Estelle H.,1 Complainant,v.Peter O’Rourke, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 20, 2018

0120162305 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 20, 2018)

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

Estelle H.,1
Complainant,

v.

Peter O’Rourke,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162305

Agency No. 2003-0586-2015102225

DECISION

On July 1, 2016, 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
June 13, 2016, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

Complainant worked as a Nurse Manager, VN-0610-03, at the Agency’s Medical Center in
Jackson, Mississippi. In an EEO complaint filed on March 10, 2015, and subsequently amended,
Complainant alleged that various colleagues and managers subjected her to discriminatory
harassment because of her race (African-American) and EEO activity (mediation on the instant
EEO complaint) in connection with nineteen incidents that occurred between October 2013 and
July 2015. She also identified four of those incidents as separate instances of disparate treatment.
She named the following individuals as being either responsible for or witnesses to the various
acts of alleged discrimination:

• Chief Nurse of Medicine (S1a)
• Chief Nurse of Surgery (S1b)

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.
0120162305

2
• Associate Director of Patient Care Services (S2)
• Subordinate – Assistant Nurse Manager (N1)
• Subordinate – Staff Nurse (N2)
• Coworker – Nurse Manager of Nursing Coordinators (N3)
• Coworker – Nurse Manager of Intensive Care Unit (N4)
• Coworker - Nurse Manager of Intravenous Team (N5)

On March 17, 2015, shortly after the complaint was filed but before the investigation commenced,
the parties attempted to resolve the matter through mediation. Although Complainant had met
with S2, these mediation efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
investigative report and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). Complainant requested an immediate final decision without a hearing. In accordance
with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected
her to discrimination as alleged.

The incidents comprising her claims are listed as follows:

1. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race by threatening to remove her from
her position during a meeting in October 2013.

2. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race on September 25, 2014, by failing
to take action in response to her report that S1a threatened and harassed her.

3. Whether S1a harassed Complainant because of her race on October 14, 2014, by
discrediting her allegation that she was being harassed by N1.

4. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race in October 2014 by initiating a fact-
finding investigation against her.

5. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race on November 13, 2014, by
attempting to coerce N2 into stating that she was afraid of Complainant.

6. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race on November 13, 2014, when, at a
meeting, she hit the desk with her hand and stated to Complainant that this was her (S2’s)
meeting and that she could make a decision with or without Complainant.

7. Whether S1a harassed Complainant because of her race on November 17, 2014, by
accusing Complainant of not performing her job.

8. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race on December 30, 2014, when S2
would not allow Complaint to speak at a meeting.
0120162305

3

9. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race on December 30, 2014, when S2
told Complainant that she was still struggling with communication and that it was going to
stop.

10. Whether S1b harassed Complainant because of her race on January 16, 2015, by accusing
Complainant of displaying demanding and inappropriate behavior.

11. Whether S2 harassed Complainant and subjected her to disparate treatment because of her
race on January 21, 2015, by reassigning her to the Acting Nurse Manager of Ambulatory
Surgery position.

12. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race on January 21, 2015, by telling
Complainant that she was being reassigned because she was a bully and was ineffective.

13. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race in March 2015 by accusing
Complainant of lacking good interpersonal skills and suggesting that she seek help from a
Chaplain.

14. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race in March 2015 by telling the
Chaplain that Complainant was belittling, demeaning, abrasive, and borderline aggressive.

15. Whether S2 and N3 harassed Complainant and subjected her to disparate treatment because
of her race and EEO complaint on April 14, 2015, by not approving her request for overtime
work.

16. Whether S1a harassed Complainant because of her race and EEO complaint on April 21,
2015, by proposing a five-day suspension.

17. Whether S2 harassed Complainant because of her race and EEO complaint on May 14,
2015, by not allowing her to speak during a meeting.

18. Whether S2 harassed Complainant and subjected her to disparate treatment because of her
race and EEO complaint on May 22, 2015, by reassigning Complainant to the Non-VA
Care Coordination Office.

19. Whether S2 harassed Complainant and subjected her to disparate treatment because of her
race and EEO complaint on July 26, 2015, by permanently reassigning Complaint from a
Nurse Manager position to an Administrative Staff Nurse position in the Non-VA Care
Coordination Office.

Incident (1): Complainant averred that during a meeting that was held sometime in October 2013,
S2 threatened to remove Complainant from her position as a Nurse Manager and replace her with
someone who was “more compliant.” S2 and S1a explained that Complainant had exhibited
0120162305

4
problems with interpersonal and communication skills that made it more difficult for her to manage
her relationships with her supervisors, colleagues, and subordinates, in particular N4. They
averred that they were merely undertaking efforts to help Complainant improve those skills so that
she could be successful in her management position. Complainant responded that the units she
supervised had not only met but had exceeded their performance measures and that complaints
about her communication skills came mainly from White managers and staff. Complainant
identified N4 as one of the witnesses who was present at the meeting, but N4 averred that she could
not recall the incident.

Incident (2): Complainant averred that on September 25, 2014, S2 failed to take action against
S1a after S1a had harassed and threatened her. She stated that S1a had angrily and aggressively
questioned her about a conversation she had had with N5 and two other staff nurses. She also
averred that there was testimony from office staff who overheard her conversation with S1a from
their work areas, but that the investigator did not take statements from any of these individuals.
She stated that she reported the matter to S2, who promised her that they would meet to discuss
the matter but ultimately did nothing. She also stated that she felt that because she was Black, S2
did not care, and that S2’s lack of action was a “direct testament to the level of hostility [S2]
championed and allowed towards [her].” S1a responded that she was questioning Complainant on
whether Complainant had eavesdropped on a conversation that she was having with another Chief
Nurse. S1a also averred that she later met with Complainant and the other three nurses to clear up
the matter, and that Complainant never reported to her that she felt as though she was being
harassed as a result of this incident.

Incident (3): Complainant averred that on October 14, 2014, S1a discredited her claim of being
harassed by N1. Complainant stated that N12 openly discussed her dislike of her with other
medical staff for what she believed was “for no reason other than the color of [her]skin,” and that
“N1 was always complaining that [she, Complainant,] was always correcting her.” Complainant
stated that S1a was always accepting the word of a Caucasian employee, in this case, N1, over
hers, and that S1a attempted to blame the whole situation on Complainant’s inability to
communicate effectively. Complainant maintained that N1 was racially motivated in reporting
what she characterized as “inappropriate discussions” to S1a. N1 stated that she had no knowledge
of this event and denied that she had harassed Complainant, pointing out that she had always
defended Complainant. S1a averred that Complainant never reported to her any harassment by
N1, reiterating that all discussions by her and S2 regarding Complainant revolved around
Complainant’s need to improve her communications with her staff.

Incidents (4) & (16): Complainant averred that sometime in October 2014, S2 had initiated a fact-
finding investigation against her in response to a text message that was sent by another Nurse
Manager to six people, including herself. She also averred that on April 21, 2015, after she had
filed her EEO complaint and had attempted to resolve it through mediation, S2 had issued her a
proposed five-day suspension through S1a. S2 responded that she requested a fact-finding
investigation of the nurse who sent the text message, which was deemed inappropriate, and that

2 The Agency incorrectly identified one of the RMOs involved in this incident as N2.
0120162305

5
the resulting report revealed several witness complaints about Complainant’s bullying and hostile
activities toward N1, and that after she had consulted with the Chief of Staff and the Chief of
Human Resources, she directed S1a to issue the suspension. S1a stated that staff complaints about
Complainant as revealed in the fact-finding investigation, which had been conducted by four
African-American and three Caucasian managers, had led to the five-day suspension being
proposed. Complainant, S2, and a Human Resources Specialist all acknowledged that the
suspension was never implemented because Complainant had been reassigned.

Incidents (5) & (6): Complainant averred that on November 13, 2014, she had been called into
S2’s office and “ambushed” with a complaint that was sent to S1a and S2 by N2. Complainant
further averred that S2 had attempted to coerce N2 into stating that she was fearful of her, and that
when she attempted to interject and tell her side of the story, S2 yelled and hit her desk with her
fists, not allowing Complainant to speak. Complainant maintained that this was part of a pattern
in which S2 would typically believe White witnesses such as N2 over her, and that S2’s
determinations were based solely on the color of Complainant’s skin. S1a averred that this incident
occurred after she had received an email message from N2 concerning how Complainant was
treating her. S1a and S2 both stated that the purpose of the meeting was to give Complainant and
N2 an opportunity to tell their sides of the story and to redirect them toward better communication
with each other and the other staff in order to remain patient-focused. S1a explained that S2
allowed both Complainant and N2 to express their concerns.

Incident (7): Complainant averred that on November 14, 2014, S1a harassed her by accusing her
of not performing her job as a Nurse Manager. Complainant stated that S1a was instructed by S2
to discuss her role as N2’s supervisor in order to make sure that N2 had everything she needed to
grow in her position. Complainant further stated that when she pointed out her concern of being
falsely accused of bullying N2, S1a dismissed her concerns and told her to keep providing
reassurances to N2 in order to help N2 develop her leadership skills.

Incidents (8) & (9): Complainant averred that at a meeting held on December 30, 2014, S2 would
not allow Complainant to speak and told Complainant that she was still struggling with
communication. She averred that when she reported to S2’s office, S1a, S1b, S2, and N2 were
waiting for her, and that S2 had “lit into” her about what N2 had reported regarding her supervisory
style. She stated that she asked if she would be permitted to tell her side of the story and that S2
denied her the opportunity to speak, again taking N2’s word over hers as to what was going on
between them. She stated that the conversation, “as usual, was driven purely by S2’s empathy
toward the feelings of [her] Caucasian counterparts.” S1b averred that she attended the meeting,
and that the meeting had resulted from a complaint by N2 that Complainant was making fun of
her. S1b further stated that she was very supportive of Complainant during the meeting and that
during the meeting, it was Complainant who had interrupted N2 while she was speaking. S1b
explained that S2 was firm in how she conducted meetings, that S2 made certain that the meetings
remained focused toward resolution of the matters on the agenda, and that S2 did not tolerate
interruptions during meetings. S2 denied that she interrupted Complainant except to tell
Complainant to let N2 speak.

0120162305

6
Incident (10): Complainant averred that on January 16, 2015, S1b accused Complainant of
demanding and inappropriate behavior. She states that S1b disrespectfully communicated with
her and denied being loud or rude in her communications with S1b. S1b averred that when she
stopped to ask two nurses assigned to Complainant’s work unit how things were going,
Complainant walked out of a patient’s room and in a loud voice said, “let me tell my side.” S1b
stated that she informed Complainant that she would talk with her after she finished speaking with
the two nurses, and that Complainant stomped away. In addition, S1b averred that Complainant
was upset about being excluded from the interview process for a particular Nurse Manager
position.

Incidents (11) & (12): Complainant averred that on January 21, 2015 she was reassigned to the
position of Acting Nurse Manager of Ambulatory Surgery after being told by S2 that she was a
bully and was ineffective as a manager. She stated that S2 reassigned her in order to remove her
from direct supervision of N1 and N2, and that S2 “championed the cause of N1 and N2, always
taking their side in disputes.” S2 averred that she reassigned Complainant in order to help her
develop leadership skills in an area where she had not worked, where she did not have peers, and
where there would be no conflicts. S1b averred that Complainant’s reassignment was an
opportunity to improve her interpersonal skills, that the reassignment did not occur because of any
one particular incident, and that it would give Complainant an opportunity for a new start in an
area where no one knew her.

Incidents (13) & (14): Complainant averred that in March 2015, S2 suggested that she seek help
from a Chaplain and then told the Chaplain that Complainant was belittling, demeaning, abrasive,
and borderline aggressive. She stated that during the mediation, S2 had suggested that she would
benefit from having a mentor on effective communication and placed her with the Chaplain. S2
averred that she had asked the Chaplain to mentor Complainant and briefly discussed that the
multiple opportunities given Complainant did not seem to work in improving her interpersonal and
communications skills. The Chaplain stated that S2 advised her that other employees perceived
Complainant as belittling, demeaning, and abrasive, but that she could not recall S2 making a
reference to Complainant being borderline aggressive.

Incident (15): Complainant averred that on April 14, 2015, N3 declined to approve her request for
overtime work at the behest of S2. She stated that, following the unsuccessful mediation that took
place in March 2015, N3 had denied her overtime request in reprisal for having filed the instant
EEO complaint. S2 and N3 both explained that the medical center had reviewed its overtime costs
and found that they were not well controlled. S2 further stated that Complainant had been
scheduling herself for overtime following her regular weekly twelve-hour tours, in violation of a
federal law that prohibited registered nurses from working beyond their twelve-hour tour within a
twenty-four-hour time period. N3 explained that she was not Complainant’s supervisor and that
she only supervised Complainant’s previous overtime work in the Nurse Coordinator’s office on
evenings and weekends, and that she was informed by S2 that the facility had to decrease overtime
costs. The Chief Nurse for Ambulatory Care averred that Complainant was not needed to work
overtime on the dates that she requested, and that she had received instructions from management
to use as little overtime for Nurse Managers as possible.
0120162305

7
Incident (17): Complainant averred that on May 14, 2015, she was again denied the opportunity
to speak during a Nurse Managers’ meeting. She stated during the meeting, S2 had asked the staff
what they liked and disliked about Nurses’ Week activities, and that when she raised her hand to
offer her insights, S2 cut her off. N5, another attendee, averred that S2 had asked them to discuss
the positives first and then address the negatives. She stated that when Complainant began
speaking about what could have been done differently, S2 interrupted her, saying, “let’s hold off
on that, we are only talking about the positive aspects of the week.” N5 further stated that S2 told
Complainant that she would come back to her, and did allow Complainant to finish her comments
when the discussion reached the negative aspects of the event. S2 explained that it was routine for
her to focus separately on the positive and negative aspects during meetings, and that Complainant
did not act as if she had been treated disrespectfully. Complainant acknowledged that S2 allowed
her to finish her comments.

Incidents (18) & (19): Complainant averred that on May 22, 2015, S2 had Complainant reassigned
to the Non-VA Care Coordination Office and on July 26, 2015, had made the reassignment
permanent. A memorandum dated July 7, 2015, documenting the reassignment stated that the
decision to reassign her was made based on an investigation regarding her ability to manage a
team, and that although her basic pay would not change, she would lose the two-step pay
differential associated with the Nurse Manager position effective on the date of the reassignment.
Complainant averred that S2 had instructed S1b to “falsely manufacture events” in order to
facilitate her removal from her Nurse Manager position. S2 averred that on May 19, 2015, S1b
sent a request to herself and the Chief of Human Resources to have Complainant removed from
her position of Nurse Manager. S2 further explained that S1b’s request included references to a
number of failures on Complainant’s part to meet the qualifications of a Nurse Manager at her
grade, and that Complainant had not performed successfully in the Acting position to which she
had been reassigned on January 21, 2015. S1b averred that she did indeed submit the request to
remove Complainant from her Nurse Manager position, and that she had done so based on
Complainant’s continued display of inappropriate interpersonal skills and a leadership style which
created a “climate of insubordination.” S1b further explained that Complainant failed to interact
with her staff in a manner that fostered collegiality and team-building.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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

0120162305

8
To establish a claim of harassment 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 classes; (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).

To ultimately prevail on her harassment claim, Complainant must prove that the incidents occurred
because of a protected basis. Beyond motive, Complainant must show that she had been 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. Since Complainant has also
alleged reprisal, she must prove that the actions of S2 and the other officials named in her
complaint were harmful to the point that they could dissuade a reasonable person from making or
supporting a charge of discrimination. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548
U.S. 53, 57 (2006). See also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues,
EEOC Notice No. 015.004, § II(B)(3) & n. 137 (Aug. 25, 2016). Only if Complainant satisfies
her burden of proof with respect to all of these elements, motive and either hostility or chilling
effect, will the question of Agency liability for discriminatory or retaliatory harassment present
itself.

Complainant established the first element of her harassment claim by virtue of her race and having
engaged in a mediation in an effort to resolve the instant complaint. We would also agree that the
conduct of S2 and the other named officials in the various incidents identified by Complainant is
unwelcome from her own subjective perspective, which is enough to satisfy the second element.
See Floyd L. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150737 (Apr. 27, 2017).

In order to establish the third element of a claim of discriminatory harassment, Complainant must
show that in taking the actions that comprise her harassment claim, S1 relied on considerations of
her race that are expressly proscribed by Title VII. See Aldaberto P. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120142387 (Mar. 29, 2016). The one theme consistently addressed by S1a,
S1b, and S2 throughout their sworn affidavits was Complainant’s lack of interpersonal and
communications skills needed for success in a Nurse Manager position. Beyond her own
assertions, Complainant has presented neither affidavits, declarations, or unsworn statements from
witnesses other than herself nor documents that expose any weaknesses, inconsistencies, or
contradictions in the explanations for the various incidents provided by S2 and the other named
management officials to such an extent that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find those
explanations unworthy of credence. See Opare-Addo v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No.
0120060802 (Nov. 20, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080211
(May 30, 2008).

0120162305

9
Even if Complainant’s claims somehow survived the third element, they would not survive the
fourth. To satisfy the fourth element, Complainant would have to show that the actions of S2 and
the other officials were so severe or pervasive such that a legally hostile work environment existed.
The conduct alleged to constitute harassment 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 (March 8, 1994). Complainant must bear in mind,
however, that anti-discrimination statutes are not general civility codes designed to protect against
the “ordinary tribulations” of the workplace. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775,
788 (1998); see also Lassiter v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012)
(personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between an
alleged harasser and a complainant do not rise to the level of harassment). Instead, EEO laws
address discriminatory conduct that alters the work environment. See Oncale v. Sundowner
Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). After reviewing the record in its entirety, in
particular the affidavits of Complainant and the named officials, we find that the conduct which
Complainant characterizes as harassment was nothing more than efforts by S1a, S1b, and S2 to
help Complainant improve her interpersonal and communication skills to the point where she could
successfully manage a nursing team. Complainant was eventually reassigned because those efforts
were unsuccessful. By no objective measure were any of the incidents described by Complainant
so severe or pervasive as to rise to the level of harassment.

We therefore find, as did the Agency, that Complainant has not established the existence of a
discriminatory motive on the part of S2 or any other named responsible management official with
respect to any of the incidents at issue. Because Complainant has not established a connection
between her race and EEO complaint and incidents (11), (15), (18), and (19), no further inquiry is
necessary as to whether these incidents constitute separate acts of discrimination under disparate
treatment theory. Tynisha H. v. Dept. of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141395 (March 17, 2017).

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s
final decision finding that Complainant did not establish that she was discriminated against as
alleged.

0120162305

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.
0120162305

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

July 20, 2018
Date