Samuel C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 26, 2018

0120162398 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 26, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Samuel C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162398

Hearing No. 551-2015-00111X

Agency No. 4E-570-0021-14

DECISION

On July 14, 2016, 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 16, 2016, final order 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 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 a Postal Support/Postal
Clerk (PSE) at the Agency’s Mail Processing Annex in Great Falls, Montana.

On June 21, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein he claimed that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of his race (African-American), sex (male), and disability
(shoulder injury, swelling both forearms, rotator cuff tendonitis/internal derangement) between
December 16, 2013 and November 10, 2014 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.
0120162398

2

1. Complainant was subjected to harassment/a hostile work environment by management
and coworkers.

2. Complainant was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability beginning in
February 2014.

3. The Agency issued a Notice of Removal on November 10, 2014.

The incidents that constitute Complainant’s harassment claim are as follows:

1. From December 1 through December 16, 2013, Complainant was required to work
without a scheduled day off/rest day.

2. On various dates between December 2013 and March 2014, Complainant was assigned
heavier duties than coworkers, denied assistance and assigned to work twelve hour
shifts.

3. On January 8, 2014, Complainant’s Supervisor used offensive language and told him
to clock out.

4. On various dates, coworkers made offensive or confrontational comments to
Complainant, including that he should be fired or to find another job.

5. On various dates, including January 24, 2014, Complainant was asked to cover for a
coworker who took extended lunch breaks, which management failed to address.

6. On various dates, Complainant’s coworkers refused to cooperate with him and made
his job more difficult, but management ignored his requests to intervene.

7. On or about February 9-10, 2014, management accused Complainant of creating a
hostile work environment for a coworker and banned Complainant from his work area.

8. On or about February 12, 2014, Complainant was instructed by management to stay
away from a female coworker and from her work area.

9. On February 21, 2014, management ignored Complainant’s request to be reassigned
due to swelling in his forearms.

10. On or about February 26, 2014, and ongoing, management laughed at his doctor’s note
requesting light duty.

0120162398

3
11. On February 28, 2014, Complainant’s Manager told him that he was no longer of any
use and told him to go home.

12. On various dates in March 2014, management singled out Complainant when it overly
scrutinized him.

13. On March 3-4, 2014, Complainant met with management officials regarding his
medical situation, and they recommended that he take the rest of the week off.

14. On March 18, 2014, and ongoing, management did not grant Complainant’s request for
reasonable accommodation for his medical condition.

15. On or about November 10, 2014, Complainant was issued a Notice of Removal.

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 EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ assigned
to the case granted the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a decision without a
hearing on June 7, 2016.

The AJ found that no discrimination occurred. The AJ stated with regard to Complainant’s claim
of disparate treatment that Complainant was unable to demonstrate that any other similarly situated
individual was treated differently or better in the same or similar situation. Assuming arguendo
that Complainant had set forth a prima facie case of discrimination, the AJ found that the Agency
presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ noted that the Agency
asserted that it investigated Complainant’s complaints and took appropriate action. According to
the AJ, the Agency also maintained that it provided Complainant with reassigned duties and
assistance when available. The AJ stated that with regard to the request for accommodation and
the Notice of Removal, the Agency argued that Complainant never provided medical
documentation to substantiate an extended medical leave of absence, and he did not provide
information that sufficiently explained what his restrictions were. The AJ stated that the Agency
pointed out that it provided Complainant with several opportunities to provide sufficient
documentation, and that it also provided two opportunities to have his “day in court” meetings, but
that he failed to provide the necessary information and failed to attend the two separately scheduled
meetings. The AJ asserted that the Agency maintained that it issued the Notice of Removal
because Complainant did not work between March and November 2014.

The AJ found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency’s stated reasons for its actions
are pretext for discrimination. The AJ noted that Complainant claimed that management, the
union, and his coworkers all sought to sabotage him at work by fabricating claims against him and
making his job more difficult than necessary. The AJ found no evidence to substantiate
Complainant’s assertions. According to the AJ, Complainant claimed that he submitted the
necessary medical information, but he failed to address the fact that the documentation he provided
is confusing and contradictory.
0120162398

4

With regard to Complainant’s claim that the Agency failed to accommodate him, the AJ found that
Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. The AJ reasoned
that there was no evidence that Complainant is a qualified person with a disability, or that he was
at the time he made his request for light duty. The AJ noted that Complainant’s physician’s note
dated May 21, 2014, stated “N/A” to the questions: “Date of discharge from treatment, Date
employee able to resume light work, and Date employee is able to resume regular work.” The AJ
found that based on this note, Complainant is not a qualified individual with a disability because
he was not cleared to return to work.

The AJ further found that even if Complainant is considered a qualified individual with a disability,
it has not been established that Complainant requested reasonable accommodation or made it clear
to the Agency that he required accommodation. The AJ noted that the medical note submitted on
or about March 3, 2014, requested a lifting restriction of 25 pounds for 10-14 days, which indicated
that the impairment was temporary. Additionally, the AJ observed that the Agency presented
evidence that it attempted to provide accommodation when it assigned Complainant to different
duties which were less strenuous between the time when Complainant provided work duty
limitations from his physician and when he stopped coming to work.

With respect to Complainant’s harassment claim, the AJ found that Complainant failed to set forth
a prima facie case. The AJ stated that Complainant is unable to show that any unwelcome
comments or actions were made because of his race. The AJ stated that the Agency investigation
determined that Complainant was either the initiator of the unwanted conduct or he was an active
participant in the hostilities. The AJ further found that Complainant’s allegations of coworker or
supervisor harassment are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work
environment.

The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed
to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant states that he was the only African-American employee at his work
facility. Complainant claims that it was expected that he would do more work and work longer
hours. Complainant argues that he was automatically presumed to be guilty of sexual harassment
because he was accused by a Caucasian female employee. Complainant maintains that when he
complained and informed his Supervisor that he did not like the way he was treating him, the
Supervisor told him to get off the clock. According to Complainant, the Supervisor would not
have shouted at a Caucasian employee using such profane, vicious language. With regard to the
woman who accused him of sexual harassment, Complainant states that she could not remember
what he said and that she did not mention being touched by him. Complainant contends that he
“worked like a slave” in that he was required daily to lift hundreds of flat tubs of various weight
followed by hundreds of letter trays in frequent succession.
0120162398

5
Complainant stated that his work on the Integrated Dispatch and Receipt Machine was often by
himself even though it normally was a job for two employees, and Caucasian employees usually
did not work this machine by themselves.

Complainant claims that one Caucasian employee wrote that he believes Complainant was
discriminated against based on his race. Complainant states that this employee wrote that many
people did not even acknowledge him while walking by or when working with him. Complainant
notes that the employee discussed postal support employees (PSEs) being treated in a subservient
manner in comparison to regular employees, but that he was treated worse because he is not
Caucasian. Complainant maintains that the Agency did not take his injuries seriously. According
to Complainant, he was deliberately misled when management supplied him with the wrong form
for filing his Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) claim. Complainant argues
that the Agency sabotaged his request for limited duty when a Supervisor instructed him to apply
for light duty when considering his on-the-job injuries, the request should have been for limited
duty.

With respect to management’s attempts to contact him for his day-in-court hearing, Complainant
states that he contacted management to inform them that he was in Atlanta seeking medical
assistance for his injuries and that he could not attend the hearing. Complainant argues that rather
than losing his job, he should have been placed on unpaid leave pending time for recovery for his
injuries. Complainant states that management should have informed him that he had a right to ask
for restoration of his position as a partially recovered or a fully recovered employee. Complainant
also argues that the harassment he was subjected to was severe. Complainant maintains that when
Caucasian employees tell an African-American employee that he needs to quit his job and find
employment elsewhere, the harassment is severe.

In response, the Agency states with regard to the first alleged incident of harassment that although
Complainant claimed he was required to work from December 1, 2013 to December 19, 2013,
without a scheduled day off or rest day, that actually Complainant did not work on December 1,
2013 or on December 18, 2013. The Agency states that in the one week Complainant had to work
each day, two other PSEs were also required to work each day. The Agency acknowledges that
between December 2013 and March 2014, Complainant worked several shifts that were 11.50
hours or more. However, the Agency points out that other PSEs also worked that amount of hours
or more.

As for Complainant’s contention that two coworkers told him that he should be fired or find
another job, the Agency asserts that the Manager responded to Complainant’s report by bringing
in all clerks, mail handlers and their union representatives and informed them that hostility would
not be tolerated. According to the Agency, the Manager investigated the allegations brought by
various employees and determined that Complainant was, on at least two occasions, involved and
partially to blame. With regard to Complainant being asked to cover for a coworker’s extended
lunch breaks, the Agency states that the coworker is a Career Clerk unlike Complainant, who is a
non-career PSE.

0120162398

6
In terms of Complainant’s claim that his coworkers refused to cooperate with him and made his
job more difficult, the Agency asserts that Complainant’s coworkers also accused him of making
their job more difficult. The Agency notes that a Mail Processing Clerk reported to management
that Complainant came into his work area, got into his face and made threatening gestures. Further,
the Agency states that Complainant was instructed by two Supervisors to stay away from a female
coworker. According to the Agency, the coworker reported that Complainant followed her from
one area to another and attempted to create more work for her. The coworker further claimed that
Complainant uttered inappropriate sexual comments in her presence, taunted her verbally and
created a hostile work environment for her.

As for the Agency allegedly ignoring Complainant’s request to be reassigned due to swelling in
his forearms, the Agency states that the Manager believes Complainant was placed on the pouch
rack, but he does not recall the date. With regard to medical documentation that Complainant
submitted in February 2014 that the Manager and the Supervisor allegedly laughed at, the Agency
asserts that Complainant acknowledged that the Supervisor informed him that he was to provide
medical restrictions to obtain light duty work, and that Complainant eventually received light duty
work. As for Complainant’s Supervisor telling him he was no longer of any use and to go home,
the Agency acknowledges the Supervisor made this statement. With respect to Complainant being
told by management to take the rest of the week off in March 2014, the Agency states that
Complainant indicated he was in tremendous pain and could not work his assignment.

With regard to the alleged denial of Complainant’s request for accommodation from March 18,
2014 onward, the Agency asserts that the record does not contain any doctors’ note or restrictions
between the March 3, 2014 doctor’s note and the CA-17 form dated March 31, 2014. The Agency
noted that the CA-17 form indicated Complainant could not work until further notice.
Subsequently, on July 11, 2014, the Agency sent Complainant a letter regarding a return to work
and insufficient medical documentation. The Agency noted that Complainant had not provided
medical documentation to substantiate the need for his absence beyond May 28, 2014.
Complainant was instructed to submit appropriate documentation or he would be charged with
being Absent Without Leave (AWOL). The Agency states that Complainant did not provide
medical documentation and Complainant was sent a notice of a mandatory day in court interview
scheduled for August 4, 2014. The Agency asserts that Complainant did not attend the day in court
interview and told a Supervisor that he was out of town seeking a new medical provider. Despite
being sent a second notice of a mandatory day in court interview, Complainant did not attend that
interview on September 8, 2014. Complainant was issued a Notice of Removal on September 18,
2014, for being AWOL.

With respect to various arguments set forth by Complainant, the Agency states as to the sexual
harassment charge that although the accuser could not remember his specific words, Complainant
made inappropriate sexual comments in her presence and would taunt her verbally. The Agency
maintains that its direction to Complainant to stay away from her was not harassment of
Complainant, but rather the appropriate remedy to prevent further harassment of the coworker by
Complainant. As for the coworker who allegedly wrote a statement in support of Complainant,
the Agency indicates it does not have such statement in the record.
0120162398

7
Further, the Agency notes that postal support employees exist to support career employees and do
not have the same privileges and benefits as career employees.

With regard to Complainant’s argument that his OWCP claim was sabotaged when he was given
the wrong form in March 2014, the Agency asserts that Complainant did not raise this in his
complaint. The Agency maintains that since Complainant could not work, he was not a qualified
individual with a disability. Further, the Agency states that even if Complainant was a qualified
individual with a disability, he made no request for accommodation. As for Complainant’s
contention that he has a right of restoration, the Agency asserts that restoration rights are linked to
accepted OWCP claims. The Agency notes that at the time of his removal, Complainant’s OWCP
claim had been denied. The Agency states that it was not until August 2015 that the OWCP
reversed itself.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she
finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is
“genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving
party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d
103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the
case. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a
decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately
developed for summary disposition. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206
(July 11, 2003).

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). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he
was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of
a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tx. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

Complainant also claims that he was subjected to harassment. To establish this claim,
Complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected
to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class;
(3) the harassment complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment
affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability.
0120162398

8
See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). In determining that a working
environment is hostile, factors to consider are the frequency of the alleged discriminatory conduct,
its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and if it unreasonably interferes
with an employee’s work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21
(1993); Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at
6 (March 8, 1994).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the AJ appropriately granted summary judgment in
the Agency’s favor because there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. The issues concern
whether Complainant was subjected to discriminatory harassment and was issued a Notice of
Removal on the bases of his race, sex and disability and was denied reasonable accommodation
on the basis of his disability. The Agency presented reasons for its actions in the matters that
constitute the harassment claim. As for the issue of whether Complainant worked without a
scheduled day off/rest day in the first half of December 2013, the Agency explained that
Complainant had two days off during the relevant period. The Agency explained that Complainant
and other coworkers outside his protected groups were sometimes assigned prolonged shifts
between December 2013 and March 2014. As for disagreements and a lack of cooperation between
Complainant and his coworkers, the Agency stated that its investigation of the matters determined
that Complainant frequently was an instigator or a co-party to such problem situations. The
Agency maintained that with one male coworker and a female coworker it took appropriate
measures to keep Complainant away from them after Complainant took actions and uttered
remarks that created a hostile work environment for those coworkers. In terms of Complainant’s
claim that he was treated less favorably than a career employee coworker, the Agency pointed out
that postal support employees do not have the same privileges and benefits as career employees
and that they exist to support the career employees. With regard to harsh comments from
Complainant’s Supervisor to him, the Agency did not deny that they occurred but rather rejected
the claim that they were based on Complainant’s race, sex, or disability. In terms of Complainant’s
claim that management ignored his request on February 21, 2014, to be reassigned due to swelling
in his forearms that had been diagnosed on January 21, 2014, the Agency notes that the Manager
recalled seeing the documentation and believes Complainant was assigned pouch rack work, but
does not recall the date. As for management’s recommendation that Complainant take a week off,
the Agency pointed out that Complainant said he was in tremendous pain and was unable to work.
We find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory for its actions in the matters
where Complainant claims discriminatory harassment.

Upon review of Complainant’s arguments to establish pretext, we find that there is insufficient
evidence that any of the alleged incidents occurred as a result of Complainant’s race, sex, or
disability. The Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems,
Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant’s claim of hostile work environment must fail. See
Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8,
1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that
Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by
discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept.
21, 2000).
0120162398

9
With regard to Complainant’s claim that the Agency failed to accommodate his disability, we shall
assume arguendo without so finding that Complainant is an individual with a disability.
Complainant claims that on March 18, 2014 and onward management did not grant his request for
reasonable accommodation. However, the record reflects that on March 23, 2014, Complainant
was granted light duty by the Manager as he was assigned to the Mail Sorter Hand Case performing
pouch rack operations. This constituted a less strenuous assignment than Complainant’s prior
work on the Integrated Dispatch and Receipt Machine. Complainant, nonetheless, reinjured his
shoulder on March 26, 2014, and did not return to work. Subsequently, Complainant submitted a
Duty Status Report, dated March 31, 2014, which stated “No work until further notice.” The next
Duty Status Report, dated March 31, 2014, but not submitted to the Agency until May 27, 2014,
stated Complainant could lift 5-10 pounds continuously and 20-35 pounds intermittently for 5-6
hours per day. A Physician’s Report stated that on May 21, 2014, “N/A” to the questions: “Date
of discharge from treatment, Date employee able to resume light work and Date employee is able
to resume regular work.” We agree with the AJ that at that point based on this Physician’s Report,
Complainant was not a qualified individual with a disability because he was not cleared to return
to work. Complainant did not subsequently provide medical documentation to support an extended
medical leave of absence and he did not provide information that sufficiently explained his
restrictions. We find that Complainant has failed to produce sufficient evidence to support this
claim.

With regard to the Notice of Removal issued to Complainant, we shall assume arguendo that
Complainant set forth a prima facie case of discrimination under the alleged bases. The Agency
explained that Complainant was issued the Notice of Removal based on being AWOL. According
to the Agency, Complainant failed to provide medical documentation to substantiate the need for
his absence beyond May 28, 2014. Complainant was instructed to submit appropriate
documentation or he would be charged with being AWOL. The Agency asserted that Complainant
did not provide medical documentation and Complainant was sent a notice of a mandatory day in
court interview scheduled for August 4, 2014. The Agency noted that Complainant did not attend
the day in court interview and informed a Supervisor that he was out of town seeking a new medical
provider. Despite being sent a second notice of a mandatory day in court interview, Complainant
did not attend the interview on September 8, 2014. We find that the Agency has articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for issuing Complainant a Notice of Removal.

Complainant argues that he informed Agency management that he was in Atlanta, Georgia seeking
medical assistance for his injuries and that he could not attend the hearings. Complainant
maintains that rather than losing his job, he should have been placed on unpaid leave pending time
for recovery for his injuries. Complainant states that management should have informed him that
he had a right to ask for restoration of his position as a partially recovered or a fully recovered
employee. We find that Complainant did not provide sufficient justification for both not
submitting adequate medical documentation to substantiate his absence from work and also for not
attending the day in court interviews. With regard to Complainant’s alleged right to restoration,
Complainant did not have such a right at the time of his removal because his OWCP claim had
been denied. We find that Complainant has failed to establish that the Agency’s explanation for
issuing him a Notice of Removal was pretext intended to mask discriminatory motivation.
0120162398

10
CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on
appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the
Agency’s final order, because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative
Judge’s issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record
evidence does not establish that discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.403(g). 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).
0120162398

11
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 26, 2018
Date