Regina Murry, Complainant,v.Paul Prouty, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 10, 2009
0120083575 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 10, 2009)

0120083575

12-10-2009

Regina Murry, Complainant, v. Paul Prouty, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency.


Regina Murry,

Complainant,

v.

Paul Prouty,

Acting Administrator,

General Services Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083575

Hearing No. 310-2004-00304X

Agency No. 22-R7-STF-RKM-C0I-01

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's July 16, 2008 final

action concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint

alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

791 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.

BACKGROUND

Complainant started working at the agency in December 1989. Throughout

her employment, complainant had been reassigned to a number of

positions at the agency, many of which occurred at her personal request.

Complainant worked in the agency's Human Resources and Program Support

Division (HRPS) which had two main organizations: (1) Human Resources

consisting of Classification and Staffing, Labor Relations, Employee

Relations and Training; and (2) Program Support consisting of the

National Forms Center, Administrative Services, Business Service Center

and Regional Acquisitions. In May 1999, after it was determined that

there was a lack of work for complainant in her job at the time, she

was assigned to the National Forms Center, Program Support in the HRPS

division as a GS-5 Supply Technician.

Complainant protested the assignment to the National Forms Center,

a warehouse facility, and requested sick leave. Complainant's sick

leave was approved and she did not report to the National Forms Center

in May 1999. In May 1999, complainant applied for the agency's

voluntary leave transfer program and her application was approved.

Complainant's application contained a certification from Doctor A stating

that since February 1, 1999, she has suffered from panic disorder without

agoraphobia,1 adjustment disorder unspecified, and occupational problems.

The application also noted that complainant had a negative sick leave

balance of 231.7 hours and had used 240 hours of advanced sick leave.

On May 13, 1999, complainant sent an electronic mail message to the

Director of Human Resources and Program Support, her third level

supervisor, inquiring into a vacant GS-06 Business Assistant position

which was apparently open at the time. Complainant stated that she was

qualified for this assignment. The Director responded that he could

not provide the position as a reassignment because it would amount to

a promotion, which he stated would be illegal.

On June 14, 1999, the agency issued a memorandum entitled "Excessive

absenteeism/Request for Medical Documentation" signed by S1, complainant's

supervisor at the National Forms Center. The memorandum noted that

between January 1999 and June 6, 1999, complainant had taken 245 hours

of annual leave and 357 hours of advanced sick leave. The document

also stated complainant received 48 hours of donated leave and 98

hours of Leave Without Pay (for a total of 748 hours). The memorandum

noted complainant had been unavailable for duty, but acknowledged

that the circumstances were "seemingly" out of complainant's control.

The memorandum stated complainant was to report to work on June 25, 1999.

The memorandum referenced a letter from complainant's doctor describing

complainant's "total incapacitation." The letter stated that based on

the limited medical information from complainant's doctor on May 29,

1999, complainant should provide a more detailed report of her condition

addressing: (1) the nature and extend of the medical condition and how it

impacts performance of the duties of the position; (2) an estimated date

of full or partial recovery with any physical limitations, restrictions

or recommended accommodations; and (3) an explanation for the medical

basis for any conclusions and prospect for suffering sudden or subtle

incapacitation while performing her duties.

In a June 24, 1999 letter, Doctor A released complainant to return to

work on a modified schedule of five hours per day for the next thirty

days and stated she would be reevaluated after 30 days to determine if

she can progress to working eight hours per day. Thereafter complainant

reported to the National Forms Center in July 1999.

In an October 14, 1999 letter, Doctor A explained that complainant

has been seen in the office since February 1, 1999, for "supportive"

individual medical-cognitive psychotherapy. Doctor A stated that

complainant's "healing process has been impeded by the unjust prolonging

of her 'hearing.'" The doctor opined that complainant will require two

to three years of psychoanalytical therapy twice weekly.

In a November 26, 1999 letter, Doctor A stated that complainant "requires

medication to manage anxiety, insomnia, and depression." The doctor

noted complainant's "therapeutic plan continues to be seriously impeded

by continuous unhealthy work-related situations." The doctor stated

"working in a hostile and hazardous environment" makes work performance

difficult and places complainant at risk for Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder. Doctor A reiterated the "medical recommendations" made in

her October 14, 1999 letter.

In a May 9, 2000 letter Doctor A requested complainant be granted

a reasonable accommodation in the form of leave under the Family

Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for aggravation of a preexisting condition.

Doctor A attached Form WH-380, Certification of Health Care Provider,

which stated complainant has a serious health condition. The form did

not respond to any of the questions listed on the form and simply stated

"see attached."2

The agency responded to Doctor A's May 9, 2000 request on May 15,

2000, and approved FMLA leave for complainant from May 1 to May 31,

2000, to cover absences for medical reasons. The agency stated when

it is determined complainant can return to work, she may request and be

considered for jobs for which she is qualified.

Doctor A released complainant to return to work effective June 5, 2000.

Doctor A requested complainant be returned to an environment which is

"safe" and "will enhance the complainant's overall performance."

On June 7, 2000, the agency responded to the June 2, 2000 letter

from Doctor A releasing complainant to work effective June 5, 2000.

The agency noted that Doctor A requested complainant be provided a work

environment that is safe and that will enhance her overall performance.

The agency stated that to allow complainant to ease back into the work

environment, she has been temporarily assigned to the office of S2, her

second level supervisor, through June 16, 2000. The agency noted the

"temporary assignment is only supported by a few limited work projects

and cannot be justified on a continuing basis." The letter stated that

at the end of the assignment complainant would be expected to report to

her permanent work center at the National Forms Center on June 19, 2000.

The letter noted that once she returns to the National Forms Center she

should advise the agency of any concerns that her work environment is

not safe.

The record contains an "Emergency After Care Instruction Sheet" dated

July 28, 2000, signed by Doctor B of the John Peter Smith Hospital which:

(1) lists instructions for complainant's medication; (2) notes a follow

up appointment; and (3) recommends complainant not return to her "current

work environment." The form also contained a post-it note attached to

the Instruction Sheet recommending that complainant "not return to current

work environment (warehouse depot)." The record contains a "Physician's

Statement" certifying that complainant was treated at John Peter Smith

Hospital from July 28, 2000, through July 31, 2000. The statement also

excuses complainant from work from July 27, 2000, through July 31, 2000,

and states patient "is not to return to warehouse depot as work area is

not suitable for her continued mental and physical well being."

The record contains an August 29, 2000 letter from Doctor C. Doctor C

requested complainant be excused from work from August 29 through

September 1, 2000.

Doctor C wrote an April 18, 2001 letter explaining that complainant

suffers from generalized anxiety disorder with panic agoraphobia and

slight depressive features. The doctor noted complainant's symptoms "have

been better controlled with a preventative medication called Effexor"

which complainant takes on a daily basis. The doctor noted complainant

also takes Clonazepam as needed which "will calm her mood within an hour

and will continue to calm her mood for the next eight to twelve hours."

The doctor noted that he reviewed her position description and critical

elements and stated that she "is reasonably able to perform her duties as

long as her panic disorder is not provoked." With regard to her request

for reasonable accommodation, the doctor stated that "[w]hatever allows

her to be free from conflict or things that will provoke her anxiety

disorder and panic attacks will allow her to be more effective in her

work."

The record reveals complainant suffered several panic attacks at work

which resulted in a call for an ambulance and assistance by paramedics at

the work site and later treatment at the hospital. During the relevant

time, complainant made several requests for reassignment out of the

National Forms Center due to the riveting noise from printers in her

work area and the presence of rats in the work area. Complainant also

requested to change her work hours stating that she could not arrive to

work at 7:00 a.m. since she was still under the influence of medications

taken to reliever her insomnia. Additionally, complainant requested

to work from home at least part of the day to help with her difficulty

getting to work.

On May 21, 2002, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that

she was discriminated against on the bases of race, color, national

origin, disability, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.

The agency defined complainant's complaint as alleging that she was

denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation in approximately May

1999 and March 2000.

On July 8, 2002, the agency dismissed complainant's complaint on the

grounds that it stated the same claim already pending before the agency.

Complainant filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of her complaint.

In EEOC Appeal No. 01A24978 (November 3, 2003), the Commission found

complainant did not raise the same claim as was already pending before

the agency. Accordingly, the Commission vacated the agency's final

action and remanded the complaint for further processing.

At the conclusion of the investigation on the remanded complaint,

complainant was provided with a copy of the report of investigation and

notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing and the AJ held a

hearing on September 5 - 6, 2007. The AJ issued a decision on May 29,

2008.

In his decision, the AJ listed the issue to be decided as: on January 30,

2002, while reviewing a previous EEO complaint, complainant became aware

that there were positions available during the period of May 1999, through

November 2000 (and continuing), to which she could have been reassigned

that would have honored her request for reasonable accommodation of her

disability. The AJ noted complainant also alleged that the failure to

offer her these reassignments was motivated by discrimination because

of her race, disability, and in reprisal for prior participation in the

EEO process.

The AJ found complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination

based upon her race and in reprisal for her participation in prior

EEO activity. With regard to her claim of disability discrimination,

the AJ recognized that complainant suffers from debilitating migraine

headaches, anxiety/panic attacks and a sleep disorder, which even with

medications as mitigating measures, results in frequent trips to the

emergency room and taking many days for full recovery. The AJ noted

complainant states that she cannot sleep, which makes it difficult

for her to come to work and suffers from agoraphobia which prevents

her from coming out in public, precluding complainant from performing

many of the responsibilities which constitute "major life activities."

The AJ found complainant was a qualified individual with a disability.

The AJ noted that complainant made several requests to be moved into a

position outside the National Forms Center. The agency maintained that

complainant's reassignment to the National Forms Center was the result

of her failure to complete assignments and her absence from work for long

periods of time without explanation. The agency acknowledged it received

some complaints from complainant about rats in her work station, and

stated it contacted an exterminator each time to deal with the problem.

The agency asserted that complainant's work station was a warehouse

facility where such infestations are likely to occur. The agency also

maintained that the workspace requested by complainant to avoid noise was

actually worse for her than her current workspace, since it was narrow

and contained the only telephone and facsimile equipment in the building,

which necessitated constant traffic by employees in the building.

With regard to complainant's request to work from home, the agency noted

that there were no clerks who worked at home, and the only computers for

work at home were given to employees in the position of GS-09 or higher.

The AJ noted that the agency explained that complainant's request to work

at home was incompatible with her actual duties, which required the use

of computer connections only available at the forms center facility.

With regard to her request to work a flexible schedule, the AJ noted

that the agency stated that the forms center closed at 3:30 p.m. and

there were few employees working after that time. The agency also

stated that allowing complainant to work at the center alone was not an

option for safety reasons, since complainant had already demonstrated

the potential for having dangerous seizures/panic attacks at work which

sometimes required serious medical attention.

With regard to her request for reassignment, the AJ noted that the

agency's Lead Employment Specialist searched within the region four

to five times and never found a position into which complainant could

be reassigned. The Lead Employment Specialist explained that the agency

was shifting away from administrative positions due to the increased use

of technology. The agency also stated it undertook two "hard searches"

nationwide for positions for complainant and no positions were found.

With regard to the two positions filled by Employee 1 and Employee 2, the

AJ found that these were not new vacancies. The AJ noted that there were

no applications for the positions filled by Employee 1 and Employee 2;

rather, they were incumbent employees who received an upgrade. The AJ

did not find complainant was discriminated against on any of the bases

alleged in her complaint.

The AJ also noted that complainant claimed that she was subjected to

discrimination in reprisal for prior protected activity when she received

performance counseling by her first level supervisor. The AJ noted that

there were never any adverse actions which flowed from those performance

counseling sessions. The AJ found that the reprisal allegations fail for

lack of an adverse action. While the AJ noted that there were subsequent

adverse actions taken against complainant, he found none of them impact

the issues of this particular case.

Despite complainant's contentions that the agency did not engage in the

interactive process, the AJ found the agency considered accommodations for

complainant's medical conditions. The AJ found there was no alternative

schedule available for complainant which did not include the requirement

to change the schedules of other employees in order to allow complainant

to work eight full hours without a 7:00 a.m. start time. The AJ noted

that changing the schedules of other employees was not required under

the Rehabilitation Act and that permitting complainant to take leave was

the only other possible accommodation. The AJ noted the agency provided

complainant the opportunity to take leave on an unlimited basis which

allowed her to perform the essential functions of her position.

Finally, the AJ noted that Agency Exhibit #37, Request for Leave Donation,

consisting of an April 24, 2001 electronic mail message, described

complainant's diagnosed medical conditions as "Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder, Panic/Anxiety Disorder with Agoraphobia." The AJ stated it

appeared that this electronic mail message gained wide distribution,

as the purpose of the message was to widely circulate the request for

leave to secure donations. The AJ found the disclosure of complainant's

diagnosed condition by her second level supervisor, S2, constituted a

per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The AJ did not award any

relief for the per se violation.

The agency subsequently issued its final action on July 16, 2008.

The agency's final action fully implemented the AJ's decision.

In her brief dated October 4, 2008, complainant claims that the agency

subjected her to harassment and reprisal when it left her in a work

environment where there was a problem with rodents. Complainant contends

that she would not have requested a reassignment had the agency taken

aggressive action against the rodents and reduced the riveting noise of

the dot matrix printer next to her office. Complainant asserts that she

could have been reassigned to the positions Employees 1 and 2 occupied

after they were promoted. Complainant states that Employee 1 was hired as

a GS-4 Personnel Clerk in November 2000, and was later non-competitively

promoted to a GS-05 Human Resources Assistant. Complainant also states

that Employee 2 was hired as a GS-04 Personnel Clerk in November 2000, and

later non-competitively promoted into a GS-05 Human Resources Assistant.

Complainant contends that neither of the promotion actions concerning

Employee 1 and Employee 2 are consistent with 5 C.F.R. �300.603 and

�335.103. Complainant disputes the agency's position that the two

promotions at issue resulted from an accretion of duties.

With regard to her reasonable accommodations requests, complainant argues

that even if the agency did not have any available positions they could

have accommodated her under the Office of Workers' Compensation Program

(OWCP). Complainant notes that her claim concerning her working

conditions was accepted by OWCP and the agency did not controvert

her claim.

Complainant also claims that the agency harassed and retaliated

against her when it circulated her medical diagnosis across the country.

Complainant claims that she was harmed by this disclosure since she claims

it negatively affected the amount of leave she received. Additionally,

complainant contends that it effected how others, including her co-workers

treated her.

Finally, complainant raises objections to the AJ's handling of her case.

Specifically, she claims that the AJ has been practicing law with an

"inactive license" since 1982. Complainant also contends that the AJ

failed to rule on her motion to compel the agency to provide discovery

and interrogatories. Additionally, complainant claims the AJ failed to

rule on her motion for summary judgment.3

In response to complainant's appeal, the agency requests the Commission

uphold its final action. The agency claims the AJ properly found

that complainant was not subject to discrimination on any of the

bases or issues alleged in her complaint. The agency also states that

disclosure of complainant's personal medical information was not accepted,

investigated, or raised at or during the hearing.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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.

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 EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999).

Upon review, we find substantial evidence supports the AJ's decision.

The record reveals that complainant complained to management regarding

rodents in the work area and the agency had an exterminator come to

the office several times to address the problem. The record reveals

complainant requested to work from home, to have a flexible work schedule,

and to be reassigned to a different office. Complainant was not permitted

to work from home since her job required the use of computer connections

only available at the forms center facility. Complainant was denied the

opportunity to work at the forms center after 3:30 p.m. since the center

closed at 3:30 p.m. and there were few employees working after that time.

The agency did not permit complainant to work at the center alone

since she had already demonstrated the potential for having dangerous

seizures/panic attacks at work which sometimes required serious medical

attention. However, the agency permitted complainant to take leave if

she could not arrive at work at her designated start time. Moreover,

while complainant requested to work in an alternative workspace which

she claimed was less noisy than her workspace at the time, the record

shows that this location was narrow and contained the only telephone

and facsimile equipment in the building, which necessitated constant

traffic by employees in the building.

With regard to her claim of reprisal, complainant contends that

she received performance counseling by her first level supervisor.

Upon review, we find complainant failed to show that the agency's actions

were taken in reprisal for prior protected activity.

With regard to her request for reassignment to a new position, the

record reveals that the agency conducted numerous searches but did not

find a vacant, funded position into which complainant could be assigned.

With regard to the two positions filled by Employee 1 and Employee 2, we

find that these identified positions were not new vacancies but, rather,

resulted from an upgrade of the incumbents resulting from an accretion

of duties. Moreover, with regard to the advertised GS-6, Business

Assistant Position, we note that under the Rehabilitation Act the agency

is not required to promote complainant into a higher graded position.

Complainant failed to identify any vacant, funded position into which

she could have been reassigned. Moreover, we find complainant failed

to show that she was subjected to discrimination based on her race,

disability, or in reprisal for prior protected activity in connection

with the incidents alleged.4

With regard to complainant's challenge to the AJ's right to conduct the

hearing we note that complainant raises this claim for the first time

on appeal. The record reveals complainant had the information forming

the basis of this challenge prior to the conclusion of the hearing;

however, she did not raise this claim at the hearing level. Based on

her failure to raise this issue at the hearing, we find complainant is

precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal.

With regard to complainant's claim that the AJ failed to rule on her

motion for summary judgment, we find that by holding a hearing on the

matter the AJ in effect denied her motion. Moreover, to the extent that

the AJ failed to rule on complainant's motion to compel, we find this

is harmless error, as complainant failed to identify how the agency's

failure to respond to her discovery requests prejudiced her case.

Further, although complainant claimed on appeal that the AJ did not

allow one of her witnesses to testify, we find complainant did not meet

her burden in showing why the testimony of the witness in question was

necessary. Finally, with regard to complainant's contentions that the

promotion actions concerning Employee 1 and Employee 2 are inconsistent

with 5 C.F.R. �300.603 and �335.103, we note these provisions fall outside

the Commission's jurisdiction. Similarly, with regard to complainant's

argument that even if the agency did not have any available positions

they could have accommodated her under the OWCP, we note the Commission

does not enforce OWCP claims.

We note the agency fully implemented the AJ's decision. Since the agency

does not challenge the AJ's finding that its disclosure of complainant's

diagnosed medical condition to unauthorized persons was a per se violation

of the Rehabilitation Act, we do not address the merits of this issue

on appeal. If the agency disagreed with whether the disclosure of

confidential medical information was a claim in the complaint, then the

agency should not have fully implemented the AJ's decision and should

have filed an appeal with the Commission. The agency did not do so.

By fully implementing the AJ's decision, the agency can not now argue

that the AJ's decision was flawed. We find, however, the AJ erred in

failing to award relief for this violation. Thus, we modify the AJ's

decision to include the relief specified herein. Since complainant was

not represented by an attorney at the hearing or on appeal, an award of

attorney's fees is not appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The agency's decision finding no discrimination regarding all claims apart

from the disclosure of confidential medical information claim is AFFIRMED.

The agency's decision regarding the disclosure of confidential medical

information is MODIFIED so that the agency may provide the relief ordered

herein.

ORDER

The agency shall take the following remedial actions:

1. Within 90 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency

shall provide EEO training to S2 focusing on the agency's obligation

under the Rehabilitation Act to keep medical information confidential.

2. Within 90 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency

shall consider taking disciplinary action against S2 for violating

the Rehabilitation Act. The agency shall report its decision to

the Commission. If the agency decides to take disciplinary action,

it shall identify the action taken. If the agency decides not to take

disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reasons(s) for its decision

not to impose discipline.

3. Within 15 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency

shall give complainant a notice of her right to submit objective evidence

(pursuant to the guidance given in Carle v. Department of the Navy,

EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (January 15, 1993)), in support of his claim

for compensatory damages within 45 days of the date complainant receives

the agency's notice. The agency shall complete the investigation on

the claim for compensatory damages within 45 days of the date the agency

receives complainant's claim for compensatory damages. Thereafter, the

agency shall process the claim in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.110.

The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as

provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's

Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation verifying

that the corrective action has been implemented.

POSTING ORDER (G0900)

The agency is ordered to post at its National Forms and Publications

Center, Fort Worth, Texas facility copies of the attached notice.

Copies of the notice, after being signed by the agency's duly authorized

representative, shall be posted by the agency within thirty (30) calendar

days of the date this decision becomes final, and shall remain posted

for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all

places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The agency

shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered,

defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice

is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in

the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision,"

within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1208)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar

days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall

be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,

DC 20013. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,

and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the complainant.

If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the complainant

may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action

to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following

an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,

1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant

has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in

accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil

Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject

to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).

If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of

the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request

to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail

within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your 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 (T0408)

This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it

also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a

portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion

of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion

of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative

processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after

one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your

complaint with the agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until

such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.

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 (Z1008)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other

security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within

the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with

the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.

Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time

limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

December 10, 2009

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

__________________

Date

1 In an affidavit, however, complainant asserts she has agoraphobia.

Furthermore, in an October 14, 1999 letter Doctor A states complainant

has panic disorder with agoraphobia.

2 It is unclear from the record what documents were attached to the

WH-380 form.

3 We note complainant submitted additional statements in support of

her appeal which were filed after her brief dated October 4, 2008.

The Commission will not consider these additional statements as they

were submitted beyond the applicable limitations period.

4 We do not address in this decision whether complainant is a qualified

individual with a disability.

??

??

??

??

2

0120083575

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120083575