Audrea L.,1 Complainant,v.Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 13, 2016

0120151628 (E.E.O.C. May. 13, 2016)

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

Audrea L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Robert McDonald,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120151628

Agency No. 200J-0584-2013100259

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s March 19, 2015, final decision concerning her
equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq. and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) 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 a Clinic
Coordinator for the Sterling Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) located in Sterling,
Illinois. The record reveals Complainant was hired as a Clinic Coordinator for Sterling CBOC
on November 6, 2011, as a Nurse 2, Step 6, at a salary of $60,654. The Primary Care
Administrator at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Iowa City, Iowa was
Complainant’s first level supervisor (S1).

Complainant was initially a member of a class complaint filed on January 14, 2013. The class
complaint alleged that female Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Coordinators in Iowa were
discriminated against because of their sex since 2009, when the Agency: (1) assigned them
more onerous duties than were assigned a similarly situated male employee; and (2) paid them
less than their male counterpart although they performed identical work as their male
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.

0120151628

2
counterpart. Class members argued that Comparative 1, a male Clinic Coordinator, at the
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, CBOC, was paid more and given less onerous duties than they were
given.

On September 25, 2013, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge
(AJ) determined that the class complaint did not satisfy the requirements for class certification
and remanded the complaint to the Agency for continued processing. The AJ stated that the
Agency should notify named class members, as well as the Class Agent, of decertification of
the class and the right to file individual complaints. The Agency issued a final order on
October 24, 2013, fully implementing the AJ’s decision.

On November 5, 2013, the Agency issued a Notice of Acceptance accepting Complainant’s
individual complaint for processing. The Agency defined Complainant’s complaint as alleging
discrimination on the basis of sex (female) when:

On September 20, 2012, management violated the Equal Pay Act when Complainant
received less pay and received more onerous duties than her male counterpart.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an AJ. In accordance
with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b).

The Agency issued a final decision dated March 19, 2015.2 The Agency analyzed
Complainant’s complaint under both the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and as a disparate treatment
claim under Title VII.

A. EPA Claim

The Agency noted Complainant claimed she was paid less than a male coworker (Comparative
1) who worked at the Cedar Rapids CBOC. Complainant claimed that she and Comparative 1
performed the same work as Clinic Coordinators.

The Agency stated Complainant was hired as a Clinic Coordinator for the Sterling CBOC on
November 6, 2011, at a salary of $60,654. The Agency noted Comparative 1 was hired as a
Clinic Coordinator for the Cedar Rapids CBOC on September 10, 2010, at a salary of
$69,563. The Agency stated that as of November 3, 2012, when Comparative 1 left the Cedar
Rapids CBOC for a position at the Agency’s Healthcare System in Tucson, Arizona,
2 The Agency consolidated Complainant’s complaint with the complaint of another class
member (Class Member 2). The Agency issued a joint decision on Complainant and Class
Member 2’s complaints. There is no indication Class Member 2 filed an appeal from the
Agency’s final decision. Thus, this decision only addresses Complainant’s complaint.

0120151628

3
Complainant’s salary remained at $60,654 and Comparative 1’s salary had increased to
$71,287.

The Agency noted that S1 and the Human Resources Director for Iowa City admitted that
Complainant and Comparative 1 performed substantially equal work and were covered under
the same functional statement. The Agency noted that Complainant supervised 10 employees
and Comparative 1 supervised 15 employees. The Agency noted that the Human Resources
Director stated that differences in the number of employees supervised did not change the level
of responsibility for the Clinic Coordinator position. The Agency also noted that Complainant
and Comparative 1 worked at CBOCs in different locations. Nevertheless, the Agency found
that for the purposes of this case, Complainant and Comparative 1 worked for one
establishment. The Agency noted that management officials stated that one central
administrator, the Director of the Iowa VAMC, hired the nurses at the CBOCs, approved the
compensation, and assigned work locations. Thus, the Agency found Complainant established
a prima facie case of wage discrimination under the EPA.

The Agency determined that the differential in pay between Complainant and Comparative 1
was due to factors other than sex. The Agency stated the pay of the Clinic Coordinators was
determined by the grade and step assigned by the Nurse Professional Standards Board. The
Agency also explained that the differential in pay was also due in part to the award of
additional steps, locality pay, specialty schedules, and relocation incentives.

1. Grade and Step

The Agency noted Complainant was hired as a Clinic Coordinator on November 6, 2011, at
the Sterling CBOC. The Agency stated Complainant had been transferred from the position of
Nurse Case Manager at the Freeport, Illinois CBOC3, where she had been working as a Nurse
2, Step 4 Case Manager. The Agency explained Complainant received two additional steps as
a Head Nurse when she became a Clinic Coordinator at Sterling and her grade was set at a
Nurse 2, Step 6. The Agency noted Complainant stated she was currently a Nurse 2, Step 7,
but she did not identify the date she received that promotion.

The Agency noted Comparative 1 was hired on September 12, 2010, as a Clinic Coordinator at
the Cedar Rapids CBOC. The Agency noted Comparative 1 began employment with the
Agency under a temporary appointment on June 11, 2006, as a Nurse 1, Level 3, Step 6. The
Agency stated Comparative 1 received a permanent appointment by the Nurse Professional
Standards Board (NPSB) on October 1, 2006, as a Nurse 1, Level 3, Step 8. The Agency
stated Comparative 1 received a promotion to a Nurse 2, Step 6 on July 19, 2009. The
Agency explained that when Comparative 1 was appointed as a Clinic Coordinator, he received
two additional steps (as a Head Nurse) and became a Nurse 2, Step 8 on September 12, 2010.
The Agency noted that on July 17, 2011, Comparative 1 received a step increase to a Step 9.
The Agency stated that Comparative 1 transferred to Tucson, Arizona on November 3, 2012.
3 The Freeport, Illinois CBOC is part of the VAMC in Madison, Wisconsin.

0120151628

4

The Human Resources Director explained that when nurses are hired from the private sector as
a first-time hire with the Federal Government, the NPSB will review their qualifications and
make an appropriate determination of what their grade and step should be based on their
education and experience. The Agency stated the Medical Center Director approves the nurse
pay after the NPSB sets the grade and step based on education and experience. The Agency
explained the salary is based on predetermined pay scales. The Agency noted that if the nurse
is an internal Agency candidate, a new boarding does not take place.

The Agency noted that once a Registered Nurse (RN) is appointed, there is never a “re-
appointment” boarding of a continuously employed Title 38 RN. The Agency stated that
nurses transferring from another Agency facility are not boarded by the receiving station if
they have already been appointed by the sending station; they are placed at the appropriate pay
schedule by the receiving station at their current grade and step. The Agency noted that if the
nurse becomes a nurse manager, Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, or is no longer a nurse
manager, they are placed on the appropriate pay schedule. The Agency noted Nurse Managers
get two extra steps.

The Agency found no evidence that the determination of the NPSB in setting the grade and step
level of Complainant was based on sex. The Agency stated those decisions were made based
on the information provided to the NPSB at the time of boarding. The Agency stated that
promotions and step increases after boarding, were also determined by the information
provided by the nurses to the NPSB or Human Resources.

2. Relocation Incentive

The Agency noted that relocation incentives may be authorized for full-time federal employees
who must change worksites and physically relocate to a different geographic area when the
approving official determines that without the incentive, it would be difficult to fill the position
with a high quality candidate. The Agency noted that relocation incentives are payable only to
individuals who are employees of the Federal Government immediately before the relocation.

The Agency noted that Complainant negotiated and received a one-time only relocation
incentive of $6,000 when she was first hired at the Sterling CBOC due to the decrease in pay
from her previous position with the CBOC in Freeport, Illinois. The Agency stated
Complainant’s pay was $72,816 in Freeport. The Agency noted that even with the additional
steps for accepting a Head Nurse position, Complainant’s salary was only $60,654 as a Clinic
Coordinator in Sterling, Illinois, because of the difference in locality pay.

3. Locality Pay

The Agency noted that Facility Directors are authorized to adjust rates of pay for covered
nursing positions to amounts comparable to corresponding non-Agency positions in the local
labor market area (LLMA) when deemed necessary. The Agency cited VA Handbook Part

0120151628

5
5007, Part X, Locality Pay System for Title 38 Nurses, which provides that Locality Pay
System (LPS) adjustments are made to achieve consistency with rates of compensation for
corresponding health care positions in the LLMA. The Agency noted the LPS provides
Agency health care facilities a mechanism for adjusting salary rates in order to be competitive
in the recruitment and retention of RNs and nurse anesthetists. The Agency explained that any
employee who works for the federal government experiences a difference in pay based on
locality, but nurse locality pay differs from the general schedule system, which is based on
specifically identified Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The Agency stated nurse locality pay is
based on wage surveys of corresponding health care providers working in the LLMA. The
Agency noted that Facility Directors can expand the LLMA, although normally the LLMA will
not exceed the commuting area of the facility.

The Agency noted the VAMC in Iowa City, Iowa has nine CBOCs, most of which are located
in Iowa, but three of which are located in Illinois. The Agency stated that the LLMA for the
VAMC in Iowa City included the Cedar Rapids CBOC, which was 30 miles from the Medical
Center. Specifically, the Agency noted that on August 19, 1994, the Iowa City Medical
Center Director approved an LLMA expansion to include Cedar Rapids in the LLMA for Iowa
City. The Agency also noted that when the Cedar Rapids CBOC opened in 2009, the Iowa
City Medical Center Director made another request on August 21, 2009, to Compensation and
Classification that the Cedar Rapids CBOC be included in the Iowa City LLMA. The Agency
stated that as an employee of the Cedar Rapids Clinic, Comparative 1 worked in the Iowa City
LLMA. The Agency noted that Complainant worked at the Sterling CBOC, which is located
in the LLMA of Sterling Metropolitan Statistical Area consisting of Whiteside County in
Illinois.

The Agency found no evidence that the locality pay schedules for RNs were based on sex.
Rather, the Agency determined the record indicated that pay schedules were set in accordance
with the survey of data as specified in VA Handbook 5007/3, Part X, Locality Pay Systems for
Title 38 Nurses.

4. Head Nurse Specialty Schedule

The Agency noted that VA Handbook 5007, Part X provides that a separate salary schedule
(Specialty Schedule) may be established for any nurse category, by conducting a survey of pay
rates or reviewing third party salary survey data for corresponding specialty in the LLMA.
The Agency explained that an individual shall only be placed on a Specialty Schedule if that
specialty is their primary role. The Agency noted the facility director approves the
establishment of a Specialty Schedule.

The Assistant Human Resources Officer stated that the reasons for initiating a Specialty
Schedule are significantly higher non-Federal rates and difficulty in recruiting/retaining staff in
the geographic location. The Agency noted that the Assistant Human Resources Officer stated
the Head Nurse Pay Scale was initiated at the Iowa VAMC because they had difficulty
retaining RNs to serve as Head Nurses. The Agency noted that nurses felt receiving two steps

0120151628

6
was not sufficient to compensate them for the extra Head Nurse duties. The Agency stated that
the Head Nurse Specialty Schedule limited to Head Nurses employed at Iowa City was first
requested on May 13, 2004, by the Iowa City VAMC Director. The Agency noted that to
support the request, a local salary survey was conducted, the history of the attrition of nurses
at the Iowa City facility was compiled, and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining Head
Nurses was evaluated. The Agency noted it was determined that Iowa City was having
difficulty retaining nurses, but not recruiting them. The Agency stated the Head Nurse
Schedule was implemented on May 16, 2004, and applied only to Nurse Grade 2 and above.
The Agency noted that Clinic Coordinators are considered Head Nurses, but the Head Nurse
pay scale was not applied to the CBOCs.

The Agency stated that on August 21, 2009, the Director of the Iowa City VAMC requested
permission from the Compensation and Classification Division to use the Head Nurse Salary
Schedule for Head Nurses at the Cedar Rapids CBOC, which was scheduled to open on August
24, 2009.

The Agency noted that the Assistant Human Resources Officer stated that Cedar Rapids was
the only CBOC eligible for the Head Nurse Pay Scale because it is located less than 30 miles
from the Iowa City VAMC and is located in a contiguous county. The Agency noted that
according to the Assistant Human Resources Officer, a lot of employees work in Iowa City and
live in Cedar Rapids. The Agency also noted that the Assistant Human Resources Officer
stated a determination was made that other CBOCs were not having recruitment and retention
problems. The Agency noted that the Assistant Human Resources Officer stated that since
October 2011, HR has had to recruit 12 times for Head Nurses at the Iowa City VAMC, but
has had to recruit only five times for Clinic Coordinators at the CBOCs. The Agency stated
when recruitments are necessary, there is no shortage of applicants for the Head Nurse
position.

The Agency determined there was no evidence that sex discrimination motivated the
implementation of the Head Nurse Specialty Schedule at the Iowa City VAMC or its extension
to Cedar Rapids CBOC. Additionally, the Agency noted that since its opening in August 2009,
the Cedar Rapids CBOC has employed three Clinic Coordinators. The Agency noted the first
two Clinic Coordinators were male, and the current Clinic Coordinator is female. The Agency
noted that all the Cedar Rapids Clinic Coordinators have been paid on the Head Nurse
Schedule.

B. Title VII

The Agency noted that Complainant established a prima facie case of wage discrimination
under Title VII by showing that Comparative 1, an employee of a different sex, received a
higher wage for performing substantially the same work. The Agency noted the record
showed that Complainant and Comparative 1 were Clinic Coordinators, whose work involved
the same skill, responsibility, and effort. The Agency noted Comparative 1 received a higher
salary for performing the same work.

0120151628

7

The Agency explained that Comparative 1 received a higher salary because his pay was based
on the Head Nurse Specialty Schedule. The Agency explained the Head Nurse Specialty
Schedule was initiated because of retention issues for Head Nurses at the Iowa City Medical
Center. The Agency stated that Clinic Nurse Managers at the Cedar Rapids CBOC are
included on the Head Nurse Specialty Schedule because the Iowa Medical Center and the
Cedar Rapids CBOC recruit employees from the same geographic area.

The Agency noted that in an attempt to show pretext, Complainant argued that she should have
been paid on the Head Nurse Specialty Pay Schedule. The Agency noted Complainant also
claimed that she had more experience and education than Comparative 1.

In response, the Agency stated Complainant did not show that there was a discriminatory
motive for implementing the Head Nurse Schedule or that management’s reasons for extending
the schedule to Cedar Rapids CBOC were unworthy of belief. The Agency also argued
Complainant did not establish that male employees working at other CBOCs received more
favorable treatment than Complainant. For instance, the Agency noted that Person X (male,
RN) at the Iowa City Medical Center transferred to the Bettendorf CBOC, and as a result his
wages were reduced by over $5,000.4

With respect to Complainant’s contention that her superior education and experience should
have been reflected in her salary, the Agency noted her grade and step was set by the NPSB
and she has not presented any evidence that the NPSB discriminated against her on the basis of
sex. The Agency also noted that to the extent the moratorium on pay raises for federal
government employees initiated on January 1, 2011, impacted Complainant, the pay freeze
affected all employees, both male and female. In addition, the Agency noted the pay freeze
covered increases in prevailing rate schedules, increases to Nurse Locality Pay Schedules, and
special rate schedules, but did not cover promotions, within grade increases, periodic step
increase, and relocation incentives. The Agency found Complainant did not show that
management’s reasons for the wage differential were a pretext for sex discrimination.

On appeal, Complainant acknowledges she was aware when she accepted the Clinical
Coordinator position for the Sterling, Illinois CBOC, even with a $6,000 relocation bonus, that
the new salary was substantially lower than the salary she was making at the Freeport, Illinois
CBOC. Complainant contends that at the time she accepted the position, she was enrolled in
an MSN program in Leadership and Management. Complainant states she knowingly accepted
the position with the anticipation of growing professionally within the organization.
4 The record revealed Person X accepted the position of Clinic Coordinator as a reassignment
from an RN/Head Nurse Level 3/Step 3 at the Iowa City VAMC with a salary of $66,428 to a
clinic coordinator Level 3/Step 3, salary $61,167 at the Quad Cities Clinic located in
Bettendorf, Iowa, effective January 27, 2013. Person X’s salary was already reflective of the
two step increase because he was in a Head Nurse position prior to being reassigned as a Clinic
Coordinator.

0120151628

8
Complainant states that shortly after she began working, she learned that Comparative 1 (a
male counterpart) who had less nursing experience and less formal education was paid more
than her and other Clinical Managers who had nursing degrees and more nursing experience.
Complainant claims that female Clinic Coordinators were paid as Staff Nurses, performing
Clinical Manager work while the male Clinic Coordinator was paid as a Head Nurse.
Complainant notes that the former male Clinical Manager at the Cedar Rapids VAMC, prior to
Comparative 1’s arrival, negotiated his salary well when he arrived. Complainant claims that
when the former male Clinical Manager at the Cedar Rapids VAMC left, he discussed his
salary with his male counterpart who then knew how to negotiate for his starting salary.

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”).

The United States Supreme Court articulated the requirements for establishing a prima facie
case of discrimination under the EPA in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan. 417 U.S. 188
(1974). To establish a prima facie case of a violation under the EPA, a complainant must
show that she or 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. Sheppard v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02919 (September 12, 2000),
req. for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A10076 (August 12, 2003).

All forms of pay are covered by the EPA, including salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock
options, profit sharing and bonus plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, cleaning or
gasoline allowances, hotel accommodations, reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits.
See EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 10: Compensation Discrimination (Dec. 5, 2000); 29
C.F.R. § 1620.10.

Once a complainant has met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, an employer may
avoid liability only by showing that the difference in pay is justified under one of the four
affirmative defenses set forth in the EPA: (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.
Id. We note that the EPA is limited to certain sex-based differentials in wages. The EPA does
not prohibit discrimination in other aspects of employment, even those that have compensation-
related consequences, such as hiring, firing, promotion, transfer, or other issues. Wiley v.

0120151628

9
Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01972118 (June 27, 2001) (citing
Schnellbaecher v. Basking Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 130 (7th Cir. 1989) (a claim of
discriminatory promotions is beyond the scope of the EPA but actionable under Title VII)).

In the present case, Complainant has established a prima facie case of a violation under the
EPA in showing that she received less pay than Comparative 1 for equal work, requiring equal
skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar working conditions within the same
establishment. However, the Agency has shown the difference in pay was justified based on a
factor other than sex. Specifically, the Agency has shown that the pay of the Clinic
Coordinators was determined by the grade and step assigned by the Nurse Professional
Standards Board, the award of additional steps, locality pay, specialty schedules, and
relocation incentives.

With regard to Complainant’s disparate treatment claim, we find that Complainant established
a prima facie case of wage discrimination under Title VII by showing that Comparative 1, an
employee of a different sex, received a higher wage for performing substantially the same
work. Upon review, we find the Agency presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. The Agency stated that Comparative 1 received a higher salary because his pay
was based on the Head Nurse Specialty Schedule. The Agency explained the Head Nurse
Specialty Schedule was initiated because of retention issues for Head Nurses at the Iowa City
Medical Center. The Agency stated that other CBOCs were not having recruitment and
retention problems. The Agency stated that Clinic Nurse Managers at the Cedar Rapids CBOC
are included on the Head Nurse Specialty Schedule because the Iowa Medical Center and the
Cedar Rapids CBOC recruit employees from the same geographic area. While Complainant
raises contentions surrounding her boarding, we note her grade and step were set by the NPSB
prior to her appointment at the Sterling CBOC and she has not presented any evidence that the
NPSB discriminated against her on the basis of sex. Complainant failed to show that the
Agency’s actions were based on discriminatory animus.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

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:

0120151628

10
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), 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. The requests 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 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.
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

0120151628

11
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

May 13, 2016
Date