Joleen M.,1 Complainant,v.Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 20, 2019

0120182018 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 20, 2019)

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

Joleen M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Ryan D. McCarthy,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120182018

Hearing No. 430-2015-00226X

Agency No. ARLEE14MAY01805

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s April 10, 2018, final
order 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Logistics
Management Specialist Intern, GS-0346-07, at the Agency’s Civilian Logistics Career
Management Office (CLCMO) facility in Fort Lee, Virginia. Intern Program Manager (hereafter
Supervisor), GS-0346-13, was Complainant’s first level supervisor during the time at issue.
While Complainant was employed by the Agency, from March 11, 2013 through her resignation
on July 14, 2014, she was an intern participating in the Agency’s Logistics Management Intern
Program (LMIP).

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.
0120182018

2
LMIP is an 18-month training program where civilians are trained for future careers as a member
of the Army civilian team supporting soldiers throughout the world. Logistic Management
Specialist Interns learn functional planning, deployment operations, maintenance operations,
procurement, coordination, and control of the movement of personnel, personal property, and
material on commercial and military transport via rail, air, land, and sea. After 12 successful
months of performance, the Logistic Management interns are promoted to GS-9. After another
12 months of successful performance in the program, the interns are promoted to GS-11. A
review of the record indicates, ultimately, Complainant was not promoted due to unsuccessful
performance.

On her first day, Complainant initialed and signed a Conditions of Employment (COE),
acknowledging that she must successfully complete 100 percent of the course requirements with
at least an 80 percent average in each graded course/module. The COE stated she must
successfully complete the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) within documented physical
limitations. Complainant was informed while the COE required an 80% average to pass, the
BOLC required a 75% passing rate. She also initialed that she understood that she must
participate and complete all field training exercises, to include but not limited to land navigation,
range training, skill challenges, overnight stays in the field - indoor and outdoor, and all
associated functions. She also acknowledged she could be removed from BOLC for academics.
Although Complainant’s chain of command was still Supervisor, while attending BOLC, each
interns’ day to day activities were coordinated by their primary class instructor (hereafter
Captain). Complainant successfully completed the Intern Logistics Studies Course (iLog), which
is four months of classroom work, before she attended BOLC.

On October 31, 2013, Complainant failed the BOLC Army Communications Skills Exam. She
obtained a 68% on the exam, below the minimum passing score of 75%. Complainant had not
requested accommodation or informed any Agency employees that her undetailed health
conditions would impact her participation in the intern program. Captain counseled Complainant
on her failure. Complainant informed Captain she was not sleeping well and was having
difficulty due to her inability to take medication on a regular schedule. Complainant did not
request accommodation at that time. Complainant was retrained and given the opportunity to
retake the test, which she passed.

Complainant first informed Supervisor of her disability (Reynaud’s and severe lower extremity
pain) on November 20, 2013. Complainant provided medical documentation from her doctor on
November 26, 2013, to Supervisor. Her doctor’s letter recommended Complainant be restricted
to working eight-hour workdays with limited standing no more than 40 minutes per hour.
Complainant and the Agency agree this accommodation was granted. Complainant testified she
received a modified work schedule on December 2, 2013. When Complainant met with
Supervisor on November 20, 2013, Complainant did not allege issues with anxiety, panic attacks,
or testing issues, rather she only mentioned the inability to take her medication on a regular
basis.

0120182018

3
On November 26, 2013, Complainant failed the Unit Movement Officer Exam. She obtained a
40%, below the 75% minimum standard. Captain informed Complainant of her failure and
informed her future failures may result in an Academic Review Board for consideration of
possible repeat or dismissal from the BOLC. Complainant was provided retraining. Complainant
did not mention medical issues affecting her work or ability to take examinations during the
counseling. Complaint took the exam again and passed the test on December 6, 2013.

On December 13, 2013, Complainant failed her third exam, the Movements Exam. She obtained
a 57%, below the 75% minimum standard. Complainant was counseled, retrained, and given the
weekend to study. Complainant did not mention medical issues affecting her work or
examination during the counseling. Complainant was given the opportunity to retest on
December 16, 2013.

On December 16, 2013, before she retook the Movements Exam, Captain informed Complainant
she had three failing academic assessments, was not meeting the course standards, and would be
meeting with the Course Director on December 18, 2013 to discuss her performance and
potential for remaining in the course. During this counseling, Captain stated Complainant did not
allege any medical conditions affecting her ability to take exams or requiring accommodation.
That same day, Complainant left the testing room before the test concluded and without
permission. Complainant did not inform anyone at the time she left why she was leaving.
Complainant later stated she experienced her first panic attack that day. Due to her walking out
of the Movement Exam retest without permission, the BOLC Course Manager (hereafter Major),
decided that Complainant should not be offered the retest again. This gave Complainant a zero
on the retest and was recorded as her fourth test failure.

Complainant stated that she had never had anxiety or panic attacks until she was in BOLC.
Complainant noted the first panic attack that she had was the day of the retest on December 16,
2013. She also testified that she had never experienced memory loss prior to the BOLC course.
The record reflects that Complainant did not seek treatment for her anxiety condition until April
11, 2014. At an unidentified time between April and July 2014, she submitted medical
documentation to the Agency. The record does not reflect any medical documentation that
Complainant received treatment for memory loss or that her existing medical condition caused
memory loss.

After her dismissal from BOLC Complainant made a complaint to the Inspector General (IG) on
January 27, 2014. She states she did not allege discrimination in her IG complaint. The subject of
the IG complaint involved being denied due process to submit an appeal of her academic course
failure and misconduct by Captain.

On March 31, 2014, Complainant was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal, for failing to meet
a condition of employment by Supervisor.

0120182018

4
On July 2, 2014, the Deciding Official for the proposed removal action, her second level
supervisor, decided not to remove Complainant from her position as a DA Civilian Logistics
Intern. Deciding Official made his decision after receiving Complainant’s reply to the proposed
removal. Complainant was told she would be allowed to recycle through BOLC, with
accommodations that he felt would allow her to graduate successfully from the course within her
documented medical limitations submitted between April and July 2014 for an anxiety condition.
However, on July 14, 2014, Complainant resigned from her position as a DA Civilian Logistics
intern and federal service rather than returning to the program.

On July 29, 2014, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her
to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), sex
(female), color (black), disability, age (48), and in reprisal for filing a complaint with the
Inspector General when the following events occurred from December 6, 2013, through July 23,
2014:

A. On December 16, 2013, Complainant failed an exam due to her disability and
Major would not allow her to retake the test;

B. On December 17, 2013, Complainant alleges that her tests and project grades
during the BOLC were scored differently than whites and males;

C. On December 18, 2013, Complainant was dismissed from Transportation Basic
Officer Leadership Course (TBLOC). Complainant stated she was having an
anxiety attack and had to remove herself from the environment;

D. On December 19, 2013, Complainant alleged that, based on reprisal and her
disability, she was not assigned to any job training or allowed to be recycled into
the BOLC so that she could continue to move forward with the intern program.
Complainant alleged that she emailed Supervisor on numerous occasions about
her employment status and he continued to deceive her by telling her he had not
heard back from the Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC);

E. On February 10, 2014, Complainant emailed Supervisor about not receiving an on
the job training assignment (OJT) and her peers had, and, based on her disability,
he replied that he had not made her assignment and was waiting to hear back from
the CPAC;

F. On February 26, 2014, Complainant alleged that she received a phone call from
Supervisor and that he said that she needed to hurry up and complete her IG
investigation that she started. Complainant felt his comments were harassing;

G. On March 27, 2014, Complainant alleged that she was told by Supervisor that she
would receive a Letter of Proposed Removal from the Intern Program and Federal
Service because she did not pass BOLC. Complainant alleged that she asked
0120182018

5
Supervisor if she would be recycled, and he said no because she might get sick
again;

H. On March 31, 2014, Complainant alleged based on reprisal she received her
Letter of Proposed Removal from the Intern Program; and

I. On May 5, 2014, Complainant alleged based on her disability she received a
Notice of Elimination dated April 28, 2014.

Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On November 4, 2015, the Agency filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment (MSJ) and Complainant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Agency Liability on Disability Discrimination Claims. On November 19, 2015,
Complainant filed her response in opposition to the MSJ and the Agency filed a response in
opposition to Complainant’s Partial Summary Judgment. On February 15, 2018, the AJ issued a
decision without holding a hearing. The AJ incorporated the Agency’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and found that Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
she was discriminated against or subjected to a hostile work environment based on a protected
status. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. Complainant filed the instant
appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a final 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). The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to
issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment
procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the
substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of
material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion
for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party
must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in
the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such
that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 102, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A
fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can only be
resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision
without a hearing.

0120182018

6
In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without a
hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary
disposition. Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003);
Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).

In the instant case, the AJ incorporated the Agency’s MSJ as well as the Agency’s response in
opposition to partial summary judgment and found that Complainant failed to establish that she
was subjected to a discrimination as alleged. We find the AJ properly issued a decision without a
hearing to resolve Complainant’s complaint as there is no disputed issue of material fact.

Disability

To the extent that Complainant is alleging that the Agency denied her a reasonable
accommodation due to a disability, an agency is 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. § 1630.9. In
order to establish she was unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must
show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability; (2) she is a qualified individual with a
disability; and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (October 17, 2002).

Here, assuming, without finding, that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability, we
find Complainant has not established we was denied a reasonable accommodation. As detailed in
the MSJ and record, Complainant first informed Supervisor and provided documentation of her
physical disability (Reynaud’s and severe lower extremity pain) on November 20, 2013. Her
doctor’s letter recommended Complainant be restricted to working eight-hour workdays with
limited standing no more than 40 minutes per hour. Complainant stated this requested
accommodation was granted by the Agency on December 2, 2013. Furthermore, the record
revealed that when Complainant stated she could go beyond eight hours, she was specifically
instructed to stick to her medical restrictions.

The AJ also pointed out that a review of the record reflected that Complainant did not seek
treatment for her anxiety condition until April 11, 2014. This treatment was approximately four
months after she first reported suffering from anxiety on December 16, 2013. Complainant did
not submit medical documentation to the Agency until an unidentified time between April and
July 2014. The record does not reflect that Complainant received treatment for memory loss or
that her existing medical condition caused memory loss. Accordingly, we find that Complainant
has not shown that the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation or
otherwise violated the Rehabilitation Act.

0120182018

7
Disparate Treatment

In order to prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he 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, non-
discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).

Here, assuming arguendo Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, we find
that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Additionally,
Complainant failed to show that these reasons were pretextual. Specifically, regarding Claim A,
Complainant alleged Major discriminated against her and treated her differently than others by
refusing to allow her to retest for the Movement Exam. While BOLC students were allowed a
retest of an examination, Complainant walked out of her retest opportunity. The Agency noted
nothing in its policies or procedures requires Complainant to be allowed a third opportunity to
retest. To the extent Complainant alleged she was treated differently than others, the record
indicates she was the only BOLC student with or without a disability to walk out of an exam
during Major’s tenure with the intern program. Even assuming arguendo that Complainant has
established a prima facie case of discrimination, she has failed to establish that the Agency’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not allowing her to take the retest are pretextual.
According to the record, neither Major nor Captain had knowledge prior to the retest that
Complainant was suffering from an anxiety and/or panic attacks that required accommodation.

Regarding Claim B, Complainant argued her tests and projects were scored differently than
others. The BOLC to which Complainant was a member, consisted of 49 students both military
and civilians. Of the 49 students, 14 were identified as female, 35 were identified as male; nine
were identified as African-American, 29 were identified as White or Caucasian, three identified
as Hispanic, three identified as Asian American, and 5 did not have an identified race. A review
of the record establishes that when the scores of the students are analyzed, there is no evidence
that males received better scores than females. In addition, there is no evidence that when the
scores are analyzed based on race that any Caucasian student scored significantly higher than
African-American students.2 Complainant failed to provide any evidence that the Agency’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination.

2 The record does indicate, and Captain admits, one of Complainant’s scores was mistakenly
entered. Captain stated he tried to correct the score in the computer system three times without
success. However, he was able to calculate Complainant’s overall score correctly using the
0120182018

8
Regarding Claim C, a review of the record directly contradicts Complainant’s allegation. The
record indicates Complainant met with Major, Supervisor, Captain and others regarding her
request for accommodation in the form of an eight-hour day with no more than 40 minutes
standing. All parties agree these accommodations would be made. Complainant did not raise any
other medical concerns or provide any other documentation to support additional reasonable
accommodations. As the record indicates and Complainant admits, she first experienced a panic
attack on the day of the retest, December 16, 2013. These events all occurred after Complainant
had already failed three examinations. On the day of the retest, before Complainant advised any
Agency employee of anxiety or panic attack conditions, she was informed she would be meeting
to discuss her potential to continue in the BOLC on December 18, 2013. Assuming arguendo
that Complainant has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, she has failed to
establish that the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for dismissing her from BOLC
are pretextual. Major stated he recommended her dismissal due to her failure of the movement
exam retest, when she walked out of the test without authorization, which became her fourth
exam failure. Major also testified that even if Complainant had taken and passed the retest of the
movement exam, he would have still recommended her for dismissal due to her three exam
failures. Supervisor explained that completion of BOLC was a condition of her employment
within the intern program.

Regarding Claims D and E, Complainant alleges she was discriminated against and treated
differently from similarly situated individuals by not being allowed to recycle into BOLC or to
participate in OJT assignment. Contrary to Complainant’s allegations, the Agency stated that
nothing in the Agency policies, procedures, or even the history of the DA Intern Program
provided that she was entitled to recycle in the BOLC or receive a temporary OJT assignment.
No other DA Intern had ever been allowed to recycle into BOLC. Supervisor also stated that
when he was assigning OJTs to DA interns in Complainant’s class, Complainant was the only
intern who had not graduated from BOLC and whose employment status was at issue due to her
dismissal for academic failure. Complainant failed to provide any evidence that similarly situated
individuals outside of her protected class were treated more favorably in order to establish the
Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. We agree with the AJ’s finding
despite Complainant’s allegation, that active military service members were not appropriate
comparators as they were in a different chain of command and subject to different personnel
rules and regulations. Additionally, Complainant was not similarly situated to her intern
classmates as they had all successfully completed BOLC, where she had not.

Regarding Claims G, H, and I, as previously stated, BOLC was a requirement for successful
completion of the DA Intern Program. When Complainant was dismissed from the BOLC for
failing to meet the minimum standards, she was ineligible to complete her intern program as
well. Supervisor stated he obtained guidance from CPAC regarding whether Complainant could
or should be legally terminated from federal service due to her academic dismissal from BOLC.

correct examination score. Captain stated this was not based on Complainant’s protected status
and he made sure to reflect her total score correctly.
0120182018

9
Supervisor stated she was issued a proposed notice of removal and ultimately, a notice of
removal, because she failed to successfully complete a condition of her employment.
Additionally, Supervisor stated he was not concerned about the IG complaint that Complainant
had filed as he considered it an investigation of BOLC and Army Logistic University’s Review
Board practices, not his actions. Supervisor stated her removal was not based on her protected
class or reprisal, rather her academic failure to complete BOLC. For Claims G, H, and I,
Complainant failed to identify similarly situated individuals who were treated more favorably in
order to establish the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.

Moreover, Complainant alleged Supervisor stated her removal was because she could get sick
again. Despite Complainant’s argument on appeal that this statement is direct evidence of
discrimination warranting reversing the Agency’s final order, we disagree. Supervisor stated he
asked Complainant for documentation that medically cleared her to return to BOLC, but she did
not provide the requested information. A review of the testimony of Supervisor shows
Supervisor was addressing Complainant’s request in February 2014 to retest or participate in the
BOLC examinations again. At this point, Complainant had not provided any medical
documentation to support her anxiety/panic attack medical conditions nor had she submitted a
request for accommodations for these conditions. Acknowledging that his decision for removal
was not whether she would get sick again, Supervisor stated he did not remember exactly how he
addressed it with Complainant, but he inquired as to what had changed with her status to warrant
him readdressing her BOLC performance. We find Complainant’s contention is insufficient to
constitute a material fact in dispute to warrant overturning summary judgment, let alone direct
evidence of discrimination.

Harassment

Additionally, looking at the complaint as one complaint of harassment, we find that the alleged
conduct did not amount to a discriminatory hostile work environment and we find no evidence
that the alleged harassment was motivated by discrimination. Rather, the record contains
evidence of Complainant’s failed performance during a part of the intern program. Regarding
Claim F, assuming, arguendo, Complainant’s allegations are true, this single incident is not
severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment. Supervisor disputed
Complainant’s allegation that his phone call was harassing. Rather Supervisor stated he was
merely relaying a message from the investigating officer that the officer needed to interview her
regarding her IG complaint. Supervisor denied that this statement was based on Complainant’s
protected class or reprisal. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Agency’s decision
finding no discrimination or harassment as alleged.

In conclusion, after a review of the record, we find that the record is adequately developed and
there are no material facts in dispute. We also find that the AJ properly found that the complaint
was properly decided without a hearing and that the AJ properly adopted the Agency’s Motion.
Upon review, the AJ found and we agree that Complainant was not subjected to harassment or
discrimination.
0120182018

10
Complainant failed to establish that any of the incidents were related to any protected basis of
discrimination. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the
Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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.
0120182018

11
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

December 20, 2019
Date