Tyree L.,1 Complainant,v.Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Research and Innovative Technology Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 29, 2019

0120182843 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 29, 2019)

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

Tyree L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Research and Innovative Technology Administration),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120182843

Hearing Nos. 570-2014-00106X
570-2014-00094X
570-2014-00263X

Agency Nos. DOT-2010-23160-RITA-02
DOT-2013-24947-RITA-02
DOT-2013-25200-RITA-02

DECISION

On August 31, 2018, 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
August 1, 2018, final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mathematical
Statistician, GS-14, in the Agency’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA),
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of Advanced Studies (OAS) in Washington,

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.
0120182843

2
D.C. Complainant began his employment at the Agency in 2001. Complainant’s position had
promotion potential to GS-15.

Person A, Assistant Director, OAS, was Complainant’s first level supervisor from 2006 until June
2013. Person B, Director, OAS was Complainant’s second level supervisor from September 2007
until October 2011. Person C, Deputy Director, BTS, was Complainant’s second level supervisor
beginning in June 2012. Person D, was Complainant’s third level supervisor at the time of his FY
13 performance rating.

Complaint 1 - EEOC No. 570-2014-00106X; Agency No. DOT-2010-23160-RITA-02

On February 17, 2010, Complainant filed an EEO complaint.

1. Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment on the
bases of age (born 1955) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

a. On August 25, 2007, he was sent out on an involuntary six-month detail;
b. On November 14, 2007, he received a mediocre performance rating;
c. On March 3, 2008, he was assigned another involuntary detail;
d. On June 1, 2008, he was not selected for a GS-15 position in the BTS Office of
Transportation Analysis;
e. On January 4, 2010, he learned that his FPL (full performance level) had been
changed; and,
f. On January 12, 2010, his repeated request to move to another cubicle was denied.

Initially, the Agency dismissed claims (a) – (d) of this complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO
Counselor contact. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120122342 (October 24, 2012), the EEOC’s Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) reversed the Agency’s decision to dismiss claims (a) – (d) and
remanded the claims to be considered as part of Complainant’s single interrelated claim that he
was subjected to ongoing harassment, along with his timely allegations (e) and (f).

Complaint 2- EEOC No. 570-2014-00094X; Agency No. DOT-2013-24947-RITA-02

On February 21, 2013, Complainant filed a second EEO complaint.

2. Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of age (born
1955), sex (male), race (Caucasian), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when
the Agency failed to promote him to the full performance level of GS-15 in the career
ladder of his position.2

2 Complainant’s original allegation in Agency No. DOT-2013-24947-RITA-02 was framed and
accepted for investigation as follows: Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against based
on his sex (male) and in reprisal for his prior protected EEO activity, in that he is compensated at
a lower pay grade (GS-14, as opposed to GS-15) than similarly situated coworkers who work at
0120182843

3

Complaint 3 - EEOC No. 570-2014-00263X; Agency No. DOT-2013-25200-RITA-02

On July 10, 2013, Complainant filed a third EEO complaint.

3. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against based on his age (born 1955) and
in reprisal for his prior protected EEO activity when, on June 12, 2013, he received what
he considered to be a mediocre rating of “Achieved Results” rather than the “Outstanding”
rating he believes he earned.

Complainant requested a hearing on all three of his EEO complaints. Over Complainant's
objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motions for a decision without a
hearing and issued a consolidated decision without a hearing on July 26, 2018. In her decision,
the AJ noted Complainant’s cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, but had been
considered in her decision as opposition to the Agency’s motion for summary judgment. The AJ
noted Complainant also filed a Request for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment on
March 24, 2017, which the AJ denied as unnecessary to resolution of the cases.

Complaint 1 ((a)-(f)) Hostile Work Environment

In her decision, the AJ noted that as determined by OFO, Complainant’s claims in Complaint 1
((a) – (d)) are to be analyzed in relation to claims (e) and (f) as a component of Complainant’s
overall harassment claim. The AJ found Complainant failed to present legally sufficient evidence
of a prima facie case of harassment in retaliation for prior EEO activity in his allegations in
Complaint 1 ((a)-(f)). The AJ noted Complainant claimed he engaged in prior protected EEO
activity when he filed an administrative grievance in December 2007, against his supervisors,
alleging prohibited personnel practices in ratings, selections, and other actions. The AJ found his
administrative grievance raising those charges did not constitute prior protected EEO activity. The
AJ stated his charges referred to possible Hatch Act violations, selections made in violation of
merit systems principles, and an allegation of an illegal quota on performance ratings, and other
“prohibited personnel practices,” rather than EEO discrimination. The AJ noted that in
Complainant’s affidavit, Complainant admitted that his first EEO activity was Complaint 1 itself,
which was initiated on January 11, 2010. The AJ stated the allegation of retaliatory harassment in
Complaint 1, claims (a) – (e), all involving claims arising prior to Complainant’s EEO activity
failed.

levels no higher than he does. By letter dated June 6, 2014, the former EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ) assigned to the case granted Complainant’s motion to amend, in which Complainant
requested that the allegation be reframed as reflected herein and that the bases of race and age be
added.
0120182843

4
In addition, the AJ found Complainant’s claim of retaliatory harassment in Complaint 1, claim (f)
regarding his denial of a move to a different cubicle, which arose one day after his initial EEO
Counselor contact on January 11, 2010, but which stated a claim that was ongoing for the prior
two years, also failed to establish a nexus with Complainant’s EEO activity, as it began prior to
his EEO contact. The AJ stated it also failed because there was no evidence that management
officials responsible for the cubicle move were aware of the January 11, 2010 EEO contact at the
time of the denial.

Involuntary Details (Complaint 1(a) and (c))

The AJ further found Complainant’s allegations of harassment based on age discrimination in
Complaint 1 ((a) – (f)) failed. With regard to 1(a), Complainant alleged that he was involuntarily
detailed to the Agency’s Pandemic Flu Team in August 2007, which was outside his expertise and
classification. With respect to claim 1(c), Complainant alleged he was involuntarily assigned to
serve a detail outside his expertise in March 2008, that would require extensive travel to interview
truckers about a “controversial Mexican Truck program.” Complainant stated the detail was
cancelled, but that it “demanded [his] resources from 13 March to 24 June 2008.”

The AJ noted Person A stated employees were not forced to serve involuntary details and that
Complainant was asked whether he would be willing to go on the August 2007 detail and
Complainant agreed to do so. The AJ noted Complainant’s performance appraisal for this period
indicates Complainant “volunteered to assist OST with drafting [Agency] pandemic influenza
planning training and exercises.”

With regard to Complainant’s allegation that he was involuntarily detailed in March 2008, Person
A stated that another part of RITA was helping the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) with safety investigations at that time, and that he asked Complainant if he could assist,
and Complainant said he would. Person A said the detail did not occur so it was not possible that
Complainant would have used his resources on the work.

The AJ stated during the investigation, Complainant did not provide evidence rebutting Person
A’s statements regarding the details. The AJ noted Complainant further failed to provide any
comparative information or other probative evidence regarding the details in response to the
Agency’s motion for summary judgment to support his bare assertions of discrimination. Thus,
the AJ found Complainant failed to produce legally sufficient evidence that he was forced to serve
the details in question, that they resulted in him missing out on preferable opportunities, or that the
Agency’s actions related to the details were motivated by age discrimination.

November 2007 Performance Rating – Complaint 1(b)

The AJ noted Complainant alleged that his 2007 performance rating was affected by the arrival of
new management and resulted from prohibited personnel practices, including rating criteria and
illegal quotas on ratings. Complainant also asserted his 2007 rating was inconsistent with his past
ratings.
0120182843

5

In response, Person B stated Complainant’s 2007 rating was appropriate, fair, and unbiased.
Person B stated no secret evaluation criteria were used and no quotas on ratings were in place.
Regarding the relevance of Complainant’s past performance ratings, Person B stated he did not
believe that past performance evaluations should be considered in determining an employer’s
ratings in the following years. Person A stated that while there were no rating quotas in place, new
upper management had informed supervisors that the highest rating should be difficult to achieve
and that only about 5% of employees would merit that rating.

In response, Complainant alleged that other employees were also affected by the rating practices
of the Agency in 2007 and filed grievances regarding their ratings, and that a female coworker,
Coworker 1, had her overall rating raised when she complained about her rating. The AJ found
that even if, as Complainant alleged, there was a quota of 5% on the highest ratings in 2007 and
that the rating of Coworker 1 was changed, this was not evidence of age discrimination. The AJ
noted that Coworker 1 was older than Complainant. The AJ found no other evidence that
Complainant’s rating was motivated by his age.

Nonselection to GS-15 position - Complaint 1(d)

The AJ noted Complainant alleged he was subjected to harassment based on age in 2008, when he
was not selected for a GS-15 position in the BTS Office of Transportation Analysis and a younger,
less qualified male (Selectee) was selected at the GS-14 level. Complainant alleged that although
he had not seen the Selectee’s resume, he believed him to be less qualified as his work was
“descriptive, not deeply analytical or theoretical” and Complainant did not believe the Selectee
had published in a referenced journal. Complainant also noted he had more years of relevant
experience than the Selectee and a PhD. The AJ noted the Selectee held a bachelor’s degree in
Economics and two master’s degrees, one in Management and one in Business Administration and
had worked as an Industry Economist since 2003 at the Federal Maritime Commission where he
applied economic theory and statistical methods to assessments of competition in the liner shipping
industry. The AJ noted the Selectee had served as an economic expert and made recommendations
to the Federal Maritime Commission; had conducted training, seminars and workshops; and had
drafted extensive written reports, policy memoranda and correspondence for higher-level officials
and other audiences. The Selectee had also represented the Federal Maritime Commission at
industry conferences and on various working groups and had served as a subject matter expert in
the development of the Automated Customs Environment/International Trade Data System.

The AJ determined Complainant failed to present evidence that his qualifications were plainly or
demonstrably superior to the Selectee’s or that the Agency’s selection was in any way based on
Complainant’s age. Further, the AJ noted that the fact that the position was advertised at the GS-
13/14/15 level meant that the Agency was seeking a wide range of years of experience and not
necessarily an applicant such as Complainant at the GS-15 level.

0120182843

6
Change of Full Performance Level (FPL) (January 2010) – Complaint 1(e)

The AJ noted that Complainant stated that when he was originally hired, his position was
advertised at the GS-14/15 level. He qualified for, and was hired at GS-14, believing he would be
eligible for a promotion to GS-15. Complainant stated that in July 2008, Person A asked all
Advanced Studies employees to rewrite and update their position descriptions (PD), and
Complainant did so. After his new PD was in place, he discovered that he no longer had a
promotion potential to GS-15. Complainant believed that five other employees rewrote their PDs,
and they all had their full performance level (FPL) reduced.

The AJ noted that Person A responded that he did not know why Complainant’s FPL was changed,
but that eight employees, including Complainant, had their FPL changed at that time. The affected
employees ranged in age from 41 to 62, and six of the employees were younger than Complainant.
Person A explained that after several conversations and attempts to have the Agency’s Human
Resources (HR) office correct the situation, eventually Complainant and all the affected employees
had their FPL restored to the previous level. The AJ determined Complainant failed to show that
he was singled out because of his age in the allegation regarding his FPL. The AJ noted the fact
that the affected employees were all over age 40 does not raise an inference of discrimination here,
as the positions held by those affected were higher-level grades, which were more likely to be held
by older employees.

Denial of Move to Another Cubicle (January 2010) – Complaint 1(f)

The AJ noted that Complainant also alleged that because of age-based harassment management
refused to let him move to another cubicle in January 2010, and that his prior requests spanning
over a period of two years were ignored. Complainant wanted to move, he claimed, because of
noise, incense burning and repeated political discussions in his area. He claimed his location was
very distracting and interfered with his ability to perform, and that other employees were moved
when they asked.

The AJ noted Person A responded that many different offices compete for space, and he is not in
exclusive control of the space. He also stated that Complainant was offered several new locations,
but that he declined them for various reasons. One space that Complainant desired was held by an
employee on a detail and could not be provided. Complainant did eventually move to a new
cubicle on June 7, 2010.

The AJ found no evidence of discriminatory motivation in the Agency’s failure to more quickly
move Complainant to his desired cubicle. Moreover, the AJ determined the issue of the cubicle
move does not rise to the level of harassment or an adverse action.

In considering the claims in complaint 1 ((a) – (f)) together, the AJ found Complainant’s
harassment allegation fails for lack of evidence of discriminatory motivation.

0120182843

7
The AJ noted that other than his bare assertions, Complainant has not provided probative evidence
that the Agency’s actions were motivated by his age. Moreover, the AJ found the incidents that
are the subject of complaint 1 are neither severe nor pervasive enough to rise to the level of
harassment.

Complaint 2 – Denial of Non-Competitive Promotion to GS-15

The AJ noted Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against based on his age, sex, race,
and in reprisal for his prior EEO activity when he was denied a non-competitive promotion of the
full career ladder performance level of GS-15 in his research position. As comparatives,
Complainant pointed to Coworker 1, Coworker 2, Coworker 3, and Coworker 4, who were
supervised by Person A during the relevant period and paid at the GS-15 level.

The AJ noted the Agency presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its failure to
noncompetitively promote Complainant. Person A, who was Complainant’s first level supervisor
from 2006 through June 2013, stated that a GS-15 in BTS must possess all the skill sets of a GS-
14, but must have “superior” command of the skills. A GS-15 employee’s written and verbal
communication skills are greater, and they must be able to step in and act as a manager if needed,
including possessing the ability to do budgets, performance plans, and evaluations if needed. They
are expected to be creative and collaborate with others, inside and outside the Agency, to
coordinate and organize projects. Person A stated that the workload of a GS-15 was greater and
their projects are typically high-priority and high-profile. Person A attested Complainant was not
promoted to GS-15 as his verbal communication skills needed major improvement, he had an
aggressive attitude when he communicates, he was not a good listener, and his written skills needed
improvement since he had a tendency to write from a statistically mathematical point of view,
which was not what they do most of the time. In addition, Person A stated Complainant refused
to edit his materials so the editor had made lots of changes, and he became very upset and said he
did not want his work published.

Regarding his comparatives, the AJ said Coworker 2 and Coworker 4 were not similarly situated
to Complainant, as they were Economists, while Complainant was a Mathematical Statistician.
The AJ noted that Coworker 1 and Coworker 3 were hired as GS-15’s prior to Person A’s arrival.
Person A also noted that Coworker 1 managed over nine contract staff with a budget over $2
million and Coworker 3 had served as a manager in the past. The AJ noted Person A stated
Complainant had never conducted management tasks and “would not be able to lead collaborative
work with commercial entities and other agencies, not be able to plan, organize, and manage those
types of relationships, projects, and meetings. He does not work on any project that requires a
budget or requires any program management/planning.” The AJ noted Complainant referenced
allegations in other complaints he has filed that have been addressed by other AJs and are not
before her for adjudication. The AJ found Complainant failed to present probative evidence
showing that the Agency’s reasons for not promoting him to GS-15 were pretextual or otherwise
motivated by discrimination or retaliation.

0120182843

8
Complaint 3 – Performance Rating (June 2013)

The AJ noted that Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against based on his age and in
reprisal for his prior EEO activity when, on June 12, 2013, he received an “Achieved Results”
performance rating rather than the rating of “Outstanding.” Complainant asserted the 2013 rating
was the culmination of ongoing harassment by Person A and Person B, evidenced by assignment
of “impossible and banal tasks,” revision of his performance plan twice late in the performance
year, and moving up deadlines.

The AJ noted Person A and Person B stated that to obtain an “Achieved Results,” an employee
must have performed all the items as indicated on their performance plan. To receive an “Exceeds
Expectations,” an employee would have had to perform one to two large items outside of what was
outlined in their performance plan, and to receive an “Outstanding,” an employee would have had
to perform three or more projects that were above and beyond.

Person A stated that during 2013, Complainant did what was indicated on his performance plan,
but nothing extra; thus, an “Achieved Results” rating was warranted. Person A noted that
resources were tight during 2013, and there were extra tasks that he could no longer handle, so he
informed his staff that he might need to ask them to take additional duties. Person A stated that
Complainant responded he would file a grievance against Person A if he perceived the duties to
be below his grade level. Person A noted in the past, Complainant has been willing to take on
extra duties and has received higher ratings as a result. Person A also stated that one of
Complainant’s projects was time-sensitive, and he and Person D told Complainant to use the
previous work on the project and update it. Instead, Complainant disagreed and insisted on starting
from scratch on the project and conducting a lengthy research effort, but then ran out of time.
Person A states as a result, Complainant’s project was difficult to read and understand, and lacked
organization.

The AJ noted that in response, Complainant argued that his rating should have been higher because
of his work on a grant proposal that was above and beyond expectations. The AJ noted Person B
stated that on the related criteria Complainant received an “Exceeds Expectations” for his grant
proposal work, but because of the weighting of performance elements, his overall rating remained
“Achieved Results.” The AJ found Complainant’s work was considered and appropriately
addressed in his rating.

The AJ found no evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motivation arising from the treatment
of Complainant’s comparatives with respect to the rating at issue. The AJ noted the record showed
the overall ratings of the other Mathematical Statisticians under Person A and Person B in FY 2013
were as follows: Coworker 1 - “Outstanding;” Coworker 3 – “Achieved Results;” Coworker 5 –
“Exceeded Expectations;” Coworker 6 – “Outstanding.” The AJ noted that Coworker 1 and
Coworker 6, who received higher ratings than Complainant, were both older than him, which
vitiates an inference of age discrimination.

0120182843

9
The AJ also noted that one of Complainant’s coworkers who did not engage in prior EEO activity
(Coworker 3) received an “Achieved Results” rating, which vitiates an inference that Complainant
was singled out in retaliation for his EEO activity. The AJ further noted that other employees in
BTS had changes mid-year to their performance plan, like Complainant, which further belies his
claim of being retaliatory targeted.

The Agency subsequently issued a final order on August 1, 2018. The Agency’s final order fully
implemented the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to
discrimination as alleged.

On appeal, regarding complaint 1, Complainant claims the AJ framed his complaint as only a
hostile work environment claim instead of both a retaliatory hostile work environment and age-
based disparate treatment claims. Complainant states he has established a prima facie case of age
discrimination with regard to his nonselection (complaint 1, claim (d)) and that the Agency has
failed to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting him. Complainant also
alleged the Agency has obstructed discovery in this case and that Agency officials committed
“perjury.” Regarding complaint 2 and complaint 3, Complainant cited the arguments made in his
“Complainant’s Motions for Summary Judgment” which the AJ referred to in her decision as
“cross” motions for summary judgment.

In response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency states that although Complainant disagrees with
how the claim in complaint 1 is framed, it is clear that the AJ was following the instructions of
OFO in framing the claim. Further, the Agency noted Complainant’s age-based discrimination
claim has been analyzed. The Agency also noted that the AJ considered Complainant’s allegations
of inadequate discovery responses. The Agency asserted that Complainant’s assertions of “perjury
and obstruction” are without merit. Regarding complaint 2 and complaint 3, the Agency found
Complainant offered no arguments to dispute the factual findings noted by the AJ and found to be
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant’s failure to receive a career ladder
promotion and his “Achieved Results” FY 2013 rating.

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 EEOC Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, Chap. 9, § VI.A. (Nov. 9, 1999)
(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”).

Upon review of the record, we find that the AJ properly found that the present complaint was
suitable for summary judgment. We find that the record is adequately developed and there are no
disputes of material fact.
0120182843

10
Despite Complainant’s contentions to the contrary, we find no evidence of obstruction or perjury
by the Agency. Regarding Complainant’s contention that his claim of discrimination based on age
in complaint 1 was improperly framed, we find the AJ properly defined Complainant’s complaint
in accordance with OFO’s previous decision. Moreover, the record reveals the AJ addressed
Complainant’s claim in complaint 1 that he was subjected to discrimination based on age.
Regarding claim 1(d) in complaint 1, we find the AJ properly found that Complainant failed to
present evidence that his qualifications were plainly superior to those of the Selectee or that the
Agency’s selection was in any way based on Complainant’s age. Moreover, with regard to the
remaining claims, we find Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the
Agency’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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.
0120182843

11
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

October 29, 2019
Date