Taylor Z.,1 Complainant,v.Betsy DeVos, Secretary, Department of Education, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 14, 2018

0120160404 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 14, 2018)

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

Taylor Z.,1
Complainant,

v.

Betsy DeVos,
Secretary,
Department of Education,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120160404

Hearing No. 570-2014-00872X

Agency No. ED-2012-OSERS-0058

DECISION

On November 9, 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
October 14, 2015, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Grants Management
Specialist, GS-1101-12, at the Agency’s Headquarters in Washington, D.C. His position was
located within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS),
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), Independent Living Unit (ILU). In an EEO
complaint that he initially filed on November 15, 2012, and amended on January 11, 2013, May
21, 2013, August 16, 2013, and October 31, 2013, Complainant alleged that eleven management
officials subjected him to disparate treatment and harassment because of his age (47-50), sex
(male), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) between September 2010 and September 2013.

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.
0120160404

2

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
investigative report (IR), the supplemental investigative report (SIR), and notice of his right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a
hearing on May 22, 2014, but withdrew his request on August 7, 2015. Consequently, the Agency
issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

The eleven responsible management officials (RMO’s) identified by Complainant are listed as
follows:

• RMO-1 - Chief – Independent Living Unit – Rehabilitative Services Administration –
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) – Complainant’s first-
line supervisor and Interview Panelist for Vacancy Announcement No. OSERS-2013-
0018 (incidents (1) through (10), (12) through (23), (25) (29));

• RMO-2 - Director, State Monitoring and Improvement Division, Complainant’s second-
line supervisor and Selecting Official for Vacancy Announcement No. OSERS-2013-0018
(incidents (8), (17), (24), (29));

• RMO-3 – Fiscal Unit Chief, Selection Panel Member for Vacancy Announcement No.
OSERS-2011-0042 (incident (11));

• RMO-4 – Director, Program Budget and Evaluation Division – National Institute of
Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Selection Panel Member for Vacancy
Announcement Nos. OSERS-2013-0008 and OSERS-2013-0013 (incidents (26) and (27));

• RMO-5 – Director of Research, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation
Research, Selection Panel Member for Vacancy Announcement No. OSERS-2011-0042
(incident (26));

• RMO-6 – Deputy Director, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research,
Interview Panel Member for Vacancy Announcement Nos. OSERS-2011-0042 and
OSERS-2013-0013 (incidents (26) and (27));

• RMO-7 – Associate Director, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research,
Interview Panel Member for Vacancy Announcement No. OSERS-2013-0018 (Incident
(29));

• RMO-8 – Associate Director OSERS, Interview Panel Member for Vacancy
Announcement No. OSERS-2013-001 (incident (29));

• RMO-9 – Assistant Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Services (AD-EEOS)
(incident (30));
0120160404

3

• RMO-10 – Director, Agency’s Physical Security and Law Enforcement Division) (incident
(30)); and

• RMO-11 – Special Agent in Physical Security and Law Enforcement Division) (incident
(30)).

IR 541, 910, 941, 966, 990; SIR 168, 174, 179.

Complainant identified thirty incidents that allegedly occurred between September of 2010 and
September of 2013:

1. Between September 2010 and January 2012, RMO-1 allowed one of his colleagues, who
was not an official team leader or supervisor, to supervise him and assign him work;

2. Since September 2010, RMO-1 failed to have extensive conversations with Complainant
about policies and programs, provide him with developmental assignments, or discuss
career development with him;

3. In January 2011, RMO-1 subjected him to excessive demands during his initial REACH
[Acronym undefined but appears to refer to performance objectives] period;

4. In January 2011, RMO-1 assigned him the task of managing an Access software database
knowing that he did not have the proper background or training to do so;

5. In April 2011, RMO-1 made false statements in his EDPAS evaluation;

6. On August 10, 2011, RMO-1 excluded him from full participation in his office unit’s
meeting on developments with grantees;

7. In November 2011, RMO-1 either refused to consider or did not read Complainant’s
rebuttal to his final REACH evaluation;

8. In November 2011, RMO-1 and RMO-2 had required him to produce new REACH
objectives less than one week after he received his evaluation;

9. On November 18, 2011, RMO-1 sent Complainant an email criticizing him based on false
allegations and unfounded rumors that he complained about doing a G5 grant schedule
manipulation (i.e., a rollover);

10. Beginning in November 2011 and continuing through the present, RMO-1 has not allowed
him to serve as acting manager;

0120160404

4
11. In December 2011, Complainant was not selected for the position of Financial
Management Specialist advertised under vacancy announcement No. OSERS-2011-0042;

12. On March 2, 2012, RMO-1 yelled at him in his office and falsely accused him of being
insubordinate;

13. On March 15, 2012, RMO-1 prevented him from obtaining a detail assignment or a lateral
assignment in the Office of Postsecondary Education;

14. In May 2012, RMO-1 subjected him to unreasonable demands and deadlines during his
REACH midterm evaluation period;

15. On May 16, 2012, when Complainant noted his objection to having been denied the
opportunity to serve as acting manager, RMO-1 was disrespectful and stated that he had
assigned Complainant the tasks of developing protocols on grant relinquishment, excessive
drawdowns, grant transfers, and risk management activities;

16. On June 26, 2012, RMO-1 denied his request for a detail;

17. On July 17, 2012, RMO-1 and RMO-2 refused his requests to remove objectionable
comments, including mention of his supervisor’s denial of his detail request, from his
Individual Development Plan (IDP);

18. On July 12, 2012, RMO-1 failed to respond to Complainant’s email objecting to the manner
in which RMO-1 communicates with him;

19. From August 21, 2012 to September 14, 2012, RMO-1 assigned Complainant more work
than could be reasonably accomplished in a 40-hour workweek, required him to submit
daily emails about his work progress and answer additional questions, and did not offer
him overtime compensation for the extra hours he worked;

20. On August 23, 2012, RMO-1 denied his request for an accretion of duties, promotion to
GS-13, falsely criticizing him for not working on enough reviewed grants and for his
response time in reviewing those grants;

21. On September 4, 2012, RMO-1 proposed that he take the FY 2013 Grants Management
Certificate Program even though his supervisor knew he already had training and
experience in that area;

22. On September 26, 2012, RMO-1 assigned him an unreasonable deadline for putting grant
awards in the mail;

23. On October 2, 2012, RMO-1 reassigned him two grant reimbursements that were
previously assigned to his colleagues;
0120160404

5

24. On October 9, 2012, while Complainant was on annual leave, RMO-2 emailed him to
schedule a meeting for 8:00 AM on October 10, 2012, and at 8:10 am on October 10, 2012,
while he was still on approved leave, she called him to check on his whereabouts;

25. On November 27, 2012, RMO-1 reassigned two grant transfers to Complainant that were
formerly assigned to Complainant’s colleagues without first discussing the reassignment
with Complainant;

26. On March 25, 2013, Complainant was not selected for the Management and Program
Analyst position advertised under vacancy announcement number OSERS-2013-0008;

27. On April 23, 2013, Complainant was not selected for the Management and Program
Analyst position advertised under vacancy announcement number OSERS-2013-0013;

28. On May 9, 2013, RMO-1 sent Complainant an email, copied to two of Complainant’s
colleagues, suggesting that Complainant take a leadership class specific to GS 9-12 level
grades, knowing that Complainant was eligible for promotion to GS-13 level and should
have taken a more advanced course;

29. On August 14, 2013, Complainant was not selected for the Vocational Rehabilitation
Program Specialist position advertised under vacancy announcement number OSERS-
2013-0018; and

30. On September 16, 2013, Complainant was subjected to Agency scrutiny and interview,
including an interview by Agency security officers, after seeking to report to Human
Resources his opposition to the Agency’s ongoing unlawful discrimination and
harassment.

Complainant’s Prior EEO Activity: Complainant averred that he neither filed a previous EEO
complaint nor participated in an EEO proceeding as a witness. IR 542. He did, however, file an
informal complaint on the issue of RMO-1’s comments on his EDPAS (the Agency’s performance
appraisal system) evaluation that were the subject of incident (5). He averred that the matter was
resolved in a settlement reached through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) on May 31, 2011.
IR 204. He also averred that he initiated a second informal complaint on July 21, 2012 and
unsuccessfully attempted ADR with RMO-1 and RMO-2. IR 204-05.

Incident (1) - Between September 2010 and January 2012, RMO-1 allowed one of his colleagues,
who was not an official team leader or supervisor to supervise him and assign him work:
Complainant averred that RMO-1 directed one of his colleagues, a GS-13 Program Specialist
within the ILU, to supervise him and assign him work, even though this individual was not a team
leader. IR 205. He averred that a series of emails indicated that the lines of authority between
RMO-1 and the Program Specialist were becoming “increasingly blurred.” IR 206-19.
0120160404

6
When asked what reason RMO-1 has given him for this arrangement, Complainant admitted that
RMO-1 had designated the Program Specialist as the lead for various continuation activities, a
capacity in which the Program Specialist had served in the past. He further stated that RMO-1 had
informed him that he, Complainant, had been added to some of those continuation activities in
order to spread the workload. IR 219. RMO-1 responded that none of Complainant’s colleagues
were assigned to supervise him. RMO-1 also confirmed that the Program Specialist had been
designated to coordinate the grants continuation process within the ILU, and had done so before
RMO-1’s arrival. IR 543.

Incident (2) - Since September 2010, RMO-1 failed to have extensive conversations with
Complainant about policies and programs, provide him with developmental assignments, or
discuss career development with him: Complainant averred that he had been excluded from
conversations about policies and programs by RMO-1 on numerous occasions, and was never
given developmental assignments that would have enabled him to advance in his career. He cites
an incident in August 2011 in which RMO-1 had asked him to leave a staff meeting at which he
could have been briefed regarding program updates. IR 224-25, 226-39, 241-42. RMO-1
responded that Complainant was included in all emails and meetings in which programs and
policies related to grant management were discussed. He averred that he had invited Complainant
many times to see him regarding developmental assignments and career development
opportunities. IR 545.

Incident (3) - In January 2011, RMO-1 subjected him to excessive demands during his initial
REACH period: Complainant averred that RMO-1 had asked him for his REACH plan on at least
five occasions, and that he had communicated to RMO-1 that his constant haranguing was
excessive and disrespectful. He averred that RMO-1 responded that the ILU needed to complete
its organizational assessment. IR 243-44. He averred that RMO-1 had made these demands on
him between January 5 and January 21, 2011. IR 244-45. RMO-1 denied that Complainant was
assigned greater amounts of work or subjected to additional demands that others in the ILU were
not subjected to. RMO-1 averred that Complainant’s primary assignments included onsite
monitoring of a center that had relinquished its grant and reviewing and approving drawdowns.
RMO-1 further averred that these responsibilities were within the role of a Grants Management
Specialist based on the description of the position for which he was hired. IR 547.

Incident (4) - In January 2011, RMO-1 assigned him the task of managing an Access software
database knowing that he did not have the proper background or training to do so: Complainant
averred that on January 7, 2011, he met with RMO-1 and the Program Specialist who ran the
database, and that RMO-1 had assigned the database to him without discussing whether or not he
had the background to use it. IR 247. He further averred that he told RMO-1 that he did not have
the background or experience to handle the database, but that RMO-1 ignored him, citing
“supervisory prerogative” as the reason for making the assignment. IR 247-48. RMO-1
acknowledged that on January 7, 2011, he assigned Complainant the task of managing the Access
database. He stated that at the time, the database was being handled by someone from the Data
Unit (DU), and that the decision was made by RMO-2 to bring the management of the database
into the ILU.
0120160404

7
RMO-1 further averred that one-on-one training from a staff member in the DU was offered to
Complainant, but that training was cancelled when Complainant changed the venue of the training
to a room that did not have computers. RMO-1 maintained that he had reviewed Complainant’s
workload and assignments, and had determined that the task fell within his position description.
IR 549.

Incident (5) - In April 2011, RMO-1 made false statements in his EDPAS evaluation: When asked
to identify the statements on his performance appraisal that he considered to be false, Complainant
responded with the following quote:

You have been willing to accept new assignments, but sometimes it is with
resistance and comments about the assignments. Since our discussion this had
improved greatly, which has been greatly appreciated.

Complainant characterized this statement as a “gotcha comment” that was punitive in nature.
Complainant averred that he objected strongly to the inclusion of this comment on his evaluation,
calling it a “mischaracterization of his work.” He further averred that when RMO-1 refused to do
so, he initiated an informal EEO Complaint, and that the matter was ultimately settled via ADR
on May 31, 2011. IR 251-54, 257. RMO-1 admitted that he had written the statement exactly as
quoted, but maintained that it was an accurate assessment of Complainant’s performance during
the period in question. IR 551.

Incident (6) - On August 10, 2011, RMO-1 excluded him from full participation in his office unit’s
meeting on developments with grantees: Complainant averred that he attended a staff meeting
held on August 10, 2011, and that all of his colleagues from the ILU were in attendance. He averred
that he was brought into the meeting to discuss a very specific and technical question about a grant
transfer, and that after he was finished with his presentation, RMO-1 asked him to leave the
meeting without providing a reason. He averred that afterward, his colleagues continued to discuss
recent developments involving grantees. IR 257-58. He admitted that he did not raise the issue of
being excluded from the August 10, 2011 meeting, until he sent RMO-1 an email sometime in
December 2011 asking for development assignments. IR 258. RMO-1 responded that that RMO-
2 dismissed Complainant from the meeting because the remainder of the discussion did not apply
to his assignments, reiterating that Complainant’s presence was required only for a technical
discussion of the grant transfer process that comprised the first item on the meeting agenda. IR
552-53.

Incident (7) - In November 2011, RMO-1 either refused to consider or did not read Complainant’s
rebuttal to his final REACH evaluation: Complainant averred that on November 3, 2011, after he
received his REACH evaluation, he sent an email to RMO-1 inquiring why RMO-1 refused to
consider or failed to read the rebuttal he had prepared for that evaluation. He averred that he
received the following reply from RMO-1:

0120160404

8
I am not sure that the REACH help desk can assist you with. From what I see the
appraisal has moved from you to me to RMO-2 and is not back to you.
Basically, we have confirmed the initial ratings as they are. A change in a single
element will not change your overall rating. *** At this point in time, I am not
going to change the ratings.

He maintains that RMO-1 neither read nor reviewed his rebuttal or gave him the time to prepare a
revised rebuttal after he had requested it. Complainant characterized RMO-1’s action as abuse, as
a result of which he had received the lowest possible score for a highly successful evaluation. He
further averred that a consequence of this was that his promotion potential within and outside of
the Agency had been damaged. IR 260-66. RMO-1 averred that although he did not recall
Complainant submitting a rebuttal to his REACH evaluation, he did remember that Complainant
had submitted an email on November 3, 2011, in which Complainant indicated that he might
submit a rebuttal to his REACH evaluation. He stated that he sent Complainant a reply in which
he directed Complainant to file any rebuttal statement into the Talent Management System, which
was the appropriate means by which to respond. RMO-1 also noted that Complainant had received
an EDPAS rating of “Highly Successful” and a rating of “High Results Achieved” on his REACH
evaluation. IR 554.

Incident (8) - In November 2011, RMO-1 required him to produce new REACH objectives less
than one week after he received his evaluation: Complaint averred that he received his REACH
evaluation on November 3, 2011, and reiterated that he had received a rating score of 2.0, which
he characterized as the “lowest highly successful score possible.” IR 269. He averred that RMO-
1 and RMO-2 had asked him to have his new objectives completed by November 10, 2011, and
that the one-week deadline did not give him enough time to do so. IR 269-70. When asked what
reasons RMO-1 and RMO-2 had given him for the one-week turn-around time, Complainant
reiterated that neither RMO-1 nor RMO-2 had considered his rebuttal to their rating score, that
they showed contempt for the evaluation process, and that giving him so short a time frame to
submit a new REACH plan was a form of abuse. IR 271. RMO-1 averred that everyone in the
ILU, the RSA, and in OSERS was informed via email that the Department’s deadline for
submitting REACH objectives for the new fiscal year was on November 18, 2011, and that for the
ILU, the deadline was November 15, 2011 in order to ensure that RMO-1 and RMO-2 had enough
time to review and approve the proposed plans. RMO-1 further averred that he had had a REACH
discussion with Complainant on October 31, 2011, during which he had told Complainant that he
needed to get his draft REACH plan to him by November 15, 2011. IR 555.

Incident (9) - On November 18, 2011, RMO-1 sent Complainant an email criticizing him based on
false allegations and unfounded rumors that he complained about doing a G5 grant schedule
manipulation (i.e., a rollover): Complainant averred that in an email, RMO-1 claimed that
members of Complainant’s team said that he had complained about doing a G5 grant schedule
manipulation called a rollover. Complainant denied that he had made such a complaint, and stated
that RMO-1 “did not do his homework” by attempting to verify whether he had actually said what
RMO-1 had preemptively accused him of saying in the email. IR 275-76. RMO-1 responded by
quoting what was in the email that he had sent to Complainant:
0120160404

9

It has come to my attention from a number of people that you were expressing your
displeasure to [a GS-13 Program Specialist] over conducting the rollover of the
2012 continuation grants in G5. First, I want to make it clear that if you have an
issue with assignments to see me about them. Second, it is my recollection that you
handled this assignment for the unit at my request last year. It is my expectation
that you continue this assignment this year as well.

Your REACH plan states: While keeping supervisor informed of activities on a
regular basis and pressing matters, makes all assigned noncompeting continuation
awards by the deadline established by the assistant secretary for FY 2012 and
performs the ongoing grant administration functions on a timely basis, consistent
with the IL unit’s new risk assessment and risk mitigation protocols. Helps to
evaluate and improve the grant award/oversight processes and policies.

This assignment is consistent with the above. This is considered an ongoing grant
functions and needs to be completed no later than December 30, before we start
reviewing and approving the 70 reports starting in January.

IR 557.

Incident (10) - Beginning in November 2011 and continuing through the present, RMO-1 has not
allowed him to serve as acting manager: Complainant averred that his colleges were being given
opportunities by RMO-1 to serve as acting manager, but he was not. He averred that when he
asked RMO-1 why this was the case, RMO responded that he had considered a number of factors,
including professional judgment. He further averred that every time he asked for the opportunity
to serve as acting manager, RMO-1’s reasons for denying his requests kept changing. In addition,
he stated that RMO-1 retaliated against him by assigning him additional complex work
assignments and basing those assignments on a mischaracterization of his REACH midterm
evaluation. IR 279-84. RMO-1 responded that Complainant was asked to serve as acting manager
on two occasions, but both times his proposed stints were canceled due to changes in RMO-1’s
schedule. He also averred that he checked with the Human Capital and Customer Services (HCCS)
Office to determine whether Complainant was even eligible to serve as acting manager. RMO-1
stated that he was informed by HCCS staff that anyone designated as an acting supervisor should
be at a grade level from which he could be hired and selected to fill the manager’s position, which
was at the GS-14 level, and that because Complainant was only a GS-12, he was not eligible to be
hired for the supervisor’s position and therefore could not serve in that position in an acting
capacity. IR 559-60.

Incident (11) - In December 2011, Complainant was not selected for the position of Financial
Management Specialist advertised under vacancy announcement No. OSERS-2011-0042:
Complainant averred that he interviewed for the position with RMO-3 and two other panelists who
were not named as responsible management officials in the instant complaint.
0120160404

10
He maintained that he should have been selected because he was the best qualified candidate by
virtue of being an internal candidate who was familiar with the programs, software systems, and
policies in ways that an external candidate would not be. IR 287. RMO-3 averred that
Complainant’s application was forwarded to him by the HCCS Office in accordance with the
Agency’s standard procedures on merit promotion, that all of the candidates were asked the same
set of questions at the interview, and that after completion of the interviews, the panelists had
reached a consensus that the selectee, a Black female external candidate, was the best-qualified for
the position. IR 942-43, 950-51, 959.

Incident (12) - On March 2, 2012, RMO-1 yelled at him in his office and falsely accused him of
being insubordinate: Complainant averred that RMO-1 had accused him of providing an incorrect
analysis on Federal Acquisition Regulations and of insubordination when he tried to explain the
situation to RMO-1. He averred that RMO-1 had told him: “I am tired of your insubordination.”
He characterized RMO-1’s behavior as disrespectful. He averred that RMO-1 yelled at him in the
middle of the RSA office, in the presence of his colleagues. IR 290. RMO-1 denied that he had
yelled at Complainant. He averred that on March 2, 2012, he had received an email from
Complainant in which Complainant stated that he was not comfortable in doing the drawdown for
an independent living center due to not receiving a concurrence from that center’s executive
director. RMO-1 continued that he had checked with RMO-3 and had determined that Federal
Acquisition Regulations did not apply to nonprofit centers and that Complainant should continue
with the drawdown. RMO-1 averred that Complainant again refused, citing a different regulation,
and at that point he left Complainant’s cubicle, uttering out loud that Complainant was
insubordinate, but not yelling and not directing his ire at Complainant. IR 563.

Incident (13) - On March 15, 2012, RMO-1 prevented him from obtaining a detail assignment or
a lateral assignment in the Office of Postsecondary Education: Complainant averred that he had
searched throughout the Agency for months to find an office that was a better fit for his skills and
education, and that he had attempted to obtain a detail assignment to the Office of Postsecondary
Education (OPE). He averred that the Deputy Assistant Secretary overseeing the OPE had invited
him to set up a detail assignment for him and had also offered him a lateral reassignment. IR 292-
95. He averred that on March 14, 2012, he overheard RMO-1 talking to RMO-2 outside his office
saying, “it’s [referring to the proposed detail] good for him but not good for us.” He further averred
that on March 15, 2012, the following day, RMO-1 had called him into his office and informed
him that they could not allow him to participate in a detail assignment because there was work in
OSERS that needed to be accomplished. IR 295. Complainant also averred that a female colleague
in OSERS was permitted to go on detail. IR 296. RMO-1 averred that Complaint did not make a
request to him for a detail, but that he was contacted by someone in the OPE on March 14, 2012
asking for information on whether Complainant could start a detail at OPE, and that this was the
first time he became aware of Complainant’s desire for a detail outside of OSERS. He averred
that he met with Complainant the following day and informed him that he could not approve the
detail because of the short staffing that would result, and that there was an extensive amount of
work to be done with respect to closeouts, reimbursements, continuations, and excessive
drawdowns. IR 564-565.

0120160404

11
Incident (14) - In May 2012, RMO-1 subjected him to unreasonable demands and deadlines during
his REACH midterm evaluation period: Complainant averred that RMO-1 subjected him to
additional harassment by setting a deadline of May 10, 2012 to complete a project, and then
haranguing him about it six times on May 8 and May 9, 2012. IR 300-305. RMO-1 responded
that Complainant was asked repeatedly to complete the REACH midpoint certification in the
Talent Management System. He averred that the deadline for submitting the certification was May
11, 2012, but that because he would be absent that day, he had asked Complainant to submit the
document by noon the day before, May 10, 2012. He averred that all of the other staff members
had timely completed their REACH certifications, and that Complainant had not completed his
certification until 4:00 PM on May 10, 2012. IR 566-67.

Incident (15) - On May 16, 2012, when Complainant noted his objection to having been denied
the opportunity to serve as acting manager, RMO-1 was disrespectful and stated that he had
assigned him the tasks of developing protocols on grant relinquishment, excessive drawdowns,
grant transfers, and risk management activities: Complainant averred that on May 16, 2012, he
raised the issue of being denied an acting manager detail in December 2011. He averred that on
December 28, 2011, RMO-1 had assigned him to serve as the acting manager and had then revoked
the assignment. He also averred that RMO-1 responded with the additional assignments of
developing protocols on grant relinquishment, and excessive draw downs. IR 308-12. RMO-1
averred that on May 16, 2012, he sent Complainant an email in which he repeated what he had
discussed with Complainant during the course of their discussion of Complainant’s REACH
program objectives, namely that the assignments he was given were within the parameters of his
position description. RMO-1 noted that Complainant’s extensive experience in grants
management qualified him for those assignments. IR 568-69. RMO-1 also noted that it was his
intention to have Complainant begin assuming a greater role in the grants management process
within the ILU. IR 569.

Incident (16) - On June 26, 2012, RMO-1 denied his request for a detail: Complainant averred
that RMO-1 continued to deny his request to be detailed to the OPE. He averred that RMO-1
emailed him on June 26, 2012, stating that:

“As I stated before, we are currently short staffed due the vacancy and the workload.
We cannot consider allowing any details for staff in the unit at this time. I cannot
provide you with a concrete time.”

IR 315. RMO-1 averred that he made the decision to deny Complainant’s request for a detail after
reviewing a memorandum from the OSERS Executive Office dated April 7, 2012 regarding the
need to strictly limit details. He averred that he informed Complainant on multiple occasions that
the ILU was short-staffed and could not afford to let any staff members go on detail. IR 570-71.

Incident (17) - On July 17, 2012, RMO-1 and RMO-2 refused his requests to remove objectionable
comments, including mention of his supervisor’s denial of his detail request from his IDP:
Complainant averred that he had updated one objective on his IDP, and that in response, RMO-1,
at the behest RMO-2, wrote comments on all of his IDP objectives.
0120160404

12
Complainant also averred that he had emailed RMO-1 and RMO-2 to remove the comments, but
they refused to do so. IR 320. Complainant’s reasons for objecting to the comments were that he
did not believe that the IDP was an appropriate forum for writing comments, and that the comments
pertaining to training reflected potential bias on the part of RMO-1 and RMO-2 regarding his
participation in training. IR 320-27. RMO-1 responded that he added the comments to
Complainant’s IDP after consultations with RMO-2, the Deputy Commissioner of the RSA, and
staff from the HCCS Office, and that he did so in order to clearly define the parameters of approval
of the IDP. IR 572-73. RMO-2 averred that the comments led to approval of Complainant’s IDP
by herself and RMO-1. IR 763-64, 785, 765, 770-73/

Incident (18) - On July 12, 2012, RMO-1 failed to respond to Complainant’s email objecting to
the manner in which RMO-1 communicates with him: Complainant averred that on July 12, 2012,
after receiving the comments from RMO-1 on his IDP, Complainant emailed RMO-1, stating that
he was concerned at some of the communication in the ILU toward him, and that RMO-1 never
responded to that email. IR 330-32. RMO-1 responded that after consulting with RMO-2, the
Deputy Commissioner of the RSA, and the HCCS staff that he should not respond to that particular
email from Complainant, he declined to do so. He noted that the issues raised in Complainant’s
email had been addressed previously, and that Complainant’s request was itself inappropriate. IR
575.

Incident (19) - From August 21, 2012 to September 14, 2012, RMO-1 assigned Complainant more
work than could be reasonably accomplished in a 40-hour workweek, required him to submit daily
emails about his work progress and answer additional questions, and did not offer him overtime
compensation for the extra hours he worked: Complainant averred that he had been assigned to
negotiate 72 new discretionary grants that had to be completed by September 30, 2012. He averred
that at some point, management had moved the completion date for those grants two weeks ahead,
to September 15, 2012, in violation of Complainant’s REACH agreement. IR 334-39. RMO-1
averred that Complainant’s responsibilities including obtaining, reviewing, and approving
required program and financial reports, ensuring proper entry of budget information, disbursing
the grant awards by the deadlines established by the Assistant Secretary, and performing all
necessary grant administration functions. He denied that Complainant raised the issue of not being
able to complete his assignments and stated that he required all of his staff to submit emails and
reports regarding their progress, not just Complainant. IR 576.

Incident (20) - On August 23, 2012, RMO-1 denied his request for an accretion of duties,
promotion to GS-13, falsely criticizing him for not working on enough reviewed grants and for his
response time in reviewing those grants: Complainant averred that on July 5, 2012, he submitted
a request for an accretion of duties to the GS-13 level. He stated that more than 25% of his duties
were being devoted to doing the same work that GS-13 staff members were doing. IR 348. He
averred that on August 23, 2012, he received a notice from RMO-1 informing him that his request
for accretion of duties had been denied on the grounds that the duties he was performing were
consistent with his position description at the GS-12 level. IR 348-53, 581.

0120160404

13
Incident (21) - On September 4, 2012, RMO-1 proposed that he take the FY 2013 Grants
Management Certificate Program even though his supervisor knew he already had training and
experience in that area: Complainant averred that he never made a request for training in
September 2012, and that RMO-1, in proposing this training, had followed RMO-2’s lead in
believing that it would advance his career. He averred that RMO-1 never consulted him or
discussed the need for training with him. Complainant also noted that he had training in this area.
IR 362, 365. RMO-1 averred that he was aware that Complainant wanted to take additional
training that would enhance his skills and knowledge and prepare him for career development
opportunities. He stated that he had been informed that two additional open slots for the FY 2013
Grants Management Certificate Program were being allocated to OSERS, and that RMO-2
suggested that RMO-1 send the notice to Complainant to see if he was interested. IR 583-84.

Incident (22) - On September 26, 2012, RMO-1 assigned him an unreasonable deadline for putting
grant awards in the mail: Complainant averred that putting grants in the mail was a time-
consuming process that including making photo copies, stuffing envelopes, writing correct zip
codes and sealing the envelopes. He further averred that there were 72 of these grant awards that
had to be mailed out, and that he did not even have the envelopes he needed when he received
RMO-1’s email on September 26, 2012, indicating that the awards needed to be in the mail by
close-of-business that day. IR 367-69. RMO-1 responded that he did inform his staff at a meeting
the day before that the grants had to be out by the 26th of September, that all of the staff were
subjected to that deadline, including Complainant, and that Complainant had refused RMO-1’s
offer of assistance from other ILU staff to complete the mailing task. IR 586.

Incident (23) - On October 2, 2012, RMO-1 reassigned him two grant reimbursements that were
previously assigned to his colleagues: Complainant averred that the two grant reimbursements in
question were within the purview of colleagues assigned to other regions, and that RMO-1 had
just assigned him extra work without consulting him. IR 372-74. RMO-1 responded that these
assignments were based on Complainant’s position description as well as his knowledge of and
expertise with the G5 system as it relates to reimbursement reviews and approvals. He also averred
that he took into consideration the workload of each staff member and noted that none of
Complainant’s colleagues had the familiarity with the G5 process that he had. IR 588.

Incident (24) - On October 9, 2012, while Complainant was on annual leave, RMO-2 emailed him
to schedule a meeting for 8:00 AM on October 10, 2012, and at 8:10 am on October 10, 2012,
while he was still on approved leave, she called him to check on his whereabouts: Complainant
averred that on October 3, 2012, he had submitted a leave slip on which he requested annual leave
for October 9 and part of October 10, 2012, and that the leave was approved. Complainant averred
that he remembered that he had a dentist appointment scheduled for October 10, and that he sent
an email to RMO-1 notifying him of that appointment. He averred that at 8:10 AM on October
10, 2012, RMO-2 had called him at home and wanted to know where he was, and that in response,
he sent RMO-2 an email that he had a dental appointment. Complainant admitted that he did not
leave a prerecorded voicemail message indicating that he would be out of the office on October
10, 2012. IR 377-78. RMO-1 averred that he was on annual leave between October 3 and October
10, 2012, and that all staff were notified that RMO-2 would be the acting chief of the ILU during
0120160404

14
his absence. He averred that Complainant had sent an email at 6:31 AM on October 10, 2012,
indicating that he had a dentist appointment and that he did not see this message until he returned
to the office the following day. He also averred that this situation might have been avoided had
Complainant followed instructions to notify RMO-2 of his absence. IR 590. RMO-2 averred that
when she scheduled the meeting for the morning of October 10, 2012, she did not know that
Complainant would be absent, and that she called his house when he did not appear for the meeting.
She also averred that she had approved Complainant’s request for 3.4 hours of sick leave when he
returned to work on October 11, 2012. IR 773-74.

Incident (25) - On November 27, 2012, RMO-1 reassigned two grant transfers to Complainant that
were formerly assigned to Complainant’s colleagues without first discussing the reassignment with
Complainant: Complainant averred that RMO-1 had a grant transfer reassigned to him that the
colleague to which it was originally assigned could have handled. IR 380. He admitted, however
that the reason that RMO-1 had given for the assignment was that his expertise in the G5 system
was needed for this particular project. IR 381, 590-91.

Incident (26) - On March 25, 2013, Complainant was not selected for the Management and
Program Analyst position advertised under vacancy announcement number OSERS-2013-0008:
Complainant averred that he submitted his application for the position and was interviewed by
RMO-4, RMO-5, RMO-6, and the Director of Grants and Contract Services team within OSERS.
He averred that he did well in the interview and opined that he was the best qualified candidate,
but acknowledged that he was ultimately not selected. He also averred that RMO-1 or RMO-2
had given him a bad reference. IR 505-08. RMO-4, RMO-5, and RMO-6 all averred that although
Complainant was among the best qualified candidates for the position, the Selectee’s experience
was more relevant to the position. IR 968, 970, 977-79, 984-85.

Incident (27) - On April 23, 2013, Complainant was not selected for the Management and Program
Analyst position advertised under vacancy announcement number OSERS-2013-0013:
Complainant averred that he submitted an application for this position in the same manner as he
had submitted his applications for the two previously advertised vacancies. He was interviewed
for the position by RMO-4 and RMO-6. When asked what the reason he was given for not being
selected, Complainant replied that RMO-4 told him that he was among the best-qualified
candidates referred to the Selecting Official, but another candidate was chosen. IR 510-12. The
interview team for this vacancy consisted of RMO-4 and RMO-6. They averred that the Selectee
had a strong functional understanding of the EDGAR system and extensive experience with the
grant making process, experience in preparing grant application kits and in developing documents
for the Federal Register. They averred that RMO-4 made the decision to choose the Selectee. IR
971, 973, 986-87.

Incident (28) - On May 9, 2013, RMO-1 sent Complainant an email, copied to two of
Complainant’s colleagues, suggesting that Complaint take a leadership class specific to GS 9-12
level grades, knowing that Complaint was eligible for promotion to GS-13 level and should have
taken a more advanced course: Complainant averred that the leadership class was geared toward
employees at grades GS-9 through GS-12 and were therefore not appropriate for him.
0120160404

15
He averred that not only did RMO-1 suggest this class for him in an email, he did so publicly by
copying two of his colleagues on that message. He stated that as a manager, RMO-1 should have
known his background and skills, but did not. He averred that by proposing this training, RMO-
1 was reinforcing the idea that he could not advance on RMO-1’s team. IR 514-15. RMO-1
averred that he simply forwarded the announcement about the training to Complainant and three
other members of his staff who he believed were eligible. IR 746.

Incident (29) - On August 14, 2013, Complainant was not selected for the Vocational
Rehabilitation Program Specialist position advertised under vacancy announcement number
OSERS-2013-0018: Complainant averred that he applied for this position in the same manner in
which he applied for the other three. The review panel consisted of RMO-1, RMO-7, and RMO-
8. As with the other three vacancies, Complainant was on the certificate list of best qualified
candidates, was referred for an interview, and was interviewed but not selected. IR 522-528.
RMO-2 was the Selecting Official. Two candidates were selected, both of whom were female.
The panelists and RMO-2 averred that these two individuals were selected based on their particular
skills, knowledge, and experience, and that the positions were competitive and open to all sources.
RMO-2 stated that in making the selection, she considered the qualifications of the candidates in
terms of field-based experience and interpersonal skills, and that grant-making experience of the
type that Complainant had was not the only qualification considered. IR 752-53, 910-12, 991-92,
998.

Incident (30) - On September 16, 2013, Complainant was subjected to Agency scrutiny and
interview, including an interview by Agency security officers, after seeking to report to Human
Resources his opposition to the Agency’s ongoing unlawful discrimination and harassment:
Complainant averred that on September 16, 2013, he went to the HCCS Office to report ongoing
discrimination and harassment. SIR 146. While there, he stated that he met with the Director of
Workforce Relations who dismissed the validity of his EEO complaint, suggested that
Complainant look for a new job, and threatened him with a written reprimand and progressive
discipline. SIR 147. He averred that after he had sent an email to the Director of Workforce
Relations, he was escorted by RMO-2 to an interview with two security officers who explained to
him that they had received reports of an employee visiting the HCCS Office and making threats.
He also averred that after he had explained the situation, they permitted him to return to duty. SIR
147-48. RMO-9 averred that on September 16, 2013, he was summoned to the Security Services
Office, and that upon his arrival there, it was reported to him that an Agency employee had visited
the HCCS office, informed a receptionist that he was being subjected to a hostile work
environment, and made statements to the effect that someone would die. SIR 170-73. RMO-10
and RMO-11 both averred that Complainant was interviewed because he had allegedly
communicated threats, prompting the receptionist to contact Security Services. IR 177, 181.

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,
0120160404

16
§ 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”).

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). As a first step, Complainant is usually required to establish a prima facie case of
disparate treatment by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under
circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v.
Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case,
however, since the RMO-1 and the other management officials articulated legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for each incident at issue in this complaint. See U.S. Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997).

With respect to the non-promotions to GS-13 at issue in incidents (11), (26), (27), and (29), the
various selecting officials and panel members all stated that although Complainant was among the
best-qualified candidates for all four positions, the selectees had the edge in terms of the
qualifications that the selecting officials had sought with respect to each particular position. As to
the security incident that was the subject of incident (30), Complainant was questioned because
the receptionist had interpreted his outburst as a threat to harm himself and other employees and
had contacted Security Services in accordance with Agency protocols. Concerning the comments
that RMO-1 made in Complainant’s EDPAS and REACH evaluations that were at issue in
incidents (5), (7), and (8), RMO-1 maintained that the comments that he made were based strictly
upon his observation of Complainant’s performance during the evaluation periods in question, and
that Complainant had received ratings of “Highly Successful” on his EDPAS evaluation and “High
Results Achieved” on his REACH evaluation. With respect to the working conditions to which
RMO-1 allegedly subjected Complainant at issue in incidents (1), (3), and (18), RMO-1 denied
allowing Complainant’s colleagues to supervise him, denied making extra demands on him, and
acknowledged not responding to an email from Complainant that he believed to be inappropriate.
Regarding the various interactions between Complainant and RMO-1 that were the subjects of the
remaining incidents, RMO-1 maintained that he assigned Complainant tasks that fell within the
parameters of his position description as a GS-12 grants management specialist. In particular,
RMO-1 also maintained that he had denied Complainant’s requests for details to OPE due to the
workload and staffing shortage within the ILU, and that he cancelled Complainant’s acting
supervisor stints because his schedule changed.

To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
Agency’s explanations for those incidents are pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,
519 (1993); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981);
Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).
0120160404

17
Pretext can be demonstrated by showing such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies,
incoherencies, or contradictions in the Agency’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a
reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence. Opare-Addo v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (Nov. 20, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC
Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008).

In nonselection cases, Complainant could demonstrate pretext by showing that his qualifications
for the position were plainly superior to those of the selectee. Hung P. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120141721 (Dec. 3, 2015). Complainant should bear in mind, however, that
agencies have broad discretion to choose among equally qualified candidates as long as the
selection is not based on unlawful considerations. Complainant v. Dept. of Homeland Security,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120131478 (Jul. 31, 2015). They may select candidates with fewer years of
experience if they believe that such candidates are best qualified to meet the needs of the
organization. See Complainant v. Dept. of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120131151 (Feb. 25, 2015).
They may even preselect a candidate as long as the preselection is not premised upon a prohibited
basis. See Complainant v. Dept. of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132858 (Mar. 9,
2015). In this case, the interview scoring sheets and other documentation of the various merit
promotion actions support the assessments of the selecting officials and the interview panelists
that the selectees were the best candidates for each position. Complainant, by contrast, has
presented neither affidavits, declarations, or unsworn statements from witnesses other than himself
nor documents that contradict those assessments or which call into question the veracity of any of
the officials involved in the various selections. We therefore find, as did the Agency, that
Complainant has not shown that his sex, age, or previous EEO activity were factors in any of his
unsuccessful bids for promotion.

Other indicators of pretext include discriminatory statements or past personal treatment
attributable to those responsible for the personnel action that led to the filing of the complaint,
comparative or statistical data revealing differences in treatment across various protected-group
lines, unequal application of Agency policy, deviations from standard procedures without
explanation or justification, or inadequately explained inconsistencies in the evidentiary record.
Mellissa F. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120141697 (Nov. 12, 2015). As to age
discrimination, Complainant admitted that he could not say for certain whether his age was a factor
in any of the incidents. IR 220, 245, 249, 258, 266, 271, 277, 284, 288, 291, 296, 305, 313, 316,
328, 332-33, 340, 353-54, 365, 370-71, 374, 378, 381-82, 508, 513, 516, 528. Regarding sex
discrimination, Complainant repeated that RMO-2, who was female, was directing or influencing
the actions being taken against him. IR 221, 239-40, 245, 249, 258, 267, 271, 277, 285, 288, 291,
296-97, 306, 313, 316, 328-29, 333, 340, 354, 366, 371, 374, 378, 382, 508, 513, 516, 528-29.

Concerning reprisal, the record establishes that Complainant’s earliest contact with an EEO
counselor occurred in April 2011. Consequently, incidents (1) through (4), to the extent that they
occurred before April 1, 2011, could not have been motivated by considerations of Complainant’s
prior EEO activity.

0120160404

18
Concerning the remaining incidents, Complainant argues that RMO-1 and RMO-2 began to
retaliate against him after they had been contacted by an EEO counselor sometime in April 2011.
IR 221, 240, 246, 249, 256, 259, 267, 272, 277, 285, 288, 291, 297, 306, 313, 316, 329, 333, 340-
41, 354, 366, 371, 375, 379, 382, 508, 513, 517, 529-32. As to incident (30), Complainant averred
that almost immediately after he attempted to report his opposition to working in a discriminatory
and hostile environment, he was interviewed by two security officers. SIR 149.

In addition to his own affidavit, Complainant provided sworn declarations from two of his
colleagues, a male Program Specialist and a female Grants Management Specialist. Both of these
individuals were at Grade GS-13. The Program Specialist averred that Complainant was never
included in staff meetings, although he could not remember the exact dates of those meetings. IR
1008. When asked by the EEO investigator whether he believed that Complainant was subjected
to discrimination based on sex, age, and reprisal when he was yelled at by RMO-1 and not included
in meetings, the Program Specialist replied, “Yes.” IR 1008. However, the Grants Management
Specialist averred that she saw RMO-1 claim that Complainant was being insubordinate after
walking out of Complainant’s cubicle in apparent frustration. IR 1012. When asked the same
question as the Program Specialist, namely whether she thought Complainant had been
discriminated against, she replied, “No. I think Complainant was yelled at out of frustration
because his supervisor could not get Complainant to do what he wanted.” IR 1013.

Beyond these statements, Complainant has not presented any other evidence tending to establish
the existence of a discriminatory or retaliatory motive attributable to any of the RMOs. Likewise,
he has not presented any evidence tending to show that the RMO’s had not been truthful in their
statements to the EEO investigator. Consequently, we agree with the Agency that Complainant
has not met his burden of proof with respect to any of the incidents comprising his discrimination
claim.

Furthermore, the Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems,
Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), 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 on any of his alleged bases. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s
final decision finding that Complainant was not discriminated against as alleged.

0120160404

19
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.
0120160404

20
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

September 14, 2018
Date