[Redacted], Winford M., 1 Complainant,v.Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (U.S. Marshals Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2019004079 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Winford M.,1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (U.S. Marshals Service), Agency. Appeal No. 2019004079 Agency No. USM-2017-00285 DECISION On May 21, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s April 19, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Detention Enforcement Officer, GS-7, at the Agency’s Southern District of New York (SDNY) facility in New York, New York. On February 23, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and/or a hostile work environment/harassment on the bases of race/national origin (Hispanic), disability, age, and/or reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2019004079 2 1. On February 8, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor accused him of lying about his time and attendance; 2. On February 2, 2017 and January 17, 2017, Complainant’s leave requests were denied; 3. On December 27, 2016, Complainant was charged with Absent Without Leave (AWOL); 4. Sometime after December 16, 2016, Complainant’s face was removed from an office picture; 5. On March 15, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor threatened to charge him with Absence Without Leave (AWOL) if he reported to work late that day; 6. On March 20, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor accused him of needing to use more professionalism; 7. On March 24, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor denied his leave request and did not approve the request until Complainant showed him a copy of his leave balances; 8. On June 27, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor questioned him about his time and attendance and threatened to change Complainant’s reporting time on the official sign-in sheet; and 9. On August 5, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor sent him emails at 11:15 pm concerning leave for medical appointments and instructed Complainant to correct a doctor’s note and/or provide a response within 72 hours. The Agency dismissed claims (1) and (3) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(4) as having been pursued in negotiated grievance proceeding. It accepted the remaining allegations and began an investigation. Subsequently, Complainant requested the following allegations events be added to his complaint: 10. While reviewing his submitted retirement papers, on September 25, 2017, Complainant noticed that a disciplinary letter (unrelated to his retirement package) was submitted to the Agency retirement specialist by his first-level supervisor, which Complainant alleged was an attempt to sabotage his disability retirement; 11. Complainant served on an unfair leave restriction for over a year without an evaluation of his attendance in order to be removed from the leave restriction; 12. A sign in/sign out sheet implemented for Complainant’s use was abolished by management after Complainant’s retirement on October 28, 2017; 13. On January 3, 2018, Complainant’s request for retirement credentials was denied and, on February 8, 2018, his request for reconsideration of the retirement credentials was also denied; and 14. On October 10, 2017, a Human Resources Manager made degrading comments about Complainant while on a recorded conference call with Labor Relations and Union personnel: "That's my dog Louie, I locked him in the room because he doesn't have a college degree." 2019004079 3 The Agency initially accepted claims (10) through (13) and dismissed claim (14) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. Subsequently, it dismissed claim (11) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(4) as having been pursued in negotiated grievance proceeding. The Agency’s investigation produced the following pertinent results: Complainant attested that he had a sinus and asthma disability. Complainant’s supervisor (Supervisor) attested that Complainant was on a light duty status. Regarding his prior protected EEO activity, Complainant attested that he was part of a class action against the Agency and had filed multiple complaints involving members of his current chain of command. Members of management gave varying responses regarding Complainant’s prior EEO activity, but some indicated they had some knowledge and/or were involved. Complainant attested to his allegations regarding leave and time and attendance matters, as noted above. He attested that, on January 7, 2017, he requested 8 hours of leave for January 18, 2017 to attend an appointment, but, on January 12, 2017, it was denied because he did not have enough leave at the time of the request. He attested that Supervisor instructed him to work 4 hours prior to his appointment and take 4 hours Leave Without Pay (LWOP). He attested that, following this conversation, he walked away, and Supervisor called him back and berated him, including stating, in a loud tone, “Aren’t you the one that wanted his face upon the memorial?” Supervisor attested that Complainant’s original leave request for 8 hours was not granted because Complainant asked to resubmit his leave request to take 4 hours LWOP and 4 hours sick leave. He attested that Complainant submitted the request for 4 hours sick leave on January 18, 2017. Supervisor explained that the request was denied because Complainant was unwilling to provide a reason for the sick leave request, which was a requirement. Supervisor1 denied Complainant’s allegations about his tone and volume. He also denied making the statement about Complainant wanting his face on the memorial. Complainant attested that there was a snowstorm on March 14, 2017, and, on the next morning, he called Supervisor1 to let him know that he was stuck in ice. He attested that Supervisor1 told Complainant the excuse was not sufficient and if he was late, he would be charged AWOL and referred to Internal Affairs (IA). Complainant attested that he got his car out of the snow and raced to work to get there on time and, since he was on time, nothing else was said to him. Supervisor denied threatening Complainant with being charged AWOL. He attested that Complainant was on a leave restriction and he explained to Complainant that his explanation was insufficient and put him at risk of disciplinary action if he were late. A Leave Restriction Letter dated September 28, 2016, from a Supervisory Deputy to Complainant indicates that Complainant was being provided the letter to address his excessive absenteeism and to notify him that a possible abuse of leave was developing. 2019004079 4 It indicates that Complainant had previously been noticed that his excessive absenteeism was adversely affecting daily staffing and employee morale and, because of this, a review of Complainant’s leave records was conducted and showed he had a current annual leave balance of -1.15 hours and a current sick leave balance of 0 hours. It also indicates that Complainant had been previously counseled that Agency policy requires that he request leave in advance, except in the case of an emergency and, although he had been counseled about his excessive leave and how it disrupts operations, Complainant continued to request leave without sufficient leave balances and without advance notice. It details Complainant’s leave procedures going forward, including that he must receive prior approval of sick leave. It indicates that emergency sick leave is expected to rarely occur, and Complainant must provide medical documentation if he uses emergency sick leave. It indicates that, if Complainant’s leave request is denied or he fails to provide acceptable medical documentation, he will be charged AWOL. It also provides that all annual leave must be requested at least 24 hours in advance and Complainant will not be allowed to take annual leave or LWOP when arriving late, unless there is an emergency, which will be determined by management. It also provides that LWOP will not be approved unless in accordance with FMLA. Complainant attested that, on March 20, 2017, he requested Union time for later that day and Supervisor1 responded that he may not be able to approve the request because he did not submit it an advance. Complainant attested that he corrected Supervisor and told him that he requested official time and not time off. He attested that Supervisor told Complainant that he needed to up his level of professionalism and, when Complainant asked how he was being unprofessional, Supervisor made the statement again and walked away. Supervisor attested that Complainant requested official time from noon to 4 pm on the same date of his request, which he had been cautioned against doing because it does not provide leadership sufficient time to adjust for his absence. Supervisor also explained that this was in accordance with the Union agreement. Supervisor attested that Complainant’s tone and demeanor directed towards him was unprofessional and he addressed it during their conversation. Complainant attested that, on March 2, 2017, he requested annual leave for March 31, 2017, and, on March 24, 2017, Supervisor denied that request because he only had 6:15 hours of annual leave in his leave bank and stated Complainant had been counseled several times that he must have sufficient leave balance for requested leave. Complainant attested that when he reviewed his leave balance, he had 14.5 hours and, after showing this to Supervisor, he approved the leave. Supervisor attested that Complainant is subject to a leave restriction due to excessive absenteeism. He explained that he had a responsibility to follow the leave restriction and noted that, since the leave restriction had been in place, Complainant had numerous violations. He attested that the requested leave would have created a negative leave balance, which would have violated the leave restriction letter; however, after listening to Complainant’s explanation and consulting the time keeper, he advised Complainant to resubmit the leave request because he would earn 8 hours of leave during the same period and approved this request. 2019004079 5 Complainant attested that, on July 27, 2017, he realized he was going to be late and he called the operations desk to let them know. He attested that he was signed in around 7:40 am and, afterwards, Supervisor asked him how long he was going to take to get to his post. Complainant attested that he replied that he needed time to get dressed and he was in uniform at about 7:50 am. Complainant attested that Supervisor changed his sign in time to 7:51 am because, prior to that, he was not at his post and ready. Supervisor denied changing Complainant’s time on the sign-in sheet. He also attested that the Union agreement does not allow employees time to change into their uniforms. Complainant attested that, on Saturday, August 5, 2018, Supervisor emailed him at 11:15 pm regarding leave for medical appointments and directed him to correct a doctor’s note and/or provide a response within 72 hours, when his work hours were Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4 pm. He also attested that he had been using regular sick leave for doctor’s appointments and Supervisor had been demanding that he provide medical documentation before and after his appointments, which caused him to get into arguments with medical personnel who refused to provide documentation prior to an appointment. Supervisor attested that the leave date at issue was July 28, 2017. He also attested that Complainant had informed him that he does not check his email over the weekend and the expectation was that Complainant would receive the email on Monday morning, which would then begin the 72-hour time period. Supervisor generally denied treating Complainant differently from other employees, but he acknowledged that he had issues with Complainant regarding his excessive absenteeism and tardiness and, as a result, has had to ensure that Complainant complies with the requirements of his leave restriction. Step One Grievance Decisions dated March 10, 2017 and February 3, 2017 address Complainant’s having been charged with of AWOL on February 8, 2017 and December 27, 2016. Complainant alleged that the leave restriction unfairly disciplined him for an indefinite period of time. Arbitration documents regarding Complainant’s grievance about the leave restriction letter having no ending date are of record and indicate the Arbitrator found in favor of the Agency. Management explained that Complainant had been counseled frequently that the leave restriction could be removed if he demonstrated that he could consistently follow established leave requirements, but the leave restriction remained in place because Complainant did not demonstrate that he could consistently follow established leave requirements. 2019004079 6 Complainant alleged that he was intentionally left out of a photograph on the Agency’s 9/11 memorial. He attested that he asked management about it. The US Marshall (Marshall) attested that he gave final approval for the memorial project to be made but he did not select the photos. He attested that an independent vendor determined what photos would be used, based on space and artistic determination. He attested that, upon hearing of Complainant’s issue, he suggested that Complainant submit a photograph for inclusion on the memorial table, which Complainant declined to do. He also attested that not all photographs or articles donated by employees were used as part of the memorial. Complainant also attested to his allegations regarding events that occurred in relation to his disability retirement. He alleged that his retirement package included disciplinary information, including leave restriction letters from 2013 and 2016, emails concerning formal counseling related to leave, and a 2012 memorandum outlining performance concerns and counseling. He alleged that Supervisor submitted this information to sabotage his retirement. Supervisor attested that he submitted the documents at issue as part of Complainant’s retirement paperwork. He explained that he submitted Complainant’s SF-3112B, Supervisor’s Statement in Connection with Disability Retirement, and the instructions on that form indicate that he was to describe how Complainant’s conduct was unsatisfactory and attach supporting documentation. Complainant alleged that he was the only one being watched by management with respect to his signing in and out and alleged that the sign out sheet was abolished when he retired. Management explained that the sign in/out sheet was implemented to encourage operational employees to arrive and depart work on time and all operational employees were required to use it. However, it was brought to management’s attention that it was damaging morale and they decided to abolish the sheet to improve office morale and performance. Complainant attested that, on October 17, 2017, his request for retirement credentials was denied. He attested that his requested reconsideration was also denied. A Supervisory Criminal Investigator attested that Complainant’s request for a retirement badge and credentials was denied because of substantial allegations of misconduct at the time of his separation. She further attested that the misconduct was significant enough that granting retirement credentials was determined to not be in the best interest of the Agency. She attested that there were no changes in the initial denial that would warrant a reconsideration. Supervisor attested that, prior to Complainant’s retirement, he reported Complainant’s misconduct to Internal Affairs for repeatedly violating Agency policy, including violations of AWOL, falsifying an official document, lack of candor, failing to follow supervisory instructions, and exhibiting disrespectful and unprofessional conduct. Complainant was still subject to the leave restriction upon retirement. 2019004079 7 At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.2 In response, the Agency asserts that its final decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws to conclude that Complainant had not been unlawfully discriminated against. The Agency asks that we affirm its final decision. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Standard of Review As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). Dismissed Claims An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). When the complainant does not allege he or she is aggrieved within the meaning of the regulations, the agency shall dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). 2 On June 19, 2019, Complainant submitted a request for additional time to submit a brief or argument in support of his appeal. We denied this request on June 20, 2019. Nevertheless, Complainant submitted an untimely brief. 2019004079 8 EEO Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(1)(4) provides, in pertinent part, that the agency shall dismiss a complaint where the complainant has raised the matter in an negotiated grievance procedure that permits allegations of discrimination or in an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board and § 1614.301 or § 1614.302 indicates that the complainant has elected to pursue the non-EEO process. Here, as discussed above, the record shows that Complainant elected to pursue claims (1) and (3), which addressed his objections to leave denials, and (11), which addressed his objection to being indefinitely subject to the leave restriction, in negotiated proceedings that permit allegations of discrimination. Therefore, we find these claims were properly dismissed. We also find that Complainant’s allegations in claim (14) involving his overhearing a conversation that allegedly included derogatory comments about him does not allege sufficient facts, which, if proven true and considered together, would establish that Complainant suffered a harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. The claim, as written, without more, simply does not state a viable claim of discrimination or unlawful retaliation. Therefore, we find this claim was also properly dismissed. Harassment Claim In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment.” See also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. Inc., 23 U.S. 75 (1998). The Court explained that an “objectively hostile or abusive work environment [is created when] a reasonable person would find [it] hostile or abusive” and the complainant subjectively perceives it as such. Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Thus, a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment. Here, Complainant’s allegations reflect disagreements with routine managerial decisions, such as matters relating to time and attendance and/or leave and the granting of retirement credentials; trivial slights or petty annoyances, such as being left out of a photo on a memorial; and being spoken to in a manner Complainant found displeasing, such as being spoken to loudly, being told to use professionalism, or overhearing off-hand comments from someone’s conversation. Without evidence of an unlawful animus, we have found that similar disputes do not amount to unlawful harassment. See Complainant v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122676 (Dec. 18, 2014) (The record established that the issues between the complainant and the supervisor were because of personality conflicts and fundamental disagreements over how work should be done and how employees should be supervised, and there is no indication that the supervisor was motivated by discriminatory animus towards the complainant's race, sex. or age); Lassiter v. Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between a supervisor and a complainant do not rise 2019004079 9 to the level of harassment); and Phillips v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960030 (July 12, 1996) (the allegation that a supervisor had “verbally attacked” the complainant on one occasion, attempted to charge him with AWOL, and disagreed with the time the complainant entered into a sign in log, were found to be insufficient to state a harassment claim). Although Complainant asserts that the Agency acted discriminately, there is insufficient evidence to support the assertion that Complainant's race, national origin, disability, age, or prior protected EEO activity played a role in the incidents at issue. Thus, Complainant's allegations are insufficient to establish a claim of discriminatory harassment. Disparate Treatment Claims A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For a complainant to prevail, he or she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). 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). Here, Complainant’s allegations regarding being denied leave and being denied retirement credentials give rise to claims of disparate treatment. However, even assuming arguendo that he established a prima facia case with respect to these allegations, his claims still fail. We find the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. With respect to being denied leave, the Agency explained that, due to his habitual absence and tardiness, Complainant was placed on a leave restriction, which contained additional procedures for his using leave, including requesting leave at least 24 hours in advance and, in the case of sick leave, providing a reason, along with medical documentation. The Agency explained that Complainant’s leave requests were generally denied because he either failed or refused to follow leave procedures. 2019004079 10 Regarding his retirement credentials, the Agency explained that Complainant’s request for a retirement badge and credentials was denied because of substantial allegations of misconduct at the time of his separation that were significant enough that granting retirement credentials was determined to not be in the best interest of the Agency. Although Complainant has alleged discriminatory and/or retaliatory motivation, the record does not establish that his race, national origin, disability, age, or prior EEO activity was a reason for any of the Agency’s actions. Therefore, he has failed to establish a claim of disparate treatment. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. 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. 2019004079 11 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 June 22, 2021 Date