[Redacted], Santo D., 1 Complainant,v.Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary, Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 12, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000597 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 12, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Santo D.,1 Complainant, v. Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary, Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000597 Agency No. 63-2020-00179D 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 October 15, 2021, final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an Administrative Specialist, GG-0301-11, at the Agency’s Atlanta Regional Census Center, Census Investigative Service in Atlanta, Georgia. On February 26, 2020, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to discriminatory harassment (non-sexual) based on his disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (opposition)2 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. 2 Complainant testified that he engaged in prior EEO activity when he made a verbal complaint about discrimination, threatened to file a charge of discrimination, submitted a request for reasonable accommodation, and threatened to file a complaint with his Congressional 2022000597 2 1. in January 2020, three Supervisory Administrative Specialists (Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2, and Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3) made threats, and inappropriate and derogatory comments when: a. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 threatened Complainant about performing overtime on several occasions. b. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 made jokes about individuals with mental conditions taking medication and how veterans were “all crazy,” assuming they all have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). c. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 threatened Complainant’s employment, asking him “what would [you] do if they fired you for mak[ing] a complaint.” d. On January 9, 2020, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 told Complainant to delay filing his grievance to the Director and Congressional Representative. On the same day, Supervisory Administrative Specialists 1, 2, and 3, also told Complainant not to submit a statement regarding his grievance until it was addressed by the Assistant Regional Area Manager. 2. On January 8, 2020, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 denied Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request. 3. on January 10, 2020, Complainant was terminated for unacceptable conduct. 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). Complainant requested a final decision. On October 15, 2021, the Agency issued the instant final decision, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination or unlawful retaliation was established. The instant appeal followed. representative. Complainant identified Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 as the management official who allegedly failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation and subjected him to workplace harassment/discrimination. Complainant further identifies other management officials involved in his prior protected EEO activity who are also identified in the instant complaint. 2022000597 3 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Reasonable Accommodation 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. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o) and (p). To establish that he was denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) he is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) he is a “qualified” individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002). A qualified person with a disability is an individual who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without an accommodation. As further discussed below, we find that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability. Complainant testified that he had several medical conditions which included diabetes, hypertension, GERD, Bell’s Palsy, H Pylori and PTSD. As a result of these conditions, Complainant explained that he used a walker for stability and a walking stick to move about in the office. Complainant further explained that he must eat meals at consistent time intervals to maintain his medication regimen. Complainant also noted that he had impaired vision and had to have a procedure to treat his eye condition. Additionally, Complainant indicated that he has had these medical impairments since February 2017 and undergoes counseling and medication treatment for his PTSD as well as physical therapy for his physical limitations. Complainant testified that he requested a reasonable accommodation to conduct diabetes testing/treatment. Specifically, Complainant requested a designated location for him to perform his insulin injections. Complainant stated that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 initially denied his request and instructed him to use the public restroom. However, Complainant informed Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 that a public restroom was not sanitary and would expose him to potential infection. The following day, Supervisory Administrative Specialists 1 and 3 met with him and suggested that he leave the Census office space to conduct his injections. After some discussion, the management officials approved him conducting his diabetes testing and treatment in the office’s file/conference room. Complainant, however, expressed concerns about this location because it was an open space without adequate privacy as it was used by other department staff. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 then provided a cubicle wall in the room as a barrier. Complainant further testified that he made a second reasonable accommodation request for entitled veteran leave benefits which was denied. 2022000597 4 Complainant explained that his constant hospital visits and ongoing therapy required that he take leave every week and he wanted instead to use his veteran leave rather than using his sick or annual leave balance. As further explained below, our review of the record supports that Complainant failed to demonstrate that management violated the Rehabilitation Act in addressing his reasonable accommodation requests. We address each of Complainant’s requests separately below. Space for Diabetic Testing The Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 said Complainant requested a private office to conduct his diabetic testing which he was not given. Instead, management provided him with a designated area in the conference room and installed a partition for privacy. Although protected individuals are entitled to reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act, they are not necessarily entitled to their accommodation of choice. See EEOC Notice No. 915.002, Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (October 17, 2002) (“Guidance”), Question 9. However, alternative proposed accommodations must be “effective.” See U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 400(2002). “An ineffective ‘modification’ or ‘adjustment’ will not accommodate a disabled individual's limitations.” Id. In the context of job performance, this means that a reasonable accommodation enables the individual to perform the essential functions of the position. See Guidance. Here, Complainant indicated that he needed a sanitary and private space to conduct his diabetic testing and insulin injections during the workday. Complainant has not provided evidence that using the room designated by management with the cubicle barrier for privacy was not an effective accommodation. There is no indication that the area was not sanitary or did not provide Complainant with the necessary privacy. Therefore, Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the designated area with a cubicle barrier was not an effective accommodation. Veteran Leave Benefit Although Complainant asserted that he was denied a reasonable accommodation when management denied approval of his Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act leave (Wounded Warriors Leave) request, the record indicates that this request was a federal benefit and not a request for reasonable accommodation. As explained by Assistant Regional Area Manager, Complainant was informed of the Wounded Warriors Leave benefit in August 2019, but he did not submit his application until October 2, 2019. The Assistant Regional Area Manager further explained that Complainant’s Wounded Warriors Leave could not be applied to his leave balance until he was approved for this benefit, which had to be processed by another entity. The Assistant Regional Area Manager learned that there was a delay in processing Complainant’s application because the liaison in the Regional Census Center’s Administration department submitted the application to Human Resources instead of the Employee Relations Benefits team. 2022000597 5 The Assistant Regional Area Manager noted that other employees complained that the application process took too long, and Complainant was not the only employee impacted. Despite the Assistant Regional Area Manager’s request that Complainant’s application be promptly processed, the Assistant Regional Area Manager indicated that Complainant’s application was not approved in an expeditious manner. Additionally, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 explained that she also attempted to check on the status of Complainant’s application and was informed that there was a processing delay due to a heavy workload. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 further denied that she interfered with the processing of Complainant’s Wounded Warriors Leave application. Specifically, she noted that she received a January 27, 2020 headquarters approval letter for Complainant’s Wounded Warriors Leave application. However, the approval letter was delivered after Complainant had been terminated from the Agency. Given the circumstances of this case, the record supports that Complainant sought a veteran’s benefit, not a reasonable accommodation, when he submitted his application for Wounded Warriors Leave. Stand-Up Desk Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 testified that Complainant had also inquired about obtaining a stand-up desk, and she informed him that he would need to submit a reasonable accommodation request. However, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 explained that Complainant never submitted the required medical documentation for this request even after she had followed up with him about his inquiry. Therefore, we find that record fails to support a finding that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act with regard to Complainant’s request for a stand-up desk. Based on this evidence, we find that Complainant has not shown that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act regarding Complainant’s requests for a stand-up desk, application for Wounded Warriors Leave, or space to conduct diabetic testing. Disparate Treatment - Termination (claim 3) 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 complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie 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). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 2022000597 6 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). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). Our review of the record supports that the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Complainant’s employment. Complainant asserted that his termination was retaliatory. Specifically, Complainant noted that his termination occurred the day he had planned to file an EEO complaint and a complaint with his Congressional Representative. Complainant stated that he was “literally in the process of writing a statement on [his] work computer and researching the proper protocols for submitting a Congressional Inquiry” when Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 called him into his office and issued him the termination. During this 8:00 am meeting, Complainant asserted that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 encouraged him to delay submitting his Congressional inquiry until after Complainant met with the Director. Complainant stated that he believed that management sought to intentionally delay his Congressional inquiry so that they could terminate his employment later that day around 2:00 pm. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 testified that he was the responsible management official for terminating Complainant’s employment. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 indicated that he terminated Complainant’s employment for “unacceptable conduct,” and he denied that Complainant’s termination had anything to do with his disability. Although Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 indicated that he witnessed some of the instances of Complainant’s unacceptable conduct, he noted that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 also provided information regarding Complainant’s unacceptable behavior that was further outlined in his termination letter. A copy of the January 9, 2020 termination letter indicates that Complainant’s temporary appointment was terminated for unacceptable conduct. Specifically, the letter notes that (1) Complainant became “irate” and “belligerent” when an employee would not join him during their lunch break; (2) Complainant raised his voice while arguing with an applicant and hung up on the applicant; and (3) Complainant shouted and raised his voice towards Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 when she corrected him about eating a full meal at this desk. 2022000597 7 After careful consideration of the record, we conclude that neither during the investigation, nor on appeal, has Complainant proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons resulted from disparate treatment based on his disability and reprisal for engaging in protected EEO activity. Harassment (claim 1) To prove his claim of hostile environment harassment, Complainant must establish that he 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, his disability and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements - hostility and motive - will the question of Agency liability present itself. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 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). Overtime comments (allegation 1a) Complainant indicated that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 made several statements in early December 2019 and January 2020 regarding performing overtime frequently. Specifically, Complainant asserted that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 singled him out because of his medical condition. Complainant explained that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 would insist that Complainant sign up for additional overtime hours and she would warn Complainant, and other employees, that they would be penalized and not be retained beyond March 2020 if they did not work overtime hours. Consequently, Complainant indicated that he felt pressured to work overtime because Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 would remind him and all employees that their appointment was temporary and those who did not work overtime would not be considered for extension of their employment. However, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 denied threatening Complainant or other employees about working overtime. Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 further explained that performing overtime was not a requirement and she was unaware of Complainant’s disability. Additionally, the Assistant Regional Area Manager denied receiving any complaints from employees alleging overtime threats by Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1. Jokes about Veterans (allegation 1b) Complainant stated that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 would often make disparaging and derogatory remarks about veterans with non-visible disabilities like PTSD. Specially, Complainant mentioned that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 would make comments indicating her dislike that veterans received preference points during the hiring process and suggested that veterans had an unfair advantage. Complainant also noted that on one occasion during a dinner where Complainant and other veterans were present, Supervisory Administrative 2022000597 8 Specialist 1 “joked” that she believed “all veterans were crazy” and suggested that all veterans had PTSD. Complainant further noted that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 expressed, during a staff meeting, her belief about veterans having PTSD and her dislike of the preference points veterans received during the hiring process. Lastly, Complainant explained that he had disclosed, in confidence, to Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 that he had PTSD, but she continued to make comments about people with PTSD. However, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 denied making a joke about veterans and PTSD or hiring practices and veterans. However, she acknowledged that during a dinner, several analysts who were present, all veterans, shared stories that they had PTSD. She further acknowledged that an employee, who she did not recall, jokingly stated, “I have PTSD.” Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 denied ever making jokes about veterans or individuals with metal conditions or statements that all veterans were crazy. The Assistant Regional Area Manager acknowledged that she had received on complaint in December 2019 regarding Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 commenting to a co-worker about not taking medication. Although Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 did not recall the incident, the Assistant Regional Area Manager informed her that the incident was unacceptable and thereafter, the Assistant Regional Area Manager received no further complaints about Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1. Comments about Filing a Complaint (allegation 1c) Complainant testified that on January 7, 2020, he had informed Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 of his intention to file a complaint with his Congressional Representative as well as a complaint against Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 for workplace harassment. Complainant indicated that he asked Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 to coordinate a meeting with the Assistant Regional Area Manager so that he could make a formal complaint, and Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 responded, “what would you do if they fired you for making a complaint?” Complainant explained that he informed Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 that it would be “unlawful” for management to terminate him for filing a grievance and Complainant informed her that he would file an EEO complaint if he was terminated. Complainant acknowledged that he and Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 were the only two individuals present for this meeting. Thereafter, Complainant noted that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 instructed him to address his complaint with his then immediate supervisor - Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3. However, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 denied ever asking Complainant what he would do if he was fired from filing a complaint. Additionally, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 testified that Complainant never informed her that he intended to file a grievance or that he wanted to speak with the Assistant Regional Area Manager. Nor did Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 recall instructing Complainant to speak with Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3. 2022000597 9 The Assistant Regional Area Manager also indicated that she was unaware that Complainant wanted to speak with her regarding a grievance or that Complainant wanted to file a complaint against Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1. The Assistant Regional Area Manager noted that Complainant had a habit of not following the chain-of-command and would ask Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 instead of Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 for help. Although the Assistant Regional Area Manager could not recall the dates or the specifics, she did indicate that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 had brought concerns to her, and the Assistant Regional Area Manager encouraged Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 not get involved and instruct Complainant to follow his chain-of-command. Congressional Complaint (allegation 1d) Complainant testified that on January 8, 2020, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 2 asked him to delay filing his complaint with his Congressional Representative until after he had spoken with the Assistant Regional Area Manager. On January 9, 2020, Complainant stated that Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 requested that Complainant delay filing his EEO complaint and Congressional inquiry for twenty-four hours so that Complainant could meet with the Regional Director, and Complainant could feel free to proceed with filing a grievance after the meeting with the Regional Director. Complainant stated that he felt pressured to comply. Supervisory Administrative Specialists 1 and 2 indicated that they did not recall Complainant ever stating that he intended to file a grievance. Additionally, Supervisory Administrative Specialist 3 stated that he had no knowledge that Complainant was trying to file a grievance. We acknowledge that many of the statements Complainant alleges the management officials said directly conflict with the statements provided by the management officials. Here, however, Complainant effectively waived his right to have this matter considered before an EEOC AJ. If Complainant had indeed elected a hearing, then the AJ may have developed the record more through discovery and cross-examination of witness. Moreover, we lack the possible benefits of an EEOC AJ’s credibility determinations. We are left with Complainant’s version of events and that of Agency management which are completely at odds. As such, the evidence of record was at best, in equipoise. See Complainant v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122134 (Sep. 24, 2014) citing Lore v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120113283 (Sep. 13, 2013) and Brand v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102187 (Aug. 23, 2012). We find that considering the allegations at issue even as true, Complainant has not shown that evidence of his disability or retaliatory animus motivated management’s actions towards Complainant. We note that based on his own testimony, Complainant acknowledges that Supervisory Administrate Specialist 1 allegedly pressured several employees, not just Complainant, on working overtime. Additionally, the record supports that Complainant and his co-workers who were also veterans openly discussed their war-related trauma in front of Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1. 2022000597 10 However, the Assistant Regional Area Manager testified that she had not received any complaints about Supervisory Administrative Specialist 1 making remarks about veterans and PTSD. Although Complainant alleged that management officials attempted to delay him from filing a complaint so that they could terminate his employment, the record supports that Complainant’s termination was based on his unacceptable conduct, not the Agency’s alleged desire to prevent Complainant an opportunity to file a complaint. Aside from Complainant’s bare assertions which are contradicted by management testimony, there is no evidence that the disputed actions were motivated in any way by Complainant’s disability or prior protected EEO activity, and therefore, Complainant’s claim of discriminatory harassment is precluded. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 019982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination or unlawful retaliation occurred. 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. 2022000597 11 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. 2022000597 12 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 December 12, 2022 Date