[Redacted], Elvis G., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 22, 2021Appeal No. 2019005802 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 22, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Elvis G.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Agency. Appeal No. 2019005802 Agency No. 200P-0653-2018102947 DECISION 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 final decisions 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 At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as the Chief of Surgery (COS) in Surgical Services at the Roseburg VA Healthcare System in Roseburg, Oregon. On April 26, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging, between January 29, 2018 and September 2018, the Agency subjected him to disparate treatment and hostile work environment harassment based on race (Asian), national origin (Indian), religion (Hindu), disability (back and hearing loss), age (64) and reprisal for prior EEO activity regarding: removal from the COS position; a biased lengthy investigation on his medical methods and Complainant purported participation in the removal of a VA surgeon; management asking Complainant’s wife to step down from a leadership position at the Agency; issuance of debt letters for $114,000 from 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. 2019005802 2 the Defense Finance and Accounting Services; an inadequate Agency police investigation in 2015; a threat to withhold Complainant’s salary; and a proposed admonishment for Complainant allegedly sleeping while on duty. Subsequently, Complainant added an allegation that, on September 18, 2018, the Acting Medical Center Director discriminated against him based on reprisal for prior EEO activity when he issued Complainant a proposed five-day suspension for allegedly making false statements under oath (“lack of candor”) in connection with a separate EEO proceeding. The Agency accepted Complainant’s complaint for EEO investigation. During the EEO investigation, Complainant stated that the September 2018 proposed suspension was a “huge blow” and it caused him to retire following his psychiatrist’s recommendation. Following the EEO investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) or an immediate final agency decision. Complainant requested an immediate final decision from the Agency. Liability Decision In accordance with Complainant’s request, on July 23, 2019, the Agency issued a final decision (FAD1). The decision concluded that Complainant proved that the Agency subjected him to unlawful retaliation as to the five-day proposed suspension only and found no discrimination regarding the other incidents individually or as a claim of harassment. The decision ordered remedial relief as to the retaliation finding only. The decision ordered a supplemental investigation on the issue of compensatory damages and allowed Complainant to submit a claim for attorney’s fees and costs. FAD1 informed Complainant of the right to file an appeal with the Commission “[w]ithin 30 days of receipt of [FAD1].” Complainant did not file an appeal of FAD1 in 2019. Attorney’s Fees Decision On November 26, 2019, the Agency issued a final decision awarding $13,807.15 in attorney’s fees and $115.50 in related costs (FAD2).2 The decision stated that Complainant provided documentation from seven different law firms for services provided between 2015 (three years prior to instant complaint) and 2019. 2On April 10, 2020, Complainant filed an EEOC appeal regarding FAD2 (attorney’s fees and costs), which was docketed as EEOC Appeal No. 2020003081. On November 18, 2020, the Commission administratively closed Appeal No. 2020003081 at Complainant’s request. Complainant asked to hold FAD2 in abeyance pending the Agency’s final decision on compensatory damages. 2019005802 3 FAD2 stated that one firm, the Employment Law Group (TELG), did not represent Complainant in the EEO claim in which he prevailed. The decision stated that TELG represented Complainant in other forums with different regulations and procedures. Further, FAD2 stated that the record does not contain an affidavit from the TELG attorney-of-record. The record does contain a letter dated September 26, 2018 to the Agency from TELG. The letter stated that TELG represented Complainant regarding the proposed five-day suspension, provided a response to the matter, and asked for its rescission. The record also contains a letter, dated September 20, 2018, from the DuBoff Law Group (DLG) to the Agency requesting reconsideration of its allegation of “lack of candor” against Complainant. The September 20 letter noted that it was not Complainant’s response to the allegation. As indicated below, FAD2 awarded $3,183.45 to DLG for work performed between April 27, 2018 and September 9, 2019. Amount Hours Hourly Rate Staff Work $2531.25 6.75 hours $375/hour DLG Attorney 1 2017-18 precomplaint representation determination and work between 4/27/18 - 09/9/193 $501.20 1.4 hours $358/hour DLG Attorney 2 2018 and 2019 $32.00 .10 hour $320/hour DLG Attorney 3 2019 $119.00 .70 hour $170/hour DLG Paralegal 2019 $3183.45 8.95 hours TOTAL FEES FOR DLG Further, FAD2 awarded $10,623.70 in fees and $115.50 in costs to the Federal Practice Group (FPG) for work performed between August 2019 and September 2019 for drafting a Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and assisting Complainant with the Compensatory Damages Investigation. Amount Hours Hourly Rate Staff Work $9139.20 16.8 hours $544/hour FPG Attorney 1 2019 $1135.90 3.7 hours $307/hour FPG Attorney 2 2019 $ 332.00 2 hours $166/hour Paralegal 1 2019 $ 16.60 .1 hour $166/hour Paralegal 2 2019 $10,623.70 22.6 hours TOTAL FEES FOR FPG 3 The Agency applied a 50% across-the-board reduction to DLG Attorney1’s hours, stating the successful retaliation claim is “legally and factually distinct” from the unsuccessful discriminatory harassment claim. Further, FAD2 stated that DLG Attorney1’s work on Complainant’s complaint was “unconnected” to the successful reprisal claim. FAD2 noted that DLG also provided legal representation to Complainant’s wife in her EEO complaint, in which she was not successful, and Complainant cannot claim attorney’s fees related to his wife’s complaint. 2019005802 4 Compensatory Damages Decision On November 24, 2020, the Agency issued a final decision regarding remedial relief (FAD3). FAD3 awarded $150 (300 miles roundtrip at $.50 per mile) for fuel costs for a September 28, 2018 psychiatrist appointment and a $25 copayment for the September 28 appointment. Also, FAD3 awarded $10,000 in nonpecuniary, compensatory damages related to the September 2018 five-day proposed suspension. The decision stated that Complainant asserted that he needed an appointment with his Psychiatrist related to his proposed suspension, he had a syncopial4 episode and began having hypertension when he received the proposed suspension, and the Agency’s actions damaged his professional standing. The decision indicated that Complainant stated that he experienced emotional pain, loss of health, loss of appetite, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and injury to reputation and professional standing. Complainant’s wife corroborated his syncopial episode, anxiety, insomnia, mood changes, weight loss and nightmares. Further, FAD3 stated that two of Complainant’s colleagues reiterated he had a syncopial episode, loss of self- esteem, and experienced emotional pain. Complainant’s two children stated that he had stress due to harassment, including the proposed suspension. Complainant’s psychiatrist also provided a statement corroborating Complainant’s experiences. FAD3 stated that some evidence provided by Complainant and his witnesses showed that a portion of Complainant’s damages were caused by other incidents. FAD3 found that front pay and backpay were outside the scope of the instant complaint as it involved a proposed suspension, and that Complainant retired on September 30, 2018, but he did not allege or establish constructive discharge. Instant Appeal on Final Agency Decisions The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant stated that the record shows that the Agency subjected him to discriminatory harassment from the time of his hire in 2014 through his forced medical retirement in September 2018. Complainant requested an additional $9,588.60 in attorney’s fees beyond the fees and costs the Agency already awarded in FAD2. On appeal, Complainant stated that he retained the services of TELG, on June 7, 2018, and it assisted him with the issue of the proposed suspension. Complainant stated that a part of TELG’s work was “directly related” to the proposed suspension issue. Complainant stated that the attorney’s fees are $5,008.00, which he already paid TELG and they are no longer his representative so he cannot get an affidavit from them. Complainant provided emails, from late September 2018 between he and TELG, regarding the proposed five-day suspension and a September 26, 2018 letter of response from TELG to the Agency regarding the proposal. Complainant provided Time and Expense Details, dated October 1, 2018, for work performed regarding the proposed suspension between September 18, 2018 and September 27, 2018, totaling $3,393.00 (1902.50 + 1490.50).5 4 Syncope is fainting or brief loss of consciousness. 5 The TELG Time and Expense Details for September 18, 2018 to September 27, 2018 has four items listed that were not related to the proposed suspension: $196.00 - September 20, 2018 for 2019005802 5 Complainant stated that the Agency agreed to pay DLG partially. Complainant stated that DLG advised and prepared him for the deposition in June 2018 that was the basis for the proposed suspension. Further, Complainant stated that DLG assisted him in preparing a response to FAD1. Complainant stated that DLG is due $4,580.60. Complainant requested additional compensatory damages. Complainant stated that he retired under duress from Agency actions and after medical advice although he intended to work for several more years. Complainant stated, “this duress and pressure to retire was due to racist discriminatory forces at work in media, Roseburg’s small community and Roseburg VA.” Complainant stated that he had a syncopial event after receiving the proposed suspension and it necessitated retirement. Complainant stated that the harassing events at the VA Medical Center tarnished his professional standing. Complainant alleged that his retirement equates to constructive discharge and he should receive compensatory damages accordingly. In pertinent part, the record contains an undated letter from Complainant’s Psychiatrist (P1), stating: This letter is to convey my strong recommendation to [Complainant], whom I have evaluated previously and today 9/28/18, that he retire fully and completely as of today. The stressors he has suffered at the Roseburg VA have left him with extreme anxiety. I have told him that he should not even be on the campus of the Roseburg VA from this time forward. The retirement process should be conducted therefore entirely by mail, email or the like rather than in-person meetings. I have also advised him to leave the Roseburg area for an indefinite period of time. Subsequently, in an August 19, 2019 letter, P1 stated, in September 2018, Complainant’s condition was Acute Stress Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Disorders of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified, and Extreme Anxiety. P1 stated that Complainant experienced weight loss, nightmares, anxiety attacks, depression, dissociative symptoms, general distrust, negative cognition, and fear for his life from external and internal sources. P1 stated that he suggested that Complainant and his wife stay away from the Roseburg VA and the surrounding area, which was a small town with discriminatory ideas. OMB Complaint, $98.00 - September 21, 2018 for OMB Complaint, $49.50 - September 26, 2018 for filing insurance claim, and $165.00 - September 27, 2018 for OSC amendment. 2019005802 6 Two coworkers who are doctors and Complainant’s colleagues stated that they spoke with Complainant shortly after he received the proposed suspension and he had a syncopial episode related to emotional overload. Complainant’s certified public accountant provided a statement that, in 2018, he advised Complainant that financially he should not retire and should work at least another five years. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The primary issues before us are whether, in FAD2 and FAD3, the Agency properly decided the amount of attorney’s fees and compensatory damages, respectively, due Complainant related to the Agency’s own finding of unlawful retaliation related to a September 2018 proposed suspension for “lack of candor.” We do not address Complainant’s contention of additional liability which was addressed in FAD1. FAD1 was issued on July 19, 2019, and our database does not contain a corresponding timely appeal for that decision. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.401 & .402. As Complainant was advised on the face of FAD1, an appeal regarding liability should have been filed within the regulatory timeframe of 30 days and is, therefore, now untimely. Non-pecuniary, Compensatory Damages Nonpecuniary damages are for losses that are not subject to precise quantification, i.e., emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character and reputation, injury to credit standing, and loss of health. See Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, II.A.2 (July 14, 1992) (Compensatory Damages Guidance). There is no precise formula for determining the amount of damages for nonpecuniary losses except that the award should reflect the nature and severity of the harm and the duration or expected duration of the harm. See Loving v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01955789 (August 29, 1997). The Commission notes that nonpecuniary, compensatory damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the discriminatory event rather than to punish the agency for the discriminatory action. Id. Furthermore, compensatory damages should not be motivated by passion or prejudice or be “monstrously excessive” standing alone but should be consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases. See Ward-Jenkins v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483 (March 4, 1999). Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory prerequisite for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. See Lawrence v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (April 18, 1996) (citing Carpenter v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01945652 (July 17, 1995)). Complainant's own testimony, along with the circumstances of a particular case, can suffice to sustain his burden in this regard. See Lawrence, EEOC Appeal No. 01952288. The more inherently degrading or humiliating the defendant's action is, the more reasonable it is to infer that a person would suffer humiliation or distress from that action. Id. The absence of supporting evidence, however, may affect the amount of damages appropriate in specific cases. Id. 2019005802 7 Complainant has the burden of proving the existence, nature and severity of the alleged emotional harm. Man H. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161218 (May 2, 2017). Complainant must also establish a causal relationship between the alleged harm and the discrimination. Id. Absent such proof of harm and causation, a Complainant is not entitled to compensatory damages, even if there were a finding of unlawful discrimination. Id. Complainant stated after receiving the proposed suspension, on September 28, 2018, he met with his psychiatrist - P1, he had a fainting episode, and he began having hypertension. Complainant stated that he experienced emotional pain, loss of health, loss of appetite, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to reputation and professional standing, and he retired on September 30, 2018. Complainant’s wife and two medical colleagues corroborated his syncopial episode. In addition, his wife corroborated his anxiety, insomnia, mood changes, weight loss and nightmares. His two children stated that he had stress due to harassment, including the proposed suspension. P1 also provided a statement corroborating Complainant’s experiences. The Agency stated that some evidence provided by Complainant and his witnesses showed that a portion of Complainant’s damages were caused by other incidents. In the present case, we find the Agency’s award of $10,000 an appropriate amount in non- pecuniary compensatory damages considering the nature and severity of harm to Complainant, duration of the harm, and the fact that some of the harm Complainant experienced was due to other incidents he found harassing or unfair but were not found to be discriminatory. Further, an award of $10,000 is reasonable because it is not “monstrously excessive” standing alone, and it is consistent with non-pecuniary damage awards in similar Commission cases. See, for example, Davida L. v. Dep’t of Veterans’ Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120172609 (February 15, 2019) (awarding $10,000 in non-pecuniary damages where reprisal found and determined to be partial cause of panic attacks, insomnia, hypertension, irritability, headaches, feelings of isolation, and fatigue); Eberly v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 07A30085 (May 20, 2004) ($10,000 in non-pecuniary damages awarded for reprisal causing complainant to experience depression, sleeplessness, anxiety, low self-esteem, and nightmares, but the majority of symptoms were due to prior, unrelated incident); and Rowan v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070384 (June 19, 2009) (complainant awarded $10,000 for non-pecuniary damages where complainant established that at least some of the exacerbation of his stress, humiliation, anxiety, sleeplessness, fears of termination, and depression were attributable to the Agency's discriminatory conduct). Attorney’s Fees In appropriate circumstances, this Commission may award a Complainant reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs incurred in the processing of a complaint regarding allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1). Indeed, a finding of discrimination raises a presumption of entitlement to an award of attorney's fees, and any such award of attorney's fees or costs must be paid by the agency that committed the unlawful discrimination in question. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.501(e)(1)(i), (ii). 2019005802 8 In FAD2, the Agency awarded $3,183.45 to DLG for work performed between April 27, 2018 and September 9, 2019, and $10,623.70 in fees and $115.50 in costs to FPG for work performed between August 2019 and September 2019. We agree with the Agency’s determination of fees awarded to complainant's current and previous counsel. We also find cause to add additional attorney’s fees for some of TELG’s services. On September 26, 2018, TELG sent a letter to the Agency stating that it represented Complainant in the proposed suspension and requested rescission of the matter. Complainant provided Time and Expense Details from TELG for September 18, 2018 to September 27, 2018 for services related to the proposed suspension, totaling $3,393.00. We deduct four-line items that were not listed as related to the proposed suspension ($196.00 - September 20, 2018 for OMB Complaint, $98.00 - September 21, 2018 for OMB Complaint, $49.50 - September 26, 2018 for filing insurance claim, and $165.00 - September 27, 2018 for OSC amendment). Complainant requested $5,008.00 for TELG attorney’s fees, but based on the record, we find $2,884.50 ($3,393.00 less $508.50 in unrelated fees) reasonable. To the extent that the Agency has not paid the aforementioned attorney’s fees and costs, it shall do so. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(2). Also, we find attorney’s fees and costs in furtherance of this appeal appropriate. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we MODIFY FAD2 and AFFIRM FAD3. The Agency is directed to implement the following corrective action in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER Within 60 days of the date this decision is issued, to the extent that it has not already done so, the Agency shall: (1) pay Complainant $10,000 for nonpecuniary, compensatory damages and (2) pay $16,691.65 in attorneys’ fees and $115.50 in related costs. The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as provided in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.” The report shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1019) If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), she/he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501. 2019005802 9 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719) Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency’s final report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409. Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency. 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. 2019005802 10 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 (T0610) This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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. 2019005802 11 RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations July 22, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation