Daniell F.,1 Complainant,v.John Kerry, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 18, 2016

0120140403 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 18, 2016)

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

Daniell F.,1
Complainant,

v.

John Kerry,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120140403

Hearing No. 570-2011-00078X

Agency No. DOS-F-083-10

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s October 7, 2013 final action concerning her
equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final action.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Management
Officer, FO-01, at the Agency’s work facility in Freetown, Sierra Leone.

On May 13, 2010, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein she claimed that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of her race (African-American) and in reprisal for her
prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when management took steps or actions to
undermine her performance and/or authority. Complainant claimed that the Agency’s
treatment of her constituted a hostile work environment.

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.

0120140403

2

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 Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing
and the AJ held a hearing over a three-day period, and issued a decision on August 27, 2013.

The AJ found that no race discrimination or reprisal occurred with respect to the accepted
claim. The AJ, however, found that an Agency official committed reprisal when he discussed
Complainant’s EEO filing with Complainant’s subordinate. The Agency was ordered to
provide the relevant official with training on the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of a
subordinate’s EEO activity against unnecessary disclosure.

The record reveals that Complainant worked as the Management Officer at the American
Embassy in Freetown, Sierra Leone from August 2007 – May 28, 2010. Complainant was
responsible for the Embassy’s internal administrative functions as the Management Office
provided services to the Embassy staff. The AJ noted that Complainant directly supervised the
Community Liaison Officer (CLO), the Information Management Officer, Facilities Manager,
General Services Officer and the Foreign Service Health Practitioner. Complainant’s first-
level supervisor was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) and her second-level supervisor was
the Chief of Mission, the Ambassador.

The AJ observed that Complainant initially engaged in EEO activity when in 2008, she
reported to the then DCM that an African-American employee had complained to her about an
instance where another employee said “kettle calling the pot black, or something to that
nature.” Complainant engaged in EEO activity in 2009, when she filed a formal complaint on
May 15, 2009, against a Defense Department attaché concerning an e-mail attachment, which
she considered culturally insensitive to African-Americans, and a joke he told prior to a staff
meeting using a Chinese accent. The AJ stated that Complainant initially wanted the defense
attaché fired but was informed that was not an option. A settlement agreement resulted in the
defense attaché apologizing during a country team meeting and in the attaché being sent to
Germany for a week of sensitivity training. Complainant also engaged in protected activity on
February 8, 2010, when she contacted the Agency’s Office of Civil Rights with regard to
matters at issue in the instant complaint.

The defense attaché was married to the Community Liaison Officer (CLO). Complainant
claimed that the CLO’s demeanor toward her changed after she filed her complaint against the
CLO’s husband. Complainant testified that the couple avoided her both at work and at a party.
Complainant argued that she and the CLO used to communicate on a regular basis but at some
point either after her EEO activity against the CLO’s husband or after the Ambassador
departed in August 2009, the CLO stopped coordinating matters with her. The AJ observed
that the CLO credibly testified that her communications with Complainant had always
primarily occurred via email. According to the AJ, the Ambassador assigned the CLO work
and the CLO updated Complainant concerning these assignments. The AJ noted that
subsequent to the Ambassador’s departure, the CLO met with the DCM more frequently, did

0120140403

3
not stop by Complainant’s office as often and e-mailed Complainant periodically to update her.
The AJ stated that during the Ambassador’s tenure, the CLO cleared emails about upcoming
events with Complainant prior to sending them to the Embassy staff, based on the
Ambassador’s preference. Subsequent to the Ambassador’s departure, the CLO did not clear
her emails through anyone.

Complainant stated that she also felt harassed by individuals who frequently requested to cash
checks after hours. Sierra Leone is a cash-based economy and there was testimony that there
were very few venues in Freetown that accept credit cards. Complainant testified that she had
made it clear during country team meetings that staff should respect the cashier’s hours.
According to Complainant, she regarded attempts to cash checks after the cashier’s hours as a
form of diminishing her authority and not respecting the rules she had in place. The DCM
stated that he was aware that staff occasionally needed to obtain cash outside of the cashier’s
hours and Complainant was unhappy about it. The DCM testified that he supported
Complainant’s desire to keep the hours under control.

Complainant testified that during the emergency evacuation of embassy personnel and family
members from Conakry to Sierra Leone in October 2009, the DCM did not utilize her to assist
him in making key decisions and instead he assigned duties to others, including the CLO and
the Public Affairs Officer. The DCM explained that he received little notice of the evacuation
and that the Political Economic Officer was the appropriate person to manage the evacuation.

Complainant maintained that the DCM was late to, and subsequently discontinued, regular
meetings with her after the Ambassador left the post. The DCM acknowledged that he
discontinued the meetings that the Ambassador had automatically scheduled that included him
and/or Complainant. According to the DCM, he instead met informally with Complainant and
asserted that he talked with her each day. Complainant raised concerns about the distribution
of duties in the Ambassador’s absence. Complainant claimed that it was within her position
description to serve as the Acting DCM, and that she had more experience than the two
officials who did serve as Acting DCM, the Public Affairs Officer and the Political Economic
Officer. The DCM testified that Complainant informed him that her Management Officer
duties were significant enough and that she was not seeking to assume additional tasks. The
DCM pointed out that Complainant did serve in November 2009, as a Charge d’Affaires when
he departed his post for a conference.

Among other incidents that Complainant believed constituted harassment were matters where
the Regional Security Officer became upset when Complainant told him he had to pay a certain
amount for a lost radio and another where an FBI officer was disrespectful toward her during a
meeting. Both employees cited by Complainant are African-American. In the first matter, the
DCM testified that Complainant was wrong about instructing the Regional Security Officer to
pay for the radio without it first going to a property survey board. In the second matter,
Complainant asserted that the FBI officer verbally abused her during a meeting and she also
complained to the DCM that the FBI officer would not coordinate with her in obtaining visas

0120140403

4
for Americans coming to the post. Additionally, Complainant was displeased that the DCM
did not appoint her as the control officer during one of the VIP visits that occurred when he
was in charge of the Embassy. The DCM stated that the defense attaché took the lead because
the VIP was a military visitor.

Complainant testified to a deteriorating relationship with the Public Affairs Officer.
Complainant asserted that the Public Affairs Officer yelled at her after Complainant did not
accede to the Public Affairs Officer’s wishes in a hiring situation. The AJ stated that the
Public Affairs Officer credibly testified that the November 2009 hiring situation was the
turning point in their working relationship.

Complainant testified that during the country team meetings, she was made fun of and mocked
by the DCM and the CLO. According to Complainant, when she spoke, the DCM and CLO
would laugh, make faces and roll their eyes. Complainant claimed that the Public Affairs
Officer would stare at her to make her feel uncomfortable. The AJ noted that the CLO denied
rolling her eyes while Complainant spoke. The CLO maintained that she and the DCM had a
good-natured teasing friendship that could have been misinterpreted by Complainant as being
directed at her. The DCM denied rolling his eyes, making faces or hearing anyone laugh at
Complainant when she spoke. The DCM further stated that Complainant did not complain that
individuals were engaging in that kind of conduct toward her in the meetings.

Complainant also raised the matter of being assigned in January 2010, to the preparation of a
rental benchmark report in reference to the Embassy’s housing problems. Complainant
claimed that the report was not a worthwhile assignment and that neither the Charge d’Affaires
nor the DCM reviewed the report. The AJ, however, observed that both the Charge d’
Affaires and the DCM indicated they read the report.

A point in dispute between Complainant and certain members of the Embassy staff involved
requests for Embassy motor pool vehicles. The AJ observed that in 2008, Complainant denied
the CLO’s request for a vehicle for the purpose of taking a visiting dignitary to the chimpanzee
reserve. In another instance, the Public Affairs Officer had been approved by the General
Services Officer for a motor pool vehicle for transporting an official visitor, but Complainant
subsequently canceled the approval. The Public Affairs Officer objected to the cancellation
and wound up using her personal vehicle after being informed by Complainant that there was
no vehicle available for this outing.

In October 2009, Complainant protested to the DCM about the CLO’s use of a motor pool
vehicle without following procedure. The CLO had planned on taking the Conakry evacuees
to the chimpanzee exhibit. The DCM rebuked the CLO for not following procedure and
instructed her to use personally-owned vehicles. The AJ noted two occasions in 2010, where
the CLO requested the use of motor pool vehicles. Complainant responded to one request
concerning a brewery tour by suggesting that the group carpool instead and the CLO in turn
replied that motor pool vehicles had been previously utilized for this type of outing and many
of the personally-owned vehicles were in disrepair. The CLO also stated that she was

0120140403

5
organizing a chimpanzee reserve trip that would include the Charge d’Affaires and that his
armored vehicle could not travel on a certain road. The AJ stated that the CLO requested and
received one motor pool vehicle for the brewery trip and also one motor pool vehicle for the
chimpanzee reserve visit. According to the AJ, the communications in these instances between
Complainant and the CLO were notable for their cooperative tone, which was not reflective of
how Complainant characterized the CLO.

A significant matter that caused friction between Complainant and the Charge d’Affaires was
Complainant’s handling of a Rest and Recuperation leave request from the Public Affairs
Officer. According to the Public Affairs Officer, she and her husband were a tandem couple
who would be transferring to the Baghdad post in a few months and before the transfer she
submitted her leave request to her supervisor and the travel office, and then it was sent to the
management section for final approval. The Public Affairs Officer stated that she learned two
days before their scheduled departure that Complainant considered the leave too close to their
transfer date and that regulations precluded her and her husband from taking Rest and
Recuperation leave. The DCM asserted that he did further research and discovered that they
were eligible to take Rest and Recuperation leave. According to Complainant, the DCM,
without her knowledge, consulted with officials in Washington at the Bureau of African Affairs
in the Executive Director’s Office, and overruled her decision.

The pertinent Agency provision regarding Scheduling Rest and Recuperation Travel states
“Post should generally not grant travel within six months of the beginning or end of an
employee’s tour of duty or within six months of a previously authorized R&R or family
visitation trip.” Complainant had interpreted this provision as though she lacked discretion to
grant the Rest and Recuperation request. Complainant testified that she subsequently learned
that approval was justified because there was a special waiver of the Rest and Recuperation
regulation for people transferring to a post in a war zone.

According to Complainant, she met with the Charge d’Affaires on February 8, 2010.
Complainant believed the meeting would address her housing report but instead it concerned
her initial denial of the Public Affairs Officer’s Rest and Recuperation travel request. The AJ
noted that the Charge d’Affaires acknowledged he was very upset about what he considered to
be Complainant’s overly restrictive interpretation and handling of the request given that her
denial occurred so close to the time of departure. The Charge d’Affaires asserted that
Complainant became defensive and combative during the meeting and told him that he was
harassing her. Complainant claimed that subsequent to the meeting, the Charge d’Affaires
canceled regularly scheduled meetings with her. The Charge d’Affaires stated that he canceled
regularly scheduled meetings with all of the section heads, not just Complainant. The Charge
d’Affaires stated that he preferred an open door policy and that he continued to hold weekly
country team meetings with all of the section heads.

On March 1, 2010, the DCM issued Complainant a counseling certificate. The AJ noted that
on this form, which did not go in Complainant’s permanent file, the DCM explained that he
believed Complainant’s fervor to safeguard against waste, fraud, loss, unauthorized use,

0120140403

6
misappropriation, or mismanagement was overshadowing the requirement that she attain the
highest standards of professionalism, efficiency, service orientation and responsiveness.
Complainant was reminded of the hardship nature of the post and that meeting individual
needs, in terms of pay, housing, mail and benefits, where possible and as permitted by
regulations, is critical to maintaining morale and promoting teamwork. Complainant claimed
that the counseling certificate was reprisal for her contact of an EEO Counselor in February
2010. The DCM asserted that the counseling certificate was not intended to be disciplinary.

The AJ noted that Complainant claimed that people provided inaccurate and malicious
information about her to the Charge d’Affaires in an attempt to discredit her due to her EEO
activity against the defense attaché. However, the Charge d’Affaires concluded based on staff
input that Complainant was efficient at paperwork but poor in her dealings with the rest of the
staff. According to the Charge d’Affaires, the role of a management officer at a hardship post
should involve finding ways of having a “can-do attitude rather than a no-we-can’t attitude
within the law, within the regulations, what needs to be done.”

The AJ observed that the Office Management Specialist testified that Complainant was
sometimes difficult to work with, so people probably minimized their contact with her if they
could, but that she did not see anyone avoiding working with her. According to the Office
Management Specialist, Complainant’s style was curt and short, and matters could have been
handled in a friendlier manner. The AJ noted upon review of Complainant’s performance
evaluations that she was regarded favorably for her work ethic and dedication, but that she had
been criticized on various occasions for her customer service.

The AJ found that the DCM’s allocation of tasks and extra duties was an exercise of
managerial discretion rather than discriminatory or retaliatory. The AJ stated that the DCM
credibly testified that he had inquired with Complainant about assuming additional duties, but
she told him that her management office duties were substantial. The AJ noted that the extra
duties were more policy-related than administrative, the latter being Complainant’s area of
expertise, and thus the extra tasks were assigned first to the Political Economic Officer and
subsequently to the Public Affairs Officer.

The AJ did not consider the CLO’s interactions or lack thereof to be discriminatory toward
Complainant. The AJ stated that not socializing at a party is not an actionable event. The AJ
found that the CLO credibly testified that she did not avoid Complainant at work and that their
interactions remained professional. The AJ observed that the CLO acknowledged that she did
not go to Complainant’s office as much after the Ambassador left and the AJ reasoned that may
have been partly due to the complaint against her husband. However, the AJ stated this was
not actionable because there is no evidence that Complainant told the DCM about it. The AJ
noted that Complainant, as the CLO’s supervisor, had the authority to instruct the CLO to
communicate more with her, write her up and evaluate her, but she did not do so and her
evaluations of the CLO were glowing.

0120140403

7
As to the treatment of Complainant during country team meetings, the AJ noted that other than
Complainant, only the Information Management Specialist claimed to observe any
disconcerting conduct. The Information Management Specialist testified that on one occasion,
the DCM looked at the ceiling as Complainant gave a report and then moved on to the next
person’s report without commenting. The AJ stated while this was not courteous, this isolated
incident was not sufficiently severe to constitute harassment. The AJ stated that there was no
evidence that the DCM had discriminatory and retaliatory motivation.

The AJ observed that the Information Management Specialist also testified that the DCM
thanked the Charge d’Affaires at his departure party for performing an exorcism at the
Embassy. The Information Management Specialist speculated that the reference was toward
Complainant. However, the AJ stated that the DCM credibly explained that such a reference
was to the belief by some staff that the Charge d’Affaires had lifted the negative spirit that
existed due to the recently departed Ambassador’s management style.

The AJ further stated that the Information Management Specialist testified that the Charge
d’Affaires commented to him during a private beach outing that Complainant had filed an EEO
complaint against him and that he was disturbed by it. The AJ found that the Charge
d’Affaires committed a per se reprisal violation. The AJ explained that a second-line
supervisor’s discussion in a disapproving tone of protected EEO activity with the protected
person’s subordinate, when there is no business reason for doing so, is the type of action that
may deter someone from engaging in protected activity.

The Agency subsequently issued a final action adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. However, with
regard to the finding of reprisal against the Charge d’Affaires, the Agency stated that he is no
longer an employee of the Agency. The Agency asserted that it would therefore not take any
steps to ensure that he received training on the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of a
subordinate’s EEO activity against unnecessary disclosure.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld
if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual
finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions
of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice
of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the
testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit
it. See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).

0120140403

8

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a
statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome
verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was
based on her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of
employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work
environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5)
there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682
F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of [complainant's] employment and create an abusive working
environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

Therefore, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected
to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in
Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant
must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis (in this case, her race
and prior protected EEO activity). Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements,
hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.

Here, Complainant alleged that based on her race and prior protected EEO activity, she was
subjected to a hostile work environment as evidenced by multiple incidents. Construing the
evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, the Commission agrees with the AJ that
Complainant has not shown she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The record
reflects that the alleged incidents were more likely the result of routine supervision, personality
conflicts, and general workplace disputes and tribulations. Even assuming that the alleged
conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment,
Complainant failed to show that the Agency's actions were based on discriminatory or
retaliatory animus.

The record reflects that Complainant was regarded as a Management Officer who was a strict
interpreter of regulations and particularly efficient in terms of paperwork. However,
Complainant was at times criticized for being curt and terse in interpersonal relations with
Embassy staff. Hearing testimony established that Complainant experienced disputes at
various points with the Charge d’Affaires, the DCM, the Public Affairs Officer, the CLO, the
defense attaché, who was the CLO’s husband, and some other staff members. Complainant
would at times challenge the need to utilize Embassy motor vehicles and she was reluctant to
agree to the Public Affairs Officer’s Rest and Recuperation request until she learned that the
Public Affairs Officer and her husband were entitled to a special waiver because their next post
was Iraq. Complainant’s rigid approach incurred criticism from the Charge d’Affaires and the

0120140403

9
DCM. It appears that her filing of a prior EEO complaint against the defense attaché strained
her personal relationship with the CLO but did not impair their professional relationship at
work.

The record does not support Complainant’s claim that she was mocked or otherwise derided at
country team meetings. Complainant stated that she felt isolated at this hardship post, but it
appears that her actions and demeanor caused her sense of isolation to a significant extent.
Complainant chose not to attend most Embassy social events and she on occasion made it
difficult for certain staff members to take advantage of the limited recreational options
available at this post. Complainant believed she was entitled to serve as Acting DCM but the
DCM credibly testified that Complainant informed him that she was not interested in assuming
additional duties and that the Political Economic Officer, as a policy-related official, was the
appropriate Acting DCM choice when the situation arose. The DCM credibly explained that
Complainant’s deficiencies in the interpersonal aspects of her position were the basis for his
issuance of the counseling certificate. The Agency has presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions in the matters that Complainant regards as instances of a hostile work
environment.

Upon review of the contentions presented by Complainant on appeal, we are not persuaded that
these arguments establish discriminatory intent on the part of any members of the Embassy
staff with regard to the accepted claim. The friction and disagreements that emerged between
Complainant and certain Embassy officials were not attributable to Complainant’s race. We
also do not discern any relationship between Complainant’s EEO activity and any actions that
could be regarded as a hostile work environment. At most, the only relationship between
Complainant’s EEO activity and an action directed toward her appears to have been when the
CLO and her husband did not socialize with Complainant at a party on the date she filed her
complaint. As the AJ noted, this by itself is not sufficiently severe to constitute harassment.
We find that Complainant has not presented sufficient argument or evidence to support her
contention that the CLO and her close friends engaged in a campaign of reprisal against her.

Complainant argues on appeal that the DCM was remiss in not addressing the manner in which
she was treated. However, in terms of the period subsequent to when Complainant complained
about the defense attache’s conduct until her meeting with the Charge d’Affaires, Complainant
did not bring her concerns about a discriminatory hostile work environment to the attention of
management. The friction and disagreements that occurred at the Sierra Leone Embassy were
in part due to the Ambassador’s operational and personal style but both prior to the
Ambassador’s departure and afterwards, it was also the result of Complainant’s at times
intransigent management approach to implementing regulations and maintaining control over
important Embassy activities. Morale was low at the Embassy and the Charge d’Affaires was
sent there for a relatively brief duration of time to in large part address that situation. The
Charge d’Affaires discussed the situation with Embassy staff and based on those consultations
as well as actions such as the initial denial of the Public Affairs Officer’s Rest and
Recuperation leave request, the Charge d’Affaires determined that Complainant bore some
responsibility for the low morale. He attempted to address the situation with Complainant

0120140403

10
during the meeting at which she accused him of harassing her. We note that Complainant
argues that it was reprisal when subsequent to the meeting, the Charge d’Affaires stopped
having regular meetings with her. However, we discern no merit in this contention given that
the Charge d’Affaires canceled regularly scheduled meetings with all of the section heads.

We agree with the AJ’s finding that the Charge d’Affaires’ discussion of the complaint with
Complainant’s subordinate, the Information Management Specialist, constituted a per se
reprisal violation as a second-line supervisor’s discussion of protected EEO activity with the
protected person’s subordinate when there was no business reason for doing so is the type of
action that may deter someone from engaging in protected activity. In light of the fact that the
Charge d’Affaires is no longer employed by the Agency, we will not order that he receive
training; however, a Notice shall be posted at the Agency’s facility in Freetown stating that
reprisal occurred there.

CONCLUSION

The determination that no race discrimination or reprisal occurred with respect to
Complainant’s hostile work environment claim is AFFIRMED. The determination that reprisal
occurred with regard to the Charge D’Affaires’ discussion of the instant complaint with
Complainant’s subordinate is AFFIRMED.

POSTING ORDER (G0914)

The Agency is ordered to post at its Freetown, Sierra Leone facility copies of the attached
notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency's duly authorized
representative, shall be posted both in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within
30 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, and shall remain posted for 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 10 calendar days of the expiration of
the posting period.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)

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

0120140403

11
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 (M0610)

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), at 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).

0120140403

12
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
time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File
a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

March 18, 2016
Date