[Redacted], Kiera H., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 24, 2021

Appeal No. 2020000555 (E.E.O.C. May. 24, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kiera H.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency. Appeal No. 2020000555 Hearing No. 570-2016-00161X Agency No. EU-FY-15-024 DECISION On October 16, 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 September 17, 2019, final order 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) correctly held that Complainant was not subjected to harassment and disparate treatment in reprisal for engaging in statutorily protected activity as alleged in the 53 incidents that form the bases of Complainant’s complaint. 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. 2020000555 2 BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a teacher, TP-1701- CE-15 (Social Studies) at the Bavaria District's Patch (then Stuttgart) High School (Patch) in Germany. Complainant previously held a teaching position at Zama in Japan but during June 2010, Complainant volunteered to be excessed (transferred) to Manheim, Germany, because of alleged severe bullying and the hostile climate she allegedly endured for five years at Zama. On February 10, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to harassment her on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In support of her harassment claim, Complainant alleged that the following events occurred: 1. during school year (SY) 2011-2012, Complainant was not given a classroom but taught in other teacher’s rooms; 2. in August 2011, Complainant’s first meeting with her first-line supervisor (referred to as responsible official1 [RMO1]) and Complainant’s second-line supervisor (referred to as RMO2) was hostile and retaliatory; 3. on November 15, 2011, RMO1 sent Complainant a very hostile email informing Complainant that Complainant was not to show movies in her history classes; 4. on November 17, 2011, RMO1 accused Complainant of not being professional and not performing her duties during an evacuation drill; 5. on April 4, 2012, a coworker (C1) notified the Patch staff that Complainant had won the 2013 National Education Association (NEA) Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence however, RMO1 and RMO2 failed to acknowledge it; 6. on June 8, 2012, RMO1 informed Complainant that Complainant would no longer be teaching Honors 10 World History because there had been too many complaints about Complainant, and RMO1 informed Complainant that she was not good enough to teach the honors level class. Another coworker (C2) was placed in the position; 7. on September 9, 2012, RMO1 denied Complainant’s request to separate two disruptive students; 8. on January 30 and 31, 2013, RMO2 ignored Complainant’s concerns about stacking Complainant’s seminar with too many under-achieving students, and RMO2 told Complainant she did not understand educational research; 2020000555 3 9. in the spring of 2013, RMO1 came to Complainant’s room and told Complainant the check from NEA that went with Complainant’s award would have to be reissued to the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO); 10. on February 20, 2013, RMO1 and RMO2 moved a student with discipline issues and a lower F grade in another coworker (C3’s) class to Complainant’s seminar; 11. on April 3, 2013, RMO1 changed the grades of two of Complainant’s students from F to D, making it necessary for Complainant to place the students into the grade recovery program; 12. on April 17, 2013, RMO2 assigned 16 boys and 1 girl in Complainant’s seminar without consideration of the gender ratio to stack Complainant’s seminar with difficult students; 13. in Spring of 2013, RMO1 and RMO2 gave a waiver to one of Complainant’s students for requirements to graduate. As a result, the grades Complainant assigned in accordance with the Agency’s policy had no meaning; 14. on May 24, 2013, RMO1 accused Complainant of talking about the climate survey during a parent conference; 15. during SY 2013-2014, Complainant’s pod (a room centered around four classrooms) had two teachers assigned while other pods were vacant, and RMO1 and RMO2 informed Complainant that Complainant had to vacate her classroom for one period every other day so that a coworker (C4) could teach her class in Complainant’s room; 16. during SY 2013-2014, Complainant applied for an extra duty position as Student Activity Fund (SAF) bookkeeper, and RMO1 and RMO2 rejected Complainant; 17. on February 13, 2014, RMO1 and RMO2 informed Complainant that she was selected to be involuntarily excessed from Patch; 18. during SY 2013-2014, a student’s father put constant pressure on Complainant to change his son’s grade. When Complainant told RMO1 she felt bullied, RMO1 refused to protect Complainant from the father’s behavior; 19. during SY 2014-2015, RMO1 and RMO2 continued to require Complainant to vacate her classroom for one period every other day so that C4 could teach in Complainant’s classroom even though enrollment had declined to the point that very few teachers continued to share classrooms; 20. during SY 2014-2015, Complainant applied for three extra duty positions, and RMO1 and RMO2 rejected Complainant for two of them, SAF bookkeeper and film club sponsor; 2020000555 4 21. on August 26, 2014, RMO1 told Complainant that Complainant had to meet with a parent who was aggressive and had been bullying Complainant during the previous school year, and on September 3, 2014, RMO1 again insisted Complainant meet with the parent after the parent did not show up at the previously scheduled meeting; 22. on September 3 and 4, 2014, Complainant expressed an interest in a position that was being vacated by another teacher to RMO1 and explained her credentials. RMO1 was disinterested and when Complainant provided her resume and told RMO1 about her experience, RMO1 told Complainant she was arrogant; 23. on October 2, 2014, RMO2 requested to meet with Complainant regarding Complainant’s student grading and Complainant felt compelled to bring a witness; 24. from August to October 2014, Complainant’s pod copy machine broke and RMO1 ignored Complainant’s pleas to repair it; 25. during September and October 2014, Complainant and RMO1 held a meeting with parents of a student who became ineligible to play football because of his grades. The parents were brutal to Complainant and attacked her personality, body language and her professionalism, but RMO1 did not defend Complainant; 26. during September or October 2014, RMO1 transferred one of Complainant’s students to a coworker’s (C5’s) class without Complainant’s knowledge. When Complainant found out, she shared the student’s grades with C5. This angered RMO1 who had intended to wipe the student’s grades clean; 27. during September or October 2014, RMO1 and RMO2 had Complainant removed from the staff email distribution list and Complainant missed two weeks of staff notices; 28. on October 16, 2014, RMO1 denied Complainant’s request for administrative leave to give a deposition for C1’s EEO complaint; 29. on October 27, 2014, Complainant received an email from RMO2 stating Complainant had significantly higher than average failing rates and asking what Complainant is doing to contribute to the failing rates; 30. on November 18 and 19, 2014, Complainant requested that a student with severe behavior issues be removed from her seminar but RMO2 refused to do so because RMO1 stated that the student was only failing Complainant’s class. On November 20, 2014, RMO1 agreed to move the student but did not do so; 31. on November 19, 2014, RMO2 stated at his deposition for C1’s EEO complaint that RMO1 was targeting Complainant because Complainant was an underperforming teacher; 2020000555 5 32. on November 20, 2014, RMO1 and RMO2 demanded that Complainant justify her grading policies and explain why she had given so many Ds and Fs. Additionally, RMO2 asked why Complainant had assigned 70 points of work within two days, and RMO1 indicated they would be looking at Complainant’s extra credit policy next; 33. on November 21, 2014, a coworker (C6) informed Complainant that prior to C6 reporting to Patch, RMO1 told C6 Complainant had an EEO claim against RMO1’s friend and colleague, and that Complainant was a trouble maker, and RMO1 was unhappy with having Complainant on staff; 34. on February 4-18, 2015, RMO1 changed the grade of one of Complainant’s students. RMO1 wrote a personal memo attacking Complainant personally and accusing her of being unprofessional. RMO1 requested the counseling clerk to put the memo in the student’s folder without Complainant’s knowledge; 35. on February 11, 2015, RMO2 sent a nasty email to Complainant’s husband, also an employee at Patch, regarding a named individual; 36. on February 13, 2015, RMO1 sent an email to Complainant’s husband concerning a writing prompt assignment; 37. on March 4, 2014, a student was transferred out of Complainant’s class and put into C4’s class without consulting with Complainant; 38. on March 9-10, 2015, RMO1 got involved in an email exchange between Complainant and a parent. RMO1 aggravated the situation and called a meeting when the problem could have been easily handled between Complainant and the parent; 39. on March 10, 2015, RMO1 removed a student from Complainant’s class without consulting Complainant. During a meeting, RMO1 told the student’s mother that the student was cutting school because the student hated Complainant’s class; 40. on March 13, 2015, Complainant met with a student, his parents, and RMO1. RMO1 attempted to get the parents to say they were unhappy with Complainant, but they refused. RMO1 also tried to focus the meeting on Complainant rather than the student’s work in Complainant’s class; 41. on April 30, 2015, RMO1 stated in a meeting that there would be no Honors 10 Social Studies class the next year. RMO1 did not tell Complainant previously or consult with her or any other Honors teacher; 42. on May 11, 2015, RMO1 was rude to Complainant’s husband when discussing next years teaching assignment with him; 2020000555 6 43. on May 20, 2015, RMO2 informed Complainant that she would be teaching four different classes next year, two of which Complainant had never taught previously. RMO2 ignored Complainant when she complained that other teachers were getting more reasonable assignments; 44. on June 2, 2015, RMO1 was rude to the entire staff during a staff meeting; 45. on June 9, 2015, a male Art Teacher was instructed against his wishes to teach Advance Placement (AP) U.S. History the next school year. Complainant was never asked to teach the class although she was a current U.S. History teacher. Complainant would have taken the training and taught the class if requested. Also, Complainant was not asked to serve on a task force to work with the district office on rigor in the non-AP classes; 46. on June 10, 2015, Complainant learned that the new music teacher, (C7) had only two years of high school teaching experience. RMO1 told Complainant he wanted an experienced high school teacher for the job; 47. on September 1, 2015, Complainant’s teaching schedule changed without notification. Complainant had one day to prepare to teach Sociology. The Agency did not ask Complainant to teach AP US History even though she was a History teacher. Instead, a male was selected to teach the class. RMO1 was rude to the faculty during a meeting; 48. on September 2, 2015, Complainant had no printer in her room while other teachers had printers. Complainant did not have enough desk and chairs for her students; 49. on September 23, 2015, Complainant was summoned for a Pre-Action Investigation meeting. Complainant was accused of being rude to a student, not showing empathy when the student was crying, and ignoring the student’s parent’s communication; 50. on October 30, 2015, RMO2 refused to respond to Complainant’s request to have a failing student removed from Complainant’s seminar; 51. on November 3, 2015, RMO2 moved five students into Complainant’s seminar without her knowledge. The students were failing other classes; 52. on January 4, 2016, RMO2 accused Complainant of failing seven students but RMO2’s calculations were incorrect. RMO2 contacted the students and parents despite RMO2’s error; 53. on May 10, 2016, the teaching schedule was released showing that women were assigned to teach lower grades and the men to teach upper grades in the Social Studies Department. 2020000555 7 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJ. Complainant timely requested a hearing and the AJ held a hearing on November 1, 2018. Subsequently, the AJ issued a decision on August 5, 2019. Record evidence indicates that Complainant had two prior EEO activities in 2009 and 2011, including when Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination against her former Principal in Zama. Complainant asserted that the former Principal was RMO1’s friend. Complainant made initial EEO contact in the instant complaint on November 25, 2014. The two RMOs stated that they became aware of the instant complaint in 2015, after Complainant’s formal filing. The record indicates that neither of the RMOs was aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity. The record also reflects that Complainant was provided the opportunity to submit a rebuttal statement but failed to do so. The AJ found that the weight of the evidence demonstrated that Complainant was not singled out for adverse treatment because of the EEO complaint she filed at Zama. The AJ explained that she reached this finding for two reasons. First, the AJ stated, the evidence showed that RMO1 engaged in the same or similar pattern of conduct at the school he was assigned to prior to his arrival at Patch. Specifically, the AJ asserted, C1 testified that RMO1 determined that his prior school was broken, and he needed to fix it. The AJ noted that C1 explained that RMO1 decided that there were teachers who had to be “dealt with” regardless of Agency rules and/or policies; and that he was going to do things his way. The AJ added that C1 testified that RMO1 had a practice of advocating for students, so students and parents bypassed teachers and went directly to him. This, the AJ observed, is the same or similar conduct that Complainant alleged that RMO1 subjected her to following her arrival at Patch. The AJ found that this evidence demonstrated that RMO1’s practice of targeting teachers for adverse treatment preceded Complainant’s arrival at Patch. Second, the AJ found that additional witnesses testified during the Agency EEO investigation and the hearing that RMO1 created a hostile environment for numerous teachers, many of whom did not engage in statutorily protected activity, following his arrival at Patch. For example, the AJ observed, a witness (C8) stated in her affidavit provided during the EEO investigation that the environment at Patch was hostile and stressful for everyone regardless of EEO activity. The AJ found that Complainant failed to provide evidence that proved that RMO1’s conduct that C8 identified was motivated by the staff members’ protected activity. Another teacher, C9, testified during the hearing that the climate steadily declined at Patch following RMO1’s arrival. The AJ noted that C9 explained that teachers felt they were targeted by RMO1 simply because they disagreed with him and did not support his ideas. C9 testified that teachers also complained of excessive observations, denial of requests for extra duties, were assigned to teach the wrong subjects, and given poor schedules. C9 testified that the motivation for RMO1’s conduct was the disagreement of subordinate staff members. The AJ found that Complainant failed to provide evidence which proved that the teachers that C9 testified were treated adversely by RMO1 were targeted because they engaged in statutorily protected activity. 2020000555 8 C1 also testified during the hearing that there were a lot of problems during the first year following RMO1’s arrival at Patch. Specifically, C1 observed that RMO1 attempted to fix the “broken school” by changing teacher schedules and assigning subjects that teachers lacked experience to teach. C1 also testified that female teachers were required to give up classrooms and RMO1 planned to move several teachers, including two teachers. Again, the AJ asserted, the described conduct exhibited by RMO1 is the same conduct to which Complainant alleged she was subjected. The AJ noted that C1 identified RMO1’s motivation for this conduct as RMO1’s perception that Patch was broken. The AJ found that Complainant failed to provide evidence which proved that the two named teachers and/or any other teachers referenced by C1 engaged in statutorily protected activity. The AJ stated that C1’s testimony made clear that RMO treated these teachers adversely in the same or similar way that he treated Complainant. Finally, the AJ found that the two stray remarks made by RMO1 that Complainant relied upon to prove retaliation are insufficient to satisfy her burden of persuasion. The AJ observed that Complainant stated in her affidavit provided during the EEO investigation that RMO1 did not say “welcome” or “hello” to her when Complainant arrived at Patch. The AJ noted that Complainant explained that RMO1’s first words to Complainant was that Complainant came from Zama; and that Complainant’s former principal was RMO1’s friend. Complainant testified during the hearing that she felt the described interaction with RMO1 was intimidating; and that she believed this demonstrated that RMO1 was aware of the EEO complaint Complainant filed against the former Principal. Complainant also explained that when she met RMO2 later that day, he was cordial and polite but kept coming toward Complainant as RMO2 was speaking to Complainant and he seemed to “loom” over her. Complainant testified that she backed up until her back was against the wall. The AJ observed that neither RMO1 nor RMO2 referenced Complainant’s EEO complaint during the two communications. Further, the AJ held that Complainant had not presented evidence about these interactions which proved that either men harbored a retaliatory animus against her because of her prior EEO complaints. The AJ found that Complainant’s suspicion or belief about RMO1’s feelings about her EEO complaint is not the type of specific, substantive evidence required to prove discriminatory motive. The AJ also found that there is nothing about Complainant’s initial interaction with RMO1 which proved that he harbored a retaliatory animus against Complainant because of her EEO complaint. Complainant provided the testimony of C6 who testified during the hearing that two weeks prior to Complainant’s arrival, RMO1 told C6 that he felt “put upon” by Complainant’s arrival. C6 indicated that RMO1 did not choose Complainant, and he did not know where he was going to put Complainant. C6 added that RMO1 also stated that he viewed Complainant as a “trouble maker” and he was not happy Complainant was coming. C7 testified that RMO1 told her that Complainant had been involved in an EEO claim against RMO1’s friend. 2020000555 9 Complainant also provided the testimony of C1 who testified that during SY 2011-2012, RMO1 told her that Complainant had an EEO action against his friend in Japan; and that Complainant would be C1’s new Honors 10 History partner. Complainant argued that RMO1’s comments to C1 and C6 proved RMO1’s retaliatory motive. However, the AJ noted, although RMO1s comments indicated an awareness of Complainant’s EEO complaint against his friend, and perhaps RMO1’s displeasure that he did not select Complainant, the AJ found that the two comments, standing alone, did not prove that either RMO1 or RMO2 singled Complainant out for harassment because she filed an EEO complaint at Zama. The AJ determined that this finding was supported by the overwhelming amount of evidence contained in the ROI and presented during the hearing that demonstrated that RMO1 was an “equal opportunity” harasser who targeted numerous teachers, including individuals that disagreed with him, many of whom did not engage in statutorily protected activity. Therefore, the AJ found that Complainant was subjected to harassment because of unprofessionalism, poor managerial skills and/or simply interpersonal conflicts and not her protected activity. The AJ concluded that Complainant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to harassment/hostile work environment in reprisal for engaging in statutorily protected activity. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s conclusion that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL In her Appeal Brief, among other things, Complainant states that the AJ’s decision is wholly unsupported and based on procedural errors. Complainant requests that the AJ’s decision be set aside, or the case be remanded for further proceedings. The Agency did not submit an Appeal Brief. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. 2020000555 10 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS AJ’s alleged Procedural Errors At the onset, we find no basis to set aside the AJ’s decision in the instant complaint as Complainant requested. The Commission’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(a)(e) provide that an Administrative Judge has full responsibility for the adjudication of the complaint, including overseeing the development of the record, and have broad discretion in the conduct of hearings. Given the AJ's broad authority to regulate the conduct of a hearing, a party claiming that the AJ abused his or her discretion faces a very high bar. Trina C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142617 (Sept. 13, 2016) citing Kenyatta S. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720150016 n.3 (Jun. 2, 2016) (responsibility for adjudicating complaints pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(e) gives AJ's wide latitude in directing terms, conduct, and course of administrative hearings before EEOC). We note that in support of her request, Complainant raised allegedly serious procedural missteps by the AJ which, in part, Complainant asserts led the AJ to make unsupported factual findings and legal conclusions. Complainant stated that the AJ made mistakes in the denial of critical evidence, citing the AJ’s alleged denial of Complainant’s right to call two “key witnesses” in support of her case; and the AJ’s alleged interruption in Complainant’s testimony in favor of an Agency official. Complainant also stated that the AJ suspended the proceedings for more than six months, alleging that the length of time in suspending the proceedings was unreasonable and prejudicial to Complainant. After a careful review of the record, including the hearing transcripts, we find no procedural errors or missteps in the AJ’s actions in directing the terms, conduct, and course of the administrative hearing in the instant complaint. AJ’s Decision after a Hearing An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015). Retaliatory Harassment To prevail in a retaliatory harassment claim, a complainant must show that a reasonable person would have found the challenged action materially adverse, i.e., an action that might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination in the future. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). We find no such showing in the instant record including the investigation and the hearing. 2020000555 11 Rather, as the AJ aptly found following the hearing that Complainant was subjected to the alleged events due to unprofessionalism, poor managerial skills and/or interpersonal conflicts, not her prior EEO activity. In the same vein, we find that, under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant’s claim of a hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the AJ’s decision and the Agency’s final order adopting it. 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 2020000555 12 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. 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. 2020000555 13 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: ______________________________ CarltoM. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations May 24, 2021 Date