[Redacted], Chrystal S. 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001081 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Chrystal S.1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020001081 Agency No. 4C-440-0044-19 DECISION On October 10, 2019, 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 October 1, 2019, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. ISSUE PRESENTED This issue presented is whether the Final Agency Decision (FAD) correctly determined that Complainant was not subjected to discriminatory harassment based on sex (female), age (58), and disability (diabetes, anxiety, and herniated discs) as alleged. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Sales, Services and Distribution Associate (SSDA) at the Agency’s Beachwood Branch in Cleveland, Ohio. 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. 2020001081 2 On April 23, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female), disability (diabetes, anxiety, and herniated discs) and age (58) when: 1. on November 29, 2018, Complainant was insulted and threatened by a coworker (C1) and management did nothing; 2. on December 31, 2018, and January 9, 2019, management belittled and insulted Complainant in front of coworkers and customer; 3. on a daily basis after December 1, 2018, a supervisor (S3) entered Complainant’s work space after the supervisor had been instructed not to do so by the postmaster (Postmaster); 4. on November 29, 2018, C1 intentionally hit Complainant with a package and management did nothing; and 5. on December 5, 2018, Complainant was issued a Seven-Day Suspension. The complaint was accepted for investigation. The investigation revealed the following relevant facts. Claims 1 and 4 Complainant alleged that she was discussing the dispatch set-up with C1, and Complainant’s supervisor (S1) when C1 remarked that reading is fundamental. Complainant indicated that she found the remark to be insulting. Complainant stated that she told C1, "so is intelligence." Then S1 told Complainant and C1 not to start an argument. Subsequently, Complainant alleged that C1 purposely picked up a package, threw it at Complainant, and hit Complainant on the hand. Complainant alleged that C1 walked away smiling; that C1 denied that the alleged action was intentional; and that C1 never apologized to Complainant. Complainant stated that even though S1 witnessed the incident, S1 falsely told Complainant’s union representative that there was no arguing between Complainant and C1. Complainant noted that S1 also saw C1 throw the package at Complainant. Complainant asserted that if it was an accident, C1 would have apologized to Complainant. Complainant stated that C1 subsequently told Complainant to "back it up, old lady,” indicating that C1 referred to Complainant as an old lady. Complainant indicated that she took C1’s statement as a threat. Complainant stated that while C1 suffered no consequences for her actions, Complainant was given a Seven-Day Suspension for no reason. Complainant indicated that she did not feel safe working around C1 after the incident because C1 got away with her action without repercussions, even though S1 witnessed the incident. Complainant alleged that she believed that this constituted harassment based on her age and medical condition because C1 is a much younger employee and is favored over Complainant based on C1’s youth and lack of disabilities. Complainant asserted that C1 has a problem with older women, and is always making "old lady" remarks directed at Complainant. 2020001081 3 Complainant alleged that her medical conditions required C1 to perform additional work which Complainant is unable to perform due to her medical limitations. The Manager, Customer Service (M1) stated that during a Pre-Disciplinary Interview (PDI) conducted with Complainant, Complainant never mentioned being hit with a package. M1 asserted that S1, who was present at the incident between C1 and Complainant, informed M1 that C1 did not throw a package at Complainant. M1 noted that an investigation of the incident revealed that Complainant was yelling at C1 in the presence of postal customers. M1 indicated that C1 was placed on emergency placement for a similar improper conduct on May 24, 2019. S1 stated that she was present at the incident in question; and that Complainant was not hit with a package, nor did Complainant tell S1 that she was hit with a package. S1 indicated that C1 and Complainant insulted each other, but did not threaten each other. S1 asserted that she diffused the situation. S1 noted that Complainant did not tell S1 that she was hit by a package thrown by C1 until Complainant was receiving a PDI; and that at that time, S1 told Complainant that S1 did not see C1 hit Complainant with a package. S1 indicated that she simply told Complainant to follow her assignment and was not harassing Complainant. S1 added that she was not aware of Complainant bringing any concerns about harassment or a hostile work environment to the attention of any other management official. Claim 2 Complainant alleged that, on January 9, 2019, M1 stood in the window doorway and insulted Complainant about ordering supplies. Complainant specified that M1’s tone and demeanor were as if M1 was talking to a child; and that M1’s tone and demeanor was hostile and combative, even though Complainant had told M1 not to speak to Complainant in a hostile or abusive manner several times previously. Complainant also stated that, on December 31, 2018, she was called into M1’s office. Complainant alleged that M1 and a second supervisor (S2) yelled at Complainant about closing out the station. Complainant stated that M1 and S2 were telling Complainant that Complainant had to close the station, even though it is a higher-level duty for which Complainant is not certified. Complainant stated that, as M1 and S2 continued to yell at her, Complainant began to feel threatened and fearful. As a result of the yelling, Complainant indicated she had an anxiety attack. Complainant alleged that she was unable to close out the station due to her disability. M1 denied belittling and insulting Complainant in front of coworkers and customers. M1 stated that Complainant alleged that she was being harassed whenever she was given instructions, corrective action, or feedback on her performance. M1 asserted that she has instructed all her supervisors to ensure that they are professional when giving all employees instructions. M1 denied that she or any other management official was harassing Complainant, stating that they were only giving Complainant instructions, performance feedback, and corrective action when warranted; and that corrective action has been issued solely on Complainant's conduct and performance. 2020001081 4 S2 stated that she was not aware of any incidents where management belittled or insulted Complainant or of any harassment of Complainant. S2 indicated that Complainant never told her that her actions or those of anyone else constituted harassment or created a hostile work environment. S2 noted that she was not aware of Complainant or anyone acting on her behalf bringing such concerns to the attention of any other management official. The Postmaster stated that a couple of weeks after she visited the Beachwood office, Complainant called and told the Postmaster that Complainant was sitting in her car in the parking lot and was going home, leaving Beachwood, and not coming back. Postmaster maintained that she tried to calm Complainant down so that the Postmaster could understand Complainant’s concerns, but that Complainant was very rude and disrespectful. When the Postmaster asked a second Manager, Customer Service (M2) to come to the phone to help calm Complainant down, Complainant continued to unprofessionally berate management. The Postmaster asserted that the only issue she was able to make out was that Complainant had not closed out properly the night before after going home sick. However, the Postmaster noted that Complainant continually interrupted and would not allow anyone else to communicate with Complainant. The Postmaster stated that she called the union for assistance in dealing with Complainant. Claim 3 Complainant explained that the Postmaster had instructed management that S3 was not to be allowed to enter Complainant's workspace in order to keep Complainant safe. Complainant asserted that M1 allowed S3 to enter Complainant's workspace in order to harass Complainant. Complainant alleged that S3’s mere presence near Complainant made Complainant fearful and uncomfortable because S3 had previously assaulted and threatened Complainant. Complainant indicated that other clerks knew that S3 was not supposed to be working at the window. Complainant acknowledged that she did not speak to S3 about being in Complainant's workspace, but that Complainant complained to M1, who told Complainant that S3 was not doing anything to Complainant. Complainant noted that this was another way in which M1 harassed her. Complainant alleged that she reported the harassment to Postmaster, M2, and the Manager in Labor Relations (MLR) but that no one helped her. M1 denied that S3 was ever instructed not to supervise any employees. M1 explained that S3 was instructed to be professional at all times, to communicate with employees with dignity and respect, to observe window operations, and to ensure all clerks were providing customers with exceptional service. M1 indicated that she, and not the Postmaster, issued those instructions. M1 specifically denied that S3 was instructed by any management official to refrain from contact with or supervision of Complainant. The Postmaster explained that when she was visiting the Beachwood office, Complainant shared her concerns about having S3 supervise her; and that Complainant claimed that S3 was harassing Complainant. The Postmaster recalled that she told Complainant that when S3 is the supervisor on duty, S3 is responsible for the operations and employees. 2020001081 5 The Postmaster indicated that she told Complainant that the Postmaster would talk to M1 about the issue. The Postmaster asserted that when she spoke to M1 and S3, they told the Postmaster that Complainant left her assignment whenever she did not want to work the window or disliked the instructions given to her. The Postmaster indicated that she told S3 to refrain from giving Complainant instructions if S3 was not Complainant's immediate supervisor and the retail supervisor was in the building; and that S3 and M1 told the Postmaster that most days, S3 is responsible for opening the windows until the retail supervisor arrived. The Postmaster stated that she passed the information S3 and M1 had given her along to Complainant. S3 asserted that she never entered Complainant's workspace; and that the supervisors performed lobby sweeps to direct postal customers to the supervisor for assistance. S3 stated that the Postmaster told Complainant that S3 is a supervisor and is responsible for supervising all employees. S3 indicated that she was told by the Postmaster to have minimal contact with Complainant; and to perform her lobby sweeps from the counter closest to the manager's office. S3 denied that Complainant told her that her actions or those of anyone else constituted harassment or created a hostile work environment. S3 maintained that she was not aware of Complainant or anyone acting on her behalf bringing such concerns to the attention of any other management official. M2 stated that while she was aware that Complainant felt that S3 was harassing her, M2 was unaware of any specific incidents. M2 explained that after finding out that S3 was not to have any contact with Complainant as well as Complainant's claims of harassment, M2 met with Complainant, M1, S3, the union Clerk Craft Director, the supervisor's representative, and an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) representative to try to identify and resolve any issues. M2 asserted that Complainant stayed in the meeting for only a short time, and while there, it was established that S3 would be supervising Complainant when necessary. M2 stated that Complainant wanted S3 to have no contact or conversation with Complainant at all. M2 indicated that she informed Complainant that that was not possible; and that it was an unreasonable request. M2 indicated that when she attempted to know and discuss specific instances of harassment with Complainant, Complainant was unable or unwilling to share the information; and that Complainant regarded anything stated to her by S3 to be harassment. M2 stated that she understood that S3 was not instructed not to go near or supervise complainant. M2 noted that no investigation of Complainant's allegations was made other than the meeting M2 already described because Complainant failed to identify specific allegations of harassment for M2 to investigate. MLR stated that she received a telephone call from Complainant about the issues Complainant was having at work; and that MLR told Complainant that MLR would pass those concerns on to M2. MLR stated that she was not aware of which management officials Complainant spoke to. 2020001081 6 Complainant alleged that she was harassed based on her sex because S1 had personal issues working with females. Complainant asserted that M1 constantly verbally attacked and harassed females because M1 is a victim of abuse. Complainant stated that M1 and S3 continuously harass females; and that the Postmaster has a personal problem being combative with females. Complainant added that M1, S2, and S3 are younger than Complainant, and have less time with the Postal Service. Complainant also noted that she did not report the harassment to her management out of fear that she would be retaliated against. Claim 5 Complainant alleged that M1 and a fourth supervisor (S4) issued a Seven-Day Suspension to Complainant. Complainant asserted that the charges in the suspension were all untrue; and that no reason or explanation was given for the issuance of the suspension. Complainant alleged that even though S1 told her union representative that Complainant had not argued with C1 or exhibited any unprofessional conduct (regarding Claims 1 and 2), M1 had the suspension issued as an act of revenge against Complainant. Complainant alleged that M1 had a personal vendetta against Complainant because Complainant was responsible for a failed Mystery Shopper score on the day that C1 assaulted Complainant. Complainant explained that since M1 could not write Complainant up for the failed score, M1 used the assault incident in which Complainant was the victim against Complainant (indicating the package throwing incident), and never took Complainant's allegations seriously. Complainant asserted that a second coworker (C2) who, Complainant alleged, is a personal friend of M1 was treated better than Complainant. Complainant alleged that C2 displayed unprofessional conduct but received no disciplinary action because M1 covered for C2. Complainant also asserted that C2 was treated better than Complainant because when C1 had an incident with C2, C1 was placed on Emergency Placement and C2 did not receive any discipline even though they were both at fault. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on her sex because M1 harassed and mistreated females; and that M1 acted as if she hated females. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on her age and disability because Complainant is older than M1; and cannot fully perform all of her job duties. The record contains a Seven-Day Suspension issued to Complainant on December 5, 2018, by S4, with M1’s concurrence, for Improper Conduct. The suspension stated that on November 29, 2018, Complainant was heard arguing with C1 in the view of customers at the retail window. The suspension reflected that despite S1 telling Complainant and C1 to not get started, they continued to display unfavorable behavior. The suspension cited a Letter of Warning (LOW) given to Complainant on November 20, 2018, for Improper Conduct as prior active discipline. The suspension was later reduced to a LOW that would remain in Complainant's file for 12 months. 2020001081 7 M1 stated that Complainant had active discipline of the LOW for Improper Conduct on November 2, 2018. M1 referred to the PDI notes and the suspension decision as to the reasons for the action. M1 indicated that a PDI was conducted with C2 on June 27, 2019, for improper conduct. S4 acknowledged that he issued the 7-Day Suspension to Complainant, with M1’s concurrence, because he was the supervisor who conducted the PDI. S4 stated that the suspension was issued because Complainant had a verbal altercation with a coworker in front of postal customers; and that Complainant had active discipline of a LOW on file. S4 also stated that he gave C2 a PDI. S4 added that he was aware that action had been taken against C1. S4 denied that Complainant told him that his action or those of anyone else constituted harassment or created a hostile work environment. S4 stated that he was not aware of Complainant or anyone acting on her behalf bringing such concerns to the attention of any other management official. 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL There are no contentions on appeal. 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”). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Disparate Treatment (Claim 5) To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she 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). 2020001081 8 Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. 802 at n. 13. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination and hostile work environment based on sex, age, and disability; we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. S4 stated, and M1 affirmed, that the suspension was issued because Complainant had a verbal altercation with C1 in front of postal customers and Complainant had active discipline of a LOW on file. In an effort to show pretext, Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on her age and disability because Complainant is older than M1 and cannot fully perform all of her job duties. Yet, there is no medical documentation or other evidence to suggest that Complainant could not fully perform all of her duties. In fact, Complainant indicated that she had not received psychological or psychiatric counseling and/or treatment because of the alleged discriminatory act. Complainant also failed to cite any ageist comments made or actions taken by Manager1 that was motivated by Complainant’s age. The Commission has stated that proof of pretext includes evidence of discriminatory statements or past personal treatment attributable to the named managers, unequal application of agency policy, deviations from standard procedures without explanation or justification, or inadequately explained inconsistencies in the evidentiary record. See January B. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120142872 (Dec. 18, 2015). The instant complaint is devoid of any such evidence. Complainant also identified C1 and C2 as comparators, asserting that they received more favorable treatment because they were not issued discipline for similar conduct as that engaged in by Complainant. However, the evidence reflects that both C1 and C2 had received discipline for engaging in similar improper conduct. Complainant herself affirmed that C1 had indeed been placed on Emergency Placement when C1, Complainant asserted, had an incident with C2. The Commission has held that in general, in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, if the complainant cannot identify any similarly situated comparison employees who were treated more favorably, he or she will not prevail. Aguilar v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01944167 (Aug. 8, 1995). Here, the comparators identified by Complainant did not receive more favorable treatment. Nor did Complainant provide any direct evidence that the discipline she received was motivated by discriminatory animus based on membership in any of her protected classes. Therefore, Complainant’s disparate treatment allegations in Claim 5 fail, and she does not prevail. 2020001081 9 Hostile Work Environment (Claims 1 through 4) To establish a claim of harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) they belong to a statutorily protected class; (2) they were subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on their 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). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 6 (Mar. 8, 1994). For purposes of analysis, we find that Complainant established elements 1 and 2. However, we find that Complainant does not meet element 3 because none of the described incidents of harassment were based on her statutory protected classes. Specifically, Complainant’s alleged incidents involving C1 in Claims 1 and 4 occurred in the course of their daily interactions as coworkers. M1, S2, and S3 are supervisors who bear responsibility for providing instructions, work assignments, and performance feedback to Complainant. Their interactions with Complainant occurred in the course of carrying out their supervisory responsibilities and not because of Complainant’s protected bases. Complainant also failed to meet element 4. Complainant indicated that she did not like M1’s tone and demeanor when M1 talked to Complainant about ordering supplies. Complainant objected to S2 talking to her about closing out the station. Complainant objected to S3 entering her office space. However, there is no evidence that the alleged harassment affected a term or condition of Complainant’s 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. Rather, Complainant generally appears to be asserting, without presenting substantive evidence, that she was harassed because her managers dislike females or because they are younger than she is. In the same vein, Complainant’s statements that the alleged harassment is based on her medical restrictions and her inability to perform certain duties is also uncorroborated by any medical documentation or work restrictions. Therefore, Complainant has failed to describe any severe or pervasive management conduct that was based on her protected classes or that would constitute actionable harassment. Our decisions have made it clear that the anti-discrimination laws are not a "general civility code" and that the conduct complained of must be so objectively offensive as to alter the terms and conditions of one's employment. Complainant has failed to describe any such conduct. 2020001081 10 Instead, what Complainant describes are routine work assignments, instructions, and admonishments that do not rise to the level of discriminatory harassment. DiFruscio v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 01982006 (Sept. 13, 2000); Wolf v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01961559 (Jul. 23, 1998); and Bennett v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05980746 (Sept. 19, 2000). Therefore, we conclude that Complainant has not established her claims of discrimination and that her requested relief is not granted. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency final decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 2020001081 11 Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 January 22, 2021 Date