0120160885
05-09-2018
Tanya D.,1 Complainant, v. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Tanya D.,1
Complainant,
v.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160885
Agency No. 2014-25922-FAA-03
DECISION
On December 23, 2015, 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 November 25, 2015, final decision 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.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether Complainant established that management discriminated against her when she removed from her Supervisory Airway Transportation Systems Specialist position during her probationary period and was reassigned to a non-supervisory Airway Transportation System Specialist position.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Supervisory Airway Transportation Systems Specialist (ATSS), J-Band, at the Agency's DOT Federal Aviation Administration facility in Washington, D.C.
On January 3, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African American),2 sex (female), and color (Brown) when, on September 5, 2014, she removed from her Supervisory Airway Transportation Systems Specialist position during her probationary period and was reassigned to a non-supervisory Airway Transportation System Specialist position.
The Agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation.
The investigation showed that on December 1, 2013, Complainant was promoted to a Supervisory Airway Transportation Systems Specialist (ATSS), J-Band, responsible for managing the Navigation Communication (NavCom) for the Richmond System Support Center (SSC). Prior to this position, she had been a non-supervisory ATSS, I-Band, assigned to the Potomac TRACON. In Richmond, she was one of two supervisors reporting to the Technical Operations Manager (S-1) (Caucasian male). S-1 had oversight for offices in Virginia and Tennessee, and during the incidents cited in this complaint, his office was in Norfolk, Virginia.
Complainant's second line supervisor (S-2) (Caucasian male), Manager of Columbia District, with oversight for North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, as well as Virginia and Tennessee.
On September 5, 2014, S-1 removed Complainant from her supervisory position, during her probationary period. Complainant was reassigned to a non-supervisory ATSS position in Warrenton, Virginia.
Complainant alleges that, during her tenure as a supervisory ATSS in Richmond, three subordinate employees (African American male, Caucasian female and Caucasian male) subjected her to discriminatory harassment based on her race, color and sex. She further alleges that S-1 failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports of the harassment and subjected her to harassment himself. She states because of this hostile work environment, she was unable to demonstrate her ability to serve as a successful supervisor during her probationary period. Complainant states that S-1 had previously held the supervisory ATSS position she assumed in December 2013, and had close personal relationships with her new subordinates.
Complainant states that upon her arrival, she noticed her employees "were not used to being held accountable for their work" and were routinely conducting private business on Government time, using Government resources. She states during the first six months as supervisor, she spent a lot of her time enforcing work accountability. She claims that despite her best efforts, the team refused to be held accountable, and began to rebel. They began speaking directly with S-1, bypassing her and undermining her authority as supervisor. She alleges her employees filed complaints against her with the Accountability Board in attempts to have her removed from her position, and were ultimately successful.
Complainant cites specific concerns she had about the three employees on her team. She states NavCom Technician E-1 (Caucasian female) and others were using unnecessary overtime and, when she attempted to reduce the amount of overtime, E-1 said Complainant was "stupid." She further states she was told that E-1 had said to someone else something to the effect that "she did not know why the FAA hires stupid black women who don't know what they are doing." Complainant states she reported this comment to the Accountability Board, but Agency officials failed to interview the proper witnesses and her allegations were not substantiated. Complainant alleges this incident was an example of the harassment she received because of her race, and yet management used her complaint about the harassment as a basis for removing her from her supervisory position.
E-1 (Caucasian, white, female) states she never referred to Complainant as a "stupid Black woman" and alleges Complainant fabricated this in retaliation to a grievance she filed concerning Complainant's protocol for callback/overtime. She also denies making comments the Agency hiring black women, as claimed by Complainant.
Complainant states she also attempted to hold NavCom Technician E-2 (African American male) accountable for his work, and noted he conducted frequent barbeques on Government time and used unnecessary overtime hours. She states E-2 had served as Acting ATSS Supervisor before she was promoted and, upon her arrival, he began challenging her authority as supervisor. She alleges he sent her emails, with a copy to S-1, claiming she was calling his personal cell phone and asking her to stop. She alleges E-2 was part of the group that was attempting to get rid of her. She states she reported his conduct to S-1, but S-1 did not intervene.
Complainant states E-2, on one occasion, called her an "asshole who does not know anything." Another time, she states he asked about her ethnic background, and when she said she was Cuban/American Indian, she states he responded, "That's BS...you're Black, a Nigger just like me." She alleges she reported this incident to S-1, but he failed to support her, or take corrective action.
Complainant alleges after a period of time, E-2 began to sexually harass her and spread rumors that she was sleeping with members of the staff. She states on April 8, 2014, he responded to a comment she made by standing up, bending backwards and shaking the lower half of his body, stating, "All my stuff works." Complainant alleges she reported the harassment to S-1, but he took no action.
Complainant states she counseled another NavCom Technician, E-3 (Caucasian male), for selling real estate on Government time. In response, she alleges E-3 perpetuated the rumors about her having sexual relations with two employees. She states another supervisor told her he had heard she was having sexual relations with E-2. She alleges S-1 knew employees were doing this, and took no action. She also states E-3 worked with E-2 to file a complaint about her with the Accountability Board.
Complainant states S-1, himself, subjected her to ridicule and sarcastic comments on a daily basis. She states he told her they did not have any trouble in the office until she arrived and that, with the Accountability Board proceedings, she was bringing attention to the Richmond SSC.
Complainant states a week after one of the Accountability Board investigations, S-1 met with her, and made several disparaging comments about her, stating all she did was complain about her employees, that she would talk to anyone who would listen, and "this is bull crap and I want you to stop."
S-1 states he had held the supervisory positon to which Complainant had been promoted for a number of years. He then had been detailed to another office for a couple of years before being promoted to his current position in December 2012. He states while he was absent from the NavCom supervisory position, one individual, E-1, was Acting Supervisor for a year, E2 was Acting Supervisor for 180 days, and another technician had been Acting Supervisor for 30 days. S-1 states for the period October through December 2013, he and S-3, the Richmond ADAR supervisor, ran the unit.
S-1 states he hired Complainant as front-line manager for NavCom, and during her probationary period, she demonstrated she was not suited to being a manager. He states she performed adequately on her technical duties, but she did not uphold her responsibilities to provide a hospitable work environment, failing to demonstrate positive leadership, integrity, and a commitment to the FAA EEO program.
He states Complainant was removed from her supervisory position during probation for several specific reasons. She illegally recorded a meeting with the Union Representative, told her employees she had once been a private investigator and knew how to track them, and imitated an Asian accent mocking another employee. He states S-2 made the decision to remove Complainant from her position, but he agreed with the decision.
S-1 states, upon Complainant's arrival in Richmond, he told her the unit was pretty self-sufficient, that they were high performing professionals, who knew their jobs and were almost self-managing. He states the Richmond SSC is a General National Airspace facility and the Technicians travel all around the state, according to a prescribed schedule, conducting periodic maintenance for their assigned facilities. He states, however, that Complainant's management style was very different from the type of management to which the employees had become accustomed. He states she was very micro-managing, and untrusting. He stated that Complainant expressed to him on multiple occasions that the employees were trying to get away with not working. He states he asked her what work was not getting accomplished, and why she drew this conclusion. He states he concluded that she came from an organization where the employees worked directly under a supervisor, and did not travel. He states Complainant told him she thought her employees were terrible; they did not do their jobs and were trying to get away with "stuff." He states, "these guys" had been working for him for years and her complaints did not seem accurate.
S-1 states at some point, he started getting complaints from many of Complainant's employees claiming that she would speak disparagingly about one employee to another employee. He tried to be more actively involved in supervising Complainant, and he states they had many conversations. He states he told her she had a different management style than previous managers and she should concentrate on managing results, instead of telling employees what to do every day.
S-1 states he was aware Complainant had found something on a fax machine regarding real estate business conducted by one of her employees. He states he advised her in responding to this employee's conduct, and she issued a Letter of Counseling to the employee involved (E-3). He also recalls she reported one incident of overtime abuse. He states he looked into it, and it did not appear to be abuse. He states she reported an employee had been away from the office, longer than an errand required. He told her she had miscalculated the distance he needed to go. He states he has no reason to think there were rampant problems with employees doing private business at work or abusing overtime.
S-1 states Complainant told him the Manassas ATM had told her E-1 had said something about a "stupid black woman" and he supported her decision to file a complaint with the Accountability Board. However, he points out he had some concerns because Complainant initiated this complaint about a week after E-1 had filed a grievance against Complainant.
S-1 states initially, E-2 and Complainant had a good working relationship and E-2 took her "under his wing" and showed her the ropes. S-1 states E-2 has been Acting Supervisor, and both he, and E-6, were informal leaders of the team, based on their seniority and experience. He states E-2 did not apply for the supervisor position, because he did not have enough time, in grade, to qualify. S-1 does not know when Complainant and E-2 working relationship turned sour, but he did not observe E-2 attempting to sabotage her position.
S-1 states the circumstances surrounding Complainant's tenure as supervisor culminated on April 30, 2014. S-1 traveled to Richmond to meet with Complainant, four employees (E-2, E-3, E-6, and E-8, and a Union Representative (E-7). He stated during this meeting, that he reviewed the Human Resources' policy governing how employees should treat each other, paying attention to the prohibitions against talking disparagingly about one another. He states he directed them to be professional, and treat each other with respect.
During the course of the meeting, Complainant expressed frustration, and stated that E-2 was usurping her authority. He states she made derogatory statements about employees, specifically E-2, and in response, E-2 called Complainant a liar. He states he calmed the meeting down, and although he had been able to present his expectations, they had not been able to resolve the issues.
S-1 also states that during this meeting, an employee said he thought Complainant spent an inappropriate amount of time behind closed doors with another employee, but did not allege Complainant was having sexual relations with anyone. He states Complainant did not report to him anyone was spreading rumors about her sleeping with employees, until after she learned she was being removed from her supervisory position. He states Complainant did not report to him her concern that E-2 was following her around, nor did she report the incident where he shook the lower half of his body and said, "all my stuff works" or when he made a disparaging racial comment. He states if she had reported such an incident of sexual harassment, he would have followed up.
S-1 states after a period of time, no one in Richmond NavCom was happy with Complainant and they filed Accountability Board complaints about her. S-1 states that he did not observe anyone attempting to sabotage her position. He states Complainant's race, color, and sex were not factors in her removal, but that she was removed because she failed to treat her employees and coworkers with respect or meet the Agency's standards of integrity.
S-2 (Caucasian male) was Complainant's second line supervisor while she was in Richmond. He signed the September 5, 2014 letter notifying Complainant that she would be removed from her probationary supervisor position. He states he first met Complainant on January 13, 2014, during a District Managers' meeting. S-2 states he and S-1 worked with Complainant to help develop her management skill set and create a pathway to success. However, he states despite their counseling and coaching, Complainant continued to have issues managing and interacting with employees.
S-2 states he is obligated to remove unsuccessful first-time managers if, after observation, their performance proves to be inadequate, or noted misconduct indicates lack of judgement or integrity. He states he terminated Complainant, during probation, for failing to demonstrate the positive leadership, integrity and commitment to the FAA EEO Program, which is required of a System Support Center Manager.
S-2 states he based his decision on the results of four management investigations into accusations regarding Complainant's conduct. The first investigation was into allegations in which the Complainant made the statement that the only reason a named individual had asked "about cooking is to serve them white folks." The Accountability Board investigation report indicated Complainant denied making this statement, but two employees said she had made the statement. The Investigator reported that the alleged date of the incident was incorrect, but he concluded it was likely that Complainant had made the comment.
S-2 states the second Accountability Board investigation concluded that Complainant had allegedly imitated a subordinate Asian employee's accent when speaking to S-1, S-3, and to at least two subordinate employees.
The third Accountability Board investigation was into allegations that Complainant had reported Manassas ATM E-9 had informed her that E-1 made the following comment: "Why does the FAA hire stupid black women who don't know what they are doing?" During this investigation, both E-1 and E-9 denied this comment was made and Complainant was charged with reporting inaccurate information that was not substantiated by a third party.
A fourth investigation was regarding allegations that Complainant told employees she had experience working as a Private Investigator and had surveillance cameras and recording equipment. E-2 states management concluded this allegation was substantiated when Complainant recorded a conversation with the Union Representative, without his knowledge. Management concluded the outcome of the complaint, as well as the investigations, was evidence that Complainant failed to build and maintain credibility with her employees, failed to demonstrate leadership, and failed to create an environment in which people thrive and accomplish their best. He decided Complainant's continued presence in the Richmond SSC was creating a hostile work environment.
S-2 states Complainant was responsible for correcting the behavior of the employees reporting to her. He states she had received training on Accountability Board procedures, and should have reported issues, herself, relating to non-compliance. He states the only employee incidents Complainant reported to management involved misuse of a copy/fax machine, and the comment she alleged E-1 made, which was investigated. Further, S-2 states he was never made aware of Complainant's allegations of management bypassing, or undermining her authority, inappropriate sexual advances, or employees spreading rumors that she was sleeping with employees.
Complainant argues the Agency did not conduct adequate, thorough, or well-crafted investigations, yet S-1 and S-2 drew conclusions, based on their "preconceived notions to support the decision to terminate her supervisory appointment."
In regard to the allegation she imitated an employee's accent, she states she did so because when she said she had not understood something he said, and S-1 asked her to specifically repeat it, with an accent. She denies she did this in front of other employees and denies she did it to make fun of his speech. She states the only way the employee would have known of the incident would be if S-1 had told him.
Complainant points out discrepancies between the outcome of the investigations conducted into
her conduct, and management's conclusions that she failed to build, and maintain credibility, and trust. She states the investigations did not substantiate most of the allegations regarding her conduct, yet management concluded she had not been an effective supervisor. She states because both E-1 and E-9 denied E-1 made the comment Complainant had reported, management discriminatorily concluded she was lying, without interviewing other witnesses.
She states the investigation did not substantiate the allegation she had threatened to record employees, yet management concluded she had. She alleges most of these allegations did not involve her violation of any regulation or standard of conduct, yet management concluded she had done so. She states management chose to remove her because they did not want to address the problem of employees making unfounded, unsubstantiated complaints against her.
Complainant alleges S-2 drew conclusions about her ability to serve as a supervisor, based solely on discriminatory information he received from S-1, and the investigations, which she alleges were poorly conducted. She points out S-2 states the Investigator reported the allegation was not substantiated, yet the Investigator told S-2 it was likely that the comment was made. Complainant states if this is true, the Investigator should have substantiated the allegation. She cites this as evidence that S-2 drew inaccurate conclusions from the information he received.
E-7 (African American, black, male) served as Union Representative, and had worked with Complainant. E-7 states he and Complainant began working for the Agency around the same time, but were assigned to different districts. He states while working in the Washington District, Complainant learned to follow regulations and the chain of command. However, the atmosphere in Richmond SSC was different. He states S-1 had moved into management, after serving as Union representative, and, as a result, his management style was more hands-off.
E-7 states S-1 did not pay close attention to the way employees spent their time, as long as the work was done, and the employees were often left to manage themselves. Upon Complainant's arrival, she had a management style that differed from the style to which employees had become accustomed. He states Complainant had different ideas of how things should be done, and the employees wanted to do things the way they always had. E-7 states it is possible employees were working on other jobs, while at work, and using overtime to complete their assigned duties.
E-7 states he attended the April 30, 2014, meeting as Union Representative. During the meeting, S-1 attempted to explain that Complainant was the boss, and the employees should follow her direction. When he opened the meeting for discussion, employees expressed concerns that the Complainant was micromanaging. E-7 states E-2 jumped in with loud, disrespectful accusations against Complainant. E-7 states he attempted to get the meeting back under control, because S-1 did not attempt to intervene. E-7 states this meeting was the only attempt management made to address the issues related to Complainant's tenure as management, and, although employees were given the opportunity to express themselves, nothing was resolved. He states after the meeting, E-2 approached him stating they needed to get Complainant out of there. E-7 states he responded, "who is we" and walked away. He did not report the incident to management.
E-7 states management witnessed Complainant being harassed. He claims management was aware of the issues, and did not intervene to address the situation. He states he was aware of the specific harassing incidents that Complainant had raised, but he did not witness anything other than the April 30th meeting. He states employees did not talk to him, because of his association with her.
E-10 (Caucasian male) is a technician assigned to the Richmond RADAR unit. He states he had infrequent contact with Complainant, but observed she had a bullying style of management, and created a hostile work environment by harassing subordinate technicians. He states Complainant's behavior nurtured hostility in the entire Richmond SSC, resulting in employees using excessive leave, and absences from the office, just to get away from her.
E-11 (African American, black, male) is an Airway Transportation System Specialist, in Richmond, but reports to S-3. He states he has no knowledge of any type of harassment, but observed more tension in the office, after Complainant arrived. He states the work environment improved, and became normal, after she left.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
At issue in this matter are Complainant's claims that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminated against when she was removed from her supervisory position based on her race, color and sex.
Complainant's initial contention on appeal is that the Agency failed to conduct a adequate investigation of her EEO complaint. However, our independent review of the investigative report found it to be thorough and appropriate. Regarding her concerns about the credibility of certain witnesses and the failure to include other potential witnesses, we note that Complainant was provided with her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), but elected not to do so. Had she availed herself of this right, she could have conducted discovery, presented additional witness testimony and documentary evidence, and cross-examined Agency witnesses. This would have provided her with the opportunity to expand the evidence of record and allow for credibility findings by the AJ. However, Complainant has chosen to allow this case to be adjudicated on the investigative record and is now bound by its evidence.
A review of the evidence of record supports management testimony that the decision to remove Complainant from her supervisory position during her probationary period was a direct result of her persistent adoption of an approach to supervision that was antithetical to the way the department was historically functioning. Complainant's actions appear to show a desire to remake and adopt a different approach to the performance of the duties in the department. Her approach to making such changes was perceived by management as interfering with the functioning of the office, causing discord and disarray within the department, and angering her subordinates. Agency officials determined that a change was needed and appropriate. Complainant has offered credible reasons for why she approached her supervisory responsibilities in the way she did. However, she does not dispute the overwhelming evidence that the unit was experiencing significant discord during her tenure that was impacting its work. Even her own witness (E7), confirmed that Complainant had a much stricter approach to supervising than the unit was used to, and subordinate employees were responding negatively to her management style. At the same time, Complainant has not produced any evidence that she proposed any type of disciplinary or other corrective action against any of her subordinate employees for their alleged misconduct (conducting non-government business at work, misusing overtime, etc.). Her inaction in this regard lends some credence to management's position that she lacked the necessary management skills to supervise the unit. Here, our task is not to determine whether or not management made the correct decision by demoting Complainant. Rather, to establish a violation of Title VII, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the management decision was impacted by her race, color or sex. She has not done so here.
The main argument Complainant has presented in support of her Title VII claim, is that management failed to stop her subordinate employees from discriminatorily harassing her, which in turn was at the root of her discord with the unit. However, we find 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 (March 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. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
The evidence of record supports management's contentions that either Complainant did not report incidents of harassment to them or that the evidence did not support Complainant's version of events. The record does show that during Complainant's relatively brief tenure as supervisor, four separate Accountability Board investigations were conducted into allegations that either Complainant or her subordinates were harassing each other. The evidence gathered during these proceedings did not support Complainant's allegations of racist and/or sexist statements or actions by her subordinate employees. In sum, the record simply does not support a finding that Complainant's race, color or sex played a role in her admittedly contentious relationship with some of her subordinate employees. In fact, Complainant's own statements overwhelmingly support a finding that if her employees were "undermining" her, it was because she was holding them strictly accountable to what she perceived were the rules of the workplace, and not because of her race, color or sex.
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 FAD.
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).
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
_5/9/18_________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
2 In her formal EEO complaint, Complainant identified her race as "African American." However, we note that, during the investigation, she also identified herself as "Cuban/American Indian."
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120160885
12
0120160885