Ludie M.,1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 21, 20180120172546 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 21, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ludie M.,1 Complainant, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Appeal No. 0120172546 Hearing No. 461-2016-00117X Agency No. 2003-0667-2016100296 DECISION On July 14, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s July 5, 2017 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a File Clerk, GS-305-2 at the Agency’s Overton Brooks Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. On February 6, 2015, Complainant filed an “informal” complaint (received EEO counseling), identified as ORM Case Number 2003-0667-2015101844. In that complaint, Complainant alleged that for the preceding eleven years, she had been a GS-2 employee, with no within-grade increases and/or pay upgrade. On March 3, 2015, Complainant knowingly and voluntarily withdrew her informal complaint entirely, with the understanding that she could not thereafter file a complaint on the same matter. 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. 0120172546 2 On October 14, 2015, Complainant again initiated EEO Counselor contact. Among the claims for which she sought EEO counseling, she raised a claim that from September 27, 2004 to March 2015, she had been paid at a lower pay rate of GS-2 because management failed to promote her to the GS4 pay rate for her Medical Records File Clerk position. This claim was the same as her previously raised claim on February 6, 2015, discussed above. Informal efforts to resolve her concerns were not successful. On January 20, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and discriminated against her based on disability (perceived) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. on May 20, 2011, Complainant's request for six hours of Leave Without Pay (LWOP) on May 18, 2011 was denied; 2. on August 15, 2011, Complainant's request for 8 hours of Annual Leave (AL) on August 8, 2011 was denied; 3. on August 15, 2011, Complainant's request for four hours of AL and four hours of Sick Leave (SL) on August 9, 2011 was denied; 4. on August 15, 2011, Complainant's request for six hours of LWOP on August 12, 2011 was denied; 5. on September 15, 2011, Complainant's request for four hours of SL on September 12, 2011 was denied; 6. on September 15, 2011, Complainant's request for five hours of AL on September 14, 2011, and one hour of AL on September 16, 2011 was denied; 7. on September 26, 2011, Complainant's request for 34.25 hours of LWOP for the period of September 16, 19-20, 22-23, 2011 was denied; 8. on August 27, 2013, Complainant's request for 29 hours of LWOP for the period of June 20-21, 2013, and July 11-12, 2013 was denied; 9. in March 2015, Complainant’s third-level supervisor, the Chief of Medical Records Coordinator (hereinafter referred to as “S3”) subjected Complainant to a fact-finding investigation for sick leave abuse; 10. in March 2015, S3 failed to respond to Complainant's request for a copy of her position description; 11. from March 2015 thru August 2015, S3 reassigned Complainant thereby decreased the Complainant's duties from making charts, filing paperwork in charts, performing gains 0120172546 3 and lost charting of patients and making labels, to only delivering mail and sitting around; 12. from March 2015 thru October 2015, Complainant's position description was changed several times without her being notified until she filed the instant complaint in October 2015; 13. from March 2015 thru January 20, 2016, S3 and, Complainant’s second-level supervisor, the Assistant Chief of Health Information Systems (“HIMS”) (hereinafter referred to as “S2”) began following Complainant around the hospital as she worked, and instructed co- workers they would be in trouble if they helped or talked to her; 14. on March 30, 2015, S3 demeaned Complainant when she loudly yelled, "You can't remove staples for the scanners because you will tell people that you are doing the scanners job"; 15. on April 2015, S3 intimidated Complainant when her first-level supervisor, the Facilities Records Manager (hereinafter referred to as “S1”), asked why she is at a lower grade while performing same duties as her co-workers, but was told, "leave that alone and not to worry about it”; 16. on September 15, 2015, S3 belittled Complainant in the presence of S1 and S2, when Complainant overheard S3 laugh and tell them she could not read; 17. on September 15, 2015, S3 demeaned Complainant when she yelled, "How is the girl who filed sexual harassment"; 18. on October 5, 2015, S3 belittled Complainant in front of two co-workers when she loudly stated, "You don't have to worry about scatter brain"; 19. on November 18, 2015, S3 pressed the close button on the elevator door when she saw Complainant approach the elevator; 20. on November 19, 2015, S3 demeaned Complainant in front of a coworker when she laughed at her because she forgot to log off the computer; 21. on November 30, 2015, S3 intimidated Complainant when she questioned the Timekeeper about the type of leave used when she left work early; and, 22. on January 4, 2016, Complainant felt threatened when S3 instructed another supervisor to write up a report of contact because Complainant questioned her assignment of duties by stating, "What do you mean answer the phones or make appointments?". 0120172546 4 On March 1, 2016, the Agency issued its Notice of Partial Acceptance. Regarding Complainant’s allegation that she was paid at a lower pay rate of GS-2, the Agency dismissed that claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), stating that the claim was the same matter as raised in ORM Case Number 2003-0667-2015101844. Moreover, the Agency determined that Complainant did not demonstrate that her withdrawal was based on coercion. Regarding claims 1 to 8, 11, and 12, the Agency determined that these claims were discrete acts that were not timely raised with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of their occurrence. The Agency dismissed those claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO Counselor contact. However, the Agency determined that because the events were sufficiently related to the overall pattern of harassment, those claims were included for consideration in the analysis of the harassment claim. The investigative record reflects the following pertinent matters relating to the subject claims. Disability & Prior EEO Activity Complainant identified her disability as a "perceived disability" by her supervisors. Specifically, Complainant asserted that management perceived her to be illiterate, with a general learning disability. Complainant asserted that management placed her into the "TAPER" program which she later learned was a program for people who are disabled. Complainant also stated that she previously filed an EEO complaint of sexual harassment against a previous supervisor, and that she was mocked and discriminated against for her EEO participation. Complainant’s first level supervisor, the Facilities Records Manager (no prior EEO activity, and no disability) (hereinafter referred to as “S1”) stated that she was not aware of Complainant having any disabilities, nor did she perceive Complainant to be disabled. S1 was aware of Complainant's prior EEO activity, but denied discriminating against Complainant in any way. Complainant’s second level supervisor, the Assistant Chief of Health Information Management Systems (no prior EEO activity, and no disability) (hereinafter referred to as “S2”) believed Complainant had difficulty with comprehension and reading, but was not aware of Complainant having prior EEO activity. Complainant's third level supervisor, the Chief of Health Information Management Systems (no prior EEO activity, and no disability) (hereinafter referred to as “S3”) stated that she was not aware of Complainant having any disabilities, nor did she perceive Complainant to be disabled. She was aware that Complainant had prior EEO activity, but denied treating her differently based on that. Claims 1 - 9, and 21 - Leave Use The record demonstrates that Complainant’s leave requests in claims 1 through 7 were all approved. 0120172546 5 Complainant’s leave request in claim 8 was not approved. On August 27, 2013, a memorandum was sent to the Medical Center Director, it stated that Complainant was requesting 29 hours of LWOP as she had exhausted all of her leave. The Associate Director and the Medical Center Director (neither of who are named as responsible management officials) denied the request. Complainant asserted that S3 repeatedly denied her the ability to go on leave. Complainant asserted that S3 also subjected her to fact finding investigation and an audit of her leave requests and usage (claim 9). She asserted that she informed S1 and S2 of the denials, but that there was nothing they can do because S3 is the chief and does whatever she wants. S3 denied Complainant’s allegations and asserted that she does not approve or disapprove leave requests as that is the first level supervisor’s responsibility. S1 and S2 asserted that neither were involved in any of the requests. S1 noted that she only became employed at the Agency in 2012. S3 also stated that she never initiated a formal audit on Complainant’s leave usage. S1, however, stated that S3 did ask her to review Complainant’s sick leave usage as it appeared as if Complainant was taking a considerable amount of sick leave at once. It was determined that there was no abuse of sick or annual leave. Complainant also alleged that on November 30, 2015, she was questioned by the Timekeeper regarding the type of leave she used when she had left work about one hour early that week (claim 21). Complainant stated that she had gone to the store and met S3 there. Complainant asserted that she then heard S3 call the Timekeeper wanting to know what type of leave Complainant used. Complainant felt that S3 was trying to find a reason to write her up. S3 denied attempting to find ways to intimidate or write Complainant up. She stated that during the Thanksgiving holiday she saw Complainant at the market. She affirmed that she called the Timekeeper, but only to make sure Complainant’s time had gone in because time cards were being submitted early due to the holiday. The Timekeeper stated that she could not recall the specifics, but that S3 often requested leave information on employees, and it was not unusual. Claim 10 - 12 - Complainant’s Position Description Complainant stated that she requested a copy of her position description because she felt it was always changing (claims 10 and 12). Complainant asserted that she has been doing the job of a Medical Records Clerk despite being paid as a File Clerk. S3 denied Complainant’s allegations, and stated that Complainant has never requested a copy of her position description from her. S3 also denied changing Complainant’s position description. S1 stated that Complainant frequently asked for a copy of her position description, which she (S1) always provided. S1 also acknowledged that a change was made to Complainant’s position description. Specifically, on August 4, 2015, an addendum was added that included two additional duties which were similar to her existing duties, no other changes were made. Complainant alleged that S3 was always putting so much pressure on her that S1 intervened and decreased her responsibilities (claim 11). 0120172546 6 Complainant asserted that she then sat around not doing much for several months. S3 denied this allegation, noting that she did not reassign people or their tasks. S3 stated that around that time, the Agency was starting to close down the file room, retire files to the federal records center, and move into digital scanning instead. S3 believed that Complainant mistook this Agency-wide transition as discrimination against her. S2 affirmed that Agency file room workers nationally were switching from being file room technicians, to scanning technicians. S1 stated that Complainant was never reassigned, but that her duties were changing based on the Agency-wide transition. Management stated that the transition did affect Complainant’s workload, but attempts were made to ensure Complainant had work to complete. Claims 13 - 20, and 22 - Hostile Work Environment Complainant asserted that S3 and S2 followed her around the hospital, talked about how she did not know “how to get into the computer and stuff”, and warned others that they would be in trouble for helping Complainant out (claim 13). Complainant asserted that S3 was generally very rude to her, demeaned her, called her illiterate, incompetent, “scatter brain,” and referred to her as “girl who filed sexual harassment” (claims 16 - 19) Regarding her work, Complainant noted that at one point she felt like she had very little tasks, and was reprimanded for simply helping a coworker remove staples prior to scanning (claim 14). Complainant noted that when was working, it often felt like she was a GS-2 employee who was doing GS4 work, and when S1 asked S3 about that, S1 was told to “leave it alone” (claim 15). Finally, Complainant asserted that S3 instructed another supervisor to write her up when Complainant questioned an assignment (claim 22). S3 denied that the events occurred as asserted by Complainant. S3 stated that she certainly did not have the time to follow anyone around, never threatened anyone for helping Complainant, never informed anyone that Complainant was illiterate, never intentionally acted rude or mocked Complainant. In particular, S3 vehemently denied ever mocking Complainant for filing a sexual harassment claim. S2 also denied ever following Complainant around. S2 noted that Complainant was not a scanning technician, and that S3 did not want employees to ask Complainant to scan as that was not her role. S2 believed that might have been where the “do not help” aspect might have gotten confused. S2 stated that S1 was not initially aware of Complainant’s internal transfer, and recalled S3 saying that S1 should not have agreed with Complainant that she was working beyond her GS-2 level. S2 stated that the previous chief had stated a belief that Complainant lacked high literacy skills, but no one laughed about it. She did recall a time when S3 mentioned something about this and that laughing was involved, but that Complainant was not present. S2 also asserted that an unrecalled date, S3 “stuck” her head into her office doorway and asked, “how is the girl who filed sexual harassment?” S2 could not recall if Complainant was nearby, but at the time, it was only S3 and S2 in the office space. 0120172546 7 S1 affirmed that she asked S3 why Complainant was paid at the GS-2 level despite performing GS4 work. S1 affirmed that the reason provided was that Complainant was a GS-2 in housekeeping and transferred to records because of a suit filed while she was in housekeeping. S1 stated that due to the internal transfer, Complainant had to remain at the GS-2 level. S1 denied that S3 stated that Complainant could not read. She stated that Complainant can certainly read, just maybe not on the “highest level,” but certainly was literate. Regarding claim 22, S1 stated that she was trying to find additional duties for Complainant, and the idea of her working at the eye clinic was suggested. S1 stated that Complainant confronted S1 regarding this suggestion, and argued it was not in her position description to help the eye clinic. S1 informed Complainant that because some of the duties in Complainant’s position description no longer existed due to the scanning transition, management was only trying to find tasks for her to fill the eight-hour day. S1 stated that while she could not attest to all of Complainant’s allegations, she generally felt that Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment. S1 stated that S3 called Complainant “stupid” on several occasions, would remark that Complainant did not know who she was dealing with, that Complainant was a “dumb bitch”, that she could not read well, and did, on at least one occasion, refer to her as “the sexual harassment girl.” After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. 2 The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As a preliminary matter, we note that claims 1 to 8, 11, and 12, were previously procedurally dismissed for untimely EEO counselor contact. However, the Agency appropriately determined that those claims were part of Complainant’s overall harassment claim, and therefore included those claims in the overall investigation. Based on this, we will focus on the merits, and not the procedural dismissal of those claims. Disparate Treatment A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a 2 We presume, for purposes of analysis only and without so finding, that Complainant was perceived an individual with a disability. 0120172546 8 factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). Even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Regarding denial of leave requests (claims 1 - 8), the record demonstrates that her requests in claims 1 through 7 were all approved. Her request in claim 8 was denied, but it was denied by two unnamed supervisors, and Complainant did not explain how the named responsible management officials in this matter were involved that denial. Complainant also argued that S3 watched her leave usage carefully. Specifically, Complainant asserted that S3 called the Timekeeper in November 2015 to question what leave Complainant used (claim 21), and that S3 ordered a fact- finding investigation into Complainant’s leave usage. The record demonstrates that S3 indeed checked in with the Timekeeper in November 2015, but there is no indication that this action was meant to be intimidating, harassing, or an attempt to find reasons to “write” Complainant up. Additionally, no formal fact-finding investigation was launched, only a generalized inquiry from S3 to S2 regarding Complainant’s leave usage. Regarding Complainant’s role at the Agency, and her requests for her position description, there is no evidence to demonstrate that she was denied any requests for them. S3 denied ever receiving any requests, and S1 testified that she always provided Complainant her position description on requests (claim 10). Furthermore, the record demonstrated that during the relevant period, there was an Agency-wide transition from paper filing to scanning. This transition nresulted in a natural decrease in work for Complainant (claim 11). Additionally, as a result, S1 stated that an addendum was added to Complainant’s position description to include two additional duties which were like her existing duties (claim 12). There is no evidence to demonstrate that there were constant changes made to Complainant’s position description or duties, or that the two additions made were meant to be harassing or discriminatory in nature. 0120172546 9 Complainant also asserted that S3 referred to her as “girl who filed sexual harassment” (claim 17). Here, S3 vehemently denied treating Complainant differently, or subjecting her to a hostile work environment. S3 also strongly denied ever referring to Complainant as the “girl who filed sexual harassment.” We acknowledge that S2 stated that she had heard S3 make such references, noting that Complainant was not present during the times S3 made them. S1 also stated that she had heard S3 make the same reference, and additionally would call Complainant a “dumb bitch”, and “stupid.” S1 testified that while she was not present for all of Complainant’s allegations, based on what she did witness, she felt that S3 discriminated against, and subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment. It is evident that there are contrasting testimonies here, between S3, as opposed to S1 and S2. In this matter, beyond the Report of Investigation and Complainant’s arguments, Complainant did not present further evidence to support her claims. Complainant decided not to request a hearing before an EEOC AJ, and as a result we do not have the benefit of an AJ's credibility determinations of these conflicting witnesses. Complainant had to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. Here, the evidence is, at best, in equipoise. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to meet her burden of persuasion. Complainant v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122134 (Sep. 24, 2014) citing Lore v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120113283 (Sep. 13, 2013) and Brand v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102187 (Aug. 23, 2012). In sum, there is no evidence which suggests the Agency’s actions were based on discriminatory animus. Complainant has not provided any evidence that suggests that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination or that discriminatory animus was involved. Harassment To establish a claim of discriminatory hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). In short, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis - in this case, because of her disability or prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. 0120172546 10 Complainant has cited various incidents that she found to be adverse or disruptive to her (13 - 20, and 22). For example, she asserted that she was a GS-2 performing GS-4 work, and that she was intimidated by S3’s reaction when S1 inquired about the circumstances (claim 15). Here, the record demonstrated that Complainant, at least for some time, was serving in the records department as a transfer from housekeeping. Because S1 only began in the Agency in 2012, it is reasonable that she would not necessarily know all the circumstances surrounding Complainant’s position in the records department. When S1 inquired to S3 about Complainant’s GS level, S1 was informed of the circumstances regarding Complainant’s transfer to the records department. Based on the record, there is again, no indication that S3 meant this statement to be harassing or intimidating to either S1 or Complainant. Complainant also provided several other claims demonstrating a hostile work environment, such as being followed around the hospital, that others were warned they would be in trouble for assisting her (claims 13), having the elevator intentionally closed on her, demeaned, called illiterate, incompetent, and “scatter brain” (claims 16 - 19). The record also demonstrated that S1 and S2 believed that S3 made a variety of inappropriate comments to and regarding Complainant. However, as discussed above, we view these matters as competing testimonies without the benefit of credibility assessments at a hearing. The record simply does not show that Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to establish that her perceived disability or prior EEO activity was a factor in any of these actions. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the responsible Agency officials acted with discriminatory or retaliatory animus towards Complainant. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s finding of no discrimination. 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. 0120172546 11 Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party. Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. 0120172546 12 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, Director Office of Federal Operations December 21, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation