draft a brief Conclusion at Complainant’s request. 20. On April 27, 2020, management failed to consult with Complainant prior to scheduling a meeting regarding Complainant’s proposed seven-day suspension and denied his requests for extensions. 21. On April 27, 2020, Complainant discovered that the Agency had mishandled his internal harassment complaint and that the parties assigned to the case presented a conflict of interest. 22. On May 12, 2020, during Complainant’s FY 2020 Mid-Year Performance Evaluation, Field Manager 2 “nitpicked” his performance and acknowledged previous actions which Complainant perceived as harassing in nature. 24. On December 19, 2019, Complainant was scheduled to attend Writing for Examiners III (WFE3), which is not a required course for the Examiner Commissioning Program. 25. On December 24, 2019, Field Manager 2 denied Complainant’s request to change his JIT Mortgage Origination Training to January 13-17, 2020. 6 2021003562 The investigation into the complaint concluded on August 17, 2020, and the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of its report of investigation and with notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC AJ. After an initial conference on October 29, 2020, the AJ issued a post-conference order directing the parties to produce additional documents at the next status conference, that was scheduled for December 21, 2020. On December 10, 2020, Complainant notified the AJ that the Agency had terminated his employment. Complainant further maintained that with losing his Agency employment, he had lost access to Agency documents that were needed for his case. The AJ granted Complainant an extension until January 30, 2021, to request additional documents from the Agency. Between January 13, 2021 and February 2, 2021, Complainant filed a series of motions which included a request for a default judgment and a challenge to the impartiality of the Agency’s report of investigation. The AJ found that, contrary to her express orders demanding that Complainant produce certain documents, Complainant had instead submitted pleadings that had been nonresponsive to the AJ’s discovery orders. As a sanction for failing to comply with her orders, the AJ dismissed Complainant’s hearing request, on March 22, 2021. Therefore, the AJ remanded the matter to the Agency for the final Agency decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). On May 12, 2021, the Agency rendered the instant final decision, wherein the Agency found no discrimination or unlawful retaliation was established. The instant appeal followed. Complainant submitted multiple documents purporting to support his accusations of discrimination against the Agency. Complainant states that the Agency continues to wage a campaign of harassment against him out of bias, prejudice, conspiracy, and errors. Complainant further urges that Commission to resist the impulse to wrongfully exonerate those in Agency management who had acted out of EEO-prohibited animus against him. 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). EEO Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Ch. 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”). Equal Pay: Claims 1-3 In Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States articulated requirements for establishing a prima facie discrimination case under the Equal Pay Act. 7 2021003562 To establish an Equal Pay Act violation, Complainant must show that he received less pay than an individual of the opposite sex for equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar working conditions within the same establishment. If Complainant has met his burden, then the Agency avoid liability by showing that the pay difference is justified under one of the four affirmative Equal Pay Act defenses: 1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production of work (also referred to as an incentive or piecework system); or, (4) a differential based on any factor other than sex. Sheppard v. U.S. Equal Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02919 (Sept. 12, 2000), req. for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A10076 (Aug. 12, 2003) . Upon review, we find Complainant’s claims under the Equal Pay Act do not support a discrimination finding. First, while Complainant named ten comparator employees, all but three were also male employees. The three female employees whom Complainant identified as comparators had higher levels of experience or education that justified them receiving more pay than Complainant. The record did not support Complainant’s claim that his supervisors demoted him or reduced his pay. Rather, Complainant requested the Agency review his position to determine whether his duties merited a promotion to CN-52. The Agency completed this desk audit of Complainant’s duties but ultimately determined that his position was correctly graded at CN-51. The Agency further explained that Complainant was not promoted to CN-52 because he had not completed the Examiner Commissioning Program (ECP). Successful ECP completion for promotion beyond CN-51 was required since 2014 and before the Agency hired Complainant in 2016. The ECP required that all examiners, and not just Complainant, had to complete required training which necessitated that they serve as an examiner-in- charge for at least two examinations, and pass the tests and case study. Nothing in the record indicated that Complainant completed the required ECP training. To contravene Complainant’s claim that the ECP discriminatorily prevented African-American employees from promoting to CN-52, the Agency identified more than 20 other African-American examiners who had successfully completed the ECP training. In sum, Complainant’s accusations of Equal Pay Act violations were unsupported by evidence that the Agency paid him less than equivalent employees who were performing essentially the same work. Hostile Work Environment: Claims 4a - 4g Harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it results in an alteration of the conditions of a complainant's employment. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002, at 3 (Mar. 8, 1994). To establish a claim of harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with his work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). A harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. 8 2021003562 Harassing incidents must be sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of Complainant's employment and create an abusive working environment.” See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); see also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 23 U.S. 75 (1998). Most of the discrimination described in claims 4a through 4g concerned interactions or communications that Complainant found unpleasant. Even presuming that Complainant’s version of those events was correct, we determine that the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not pervasive, and it was insufficiently severe to foster an abusive work environment. We have held that routine work assignments, instructions, admonishments, and addressing performance deficiencies do not rise to the level of harassment because they are common workplace occurrences. Dewitt L. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 2021004804 (Nov. 7, 2022); We remind Complainant that that EEO anti-discrimination statues are not civility codes designed to protect against the “ordinary tribulations” of the workplace. Rather, they forbid “only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 23 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). Upon review, we find that Complainant failed to make such showing here. Regarding Claim 4g, the Agency explained in September 2019, the amount of time permitted for an examiner to complete the ECP training was increased from five to seven years. Because Complainant had not yet completed the ECP training, we cannot discern how the Agency’s extending the time frame for ECP completion had a negative impact upon Complainant’s employment. Rehabilitation Act: Claims 5 - 7 In August 2017, Complainant requested a reasonable accommodation though his supervisor at the time, Field Manager 1. After the interactive process required under Rehabilitation Act, the Agency agreed to provide Complainant notes of conversations which covered work expectations, and to provide Complainant with additional time to complete assignments. Field Manager 2 testified that he became aware of Complainant’s need for accommodation when he learned that Complainant was being assigned to him. He further stated that he did not deny Complainant’s reasonable accommodation. Both Field Manager 1 and Field Manager 2 stated that that when they provided the notes of their conversations, Complainant would dispute their accuracy and timeliness. Field Manager 2 also reported that he had granted Complainant’s requests for additional time on his assignments. Field Manager 2 stated further that if Complainant had struggled to meet a deadline, it was because Complainant had not requested sufficient additional time in advance. Field Manager 2 disputed giving Complainant conflicting assignments. Instead, Field Manager 2 had offered Complainant credit time to work beyond his regular duty hours, but Complainant declined because he indicated that he preferred overtime as opposed to credit time. 9 2021003562 Although EEOC does not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Privacy Act and/or HIPAA, Section 102(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 501(g) the Rehabilitation Act, specifically prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of employee’s confidential medical information, except in certain limited situations. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002, (Oct. 17, 2002) (describing the limited exceptions to the medical confidentiality requirements). Furthermore, we note that the Rehabilitation Act also limits authority to undertake disability-related inquires or require medical examinations of employees unless the rationale for doing so is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Herman P. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2020000312 (May 19, 2021). We have held that that supervisors and managers may be informed regarding an employee’s work restrictions or accommodations. Velva B. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal Nos. 0720160006 and 0720160007 (Sept. 25, 2017), request for reconsideration denied EEOC Request Nos. 0520180094 and 0520180095 (Mar. 9, 2018). Claim 7 is based upon an assertion that the Agency violated Complainant’s right to medical privacy pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. We shall therefore consider the merits of claim 7 separately. In Claim 7, Complainant did not witness a Rehabilitation Act violation. Instead, he merely perceived that Field Manager 1 had discussed his PTSD with Field Manager 2, before Field Manager 2 became Complainant’s supervisor. Field Manager 1 denied inappropriately disclosing Complainant’s confidential medical information. Field Manager 2 stated that he only learned about Complainant’s reasonable accommodation after he had become Complainant’s supervisor. We find nothing to support Complainant’s accusation that his confidential medical information was improperly accessed or shared outside of the appropriate supervisors or managers who had a need to know about his restrictions and accommodations. Other Discrimination and Retaliation: Claims 8 - 25 We analyzed the remaining Claims 8 through Claim 25 in the contexts of disparate treatment or reprisal. To prevail, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must first establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discriminatory animus or retaliatory motives. See Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The second 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 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext to mask prohibited motives. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Without so finding, we presumed that Complainant could establish his prima facie case for retaliation. Even so, here, the Agency, has articulated legitimate conduct or performance-based reasons for all of these adverse actions that Complainant has alleged to be discriminatory. 10 2021003562 For example, Claim 8 concerned the reprimand that Complainant received for inappropriate conduct and failing to follow directives on October 18, 2019. Complainant had no evidence to that the reprimand or any of Agency’s personnel actions were unwarranted. To the contrary, the record revealed when given an important and time-sensitive assignment, Complainant’s behavior was insubordinate. Early in the morning of October 8, 2019, Field Manager 2 emailed and instructed Complainant to schedule an examination with a training field manager. Field Manager 2 instructed Complainant to spend two hours of credit time for preparation to serve as acting examiner-in-charge on the assignment. The email clearly directed Complainant to let Field Manager 2 know his plan for scheduling the examination. Complainant did not respond to Field Manager 2’s email that morning or at all during the afternoon. Just after 3:30 p.m, Field Manager 2 sent Complainant this follow-up email: “I tried to call you since I still haven’t heard from you on this. This is very urgent, and I need a response by no later than 4:00 p.m.” At 3:50 p.m., Complainant responded that he was afraid of talking to Field Manager 2 without a third- party present. Complainant’s email then told Field Manager 2 to decide how Complainant should arrange his schedule while acting examiner-in-charge. Complainant closed his email with “Suffice it to say, I am not volunteering for credit hours.” Field Manager 2 reasonably understood Complainant’s message to indicate that Complainant was unwilling to make arrangements with the training field manager. Field Manager 2 also read the email as Complainant refusing to devote two hours to prepare to be the acting examiner-in-charge. As a result, Field Manager 2 had reassigned the examiner-in-charge assignment to another examiner. In the late evening, after 10:30 PM, Complainant emailed Field Manager 2 accused management of forcing him to work unpaid overtime. A careful reading of this record reveals that Complainant had not only refused to follow Field Manager 2’s instructions, but his email responses were accusatory. Claims 9 and 15 challenged Complainant’s 2019 performance evaluation as excessively disparaging. Apparently, the Assistant Regional Director issued the performance evaluation based on professional observations from examiners who had worked with Complainant. Complainant has maintained that the evaluation was inappropriately negative and did not consider the positive performance narratives that he had provided. The record contained testimonies from fellow examiners, who confirmed that the Agency’s bank examining was demanding, competitive, and required frequent collaboration among examiners. Co-workers also confirmed that they had found Complainant difficult to work with. Specifically, they stated that Complainant did not take constructive criticism, and talked over them or was excessively argumentative. On one hand, Complainant has maintained that he was unfairly scrutinized and held to an impossible standard so that he was set up to fail. On the other hand, none of the other witness testimonies or contemporaneous correspondence evidenced that Complainant received less favorable treatment from the Agency. We find Complainant’s version of events surrounding his performance and conduct at equipoise with those deficiencies documented by the Agency. Where the evidence is in equipoise, such as in the present matter, Complainant has failed to prove disparate treatment. Complainant v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122134 (Sep. 24, 2014). 11 2021003562 We analyzed all of Complainant’s claims, but the preceding disparate treatment analysis found that Complainant failed to establish that the adverse actions taken by the Agency justified as opposed to unlawfully motivated by his protected characteristics or by his EEO-protected activity. Complainant could have demonstrated pretext by evidencing weaknesses, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the Agency's proffered reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence. Opare-Addo v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (Nov. 20, 2007) request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008) (finding that a complainant had successfully rebutted Agency's explanations as confusing, contradictory, and lacking credibility.) Here, Complainant has simply failed to evidence that the Agency’s explanations for Complainant’s employment difficulties were pretexts to mask actual unlawful intent. This record is devoid of any evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of the Agency beyond Complainant's speculative beliefs. Mere assertions or conjecture that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext is insufficient because subjective belief, however genuine, does not constitute evidence of pretext. Juliet B. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120182519 (Oct. 8, 2019). Most unpleasant or undesirable actions that happen in a workplace do not constitute EEO violations. Epps v. Dep't of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 0120093688 (Dec. 19, 2009). Rather than because of discrimination, Complainant’s Agency employment situation became an adverse one because of personality conflicts and fundamental disagreements over how work should be done and supervised. This Commission has consistently held that such workplace disputes do not amount to discrimination. Complainant v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122676 (Dec. 18, 2014). CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. 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. 12 2021003562 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; EEO Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 at Ch. 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 (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. 13 2021003562 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 16, 2023 Date