Efrain B.,1 Complainant,v.Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 16, 2019

0120181720 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 16, 2019)

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

Efrain B.,1
Complainant,

v.

Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120181720

Hearing No. 520-2015-00405X

Agency No. 201425657FAA01

DECISION

On March 20, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
March 1, 2017, final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Whether the Administrative Judge, (AJ) correctly determined that Complainant did not establish
that he was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment based on his age2
since approximately February 2013, when:

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.
2 Complainant also alleges, in the context of his overall harassment claim, that he was denied a
reasonable accommodation for his disability as well.
0120181720

2
a) Complainant was publicly and repeatedly admonished by his manager for allegedly making
an inappropriate, discriminatory comment regarding Muslims and was subsequently issued
a Record of Conversation on this incident and made the subject of an Accountability Board
investigation;

b) Concerning his flight simulator training in May 2013, Complainant’s manager presented
him with many obstacles regarding his mode of travel, travel costs, time and attendance,
training schedule, and the processing of his travel voucher; additionally, his interactions
with Complainant on these matters were abrupt, authoritative and agitated;

c) After returning from the training referenced in Claim B, Complainant was directed to
attend a four-hour mandatory meeting on June 25, 2013, where Complainant was
questioned about his trip and asked to review and sign a transcript of the meeting several
days later; in October 2013, Complainant received a final notification of an audit of his
travel voucher and a demand for repayment for the trip;

d) In response to Complainant’s request for a reasonable accommodation, Complainant’s
manager accused him of not being cooperative, requested excessive and unnecessary
medical documentation, and threatened Complainant with disciplinary action;

e) After Complainant provided feedback about “CARs,” Complainant was intimidated,
requested leave which was denied, and threatened with disciplinary action and sternly
directed to conform to handbook guidance;

f) After being considered the “go-to” person for many years, Complainant was removed from
processing aviation events and conducting on-the-job training for two new Operations
Inspectors;

g) In June 2013, Complainant was denied his request to use expiring travel compensatory
time;3

h) In June 2013, Complainant was marked AWOL;

i) On July 12, 2013, Complainant was issued a Letter of Reprimand;

j) Complainant’s request for annual leave to attend the Corvettes at Carlisle event was not
approved until the last minute;

3 Notably, when it was discovered during the investigation that Complainant had filed grievances
on the same matters on August 22, 2013 and September 26, 2014, the Agency dismissed Claims
(g), (l) and (u).

0120181720

3
k) Complainant’s request to stop on his return trip from Carlisle at Silver Ranch, one of the
air carriers that he oversees, was emphatically denied, causing him to leave the Carlisle
event a day early and waste government resources;

l) In October 2013, Complainant’s manager sent emails to Eastern Region personnel
indicating that Complainant failed to execute his responsibilities as focal point for “DPEs;”

m) Complainant’s leave requests for the week of Thanksgiving 2013, were denied;

n) In 2014, concerning air tour operations over Acadia National Park, Complainant’s manager
erroneously sent out an email to pilots regarding airspace restrictions that did not exist, and
named Complainant as the point of contact, resulting in damage to his credibility;

o) Complainant’s manager implied that Complainant was disrespectful and insubordinate
when Complainant disagreed with him at a staff meeting on February 10, 2014, and
subsequently threatened Complainant with formal discipline;

p) Complainant was denied restoration of 30 minutes of credit leave for March 13, 2014;

q) In Spring 2014, Complainant’s manager refused to sign the Certificate of Waiver to
authorize an Easter egg and candy drop, citing that the application was not complete, and
that Complainant had allegedly failed to follow instructions again;

r) Complainant’s manager advised staff at the Vermont Flight Academy that Complainant
was not qualified to perform evaluations of training course outlines because he was not
current;

s) Complainant’s manager falsely accused him of overdue assignments;

t) Complainant’s manager accused Complainant of insulting him when Complainant
responded to an email using all capital letters;

u) Beginning on September 13, 2014, Complainant received a five-day suspension;

v) Complainant was subjected to an effort to discredit him with Vermont Flight Academy
when Complainant was directed, on August 18, 2014 (i.e., letter dated August 26, 2014) to
respond to the Vermont Flight Academy with a letter that contained errors.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Aviation Safety
Inspector (ASI), GS-12 Principal Operations Inspector (POI), FG-1825-13, Unit B at the Agency’s
Portland Flight Standards District Office (Portland FSDO) facility in Portland, Maine.

0120181720

4
On September 10, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of disability (physical) and age (66) as set forth above.
Complainant admitted that he voluntarily removed himself from flight status as he did not meet
the required medical performance standards.

Complainant admitted that during a full staff meeting, he made a comment tying possible terrorist
attacks to people of Middle Eastern background referring to them as “Mohammeds” and “Abduls.”
Complainant’s second-line supervisor, (S2) was present at the meeting and immediately
admonished Complainant at the meeting and in private immediately thereafter. S2, upon
consultation with other management officials, reported Complainant to the Accountability Board
and Complainant was issued a Record of Conversation, and instructed to sign the document.

Shortly thereafter, the entire office was mandated to attend training on the Accountability Board
process. Complainant suffered no tangible harm from S2’s complaint to the Accountability Board.
Complainant admitted that he lost respect for S2 and his management style after S2 issued him the
Record of Conversation.

The Accountability Board Report of Inquiry was issued and held that “Complainant was counseled
regarding the inappropriate comments made at the staff meeting and the counseling was
documented; a briefing was conducted at the Portland FSDO describing policy and procedures of
the Accountability Board and the expectation of behavior in the workplace.” The case was
thereafter closed.

As an Aviation Safety Inspector in the Operations specialty, Complainant is required to
periodically attend formal flight training. This particular training is conducted in two sessions, at
two different locations. Complainant was scheduled for formal flight training (simulator and
classroom) at Flight Safety International in Wichita, Kansas with a follow-on session in the actual
aircraft at the FAA flight training facility at Alliance-Fort Worth, Texas.

S2 requested that Complainant prepare a travel itinerary. Complainant was given almost a month
of training and mentoring to assist him with en-routing, travelling and filling out vouchers.

In a meeting to discuss Complainant’s travel, S2 granted Complainant 10 hours of duty time for
travel from his home beginning with his departure on Thursday and ending with his arrival in
Wichita, Kansas. When his training concluded, S2 authorized Complainant 6 hours of duty time
to travel from Wichita, Kansas to Fort Worth, Texas, on Monday, and 10 hours of duty time to
depart Fort Worth, Texas to Complainant’s Maine residence.

Complainant claimed an extra day of rest, which was not authorized, and was billed a total amount
of $315.99 for claimed en-route lodging expenses, etc. on a non-authorized mode of transportation.
Complainant was scheduled to fly to the training and back, but informed S2 that he preferred to
drive his personal vehicle because that is what he always did and because he found flying annoying
due to his medical condition. Complainant understood that the Agency was only responsible for
0120181720

5
two official travel days, one at the beginning of travel and one at the end; and that any additional
time required for the drive would be at his own expense.

Complainant admitted that in the meeting with S2 to discuss Complainant’s travelling and training
time, Complainant became agitated and the volume of his voice went up. Complainant admitted
that the volume in S2’s voice stayed the same but did go up a bit in response to Complainant’s
raised voice. Complainant admitted that he did not have managerial approval to deviate from his
earlier approved travel itinerary.

On reviewing Complainant’s travel voucher and time and attendance sheet, S2 and Complainant’s
immediate supervisor saw discrepancies between Complainant’s time and attendance and asked
Complainant to review the voucher which Complainant refused to do. It was found that
Complainant did in fact travel to places that were not included in his approved authorization.

Complainant’s time and attendance sheets for the days of flight training over a two-week period
was rife with inconsistencies. An Investigative Summary was created discussing the discrepancies
in Complainant’s travel voucher and time and attendance sheets. The investigation found that
there was a “clear level of distrust and tension between S2 and Complainant;” and that the “tension
may be a result of S2 having a different managerial style as compared to the former FSDO
Manager, who appeared more lenient in managing travel, time, and attendance issues.” The
investigation suggested “additional training on time and attendance, travel policy expectations,
and/or other areas.” The investigation noted that such training would require time and may be met
with resistance by employees given the lax attitude of the prior FSDO Manager.

Complainant requested a reasonable accommodation regarding his scheduled travel to Fort Worth,
Texas. S2 acknowledged the request and asked him to provide medical documentation regarding
his condition. S2 notified Complainant via memorandum that based on the medical
documentation, his duties would be temporarily modified until requested additional information
was received. Complainant was instructed to provide the additional medical information. There
were at least three other employees who were asked to submit additional medical information upon
their request for a reasonable accommodation. Complainant sent a memorandum to a supervisor
regarding his request for an accommodation and stated that he would not sign the authorization for
the release of his medical records. In a memorandum, S2 advised Complainant that he would be
scheduled for an independent medical evaluation by a specialist at the Agency’s expense.

The evaluation was necessary for management to make an informed decision concerning
Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation to remove his responsibility to occupy the
jump seat in order to conduct en-route inspections. By another memorandum, S2 notified
Complainant of the medical professionals he had to choose from who could conduct his evaluation.
By a third memorandum, S2 again notified Complainant regarding the need for his medical
evaluation to be completed and Complainant was instructed to sign the release.

The Federal Occupational Health Service (FOH) notified S2 in response to Complainant’s request
for an accommodation and outlined what Complainant’s accommodation would be. The FOH
0120181720

6
memorandum stated that Complainant can sit for extended periods of time in a regular passenger
seat in a regional/commuter or large commercial aircraft if the seat is adjustable and offers
adequate lumbar support. According to FOH, Complainant may use a lumbar support pillow as
an accommodation for commercial airline passenger seats that do not provide lumbar support or
adjustable seats.

Complainant was given a month of training and mentoring to assist him with en-routing, travelling
and filling out vouchers. Complainant was given assistance and training on how to complete the
Correction Action Requests (CARs). Complainant admitted that he was directed to complete five
CARS, which was assigned to him within a period of two months. Complainant took unapproved
leave without completing the assignments and when asked to come into the office to complete the
assignments, he refused. Complainant cited an old office practice to justify his actions; he was
previously informed that the practice was no longer in effect.

Complainant was issued a Letter of Reprimand which discussed Complainant’s “failure to
promptly and fully comply with directions and instructions received from his supervisor.” The
memorandum specifically discussed Complainant’s failure to complete the CARS assignment. The
letter also discussed Complainant’s unprofessional behavior in the workplace, where fellow
employees complained about Complainant’s grievances with management that were disruptive to
the workplace.

Complainant’s first-line supervisor, (S1) denied Complainant’s request for leave in or around
Thanksgiving. S1 informed Complainant that he could not approve Complainant’s leave requests
as Complainant requested a significant amount of time off for the month of December. It was
explained to Complainant that it would be near impossible to balance “work assignments and the
leave request of other employees” during prime vacation period; and that Complainant had not
completed assigned tasks so requesting that much leave at that time was not possible. S2 marked
Complainant as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for time taken.

Complainant alleged that S2 made a comment about wanting to see senior personnel leave the
office. S2 explained that the comment was made about the difficulty many senior flight inspectors
were either experiencing or going to experience once the Agency shifted to the Safety Attribute
System, which required extensive computer skills.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing.
Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s June 20, 2016,
motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on November 17,
2016.

The AJ determined that the complaint was appropriate for a decision without a hearing because
there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.

0120181720

7
The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed
to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Among other things, Complainant indicates his belief that a considerable amount of the evidence
provided by the Agency management personnel is incomplete, acknowledging that in the
documents and statements submission process, inadvertent error may occur that may or may not
significantly impact the quality of the evidence under consideration.

He contends that certain Agency management persons deliberately provided evidence that was
either misleading, inaccurate or deliberately false; and that those persons made statements during
their depositions that Complainant believes were deliberately misleading or deliberately false. He
refers to a Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) hearing which Complainant asserts revealed a
number of inconsistencies in Agency management statements which, he states, require further
review.

Complainant also contends that during the process of discovery, the Agency management
personnel failed to provide requested materials; that the documentation that was provided was
rather limited, and much of the content inaccurately represented the original filing; that Agency
management made a significant effort to misrepresent the existence of documents, production of
which will enable Complainant to accurately establish the facts in the matter under consideration.

He argues that the Motion for summary judgment precluded his ability to provide detailed
testimony and cross-examination of all witnesses in the matter, asserting that witness testimony
will further clarify topics that were only briefly considered during the initial investigation.

In the Agency’s response brief, it asserts, among other things, that a decision without a hearing
was appropriate because, in the instant matter, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

It contends that Complainant cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination
because his reasonable accommodation request was immediately acted upon; that Complainant
cannot establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because he cannot present a similarly
situated younger employee who was treated more favorably under like circumstances or an
inference of such discrimination; and that it was Complainant who was creating a hostile, toxic
office atmosphere.

The Agency states that Complainant’s Brief is replete with references to the Report of
Investigation and offers no new, material evidence. Therefore, summary judgment was
appropriate in this case.

0120181720

8
STANDARD OF REVIEW

In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and
the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) (stating that a
“decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review . . .”);
see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO
MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed
de novo). This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. In other words,
we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ’s, and Agency’s, factual
conclusions and legal analysis – including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional
discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal employment discrimination
statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (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”).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

AJ’s Issuance of a Decision Without a Hearing

We determine whether the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing. The
Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing upon finding that there
is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). EEOC’s decision without a hearing
regulation follows the summary judgment procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The
U.S. Supreme Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no genuine
issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the judge is to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial, as opposed to weighing the evidence. Id. at 249. At the
summary judgment stage, the judge must believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must draw
justifiable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. A “genuine issue of fact” is one
that a reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A “material”
fact has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.

An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the record has been
adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
We carefully reviewed the record and find that it is adequately developed. To successfully oppose
a decision without a hearing, Complainant must identify material facts of record that are in dispute
or present further material evidence establishing facts in dispute. Here, Complainant has not met
his burden. Ultimately, the AJ correctly determined that there are no genuine issues of material
0120181720

9
fact or credibility that merited a hearing. Therefore, the AJ’s issuance of a decision without a
hearing was appropriate.

Harassment and Hostile Work Environment

Complainant alleged multiple events and incidents resulting in management actions which he
contended created a hostile work environment due to his age and disability. Yet, none of those
events and incidents as described by Complainant rises to the level of unlawful discrimination;
and he has failed to show a nexus between the alleged management actions and his protected
classes.

To establish a claim of harassment and hostile work environment, a complainant must show
that: (1) they belong to a statutorily protected class; (2) they were subjected to harassment in the
form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on their 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). The harasser’s conduct should be
evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s
circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No.
915.002 at 6 (Mar. 8, 1994).

Here, Complainant admitted that he had little respect for S2 after S2 reported Complainant’s
comments regarding Middle Eastern men to the Accountability Board. Also, the evidence shows
that Complainant did not like S2’s stringent management style which he was unaccustomed to.

This is played out in the events as described by Complainant in which S2 grounded him; S2
reported him to the Accountability Board and issued him a Record of Conversation; S2 had an
investigation conducted into his travel voucher that was replete with discrepancies; and S2 charged
him AWOL. Complainant also received a LOR and Letter of Counseling for inappropriate office
behavior. However, the evidence shows that it was Complainant’s failure to comply with S2’s
instructions and directives that resulted in the alleged management actions.

A specific example is the travel voucher for the Flight Simulator training. Complainant was
required to attend an Initial flight training course in Wichita, Kansas and then to conduct flight
training in Dallas, Texas.

Regarding that incident, we agree with the AJ that Complainant’s assertion that “he saved the
agency a few dollars does not negate, mitigate or justify his failure to adhere to the approved
itinerary that was negotiated and agreed upon by him, his immediate supervisor and S2.”

0120181720

10
As the AJ aptly pointed out, “Complainant identified no similarly situated employees who
blatantly flouted agreed upon parameters established by his superiors and then was treated more
favorably or not counseled on such behavior.” Besides, Complainant has not described any
incidents to show that S2’s actions under the circumstances were motivated by discriminatory
animus; and his behavior or S2’s report to the Accountability Board had no adverse impact on
Complainant.

The only statement that Complainant attributed to S2 as inappropriate was S2’s comment about
wanting to see senior personnel leave the office. However, though possibly perceived by
Complainant as offensive, that was a single comment in a single incident, not directed toward
Complainant, which does not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness to render it violative of
Title VII.

Regarding his delayed reasonable accommodation request approval, the evidence shows that it was
Complainant who initially refused to provide the necessary medical release and information,
possibly creating a delay in the processing as he desired to do things at his own pace and his own
way. Again, there was no adverse impact on Complainant on this issue; and, as the AJ noted,
neither can the delayed provision of reasonable accommodation be attributed to the Agency.

Moreover, the evidence shows, and the AJ explained, that the Agency identified at least three other
employees for whom further medical information was requested and disciplinary action
threatened, if they failed to provide it. Therefore, Complainant has failed to substantiate his claim
of disability discrimination.

The other instances of alleged discrimination Complainant cites in Claims F, J, K, N, R, and V did
not adversely affect a term or condition of his employment nor did they result in an adverse
employment action against him.

We therefore find that Complainant has provided no corroborating evidence to support his
allegations; and a review of the evidence as presented do not reveal that there remain any issues
of genuine material facts in dispute.

We therefore affirm the AJ’s decision granting the Agency’s motion for a decision without a
hearing.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the AJ’s issuance of a decision finding no
discrimination and the Agency’s adoption of that decision.

0120181720

11
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety
(90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must
name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. 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.
0120181720

12
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

August 16, 2019
Date