Wilbur R.,1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Rural Development), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 11, 2018

0120172052 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 11, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Wilbur R.,1
Complainant,

v.

Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Rural Development),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172052

Agency No. RD-2016-00453

DECISION

On May 22, 2017, 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
April 17, 2017 final agency decision (FAD) 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Area Director, GS
0301-13, at the Agency’s Lewiston Area Office (LAO) in Lewiston, Maine. Complainant was
hired by the Agency under the Schedule A hiring authority, a non-competitive appointment
authority for applicants with disabilities. Complainant identifies his conditions as major
depressive disorder and generalized anxiety. Complainant states that he has had these conditions
since 2013 and his conditions do not result in work restrictions. Complainant entered duty with
the Agency on November 30, 2014, with a two-year probationary period.

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.
0120172052

2
On February 4, 2016, Complainant emailed the Agency’s Human Resources Manager (HR1)
stating that he might need to have a discussion about seeking an accommodation if he continued
to experience increased stress and anxiety over concerns in his office. HR1 advised Complainant
that he would follow up with Complainant to discuss the reasonable accommodation process.

On March 1, 2016, S1 held a meeting with Complainant and HR1 in response to concerns about
Complainant’s management of the LAO and Complainant’s accessibility to staff. During the
meeting, Complainant’s first-line supervisor (S1) instructed Complainant that he would only be
responsible for the LAO, eliminating the Scarborough Area Office from his duties, and that his
hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. five days per week. Complainant informed S1 and HR1
that if he made the requested changes, he would need a reasonable accommodation.

In an email dated, March 1, 2016, Complainant referenced the meeting held earlier in the day
regarding the change in his duties and purported issues in LAO. In his email, Complainant
reiterated his desire to pursue a reasonable accommodation. Complainant submitted an official
reasonable accommodation request on March 2, 2016, requesting a tour of duty consisting of four
10-hour days per week, with either two Mondays off or two Fridays off in each pay period. In the
alternative, Complainant requested a nine-hour workday schedule with either a Monday or a Friday
off as the non-working day; and one telework day each week, on either a Monday or a Friday.
Complainant asserted that the reasonable accommodation was necessary due to stress-induced
anxiety and depression.

On March 2, 2016, S1 provided Complainant with a Letter of Instruction (LOI), which
memorialized the meeting from the prior day. The LOI indicated that effective Monday, March 7,
2016, Complainant would report to the LAO full-time; provide eight-hour coverage, five days per
week; maintain an “open door policy;” and set up weekly meetings for enhanced communications
with the Area Office staff.

Complainant held a staff meeting on March 3, 2016, where he informed his staff that going
forward, they were required to be in the office from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. five days per week. On
March 14, 2016, management officials advised Complainant that staff members viewed the
schedule change as unfair, unnecessary, and punitive. As such, management officials instructed
Complainant to return the employees back to their original tours of duty, which Complainant did
not complete until April 29, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, Complainant’s physician provided a letter confirming Complainant’s
diagnoses of depression and anxiety. According to the documentation, Complainant reported that
his medication, along with his conditions, left him feeling exhausted, anxiety-ridden, and irritable
by the end of the workweek. Complainant’s physician noted that he believed that an
accommodation that would enable Complainant to work a shorter week, combined with the
opportunity to work one day each week from home would be appropriate. The letter further noted
that due to Complainant’s reports of a stressful work atmosphere, an opportunity to work from
home would allow for rest and access to counseling.

0120172052

3
On April 15, 2016, S1 and HR1 held a Six-Month Progress Review meeting with Complainant,
which covered the period October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. At the time, S1 and HR1
addressed issues concerning Complainant’s management of the LAO, perceptions of showing
favoritism to certain staff members, Complainant’s failure to provide substantive written reports
when requested, and Complainant’s outbursts of anger during interactions with S1 and other staff
members.

In May 2016, management officials received an additional complaint from a LAO staff member.
The employee reported that during a May 9, 2016 staff meeting, Complainant communicated
inappropriate and sarcastic comments about his work schedule requirements and HR1. The staff
member further alleged that during CPR training in the same meeting, Complainant made
inappropriate comments about another employee’s expectations if someone had to perform CPR
on the employee.

On May 4, 2016, S1 received an email from a Human Resources Specialist informing her that it
had been determined that Complainant’s condition qualified as a disability under the Rehabilitation
Act and S1 would need to render a decision on Complainant’s requested accommodation.
Complainant held a conversation with S1 on May 18, 2016, in which he was informed that his
requested accommodation was not granted. Complainant rejected management’s alternative offer
to have a four-day workweek with Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday as the non-workday.

On June 2, 2016, S1 formally offered Complainant the previously offered alternative
accommodation to his reasonable accommodation request via a written Denial of Reasonable
Accommodation form. S1 indicated that the reasoning behind the modification was that Mondays
and Fridays were crucial to the effective operations of the office from the perspective of starting
the workweek, assigning work, staff management, and addressing issues. S1 added that Fridays
were crucial in that any follow-up and/or issues that arise need to be addressed prior to the end of
the week. Complainant rejected the modification, noting that a day off other than Monday or
Friday would not provide him with enough time to rest. Complainant continued to request updates
regarding his reasonable accommodation request through July 2016.

On July 5, 2016, an LAO employee notified management officials that Complainant sent out an
email to staff regarding their weekly reports, which was perceived as threatening in that
Complainant was (1) implying that performance evaluations would be adversely affected and (2)
reports would be a guiding factor in performance evaluations even though report completion had
not been previously mentioned in relation to employees’ performance goals.

On August 26, 2016, Complainant was informed that his employment was being terminated during
the probationary period for inappropriate conduct. The Termination Letter referenced the March
2, 2016 LOI, Complainant’s Six-Month Progress Review, and subsequent complaints from LAO
employees, which culminated in S1’s determination that Complainant had not demonstrated fitness
for continued employment.

0120172052

4
On May 12, 2016 (and amended several times), Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the
bases of disability (mental) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO when:

1. On August 26, 2016, management terminated his employment as a probationary
employee based on inappropriate conduct;

2. On May 18, 2016, management denied his request for a reasonable accommodation;

3. On March 2, 2016, management issued him a Letter of Instruction (LOI), which
assigned him to the LAO, effective March 7, 2016, substantially changed his duties,
subjected him to increased scrutiny in his mid-year review, and required him to
submit weekly reports, beginning on May 8, 2016;

4. On March 1, 2016, his first-level supervisor complained to him about other
employees in the EEO complaint process, management’s insistence on fighting all
EEO claims, management’s refusal to settle any EEO claims and management’s
desire to “control” employees, so as to prevent them from filing EEO complaints
and involving the Office of Inspector General (OIG);

5. On an unspecified date in March 2016, management attempted to intimidate him
based on his participation as a witness in a formal EEO complaint and in a formal
grievance;

6. On an unspecified dated in March 2016, management attempted to intimidate him
based on his actions in assisting a colleague with a reasonable accommodation
request; and

7. On an unspecified date in February 2016, management attempted to intimidate him
based on his request for a reasonable accommodation.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing
within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a FAD pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).

In the FAD, the Agency determined that Complainant had established a prima facie case of
discrimination with respect to his termination. However, the Agency found that management had
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. More specifically, management
asserted that there were concerns regarding Complainant’s performance, which had been discussed
during Complainant’s prior performance review. Agency officials noted that Complainant was
provided with multiple opportunities to address management concerns.

0120172052

5
As for the failure to accommodate allegation, the Agency explained that management offered
Complainant an effective reasonable accommodation. The Agency reasoned that Complainant did
not provide persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the Agency’s suggested reasonable
accommodation would not meet the needs of his medical condition. The Agency noted that
although Complainant’s medical documentation stated that a shorter workweek combined with
telework would be appropriate, the medical documentation failed to prescribe a specific regimen
or schedule.

With respect to the LOI, the Agency determined that Complainant failed to establish a case of
disability or reprisal discrimination because he did not show that he was subjected to an adverse
employment action. The LOI memorialized a discussion that was meant to clarify Complainant’s
assignment and management’s expectations. The Agency found that even if Complainant
established a prima face case of disability discrimination regarding the LOI, the Agency provided
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the LOI.

Regarding Complainant’s harassment claims, the Agency determined that Complainant failed to
establish that the alleged acts were based on his protected classes. The Agency added that even if
Complainant could establish that the alleged harassment was based on his protected classes, he
failed to demonstrate that the acts were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or
conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to show
that he was subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The
instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant maintains that the Agency failed to provide him with an effective
alternative reasonable accommodation and that the burden was on the Agency to make the request
for additional documentation to support Complainant’s request. Complainant contends that the
Agency failed to engage in the interactive process or consider telework as an alternative reasonable
accommodation. Complainant claims that he could have completed his duties via telephone or
videoconference. Complainant alleges that the Agency allowed other Directors to regularly not
work on Mondays and Fridays. Complainant further contends that management officials were
aware of his EEO activities and retaliated against him as a result of his protected activities.

Complainant alleges that the Agency’s reasons for issuing the LOI were pretextual because
Complainant was unaware of S1’s concerns prior to their March 1, 2016 meeting and the allegation
of poor attendance was false. Complainant claims that he established the close temporal link
necessary to establish unlawful discrimination based upon his receipt of the LOI one day following
his request for reasonable accommodation. Further, Complainant maintains that the Agency
discriminated and retaliated against him based on his disability and EEO activity when it
terminated him. Complainant contends that management was aware of his EEO activity and his
activities on behalf of other employees. Complainant claims that the Agency’s repeated and
continuous acts of discrimination and retaliation created a hostile work environment for him.
0120172052

6
Moreover, Complainant contends that the Agency’s FAD contains numerous errors of fact and
conclusions of law. Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the FAD.

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”).

Disparate Treatment

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he
or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of
a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530
U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

Upon review of the record, and assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie
case of disability discrimination and reprisal, the Commission finds the Agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Regarding Complainant’s termination claim,
we note that the Commission has long held that where, as here, a complainant is a probationary
employee, he or she is subject to retention, advancement, or termination at the discretion of an
agency so long as these decisions are not based on a protected status. Coe v. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120091442 (Oct. 7, 2011); Kaftanic v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 01882895 (Dec. 27, 1988) (citing Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 152 1974)). Here, the
record reflects that the precipitating event for Complainant’s termination was his conduct during
the probationary period.

Complainant contends that the Agency’s assertion that he was terminated because of his conduct
is pretext because he was unaware of the Agency’s concerns. S1 affirmed that she did not include
negative comments in Complainant’s annual review in October 2015, because she discusses
negative comments orally. ROI, at 226.
0120172052

7
However, she indicated that in 2015 she was concerned that she never saw much from Complainant
in terms of written substance, and there was little communication from him. Id. S1 did not address
concerns regarding Complainant’s work hours because she was not aware of an issue at the time.
Id. Nevertheless, S1 noted that Complainant had the opportunity to address management’s
concerns on March 1, 2016, but responded in anger and verbally attacked an employee, stating that
she was fabricating stories about him. Id. at 225. According to HR1, following the March 1, 2016
meeting, HR1 held discussions with all the staff in the LAO and one member of the Scarborough
office, which confirmed that there were problems in the office and Complainant needed to be in
the office full-time to manage the office. Id. at 205.

With respect to the March 2, 2016 LOI, S1 stated that she issued the letter and HR1 served in a
consultative capacity. ROI, at 223. S1 explained that she issued the LOI for multiple reasons
including complaints about Complainant’s office hours and accessibility, and his assignment to
the LAO, which required more management. Id. S1 stressed that the LOI was provided for
clarification purposes. Id. HR1 echoed S1’s statement that the LOI was issued to clarify
management’s expectation that Complainant was to provide full-time coverage at the LAO. Id. at
197.

While Complainant contends that S1’s instruction that Complainant provide eight-hour coverage,
five days per week was retaliatory and in direct contravention of his request for a reasonable
accommodation, the LOI simply reiterated instructions that were discussed with Complainant prior
to his reasonable accommodation request. ROI, at 168, 197, 224, 306. When the LOI was issued,
management officials were aware of complaints about Complainant’s accessibility and problems
in the LAO months prior to the March 1, 2016 meeting. Id. at 198, 224. HR1 stated that he learned
that Complainant was not providing enough hours of coverage in the LAO in February 2016
following a discussion with S1 where multiple options were discussed, including a LOI. Id. at
198. S1 reported that she became aware of Complainant’s accessibility and tour of duty issues
two to three months prior to the issuance of the LOI. S1 added that staff members reported that
Complainant did not hold meetings, kept his door closed while at the office, and did not go around
to speak to employees while he was in the office. Id. at 225.

Complainant explained that his disability may have played a role in the behavior that led to the
LOI and Complainant’s termination. The Commission notes that an employer is not barred from
imposing discipline or terminating an employee who, because of a disability, violated a conduct
rule that is job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity. See
EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 at Question 36 (Oct. 17, 2002). As noted, the record
reveals that several employees complained about Complainant's inappropriate conduct and
Complainant had previously been counseled about his behavior. Complainant has failed to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s reasons for the LOI and
Complainant’s termination were not the real reasons and that the Agency acted on the basis of
discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Therefore, we find that Complainant was not subjected to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged.

0120172052

8
Denial of Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission notes that an Agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the
known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless
the agency can show that an accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9.
To establish a denial of reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) he is an
individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(g); (2) he is a qualified individual
with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide a
reasonable accommodation. The Commission will assume without declaring (for the purposes of
this decision) that Complainant is an individual with a disability.

Upon review, the Commission finds that the Agency did not deny Complainant a reasonable
accommodation. Complainant requested, essentially, to have Mondays and/or Fridays off under
an alternative work schedule. Complainant’s submitted medical documentation simply stated a
that a “shorter week” would be appropriate to help Complainant treat his condition and mentioned
the possibility of incorporating telework. The Agency agreed to Complainant’s requested
accommodation of a four-day workweek, but modified the request to allow Complainant to take
off in the middle of the week rather than on Monday or Friday. ROI, at 187-88. According to S1,
she made the decision to modify the request following a consultation with HR. Id. at 218. S1
explained that in determining the modification, she believed that a day in the middle of the week
would accommodate Complainant’s condition. Id. S1 stressed that she modified the reasonable
accommodation request due to business activities at the beginning and end of the week as
supervisors were needed in place on those days to start activities, wrap up activities, and monitor
progress. Id. at 219.

While Complainant may not have been offered the exact reasonable accommodation of his
preference, an employer is not required to provide the precise reasonable accommodation the
employee or applicant wants, so long as the accommodation offered is an effective one under the
circumstances of the situation. U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 400 (2002). Here,
Complainant has presented no evidence that the offered and provided accommodations were
ineffective. Therefore, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that the Agency
failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation.

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily
protected class; (2) he 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 his
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 to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).

0120172052

9
Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
[complainant’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

Therefore, to prove his harassment claim, Complainant must establish that he 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. Only if Complainant establishes both of those
elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself

The Commission notes that Complainant chose not to request a hearing; therefore, the Commission
can only evaluate the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented. Here, Complainant
asserted that based on his disability and prior protected activity, management officials subjected
him to a hostile work environment. Complainant alleged several incidents of what he believed to
be discriminatory harassment. The Commission finds that the alleged incidents were not
sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a legally hostile work environment. The Commission
notes that Title VII is not a civility code. Rather, it forbids “only behavior so objectively offensive
as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc.,
523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998).

Even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile
work environment, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s
actions were based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The record reflects that the alleged
incidents were more likely the result of routine supervision, managerial discipline, and general
workplace disputes and tribulations.

Here, as concluded above, there is no evidence to support a finding that Complainant’s disability
or prior protected activity played any role whatsoever in the decision regarding Complainant’s
termination, reasonable accommodation, or LOI. Although Complainant argues that S1 subjected
him to a barrage of anti-EEO rhetoric and intimidation tactics as evidence of ongoing harassment
and a hostile work environment, the evidence fails to support his allegations. Documents
pertaining to Complainant’s April 2016 Progress Review indicate that S1 held conversations with
Complainant about his need to address and resolve problems prior to escalation to the point where
employees needed to contact the State Office or file a complaint. Complainant has presented no
evidence that any of Agency management’s actions were based on discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected to a
discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment as alleged.

0120172052

10
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 because the preponderance
of the evidence does not establish that discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety
(90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must
name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
0120172052

11
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 11, 2018
Date