Marjorie J.,1 Complainant,v.Jeff B. Sessions, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 7, 2018

0120162524 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2018)

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

Marjorie J.,1
Complainant,

v.

Jeff B. Sessions,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162524

Hearing No. 520-2014-00334X

Agency No. ATF-2013-00490

DECISION

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) accepts
Complainant’s appeal from the June 29, 2016 final agency decision (FAD) 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. The
Commission’s review is de novo. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
FAD.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Criminal
Investigator/Special Agent, GS-1811-13, at the Agency’s Field Office in Hartford, Connecticut.
Complainant entered duty at the Hartford Field Office in August 2008. In October 2012,
Complainant was selected for the Certified Fire Investigator (CFI) program. The CFI program is
a two-year training program that includes several weeks of work and examination of fire scenes
to train agents to provide technical support, analysis, and assistance in fire origin, cause
determination, and arson investigation. The CFI program is time-intensive, but participants are
expected to balance the duties of their position and the responsibilities of the CFI program.

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.
0120162524

2

Complainant alleged that she had conflict with her first-level supervisor (S1) since she started
working for him in August 2008. Following her selection into the CFI program, Complainant
claimed that S1 gave her a hard time and harassed her because he wanted a male selected for the
CFI program. In January 2013, Complainant asked another supervisor about working fire scenes
in Massachusetts because things were slow in Hartford. The supervisor stated that she would
talk to S1. Complainant claimed that S1 confronted her and said he had no idea she was not
getting fires. Complainant stated that she thought S1 knew that she had investigated only two
fires as of January 2013. Complainant claimed that S1 purposefully failed to pursue avenues for
her to investigate fires in other locations and refused to allow her to contact other fire
departments and investigators to get the required number of fires to investigate.

On January 30, 2013, while at training, Complainant alleged that S1 confronted her about her
previous week’s work assignments. Complainant claimed that S1 had assigned her to conduct
interviews in Massachusetts for another agent’s case, which she did. S1 confronted Complainant
about that assignment and claimed that he told Complainant to work with the Hartford Fire
Marshal’s Office, not to conduct interviews in Massachusetts. Complainant alleged that S1
demanded that Complainant provide a complete breakdown of her work schedule.

In early-January 2013, Complainant alleged that S1 asked about the duty hours of the Hartford
Fire Marshal’s Office. Complainant stated that they worked 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. four days a
week. Complainant claimed that S1 informed her that she was to begin working 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday because “we work ten-hour days.” Complainant requested
clarification because she believed that she was to work eight-hour days and be available for two
additional hours a day. Complainant claimed that she further noted that her readings and project
work should be included in Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP). Complainant alleged
that S1 stated that he had never heard of any CFI candidate putting in for LEAP time for reading
on nights and weekends. Complainant claimed that she left his office and learned from two other
agents that they were permitted to count reading as LEAP time. Complainant later called S1 and
informed him that agents could claim LEAP for their reading time. Complainant stated that S1
then responded that she could do so. Complainant alleged that S1 spoke to another agent and
received clarification on the LEAP time issue.

On February 1, 2013, Complainant claimed that S1 gave her a hard time over her use of her
government-assigned vehicle (GOV) to drive to training. The training was scheduled for
February 4-14, 2013, and was 300 miles away in Maryland. Complainant alleged that S1 told
her that she should have flown to the training, but other employees had been allowed to drive
their GOVs to farther distances for training.

On February 19, 2013, Complainant advised S1 that she was going to Glock Transition training
in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and would be traveling on February 26, 2013. Complainant
claimed that S1 emailed her saying that she should be able to get a day in at the Fire Department
to catch up on her fires that day since it was only a two-hour drive from Hartford to Cape Cod.
0120162524

3
Complainant indicated to S1 that she was planning to work until 2:00 p.m., and then head to
Cape Cod. Later that same day, Complainant claimed that S1 scheduled a mandatory meeting at
2:45 p.m. on February 26, 2013, regarding furlough activity. Complainant believed that S1
scheduled the meeting deliberately at that time so that she could not leave for training as she had
previously planned. Complainant claimed that a male agent from her office was not present at
the meeting.

On February 25, 2013, Complainant alleged that she was called out to a late-night fire scene in
Hartford by a Hartford Fire Marshal Officer. Complainant claimed that she attempted to call S1,
but he did not answer. Complainant stated that she was at the scene for about three hours, and
then returned home after 1:00 a.m. Complainant was called to another fire scene the next
morning around 7:00 a.m. Complainant claimed that she called S1 later that morning and
mentioned the fire from the previous night and the 7:00 a.m. fire. Complainant alleged that S1
questioned her reporting time and when she responded, replied he was only kidding.
Complainant did not believe he was joking based on the tone of his voice.

On March 5, 2013, Complainant stated that she was in the office at 9:00 a.m. correcting her
travel voucher for the Glock Transition training. Complainant claimed that S1 approached her at
9:45 a.m., and asked why she was in the office. Complainant alleged that after she explained
what she was doing, S1 became confrontational and said that since she had had so many issues
with paperwork lately, nothing of hers was to leave the office until he had approved it.
Complainant later tried to discuss the matter and other issues with S1 again, but Complainant
claimed that he then began to question her work hours. Complainant alleged that S1 then
instructed her to provide him with a Word document attached to an email every Friday telling
him about all of the work she had done for the entire week, to include the exact hour she arrived
at work and the exact hour she left work. Complainant claimed said that when she told S1 that
she felt she was being accused of not working, S1 leaned forward and said that he thought that
“[she went] out of [her] way to avoid work.”

On March 10, 2013, Complainant claimed that she was called out to a fire in New Jersey.
Complainant contacted S1 to ask if she could respond. Complainant alleged that S1 told her she
could respond, but she could not stay overnight. Complainant called S1 later that night to inform
him that they were wrapping up at the scene, but that they would have to go back again the next
morning for additional work. Complainant claimed that S1 told her that she could not stay
overnight. Complainant left the scene at approximately midnight, and arrived at home at
approximately 1:30 a.m. Complainant emailed S1 around 7:00 a.m. that next morning to inform
him that she was driving back to the fire scene in New Jersey.

On March 11, 2013, Complainant claimed that she requested a voluntary permanent transfer to
Newark Field Division, Woodland Park Field Office. The request was forwarded to the Boston
Field Division. Complainant stated that she requested a transfer based on S1’s lack of support
for completion of the CFI training requirements. On March 13, 2013, S1 submitted a response to
the Acting Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) at the Boston Field Division stating that granting
Complainant’s request would negatively impact the Hartford Field Office’s arson investigation
0120162524

4
capabilities. On March 22, 2013, the Acting SAC transmitted Complainant’s request to the
Deputy Assistant Director recommending that the request not be granted at the time.

On March 15, 2013, Complainant requested a temporary assignment to the New Haven office in
Connecticut. In the request, Complainant noted that she had contacted the EEO Office to file an
EEO complaint regarding S1 and that she was now in fear of further retaliation and harassment
by S1. Later that day, the Acting SAC denied Complainant’s request for temporary
reassignment. The Acting SAC informed Complainant that her voluntary reassignment request
was still being reviewed.

On March 26, 2013, S1 informed Complainant that he was moving to Worcester, Massachusetts,
and would be the head of the Division’s Arson Group. Complainant claimed that S1 told her that
he would maintain contact with the Connecticut Fire Marshal’s Office and would be “keeping an
eye on things in Connecticut.” Complainant believed that this was a veiled threat and that S1
would continue to “loom” over and harass her.

Later that same day, Complainant claimed that S1 called her into his office to discuss a new
assignment and her credit card receipts from the February 2013 fire training in Maryland.
Regarding the credit card receipts, S1 asked Complainant if she traveled home on February 14 or
February 15, 2013. Complainant stated that she explained to S1 that the fire course ended on
February 14, 2013, and she traveled home on that day. Complainant claimed that S1 ordered her
to change her time and attendance records (WebTA) to reflect a travel day on February 14, 2013,
and a day of leave on February 15, 2013. Complainant alleged that S1 further instructed her to
not alter any documents and to write a memorandum to the Special Agent-in-Charge regarding
the misreported travel day and incorrect travel voucher. Complainant stated that she contacted
two Agency program managers at Headquarters and two human resources officials to correct her
WebTA and to pay back an overage of per diem paid to her based on the incorrect travel day.
Complainant claimed that the next day, S1 chastised her for contacting individuals outside of her
chain-of-command to correct the time records and travel voucher. Complainant stated that on
March 28, 2013, she contacted additional Agency Headquarters personnel regarding the per diem
overage, received instructions on how to pay the money back to the Agency, and mailed a check
for $96.00 to Headquarters. Complainant alleged that S1 again scolded her for contacting
Agency officials instead of using her chain-of-command. Complainant insisted, however, that
she changed her WebTA as S1 had instructed and that she never altered her travel voucher.

S1 reported the travel voucher and WebTA issues as well as Complainant’s failure to follow his
instructions to one of Complainant’s second-level supervisors (S2-2). S2-2 referred the potential
travel voucher/timesheet fraud and insubordination issues to the Agency’s Internal Affairs (IA)
for an investigation. On March 29, 2013, the Acting SAC requested that Complainant be
temporarily suspended from the CFI program based on allegations of misconduct and a pending
IA investigation. That same day, Complainant received an email from S1 notifying her she was
temporarily suspended from the CFI program effective immediately. On May 16, 2013,
Complainant was removed from the CFI permanently as a result of the pending IA investigation.
0120162524

5
The Arson Enforcement Division Chief noted that a finding that Complainant engaged in the
alleged conduct could adversely affect her ability to testify successfully as an expert witness.
The Chief added that Complainant could apply for reinstatement once the investigation
concluded. On June 7, 2013, Complainant’s voluntary transfer request was denied because she
was found to be ineligible for the Agency’s voluntary transfer program due to the pending IA
investigation.

On April 25, 2013, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against her on the bases of sex (female) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity as
evidenced by multiple incidents including, inter alia, Complainant’s supervisor (S1) failed to
provide her assistance to fulfill her Certified Fire Investigator (CFI) training requirements; S1
refused to allow Complainant to drive her government-assigned vehicle (GOV) to training; S1
changed Complainant’s duty hours to the same as the Hartford Fire Marshall’s Office to fulfill
her training requirements; S1 denied Complainant a travel day for training; S1 became
confrontational when inquiring about her travel voucher and accused her of avoiding work; her
request for temporary duty to the New Haven Field Office was denied; she was not allowed
overnight lodging after an assignment in New Jersey; she was chastised for correcting her travel
voucher; she was temporarily suspended from the CFI program; and the Board declined to hear
her request for a voluntary transfer.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing, but subsequently withdrew
her request. The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency for issuance of a final decision. The
Agency issued a FAD pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).

In the FAD, the Agency determined that the alleged incidents were insufficiently severe or
pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Further, the Agency concluded that there was
no evidence that the conduct at issue was based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. In
particular, with regard to the denial of a temporary reassignment to New Haven Office,
management officials stated that they denied the request because Complainant did not provide a
sufficient justification for reassignment. Complainant’s second-level supervisors (S2-1 and S2-
2) both affirmed that Complainant did not characterize her problems with S1 as a hostile work
environment and did not provide sufficient past events of discrimination or harassment. S2-1
and S2-2 stated that Complainant only indicated that she was fearful of future acts of retaliation
and implied that she needed to be separated from S1. Management officials noted that S1 was
already due to be transferred to Worcester on April 15, 2013, which would separate Complainant
from S1 thereby making reassigning Complainant unnecessary. S2-1 added that he and the
Acting ASAC conferred with Headquarters and that Headquarters agreed with their decision to
deny the transfer.

With respect to Complainant’s suspension and removal from the CFI program, S2-2 stated that
he referred Complainant for an IA investigation when he learned that Complainant may have
filed a fraudulent travel voucher for her Maryland fire training trip and a fraudulent WebTA
0120162524

6
record for the week of that trip. The Acting SAC confirmed that after he learned of the
discrepancy between Complainant’s claimed travel day and actual travel day, he believed that
Complainant may need to be subjected to an “integrity investigation” by IA and requested that
Complainant be temporarily suspended from the CFI program until the investigation could be
resolved. The Chief of the Agency’s Arson Enforcement Division removed Complainant from
the CFI program because Complainant was under investigation by IA for veracity-related
offenses that could negatively affect her ability to testify successfully in court.

As to the denial of Complainant’s request for voluntary permanent transfer to New Jersey, the
Program Analyst explained that, per Agency policy, an employee was not eligible for the
voluntary transfer program if the employee was the subject of an IA investigation. The Program
Analyst stated that Complainant was under IA investigation when Headquarters received her
request for a voluntary transfer to New Jersey; therefore, the Board did not consider her request.

The Agency further determined that there was no corroborative evidence that many of the other
alleged incidents occurred as Complainant alleged. For example, there was no evidence that S1
failed to contact the Connecticut Fire Marshal’s Office or otherwise failed to help Complainant
meet the CFI program requirements. In fact, the record showed that S1 allowed Complainant to
complete approximately 145 hours of CFI training to help meet her goal of being accepted into
the CFI program and laid out a specific plan to help her succeed in the program after she was
accepted. The Agency noted that even though the plan did not go as they planned, it did not
mean that S1 failed to help Complainant. Furthermore, regarding the issues associated with
Complainant’s work hours; her government vehicle; travel vouchers; and denying her a travel
day, the Agency found that those amounted to a supervisor taking reasonable steps to manage an
employee in accordance with Agency policies and procedures and providing adequate coverage
of assigned duties.

The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to show that management’s reasons for its
actions were pretextual. As a result, the Agency found that Complainant had not been subjected
to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The instant appeal
followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant reaffirms her claims that she was subjected to discrimination, reprisal,
and a hostile work environment. Complainant contends that Agency officials gave contradictory
reasons for their actions and that the record contains ample evidence of discriminatory and
retaliatory animus. Complainant argues that she was subjected to a pattern of behavior over the
course of eight months that eventually resulted in a change in her work conditions. Accordingly,
Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the FAD.
0120162524

7
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a claim of harassment a 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 her
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 employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
[complainant’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

Therefore, 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 her protected classes. Only if Complainant establishes
both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.

Here, Complainant asserted that based on her protected classes, management subjected her to a
hostile work environment as evidenced by several incidents of what she believed to be
discriminatory and retaliatory harassment. The Commission finds that Complainant has not
shown that she was subjected to conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work
environment.

Moreover, even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create
a hostile work environment, Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions were based on
discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The record reflects that the alleged incidents were more
likely the result of routine supervision, managerial discipline, and general workplace disputes
and tribulations. For example, with regard to her claims that S1 failed to support her CFI
training requirements, S1 affirmed that he assisted Complainant in obtaining training by
relieving Complainant from certain assignments and supported Complainant’s assignment with
the Hartford Fire Department’s Fire Marshal’s Office. ROI, at 139-40. S1 stressed that he only
asked Complainant to document her time and work so that he could track her progress and
support her by knowing where and when she was working. Id. at 142. With respect to driving
her GOV to training, S1 explained that Complainant requested authorization to travel to the
CFIC Orientation in her GOV and visit an associate along the route. Id. at 131-32. S1 stated that
he informed her that this was not allowed and that she needed to get supervisory authorization to
travel using her GOV over 300 miles as specified in her travel orders. Id. at 132. Complainant
was allowed to drive her GOV to attend the Orientation class. Id.

0120162524

8
As to the duty hour change, S1 asserted that it was important for Complainant to work the same
hours as the Hartford Fire Marshal’s Office to build the partnership, gain fire scene investigative
experience, and exploit all of the opportunities to successfully complete the CFI requirements.
ROI, at 130. S1 advised Complainant that her tour-of-duty should be adjusted for such things as
off-duty call-outs, training, and mission needs. Id. S1 asked that Complainant keep him notified
and maintain a weekly training report to document her work. Id. at 130-31. With respect to the
denial of her travel day, S1 explained that it was a two-hour drive from the Hartford Field Office
to the training site. Id. at 128. S1 stated that he instructed Complainant to deduct the travel time
from her scheduled training day on February 26, 2013, to cover the travel time and get some CFI
training completed. Id. at 129. S1 added that Complainant was authorized the travel request to
include per diem for her travel on February 26, 2013, to the training location. Id.

Regarding the discussion about her travel voucher and WebTA, S1 affirmed that he discovered
discrepancies in Complainant’s credit card statement and receipts. ROI, at 117. S1 discussed the
matter with Complainant and learned that Complainant went home from training on February 14,
2013, but claimed February 15, 2013 as a travel day. Id. Complainant then wanted to amend her
WebTA and travel documents, but S1 requested that she not do so until S1 received further
guidance. Id. at 118. S1 stated that Complainant disregarded his instructions and contacted
officials to amend her documents. Id. S1 stressed that he again asked Complainant to not
contact anyone about the documents while he awaited guidance from the Boston Field Division,
and to work these issues through her chain-of-command. Id. Complainant then contacted
Agency Headquarters to correct her documents and pay restitution. S1 then sent Complainant
another email directing her to not contact Agency officials to alter administrative documents and
to use the chain-of-command to resolve these issues. Id.

As to Complainant’s claim that S1 denied her request for overnight lodging, S1 stated that the
messages he received on his phone and emails did not indicate any request for an overnight
travel request. ROI, at 120-21. S1 affirmed that he received a message from Complainant at
7:30 p.m. stating that she had cleared the scene and then an email that he received the next
morning indicating that she left at 11:56 p.m. Id. at 121. S1 could not recall receiving or
disapproving a request for overnight travel. Id.

Regarding the denial of Complainant’s request for temporary duty at New Haven, S2-2 affirmed
that he advised Complainant that her request was denied because she provided no basis for her
belief that she would be subjected to future harassment and reprisal. ROI, at 299. Additionally,
S2-2 stated that the Boston Field Office had already begun preparing to transfer S1 to the
Worcester office making Complainant’s temporary transfer request unnecessary. Id. at 299-300.

With respect to Complainant’s temporary and permanent suspension from the CFI program, S2-1
affirmed that S1 informed him of potential employee misconduct by Complainant, including
insubordination, travel voucher fraud, and timesheet fraud. ROI, at 250. S2-1 referred these
matters to the Agency’s Office of Internal Affairs. Id. On March 21, 2013, S1 informed
Complainant that she was being temporarily suspended from the CFI program based on the
pending IA investigation. Id. at 218, 220.
0120162524

9
Complainant was subsequently permanently removed from the CFI program by the Arson
Enforcement Chief because of the investigation into travel voucher and WebTA issues. Id. at
217.

Finally, as to her voluntary transfer request, the Acting SAC stated that he initially recommended
that Complainant’s request be denied based on staffing shortages and the need for a CFI in
Connecticut. ROI, at 209. Ultimately, Complainant’s request was denied because she was
ineligible to participate in the voluntary transfer request program because of the pending
investigation into her alleged misconduct. Id. at 214.

The Commission concludes that Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to a
discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment. Moreover, to the extent Complainant
claimed that she was subjected to disparate treatment, the Commission finds that, as discussed
above, Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency’s explanation for its actions was
pretext for discrimination or reprisal. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant was
not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged.

CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on
appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the
Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that discrimination occurred.

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.
0120162524

10
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.
0120162524

11
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

August 7, 2018
Date