Breanne H.,1 Petitioner,v.Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 30, 2018

0420180015 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 30, 2018)

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

Breanne H.,1
Petitioner,

v.

Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.

Petition No. 0420180015

Petition No. 0420160013

Request No. 0520160028

Appeal No. 0720140022

Agency No. 200900016RITA01

DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT

On March 20, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission)
docketed a petition for enforcement to examine the enforcement of an Order set forth in EEOC
Petition for Enforcement No. 0420160013 (February 1, 2017). The Commission accepts this
petition for enforcement pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, Petitioner worked as an Information Technology Specialist, GS-2210-
15, for the Agency's Bureau of Transportation Statistics in Washington, D.C.

On January 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a formal EEO complaint alleging she was discriminated
against her based on race (Asian), age (61), and in reprisal for prior protected activity when she
was reassigned and subjected to ongoing harassment. Petitioner requested a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (“AJ”), which was held in August 2013.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Petitioner’s name when
the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0420180015

2
The AJ issued a decision on February 5, 2014, concluding Petitioner had established she had
been subjected to race, age, and reprisal discrimination as alleged. The Agency appealed.

On March 15, 2015, while the appeal was pending, Petitioner retired from the Agency, and
accepted a $25,000 Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (“VSIP”) for doing so.

On September 16, 2015, the Commission determined that substantial evidence supported the AJ's
finding of discrimination, as well as the remedies awarded. Among other matters, relief included
the following:

1. The Agency shall restore [Petitioner] to her position in the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline Information (or its current
organizational equivalent) retroactive to September 9, 2008.

Complainant v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0720140022 (Sept. 16, 2015).

On October 21, 2015, the Agency submitted a Request for Reconsideration on EEOC Appeal
No. 0720140022. Therein, the Agency argued that the prior decision contained erroneous
interpretations of material facts and law. The Commission denied the Request, concluding that
the Commission’s decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0720140022 remained the standing decision.
Id. The Agency’s Request made no reference to Petitoner’s March 15, 2015 retirement.
Complainant v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 0520160028 (Feb. 23, 2016).

On March 10, 2016, the Agency offered Petitioner employment as a IT Specialist
(SYSANALYSIS), GS-2210-15, Step 9, in the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Assistant Secretary for Research and Administration, Officer of the
Secretary, located in Washington, District of Columbia. That same day, Petitioner accepted the
offer.

On April 12, 2016, the Agency submitted a Petition for Clarification. In its petition, the Agency
sought clarification of the September 16, 2015 order referenced above (hereinafter referred to as
Order 1). In the petition, the Agency stated that on March 15, 2015, Petitioner voluntarily retired
from the Agency, accepting the $25,000 VSIP in the process. The Agency believed that because
Petitioner voluntarily retired, the Agency should not have to comply with Order 1. The Agency
sought clarification regarding whether Petitioner was entitled to restoration of her position and
due back pay, interest, and other benefits in accordance to Order 1.

In response, Petitioner contended that the Agency had repeatedly been ordered to comply with
Order 1, and that it continued to fail to do so. Petitioner stated that she wished to be reinstated in
the position and had already informed the Agency that she understood that to effectuate the
reinstatement, she would be expected to return the $25,000 VSIP payment.

0420180015

3
In response to the Agency’s Petition, the Commission issued another decision, noting the lengthy
procedural background involved in the matter, and stated that decisions on petitions for
clarification cannot change the result of a prior decision, or enlarge or diminish the relief
previously ordered. Complainant v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Petition No.
0420160013 (Feb. 1, 2017). Regarding Petitioner’s March 2015 retirement, the Commission
noted that the Agency had an opportunity to discuss Petitioner’s March 2015 retirement in its
October 2015 Request for Reconsideration, but failed to do so. Id. Therefore, based on the
record, the Commission concluded that Petitioner was entitled to any difference in pay or
benefits accrued between September 9, 2008 and the date of her retirement on March 15, 2015,
as well as, a back-pay award beyond the date of her retirement. Id. The Commission ordered the
Agency, not only to comply with all orders finalized in Petitioner v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 0520160028 (Feb. 23, 2016), but to also comply with the
following order:

1. Within 30 days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency shall restore
Complainant to her position in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of
Airline Information, or the equivalent position it offered to her on March 10,
2016, which she accepted, retroactive to September 9, 2008. Complainant shall be
entitled to an award of back pay, benefits and interest, from September 9, 2008 to
the effective date of her reinstatement with the Agency (or her refusal of an offer
of reinstatement). The Agency shall issue Petitioner’s back pay award within 90
days of the date this decision is issued.

Complainant v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Petition No. 0420160013 (Feb. 1, 2017).

On March 3, 2017, as part of the reinstatement order, the Agency’s Associate Director for
Human Resources Operations (hereinafter referred to as “the Associate Director”) offered
Petitioner the position of TranStats Manager Information Technology Specialist (System
Analysis) GS-2210-15, Step 10 in the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (“BTS”), Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary in
Washington, District of Columbia.

On March 6, 2017, Petitioner sent an email to the Associate Director seeking clarification
regarding the position.

On March 8, 2017, the Associate Director responded to Petitioner’s clarification request. The
Associate Director stated that:

The TranStats Manager guides the operation, maintenance, and enhancement of
TranStats, which is the information system that facilitates public access to data
from the Office of Airline Information (OAI). TranStats is a mature information
system that connects the public-facing BTS website with OAI data stored in
Sybase, including data on airline traffic, the airline passenger origin and
destination survey, air carrier financial status, and on-time performance of air
0420180015

4
carriers. The TranStats Manager ensures that the system is operating properly, and
also develops and implements plans to integrate TranStats with other technologies
deployed on the BTS website – such as Drupal and Tableau – to enhance overall
usability and functionality. The TranStats Manager reports to the OAI Office
Director.

Later that day, Petitioner responded that the position description provided was not an equivalent
to her former position. Petitioner provided a detailed accounting to her reasons. Petitioner
asserted that when the discriminatory incident occurred, the TranStats Project consisted of the
“Front End,” and the “Back End”, and that she worked in the “Back End”. Petitioner explained
that one of her major development tasks was to work on the “E-filing”, which consisted of data
collecting, data processing, and data releasing. Petitioner noted that once she was
discriminatorily reassigned, the “E-Filing” project was renamed “IAIS”. Petitioner argued that
the position offered was mainly work “on the front end - TranStats web site and its integration
with the BTS website…. [and that she has] never worked on these tasks.”

On March 9, 2017, the Associate Director responded to Petitioner with additional clarification
from BTS management. She stated that:

Both “E-filing” system and IAIS have been replaced, and parts of OAI data
processing formerly done in Oracle will be completely replaced by Sybase this
year. The OAI system as of April 2017 will have three basic components:

1. “eSubmit” is a .NET program that feeds electronic data submissions from
airlines into Sybase.

2. Transtats is the Sybase database that houses all OAI data.

3. The Transtats web interface generates Sybase queries to create HTML
tables for users of the website.

To replicate [Petitoner’s] position as TranStats Database Manager within the new
OAI data processing systems, we propose that she be the Sybase database
administrator responsible for assuring that data from eSubmit are properly added
to Sybase and that queries generated by the web front end are properly executed
in Sybase. She would not need to know the technology such as Tableau for
generating Sybase queries, but would be responsible for assuring that Sybase
produces the HTML tables requested by those queries accurately.

On March 17, 2017, Petitioner responded regarding BTS management’s latest clarification.
Petitioner did not agree that the Sybase Database Administrator position was a replicate of her
prior offer/position. Petitioner asserted that at the time of the discriminatory reassignment she
was the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (“COTR”) and Database Manager,
responsible for budgeting, and procuring software and hardware worth millions, and that during
0420180015

5
that time database administrators were always contractors with no managerial aspects. Petitioner
stated that the initial discrimination case regarded how she went from being the COTR and
Database Manager to a non-managerial position that did not match her qualifications. Petitioner
asserted that now offering to place her in the Sybase Database Administrator position was
equivalent to the initial discrimination.

Petitioner further stated that she found out that OAI started a new project, called the Airline
Performance and Economical Information System Project (“APEIS Project”). Petitioner asserted
that this should closely match the E-Filing project that she was formerly on, and asked if it was
possible to reinstate her to the APEIS Project as a project manager. Petitioner asserts that despite
suggesting work on the APESIS project, the Agency has made no effort to discuss such
possibilities with her. Petitioner suspected that even if she returned, she would have to work in
an antagonistic working environment. Petitioner contended that if the Agency did not want to
reinstate her, then it should provide her with front pay.

On May 2, 2017, the Agency processed a payment to Petitioner for $124,868.94. This payment
was meant to cover back pay, benefits, and interest from April 1, 2015 until March 1, 2017.

On February 6, 2018, Petitioner contacted the Commission. She stated that she submitted a
settlement proposal to the Agency on October 31, 2018, but that the Agency did not respond to
her proposal. Petitioner sought to open an enforcement petition. On March 20, 2018, Petitoner’s
attorney emailed the Commission and requested a Petition for Enforcement. The instant petition
was subsequently docketed.

On May 2, 2018, the Agency submitted its response to Petitoner’s Petition for Enforcement. The
Agency argued that Petitioner was offered, and rejected, the position of TranStats Manager in
March 2017. The Agency argued that the position offered “was essentially the same position that
was previously offered in March 2016 and therefore adheres to the Order contained in the
Decision on Petition for Clarification [in EEOC Petition No. 0420160013].”

The Agency stated that the position description in place at the time of Petitoner’s transfer
indicated that she served as an IT Specialist and that "the incumbent's major responsibility is to
serve as the project manager for the BTS TranStats." The Agency further argued that the position
offered would have been “responsible for methodologies to improve software quality,
development of customer requirements for data gathering and linkages across data sets,
development of documentation to make transportation data more usable, and implementation of
major system components.”

On May 4, 2018, Petitioner submitted her arguments in response to the Agency. In lieu of
reinstatement, she requests that the Agency award her three years of front pay. Petitioner noted
that in her former position description, it was regularly referred that Petitioner had
managerial/supervisorial responsibilities. She stated that:

0420180015

6
The Supervisory Controls section of her [position description] refers to
[Petitioner] as a “supervisor” and the critical nature of her position within the
Agency: The employee is responsible for a significant agency or equivalent
level IT program. The employee defines objectives, interprets policies
promulgated by authorities’ senior to the immediate supervisor, and determines
their effect on program needs. The employee independently plans, designs and
carry out the work to be done. The employee is recognized as a technical
authority.

Petitioner asserts that she was formerly the Project Manager and Contracting Officer's Technical
Representative (“COTR”) of the TranStats Database. She argued that being offered the Sybase
Database Administrator was simply not equivalent. Petitioner contends that while the titles sound
similar enough, the actual responsibilities and job requirements are very different. Petitioner
argued that she previously “collected requirements, planned, designed and developed the
TranStats database.” She argued that a database administrator simply lacked any autonomy on
how to perform their work.

Petitioner notes that prior to her reassignment she had worked on a draft as the COTR, “2009
fiscal year SOW [statement of work]”, regarding six functional areas for the TranStats Project,
she argued that the offered position appeared to only have responsibilities for a portion of the
functional areas, whereas she formerly managed all six functional areas.

Petitioner argues that since the Agency refused to offer her an equivalent position, she could not
have possibly refused a legitimate offer of reinstatement. Petitioner argues that she has
attempted, to no avail, to reason with the Agency regarding an equivalent reinstatement. The
record contains an email dated July 29, 2017, from Petitioner to the Agency representative
regarding back pay issues. In that email, Petitioner stated that “the agency issued [her]
$124,868.94 for the back pay covering a period from 04/01/2015 to 03/01/2017.” Petitioner
argued that since the Agency failed to offer an equivalent position, the Commission should order
the Agency to continue back pay payments up until the time of the latest enforcement order.

On May 18, 2018, the Agency responded to Petitioner’s May 4, 2018 letter regarding the Petition
for Enforcement. The Agency objected to Petitioner’s reference to a document titled “2009 fiscal
year SOW”, arguing that it was not part of the hearing record, that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate that the evidence was unavailable during the hearing process, and that it appeared
the document was, in any case, merely just a draft. The Agency disagreed that front pay was
appropriate, and argued again that Petitioner had voluntarily retired from the Agency, and that
awarding her front pay would be providing her with more than equity demanded. The Agency
acknowledged that it owed Complainant back pay from March 3, 2017, the date the offer letter
was issued until the date Complainant effectively refused, on March 17, 2017.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Front Pay
0420180015

7

Front pay is a form equitable relief that compensates an individual when reinstatement is not
possible in certain limited circumstances. In general, reinstatement is preferred to an award of
front pay. Romeo v. Dept. of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01921636 (July 13, 1992).
Awards of front pay imply that a Petitioner is able to work but cannot do so because of
circumstances external to the Petitioner. Goetze v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No.
01991530 (August 22, 2001); Brinkley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No.
05980429 (August 12, 1999). The Commission has identified three circumstances where front
pay may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement: (1) where no position is available; (2) where a
subsequent working relationship between the parties would be antagonistic; or (3) where the
employer has a record of long-term resistance to anti-discrimination efforts. York v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01930435 (February 25, 1994); see also, Cook v. USPS, EEOC
Appeal No. 01950027 (July 17, 1998); Tyler v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05870340 (February
1, 1998).

Based on the record, there has been no showing that any of these conditions pertain to
Petitioner’s situation. Petitioner argues entitlement to front pay because the Agency purportedly
failed to offer her a comparable position. Petitioner argues that the offered position was simply
not adequate. In reviewing the position offered, we take administrative notice of the speed of
developments in information-technology. Given the rapidity of technological transitions, it is
therefore reasonable to presume that the express position Petitioner held in 2008 might simply no
longer exist in precisely the same manner nine years later, in 2017.

Based on the last petition for enforcement that was issued on February 1, 2017, the Agency
offered Petitioner the position of TranStats Manager Information Technology Specialist (System
Analysis) GS-2210-15, Step 10 in the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (“BTS”), Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary in
Washington, D.C. Following a series of clarification emails between Petitioner and the Associate
Director, BTS management suggested that a position as the Sybase Database Administrator
would be more fitting. Petitioner vehemently denied that this position would be equivalent.

Petitioner described the position of Sybase Database Administrator as an administrative, low-
autonomy, contractor-based position that was not equivalent to her former line of work.
However, we note that in one of its clarification emails to Petitioner, Agency management
explained that the E-filing system and IAIS, which Petitioner previously worked on, would be
replaced by the Sybase system within 2017. Being offered the position of Sybase Database
Administrator would therefore encompass similar, equivalent work. Aside from Petitioner’s
presumption that the Sybase Database Administrator would be diminutive to her skill level, there
is no indication that the position lacked autonomy, or was not comparable to the prior position.
The clarification emails sent by the Agency demonstrate that the position would have wielded a
great deal of responsibility and autonomy over the management of the Sybase database.

0420180015

8
In further support, Petitioner argued that the Office of Airline Information (“OAI”) started a new
project called the Airline Performance and Economical Information System Project (“APEIS
Project”). Petitioner asserted that being offered an APEIS Project Manager position would have
closely matched the E-Filing project that she was formerly on. She argued that despite offering
this as a possible reinstatement position, the Agency simply ignored her. The Agency did not
provide a reason for not offering and/or discussing this possibility with Petitioner. While that
was undoubtedly frustrating for Petitioner, we note that the previous order was to provide
Petitioner an equivalent position, not necessarily her desired position. Additionally, we note the
steps BTS management made to modify the position after Petitioner first raised concerns that the
initially offered TranStats Manager Information Technology Specialist was not equivalent. It was
clear that BTS management was attempting to find and/or craft a position that would be
equivalent, and suitable to Petitioner.

Petitioner also argued that the new position did not offer her any role as the Contracting Officer's
Technical Representative (“COTR”). While Petitioner formerly served as a COTR, that would
not have been a main function of her position as an Information Technology specialist. Even
though the Sybase Database Administrator position did not include any COTR functions, this
alone would not have made the position incomparable to her former position.

While Petitioner and her attorney have provided detailed arguments that the offered position was
not comparable, we find that the position offered was equivalent considering the circumstances.
Here, the record establishes that the Agency offered Petitioner an equivalent position as the
Sybase Database Administrator on March 3, 2017. Petitioner effectively rejected said offer on
March 17, 2017. We therefore find that Petitioner is not eligible for front pay as requested.

Back Pay

In one of Petitioner’s documents, Petitioner argued that because the Agency did not offer an
equivalent position, the Commission should order the Agency to continue back pay payments
from March 1, 2017, until the time of the latest enforcement order. Because we have determined
that Petitioner was offered an equivalent position, her back pay eligibility stops on the date of the
effective refusal, March 17, 2017.

On May 2, 2017, the Agency processed a payment to Petitioner for $124,868.94. This payment
was meant to cover back pay, benefits, and interest from April 1, 2015 until March 1, 2017. We
note, however, that the Agency acknowledged that it owes Complainant a portion of back pay
from March 3, 2017 to March 17, 2017. Moreover, there is no clear indication why the Agency
did not include the date of March 2, 2017, in its calculations. It appears that the Agency
“leapfrogged from March 1, 2017, to March 3, 2017, without indicating why it did so. Based on
the record, and in accordance to the previous order in Petition for Enforcement, we find that the
Agency owes Petitioner back pay from March 2, 2017 until the date that she effectively rejected
the Sybase Database Administrator position on March 17, 2017. Complainant v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Petition No. 0420160013 (Feb. 1, 2017). Otherwise, we find that the
Agency is in compliance with our previous orders.
0420180015

9

Finally, we note that the Commission does not have a record of back pay that covers pay,
interest, and benefits to Petitioner from September 8, 2008 to April 1, 2015. Therefore, the
Agency must either provide said documentation, or provide Petitioner with the appropriate
payments.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions submitted in support and in
opposition to the Petition for Enforcement, the Petition is GRANTED, in part in accordance with
the ORDER below. The Agency is directed to take action in accordance with this decision and
the ORDER below.

ORDER

The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions:

1. Within thirty (30) days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency shall
provide documentation that it previously paid Petitioner back pay, benefits, and
interest from September 8, 2008 until April 1, 2015. To the extent that it has not
done so, then the Agency must provide said payments to Petitioner.

2. Petitioner is also entitled to an award of back pay, benefits and interest, from
March 2, 2017 to the effective date of her refusal of the offer of reinstatement -
March 17, 2017. The Agency shall issue Petitioner’s back pay award within
thirty (30) days of the date this decision is issued.

The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as provided in
the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission's Decision.” The report shall be
submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Further,
the report must include evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.

ATTORNEY'S FEES (Hl016)

If Petitioner has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.50l(e)(l)(iii)),
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 the date this decision was issued. The Agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501.

0420180015

10
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0617)

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 in the digital format required by the Commission, and submitted via
the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency's report
must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the Petitioner . If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Petitioner
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The
Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Petitioner 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.
Petitoner’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.
0420180015

11
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).

PETITONER’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610)

This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your
complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an
appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty
(180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal
with the Commission. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint
the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or
her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or
department in which you work. Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing
of your complaint.

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.
0420180015

12
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 Petitoner’s Right to
File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:

____________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

November 30, 2018
Date