[Redacted], Rosario C.,1 Complainant,v.Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 27, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002114 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 27, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Rosario C.,1 Complainant, v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002114 Hearing No. 460-2016-00015X Agency No. HS-CBP-02481-2015 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 December 6, 2019, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Watch Commander at the George Bush International Airport in Houston, Texas. Complainant filed a complaint alleging that he was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment based on race (African American), age (over 40), disability (hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, migraines, reflux), and reprisal (for engaging in 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. 2020002114 2 1. From October 9, 20l4 - to the present, he was subjected to the following incidents: a. On October 9, 2014, the Watch Commanders (WCs) did not include him in a work-schedule discussion. b. On October 16, 2014, the Port Director (PD-1) changed his permanently assigned work schedule (5 a.m. to 2 p.m.) to schedules and rotations designed by a co-worker (WC-1). c. On October 16, 2014, WC-1 was assigned to work in his area. d. On October 16, 2014, he learned that WC-1 and WC-2 had been given epaulets prior to a meeting held to announce the WC promotions, and PD-1 advised Complainant that he had to acquire his own epaulets. e. On approximately October 19, 2014, PD-1 told him, “maybe you should find another job.” f. On approximately October 20, 2014, when he inquired about Ebola procedures, PD-1 stated that there is an arrangement with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC); however, Complainant learned from someone (unnamed) at the CDC that there was no agreement in place. g. On approximately October 20, 2014, PD-1 instructed him that temperature checks should be implemented using Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) services, but that he must state that the passenger is “nauseous” so the EMT would respond. PD-1 subsequently sent a memorandum stating that the CDC no longer supported temperature checks, and “sick” passengers should be referred to the EMT services. h. On November 11, 2014, the Assistant Port Director (APD-1) berated him over the telephone regarding a non-consequential report. i. On November 14, 2014, APD-1 reprimanded him for changing his mid- shift schedule. j. On November 15, 2014, APD-1 assigned him overtime work in contravention of his medical directives given by his physicians. k. On November 16, 2014, PD-1 verbally chastised him for granting an employee leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. l. On December 1, 2014, APD-1 ordered him to write a memorandum concerning a “disruptive passenger.” 2020002114 3 m. On December 13 and 16, 2014, APD-1 required him to complete unnecessary memorandums. n. On December 20 and 21, 2014, WC-1 questioned his subordinates, belittled his decision regarding the “one stop process,” and undermined his authority by sending a sarcastic email. o. On January 6, 2015, WC-1 sent out an email clarifying the procedure for reporting Ebola incidents, which revealed that WC-1 did not have to follow the same reporting requirements as PD-1 had advised him, on October 20, 2014, to follow. p. On January 11, 2015, APD-1 and WC-1 attempted to intimidate him regarding a possible schedule change, despite his medical directives, and showed scheduling preferential treatment. q. On April 3, 2015, he learned that PD-2 was conducting an administrative inquiry at the Director of Field Operation’s (DFO) request, and he would be interviewed on April 8, 2015. r. On June 16, 2015, when APD-1 asked WC-2 to give the WC duty telephone to him, WC-2 advised APD-2 that she did not want to because Complainant is a “f*cking a**hole.” s. On June 19, 2015, he learned that APD-1, APD-2, and WC-3 were discussing his EEO complaint and making inappropriate comments about it. t. On June 19, 2015, WC-3 was asked during a tour of the Federal Inspection Station why it would not be run by a WC, and WC-3 said, “they don’t want to give [Complainant] another reason to file an EEO.” u. During the week of July 20, 2015, an Agency investigator interrogated Complainant’s physician regarding her reasonable accommodation (RA) request for him. v. On September 10, 2015, the Agency subjected him to a management inquiry and denied his request for legal representation during the inquiry. 2. On January 28, 2015, the Agency denied his RA request, and subsequently on May 28, 2015, placed his request for reconsideration of the decision in abeyance until results of a scheduled Fitness for Duty Examination (FFDE) were received. 3. On May 28, 2015, the Agency issued him a letter instructing him to report for an FFDE. 2020002114 4 4. In a letter dated July 31, 2015, PD-1 again denied Complainant’s RA request. 5. On August 13, 2015, he learned that he was not selected for the position of Supervisory CBP Officer (SCBPO) - Second Line, GS-1895-13, advertised under Job Announcement Number MHCMP-1128485-JEG. 6. On September 4, 2015, the Agency denied his appeal of its July 31, 2015 reasonable accommodation decision. 7. On November 17, 2015, the Agency issued him a Letter of Reprimand (LOR-1). 8. On January 25, 2016, the Agency issued him a Cease and Desist Letter (C&DL). 9. On February 25, 2016, the Agency subjected him to a management inquiry. 10. On June 14, 2016, the Agency issued him LOR-2. After its investigation of the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Although he initially requested a hearing, Complainant withdrew his request and asked for a final decision from the Agency. The AJ remanded the matter to the Agency for a decision. The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. This appeal followed. With respect to claim 1(a), the Agency noted that PD-1 denied that he instructed WC-1 to develop a WC work schedule. WC-4 had already developed and published an eight-hour rotating work schedule under PD-1’s direction. According to PD-1, several WCs had requested that he consider an alternate work schedule to include four ten-hour days or a flex nine-hour day schedule. He stated that he informed all the WCs that they should a work schedule other than the eight-hour work schedule he recommended, the recommendation would be by “consensus” of all the WCs. He further noted that the production of work schedules was not in violation of Complainant’s medical directives because Complainant submitted his reasonable accommodation request on November 17, 2014, which was after the work schedule had been developed. Regarding claim l(b), PD-1 stated that prior to Complainant’s promotion to a WC position, he regularly traded his assigned shift with other officers. With these trades, Complainant, although he was assigned to a rotational schedule, was able to primarily work a morning or mid-morning shift. However, PD-1 stated that this was not a permanent shift. After Complainant’s promotion, WCs, including Complainant, were told that their duties and responsibilities would require that each WC work rotating shifts, holidays, and weekends in addition to overtime as necessary to manage critical incidents. When Complainant, like the others, was asked if this would be a problem, PD-1 stated that Complainant indicated that he “will work with it.” 2020002114 5 With respect to claim l(c), PD-1 stated that he was unable to locate the settlement agreement which Complainant stated precluded him from working with WC-1. He, therefore, informed Complainant that he expected him and WC-1 to cooperatively work together. With respect to claim 1(d), PD-1 recalled that when WC-1 and WC-2 stopped by his office to share the news of their promotions, he gave WC-1 and-WC-2 extra epaulets that he had in his desk, but that employees were responsible for purchasing their own epaulets using uniform funds. PD-1 stated that he also placed a set of epaulets on Complainant’s desk “in recognition of his promotion.” WC-1 clarified that he was not given epaulets by PD-1, but rather purchased them through the uniform vendor. WC-2 stated that after the promotion announcement was made, she received epaulets from PD-1, but they were the wrong ones for her uniform, so she ordered her own set. Regarding claim 1(e), Complainant stated that when he expressed concern over the rotating WC schedule, PD-1 told him, “maybe you should find another job.” PD-1 stated that when Complainant advised that he was taking medication that affected his cognitive ability and that they needed to be taken at home in the evening, he explained that Complainant could request a reasonable accommodation. PD-1 stated that he also pointed out to Complainant that he accepted a position that required him to rotate shifts “equitably” with the other WCs, and that if he could not fulfill his duties, he would “need to seek another position.” Regarding claims 1(f) and (g), PD-1 stated that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was distributed on October 17, 2014, which provided guidance for managing Ebola passengers. He asked all the WCs to familiarize themselves with the SOP, which was updated several times due to Headquarters guidance. On October 28, 2014, Headquarters issued supplemental guidance regarding interaction with the CDC during regular and off-duty hours. PD-1 stated that the temperature check procedures had not changed since the inception of the Ebola screening requirement, and that with respect to EMT calls, PD-1 stated that he was told that officers should indicate that the passenger was nauseous “so that the call could be correctly prioritized, as EMS services would not quickly respond otherwise.” With respect to claim 1(h), APD-2 confirmed that he called Complainant to request a report regarding a narcotics seizure that involved a personal search incident. APD-2 claimed that he spoke in a calm, normal voice early in the call; however, he later raised his voice, because Complainant continued to argue and refused to accept the instruction that he was given. Complainant, he maintained, asserted that the incident occurred on WC-1’s shift, but he was made responsible for the report. PD-1 stated that the shift report indicated that Complainant was assigned as the primary WC at the time of the incident, and therefore was responsible for reporting all incidents that occurred on his shift. Regarding claim l (i), APD-2 stated that he attempted to contact Complainant on December 1, 2014, but he had changed his shift and was no longer on duty. APD-2 informed Complainant that he had to tell him about any shift changes. APD-2 stated that he did not reprimand Complainant, and that he announced during the following staff meeting that all the WCs must notify him of schedule changes. 2020002114 6 Regarding claim 1(j), APD-2 denied Complainant’s claim that he assigned Complainant overtime. APD-2 stated that when WC-4 requested four hours of leave, he authorized the other WCs overtime to fill the vacancy. APD-2 stated that he was unaware that WC-4 had already asked Complainant if he was willing to work the four hours. Regarding claim l(k), PD-1 explained that the employee in question had been approved for annual leave on December 23, and her regular days off included December 25. However, she had not received approved leave for December 24, due to the lack of availability of leave slots. Therefore, when Complainant approved her for medical leave for the 24th, PD-1 stated that he told Complainant that he could not approve medical leave for December 24 without supporting medical documentation, as many other employees had requested that day off. With respect to claim 1(l), APD-2 confirmed that he ordered all three on-duty WCs to submit memorandums regarding “who had dealt with [a] disruptive passenger, as none of the Watch Commanders reported it up the chain of command.” With respect to claim l(m), APD-2 explained that during a meeting, Complainant discussed a passenger who tried to enter the airport using fraudulent documents, and Complainant was directed to submit a situational awareness report regarding the incident. APD-2 stated that Complainant initially failed to send the report, and that it took three days for Complainant to complete the task. APD-2 noted that Complainant was not disciplined. Regarding claim l(n), WC-1 stated that when he relieved Complainant as the WC, someone asked why an escalator was shutdown. Because WC-1 was not aware of an issue with the escalator, he emailed Complainant, asking, “was there an issue with the escalator?” Complainant did not respond. WC-1 stated that he did not recall any specific conversations with a subordinate employee but noted that in an instance where a WC did not provide vital information to his relieving WC, “it would be necessary to question subordinate managers and officers to find out what happened or why decisions were made on earlier shifts.” With respect to claim l(o), WC-1 did not recall the specific email to which Complainant referred, but stated that to his knowledge, he was not given different Ebola reporting requirements than anyone else. Regarding Claim l(p), APD-2 stated that he asked if any WCs were willing to change their days off to work the night of January 11, 2015. When no one volunteered, APD-2 looked at assigning the shift as overtime. He approached Complainant, since he was already working on January 11, 2015, which would eliminate the need to bring in someone on their day off. When Complainant declined, APD-2 stated that he would assign the overtime to the lowest overtime earner. However, WC-1 volunteered to change his schedule in order to take the shift, and the overtime assignment was not necessary. APD-2 stated that he did not intimidate Complainant during the discussion. 2020002114 7 Regarding claim l(q), PD-2, who worked in the El Paso office, received a request by management to conduct an administrative inquiry in the Houston Field Office. The inquiry was into Complainant’s hostile work environment claim, and the possible disclosure of law enforcement information. The DFO explained that both allegations were referred to the Houston Field Office for review, but that he requested a factfinder from another field office to conduct the management inquiry in order to avoid any conflict of interest. Ultimately, however, PD-2 was unable to conduct the administrative inquiry due to funding. With respect to Claim l(r), WC-2 stated that, “I cannot provide the specific dates or times when or if l have used this term, but I can say that more likely than not I have used this term as have other co-workers.” The Agency found that although WC-2 may have used offensive language, the record did not indicate that her doing so was based on Complainant’s membership in a protected class. WC-2 was issued a C&DL as a result of her conduct. Regarding claims 1(s) and (t), Complainant stated that C1, an employee, informed him that APD-1, APD-2, and WC-3 were making comments about Complainant’s EEO complaint. C1 stated that WC-3 received a phone call and, when the call ended, WC-3 stated that “it was in reference to an EEO and the person that called him did not want to do the interview with other people around.” C1 indicated that Complainant’s name was never stated during the conversation, and that neither APD-1 nor APD-2 made a comment during the conversation. APD-1, APD-2, and WC-3 stated that they did not recall the conversation. Complainant further asserted that during a discussion about a newly formed position at the Airport, WC-3 allegedly stated that it would not be designated as a GS-14 WC position because “they” did not want to give Complainant “another reason to file an EEO.” C1 confirmed that WC-3 made the statement. WC-3 did not recall the conversation. Regarding claim 1(u), the Agency argued that there was no evidence that its investigation into the duplicate letters issued by Complainant’s physician created a hostile work environment based on Complainant’s race, age, disability, or prior EEO activity. With respect to claim l(v), the Agency found that the record did not support his contention that its inquiry into his allegedly harassing actions created a hostile work environment. Claims 2 - 4 and 6: PD-1 explained that the Agency directed Complainant to undergo an FFDE because the information gathered during the interactive process did not clearly indicate whether he had a disability that required an accommodation and called into question Complainant’s capability to perform the essential functions of his position. 2020002114 8 PD-1 pointed to inconsistencies in the letters from Complainant’s physician, such as several December 24, 2014 letters stating that Complainant was not restricted from working rotating shifts, nights, or more than eight hours per day; and a March 15, 2015 letter stating that Complainant’s medical conditions did not affect his ability to perform the essential functions of the WC position. Although Complainant’s physician indicated that he was not restricted from working rotating shifts, nights, or more than eight hours per day, she recommend that he transfer to a “work environment with a stable schedule” that offered five consecutive work days with a maximum of nine hours per day, and that Complainant transfer to an environment that did not include arbitrary schedules or rotations. The Agency argued that it was not unreasonable that management found the physician’s communication to be confusing, i.e., indicating that Complainant could function without restrictions within the confines of his position and schedule, but then recommending that he be transferred to a different position and a different schedule. The Agency also noted that, in his February 4, 2015 letter to PD-1, Complainant stated that working shifts on a rotational basis and overtime as needed “never has been a concern, impediment, or issue in any way,” and that he was not requesting a schedule change at the airport, but rather a transfer to the Houston Seaport. According to Complainant, “if this hostile, demeaning, and unfair environment did not exist, I would have never made the formal request for transfer based on ‘reasonable accommodation.’” The Agency argued that Complainant’s own statements called into question the necessity of a transfer for purposes of accommodating his medical conditions, but instead to escape what he perceived to be a hostile working environment. Subsequently, the Agency received the results of the FFDE, which indicated that Complainant was fit for duty and based on the information collected during the interactive process, the Agency determined that Complainant failed to demonstrate that he required an accommodation to perform the essential functions of his position. Claim 5: The DFO, who was the selecting official, stated that he did not consider Complainant for the SCBPO position because he was not recommended for selection. Additionally, he noted that, more importantly, Complainant had recently been promoted from a GS-1895-13 SCBPO position to a GS-1895-14 WC position in October of 2014. The DFO felt that demoting him to the GS-13 SCBPO position would have impeded his career development. Claim 7: PD-1 stated that he issued Complainant LOR-1 because Complainant had sent an email containing policy and procedure information sensitive to the Ebola outbreak to his personal external email address. He noted that Complainant violated the Agency’s Standards of Conduct, which stated that an employee shall not disclose, use, or store official information without proper authority. PD-1 further stated that as a supervisory law-enforcement officer, Complainant was held to a higher standard of conduct, to which he failed to adhere. 2020002114 9 Complainant maintained that he reported to the Internal Affairs office that he had sent an email to himself to record that PD-1 had lied concerning the Ebola compliance. The Agency argued that there was no evidence that discriminatory animus played a role. Claims 8 through 10: The record indicates that Complainant was issued a C&DL because two subordinate employees reported that he subjected them to a hostile work environment by making demeaning and degrading comments to them in the presence of other employees. The C&DL, which was non- disciplinary, stated that it was meant to inform Complainant of the allegation, and to advise him to immediately cease and desist if he had engaged in the alleged conduct. Thereafter, a management inquiry was initiated because of the harassment allegations against Complainant. Management requested an independent factfinder from another field office to conduct the investigation. During the investigation, the factfinder collected email evidence, as well as affidavits from nine witnesses. Ultimately, the factfinder determined that the allegations against Complainant were substantiated. Because of these findings, APD-3 stated that he issued Complainant LOR-2 for unprofessional conduct toward the two subordinate employees. He maintained that Complainant was held to a higher standard as a supervisor, and that his inappropriate comments served to undermine the mission of the Agency. APD-3 cautioned Complainant to be mindful that his future communications were not perceived as offensive. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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”). Upon review of the record, we find that based on the preponderance of the evidence that Complainant did not establish that he was subjected to discrimination or harassment. Assuming, arguendo, Complainant established prima facie cases of discrimination, we find that the Agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for claims 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(j), 1(l), 1(m), 1(u), 1(v), 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. We further find that Complainant did not provide persuasive evidence of pretext or otherwise establish that discriminatory animus played a role in these matters. 2020002114 10 With respect to Complainant’s claim of a hostile work environment, we find that a finding of a hostile work environment is precluded regarding claims 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(j), 1(l), 1(m), 1(u), 1(v), 5, 8, 9, and 10 by our determination above that Complainant failed to establish that these actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. Moreover, we find no persuasive evidence that any other matter Complainant deemed harassing was motivated by discrimination, i.e., claims 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(k), 1(n), 1(o), 1(p), 1(q), 1(r), 1(s), and 1(t), nor do we find that these matters, even if true, were severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of unlawful harassing behavior. With regard to claims 1(s) and 1(t), we specifically find that even assuming, arguendo, these matters occurred as alleged, we do not find that they were reasonably likely to deter either Complainant or others from engaging in protected EEO conduct. In this regard we note the lack of evidence that the comments in claim l(s) related to Complainant’s EEO activity. According to C1, the person who called WC-3 was concerned about being interviewed with other people around, and that Complainant’s name was never stated during the conversation. WC-3’s remark in Claim l(t) did refer to Complainant’s EEO activity, but we agree with the Agency that a single remark by WC-3, a coworker, did not rise to the level of unlawful retaliatory harassment. We also find, regarding claims 2, 4, and 6, that Complainant did not establish that he was denied a reasonable accommodation. The record does not indicate that Complainant’s request was for the purposes of accommodating his medical conditions but was instead to escape what he perceived to be a hostile working environment. Finally, with respect to claim 3, we find that the Agency established that Complainant was referred to a Fitness for Duty examination for reasons that were job-related and consistent with business necessity. CONCLUSION Upon review of the evidence of record, and Complainant’s statement on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. 2020002114 11 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that tend to establish that: 1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or 2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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). 2020002114 12 COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations July 27, 2021 Date