[Redacted], Minna Z., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 15, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002446 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 15, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Minna Z.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002446 Agency No. 4E-500-0021-19 DECISION On February 7, 2020, 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 January 29, 2020 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier, Q-1, at the Agency’s University Station in Des Moines, Iowa. On June 7, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to harassment and/or discrimination on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), disability, age, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 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. 2020002446 2 1. On November 28, 2018, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning; 2. On December 29, 2018, an investigative interview was conducted with Complainant and, subsequently, on January 29, 2019, she was issued a 7-day suspension; 3. On January 9, 2019, Complainant was not given observation forms after multiple supervisors watched her in the office and on the street; 4. On February 26, 2019, Complainant was issued a 14-day suspension; 5. On March 27, 2019, Complainant’s work restrictions were ignored by the Postmaster; 6. On March 28, 2019, Complainant was brought into the office under the guise of an investigative interview and was told that she was disliked; 7. On April 9, 2019, Complainant was not allowed to finish her casing duties and was screamed at; 8. On May 14, 2019, one of Complainant’s supervisors stood in front of Complainant’s case and would not let her out; 9. On May 15, 2019, management told two CCA’s not to speak to Complainant, not to look at Complainant, and to stay completely away from Complainant; 10. On May 23, 2019, management called Complainant in the office, slammed the door, and started screaming at her then, in the middle of the workroom floor, told her “you suck;” 11. On February 14, 2019, Complainant’s FMLA was denied for lack of work hours; and 12. On July 18, 2019, Complainant was issued a 14-day (no time off) suspension. The Agency dismissed claims (1) and (11) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), finding that claim (1) was the same claim as raised in a previous EEO complaint and that claim (11) was a collateral attack on matters within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. The Agency accepted the remaining claims and conducted an investigation, which produced the following pertinent facts. Complainant alleged that the alleged discrimination and harassment was ongoing since September 2017. Regarding her alleged basis of reprisal, she attested that she believes that Agency’s actions were in retaliation for her having filed an EEO complaint which involved an investigation that was completed in January 2019, and for her having opposed discrimination against herself and others, including having given statements to the Union and in support of other employees’ complaints. Regarding her alleged basis of disability, Complainant attested that she had been diagnosed with PTSD/anxiety and depression, as well as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). She attested that she made her supervisors and other management officials aware of her conditions, noting that the District Nurse had been provided medical documentation. 2020002446 3 Regarding her disability-related limitations, Complainant attested that she was unable to work over 8 hours in a 40-hour work week and required access to the station restroom whether on her route or in office due to her IBS. She attested that she attempted to make a verbal request to the District Nurse to appear before the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) but she was never referred to the DRAC. Members of management attested that they were not aware that Complainant had any mental or physical medical conditions and had not received any medical documentation regarding her having any such condition. They acknowledged that Complainant had an 8-hour per day/40-hour per week work restriction but denied being aware that she had any medical condition that affected her ability to perform her work assignment. They also attested that they were unaware of Complainant’s having requested a reasonable accommodation or been referred to the DRAC. Regarding claim (1), A Letter of Warning dated November 23, 2018 indicates that Complainant was charged with failure to follow instructions on November 3, 2018 when she left her assigned delivery route and returned to the Post Office to use the restroom when she had been instructed not do to so. Complainant indicated during the investigation of the instant complaint that this Letter of Warning was included in her prior EEO complaint, 4E-500-0013-18. Regarding claim (2), Complainant attested that, on December 29, 2018, she was brought into the office by a Supervisor (Supervisor1) and her Union Steward and asked whether she called members of management liars and why she was talking to another carrier. Subsequently, on January 29, 2019, management issued her a 7-day suspension. Complainant attested that she believed this was in retaliation for her prior EEO activity and she disagreed with management’s stated reason that it was because of her failure to follow instructions. A letter dated January 22, 2019 indicates that Complainant was placed on a 7-day (no time off) suspension for failure to follow instructions. It notes that, on December 28, 2018, Complainant left the case of her duty assignment to speak to another employee, which was a time-wasting practice, and she had been instructed not to do this. It also indicates Complainant became involved in a loud and disruptive discussion with another Carrier and management and, that, on December 29, 2018, Complainant denied any incident had occurred and said management was lying. It also indicates that Complainant’s actions constituted a violation of the Agency Standard of Conduct and policies. Supervisor1 attested that he was on the workroom floor when the relevant events occurred and provided testimony supporting the facts contained in the letter. Regarding claim (3), Complainant attested that, on January 9, 2019, management performed a partial street and a partial office observation of her working. She attested that she requested her observations daily and she did not receive them until she received documentation relating to a grievance filed relating to discipline that she received on February 26, 2019. She alleged the information gathered was used to discipline her. 2020002446 4 Manager1 attested that management observes employees on a daily basis to ensure that work practices are being performed in accordance with Agency protocols and procedures. He denied knowledge of Complainant being denied the forms as she alleged. Supervisor1 explained that there is no requirement that Carriers to be given copies of observation forms. Regarding claim (4), Complainant alleged that, on January 9,2019, she had a partial route inspection, the results of which were used as a basis for management’s issuance of a 14-day suspension on February 26, 2019, for unsatisfactory performance and failure to follow instructions. She attested that the suspension was issued because she slowed down her delivery speed and delayed the delivery of the mail, but this determination was based on data that had been declared invalid and was not to be used to assess employee speed of delivery or discipline employees. Complainant attested that she disagreed with all the allegations contained in the reason for the discipline. Manager1 attested that, on January 9, 2019, a Supervisor (Supervisor5) performed a partial route inspection on Complainant’s route because Complainant had submitted a request for a 3 hour and 30-minute boost, and she had been instructed to leave the mail for her boost. He attested that, when the route inspection was completed, it took Complainant more time to deliver the mail on her route and there had not been any changes to her route. He explained that she had slowed down her delivery speed and was delaying the delivery of the mail. He denied Complainant’s allegations relating to data being declared invalid and not to be used to measure employee speed of delivery or for discipline. He explained that Complainant was issued the 14-day suspension for unsatisfactory performance and that her actions violated Agency Standards of Conduct and Agency policies, including those regarding discharge of duties, obedience to orders, city carrier duties and responsibilities, and efficient service. A letter dated February 25, 2019 indicates that Complainant was given a 14-day suspension for unsatisfactory performance in violation of Agency Standards of Conduct and policies. It details the events at issue and supports the testimony of Manager1. Regarding claim (5), Complainant attested that, on March 27, 2019, a Postmaster (Postmaster1) ignored her work restrictions when he told her that she would deliver her route in 8 hours. She attested that she explained to him that she has a restriction limiting her to working 8 hours per day, her route was under construction and she had union time. Postmaster1 attested that he had no knowledge of any work restrictions being violated as alleged. He attested that, on the day at issue, he told Complainant that there was not 8 hours of work for her and she should not have needed help or brought back any mail. He attested that he told her that, when management goes with an employee, they seem to be able to complete their assignments in 8 hours and he is sure that would be the case. 2020002446 5 Regarding claim (6), Complainant attested that, on March 28, 2019, Postmaster1 brought her into the office, under the guise of an investigative interview and told her that he did not like her attitude and work ethics and did not like her. She alleged that he told her that he was going to walk with her and make sure she got her route done within 8 hours. Complainant attested that she believed this was done because she could not get her route cased and delivered within her 8-hour restriction and in retaliation for her prior EEO activities. Postmaster1 attested that Complainant had requested overtime without a justification and became confrontational with him and other managers and they took the conversation to the office. He noted that it was an official discussion and not an investigative interview. He attested that he told Complainant the day before that he would be inspecting her route on a paper day as he was not convinced that she had 8 hours of work. A Carrier Technician/Union Branch President attested that he saw Complainant and the Union Steward in the office with several managers and Postmaster1 pointed a finger and accused Complainant of theft, not working a full day, and when she asked what she was doing wrong, he could not point to any time-wasting practices. Regarding claim (7), Complainant attested that, on April 9, 2019, Manager1 did not allow her to finish her casing duties, stating, “Stop what you are doing, pull, and go to street” and, when she showed him that she still had flag cards to case, he yelled at her, “No get to street now.” Manager1 denied these allegations. Regarding claim (8), Complainant attested that, on May 14, 2019, a Supervisor (Supervisor3) stood in front of her case and would not allow her to leave. She attested that she said, “Excuse me,” but he did not acknowledge her, and she became panicked. She attested that another City Carrier (Co-Worker1) was standing to the right of her case and she gestured for him to move, which he did, and she was then able to leave her case. Supervisor3 denied these allegations. Co-Worker1 attested that he observed the incident. He attested that, during a stand up, Supervisor3 stood with his back to Complainant while she was in her case and, although Complainant said, “excuse me,” he ignored her. Co-Worker1 attested that Complainant was able to get out of her case when he moved and she moved a stool. Regarding claim (9), Complainant attested that, on May 15, 2019, Supervisor3 told two Carriers to not look or speak to Complainant and to stay completely away from Complainant. Complainant noted multiple instances when Supervisor3 yelled at other Carriers to not talk to or look at Complainant or told them to stay away from her. Supervisor3 denied knowledge of the alleged events. 2020002446 6 A City Carrier (Co-Worker2) attested that he observed the incidents at issue. He described conversations during which Supervisor3 stated “you don’t need to talk to them, I will talk to them” and told him that he did not need any comment from Co-Worker2. He attested that he was brought to the office and learned that the comments were directed at Complainant and the City Carrier Assistant was not to speak to Complainant. Regarding claim (10), Complainant attested that, on May 23, 2019, Manager1 called Complainant and 3 male Carriers into the area outside his office and accused them of excessively “backing up.” Complainant attested that Manager1 slammed the door and continued to question them, screaming and stating that Complainant was making things worse. Complainant attested that she denied his accusation and attempted to demonstrate how she backed up and Manager1 said, “You suck.” Manager1 denied these allegations. Regarding claim (12)2, Complainant attested that, on July 18, 2019, management issued her a 14- day no time off suspension for failure to follow instructions on June 26, 2019 and July 3, 2019, both of which instances involved allegations of time wasting. She stated that these were false accusations, asserting that, contrary to the accusations, there was no set load time for loading a vehicle and she was never instructed to return to the stations 15 minutes prior to the end of tour; she also questioned why things had not brought to her attention and asked what instructions did she not follow. Supervisor2 attested that he gave Complainant the 14-day suspension. He attested that he observed Complainant taking an excessive amount of time in the office pulling down the assigned route. He attested that he also pulled the street pings from the scanner on the assigned route and they showed that Complainant was participating in time-wasting practices. He also attested that Complainant left her route early and was observed parking behind the Post Office and not working. A letter dated July 17, 2018 provides that Complainant was issued a 14-day (no time) suspension for failure to follow instructions in violation of the Agency’s Standards of Conduct and other policies. 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 decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. 2 The investigation did not address claim (11). 2020002446 7 The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant asks that we remand her claim for a hearing. In so doing, she notes that, on November 14, 2019, she received her copy of the report of investigation; on November 22, 2019, she mailed her request for a hearing by first class mail; and, she had no knowledge that her hearing request was not received until she received the Agency’s final decision dated January 29, 2020. Complainant includes a Request for Hearing, dated in February 2020. Alternatively, Complainant argues that the Agency erred when it did not take into account that the Agency has the ability to waive or equitably toll the time limit to request a hearing. The Agency has not submitted a statement or brief in response. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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”). Hearing Request 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f) provides, in pertinent part, that an agency is required to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigative file and shall notify the complainant that, within 30 days of receipt of the investigative file, the complainant has the right to request a hearing and decision from an AJ or may request an immediate final decision pursuant to § 1614.110 from the agency with which the complaint was filed. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b) provides, in pertinent part, that, when an agency receives a request for an immediate final decision or does not receive a reply to the notice issued under § 1614.108(f), the agency shall take final action by issuing a final decision. The Agency provided Complainant with a notice of her right to request a hearing consistent with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f) in a letter dated August 29, 2019. The letter also indicates that a copy was sent to Complainant’s representative. Although Complainant asserts that she timely submitted a hearing request, she has not provided any documentation that would support a finding that she did so. She also has failed to submit sufficient argument for waiving or tolling the time period to submit the hearing request. Therefore, we find the Agency properly issued its decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 2020002446 8 Dismissed Claims An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). The EEO regulation set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim under § 1614.103 or § 1614.106(a) or states the same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or Commission. The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an “aggrieved employee” as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). However, for claims of reprisal, the complainant need only establish that the alleged discriminatory action “is reasonably likely to deter... complainant or others from engaging in protected activity.” Maclin v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120070788 (Mar. 29, 2007). Generally, complaints involving another administrative proceeding fail to state a claim within the meaning of EEOC regulations, as they constitute impermissible attempts to lodge a collateral attack. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993). Here, the Agency dismissed claim (1) because it was the same claim as raised in a previous EEO complaint, 4E-500-0013-18. As noted above, Complainant indicated during the investigation of the instant complaint that the Letter of Warning at issue in claim (1) was included in her prior EEO complaint, 4E-500-0013-18. Therefore, we find dismissal of this claim was proper. The Agency dismissed claim (11), which concerned Complainant’s being denied FMLA. The Commission has no jurisdiction over claims based on the FMLA. Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122478 (Sept. 26, 2012) (finding a claim challenging denial of FMLA rights to be a collateral attack on the FMLA process, which is regulated by the Department of Labor, and outside the jurisdiction of the EEOC). Therefore, we find dismissal of this claim was also proper. Harassment Claim To establish a claim of hostile environment harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 2020002446 9 897 (11th Cir. 1982); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). See also, Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). In other words, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis -- in this case, her race, sex, age, disability, or prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements -- hostility and motive -- will the question of Agency liability present itself. Some of Complainant's harassment allegations can generally be described as relating to managerial decisions, such as the conduct of investigative interviews or meetings with employees, discipline, and monitoring and assessing employee performance, or reflecting personality conflicts, trivial slights, or petty annoyances with management. Without evidence of an unlawful motive, we have found that similar disputes do not amount to unlawful harassment. See Complainant v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122676 (Dec. 18, 2014) (The record established that the issues between the complainant and the supervisor were because of personality conflicts and fundamental disagreements over how work should be done and how employees should be supervised, and there is no indication that the supervisor was motivated by discriminatory animus towards the complainant's race, sex. or age); Lassiter v. Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between a supervisor and a complainant do not rise to the level of harassment). Complainant’s remaining allegations generally express her displeasure with the way management spoke to or about her. We find these allegations are also insufficiently severe or pervasive to have altered the conditions of Complainant's employment. See Phillips v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960030 (July 12, 1996) (the allegation that a supervisor had “verbally attacked” the complainant on one occasion, attempted to charge him with AWOL, and disagreed with the time the complainant entered into a sign in log, were found to be insufficient to state a harassment claim). While management may have demonstrated poor communication and/or managerial skills, the record does not establish that that the incidents at issue were based on Complainant's race, sex, age, disability, and/or prior EEO activity. Therefore, we find her allegations are insufficient to establish discriminatory harassment. Disparate Treatment Claims 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 a complainant to prevail, he or she 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). 2020002446 10 The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory 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). A complainant can establish a prima facie case of reprisal by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination. Shapiro v. Soc. Sec. Admn., EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996). Specifically, in a reprisal claim, and in accordance with the burdens set forth in McDonnell Douglas, and Coffman v. Dep't of Veterans Aff., EEOC Request No. 05960473 (Nov. 20, 1997), a complainant can establish a prima facie case of reprisal by showing that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the agency was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently, he was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a nexus exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment. Whitmire v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340 (Sept. 25, 2000). See EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8, Retaliation, pp. 8-18 (to support a finding of retaliation, there must be proof that agency took the alleged discriminatory action because of a complainant's prior protected activity and sought to defer complainant or others). Here, Complainant’s allegations regarding being suspended on January 29, 2019; February 26, 2019; and July 18, 2019 give rise to claims of disparate treatment. However, even assuming arguendo that she established a prima facia case with respect to these allegations, her claims still fail. We find the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency explained that Complainant was suspended on January 29, 2019 for failure to follow instructions; on February 26, 2019 for unsatisfactory performance; and on July 18, 2019 for failure to follow instructions, in violation of the Agency’s Standard of Conduct and policies. Although Complainant has alleged the Agency’s actions were motivated by her race, sex, age, disability, or prior EEO activity, she has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's actions were motivated by discrimination or that there was a nexus between her prior EEO activity and the Agency’s actions. Therefore, she has failed to establish her claims of disparate treatment. Reasonable Accommodation Claim The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against qualified disabled individuals. See generally 29 C.F.R. Part 1630. In order to establish that Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. See Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation), EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002). 2020002446 11 Under the Commission’s regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o) and (p). Complainant’s allegations in claim (5) give rise to a reasonable accommodation claim. However, assuming arguendo that she is a qualified individual with a disability, the matter would turn on whether the Agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. Complainant alleged that she was limited to a workday of 8 hours, due to her medical conditions. However, her allegations are that management instructed her to get her work done within 8 hours. She does not allege that management instructed her to work beyond her limitation. Therefore, we find the record does not establish that the Agency failed to provide Complainant a reasonable accommodation. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order. 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, 2020002446 12 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. 2020002446 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: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations July 15, 2021 Date