[Redacted], Sally M., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 19, 2021Appeal No. 2020001977 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 19, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sally M.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020001977 Agency No. 4G-770-0204-14 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 23, 2019, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND During the relevant time period, Complainant worked as a Carrier Technician at the Agency’s Roy Royall Post Office in Houston, Texas. On October 30, 2014, she filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against and subjected her to harassment based on her sex (female), age (over 40), and disability (Sinus/Allergy/Lower Back/Numbness Right Foot) based on four specific allegations. 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). 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. 2020001977 2 Complainant requested a hearing, and while the matter was pending, the AJ allowed Complainant to amend her complaint by adding 12 additional allegations for a total of 16 allegations. The AJ determined that the additional allegations would not be remanded to the Agency for a supplemental investigation. Subsequently, Complainant withdrew her request for a hearing and the complaint was remanded to the Agency for the issuance of a final decision. The Agency issued a final decision concluding that Complainant failed to prove that it subjected her to discrimination as alleged. As an initial matter, the Agency dismissed allegations 14 - 16 upon finding that they had already been adjudicated in a prior EEO complaint (Agency Case No. 4G-770-0151-15, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160464). The Agency also noted that allegation 15 failed to state a claim because it did not concern a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. The Agency also dismissed allegation 8 as a collateral attack on the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) process. Complainant filed an appeal and on June 4, 2019, the Commission, in Sade M. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120180567, affirmed the Agency’s procedural dismissal of allegations 8, 14, 15, and 16, but vacated the Agency’s finding of no discrimination for allegations 1 - 7 and 9 - 13. The Commission remanded these allegations for a supplemental investigation regarding claims 5 - 7 and 9 - 13 and ordered that a new final agency decision be issued.2 The following allegations were remanded to the Agency for further processing: Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on her sex and age when: 1. since July 16, 2014, her manager disapproved her requests for additional time to complete her route; and 2. on July 18, 2014, her manager required medical documentation for her absence. Complainant also alleged that she was harassed based on her sex, age, and disability when: 3. on September 29, 2014, her manager took 1½ hours of overtime from her and followed her on her route. 2 The Commission found that the AJ ordered the Agency not to send the amended allegations to an investigator, because the AJ had jurisdiction over the complaint and expected to fully develop the record during the hearing stage. Once jurisdiction returned to the Agency, the Commission found that the Agency should have obtained additional information on the amended allegations prior to issuing the final decision because the record was not developed enough to make a determination on the merits of Complainant’s complaint. 2020001977 3 Complainant also alleged that she was harassed based on her sex when: 4. on November 4, 2014, she was told to get off the clock because her medical document was incorrect, and then subsequently sent home because there was no work for her. Complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination based on retaliation for prior EEO activity, sex, and/or disability when: 5. on November 25, 2014, her request to reuse her PS Form 3996 was denied, she was threatened with being sent home, she was told to get off the floor while on the phone, and she was not allowed to prepare mail; 6. on December 16, 2014, her light duty assignment was voided, and she was sent home; 7. on December 16, 2014, she was given special instructions on how to carry mail; 9. on January 1, 2015, her manager followed her off the workroom floor, raised her voice, and would not allow her to finish her duties; 10. on January 13, 2015, management allowed a coworker to carry an all-riding route 3804 while she had an all-walking route 1601; 11. on January 21, 2015, management allowed a coworker to carry an all-riding route even though he could walk two hours a day; 12. on January 27, 2015, a supervisor asked her if she needed time off, and informed her that new light duty paperwork was needed after her walking restrictions changed; she was given an unrelated investigative interview; and a manager told her that she could only work two hours; and 13. on January 30, 2015, she was told to come in to accept a light duty position, but the paperwork was not ready. Her manager then informed her that the request was denied because of the medical restrictions, even though her manager accepted the same paperwork on November 18, 2014.3 3 Complainant did not file a request for reconsideration concerning the dismissed claims; therefore, these matters are not at issue in this decision. 2020001977 4 After the supplemental investigation, the Agency issued the instant final decision again finding no discrimination. With respect to allegation 1, Complainant stated that she was working city route 1630 on July 16, 2014, when A1, her station manager, instructed her to pull down her route in 30 minutes, but that she was unable to do so. As a result, Complainant stated that she was taken into the office by a supervisor and given a pre-disciplinary interview. According to Complainant, she asked for additional workhours that day to complete her route, which was her common practice when delivering this route because it was an over standard route. Her request, she stated, was denied by A1. A1 stated that if she disapproved additional time, it was because the mail volume did not warrant the additional time for the route and that Complainant has demonstrated that she can do the route on time. With respect to allegation 2, Complainant stated that, on July 18, 2014, A1 required medical documentation for her absence of July 16, 2014. Complainant maintained that she left work on the day because she was sick due to sinus and allergy problems. At that time, she was not asked to bring medical documentation. She explained that she had Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) documentation on file but later learned that it had expired. A1 stated that, on July 16, 2014, Complainant returned to the station with undelivered mail and indicated that she was ill and would not complete her route. A1 stated that she asked Complainant to provide medical documentation and she provided copies of FMLA documentation that covered her doctor appointments for her allergy shots. A1 stated that she explained to Complainant that the documentation was not enough because her FMLA documentation covered the allergy shots, not leaving work early due to an illness. According to A1, the Agency incurs overtime and penalty overtime when a Letter Carrier returns to the station with undelivered mail. Regarding allegation 3, Complainant stated that she left the office late to begin street deliveries and when she returned to the office to get more mail to deliver, she discovered that A1 had already given the mail to another employee to deliver. Complainant alleged that A1 then followed her to her truck, went through her mail and requested her scanner. Complainant stated that later that same day, A1 performed street supervisions on her, which Complainant felt should have been performed by a supervisor not a manager. Complainant stated that she did work overtime on September 27, 2014. A1 stated that, on or about September 27, 2014, Complainant indicated that she required additional time to complete her route and requested additional time. A1 denied the request and told Complainant that since her mail was not ready when it was time to depart the station, she would have a City Carrier Assistant (CCA) deliver the mail to Complainant while she was on her route so that Complainant could complete the route without incurring overtime. A1 stated that she had a CCA deliver the mail to Complainant, but that Complainant nonetheless returned to the station to pick up the additional mail. A1 stated that when Complainant failed to follow instructions and returned to the station, there was an inspection of her vehicle. Complainant, she stated, became angry, went to the restroom, and then returned 15 minutes later and indicated that she would require additional time to travel to and from the station and her route. 2020001977 5 A1 stated that Complainant was observed on her route and that after the last delivery at 4:30, management went home, and Complainant turned off her phone but remained out on the route past 5:30 pm. According to Agency records, Complainant worked 1.31 hours of overtime on September 27, 2014. Regarding allegation 4, Complainant stated that on November 4, 2014, A1 asked her to clock out because there was no work available within her medical restrictions. Complainant did not agree with this determination and stated that work was available. She maintained that A1 did not understand the meaning of “intermittent.†She also stated that she had provided medical documentation to A1 on or before November 4, 2014, but that she was asked to clock out anyway. A1 stated that, on November 4, 2014, Complainant reported to work and stated that she could not perform any walking routes due to her medical condition. A1 maintained that because all routes require walking, she asked Complainant to obtain clarification from her medical provider. She stated that Complainant was sent home because there was no work within her current medical restrictions and Complainant needed the medical information to be clarified. With respect to allegation 5, Complainant stated that, on November 25, 2014, she was carrying city route 1638. According to Complainant, she had already filled out a PS Form 3996,4 because she needed more time to complete her assignment. Complainant stated that when she later asked for her PS Form 3996 back, A1 threatened to send her home. Complainant stated that she used a cell phone to call the union hall to let them know what was going on and A1 told her to “say excuse me.†She maintained that A1 stood in front of her and would not move and she had to squeeze by her. Complainant stated that she went to the back of the building off the workroom floor and A1 followed her. She then called the union hall and went back to her case, but by the time she got back there, A1 had C1 and C2 pulling what they wanted to carry. Complainant maintained that A1 told her she could walk, and she was going to walk. A1 stated that Complainant’s comments are not accurate. A1 maintained that she did not remember this incident but stated that she has never stood in front of someone and made the comments Complainant attributed to her.5 She further stated that if she told Complainant she had to go home, it would only have been because Complainant was not doing her job, or she was not able to do the job medically. A1 stated that, in such a situation, she would have told Complainant that she needed to go get medical documentation to substantiate her alleged restrictions. According to A1, she did not have the right to send anyone home, unless they were refusing to follow instructions. 4 The record indicates that employees, when they cannot complete their routes during the allotted time, use PS Form 3996 to request overtime or auxiliary assistance. 5 The record indicates that A1 retired from the Agency on December 23, 2015; nearly four years had expired between her first affidavit concerning allegations 1 - 4, and her telephonic affidavit concerning allegations 5 - 7, and 9 - 13, i.e., August 7, 2019. 2020001977 6 With respect to allegation 6, Complainant, in her complaint, alleged that, on December 16, 2014, her light duty assignment was voided, and she was sent home. However, in her affidavit, she indicated several times that she was not sent home on December 16, 2014 but was assigned duties that day. Regarding allegation 6, A1 maintained that Complainant’s medical documentation had expired, and she might have voided her light duty assignment for that reason. She recalled that the medical documentation might have stated that Complainant could not walk. According to A1, if an employee has an on the job injury, they must take their CA-17 to their doctor and the doctor must be specific. She stated she would never have failed to make an accommodation for anyone if they had medical documentation. Agency records indicate that Complainant worked six hours and took two hours of sick leave. She worked a full eight hours on her next workday, December 18, 2014. Regarding allegation 7, Complainant stated that A1 gave her special instructions on how to carry the mail on December 16, 2014. Complainant maintained that A1 took her and her union representative, B1, into the office and gave her special instructions on how to prepare her assignment. She stated that A1 also told the cage clerk to give Complainant her key and other accountable items early because she was leaving out early. A1 stated that she would only have given Complainant special instructions on carrying her route if, at that time, she had clocked in and had documentation that indicated she could not carry her route, or if she had documentation stating she could only work 8 hours. A1 indicated that, if she did that, she would have told Complainant that she could take what she had because at that point, they would have had to carry her mail anyway. A1 stated that she assumed they had documentation at that time saying Complainant could not carry. The Agency’s records indicate that for December 2014 and January 2015, Complainant left mail behind on multiple days during both months. Regarding allegation 9, Complainant stated that A1 followed her off the workroom floor, raising her voice, and did not allow her to finish her duties on January 1, 2015. Complainant stated that, as part of her union steward duties, she was called upon to compile the overtime list. She stated that A1 was asking whether there was anyone else who could do the list. Complainant stated that while she was talking with someone at the union hall, A1 was talking so loudly that she had to walk into the swing room. She stated that A1 followed her into the swing room and got in her face asking whether Complainant was on break. Complainant stated that she put up a finger asking A1 to give her a minute. Complainant stated that she left the swing room and A1 continued to follow her asking whether she was on break again. Complainant stated that she looked at A1 and stated “yes.†According to Complainant, A1 walked away laughing, and stating that she just wanted to hear Complainant say it. A1 stated that she did not recall this incident and that she would not have behaved the way Complainant alleged. 2020001977 7 Regarding allegation 10, Complainant stated that A1 allowed C3, a coworker, to carry an all riding route while she had a walking route on January 13, 2015. A1 stated that she would never take Complainant’s route and give it to someone else. The Agency’s records indicate, however, that Complainant carried route 1632 on January 13, 2015, not route 1601 as Complainant maintained. Regarding allegation 11, Complainant alleged that on January 21, 2015, A1 again allowed C3 to carry an all riding route even though he could walk two hours a day based on his restrictions. Complainant stated that she worked on January 21, 2015, on driving route 1632. A1 stated that she did not know if C3 had any form of medical condition that would have limited him to only walk two hours per day. Although she had no specific recall of this incident, she denied that she would have acted discriminatorily as alleged. With respect to allegation 12, Complainant stated that A1 did not ask her if she needed time off, but simply put her off the clock. According to Complainant, she provided her new medical documentation to her supervisor, who passed it on to A1. According to Complainant, A1 told her that her restrictions had changed, and therefore, she put her off the clock. A1 stated that if Complainant was saying she could not walk then she would have to go get medical documentation to clarify her status. She explained that Complainant was brought in with her union steward and told that she needed to get updated medical information. As for her contention that she was subjected to an investigative interview, the Agency noted that Complainant stated that it was for an unrelated matter, and that no copy of the investigative interview is contained in the record. With regard to allegation 13, Complainant stated that A1 told her on January 30, 2015, to come in to accept a new light duty position even though the paperwork was not ready. Afterward, she informed her that the light duty request was denied because of her changed medical restrictions, even though management had already accepted the same paperwork on November 18, 2014. Complainant stated that A1 told her that she must have missed something on her CA-17. Complainant had indicated that she could only walk for two hours. A1, she stated, indicated that, “I am going to have to send you home because your light duty has changed.†Complainant stated that she told A1 her walking status only changed from walking four hours to walking two hours, but that A1 stated that the light duty offer was void. Complainant stated that she told A1 that the light duty paperwork should have been ready for her to sign and that she should not have to sit and wait for it off the clock. A1 stated that she did not recall any of Complainant’s allegations but noted that an employee must have medical paperwork in order to have a light duty request approved. On appeal, Complainant limits her claim of discrimination to her disability, i.e., discrimination, harassment, and denial of a reasonable accommodation due to her disability. 2020001977 8 According to Complainant, “[i]n the light of the foregoing, [complainant] respectfully asks the Commission that [the] Final Agency Decision be reversed, and that the Commission rule that [Complainant] was discriminated and retaliated against on the account of her disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.†The Agency requests, in pertinent part, that its final decision be affirmed. With respect to allegations 12 and 13, the Agency noted that Complainant brought new restrictions on January 27, 2015, indicating she could no longer work her light duty assignment. Her supervisor requested that she submit new light duty paperwork because of this change. Complainant brought light duty paperwork on January 30, 2015; however, this paperwork stated that Complainant could work “as tolerated†which was too vague to adequately determine Complainant’s restrictions. Complainant’s past light duty requests did not have this “as tolerated†language. Complainant was instructed to bring in paperwork with clear restrictions which she did not do until February 4, 2015.6 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 lawâ€). At the outset, we note that the Commission has the discretion to review only those issues specifically raised in an appeal. Because Complainant does not specifically contest the Agency’s findings that she was not discriminated against based on sex and age, these bases will not be addressed in this decision. But, even if we did address such claims, we would find no discrimination. We will also not address that portion of allegation 12, concerning an unrelated investigative interview, which was also not raised on appeal by Complainant. See EEOC Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, (MD-110), Chap. 9, § IV.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (“Although the Commission has the right to review all of the issues in a complaint on appeal, it also has the discretion to focus only on those issues specifically raised on appeal.â€). But, once again, even if we did address that portion of allegation 12, we find that Complainant failed to show that the alleged Agency action was motivated by discrimination or reprisal. 6 The above information was contained in a Step B grievance decision dated April 14, 2015. 2020001977 9 Disparate Treatment In analyzing a disparate treatment claim under the Rehabilitation Act, where the Agency denies, as it does here, its decisions were motivated by Complainant’s disability and there is no direct evidence of discrimination, Complainant must demonstrate that: (1) she is an “individual with a disability;†(2) she is “qualified†for the position held or desired; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances surrounding the adverse action give rise to an inference of discrimination. See Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent Program, 198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999); Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001). Assuming, arguendo, Complainant established that she was a qualified individual with a disability, and that the actions she complained of were adverse actions, we find that the Agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as was set forth above. Complainant did not demonstrate such “weaknesses, implausibility, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the [Agency’s] proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.†Evelyn S. v. Dep’t of Labor, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160132 (Sept. 14, 2017). Regarding allegation 11, we do not find that Complainant established that providing C3 with a riding route on January 21, 2015, even though he could walk two hours, constituted an adverse action towards her. According to Complainant, she worked on January 21, 2015, on a driving route, route 1632, that same day; therefore, we find no adverse action took place here and there was no harm to Complainant. Once again, as for all claims in the complaint at issue, we find that even if these constituted adverse actions, Complainant failed to show the incidents were motivated by discrimination or retaliation. Harassment To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) they belong to a statutorily protected class; (2) they were subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on their 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 employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [complainant’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.†Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 6 (Mar. 8, 1994). 2020001977 10 With respect to Complainant’s claim of hostile work environment, we find that the claims, even if accurately described by Complainant, were not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment. See Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). The Commission recognizes that ordinary managerial and supervisory duties include assuring compliance with agency policy and procedures, monitoring subordinates, scheduling the workload, scrutinizing and evaluating performance, providing job-related advice and counsel, taking action in the face of performance shortcomings, and otherwise managing the workplace. Erika H. v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151781 (June 16, 2017). Employees will not always agree with supervisory communications and actions, but absent discriminatory motives, these disagreements do not violate EEO law. Furthermore, we find that Complainant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation. Reasonable Accommodation To establish that she 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 her with a reasonable accommodation. See, e.g., Bill A. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120131989 (Oct. 26, 2016). An individual with a disability is “qualified†if he or she satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the employment position that the individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). Assuming Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability, we find no persuasive evidence that she was denied a reasonable accommodation. With respect to allegation 6, the record indicates that although A1 may have voided Complainant’s light duty request, Complainant was still provided work; therefore, we do not find that she was denied a reasonable accommodation. The Commission has long held that individuals protected under the Rehabilitation Act are not entitled to the accommodation of their choice, but to an effective†accommodation. See Castaneda v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01931005 (Feb. 17, 1994); U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 400 (2002) (alternative proposed accommodations must be “effectiveâ€). Complainant has presented no evidence that the duties she performed after her light duty request was voided were outside her medical restrictions. With respect to allegation 10, the Agency’s records indicate that she carried route 1632 on January 13, 2015, which was a riding route. Therefore, we find no denial of a reasonable accommodation. With respect to allegations 12 and 13, the unrefuted assertion of the Agency is that Complainant brought in medical documentation stating that she could no longer work her existing light duty assignment. She was instructed to complete light duty paperwork to specify what duties she could perform. 2020001977 11 Subsequently, Complainant brought in light duty paperwork that was too vague for management to give her a light duty assignment; therefore, she was asked to submit new medical documentation that made it clear what her restrictions were. According to the Agency, once Complainant presented appropriate light duty paperwork in February 2015, her request was approved, and she was allowed to work. The Commission has long held that an individual is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation when the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious, and the person refuses to provide the reasonable documentation requested by the employer. See Hunter v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070053 (Feb. 16, 2012). In this case, we find that Complainant did not provide the reasonable documentation requested by the Agency, until February 2015, and as such, she did not show that she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation, i.e., light duty, prior to that time. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. 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. 2020001977 12 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. 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 April 19, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation