Lyda F.,1 Complainant,v.Ryan K. Zinke, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 18, 2018

0120171609 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 18, 2018)

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

Lyda F.,1
Complainant,

v.

Ryan K. Zinke,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(Fish and Wildlife Service),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120171609

Agency No. DOI-FWS-16-0331

DECISION

On March 31, 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
March 1, 2017, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Whether the Agency discriminated against Complainant based on her sex, association with an
individual with a disability, and in reprisal for protected EEO activity, when it suspended her for
fourteen (14) days; allegedly disclosed her medical information; and subjected her to a hostile
work environment.

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.
0120171609

2
BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Employee and Labor
Relations Specialist/Human Resources Officer (HRO) in the Agency’s Budget and
Administration, Division of Human Resources, Region 5, in Hadley, Massachusetts.

In February 2015, Complainant’s first line supervisor (S1) (male, associated with individuals with
a disability, prior EEO activity) called Complainant, and allegedly stated that he wanted to hire
one of her employees (E1) (male, associated with individuals with a disability, prior EEO activity)
for the position of Deputy Assistant Regional Director, Budget Administration. In March 2015, S1
informed Complainant that he would post a vacancy announcement for the position. E1 applied,
and was selected for the position in June 2015; Complainant did not apply for the position. Report
of Investigation (ROI) at pgs. 149-150.

In July 2015, two of Complainant’s employees, a Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
(SHRS), and a Human Resources Specialist (HRS) filed EEO complaints, alleging that
Complainant harassed them, and created a hostile work environment. On August 3, 2015, S1 called
Complainant to inform her that during the investigation into the allegations, he was temporarily
reassigning her to a position as his Special Assistant. This assignment lasted from August 3, 2015,
through October 10, 2015. S1 also instructed Complainant to move to a different office, and to not
communicate with any of her staff members. Complainant stated that she complained to the Deputy
Regional Director (DRD) (female, associated with individuals with a disability, no prior EEO
activity) about S1’s actions, who responded that they needed to “work through the EEO process,”
and took no action. ROI at pgs. 147,152, 601.

On August 10, 2015, Complainant attempted to log into the network, and found that her network
paths were deactivated, and she could not access the human resources (HR) files. ROI at pg. 157.
Beginning in August 2015, S1 and E1 conducted an informal inquiry in response to the complaints
raised by SHRS and HRS. Complainant stated that two additional inquiries were conducted, by
external parties. ROI at pg. 180.

On August 14, 2015, E1 emailed Complainant requesting that she provide interim ratings for the
employees she had supervised. He stated that he wanted to start preparing their end of year ratings,
and requested Complainant’s input. ROI at pg. 710. E1 also requested the employees’ files, and
learned that Complainant provided untimely employee performance appraisal plans (EPAPs) to
six employees, and did not provide or complete EPAPs for five employees. E1 informed S1 of the
deficiencies. ROI at pg. 713,338.

On August 24, 2015, HRS emailed E1, who was the acting HRO, to inform him about a
conversation she had with an intern (I1). HRS stated that I1 saw Complainant in the office, who
asked I1 about her plans after she finished her schooling. I1 informed HRS that Complainant stated
that I1 “would definitely have a job.” HRS stated that she was concerned because managers are
not allowed to promise jobs to students. ROI at pg. 617.

0120171609

3
On September 1, 2015, Complainant emailed S1 asking, “I do not suppose it is a good idea for me
to attend this event?” about an upcoming employee award ceremony; S1 responded that he agreed.
ROI at pg. 672. On September 10, 2015, HRS emailed E1 to inform him that she ran into
Complainant in the building, stating that the encounter was “very awkward and uncomfortable,”
and she felt that Complainant was trying to block her path. ROI at pg. 677. On September 17,
2015, Complainant emailed S1 to inform him that she passed SHRS in the hallway. ROI at pg.
679.

In October 2015, Complainant started a detail assignment at Headquarters (HQ), and reported to
the Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) (female, associated with individuals with a disability, prior
EEO activity). Prior to the start of her detail, Complainant approached S1, to inform him that the
detail position would become permanent. She stated that S1 asked if she would work remotely,
and she responded, “yes.” Complainant stated that S1 said that the arrangement would be a better
situation for her because she could be at home to take care of her daughter. ROI at pgs. 152, 161.

On or about October 10, 2015, Complainant’s ex-husband called her government landline, and
another employee picked up. Complainant stated that she was never informed that her landline
would be reassigned, and that when employees go on a detail assignment, they retain their
telephone numbers. ROI at pg. 162.

While Complainant was on her detail assignment, she learned that SHRS complained that
Complainant was being “rewarded” with the detail assignment because she could work from home.
Complainant stated that SHRS threatened an EEO complaint if Complainant was selected for the
permanent position, and that S1 tried to derail Complainant’s detail assignment because of SHRS’s
threat. ROI at pg. 165.

On October 16, 2015, S1 instructed Complainant to move out of her office, and she teleworked
from her home. ROI at pg. 168. On October 24, 2015, S1 issued Complainant her performance
rating of “Fully Successful.” S1 noted that Complainant did not provide EPAPs to several of her
staff members. Additionally, S1 stated that Complainant did not provide “good leadership,” and
numerous employees complained of her “erratic behavior” causing a “tense hostile office
environment.” ROI at pgs. 699-707.

On December 4, 2015, S1 placed Complainant on administrative leave; and deactivated her
government credit card, computer access, and cellular phone. Complainant was on administrative
leave until January 11, 2016. ROI at pgs. 175, 177, 749. On January 11, 2016, S1 placed
Complainant in a detail position to the Fisheries Program; her duties included researching water
rights and analyzing water discharge permits. ROI at pgs. 178, 972.

On January 6, 2016, S1 informed Complainant that she was scheduled to meet with an investigator
to discuss allegations that Complainant inappropriately treated subordinate employees.2

2 The investigator was an independent contractor, and not an Agency employee. This investigation
was conducted separately from the EEO investigations for the complaints filed by SHRS and HRS.
0120171609

4
The investigator provided his final report on February 22, 2016. The investigator determined that
there were a number of allegations against Complainant that were not sustained; some allegations
that while proven true, would be considered poor supervision, and not misconduct; and a number
of significant conduct-related allegations proven true for which he recommended appropriate
action. ROI at pgs. 977, 1051-1175.

On March 4, 2016, Complainant emailed S1 requesting to work from home with a flexible work
schedule, and attached medical documentation. S1 responded that her request for leave pursuant
to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was granted. ROI at pg. 1018.

In March 2016, Complainant applied for, and was selected for a permanent position at HQ. ROI
at pg. 165. Complainant stated that DAD attempted to contact S1 for Complainant’s release date,
and that he would not give one. ROI at pg. 184. On March 30, 2016, S1 received an email
requesting a release date for Complainant to begin her new position at HQ. S1 replied that he was
not able to give an exact release date for another few weeks. ROI at pg. 1021. After back and forth
discussions, S1 released Complainant on May 1, 2016. ROI at pg. 190-191.

On April 22, 2016, S1 issued Complainant a Notice of Proposed Suspension for Conduct
Unbecoming a Federal Supervisor (seven specifications), and Lack of Candor (1 specification) for
fourteen (14) days. Examples of the specifications included Complainant’s inappropriate promise
of permanent positions to two interns; criticizing an employee’s performance during a meeting in
front of other employees; showing favoritism to an intern and initiating “secret meetings” with
her; and inappropriately pressuring an employee (non-supervisory) to rate another employee. S1
also noted that Complainant failed to provide performance standards to the interns, and later stated
to DRD that she had done so, despite knowing that they were not provided with the standards. ROI
at pgs. 1036-1048.

On May 10, 2016, Complainant provided a written response to the proposed 14-day suspension.
ROI at pgs. 1360-1379. On May 23, 2016, DRD issued the decision letter upholding the 14-day
suspension. DRD stated that she considered the evidence and Complainant’s written response, and
determined that Complainant had engaged in the specified conduct, except for showing favoritism.
Additionally, DRD found that Complainant lacked candor when she stated that the interns had
performance plans in place. ROI at pgs. 1413-1418.

On May 27, 2016, Complainant emailed E1 to file a grievance for her suspension. ROI at pgs.
1421-1423. On June 16, 2016, E1 informed Complainant that she used an outdated grievance form,
and asked that she return the completed revised form, which she provided on June 21, 2016. E1
notified Complainant that he was unable to open her attachments, and requested that Complainant
resend the documents. Complainant resent the documents on June 29, 2016; and E1 confirmed that
her grievance was accepted. ROI at pg. 1424-1442. On July 21, 2016, the Deputy Regional
Director of Region 6 issued his decision stating that Complainant’s suspension was warranted
because her actions were worthy of disciplinary action. He added that the report from the
investigation raised serious concerns about Complainant’s general candor and credibility, which
called into question her denials of the allegations. ROI at pgs. 1447-1449.
0120171609

5

On July 15, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against, and subjected her to harassment, on the bases of sex (female), disability (association with
an individual with a disability), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when:

1. in February 2015, S1 told Complainant that he would not select her for the Deputy
Assistant Regional Director, Budget and Administration position;
2. on August 3, 2015, S1 called Complainant to inform her that two EEO complaints
were filed against her, and he reassigned her to a position with unspecified duties;
3. on August 4, 2015, S1 detailed Complainant to a position at HQ, not to exceed
January 5, 2016;3
4. on August 10, 2015, S1 instructed Complainant to physically relocate her office,
and not to communicate with her staff. At the same time, S1 deactivated all network
paths on her computer;
5. in September 2015, S1 excluded Complainant from attending an awards ceremony;
6. in October 2015, S1 told Complainant that she would be better off working at home
to care for her daughter, and he disconnected and reassigned her government
(landline) telephone to another employee;
7. on October 15, 2015, S1 contacted DAD, and attempted to derail Complainant’s
detail to HQ;
8. on October 16, 2015, S1 instructed Complainant to physically move out of the
Regional Office;
9. on October 29, 2015, S1 issued Complainant a “level 3” performance rating with
two negative comments for FY15;
10. on December 4, 2015, S1 placed Complainant on paid Administrative Leave; and
deactivated her government credit card, computer access, and government cellular
telephone;
11. on January 11, 2016, S1 placed Complainant on a detail to the Fisheries Program,
Connecticut River Coordinators Office, Sunderland, MA;
12. between August 2015, and March 2016, S1 named Complainant as the subject of
three administrative inquiries/investigations that he ordered and conducted;
13. from March, through April 2016, S1 did not respond to communications from
DAD, and refused to agree to a release date for Complainant to start a new position;
14. between October 20, 2015, and April 21, 2016, S1 limited his communication with
Complainant to two emails and one phone call;
15. on April 22, 2016, S1 issued Complainant a Notice of Proposed Suspension;
16. on or about April 29, 2016, S1 contacted DAD, and demanded a delay of
Complainant’s start date;
17. on May 23, 2016, DRD and S1 issued Complainant a Decision Letter for a 14-day
suspension;

3 Complainant stated that this claim is incorrect, and that it should not be part of her harassment
allegation. ROI at pg. 156.
0120171609

6
18. on or about June 9-14, 2016, DRD and E1 failed to provide Complainant with
grievance rights and violated her rights to due process;
19. on or about September 18, 2015, DRD took no action regarding the reported actions
taken against Complainant by S1, prior to September 18, 2015; and
20. on or about April or May 2016, S1 and DRD shared Complainant’s medical
information with E1.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an 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). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.

As an initial matter, the Agency noted that claims 17 and 20 were also timely discrete claims, and
treated them as independent claims of discrimination, in addition to being part of Complainant’s
harassment claim. For claim 17, while the Agency noted that Complainant belongs in protected
classes based on her sex, association with an individual with a disability, and reprisal for protected
EEO activity, it did not specify if she established a prima facie case of discrimination. However,
the Agency found that Complainant’s managers provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for the suspension. S1 stated that Complainant’s suspension was a result of Complainant’s actions,
as determined by the investigation into her employees’ allegations. DRD stated that after reviewing
the proposal, Complainant’s response, and the final investigation report, she found the charges
accurate, and concurred with S1’s proposal. The Agency then noted that Complainant did not
provide corroborating evidence showing pretext for discrimination, and found that Complainant’s
own subjective testimony was inadequate to establish discrimination.

With regards to claim 20, the Agency found that S1 and DRD denied providing Complainant’s
medical information to E1. Additionally, E1 stated that he did not have access to her medical
information. The Agency found that Complainant did not present evidence refuting their
testimony, and determined that she had not shown that she was subjected to adverse action
concerning the alleged disclosure of her medical information. The Agency concluded that
Complainant had not proven that she was discriminated against based on her sex, association with
an individual with a disability, or in reprisal for protected EEO activity.

For Complainant’s harassment allegation, the Agency found that Complainant had not established
that any of the actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. Rather, the evidence shows that
the actions taken by management were in response to the EEO complaints against Complainant.
The Agency noted that Complainant did not provide any evidence proving that the actions were
based on her sex, association with an individual with a disability, or in reprisal for her protected
EEO activity.

0120171609

7
Complainant filed the instant appeal, and submitted a statement in support of her appeal. The
Agency did not file a response brief to Complainant’s appeal.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant argues that she submitted evidence showing that she contacted the
Regional Chief of the EEO office, and the Chief, Diversity and Civil Rights at HQ in September
2015, contrary to what the Agency concluded about her initial EEO contact. She states that since
the Agency overlooked this critical evidence, she is left wondering if it did not consider other
evidence.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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, 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”).

Disparate Treatment

Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Hochstadt v. Worcester Found. for
Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff’d, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976).
For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by
presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e.,
that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). Once complainant
has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.
248, 253 (1981). If the agency is successful, the burden reverts back to complainant to demonstrate
by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency’s reason(s) for its action was a pretext for
discrimination. At all times, complainant retains the burden of persuasion, and it is her obligation
to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited
reason. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); U.S. Postal Service v. Aikens, 460
U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983).

0120171609

8
Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on
her sex, association with an individual with a disability, and in reprisal for her EEO activity, we
find that the management officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their
actions.

Regarding claim 17, DRD stated that she used the information contained in the Notice of Proposed
Suspension; Complainant’s appeal letter; and the final report from the investigation, to decide to
uphold the 14-day suspension. DRD noted that S1’s proposal and supporting evidence was
accurate, except for one specification. ROI at pgs. 312-313. We find that the record shows that the
suspension resulted from Complainant’s misconduct. In addition to processing Complainant’s
employees’ complaints through the EEO process, S1 initiated an informal investigation into the
allegations. Based on the information obtained from the informal investigation, he determined that
additional information was needed, and procured an independent investigator. Throughout the
processing of the complaints, S1 acted promptly to separate Complainant from SHRS and HRS,
who had expressed fear of Complainant, based on her past yelling and screaming, and their
knowledge that she owned a gun. ROI at pgs. 223-224,255-256.

For claim 20, as noted above, the parties denied any disclosure of medical information, and
Complainant did not provide any evidence proving that E1 had access to her medical information.

Complainant has not shown that these reasons are pretext for discrimination. Complainant can
establish pretext in two ways: “(1) indirectly, by showing that the employer’s proffered
explanation is unworthy of credence because it is internally inconsistent or otherwise not
believable, or (2) directly, by showing that unlawful discrimination more likely motivated the
employer.” Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also, McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05. On appeal,
Complainant argues that she initiated EEO contact in September 2015, and the Agency incorrectly
determined that the evidence does not show this. We note that Complainant is correct because
evidence in the record confirms that she contacted the Agency’s EEO office in September 2015.
However, in her affidavit, Complainant stated that she did not file an EEO complaint at that time.
ROI at pgs. 147, 155. Even if Complainant’s managers were aware of Complainant’s EEO contact
in September 2015, this only supports a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, and does not
prove pretext for discrimination.

We find that Complainant only made bare assertions, and has not offered any evidence showing
that the managers were not believable. Unfortunately, Complainant did not request a hearing
before an EEOC AJ, and, as a result we do not have the benefit of an AJ’s credibility
determinations of the witnesses in this case. Complainant bears the burden to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. When the evidence
is at best equipoise, Complainant fails to meet that burden. See Lore v. Dep't of Homeland
Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113283 (Sept. 13, 2013) (complainant failed to establish that
witnesses made false statements where he withdrew his request for a hearing and credibility
determinations were unable to be made): Brand v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No.
0120102187 (Aug. 23, 2012) (complainant failed to establish that his coworker made offensive
0120171609

9
comments in a “he said, she said” situation where complainant requested a final decision and an
Administrative Judge did not make credibility determinations). Therefore, Complainant has not
established that she was discriminated against based on her sex, association with an individual
with a disability, or in reprisal for protected EEO activity.

Harassment

Harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it results in an alteration of
the conditions of the Complainant’s employment. See EEOC Notice No. 915.002, Enforcement
Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., at 3 (Mar. 8, 1994). To establish a claim of
harassment a Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she
was subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the
harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment had the
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability
to the employer. See Humphrey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01965238
(Oct. 16, 1998).

In this case, we find that Complainant has not provided any evidence showing that any of the
complained of conduct was due to her protected categories. Incidents 2, 4-6, 8, 10-13, 15-17, and
19 were management actions stemming from SHRS and HRS’s EEO complaints, and information
about Complainant’s conduct, which was discovered during the investigations into the allegations
made by her employees. Additionally, even taking all these events together, we find that they are
not severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of unlawful harassment. Accordingly, we find
that Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on
her sex, association with an individual with a disability, or in reprisal for protected EEO activity.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding that Complainant
has not shown that the Agency discriminated against her based on her sex, association with an
individual with a disability, or in reprisal for protected EEO activity, when it suspended her for
fourteen (14) days; allegedly disclosed her medical information; or subjected her to a hostile work
environment.

0120171609

10
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety
(90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must
name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result
in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider
and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
0120171609

11
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 18, 2018
Date