0120140609
04-08-2016
Lowell H.,1 Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Benefits Administration), Agency.
Lowell H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert McDonald,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Benefits Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120140609
Agency No. 2003-0351-2012103379
DECISION
Complainant timely filed an appeal from the Agency's final decision 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 Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decision.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues presented are: (1) whether Complainant established that he was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability; (2) whether Complainant established that the Agency's proffered explanation for its actions was pretext to mask discrimination based on his disability; and (3) whether Complainant established that he was subjected to hostile work environment harassment, as alleged.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Veterans Claims Examiner, GS-9, at the Agency's Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Report of Investigation (ROI), at 1. The Agency's management team included five Supervisory Claims Examiners (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5). Complainant also worked under the Education Officer and the Assistant Education Officer.
Complainant's Claims Examiner position entailed performing computerized data entry, requiring repetitive typing and data entry. Id. at 256. Complainant experienced difficulty typing due to reconstructive surgery he previously had on his left wrist, which resulted in arthritis, neuropathy, and associated nerve damage in his left hand. Id. at 29, 121-23. Complainant indicated that his impairment is military service-connected and the Agency evaluated his wrist condition as a 30-percent disability. Id. at 428.
In January 2011, management raised the case-processing quota for all Claims Examiners to 240 cases per month. Id. at 163. Complainant could not physically meet management's quota, and in January 2011, processed 49 cases. Id. at 274.
On February 10, and March 10, 2011, Complainant received letters of counseling from S1 and S2 for not meeting the completion quotas for the previous months. Id. at 423, 427A-B. In response, on March 16, 2011, Complainant submitted a 14-page faxed rebuttal to the letters of counseling he received. Id. at 428-41. Therein, Complainant notified management that he could not meet the required quota due to his military service-connected wrist impairment. Id. Complainant also attached medical documentation to his rebuttal response. Id.
Complainant requested to either be reassigned or have the case production quota lowered. Id. at 170-71. In his request, Complainant further requested to be assigned less-complex cases, which would require him to make fewer keystrokes. Id. Complainant felt that his case load usually contained more difficult cases than average. Id.
On March 22, 2011, S1 drafted a report summarizing a meeting between S5 and Complainant regarding Complainant's 14-page faxed rebuttal response. Id. at 442. The report noted that S5 explained to Complainant that the production quota could not be changed for him or anyone else. Id. S5 averred that all Claims Examiners pull cases from a group queue and cases are assigned at random. Id. at 318. The March 22, 2011, report further noted that S5 was unaware of any positions to which Complainant could be reassigned that did not require extensive typing. Id. at 442.
Thereafter, on April 8, 2011, the Assistant Education Officer issued Complainant a letter placing him on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for unacceptable performance. Id. at 446-47. The PIP noted that Complainant was unable to meet his production quota for January, February, and March 2011. Id. Subsequently, on May 20, 2011, the Assistant Education Officer denied Complainant's within-grade step increase because of his placement on the PIP. However, Complainant's within-grade step increase was granted in July 2011. Id. at 478. On June 10, 2011, the Assistant Education Officer issued Complainant a status update, which indicated that Complainant would remain on a PIP because his production for April and May 2011 was below the required quota. Id. at 465.
In January 2012, Complainant continued to express his dissatisfaction with the increase in the quota to 240 cases per month as implemented by management. S5 averred, however, that the increase in the quota was due to changes in processing that made it easier for Claims Examiners to complete more cases. Id. at 321. S5 averred that these changes applied to all Claims Examiners. Id. Also beginning in January 2012, management denied Complainant the opportunity to work overtime because he had not been meeting production standards and had been placed on an ongoing PIP. On April 8, 2012, S5 placed Complainant on a successive PIP for not meeting his production quota. Id. at 184.
In May 2012, S5 and S3 met with Complainant regarding his need for reasonable accommodation, and discussed other possible positions for reassignment. Id. at 326. According to S5, management had promoted a group of employees to Claims Examiner in April 2012, which left some lower-level positions vacant. Id.
Thereafter, on June 5, 2012, Complainant requested that management pull easier cases for him, similar to the ones selected for trainees. Id. at 293. However, S5 reviewed the cases that had been assigned to Complainant during the previous month and concluded that a majority of his cases were simple. Id. at 327. S3 also told Complainant that he was pulling cases from the same queue as everyone else, and there were no protocols in place that would distinguish between easier and harder cases. Id. at 294. As a result, S5 offered Complainant other positions for his consideration for reassignment. However, the four separate positions offered were lower-graded in comparison to his current Claims Examiner position. In response to the Agency's offer, Complainant sent management another request; management again offered lower-graded positions.
S3 testified that the local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator notified him that there was not enough medical information regarding Complainant's request for reasonable accommodation. Id. at 286-87. As a result, on June 28, 2012, S3 sent Complainant a letter requesting that his doctor provide answers to certain questions regarding the status of his disability. Id. at 590-91. Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with visiting his doctor, believing the Agency was already aware of his disability.
On July 3, 2012, Complainant's doctor submitted a response to management's request. The doctor's response outlined a number of accommodations to decrease repetitive hand motion, including proper positioning of an ergonomic keyboard and allowing for rest breaks. Id. at 619. However, according to the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator, although such accommodations had already been provided, Complainant still was unable to satisfy the essential functions of his position. The Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator averred that management needed Complainant's doctor to outline the limits of Complainant's disabilities, so as to determine to which positions Complainant could be reassigned. As a result, on July 11, 2012, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator prepared another letter for Complainant to forward to his doctor. Id. at 621-22.
Following Complainant's submission of the information, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator again was not satisfied with the doctor's response so, on August 27, 2012, she submitted another memorandum for Complainant's doctor. Id. at 658-59. Therein, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator wrote to Complainant's doctor that management could not lower its productivity quota because it would remove the essential functions of Complainant's Claims Examiner position. Id. The Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator also noted that it could not control case types assigned to Complainant to increase his processing speed because such a system would lower processing standards. Id. The Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator also noted that Complainant was given an adjustable ergonomic keyboard and mouse, longer breaks, and a flexible work schedule. Id.
On September 7, 2012, S4 informed Complainant that he was being denied the opportunity to work overtime because he had not been meeting his minimum production standards and had not successfully completed his PIP. Id. at 373. According to S4, employees who are unsuccessful in completing PIPs are not allowed to work overtime pursuant to Agency policy. Id. Complainant continued to ask that either his required production quota be lowered or that he be reassigned to a position equal to his Claims Examiner position in terms of grade and salary.
In a letter dated September 20, 2012, addressed to Complainant, the Education Officer wrote that management believed that Complainant was unable to perform the essential functions of his Claims Examiner position. Id. at 670-71. The letter also offered Complainant the choice among four lower-graded positions for reassignment. Id. The letter specifically noted that if Complainant did not accept one of the four positions or identify another vacant, funded position, then the Agency would have no choice but to remove him from his position. Id. Rather than face termination, Complainant accepted reassignment to the position of Claims Examiner (Phone Tech), GS-7, Step 9, which lowered his salary from $50,611 to $49,138 per year. Management informed Complainant he would start his new position beginning on October 22, 2012. Id. at 204.
On October 17, 2012, Complainant met with the Education Officer and requested that management reconsider his request for accommodation relating to his reassignment and workload. Id. Therein, the Education Officer reiterated that there were no other vacant, funded positions available and that productivity standards could not be lowered. However, Complainant averred that there was a vacant Legal Administrative Specialist, GS-9, position available, which he was not offered. Id. at 159. Management averred, however, that this position required extensive typing, carrying folders, returning files, and pushing carts, duties that were not suitable for Complainant's medical condition. Id. at 399.
On August 2, 2012, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, as amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to hostile work environment harassment on the basis of disability when:
1. On February 10, 2011, S2 issued him a written counseling;
2. On March 10, 2011, S1 issued him a written counseling;
3. On March 22, 2011, S5 denied his request to be reassigned as a reasonable accommodation;
4. In March/April 2011, S5 denied his request to have his monthly workload quota reduced as a reasonable accommodation;
5. On April 8, 2011, S5 issued him a letter, "Warning of Unacceptable Performance - Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)";
6. On May 20, 2011, the Assistant Education Officer denied him a within-grade step increase;
7. In January 2012, S5 permanently increased his assignment of duties and/or production quota to 240 completed cases per month;
8. From January 2012, through the present, S5 denied him the opportunity to work overtime;
9. On February 12, 2012, S3 denied his request to work overtime;
10. On April 8, 2012, S5 placed him on a PIP;
11. On June 1, 2012, S5 and S3 denied his second request for reasonable accommodation to be reassigned;
12. From June 5, 2012, through the present, S5 and S3 failed to respond to his third request for reasonable accommodation to be reassigned;
13. On June 28, 2012, S3 requested that he provide additional medical documentation regarding his request for reasonable accommodation;
14. On July 9, 2012, S5 rated him unsatisfactory on his annual performance appraisal;
15. On July 11, 2012, S3 requested that Complainant provide additional medical documentation regarding his request for reasonable accommodation;
16. On August 27, 2012, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator notified him again that more medical documentation was required from his physician with regard to his request for reasonable accommodation;
17. On August 27, 2012, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator denied two portions of his request for reasonable accommodation;
18. On August 31, 2012, S4 and the Education Officer denied his request to work 20 hours of overtime;
19. In August 2012, S3 told him, "I had to be honest with them (prospective new employers), you are not making productivity (sic)";
20. On October 2, 2012, the Education Officer, denied his request for reasonable accommodation;
21. On October 15, 2012, he accepted under "duress" and/or was reassigned to the position of Veteran Claims Examiner (Phone Tech), GS-7, step 9, as part of a request for reasonable accommodation;
22. On October 16, 2012, the Education Officer denied his request for reconsideration concerning his request for reasonable accommodation;
23. On November 6, 2012, the Education Officer, and the Assistant Education Officer, failed to offer him the funded vacant position of Legal Administrative Specialist, GS-9;
24. On October 17, 2012, the Education Officer only provided him two weeks of training for his new job as a Phone Tech, whereas others received six weeks of training; and
25. On October 21, 2012, Complainant learned that the Standard Form (SF) 50, for his reassignment reflected "change to lower grade . . . Action at employee's request."
On August 31, 2012, the Agency issued a partial acceptance/dismissal. Therein, the Agency dismissed claims 1-4 and 7-9 on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2).2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). Therein, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.
The Agency found that Complainant failed to establish that he was subjected to either harassment, disparate treatment, or denied reasonable accommodation for his disability. Namely, the Agency found that Complainant received counseling, was placed on PIPs, and was denied overtime because he could not meet the performance quota of 240 cases per month. The Agency noted that Complainant completed only 49 cases in January 2011 and 75 cases in February 2011 (when his standard had been adjusted to 175 cases). The Agency also noted that although Complainant's within-grade increase was initially denied, it was granted two months later. The Agency noted, with regard to claim 24, that the four-week group training for new employees had already commenced, so management provided Complainant two weeks of individualized training instead, given that he already had three years of higher-level experience. The Agency additionally found that its requests for medical documentation were reasonably related to Complainant's request for reasonable accommodation and were consistent with the reasonable accommodation interactive process. The Agency noted that Complainant received a number of accommodations, including longer breaks, more flexible work hours, chair modifications, and an ergonomic keyboard.
The Agency found that Complainant's wrist injury impacted his ability to meet the productivity standards of his Claims Examiner Position. The Agency found that management's reasons for not reassigning Complainant to the Legal Administrative Position, GS-9, were reasonable in light of Complainant's medical restrictions on lifting and in performing manual tasks. The Agency found that there were no equivalent positions to the Claims Examiner position for which Complainant was qualified, and therefore reassignment to the lower-graded Claims Examiner (Phone Tech) position was reasonable in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to establish that he was subjected to discrimination based upon his disability as alleged.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant has not filed a brief in support of her appeal. The Agency requests that we affirm its final decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (MD-110), at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Reasonable Accommodation
Under the Commission's regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.9. Reasonable accommodation includes modifications to the manner in which a position is customarily performed in order to enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential job functions. EEOC Notice No. 915.002, Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Oct. 17, 2002) (Reasonable Accommodation Guidance). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against qualified disabled individuals. See 29 C.F.R. � 1630. In order to establish disability discrimination, complainant must show that: (1) he is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g); (2) he is a qualified individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. In the instant case, the Agency concedes that Complainant is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. Notwithstanding, as explained below, we find that Complainant did not establish that he was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability.
We note that, as early as January 2011, Complainant requested reasonable accommodation for his disability because he could not physically meet the Agency's 240 cases per month quota. The record reflects that from January through May 2011, Complainant completed fewer than 80 cases per month, failing the 240 per month quota. Complainant requested a number of accommodations, including a lower quota or reassignment to an equivalent position at the same pay grade. Complainant also requested to be assigned less-complex cases, which would require less typing. However, the record reflects that S5 indicated that production requirements for Complainant's position could not be changed because all Claims Examiners pull cases from a group queue and cases are assigned at random.
We find that, while the Agency was not required to lower production standards, it nevertheless presented Complainant with accommodations which would reasonably enable him to meet those metrics. See Complainant v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0720120034 (Nov. 26, 2014) (agency was not required to a lower production standard but was required to provide reasonable accommodation to enable complainant to meet that standard). Brooks v. Dep't of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 01A12367 (June 26, 2002), req. for recon den'd, EEOC Request No. 05A21029 (Oct. 3, 2002) (finding that agency reasonably accommodated complainant with alternative measures geared toward reducing stress from production quota).
Here, while the Agency declined to waive its production quota, it nonetheless offered several alternatives which were consistent with the recommendations of Complainant's doctor. Specifically, the Agency offered Complainant part-time work, frequent breaks, use of leave, and an ergonomic keyboard, among others. However, these alternatives offered by the Agency were not effective, as Complainant still was unable to meet the production quota. As a result, Complainant also requested that the Agency assign him easier, less-complex cases, which would require less typing. S5 testified, however, that there was no protocol in place to differentiate between easier or harder cases. We note that in addition to the fact that an employer is not required to lower production standards, an employer is also not required to reallocate or eliminate essential functions of a position in association with an accommodation request. See Reasonable Accommodation Guidance. Thus, in response to Complainant's request for less-complex cases, we find that, as processing cases is an essential function of the Claims Examiner position, Complainant was not entitled to reallocation of this duty. See Brooks, EEOC Appeal No. 01A12367 (finding that complainant was not entitled to a less-complex docket as a reasonable accommodation). Therefore, we find that Complainant was not qualified for the Claims Examiner position as he could not perform its essential functions with or without accommodation.
We note, however, that when a complainant cannot be accommodated in his current position, an agency must reassign him to a vacant position in terms of pay, status and other related factors, including benefits, if the individual is qualified for the position. See Reasonable Accommodation Guidance. If there are no vacant equivalent positions, then an agency may consider reassigning the individual to a vacant lower-level position. Id. Here, S5 notified Complainant that management was unaware of any positions to which he could have been reassigned that did not require extensive typing. Complainant did request reassignment to a vacant Legal Administrative Specialist position, but there is no dispute that the position required extensive typing. We find that Complainant has not identified any equivalent vacant, funded position existing at the relevant time to which he could have been reassigned, with or without accommodation. Absent evidence of such a particular equivalent vacant position, we cannot conclude that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act by assigning him to the lower-graded Claims Examiner (Phone Tech) position.
With respect to Complainant's claim that management improperly and excessively asked him and his doctor for medical documentation, we note that an Agency may request medical documentation that includes information about the disability, the activities it limits, and the need for accommodation if the disability and/or need for accommodation is not obvious, or if information already submitted by the individual is insufficient for the Agency to make these determinations. Questions and Answers: Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: Establishing Procedures To Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation (October 20, 2000). Here, the record reflects that the Agency's requests for additional medical documentation were part of the interactive process to determine what accommodations would be effective for Complainant and what positions and duties he could perform for reassignment. We find that the Agency did not violate the Rehabilitation Act when it asked Complainant for additional medical documentation.
Disparate Treatment
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 Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Tx. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Upon review, we find that assuming arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability, the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Namely, management offered that Complainant received counseling, was placed on the PIPs, and was denied overtime because he could not meet the performance quota of 240 cases per month. Management found that Complainant completed 49 cases in January 2011 and 75 cases in February 2011. Management also stated that, although Complainant's within-grade increase was initially denied, it was granted two months later. With respect to training for his Claims Examiner (Phone Tech) position, management averred that the four-week group training had already commenced, so Complainant was provided with two weeks of individualized training instead.
The burden now shifts to Complainant to establish that the Agency's nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. Burdine, at 254. We note that Complainant does not dispute that he could not meet the performance quota for his position. We can find no evidence that management was motivated by discriminatory animus here, and find that Complainant has not established that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Hostile Work Environment/Harassment
Finally, to the extent that Complainant contends that he was subjected to a hostile work environment with respect to the matters herein, the Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant's claim of harassment 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 the Commission's determination that Complainant has not established that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sep. 21, 2000). As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that he was subjected to discrimination, or a hostile work environment as alleged.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the Agency's contentions on appeal, we find that Complainant has not established that he was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability; that he has not established that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination; and that he has not established that he was subjected to a hostile work environment or harassment. Consequently, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
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), 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, 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 (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
April 8, 2016
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.
2 Although the Agency dismissed claims 1-4 and 7-9, we nonetheless address the merits of those claims herein.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120140609
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120140609