Esmeralda L.,1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 28, 2018

0120171669 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 28, 2018)

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

Esmeralda L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Robert Wilkie,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120171669

Agency No. 200H-0630-2015104703

DECISION

Complainant timely 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 final decision concerning
her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
decision.

ISSUES PRESENTED

The issues presented are: (1) whether Complainant established that she was denied reasonable
accommodation for her disability; (2) whether Complainant established that the Agency’s
proffered explanation for its actions was pretext to mask discrimination based on sex, disability,
national origin, and protected EEO activity; and (3) whether Complainant established that she was
subjected to hostile work harassment, as alleged.

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.
0120171669

2
BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Pharmacist, GS-12,
at the Agency’s Medical Center, New York Harbors Health Care Systems, Manhattan Campus,
New York, New York. Report of Investigation (ROI), at 66.2 Complainant had worked in her
position for over nine years. The Outpatient Supervisor served as Complainant’s first-level
supervisor (S1) and the Inpatient Supervisor served as Complainant’s second-level supervisor
(S2). Complainant was also supervised by the Pharmacy Chief. Complainant attested that she has
a physical disability, encompassing a torn ligament in her right shoulder and carpel tunnel
syndrome. Id. at 153. According to Complainant, she therefore has difficulty doing household
chores, cannot carry more than five to ten pounds, or stand for more than two hours, among other
things. Id. at 154.

On May 8, 2015, Complainant provided to management a written request for a reasonable
accommodation based on her physical disability. Id. at 240. Complainant specifically requested,
as an accommodation, that “she be switched into the clinical pharmacist specialist position
currently open in the Manhattan VA.” Id. Complainant stated that this position would
accommodate her limitations while allowing her to utilize her “knowledge, expertise, and vast
experience” to benefit the Agency. S1 denied Complainant’s request for assignment into the
Clinical Pharmacist Specialist Position. Id. at 202. In denying Complainant’s request, S1 cited that
Complainant was currently being accommodated in that her duties were limited to no bagging, no
stapling, no lifting over five pounds with her right arm or hand, no overhead work above her right
shoulder, no right hand repetitive activities, no prolonged standing, walking, and avoiding
repetitive gripping in her right hand. Id.

On May 19, 2015, S1 issued Complainant a Proposed Admonishment. Therein, S1 charged
Complainant with failing to check prescriptions on April 24, 2015, as instructed. Id. at 251-252.
S1 noted that Complainant’s failure to follow instructions caused prescription lines to be
exceptionally long and left one pharmacist alone to check prescriptions for almost 400 patients.
Id. S1 also charged Complainant with leaving her work area without permission on April 24, 2015.
Id. Subsequently, on July 1, 2015, S2 issued Complainant a Memorandum of Counseling. Id. at
250. Therein, S2 noted that Complainant processed an antibiotic intravenous fluid for a patient on
June 20, 2015, that was lacking an infusion rate. S2 noted that Complainant made yet another
mistake in processing an antibiotic intravenous fluid for a patient the day after on June 21, 2015.
Id. Shortly thereafter, on July 1, 2015, S1 carried out and implemented the May 19, 2015, Letter
of Admonishment issued to Complainant. Id. at 315.

However, according to Complainant, management repeatedly denied her requests for training in
the Qmatic System, Patient Counseling, as well as retraining associated with the changes initiated

2 The page numbers refer to the “bates” numbers at the very bottom center of the page.

0120171669

3
in the IV room. Id. at 161-162. Complainant stated that she had no code to use the Qmatic machine.
Id. S1 responded that Complainant had already been fully trained in the operation of the Qmatic
System, and expressed that Patient Counseling knowledge is a pre-requisite for the hiring of any
GS-12 level Pharmacist. Id. S2 also averred that Complainant had already been provided refresher
training in the IV room from March 20, 2015, through April 2, 2015. Id. at 186-87. S2 additionally
maintained that Complainant initially declined any need for training on September 15, 2015, and
once she requested additional training, a mentor was assigned to work with Complainant in the IV
room. Id. The Pharmacy Chief also felt that Complainant received more training than other
Pharmacists. Id. at 221-222.

On September 21, 2015, S2 presented Complainant with a memorandum, notifying her that she
would be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Id. at 317-318. The PIP memorandum
noted that Complainant made several mistakes in the performance of her duties, including an error
where she selected a wrong dispense item that resulted in a dose 10 times the normal rate for a
patient. Id. The PIP memorandum also cited to Complainant’s two errors mentioned in the July 1,
2015, Memorandum of Counseling. Id. The PIP gave Complainant 90-days to improve her
performance.

Subsequently, on November 30, 2015, through December 8, 2015, Complainant was charged with
absence without leave (AWOL) for being absent from work without authorization. However,
according to Complainant, her doctor gave her a prescription stating that she needed to take leave
from November 30, 2015, through December 11, 2015. ROI, at 165-166. Complainant attested
that she sent management a doctor’s note, sent them an email, and called all of her supervisors.
She did not receive a response from management either approving or disapproving her request for
leave. Id. However, according to S1, S2, and the Pharmacy Chief, Complainant never contacted
them to say that she needed leave during this period. Id. at 190-191, 209-210, 223. According to
them, Complainant failed to call-in and was simply a no-show to work. Id. They maintained that
Complainant failed to request leave as outlined in the Agency’s Healthcare System Policy, as she
was absent from work without notifying anyone. Id.

Complainant averred that management acted in a very abusive and intimidating manner towards
her on several occasions. Id. at 167. As an example, Complainant states that S1 had a habit of
standing behind her and yelling at her, and on November 10, 2015, he stood behind her in a very
close, intimidating manner while she was entering prescription orders for patients. Id. In response,
S1 stated that on November 10, 2015, Complainant was assigned to process outpatient pending
prescription orders, but several times during her tour of duty he noticed Complainant engaged in
other activities on the computer. Id. at 211. S1 observed that when Complainant realized he was
watching her, she would suddenly switch the computer screen to their software program where
pending prescription orders are processed. Id.

Complainant additionally maintained that when her work station was being evaluated by the
Occupational Therapist, she (Complainant) stated that she been successful working in the patient
counseling rooms, but that S1 stated in a vindictive manner that “it’s not going to happen.” Id. at
173. Lastly, according to Complainant, S1 and S2 directed her to sign her PIP immediately without
0120171669

4
union or legal representation. Id. at 174-175. Complainant believed that they wanted her to sign
the PIP without allowing her time to read it. Id.

On September 22, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint (as subsequently amended) alleging
that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of national origin (Egyptian), sex (female),
disability (physical), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. Since May 8, 2015, management failed to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation;

2. On June 30, 2015, she was issued a Counseling Memorandum reminding her of the
need for careful and accurate verification of orders;

3. On July 1, 2015, S2 issued her a written counseling;3

4. On July 7, 2015, S1 issued her an Admonishment;

5. Since August 4, 2015, S1, S2, and the Pharmacy Chief, have denied her repeated
request for training in the Qmatic system and patient counseling, as well as retraining
associated with changes initiated in the IV room;

6. On September 21, 2015, S2 placed her under a PIP;

7. From November 30, 2015 through December 8, 2015, S1, S2 and the Pharmacy Chief
charged her with absent without leave (AWOL) each day;

8. On November 10, 2015, S1 stood behind her in a very close, intimidating manner while
she was entering orders;

9. On January 22, 2016, when her work station was being evaluated by the Manhattan
Occupational Therapist, she stated that she had been successfully working in the patient
counseling rooms, and S1 responded in a vindictive manner that “It’s not going to
happen”; and

10. On January 29, 2016, S1 and S2 approached her while she was the only Pharmacist on
duty for inpatient orders and directed her to sign a document immediately without union
or legal representation.

Following 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 EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her request.
Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The

3 The record reflects that claims 2 and 3 are the same claim.
0120171669

5
decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged.

In finding that Complainant was not denied a reasonable accommodation, the Agency noted that
Complainant did not allege that her disability precluded her from performing the essential
functions of her position. The Agency found that Complainant’s prescription medication errors
were not linked to her medical restrictions. The Agency found that because Complainant failed to
show that management requested her to perform duties inconsistent with her medical restrictions,
she failed to show that the accommodations provided for her were not effective. The Agency
additionally found that Complainant failed to show that its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
were a pretext for discrimination. The Agency specifically found that Complainant failed to show
that she did not make errors in the performance of her duties. The Agency additionally observed
that Complainant did not rebut management’s contention that she did not request leave in
accordance with policy for her absence from November 30, 2015 through December 8, 2015. The
Agency found that Complainant provided no persuasive evidence to show that its reasons were
unworthy of belief. The Agency lastly found that Complainant did not establish that she was
subjected to a hostile work environment, as alleged.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant states that she did not receive an accommodation for all of her medical
restrictions, as she had to stand for lengthy periods of time and reach over her head. Complainant
states that her request to work as tele-pharmacist and in pharmacy counseling went ignored.
Complainant also states that her request for a schedule change to work from 7:00 am to 3:30 pm
was also denied. Complainant further contends that she was not reassigned into the Clinical
Pharmacist Specialist position, as she requested. Complainant maintains that other Pharmacists
were not disciplined as she was for making similar mistakes. Complainant asserts that for one of
her mistakes cited in the PIP, two other Pharmacists made the same error without any form of
punishment. She argues that there are plenty of missed doses and errors committed by staff, but
she was the only Pharmacist who was placed on a PIP and removed. Complainant believes that
she was subjected to reprisal by management due to her request for accommodation. She states
that shortly after she requested accommodation on May 8, 2015, she received the memorandums
of counseling and admonishment from management. Complainant maintains that management
began to build a case of bad performance against her in retaliation for her request for
accommodation. Complainant states that the issued memorandums of Counseling and
Admonishment eventually led to her removal.4

In response, the Agency requests that we affirm its final decision.

4 We note that Complainant has raised the matter of her removal with the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB).

0120171669

6

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b),
the Agency’s decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9,
§ VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the
Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of
record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision
based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Reasonable Accommodation

Under the Commission’s regulations, a federal agency may not discriminate against a qualified
individual on the basis of disability and is required to provide reasonable accommodations to the
known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless
the Agency can show that reasonable accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(o), (p). To establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(g); (2) she is a ““qualified” individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. See
EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002) (Enforcement
Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation). An individual with a disability is “qualified” if he or
she satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the
employment position that the individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).
“Essential functions” are the fundamental job duties of the employment position that the individual
holds or desires. Id. § 1630.2(n).5

In the instant case, Complainant formally requested to be reassigned to the Clinical Pharmacist
Specialist position as an accommodation. In general, reassignment is the reasonable
accommodation of last resort, and should be considered only after it has been determined that there
are no effective accommodations that would enable the employee to perform the essential
functions of her current position or accommodating the employee in the current position would
cause an undue hardship. Donna S. v. Dept. of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160652 (May 16,
2018); Melodee M. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120142484 (Apr. 8, 2016).
The burden to prove that the accommodations offered by the Agency were not effective rests with
Complainant. See, e.g., Victor M. v. National Security Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 0120152103

5 We assume, without finding, that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.
0120171669

7
(Dec. 22, 2017) (complainant failed to prove that the provision of his classmates’ notes was not an
effective accommodation); Wimbush v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090109 (Feb.
13, 2009) (complainant failed to prove that the accommodation offered by the agency was not
effective).

Here, S1 stated that he denied Complainant’s request, which he considered a promotion, because
Complainant was already being accommodated within her restrictions. ROI, at 202. S1 specifically
averred that Complainant’s job duties were limited to the restrictions indicated by her doctor,
which included no bagging, no stapling, no lifting over five pounds with her right arm or hand, no
overhead work above her shoulder, no right hand repetitive activities, no prolonged standing or
walking, and no repetitive gripping in her right hand. Id. S1 stated that when Complainant was
assigned to the Outpatient Pharmacy, her duties were primarily performed while sitting down. Id.
The Pharmacy Chief further attested that they changed Complainant’s work assignment, retrained
her, provided her with a special keyboard and special computer, among other accommodations. Id.
at 223.

Although Complainant formally requested to be reassigned, we note that a complainant is entitled
to an effective reasonable accommodation and is not entitled to the accommodation of his/her
choice. Lynette B. v. Dep't. of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720140010 (Dec. 3, 2015). In this case,
we find that Complainant has not established that the accommodations provided for her were not
effective. Complainant has specifically not shown that she could not perform the essential
functions of position due to her disability after receiving the accommodations within her
restrictions. There is no evidence to reflect that Complainant was provided with duties outside her
medical restrictions. While Complainant may have made mistakes in processing medication, the
record does not show that these errors were related to Complainant’s disability. In sum, we find
that Complainant has not established that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act here.6

Disparate Treatment (Claims 2-7)

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he
or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a
prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411
U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To
ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s

6 Complainant maintains that she also requested a schedule change to work from 7:00 am to 3:30
pm and requested telework as a reasonable accommodation. We note, however, that the record is
absent of documentation showing that Complainant actually requested these specific
accommodations, and management has not specifically responded to these allegations in the
record.
0120171669

8
explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct.
2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination based on her protected classes, the Agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. With regard to claims 2 and 3, S2 explained that the
Memorandum of Counseling was issued to Complainant due to a series of mistakes made by
Complainant during the prescription order verification process that resulted in improper doses of
medications prescribed for patients. With regard to claim 4, S1 attested that the Memorandum of
Admonishment was issued to Complainant after she failed to follow instructions and check
prescriptions on April 24, 2015. S1 and S2 further maintained, regarding claim 5, that it was their
feeling that Complainant received more than enough training on the Qmatic System. They also
attested that she received a mentor for training in the IV room.

S2 averred that Complainant was placed on the PIP (claim 6) after she made several mistakes in
the performance of her duties, including a matter where she selected a wrong dispense item, which
resulted in a dose 10 times the normal rate for a patient. The Pharmacy Chief averred that
Complainant’s medication errors continued, which was a serious Patient Safety issue. In
addressing claim 7, according to S1, S2, and the Pharmacy Chief, Complainant never contacted
them to say that she needed leave during this period. According to them, Complainant failed to
call-in and was simply a no-show to work. They maintained that Complainant failed to request
leave as outlined in the Agency’s Healthcare System Policy, as she was absent from work without
notifying anyone.

The burden now shifts to Complainant to establish that the Agency’s nondiscriminatory reasons
were a pretext for discrimination. Burdine, at 254. In an attempt to show pretext, Complainant
contends, in pertinent part, that other Pharmacists were not disciplined as she was for making
similar mistakes. Complainant asserts that for one of her mistakes cited in the PIP, two other
Pharmacists made the same error without any form of punishment. She argues that there were
plenty of missed doses and errors committed by staff to go around, but she was the only Pharmacist
who was placed on a PIP and subsequently removed. Complainant maintains that management
began to build a case of bad performance against her in retaliation for her request for
accommodation. Complainant states that the issued Memorandums of Counseling and
Admonishment eventually led to her removal.

Notwithstanding Complainant’s contentions, we find that she has not established that the Agency’s
reasons were a pretext for discrimination. In so finding, we note that Complainant does not dispute
that she made many of the errors alleged, and admits she did not check prescriptions as instructed
on April 24, 2015. We note that S1 instructed Complainant, in checking prescriptions, that she was
only to help out by scanning the bar code of the label, produce the paper work, complete the
computer checking process, and a technician would transport the heavy items for her. ROI, at 264.
An employee corroborated management’s assertion that Complainant did not follow instructions
on April 24, 2015. Id. at 258. This instruction by S1 to check prescriptions on April 24, 2015,
clearly did not violate Complainant’s restrictions.
0120171669

9

In addition, we find that there is simply no evidence to support Complainant’s assertions that other
Pharmacists made similar mistakes, but were not disciplined as she was. We also can find no
evidence in the record to refute S1, S2, and the Pharmacy Chief’s assertion that Complainant did
not notify them that she would be absent from November 30, 2015, through December 8, 2015.
Moreover, we that Complainant did not establish that she was improperly denied training as
alleged.

As Complainant withdrew her request for a hearing, we do not have the benefit of an
Administrative Judge’s credibility determinations after a hearing; therefore, we can only evaluate
the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented to us. Based on the record before us, we
are not persuaded that Complainant has shown that the Agency’s conduct was based on national
origin, sex, disability, and prior protected EEO activity, as alleged.

Hostile Work Environment Harassment.

Finally, to the extent that Complainant is alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment, the Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems.
Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant’s claim of hostile work environment must fail. See
Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 3,
1994). Complainant’s harassment claim is precluded based on the Commission’s finding that she
failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory
or retaliatory animus with regard to claims 2-7. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal
No. 01932923 (Sep. 21, 2000).

With respect to claims 8, 9, and, 10, we find that Complainant has not proven sufficiently severe
or pervasive events to show that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. We note that
not every unpleasant or undesirable action which occurs in the workplace constitutes an EEO
violation. See Shealey v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070356 (Apr. 18, 2011) (citing Epps v.
Dep't of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 0120093688 (Dec. 19, 2009)). Even assuming that the conduct
alleged was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, we find that
Complainant has not shown that any of the alleged incidents were motivated by discriminatory or
retaliatory animus. As such, we find that Complainant has not established that she was subjected
to a hostile work environment based on her protected classes, as alleged.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.

0120171669

10
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.
0120171669

11
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

November 28, 2018
Date