0120080343
11-02-2009
Alexander Koudry, Complainant, v. Arne Duncan, Secretary, Department of Education, Agency.
Alexander Koudry,
Complainant,
v.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary,
Department of Education,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080343
Agency No. ED20056900
DECISION
On October 25, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
September 24, 2007 final decision concerning his equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation
Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission
reverses the agency's final decision.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the agency met its burden to articulate
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked as
a Supervisory Information Technology Specialist, GS-14, at the agency's
headquarters in Washington, D.C. Complainant had previously been
hospitalized at times due to bowel and other complications, and could
not attend meetings during those times. He requested an accommodation
to telecommute by email or telephone whenever he was unable to come into
the office; however, his first-line supervisor allegedly only wanted to
communicate with complainant in person or by video conference, which was
not available at the hospital. On November 10, 2004, complainant filed an
EEO complaint concerning his first-line supervisor's actions regarding
complainant's accommodation request and complainant's performance
evaluation for 2003-2004. The complaint was eventually settled:
the performance evaluation was changed to "highly successful," and
the agency granted complainant's accommodation request on May 25, 2005.
A new first-line supervisor was assigned to complainant, and complainant's
former first-line supervisor became his second-line supervisor.
In early 2005, while the investigation into the prior EEO complaint was
ongoing, complainant applied for the position of Supervisory Management
and Program Analyst, GS-15, advertised under Vacancy Announcement
OCIO-2005-0030. This position required the selectee to analyze and
advise management on the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and
operations or the productivity and efficiency of management. Major duties
and responsibilities included: (1) providing leadership in the evaluation,
assessment, and improvement of projects by applying a wide range of
qualitative and quantitative techniques; (2) formulating new project
management standards and analytical approaches; (3) and devising tools
and measures to provide information to management on project status,
timetables, and achievement of objectives.
Relevant factors for consideration included: (1) mastery of program
management and evaluation principles; (2) mastery of a wide range of
qualitative and quantitative techniques for measuring effectiveness,
efficiency, and productivity of assigned programs; (3) the ability to
provide administrative direction and make assignments; (4) the ability to
interpret, modify, and develop guidelines for use by others; (5) and the
ability to handle complex assignments, which typically require developing
detailed plans, goals, and objectives for long-range implementation
and improvement of the program or developing criteria for evaluating
program effectiveness.
The selecting official was complainant's second-line supervisor, whose
actions as complainant's former first-line supervisor regarding a past
performance evaluation and a request for a reasonable accommodation were
the subjects of the prior EEO complaint by complainant. On April 13,
2005, the agency notified complainant of his non-selection.
In May 2005, complainant received a performance appraisal of "successful,"
rather than "highly successful" or "outstanding." The rating official
was complainant's first-line supervisor, and the approving official was
complainant's second-line supervisor. Complainant requested a review
of several standards in his evaluation rating, including the standard
providing "proactive project management leadership to ensure quality
delivery, resolve major obstacles, mitigate risk and establish an
environment of cooperation and team building . . . ." The performance
appraisal was not changed.
On September 6, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
he was discriminated against on the bases of disability (Chron's Disease)
and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. on May 25, 2005, complainant received a "successful" rather than
"highly successful" or "outstanding" performance evaluation for the
performance period of May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005;
2. on April 13, 2005, complainant was not selected for the position
of Supervisory Management and Program Analyst, GS-15, advertised under
Vacancy Announcement OCIO-2005-0030.1
In his formal complaint, complainant claimed compensatory damages.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with
complainant's request, the agency issued a final decision (FAD) pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b).
In its FAD, the agency found that complainant satisfied his burden
of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of
disability because the agency accepted, as an admission, the conclusion
of its coordinator for disability policy, who notified complainant that
he was a qualified individual with a disability. The agency also found
that complainant met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination based on reprisal for prior EEO activity.
The agency then found that it met its burden in articulating legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. With respect to the
performance evaluation rating of "successful," the FAD referenced the
affidavit of complainant's first-line supervisor, who averred that he
evaluated complainant on each element based on his actual performance,
and appropriately scored the rating in accordance with relevant agency
guidelines. The first-line supervisor further averred that he provided
complainant feedback on his personal observations of complainant's project
management leadership because one relevant evaluation standard asked
whether complainant provided "proactive project management leadership
to ensure quality delivery, resolve major obstacles, mitigate risk and
establish an environment of cooperation and team building . . . ."
With respect to the non-selection claim, the agency acknowledged that
the record did not contain testimony from the selecting official or
the interview panel members because they were no longer employed by the
agency. Instead, the FAD referenced an unsigned document in the record
titled "Justification for Supervisory Management and Program Analyst,
GS-343-15 Position," which highlighted the selectee's past professional
achievements. The agency also referenced the affidavit of complainant's
first-line supervisor, who averred that complainant had told him that
complainant did not have any project management experience and asked
to shadow a contractor so that he could learn how to manage a project.
The first-line supervisor averred that this contradicted complainant's
assertion that he had Project Management Professional certification,
which requires a minimum of 4500 hours of project management experience,
and that the first-line supervisor related this discrepancy to the
selecting official prior to the relevant job posting. In its FAD,
the agency admitted that the first-line supervisor was not part of the
selection process for the position at issue.
The agency found that complainant failed to demonstrate pretext. The FAD
concluded that complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to
discrimination as alleged.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, complainant primarily contends that the agency failed to meet
its burden of production in articulating legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, complainant maintains that his
first-line supervisor failed to explain why he only rated complainant's
performance "successful," and the agency failed to introduce admissible
evidence into the record that clearly set forth the reasons for
complainant's non-selection.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Because this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Commission reviews the agency's
decision de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management Directive
110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (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").
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, 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 Construction Co. 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,
non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community
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
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
On appeal, complainant contends that he successfully met his initial
burden of establishing prima facie cases of discrimination on the bases
of disability and reprisal, but the agency subsequently failed to meet
its burden of production, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Hicks and Burdine.
The Commission finds that complainant established prima facie cases
of disability and reprisal discrimination. The agency admitted that
complainant was a qualified individual with a disability, and the
investigation into complainant's prior EEO complaint identified the
second-line supervisor as a primary management witness in February 2005,
around the time of the events giving rise to the present complaint.
We now turn to complainant's primary contention on appeal. The United
States Supreme Court has held that the McDonnell Douglas framework
places upon the defendant the burden of "producing evidence" that an
adverse employment action was taken "for a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason." St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-507 (1993)
(quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254). "'[T]he defendant must clearly set
forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,' reasons for
its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a
finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the employment
action." Hicks, 509 U.S. at 507 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254-255).
"An articulation not admitted into evidence will not suffice. Thus,
the defendant cannot meet its burden merely through an answer to the
complaint or by argument of counsel." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n.9.
Under the Commission's decisions, agencies may fail to adequately
meet their burden of production in several ways. When a complainant
challenges an agency's ratings or rankings of the complainant, an agency
may fail to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason when it
fails to provide specific information to explain why agency officials
assigned their respective ratings to the complainant. See, e.g., Clemente
v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080012 (September 24, 2008)
(finding that an agency failed to meet its burden of production when it
provided a mere description of the selection process, generally stated
that the selectees were more qualified than complainant, and provided
no clarification in the record about the specific qualities that made
the selectees better qualified than complainant.)
For non-selection claims, the Commission has consistently held that an
agency fails to meet its burden of production when it fails to set forth,
with sufficient clarity, reasons for the complainant's non-selection
such that the complainant has been given a full and fair opportunity to
demonstrate that the agency's reason was pretextual. See Parker v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900110 (April 30, 1990); Lorenzo
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05950931 (November 6, 1997).
The Commission has also required agencies to support their articulated
reasons with probative evidence. See Clemente v. Department of Justice,
EEOC Appeal No. 0720080012 (September 24, 2008) (requiring that an agency
provide some evidentiary proof to support its conclusory statement that
selectees were more qualified than complainant); McGee v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982488 (March 12, 1999) (finding that
an agency failed to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for its selection decision because the agency failed to support its
justification with any probative evidence).
Performance Evaluation Claim
The record shows that complainant requested his first-line supervisor to
review the performance evaluation for the period ending in April 2005.
In a memorandum to his first-line supervisor, complainant objected
to several comments made about his leadership, which he believed
contributed to a decrease from his previously "highly successful" rating
to "successful" rating. Complainant described specific examples that
he believed demonstrated "outstanding" project management leadership.
The first-line supervisor responded by writing that he stood by his
rating after reviewing complainant's memorandum. In his affidavit, the
first-line supervisor averred that he rated complainant "successful,"
rather than "highly successful," because he evaluated complainant on each
element based on his actual performance in accordance with the relevant
regulations; the score reflected complainant's actual performance; and
complainant performed at the "successful" level. In explaining why he
criticized complainant's leadership skills, the first-line supervisor
averred that he provided feedback on complainant's project management
leadership because it was one of the standards in the performance
evaluation, and that his feedback accurately reflected his personal
observations of complainant's project management leadership.
The Commission finds that the agency failed to set forth, with sufficient
clarity, the reasons for complainant's performance evaluation rating of
"successful" such that complainant had a full and fair opportunity to
demonstrate that the agency's reason was pretextual. In his nine-page
memorandum to the first-line supervisor, complainant provided specific
work-related reasons and examples to show why he felt he deserved a higher
performance evaluation rating. The Commission finds that the first-line
supervisor's initial response to complainant and his subsequent affidavit
provided a general description of the evaluation process; broadly stated
that complainant performed only at the "successful" level; and provided
no specific information explaining why he assigned the "successful"
rating to complainant, including his comments pertaining to the standard
on project management leadership. In light of the agency's failure
to provide a sufficient articulation of its reasons for assigning an
evaluation rating of "successful," the Commission finds that the agency
failed to rebut complainant's prima facie case of discrimination.
Non-selection Claim
In its FAD, the agency relied on two documents in the record as
evidentiary support for its reasons for not selecting complainant for
the position at issue. One is a document titled "Justification for
Supervisory Management and Program Analyst, GS-343-15 Position," which
states in full:
[Selectee] has broad experience in the Federal and private sectors
working for Fortune 100 corporations. [Selectee] is a Certified Six Sigma
Black Belt and served as the Chief Quality Officer at the Department of
Transportation. While at the Department of Transportation, [selectee]
initiated the Six Sigma Quality program and became the first Six Sigma
Black Belt in the Federal government's executive rank. In addition to
[selectee's] Six Sigma certification, he has the CMM-Based Internal
Process Improvement training and experience and pioneered Capability
Maturity Model-based evaluations of government and its contractors'
capability in software development, software acquisition and systems
engineering related to the ability to deliver quality information
technology solutions on time and within budget. He has managed large
staffs and has the ability to manage multiple projects simultaneously
using project management tools in order to hold staff and contractors
accountable for delivering quality products and services according to
schedules and quality factors.
The document is unsigned and undated. The agency, in its FAD and in its
opposition brief, does not attribute this statement to any individual.
The second document referenced by the agency is the affidavit from
complainant's first-line supervisor, who averred that he notified the
selecting official about an alleged discrepancy over complainant's project
management experience. However, the first-line supervisor admitted
that he was not involved in the selection process for this position,
he was not a member of the selection panel, and he was unaware of any
of the issues in question. In fact, the first-line supervisor averred
that he had also applied for the position, but was not selected.
The Commission finds that the agency failed to meet its burden of
production. The documents referenced by the agency in its FAD do not
constitute probative evidence indicating what specific characteristics,
experiences, qualifications, or other criteria were examined by the
selecting official or the interview panel in their comparison of
complainant and the selectee. Specifically, the document titled
"Justification for Supervisory Management and Program Analyst,
GS-343-15 Position" is not attributed to any person, much less the
selecting official or the interview panel. This undated, unsigned,
and unattributed "justification" is insufficient for an agency to meet
its burden of production. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n.9.
In addition, the agency's reliance on the affidavit by complainant's
first-line supervisor is also insufficient to meet its burden of
production. The first-line supervisor averred that he had no personal
knowledge about deliberations in the selection process because he was
not a member of the selection panel, he was not involved in the selection
process, and he was, in fact, an applicant for the position. Therefore,
the first-line supervisor's affidavit is not probative evidence because
it provides no information about what specific criteria weighed in favor
of the selectee over complainant. No one involved with the selection
testified about reliance on that input.
The record does not contain any rating or voting sheets, testimonial
evidence, notes taken contemporaneously with the interviews, sworn
declarations, discovery responses, deposition testimony, or signed
written statements of any person connected with the selection process
that explained the rankings of the candidates and why the selectee was
ultimately chosen but complainant was not. In light of the agency's
failure to provide a sufficient articulation of its reasons for not
selecting complainant for the position in question, the Commission finds
that the agency failed to overcome complainant's prima facie case of
discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, the Commission reverses
the agency's final decision finding that complainant was not subjected
to discrimination. The agency shall comply with the Order herein.
ORDER
To the extent that the agency has not done so, the agency is ordered to
take the following actions:
A. The agency shall revise complainant's EDPAS performance evaluation
for the period May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005 to reflect an overall
performance rating of "Outstanding."
B. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency shall give an unconditional written offer to
complainant of placement in the permanent position of Supervisory
Management and Program Analyst (GS-343-15) in the Washington, D.C. office
or a substantially equivalent position. Complainant shall have 15 days
from receipt of the offer within which to accept or decline the offer.
Failure to accept the offer within the 15-day period will be considered a
declination of the offer, unless complainant can show that circumstances
beyond his control prevented a response within the time limit. If the
offer is accepted, appointment shall be retroactive to the date the
applicant would have been hired. If no substantially equivalent position
is available, then the agency shall pay complainant front pay within
sixty days of the date it determined that no position was available.
Front pay shall be awarded until complainant has been placed in the
appropriate position as stated above. If there is a dispute regarding
the exact amount of front pay, the agency shall issue a check to the
complainant for the undisputed amount within sixty days of the date the
agency determines the amount it believes to be due. Complainant may
petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute.
The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the
Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled
"Implementation of the Commission's Decision."
C. The agency shall determine the appropriate amount, from the time
he should have been selected, of back pay, with interest, and other
benefits due complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501, no later
than sixty (60) days after the date this decision becomes final. The
complainant shall cooperate in the agency's efforts to compute the
amount of back pay and benefits due, and shall provide all relevant
information requested by the agency. If there is a dispute regarding
the exact amount of back pay and/or benefits, the agency shall issue
a check to the complainant for the undisputed amount within sixty (60)
calendar days of the date the agency determines the amount it believes
to be due. The complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification
of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement
must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in
the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision;"
D. The agency shall provide training to the responsible agency officials
regarding their obligations under the Rehabilitation Act within 90 days of
the date this decision becomes final. If any of the responsible agency
officials are no longer employees of the agency, then the agency shall
furnish documentation of their departure date(s).
E. The agency shall consider taking appropriate disciplinary action
against the responsible agency officials within 90 days of the date this
decision becomes final. The agency shall report its decision to the
Compliance Officer, referenced herein. If the agency decides to take
disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the agency
decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s)
for its decision not to impose discipline. If any of the responsible
agency officials have left the agency's employment, then the agency
shall furnish documentation of their departure date(s).
F. The agency shall undertake a supplemental investigation to determine
complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation
Act. The agency shall give complainant notice of his right to submit
objective evidence (pursuant to the guidance given in Carle v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 5, 1993)) and request
objective evidence from complainant in support of his request for
compensatory damages within 45 days of the date complainant receives the
agency's notice. No later than 90 days after the date that this decision
becomes final, the agency shall issue a final decision addressing the
issue of compensatory damages. The final decision shall contain appeal
rights to the Commission. The agency shall submit a copy of the final
decision to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth herein.
G. The agency shall provide a report of its compliance with Paragraphs
A to F of this Order to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
Copies must be sent to complainant and his representative.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its headquarters in Washington,
D.C. copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being
signed by the agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted
by the agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision
becomes final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer
at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the
Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration
of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0900)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid
by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees
to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this
decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1208)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,
DC 20013. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,
and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the complainant.
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.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (R0408)
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.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within
the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with
the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time
limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
November 2, 2009
Date
1 Complainant amended his complaint to add three additional claims,
which he subsequently abandoned as moot.
??
??
??
??
2
0120080343
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
12
0120080343
13
0120080343