0120161039
06-05-2018
Hyo J.,1 Complainant, v. Ryan K. Zinke, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hyo J.,1
Complainant,
v.
Ryan K. Zinke,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Indian Affairs),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161039
Agency No. DOIBIA150125
DECISION
On December 28, 2015, 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 November 24, 2015, 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.
ISSUES PRESENTED
Whether Complainant established that she was discriminated against based on sex (female) and harassment when she was downgraded from her position as Chief of Police (COP); issued a letter placing her on administrative leave; arrested for "Administrative Issues;" placed on administrative leave to prepare for a detail; and removed from her COP position and detailed as a Special Agent.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-12 at the Agency's Bureau of Indian Affairs, Turtle Mountain Agency facility in Crow Agency, Montana. On February 26, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex (female) when:
1. Effective January 11, 2015, she accepted the Special Agent position at Crow Agency, a position downgrade from Chief of Police (COP), Turtle Mountain Agency, to escape the hostile work environment created by Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) (S-1) OJS Great Plains & Midwest Region, District 1 Office, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and to avoid a demotion;
2. On November 6, 2014, she was issued a letter placing her on Administrative Leave (AL) effective immediately pending arraignment for criminal charges; AL was ended December 3, 2014. The evening of November 6, 2014, Complainant was served with an "Allegation of Misconduct" notice due to her arrest;
3. On November 5, 2014, Acting COP S-2, Turtle Mountain Agency, had Complainant arrested for "Administrative Issues" when she went to collect her personal items at her former office;
4. From October 2-3, 2014, Complainant was placed on AL to prepare for the detail to Crow Agency; and
5. On October 1, 2014, S-1 informed Complainant that she was removed as COP, Turtle Mountain Agency, Belcourt, North Dakota, and detailed to a Crow Agency, Special Agent position, effective October 6 through November 2, 2014, for "policy violations."
Downgrade
Complainant testified that prior to S-1 onboarding as her supervisor in October 2013, she had established excellent working relationships with various law enforcement agencies and other entities and had received multiple compliments and good ratings regarding how she ran and improved Turtle Mountain Agency. Complainant stated that once S-1 became her supervisor, she experienced the following problems: (1) when Complainant raised concerns about hiring a Supervisory Correctional Officer, S-1 just laughed and did not take her concerns seriously; (2) Complainant was due for a grade increase in April 2014, but never received it despite an above-average rating on her prior performance appraisal; (3) S-1 refused to assist her and told her that her department was corrupt when she emailed S-1 and Internal Affairs Division (IAD) requesting that an outside agency take over the investigation of an employee altercation at a local bar. Eventually the Associate Director confirmed that IAD should handle the investigation; (4) Complainant believed that the District 1 Office wanted A-1 as the COP of Turtle Mountain Agency because he was a man, he was transferred to the Turtle Mountain Agency as a Special Agent in late June 2014, and he made it known that he wanted the COP position at Turtle Mountain Agency; and (5) on July 11, 2014, during a meeting regarding complaints about him and his staff, A-1 inappropriately asked her what a particular officer "had on her;" Complainant asked A-1 to leave her office three (3) times.
S-1 states that Complainant was detailed from Turtle Mountain Agency to assist District V with investigations, not because of policy violations. He indicated that he would propose her demotion from supervisor back to Special Agent during this detail because she was on supervisory probation and committed several policy violations, was involved in IAD investigations, and received complaints of discrimination against her by an agency staff member. According to the Agency, the only reason S-1 discussed this demotion at this time was to allow Complainant to prepare for the possible transition and to allow her time to dispute the demotion, if she chose to do so.
Administrative Leave
Complainant was issued a letter placing her on AL effective immediately pending arraignment for criminal charges; AL was ended December 3, 2014. The evening of November 6, 2014, Complainant was served with an "Allegation of Misconduct" notice due to her arrest.
Complainant did not feel it was inappropriate for E-1 to put her on AL following her arrest or to launch an investigation because it is standard procedure to do so when an employee is arrested. It is her contention that the arrest itself was inappropriate and illegal, and if she had not been illegally arrested, it would not have been necessary to place her on AL or to investigate her. Complainant testified that her arraignment was on November 24, 2014, and the judge explained that administrative issues were not criminal offenses, no crime had been committed, and the BIA was improperly using the court system to target Complainant. Complainant stated that the judge refused to accept the charges and prosecute her for the alleged offense and the prosecutor agreed; and her bond was returned to her. Complainant stated that S-1 was notified of the court's decision; as a result, her AL was lifted and she returned to the Crow Agency the week after Thanksgiving.
Complainant testified that IAD investigated both the allegations of misconduct made against her, and S-1 and S-2's actions the day Complainant was arrested. Complainant stated that the investigation has concluded, but she is unaware of their findings. Complainant stated she has not been advised as to whether she or anyone else will be disciplined based on IAD's findings.
S-1 stated that he did not play a role in the decision to place Complainant on AL in November 2014. He also did not refer Complainant to IAD. According to S-1, Complainant was not the Chief of Turtle Mountain Agency during this time. Instead, S-2 (female), Complainant's replacement as COP was placed in the position of Acting COP. S-1 was advised that Complainant was going to the station to pick up her personal property. However, S-1 stated that the official police report indicated that Complainant was behaving in a disorderly manor and was asked to leave many times and this gave probable cause for an arrest. S-1 states that a federal employee has some protection in the performance of his or her duties, he maintained that this does not extend to allowing an employee who breaks the laws. S-1 stated that Complainant was to report back to the District 1 office when her detail ended, not back to Turtle Mountain Agency.
Complainant arrested for "Administrative Issues"
Complainant testified that she was scheduled to return to Turtle Mountain Agency from her Crow Agency detail on November 5, 2014, but by that time she had already requested to be transferred out of her COP position due to the hostile work environment created by S-1. Complainant anticipated that her Crow Agency detail would be extended until her transfer was processed. Complainant testified that her personal belongings, including her law degree, and other items she needed to continue performing her duties at Crow Agency were in her office at Agency. She called Turtle Mountain Agency to notify Dispatch that she was coming in and to request an Officer stand by because she was concerned about how she might be treated upon her arrival.
Complainant arrived at Turtle Mountain Agency on November 5, 2014, and an Officer accompanied her to her office. Complainant stated that S-2 (a subordinate) was assigned to act as the COP in her office during her detail. Complainant told S-2 she was there to gather her belongings and S-2 responded, "No." After she repeated that she was there to gather her belongings, S-2 tried to physically push her out of the office. Complainant saw the COP insignia brass on S-2's collar, "lightly flicked her collar," and said, "Who made you Chief? I am still the Chief of Police of this Agency, and I have never received anything indicating otherwise." Complainant then repeated that she wanted her personal belongings, but S-2 refused to give her access.
Complainant testified that S-2 then made a phone call and told Complainant to leave. When she repeated that she wanted her belongings, S-2 stated, "Well, then, you're under arrest." Complainant asked S-2 if she was arresting her for administrative issues, and S-2 responded, "Yes." Complainant repeated the question three (3) times and all three (3) times the answer was, "Yes." Complainant told S-2 that there was no such thing as an arrest for administrative issues. When she walked to her vehicle, she noticed S-2 standing in front of her vehicle "looking antsy and freaked out." Complainant was under the impression that S-2 was going to draw her gun. Complainant stated that S-2 told her to get out of her vehicle because she was under arrest. She believed she was going to get shot.
Complainant testified that another Officer escorted her back inside the building where she was booked for assault and disorderly conduct. She later learned that S-2 was angry that the Corrections Officers helped her post bond because S-2 wanted her in jail. When Complainant learned that S-2 called S-1, and he had told S-2 to treat Complainant like any other civilian, she advised S-2 that she was in the building in an official capacity. Complainant stated that her SF-50 still reflected that she was the COP at Turtle Mountain Agency, and she had not been informed that she was not allowed in the building or her office. When S-2 begin to arrest her, Complainant maintains that she advised S-2 that the tribe lacked jurisdiction over her and according to a tribal court, the arrest was illegal, a policy violation, and a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
Complainant testified that an ASAC in the District 1 Office had told her that S-2 claimed Complainant hit her or pushed her. After an hour, Complainant went home. But, another Officer and a County Deputy arrived at her house to re-arrest her. Complainant called ASAC, who advised her not to open her door unless the officers had a warrant. Complainant stated that the officers banged on her door and her neighbors' doors for about 30 minutes, waited in a patrol unit outside her home for another 15-30 minutes, and finally stationed a patrol vehicle to watch her home for about two (2) hours. Complainant stated that during this time she was "completely terrified and feared for [her] safety." Complainant testified that she called the Officer who had escorted her in and asked him to come to her house and take her assigned weapons and equipment. Complainant stated that since she was on AL due to the arrest, she knew her equipment would be taken from her; therefore, she felt it was best to turn in the equipment voluntarily. Complainant stated that Officers came to her house the next morning to collect her equipment.
S-1 believed that Complainant previously contacted the Agency and advised dispatch that she would pick up some personal items and requested an officer to be present because she was upset about the treatment of a tribal employee at the Agency. He stated that S-2 called him and relayed the conversation between Complainant and the dispatcher. He encouraged S-2 to speak to Complainant if she did show up to pick up her property. He recalled S-2 telling him that she was not comfortable with Complainant coming into the office because her desire to be accompanied by an officer made it unclear what her intentions were and what her demeanor would be.
According to S-1 Complainant was arrested due to disorderly conduct for placing her hands on S-2 while at the office. He received several calls from S-2 during the incident. He described her as being in an excited and heightened state when she told him that Complainant was in the office and refused to leave despite numerous requests to do so. He states that he overheard commotion in the background before S-2 hung up.
S-1 had advised S-2 to treat Complainant no differently than any other person behaving in the same manor and to arrest Complainant if an arrest was warranted. In his opinion, an arrest was warranted because Complainant knowingly remained in the area despite being asked to leave several times and continued to behave in a disorderly manner and disturbed the peace of others. He was not aware of another arrest attempt.
Complainant Placed on Administrative Leave to Prepare for Detail to Crow Agency
Complainant testified that S-1 placed her on AL status without an explanation. According to Complainant, being placed on AL is generally seen to be related to a disciplinary action, and, in conjunction with her sudden removal from her position as COP, made it appear that she was being disciplined. Complainant stated that individuals who are sent on details are not placed on AL prior to their details. Complainant testified that she reported for her detail at the Crow Agency on Monday, October 6, 2014. She was assigned to serve as a Criminal Investigator/Special Agent, and was responsible for investigating federal crimes which occurred in Indian country. Complainant stated that there was no SF-50 generated and no change to her pay. Nonetheless, she considered the detail to be a demotion since she was no longer performing the administrative duties associated with her COP position. Complainant testified that she was never formally removed from her COP position during her Crow Agency detail, and that she retained the COP title and status until she transferred to her current position in January 2015.
According to S-1, Complainant was placed on AL to allow her time to prepare for her detail to Crow Agency. He noted that Complainant displayed unprofessional behavior when she was placed on AL and she alleged that he and the District Office were attempting to ruin her career and discredit her as a supervisor. She also expressed her opinions on their shortcomings as a supervisor and attempted to record the conversation. He recalled her raising her voice and displaying erratic behavior in the form of "heavy breathing, a 1000-yard stare, shaking, and clenching of her teeth." He associated this behavior with workplace violence and separated her temporarily from the Agency since she was already assigned to other temporary duties. He further noted that she has previously displayed similar behavior in the past when she left the Agency parking lot at a high speed.
Removed as COP, Turtle Mountain Agency and detailed to Crow Agency
Complainant testified that on October 2, 2014, S-1 advised her that he was reassigning her due to policy violations, but he would not tell her which policies she allegedly violated nor provided her with any paperwork, even after repeated requests. Complainant stated that he left her office door open during the meeting so that anyone nearby could hear their conversation. Complainant stated that he escorted her out of the building after the meeting, and she was humiliated. She indicated that there are over 50 policies associated with the law enforcement operations and over 70 policies associated with the corrections operations. Complainant stated that in 2014, BIA was in the process of conducting a Corrective Action Support Team (CAST) review where a team travels to each agency to identify and correct violations and provide support. Complainant stated that the CAST review typically lasts two (2) weeks and during that time, Chiefs are not issued disciplinary actions for policy violations. Complainant stated that examples of violations are "not having sufficient bulletproof vests, having outdated computers, and needing vehicle repairs." Complainant stated that "there is no BIA Agency in the District or within the BIA which does not have at least a few such violations." Complainant never received documentation regarding which policies she violated and what S-1 told her verbally changed. Complainant stated that Turtle Mountain Agency had issues such as aging vehicles in need of repair or replacement. Although she contacted the District 1 Office and the Albuquerque Office about the vehicle issues because their approval was required for "bigger ticket items," they did not provide her with assistance in repairing or replacing the vehicles. Complainant stated that the aging and damaged vehicles would have ultimately resulted in policy violations during the CAST review. According to Complainant, the Turtle Mountain Agency CAST review was originally scheduled for February 2014, but was postponed three (3) times while the CAST team travelled to other Agencies in District I to identify and help fix policy violations. Complainant stated that even though the CAST review team found violations at other Agencies and those violations were known to the District I Office, those Chiefs were not disciplined or detailed out. Complainant testified that as of October 2014, the CAST review team still had not visited Turtle Mountain Agency and their policies had not been evaluated when S-1 assigned Complainant to a detail.
S-1 identified a few policy violations committed by Complainant for the proposed demotion. Specifically, he indicated that issued body armor must be worn by on duty officers at all times, yet he observed officers not in full uniform and not wearing protective vests when: (1) he was conducting a site visit in May 2014; (2) he observed an officer patrolling without a vest and uniform in July 2014; and (3) on October 1, 2014, an officer without a vest passed him in a vehicle while traveling at a high rate of speed in a no passing zone without emergency lights activated and another on-duty officer was sitting at an intersection without a vest. Each time, he asked Complainant to address this matter because it was a violation of policy and a liability issue. He recalled Complainant explaining that the vests and uniform were ordered, but he was advised by the Lieutenant that all officers already had protective vests. When he spoke with the employees, they indicated that they got lax with the policy because of the heat and because no one else was wearing the vest.
He also indicated that there was a violation about inmate transport when Complainant authorized transport of a juvenile inmate in an administrative vehicle which was not properly equipped with a protective barrier and lacking in safety and security for the inmate, detention staff, and public. S-1 noted that although the supervisor of the corrections facility denied the Correction Officer's request to transport, the Correction Officer did not agree, broke the chain of command, and directly requested authorization for the transport from Complainant. He stated that Complainant did not attempt to explore other policy-abiding options and approved the transport request. S-1 also pointed out that Complainant misused a government owned vehicle (GOV) and engaged in conduct unbecoming of an officer when she used her GOV to lead the Turtle Mountain Agency Day's parade and allowed another officer and her baby into the vehicle without wearing safety belts or child restraints. He recalled Complainant explaining that she did not seek guidance on what was proper or improper use of a GOV and that it was not a violation of Tribal Law because seatbelts were not used during a parade. He asserted that her explanations did not excuse her failure of following an established policy.
S-1 attested that Complainant also neglected to recommend/take corrective action upon job related misconduct of employees. Specifically, there were several unauthorized individuals who knew the passcode to the corrections facility and did in fact enter the facility. He stated that the Turtle Mountain Agency Supervisory Corrections Officer (SCO) found that Turtle Mountain Agency BIA OJS employees were sharing the code with unauthorized personnel, thus compromising the security of the facility. Accordingly, the SCO changed the passcodes to prevent any further unauthorized access. He stated that Complainant then pulled the responsibility of facility security from the SCO and reassigned it to a non-correctional supervisor, and this undermined the SCO's authority and created distrust amongst staff in the SCO's ability to make decisions. He recalled another instance where an officer called in sick for a shift but was then observed sitting at a local bar drinking alcohol; although reported, no action was taken. He identified another instance in July 2014 where a BIA Officer rudely advised the corrections staff that he was not going to arrest a male subject because of their refusal to take the male because of his level of intoxication. That BIA Officer left the male suspect sitting in the booking area, and then walked out of corrections before returning several hours later. Although numerous similar incidents were reported to Complainant, and although Complainant attested that the matters were referred to Human Resources (HR), his inquiries with HR proved that some incidents were not reported or followed up with for administrative action.
He also stated that Complainant failed to perform assigned work or performed it in a carless manner. He recalled an incident in August 2014 when the District Office received a request to reopen a 2013 case involving the death of the child. It was determined that Complainant was the investigating agent in this case and the case file lacked critical information and was not complete. He indicated that a Special Agent and Turtle Mountain Agency received a 960 report (reports of suspected child abuse or neglect) and found that some of these cases, dating as far back as 2011, were opened by Complainant and lacked follow-up reports or documentation indicating that the cases were properly investigated. S-1 also attested that some of the files and evidence were not stored properly.
S-1 stated that Complainant was also discourteous to co-workers and the public. He indicated that she was visibly upset, shaking, and breathing heavily when she stated in a cracked voice to the Acting COP "You have my job, what else do you want?" He stated that Complainant was upset about having to use the administrative Tahoe and stated, "Here is another thing O-1 (another officer) can investigate me on" before handing off the keys and walking off. He recalled her pulling out and accelerating quickly from the police department before texting an apology that her behavior was unprofessional. S-1 stated that there was another incident where Turtle Mountain Agency Tribal members filed a complaint against Complainant for wrongfully arresting their son. He explained that an internal investigation was conducted and the IAD observed a potential Class III Abuse of Authority and/or Rude and Discourteous violations because Complainant's response based on frustration and emotion to the situation escalated the matter.
Although S-1 stated that the CAST review was postponed several times, he was not aware of the reasons behind the postponement. He confirmed that the CAST review had not been completed at the time of Complainant's detail to Crow Agency. However, he clarified that Complainant misunderstood the purpose of the CAST review because the program evaluation was a systematic assessment of the operation and/or outcomes of a program or policy not for individual policy violations or failure to perform supervisory duties.
S-1 averred that most of Complainant's examples that she was subjected to a hostile work environment are "hearsay." While he was Complainant's supervisor, he discussed numerous policy violations with Complainant but averred that these decisions were in no way intended to belittle or embarrass her. Rather, it was his goal to improve the performance of Complainant and the Agency. He maintained that these conversations with Complainant were conducted in professional locations so as to protect her rights as an employee; and that subordinate staff were not present. He confirmed speaking with E-1 about some of Complainant's concerns and he explained to E-1 that he observed policy violations and it was his intention to improve overall performance. He maintained that he was not Complainant's immediate supervisor at the time of reassignment.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge. 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.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
No new contentions were raised on appeal.
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").
A claim of disparate treatment based on indirect evidence is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, he or she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact tinder by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
Assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to her sex, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions as set forth above. We also find that Complainant did not establish pretext. Clearly, there was a significant amount of acrimony in the record, but we find a complete absence of persuasive evidence that discrimination based on sex played a role here. For example, Complainant was replaced by another female. Had Complainant requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge, the Administrative Judge could have made credibility determinations based on witness testimony. See generally EEO MD-110, at Ch. 7. As Complainant did not request 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.
Regarding Complainant's hostile work environment claim, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant's claim of a hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM the Agency's FAD.
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.
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
_6/5/18_________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
3
0120161039
10
0120161039