[Redacted], Chuck C., 1 Complainant,v.Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 21, 2021

Appeal No. 2019004919 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 21, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Chuck C.,1 Complainant, v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency. Appeal No. 2019004919 Agency Nos. HS-HQ-01266-2011 HS-HQ-02302-2013 HS-HQ-01206-2018 DECISION On June 12, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s May 2, 2019 final decision concerning his 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. BACKGROUND During the relevant period, Complainant worked as a Federal Police Officer (Job Series GS- 0083), at the Agency’s National Protection Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service (FPS).2 Complainant’s duty station was located in Region 9 in Santa Ana, California. Complainant filed three formal complaints on June 15, 2011 (“Complaint 1” - Agency No. HS- HQ-01266-2011), November 27, 2013 (“Complaint 2” - Agency No. HS-HQ-02302-2013), and 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2 In his statement on appeal, Complainant stated that he retired from Agency employment effective December 31, 2018. 2019004919 2 April 11, 2018 (“Complaint 3” - Agency No. HS-HQ-01206-2018) respectively. The Agency consolidated the formal complaints for processing. Complainant claimed he was subjected to harassment/a hostile work environment based on race (African American), color (dark skinned), disability (perceived disability based on VA 30% disability rating), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. the Agency stopped hiring employees in Job Series 0083 (Police Series) and began hiring younger personnel in Job Series 0080 (Security Administration) at a higher pay scale while performing essentially the same duties; 2. the FPS Director established a nation-wide DHS 0080 Law Enforcement Security Officer (LESO) Special Salary Pay Scale which is currently being used for the GS- 0080 Administrative Security series which is significantly higher than the pay scale for GS-0083 Police Officers; 3. on December 30, 2010, someone alleged Complainant used excessive force on an individual who used profanity and made comments that were sexual in nature toward a Social Security Administration (SSA) representative; 4. on February 11, 2011, the SSA District Director referred to Complainant as a “menacing threat”; 5. on March 5, 2011, management officials refused to pay for overtime; 6. on April 15, 2011, Complainant alleged that the FPS National Director did not follow procedure when he did not increase Complainant’s credentials from Police Officer - GS-0083-11 to Police Officer GS-0083-12/13, and Complainant was denied full Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) coverage and the ability to have “Police Officer” identified on his U.S. DHS LEO credentials per HR 218 and S.1132 U.S.; 7. on May 16, 2011, management officials failed to promote Complainant and failed to change his DHS credentials to reflect the title “Police Officer;” 8. on May 23, 2011, Complainant alleged the EEO Counselor was rude and used profanity when speaking to him, commenting, “I am tired of processing your damn complaints,” and the next day he received an “an irate” telephone call from the EEO Counselor telling him that he needed a desk audit; 9. on June 8, 2011, while Complainant attempted to issue a Felony Fugitive Warrant, the Acting Area Commander arrived on the scene and took over the arrest, and when Complainant corrected mistakes he made on the booking form the Acting Area Commander yelled at Complainant to hurry up; 2019004919 3 10. on June 14, 2011, Complainant received a Notice of Proposed 4-Day Suspension for alleged misconduct and was subsequently suspended for three days; 11. on June 29, 2011, Complainant was asked to provide medical documentation in relation to his request for leave on July 1, 2011; 12. on July 21, 2011, Complainant and a co-worker detained and interviewed a visitor to the SSA and, thereafter, a co-worker arrived on the scene and rudely took over the interview, averred Complainant or Complainant’s co-worker should process paperwork related to the matter, and thereafter walked away from the scene commenting to himself and making a gang-related hand gesture; 13. on March 22, 2012 and May 8, 2012, management officials conducted an FPS Internal Affairs (IA) investigation alleging Complainant intimidated an SSA employee; 14. on March 23, 2012, management officials threated to fire Complainant; 15. from September 4, 2012 to September 5, 2012, management officials placed Complainant under the supervision of a less qualified Police Officer; 16. from September 7, 2012 to September 14, 2012, management officials denied Complainant the opportunity to attend the Terrorism Liaison Training at no cost to the Agency; 17. on September 26, 2012, management officials denied Complainant the opportunity to transfer to another office; 18. on February 13, 2013, management officials abruptly stopped Complainant’s Taser training twice and said in an aggressive manner, “it’s over stop;” 19. from April 22, 2013 to April 26, 2013, management officials attempted to force Complainant to change his work schedule; 20. on June 17, 2013, management officials threatened to list Complainant as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) after having leave approved by his supervisor; 21. on July 3, 2013, Complainant’s request for Leave Without Pay (LWOP) while Complainant was sick and under the care of his medical health provider was denied; 22. on July 12, 2013, the Chief of FPS, Region 9, Threat Management Branch told Complainant “I am not concerned about anyone else, just you,” in reference to the allegation that Complainant drove his government vehicle across the high occupancy 2019004919 4 vehicle (HOV) double lines to exit and the Chief of FPS also disregarded Complainant’s reports that other employees drive their vehicles in the HOV lanes; 23. on July 12, 2013 and August 19, 2013, management officials initiated an unwarranted FPS IA investigation against Complainant for driving in the HOV lane; 24. on July 31, 2013, management officials suspended Complainant’s driving privileges; 25. on August 19, 2013, the Chief of FPS proceeded with the FPS Management IA Investigation despite Complainant’s emailed requests to reschedule so that he could procure legal representation; 26. on September 18, 2013, management officials denied Complainant the opportunity to attend the Adv. TLO - “Countering Violent Extremism: Fusion Center Outreach and Liaison (CVE) (JRIS)” at no cost to the Agency; 27. on October 30, 2013, management officials told Complainant he needed to take a Defensive Driving Course in order to have his driving privileges reinstated; 28. on May 6, 2014, Complainant was issued a proposed suspension for misuse of a government vehicle and endangering the safety of others; 29. on August 26, 2014, management issued Complainant a leave restriction memorandum and on March 6, 2015, management issued Complainant a leave restriction extension letter; 30. on September 6, 2014, management initiated a false report of “having domestic issues-disturbance” with the San Bernardino, California Police Department and told Complainant his wife filed a spousal domestic violence charge against him; 31. on August 26, 2014, March 17, 2015, September 6, 2014, January 6, 2016, and June 30, 2016, management repeatedly issued Complainant performance appraisals misstating Complainant’s grade level knowing he actually held a higher grade; 32. on January 26, 2017, management suspended Complainant’s law enforcement authority and authorization to carry firearms; 33. management denied Complainant permission to attend the annual Region 9 In-Service Training in San Diego, California from April 3, 2017 to April 14, 2017; 34. on July 10, 2017, management issued Complainant another DHS Employee Performance Plan and Appraisal Form stating Complainant is GS-0083-08 even though RMO4 knows Complainant is GS-11; 2019004919 5 35. on or about November 14, 2017, Complainant received an unduly low score on his performance appraisal which contained inaccurate information; 36. on or about December 4, 2017, one of Complainant’s managers sent Complainant an email indicating that he would be coming to interview Complainant about his on-duty behavior, an untimely and unwarranted action that served as a pretext to justify Complainant’s placement on desk duty in early 2017; and 37. on or about December 7, 2017, one of Complainant’s managers interviewed Complainant regarding his on-duty behavior, an untimely and unwarranted action that served as a pretext to justify Complainant’s placement on desk duty in early 2017, After the investigation of three consolidated formal complaints, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant initially requested a hearing. Complainant, however, subsequently withdrew the hearing request. The Agency issued the instant final decision on May 2, 2019, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Disparate Impact: Claims 1 and 2 The Agency first addressed claims 1 and 2 pursuant to a disparate impact analysis. To the extent that claims 1 and 2 can be construed, as determined by the Agency, to be a claim of discrimination due to disparate impact, we agree with the Agency findings on this matter. In general, to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the Complainant must show that an agency practice or policy, while neutral on its face, disproportionately impacted members of the protected class through presentation of statistical evidence that demonstrates a statistical disparity that is linked to the challenged practice or policy. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1988) (the petitioner must present statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion). Specifically, Complainant must: (1) identify the specific policy or practice challenged; (2) show statistical disparities; and (3) show that the disparity is linked to the challenged practice or policy. Id. The burden is on the complainant to show that the facility neutral standard in question affects those individual within the protected group in a significantly discriminatory pattern. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329 (1977); see also Kimble v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Request No. 05950838 (June 20, 1997). Here, the record contains insufficient evidence to show that the practices identified in claims 1 and 2 had a disproportionate impact on older candidates. Without such evidence, Complainant is unable to show legally significant statistical disparities. Therefore, Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. 2019004919 6 Claim 8: Dismissed as a Spin-off Complaint Regarding Claim 8, the Agency properly determined that this matter constituted a “spin off” complaint, that even if dissatisfaction was raised with the processing of the instant complaint in its informal stage. The essence of this claim relates to a generalized grievance with the EEO Counselor. Complainant indeed, received EEO counseling despite his dissatisfactions, and we do not find that this matter was reasonably likely to deter pursuit of the EEO complaint process. Disparate Treatment A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). With respect to Complainant’s claim that on or around June 29, 2011, he requested annual leave for July 1, 2011, the Area Coordinator already had two Inspectors scheduled for approved leave on July 1, 2011. The Area Coordinator asked Complainant if he could reschedule his appointment. Complainant did not respond to her request. The Area Coordinator then asked Complainant to provide medical documentation to her by July 5, 2011. She noted that if she had approved Complainant’s leave request, it would have left her with only one official for 8 hours. However, Complainant submitted his doctor’s note and the Area Coordinator approved his request. 2019004919 7 Another Area Commander (Area Commander 2) (Hispanic/Latino) stated that he was Complainant’s operations supervisor. He noted that from October 1, 2016 through January 26, 2017, he rated Complainant’s FY 2017 performance based on goals and competencies. However, there was no Performance Work Plan for administrative duties for the remainder of the period during which Complainant was on administrative duties. The Area Commander 2 explained that Complainant was placed on administrative duties for an on-duty conduct related incident. However, he asserted “at no point during the rating period did the complainant receive an ‘unacceptable’ rating on either performance goals or competencies. In fact, the complainant received two ‘5 Achieved Excellence’ ratings during the FY 2017 rating period.” The District Commander (Caucasian, over 40), also Complainant’s second-line supervisor, stated in regard to Complainant’s claim that management officials refused to pay him overtime and would not change his work schedule causing him to be overworked, he felt that Complainant was responding to calls for service with greater frequency than other offices. He stated that Complainant is a police officer and his position is to respond to calls. The Area Coordinator (Hispanic), also Complainant’s second-level supervisor, issued Complainant a Notice of Proposed 4-Day suspension for improper handling of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and inappropriate language. On February 11, 2011, Complainant arrived at the SSA Office lobby and was informed that a suspect had earlier made a threat to get a gun and shoot people. The supervisor stated that Complainant verbally conveyed PII over the telephone in a public area within the SSA building including the individual’s name, date of birth, address, telephone, and race/ethnicity. She noted when questioned about the phone call by FPS investigator, Complainant acknowledged he should have moved to a more private area while on the phone. Further, the Area Coordinator stated that on April 5, 2011, she and a FPS contractor observed Complainant using language which was unsuitable in the workplace such as “No, I am on my way to see the AUSA on this child molester case which the Acting Area Commander is trying to sabotage, that son of a bitch!” She determined that as a Federal Police Officer, Complainant was expected to be a role model and comport himself in a professional manner at all times. The District Commander noted that Agency management denied Complainant’s request to attend the Terrorism Liaison training at no cost to the Agency because the Agency could not afford to have him away from his duties for a week. He stated that the Agency was shorthanded, and that the training was not vital to their mission or Complainant’s position. The District Commander stated that in regard to Complainant’s request to transfer to 24000 Avila, there was no office space for him. Instead, Complainant agreed to transfer to the Agency’s Santa Ana facility. Even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency has articulated numerous legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions regarding each of the discrete claims as noted above. 2019004919 8 Complaint failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the Agency’s legitimate non- discriminatory reasons were pretext masking discrimination or unlawful retaliation. Ongoing Harassment/Hostile Work Environment To establish a claim of discriminatory hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). In other words, to prove his harassment claim, Complainant must establish that he 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 his protected bases - in this case, his race, color, disability, age and prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements - hostility and motive - will the question of Agency liability present itself. Here, as discussed below, Complainant simply has provided inadequate evidence to support his claim that his treatment was the result of his race, color, disability, age and prior EEO activity. As an initial matter, to the extent the incidents already discussed in this decision in the “Disparate Treatment” section above have already resulted in a determination that no discrimination or unlawful retaliation has been proven, these incidents cannot be used to support Complainant’s claim of ongoing discriminatory harassment. We will, therefore, only consider the remaining alleged incidents in adjudicating the harassment claim. The Acting Area Commander (Inspector) (African American, black) stated that in regard to Complainant’s allegation on June 8, 2011, while he attempted to issue a Felony Fugitive Warrant, the Acting Area Commander arrived on the scene and took over the arrest. When Complainant corrected mistakes he made on the booking form the Acting Area Commander yelled at Complainant to hurry up. He explained that the Agency’s standard operation procedure requires two parties to perform a felony arrest. At that time, the Acting Area Commander stated that he received a call from the dispatcher checking to see if he had sufficient number to do an arrest and he noted that he did not have appropriate number of personnel to compete this task. The Acting Area Commander stated, however, Complainant proceeded to make the arrest. Further, the Acting Area Commander noted that Complainant was “obsessed” with the guy being a child molester and wanted to place an immigration hold on him, but they did not have authority to do that function. 2019004919 9 The Acting Area Commander stated that he informed Complainant that if Immigration officials wanted to take the individual they can get him and Complainant became upset and yelled at him. Complainant claimed that other officers were trying to get credit for his work. Complainant also claimed that on July 21, 2011, he and a co-worker detained and interviewed a visitor to the SSA. Thereafter, the Acting Area Commander/Inspector arrived on the scene and rudely took over the interview, averred Complainant or Complainant’s co-worker should process paperwork related to the matter, and thereafter walked away from the scene commenting to himself and making a gang-related hand gesture. The Acting Area Commander stated that when he arrived, the manager of Social Security Administration (SSA) asked him how long the interview would take because his staff need to get back to work. He explained that when the visitor refused to provide his Social Security number and sign a document for benefits, the manager stopped the interview. The Acting Area Commander denied making a gang-related hand gesture and instead, claimed that he used the “peace sign.” With respect to Complainant’s allegation that on March 23, 2012, management officials threatened to fire him, the District Commander recalled telling Complainant that he received a complaint from the SSA manager concerning him intimidating her and her employees. Subsequently, the District Commander reported a complaint against Complainant from the SSA manager as required by DHS management directive. With respect to Complainant’s allegation that on July 12, 2013 and August 19, 2013, management officials initiated an unwarranted FPS internal affairs investigation against Complainant for driving in the HOV lane, a named Area Commander (Hispanic/Latino) (Area Commander 3) stated he received a call from the Denver Mega Center (DMC) regarding a complaint reported about a DHS vehicle driving in the HOV lanes with only a single occupant. He also noted that the report stated that the vehicle crossed the double yellow lines to leave the HOV lane. Subsequently, he forwarded the report to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) compliance for appropriate action. Furthermore, the Area Commander 3 stated that on July 29, 2013, he received an email from the DMC regarding a complaint reported to a DHS vehicle driving erratically and nearly causing an accident. The report also reported the driver cut off a vehicle while cutting across three lanes to get to the fast lane. Thereafter, the Area Commander 3 forwarded the report to NPPD for appropriate action. The record contains a copy of the Regional Director’s memorandum dated October 30, 2013 to Complainant. Therein, the Regional Director placed Complainant on notice that his approval to drive a GOV and participate in the FPS Home to Work program would be reinstated once he has completed the GSA Online Training course. Furthermore, the Regional Director remanded Complainant as a FPS Enforcement officer, he was not exempt from obeying laws, to include traffic of the state in which you are operating a GOV. 2019004919 10 Complainant also claimed that one of the managers sent Complainant a message, indicating that he would be coming to interview him regarding his on-duty behavior. Complainant asserted that this constituted an untimely and unwarranted action that served as a pretext to justify his placement on desk duty in early 2017. The Regional Director (Hispanic, brown), also Complainant’s fourth-line supervisor, stated, however, that this action related to Complainant’s inappropriate visit and interaction with the Federal Public Defenders office in Santa, California, when Complainant entered their office in police uniform to complaint about his previous complaints. The image which emerges from considering the totality of the record is that there were conflicts and tensions with management style that left Complainant feeling aggrieved. However, the statutes under the Commission's jurisdiction do not protect an employee against adverse treatment unless that treatment is the result of discriminatory factors. See Jackson v. City of Killeen, 654 F.2d 1181, 1186 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Title VII is not a shield against harsh treatment at the workplace; it protects only in instances of harshness disparately distributed. The essence of the action is, of course discrimination.”). Here, Complainant simply has provided inadequate evidence to support his claim that his treatment was the result of his race, color, disability, age and/or prior EEO activity. His claim of harassment/hostile work environment is precluded based on our findings that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the agency were motivated by his protected bases. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 019982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). CONCLUSION We 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 (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. 2019004919 11 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). 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. 2019004919 12 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 June 21, 2021 Date