0120073832
05-15-2009
James R. Griffin, Jr., Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency.
James R. Griffin, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120073832
Hearing No. 520200600109X
Agency No. HS04TSA001182
DECISION
On August 30, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's August
6, 2007 final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS in part and REVERSES in part the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2002, complainant was appointed as a Lead Transportation
Security Screener at the agency's Islip MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma,
New York.
On September 5, 2003, the agency announced a vacancy for a Supervisory
Transportation Security Screener position at the Islip Airport.
Complainant interviewed for the position on October 23, 2003, and was
notified on October 31, 2003, that he was not selected for the position.
On January 6, 2004, complainant was publicly reprimanded by his supervisor
(S1) for being late. Two days later, complainant was injured on the job.
Complainant's chiropractor recommended that complainant lift no more
than 20 pounds and sit when necessary. The doctor also recommended
that complainant be given light duty work consistent with his medical
restrictions and recommended further medical treatment.
On January 13, 2004, complainant met with the Federal Security Director to
complain that S1 and other supervisors harassed him and coworkers at roll
calls and briefings by using sexual comments and ethnic and obscene jokes.
On January 14, 2004, S1 again counseled complainant about tardiness and
behavioral problems.
Complainant requested that he be placed in a light duty position, but
stated that he wanted to keep his Lead Transportation Security Screener
duties, just without lifting luggage. On January 16, 2004, complainant
was granted a light duty position. Specifically, complainant was offered
a sitting guard position at the exit lane, as well as x-ray operation
as needed. Complainant accepted the position. Also around this time,
complainant was not chosen for an Acting Supervisor position.
On February 9, 2004, S1 and a number of screeners testified that they
saw complainant sleeping on duty at his exit lane. Complainant asserts
that he was not sleeping, but was doing neck stretching exercises per
his doctor's orders, which may have looked unusual as if he was sleeping.
Complainant was immediately placed on paid administrative leave.
On February 17, 2004, complainant signed a declaration in which he
alleged that a coworker created a security breach on January 27, 2004,
and tried to cover it up. Subsequently, another coworker alleged that
complainant tried to convince him to provide false statements to support
his allegation that the security breach and cover-up occurred.
On February 23, 2004, the agency issued complainant a Notice of Proposed
Removal and placed him on indefinite paid administrative leave.
On July 13, 2004, the agency ordered complainant to return from paid
administrative leave to light duty work in an alternative work assignment
pending a decision by the agency regarding the charges that he was
sleeping while on duty. Complainant's physician restricted complainant
to lifting no more than 20 pounds and recommended that he continue
meeting with the chiropractor. The agency assigned complainant to the
ticket-checker site. Additionally, complainant's schedule was changed
from 12:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, to 4:30 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. Friday through Tuesday.
Complainant re-injured his neck on July 28, 2004. On July 30, 2004,
the agency re-issued the Notice of Proposed Removal for complainant being
inattentive to duty on February 9, 2004, as well as the charge that he
asked a coworker to falsify statements to bolster his allegation that
another coworker breached security and tried to cover it up. On July 31,
2004, complainant went on sick leave and remained on sick leave through
the rest of his employment with the agency.
On August 5, 2004, complainant contacted an EEO Counselor. On August 13,
2004, complainant was terminated as a result of the Notice of Proposed
Removal. Subsequently, complainant was unable to sign his time card
for his last pay period because of his removal. The time card that was
submitted on his behalf showed that he was working during that period,
when he was actually out on sick leave. When the Department of Labor
called the agency to inquire about whether complainant was actually
working during that period, the error was discovered and corrected by
the agency.
Further, after complainant filed a formal EEO complaint, and after he was
terminated from the agency, complainant and other agency personnel posted
comments to a public chat forum. This forum is predominantly visited
by agency Transportation Screeners. On December 12, 2004, complainant
posted that he has filed civil rights complaints against the agency,
and he encouraged others who felt that their rights were violated to
join the Union. A management official (S2) responded to complainant's
post by stating, "Screener falls asleep at the exit, gets fired then
complains of civil rights violations. Good luck [complainant]."
S2 later discussed complainant receiving a reasonable accommodation.
Another management official (S3) then further discussed the facts of
his case, and compared him to a terrorist. When complainant asked the
managers to stop discussing the facts of his current EEO complaint, they
responded by saying he brought up his EEO case first, and they continued
to taunt him with specific facts from this case. For example, S2 posted,
";-) How's the neck? Doing plenty of stretches?" S3 responded to
complainant by posting, "ZZZZ. Huh? Did you say something? I was napping
when you so rudely interrupted me." S2 and S3 then called him names such
as "slacker boy" and "loser," and told him "sweet dreams." Additionally,
S3 stated that complainant was "pursuing a frivolous suit for [his]
incompetence."
On December 24, 2004, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint of
discrimination alleging that he was discriminated against and subjected
to a hostile work environment on the bases of disability (neck injury)
and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. In January and July 2004, he was denied reasonable accommodation in
the form of work, shift, light duty, and overtime assignments;
2. On February 9, 2004, he was accused of sleeping on the job and
afterwards he was placed on Administrative Leave for almost half a year;
3. He was not appointed Supervisory Transportation Security Officer;
4. Numerous messages about his EEO case were posted on a public chat
board;
5. His time cards were falsified to show that he was on duty rather than
on Administrative Leave approximately one week before his termination;
and
6. He was terminated from his employment.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing and the AJ held a hearing on May 29, 30, 31, and
on June 5, 2007. On July 2, 2007, the AJ issued a decision. In his
decision, the AJ dismissed claims 2 and 3 for failure to timely contact
an EEO Counselor. The AJ found that complainant failed to establish
discrimination existed as alleged for the remaining claims. Specifically,
the AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions, and complainant failed to establish that
those reasons were pretext for discrimination. On August 6, 2007, the
agency issued a final order in which it fully adopted the AJ's decision.
Complainant now appeals to the Commission.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or
on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or
other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so
lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it.
See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999).
Dismissed Claims
The AJ found that claims 2 and 3 were discrete acts that were not timely
filed with an EEO Counselor, and therefore complainant cannot raise
them now as part of his hostile work environment claim. As a result,
the AJ dismissed claims 2 and 3 for untimely EEO Counselor contact.
The Supreme Court has held that a complainant alleging a hostile work
environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim
are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within
the filing period. See National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,
122 S.Ct. 2061 (June 10, 2002). The Court further held that "discrete
discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they
are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges." Id. Finally, the
Court held that such untimely discrete acts may be used as background
evidence in support of a timely claim. Id.
Here, we agree with the AJ that complainant's placement in Administrative
Leave and his non-selection for the Acting Supervisory Transportation
Security Officer position were discreet acts, and therefore not
actionable, meaning complainant cannot recover damages for them.
However, these acts can still be considered as background evidence
in complainant's overall hostile work environment claim. Therefore,
we will consider these acts when determining whether complainant was
subjected to a hostile work environment.
Reasonable Accommodation
Complainant alleges that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate
him in January 2004 and July 2004. Under the Commission's regulations,
federal agencies are required to make reasonable accommodation to
the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual
with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would
cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. �1614.203(c); 29 C.F.R. �1630.2(o);
29 C.F.R. �1630.2(p); see, generally, EEOC Enforcement Guidance on
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (rev. October 17, 2002). As a threshold
matter, one claiming protection under the Rehabilitation Act must show
that he is a person with a disability as defined therein. A person with
a disability is one who has, has a record of, or is regarded as having,
a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities. 29 C.F.R. �1614.203(a)(1).
For purposes of further analysis, we assume without finding that
complainant is a person with a disability. The record established that
complainant was offered and received effective reasonable accommodation
which would allow him to effectively perform the essential duties of
his position within his limitations. Specifically, in January 2004,
complainant was restricted from lifting more than 20 pounds and standing
for extended periods of time. The agency provided complainant with
a sedentary position at an exit lane, that did not require lifting.
Further, in July 2004, complainant was restricted from lifting no more
than 20 pounds. As a result, complainant was provided with a position
at the ticket-checker site. Complainant requested that he be allowed to
continue to perform his Lead Transportation Security Screener position
without lifting luggage during his normal schedule, and he alleges
that the agency's failure to allow him to do so was a violation of the
Rehabilitation Act. A complainant is not entitled to the accommodation
of his choice, and an employer may choose among reasonable accommodations
as long as the chosen accommodation is effective. Guidance, Question
9 (p. 17). Here, in January 2004, complainant was restricted from
lifting more than 20 pounds and standing for extended periods of time.
The accommodations offered by the agency at that time did not require
lifting or standing for extended periods of time. Additionally, in
July 2004, complainant was restricted from lifting more than 20 pounds.
The accommodations offered by the agency at that time did not require
lifting. Therefore, the accommodations provided by the agency were
effective.
Disparate Treatment and Hostile Work Environment
Complainant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination and a hostile
work environment when he was accused of sleeping on the job and placed on
administrative leave, when he was not selected for the Acting Supervisory
Transportation Security Officer, when his time cards were falsified,
and when he was terminated.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim alleging discrimination on
the bases of disability and reprisal, the complainant must satisfy
the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The complainant
must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would
support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction 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. Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail,
the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). In applying the disparate treatment analysis of
McDonnell Douglas Corp., the prima facie inquiry may be dispensed where
the agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons
for its conduct. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983). Here, we will assume without
finding that complainant established his prima facie cases of disability
and reprisal discrimination.
Complainant also alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work
environment. Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for
the employee's race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability,
or religion is unlawful. McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-1139
(D.C. Cir. 1985). A single incident or group of isolated incidents
will not be regarded as discriminatory harassment unless the conduct is
severe. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982).
Whether the harassment is sufficiently severe to trigger a violation
of Title VII must be determined by looking at all the circumstances,
including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity,
whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive
utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's
work performance. Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
The agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions. Specifically, complainant was terminated because numerous
co-workers and his supervisor testified that they observed complainant
sleeping. Complainant was not chosen for the Supervisory Transportation
Security Officer position because the selectee was better qualified in
that he had more extensive supervisory experience and more extensive
experience in overseeing projects. The errors in complainant's time
cards were administrative errors, and were corrected when brought to the
agency's attention. And finally, complainant was terminated because he
was caught sleeping on the job and he encouraged a co-worker to lie to
help support complainant's allegations against another coworker.
Complainant must now establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for
discrimination. Beyond complainant's bare assertions, the record does
not contain evidence that would suggest that the agency's actions were
motivated by discrimination. A preponderance of the evidence of record
establishes that complainant was asleep at the exit lane, that he was
not the best qualified for the position of Supervisory Transportation
Security Officer, and that he tried to encourage a co-worker to lie
and corroborate his allegations against another co-worker. There is
nothing in the record that would suggest that the agency's actions
were motivated by discrimination. We also find that the allegations,
taken as a whole, are not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a
hostile work environment. Therefore, complainant failed to establish
that discrimination or harassment existed.
Disclosure of EEO Information
Complainant alleged that his privacy was violated and he was retaliated
against when S2 and S3 discussed the specifics of his current EEO
case and harassed him on a public chat forum1 frequented by agency
Transportation Screeners. The AJ found that these comments were not
retaliatory, and instead found they were merely "work related banter."
The statutory retaliation clauses prohibit any adverse treatment
that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to
deter complainant or others from engaging in protected activity.
EEOC Compliance Manual on Retaliation, No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998).
Petty slights and trivial annoyances are not actionable, as they are not
likely to deter protected activity. Id. More significant retaliatory
treatment, however, can be challenged regardless of the level of harm.
Id. A violation will be found if an employer retaliates against a worker
for engaging in protected activity through threats, harassment in or out
of the workplace, or any other adverse treatment that is reasonably likely
to deter protected activity by that individual or other employees. Id.
We disagree with the AJ's finding that the management official's comments
on the chat forum were merely "work related banter." First, we find that
complainant did not "welcome" the conduct or invite the comments when he
generally mentioned that he has filed civil rights complaints against
the agency. Further, the managers' discussion of specific facts of
complainant's confidential EEO complaint was completely inappropriate.
Further, the management officials revealed their retaliatory animus
when they repeatedly called complainant names that referred to his EEO
complaint, taunted him with the facts of his EEO complaint, and said
that he was filing a frivolous complaint because of his incompetence.
The fact that other Transportation Screeners frequented the site and were
able to read the comments further compounded the situation. We find that
the comments by the management officials are reasonably likely to deter
complainant from continuing the pursuit of his current EEO complaint,
and are reasonably likely to deter other agency employees from filing
an EEO complaint in the future. Therefore, we find that the agency is
liable for retaliation.
Further, the Americans with Disabilities Act2 regulations provide for
the confidentiality of medical records, in pertinent part, as follows:
Information obtained ... regarding the medical condition or history of
any employee shall ... be treated as a confidential medical record,
except that: (i) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding
necessary restriction on the work or duties of the employee and necessary
accommodation.
29 C.F.R. � 1630.14(c)(1); see Shaw v. Department of Transportation, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A30273, March 11, 2004; and Hampton v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00123 (April 13, 2000). By its terms, the
requirement applies to confidential medical information from any employee
and is not limited to individuals with disabilities. See Hampton, supra;
see also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans With Disabilities
Act and Psychiatric Disabilities (March 25, 1997) at question 15;
EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Disability Related Inquiries and Medical
Examinations of Employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (July
27, 2000); ADA Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related
Questions and Medical Examinations (October 10, 1995).
If the agency discloses medical information pertaining to a complainant
in a manner that did not conform to this regulation, then its act
of dissemination would constitute a violation of the Rehabilitation
Act. We note that there is no requirement of a showing of harm beyond
the disclosure. Hampton, supra. Here, we find that the management
officials disclosed complainant's confidential medical information when
they discussed on the public chat forum that complainant had a neck
injury, that he was allegedly doing stretches for that neck injury,
and that he had been given a reasonable accommodation. As a result,
the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act.
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
finding that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment.
However, we REVERSE the agency's finding that complainant was not
subjected to retaliation when management officials posted comments
about his EEO complaint to a public chat forum. Further, we find that
the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when management officials
disclosed confidential medical information. The agency is ORDERED to
take remedial action as set forth in the Order of the Commission, below.
ORDER (C0900)
The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:
1. The agency shall immediately take action to ensure that retaliation
against any employee or other individuals who have pursued the EEO process
ceases and desists. Further, the agency shall take immediate action to
ensure that confidential EEO information and medical information is not
disseminated to any individual who does not have a need to know.
2. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of this decision, the
agency shall give all management officials at the Islip MacArthur Airport
sixteen (16) hours of EEO training, with a focus on retaliation and the
confidentiality of EEO information and medical information.
3. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date this decision becomes
final, the agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against S2
and S3. The agency does not consider training to be disciplinary action.
The agency shall report its decision to the compliance officer. If the
agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action
taken. If the agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall
set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline. If any
of the responsible management officials have left the agency's employ,
the agency shall furnish documentation of their departure date(s).
The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as
provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's
Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation verifying
that the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at its Islip MacArthur Airport facility
copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being
signed by the agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted
by the agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision
becomes final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer
at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the
Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration
of the posting period.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1208)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,
DC 20013. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,
and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the complainant.
If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil
Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the
policies, practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request
to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail
within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0408)
This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it
also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a
portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion
of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion
of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative
processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after
one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your
complaint with the agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until
such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.
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 (Z1008)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within
the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with
the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time
limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
May 15, 2009
Date
1 We note that at the time these comments were posted, complainant was no
longer employed by the agency, and that these acts occurred on a public
forum not formally affiliated with the agency.
2 The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment.
??
??
??
??
2
0120073832
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
11
0120073832
12
0120073832