[Redacted], Zonia C., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 22, 2021Appeal No. 2020004244 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 22, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Zonia C.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Appeal No. 2020004244 Hearing Nos. 430-2016-00485X 430-2016-00534X Agency Nos. 2004-0652-2015104621 2004-0652-2016101494 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 June 12, 2020, final order 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. 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 order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Administrative Support Assistant (GS-7) at the Agency’s Hunter Holmes McGuire Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. Complainant stated that she received a finding of discrimination on an earlier EEO complaint and the hearing for compensatory damages was held on July 2, 2015. 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. 2020004244 2 Complainant stated that her first-line supervisor (S1) (age 49, African American, female) was angry when she learned of the finding of discrimination.2 Report of Investigation (ROI) 1 at 75. S1 stated that on July 17, 2015, she discovered that a task had not been completed in a timely manner and sent Complainant a message. S1 indicated that on July 20, 2015, she approached Complainant to discuss the task. ROI 1 at 88. Complainant stated that S1 tried to bully her when she physically pushed Complainant’s hand and took control of her computer mouse. Complainant alleged that S1 also yelled and invaded her personal space, and when she asked for a five-minute break, S1 responded that she was “on a roll.” ROI 1 at 75-6. S1 noted that approximately one week prior to a meeting scheduled for July 23, 2015, she spoke with Complainant about the need to be at the meeting on time. S1 stated that in the past, Complainant arrived towards the end of the meetings, but S1 indicated that it would be helpful to attend the entire meeting and she discussed the matter with Complainant. S1 detailed that Complainant agreed to be on time, but she arrived one hour and fifteen minutes late. ROI at 92-9. On July 24, 2015, S1 issued Complainant a coaching memorandum regarding two issues: (1) Courteous and Respectful Speech and (2) Attending Meetings on Time. S1 noted that on July 20, 2015, S1 spoke with Complainant about a problem with a spreadsheet, but Complainant was not responsive to the discussion and stated, “you are getting on my nerves.” S1 stated that she found this statement to be highly inappropriate, disrespectful, and unacceptable, and that her expectation was that the disrespectful behavior would stop immediately. S1 asked Complainant to attend a meeting on July 23, 2015, starting at 9:30 a.m., but Complainant did not arrive until 10:45 a.m. Complainant responded that she was delayed due to a visitor and the need to obtain an Agency-provided vehicle to drive her to the meeting location. S1 requested that, in the future, she would like Complainant to carefully plan and prepare to be on time for meetings. ROI 1 at 134-5. On December 18, 2015, the Agency opened a vacancy announcement for a Human Resources Specialist (Employee Relations/Labor Relations), GS-0201/7-11, under vacancy announcement number VHA-652-16-CDE-1583580. ROI 2 at 190-97. Complainant applied for the position but was not interviewed. Complainant noted that she was informed by a Human Resources Office (HRO) (age 53, African American, female) that she was not selected for the position, and that the selected Human Resources Specialist (HRS) (age 44, White, female, no prior EEO activity) was chosen due to her payroll experience. ROI 2 at 81-3. 2 S1 stated that she learned that a judgment was made against the Agency for Complainant’s claim related to her performance rating based on a “technicality” when the Agency did not complete the investigation due to a lapse in the contract with the investigator. ROI 1 at 91. 2020004244 3 EEO Complaint #2004-0652-2015104621 (Claim A) On October 26, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to harassment on the bases of race (Biracial/Native American), sex (female), and age (58), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (Agency case #2004-0652-2013100586), when: 1. on July 20, 2015, S1 yelled at Complainant, pushed Complainant’s hand off her computer mouse to gain access to work data, and denied Complainant’s request for five minutes to gather herself; and 2. on July 24, 2015, S1 gave Complainant a Letter of Coaching for showing up to a staff meeting late.3 EEO Complaint #2004-0652-2016101494 (Claim B) On February 8, 2016, Complainant filed another EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her race, sex, and age, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity, when on or about December 18, 2015, HRO informed Complainant that she was not selected for the position of Human Resources Specialist (GS-0201/07-11), under vacancy announcement VHA-652-16-CDE-1583580. At the conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant with copies of the reports of investigation and notices of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested hearings. The AJ held a hearing on both complaints on June 3, 2019 and November 15, 2019. The AJ issued a decision on June 8, 2020. The AJ found that the Agency’s conduct in the two incidents in claim A were not based on any of Complainant’s protected bases, nor rose to the level of a hostile work environment. For incident 1, the AJ noted that S1 was trying to assist Complainant with updating an important spreadsheet, and there was an ongoing problem with the spreadsheet since December 2013. The AJ stated that Complainant was not receptive to S1’s guidance and stated that S1 was “getting on her nerves.” While Complainant alleged that S1 pushed her hand, the AJ found that S1 conceded that she and Complainant might have reached for the mouse at the same time. Regarding incident 2, the AJ determined that the record showed that the events occurred as S2 described, and the coaching memorandum was not a result of discrimination. The AJ concluded that Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s reasons were pretexts for discrimination. The AJ also found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for claim B. The AJ noted that HRO presented evidence that HRS was more qualified than Complainant. 3 The Agency initially dismissed this complaint for failure to state a claim. The Commission reversed the dismissal and remanded the complaint for processing in Zonia C. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161120 (Apr. 14, 2016). 2020004244 4 For example, while Complainant’s resumé showed that she had some human resources experience, it did not show detailed tasks, actions, or results related to labor management and employee relations. In addition, while the AJ found that the record strongly suggests the possibility that HRS was preselected for the position, there was no evidence of pretext for discrimination, and HRS was qualified based on her experience as a Human Resources Assistant. Further, the AJ noted that Complainant did not believe that payroll experience was a vital component of the position; however, payroll experience was explicitly mentioned in the vacancy announcement. The AJ concluded that the record did not support a finding that Complainant’s non-selection was based on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant filed the instant appeal and filed a brief in support of her appeal. The Agency opposed Complainant’s appeal. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Complainant’s Contentions Through her attorney, Complainant argues that the AJ’s determination that S1 was credible is “unsupported and nonsensical.” Complainant asserts that S1 did not dispute “pushing” Complainant’s hand away and there was no history that Complainant was unable to update the spreadsheet. Complainant states that a witness (W1) corroborated that S1 “jerked” the mouse away from Complainant, and that Complainant reported the incident to W1 within minutes. Complainant also states that the AJ gave no reason for finding Complainant less credible or not credible. Regarding claim B, Complainant argues that the AJ did not address the fact that there was no corroboration for the reasons for the selection and the decision was entirely at HRO’s discretion. As such, Complainant asserts that there should be “considerable skepticism” before finding HRO credible. Complainant also argues that it makes no sense to assign credibility when the AJ found that HRO engaged in preselection, despite HRO’s denial. Complainant asserts that she is better qualified than HRS, as shown by her extensive military experience; several years of experience as a Health Care Manager; and additional years of experience at the Agency. Complainant asserts that the Agency attempted to rationalize the selection with HRS’s payroll experience, but that the position was not a “payroll position,” and that she has “far more knowledge in every aspect of the job.” Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the Agency’s final order. Agency’s Contentions The Agency asserts that the AJ’s decision was sound and well-reasoned, and that Complainant is unable to point to any material errors in his findings or analysis. The Agency argues that Complainant repeatedly challenges the AJ’s credibility determinations, but she presented no evidence to disturb the AJ’s credibility determinations. 2020004244 5 For claim B, the Agency notes that the AJ found that HRO’s testimony was credible as a whole, and he provided a detailed and lengthy discussion of Complainant’s non-selection showing the substantial evidence to support his finding of no discrimination. The Agency requests that the Commission affirm its final order adopting the AJ’s decision. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Credibility Determinations An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony, or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD- 110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015). In this case, the AJ found that S1 and HRO were credible. On appeal, Complainant argues that the AJ’s determination that S1’s testimony was credible was “unsupported and nonsensical,” and that there should be “considerable skepticism” regarding HRO’s credibility. However, Complainant did not show any objective evidence to contradict their testimony, nor show that their testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. Complainant states that W1 corroborated that S1 “jerked” the mouse away from Complainant. However, W1 testified that she was on the telephone with Complainant and only heard Complainant asking for five minutes before the call disconnected, and she did not see S1 push Complainant’s hand. Hearing Transcript (HT) at 107-9. While Complainant alleges that HRO denied engaging in preselection, she did not cite to any evidence showing that HRO denied the preselection, and a review of HRO’s affidavit and hearing testimony does not show that she denied preselecting HRS. As such, we find no reason to disturb the AJ’s credibility determinations. Harassment (Claim A) Harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it results in an alteration of the conditions of a complainant’s employment. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002, at 3 (Mar. 8, 1994). 2020004244 6 To establish a claim of harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998). We find that substantial evidence supports the AJ’s determination that Complainant did not establish that she was harassed by S1 based on her age, race, or sex, or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. Complainant belongs to statutorily protected classes based on her age, race, sex, and prior protected EEO activity, and she was subjected to unwanted conduct. However, Complainant did not establish that the complained of conduct was based on any of her protected categories. For incident 1, Complainant testified that when she and S1 discussed the spreadsheet on July 20, 2015, S1 hovered over her and knocked her hand off her mouse. Complainant testified that she stated, “[S1], you’re getting next to my nerves. Please give me five minutes.” Hearing Transcript (HT) at 127-30. S1 testified that Complainant’s characterization that S1 yelled and pushed Complainant’s hand off the mouse was not correct. HT at 64. As noted above, W1 was on the telephone and she did not witness S1 allegedly knocking/pushing Complainant’s hand. Regarding incident 2, S1 testified that she issued the Coaching memorandum as a way to provide guidance and direction, and she hoped that going forward, Complainant would “do better.” HT 1 at 92-3. S1 confirmed that approximately one week prior to the July 23, 2015 meeting, she instructed Complainant to attend the entire meeting from 9:30-11:30 a.m., and Complainant arrived approximately fifteen minutes prior to the end of the meeting, which ended early at 11:00 a.m. HT at 44-5, 49. We find that Complainant presented no evidence showing that the alleged harassment was due to her age, race, or sex, or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. To ultimately prevail in her claim of retaliatory harassment, Complainant must show that she was subjected to conduct sufficient to dissuade a “reasonable person” from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. See Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, EEOC Notice No. 915.004, § II(B)(3) & n. 137 (Aug. 25, 2016). Only if both elements are present, retaliatory motivation and a chilling effect on protected EEO activity, will the question of Agency liability for reprisal-based harassment present itself. See Janeen S. v. Dep’t of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160024 (Dec. 20, 2017). Even crediting the close temporal proximity of S1’s awareness of the decision for Complainant’s prior EEO complaint and S1’s actions, we find that the conduct was not sufficient to dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in the EEO process. 2020004244 7 To the extent that the coaching memorandum was considered disciplinary, the Commission has long held that “[p]articipation in the EEO process does not shield employees from uniformly applied standards of conduct and performance; nor are the statutory anti-retaliatory provisions a license for employees to engage in misconduct.” Berkner v. Dep’t of Commerce, EEOC Petition No. 0320110022 (June 23, 2011). We note that Complainant does not dispute saying something to the effect that S1 was “getting on her nerves,” or that she did not arrive to the July 23, 2015 meeting until approximately 10:45 a.m., and there is no evidence that the issuance of the Coaching memorandum was discriminatory or retaliatory. In addition, the Commission has held that routine work assignments, instructions, and admonishments do not rise to the level of harassment because they are common workplace occurrences. See Gray v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120091101 (May 13, 2010). Unless it is reasonably established that the common workplace occurrence was somehow abusive or offensive, and that it was taken in order to harass Complainant on the basis of her protected class, we do not find such common workplace occurrences sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of a hostile work environment or harassment as Complainant alleges. See Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130465 (Sept. 12, 2014). Here, we find that the complained of incidents were related to Complainant’s assignments and there is no evidence that S1’s actions were abusive, offensive, or taken in order to harass Complainant based on any of her protected bases. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the AJ’s finding that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to harassment based on her age, race, or sex, or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. Disparate Treatment To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the Agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995). 2020004244 8 Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on her age, race, and sex, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity,4 we find that substantial evidence in the record supports the AJ’s finding that the Agency proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. HRO testified that she selected HRS based on her skills in providing excellent customer service for health benefits and thrift savings plans. HRO testified that HRS also had skills in troubleshooting and working through payroll issues. HT at 217-8. To compare, HRO testified that Complainant’s current experience included scanning records and analyzing errors in submissions, and HRO did not see any experience related to processing personnel actions or health benefits. HRO testified that Complainant responded that she was an “expert” in the job application questionnaire, but HRO did not see that supported by Complainant’s resume. HRO testified that, while Complainant’s resume showed some human resources experience, Complainant did not show that she had the specialized experience required for the position at issue. HT at 224-5, 248-50. We also find that substantial evidence supports the AJ’s finding Complainant has not shown that the proffered reasons were pretexts for discrimination. Pretext can be demonstrated by showing such weaknesses, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the Agency’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence. See Opare-Addo v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (Nov. 20, 2007) (finding that the agency’s explanations were confusing, contradictory, and lacking credibility, which were then successfully rebutted by the complainant), request for recon. denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008). On appeal, Complainant argues that the AJ did not address the fact that there was no corroboration for the reasons for the selection and the decision was entirely at HRO’s discretion. However, an Agency merely has to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and then it is Complainant’s burden to prove that the Agency’s actions were pretext for discrimination. See Complainant v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120123327 (Apr. 28, 2015); Yoon v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Request No. 0520110577 (Dec. 16, 2011); O’Loughlin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Request No. 05980011 (Apr. 26, 2001). In this case, we find that a lack of corroboration for HRO’s reasons for the selection does not prove that her reasons were not worthy of belief. In addition, in a non-selection case, pretext may be found where the complainant’s qualifications are plainly superior to the qualifications of the selectee. See Wasser v. Dep't of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940058 (Nov. 2, 1995); Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981). 4 HRO testified that she was aware of Complainant’s prior EEO complaint because she was involved with changing Complainant’s performance appraisal, but she could not remember the timeframe. HT at 226. For the purposes of this decision, we will assume that HRO was aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity at the time of the non-selection. 2020004244 9 Complainant asserts that she was better qualified than HRS, as shown by her extensive military experience; several years of experience as a Health Care Manager; and additional years of experience at the Agency. However, Complainant did not specify how her experiences provided superior qualifications for the Human Resources Specialist position. Complainant also argues that the Agency attempted to rationalize the selection with HRS’s payroll experience, but that the position was not a “payroll position,” and that she has “far more knowledge in every aspect of the job.” However, we note that payroll experience was one of many qualifications that were considered for the position, and that Complainant did explain how she was “far more knowledgeable in every aspect” for the position. We find that Complainant did not demonstrate that her qualifications were plainly superior to HRS’s qualifications, such that the disparities in their qualifications were of such weight and significance that no reasonable person could have chosen HRS over Complainant. See Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1195, 1197-1198 (2006). While Complainant alleged that HRO preselected HRS, the Commission has found that even if preselection occurred, it would not be unlawful unless Complainant can show that the preselection was driven by discriminatory animus. See Nickens v. Nat’l Aeronautics Space Admin., EEOC Request No. 05950329 (Feb. 23, 1996). Complainant did not present evidence to show that any preselection was due to a discriminatory animus. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the AJ’s finding that Complainant did not establish that the Agency discriminated against her based on her age, race, or sex, or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, when she was not selected for the position of a Human Resources Specialist. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision finding that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment based on her age, race, sex, or in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. 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. 2020004244 10 If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). 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. 2020004244 11 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 November 22, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation