EEOC Appeal 2020001011

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Herb F.,1
Complainant,
v.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001011
Hearing Nos. 520-2017-00273X and 520-2016-00521X
Agency Nos. DOT2015-26010-FAA-01 and DOT2016-26570-FAA-01
DECISION
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 September 25, 2019 final
order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an Air Traffic Assistant at the Agency’s
Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center in Nashua, New Hampshire.
The record indicates that Complainant filed three formal EEO complaints (“complaint 1,”
“complaint 2,” and “complaint 3”) on March 7, 2014, March 2, 2015, and February 12, 2016.
The complaints 1, 2, and 3 consisted of the following matters.
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.

2020001011	2
Complaint 1 (Agency No. DOT2014-25430FAA1): Whether the Agency discriminated against
Complainant based on age (born 1960) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity2 when
Complainant was issued a performance evaluation on October 15, 2013, which contained four
negative comments and an over-all rating of “meets standards.”3
Complaint 2 (Agency No. DOT2015-26010FAA1): Whether the Agency discriminated against
Complainant based on age (born 1960) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when
Complainant was not given his amended FY 2013 performance appraisal, which was amended
on January 2014, until October 29, 2014, after he requested it.4
Complaint 3 (Agency No. DOT2016-26570FAA01): Whether the Agency discriminated
against Complainant based on reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on September 19,
2015, Complainant learned that he was not selected for the position of ATCS, Support Specialist,
AT-2152-K1 (temporary NTE-2 years) advertised under Vacancy Announcement No. ANE-
ATO-15-114-42012.
After its investigation into complaints 2 and 3,5 the Agency provided Complainant with copies of
the reports of investigation and notices of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant
timely requested a hearing. On August 10, 2016, Complainant filed a motion to consolidate
complaints 2 and 3. 	On May 17, 2017, Complainant also submitted a motion to amend his
formal complaint to include an additional non-selection (non-selection for Management and
Program 	Analysist, 	Job 	Announcement 	No. 	ANE-ATO-I6-095-4668),6 reinstatement 	of 	a
previously dismissed claim, and inclusion of ongoing hostile work environment claims.
2 The record indicates that Complainant participated as a witness in another co-worker’s EEO
complaint filed against S1 in 2006, and Complainant filed the instant complaint against S1 on
March 7, 2014.
3 The Agency dismissed this claim on procedural grounds. On appeal, the Commission affirmed
the Agency’s dismissal. 	See Complainant v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No.
0120141977 (Sept. 25, 2014).
4 The Agency dismissed this claim on procedural grounds. On appeal, the Commission reversed
the Agency’s dismissal finding that Complainant had alleged that he was not selected for several
jobs due to the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory delay in providing his amended performance
appraisal, and therefore, Complainant had alleged a harm or loss with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. The Commission remanded
this complaint to the Agency for further processing. See Brenton W. v. Dep’t of Transportation,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120151739 (Apr. 22, 2016).
5 The Agency conducted separate investigations for complaints 2 and 3.
6 The record indicates that Complainant subsequently withdrew this claim on May 17, 2019.

2020001011	3
On December 21, 2018, the AJ granted Complainant’s order and on February 22, 2019, the
parties jointly set forth the claims for the hearing process which included the following accepted
claims:
Claim 1: Was Complainant discriminated against based on age (born 1960) and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity when Complainant was not given the amended to his FY 2013
performance appraisal, effective on January 23, 2014, until October 29, 2014 after Complainant
requested it?
Claim II: Was Complainant discriminated against based on age (born 1960) and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity, when the Agency’s delay in providing him with the FY 2013
performance appraisal until October 29, 2014, which Complainant believed contained the
Original FY2013 performance appraisal, and may have contributed to his failure to be selected
for several position between January 2014 and October 2014?
Claim III: 	Was Complainant discriminated against based on reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity when on September 19, 2015, Complainant learned that he was not selected for the
position of ATCS, Support Specialist, AT-2152-KI (temporary NTE-2 years) advertised under
Vacancy Announcement No. ANE-ATO-15-114-42012?
Claim IV: Since in or around 2007 and continuing to the present, the Agency has engaged in a
recurring pattern and 	practice of discrimination and/or hostile work environment toward
Complainant based on his age (born 1960) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity which
consisted of the following concrete personnel actions and/or acts of harassment:
1. 	The Agency delayed providing Complainant with an amended FY 2013 performance
appraisal until October 29, 2014, where Complainant believes that the narrative in the
Original FY2013 performance appraisal may have contributed to his failure to be
selected for several positions between January 2014 and October 2014.
2. 	Beginning in June 2007, after Complainant participated as a witness in an EEO
complaint against Complainant’s supervisor (“S1”), the relationship between S1 and
Complainant changed dramatically when she started holding Complainant to a higher
standard than his peers within the department.
3. 	During 2008, S1 continued to treat Complainant differently than his co-workers, by
treating him more adversely than his co-workers, such as not approving his annual
leave requests when she approved others’ request. 	The relationship remained very
contentious.
4. 	In January 2010, Complainant started a detail as an Operations Officer at the New
England Region Command Center. 	After working this detail for several months,
Complainant became aware that S1 made several attempts to terminate the detail

2020001011	4
early under the guise of Flight Data Departmental needs, which Complainant believed
to be retaliatory for his participating in an EEO complaint.
5. 	In January 2011, when Complainant returned from the detail, S1 continued her hostile
treatment of Complainant. 	In early March, Complainant requested a meeting with
NAGE representative and his second level supervisor (“S2”) to attempt to terminate
the retaliatory/toxic behavior that created a hostile work environment on an ongoing
basis. The meeting was attended by Complainant, the NAGE Representative, S2, S1,
and the Administrative Service Manager.
6. 	During 2012, S1 held Complainant to a different, seemingly higher standard with
regard 	to 	performance 	of 	operations 	than 	any 	other 	employee. 	Specifically,
Complainant was held to a different standard on day-to-day procedures such as leave
requests, break time, schedule request, sign in/sign out and scrutinized unfairly with
regard to these matters.
7. 	On February 13, 2013, S1 made six other allegations of creating “Hostile Work
Environment” against Complainant in retaliation for his complaints, which ultimately
resulted in a finding of no misconduct on Complainant’s part.
8. 	On October 15, 2013, S1 issued Complainant a performance evaluation, which
included four negative additional comments that were unwarranted.
9. 	Since this incident on October 15, 2013, S1 continues to retaliate against Complainant
and treat him differently than other employees by holding all aspects of his employee
to a different standard. 	S1 continues to try to goad Complainant into confrontations
in order to deflect attention away from her discriminatory/hostile/unprofessional
behavior. The relation has continued through the present.
On June 12, 2019, the Agency filed a motion for summary judgment and Complainant filed an
opposition. 	On September 9, 2019, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of
the Agency.
On September 25, 2019, the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding of no
discrimination.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing upon finding
that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 	EEOC’s decision
without a hearing regulation follows the summary judgment procedure from federal court. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56.

2020001011	5
The U.S. Supreme Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no
genuine issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the
judge is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial, as opposed to weighing the
evidence. 	Id. at 249. 	At the summary judgment stage, the judge must believe the non-moving
party’s evidence and must draw justifiable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255.
A “genuine issue of fact” is one that a reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving
party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d
103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). 	A “material” fact has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.
On appeal, Complainant, through counsel, does not submit any statements or brief on appeal.
However, to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify,
with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting
evidence 	and 	must 	further 	establish 	that 	such 	facts 	are 	material 	under 	applicable 	law.
Complainant has not pointed with any specificity to particular evidence in the investigative file
or other evidence of record that indicates such a dispute.
For the reasons discussed below, we find that, even construing any inferences raised by the
undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in his favor.
Disparate Treatment – Claims I - III
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 	For a complainant to prevail,
he or she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if
unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited
consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S.
at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the
agency to 	articulate a 	legitimate, 	non-discriminatory reason 	for 	its 	actions. 	See Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has
met its burden, a complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St.
Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally
consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases.
Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action
at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas
analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. 	See U.S. Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health
and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).

2020001011	6
Our review of the record supports that the AJ correctly determined that the Agency provided
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
FY 2013 Performance Appraisal (Claims I and II)
Complainant testified that he received his FY 2013 performance appraisal on October 15, 2013,
and informed S1 that he disagreed with the “negative” comments on the evaluation. 	The
comment in question stated the following:
On June 30, 2013, instructions were left for you to change the filters in the AISR.
The instructions included how to make the changes. The changes were not made.
Complainant indicated that he filed a grievance in the matter and agreed to have the negative
statement removed. 	Consequently, Complainant indicated that S2 informed him in February
2014, that he would receive an amended performance evaluation. However, Complainant stated
that he did not receive the amended evaluation until October 29, 2014. 	Complainant explained
that the comment “failing to perform an instructed task” was a contributing factor to his non-
selection for other jobs7 because it was a “negative narrative of [his] performance record.”
However, Complainant testified that he did not submit the appraisal at issue with any application
package he submitted from January 2014 through October 2014.
Complainant further asserted that S1’s behavior toward him changed “dramatically” after he
completed an affidavit in support of another co-worker’s 2006 EEO complaint filed against S1.
Complainant also acknowledged that he has “spoken up against” wrongdoing by S1 and
Complainant explained that anyone who “is in the least critical of S1’s views and management
style has received the greatest reward and preferential treatment from her by doing so.” 	In
contrast, Complainant explained that S1 held him to a higher standard and heightened scrutiny
after he participated in the 2006 EEO complaint as a witness.
S1 acknowledged that Complainant received his initial FY 2013 performance appraisal on
October 15, 2013. However, S1 asserted that S2 asked her to amend the performance appraisal
on January 23, 2014 and she made the changes the same day and returned to amended evaluation
to S2. S1 explained that it was not until an October 15, 2014 meeting to discuss Complainant’s
FY 2014 appraisal that Complainant indicated that he had not received his amended FY 2013
appraisal. 	S1 explained that they reviewed Complainant’s FY 2013 appraisal on October 29,
2014. S1 further explained that she believed the delay was an oversight because both S2 and the
office manager retired around the time she had submitted the amended appraisal. 	S1 denied
giving any of Complainant’s performance appraisals to any selecting official, and only indicated
that she submitted the signed copy of the performance appraisal for filing to the Management
and Program Analyst.
7 We note that the ATCS, Support Specialist, AT-2152-KI (temporary NTE-2 years) advertised
under Vacancy Announcement No. ANE-ATO-15-114-42012 is the sole non-selection addressed
in this decision.

2020001011	7
Complainant’s forth level supervisor (“S4”) testified that the he was the management official
who decided to affirm S1’s decision to deny Complainant’s step 1 grievance regarding his FY
2013 appraisal. 	Although S1 upheld the denial, he agreed that the statement in question would
be removed from Complainant’s FY 2013 appraisal which was amended on January 23, 2014.
S4 indicated that the amended appraisal was received by Complainant at Complainant’s request
on October 29, 2014. S4 further clarified that because the performance appraisal is not used for
any official business after it is issued, there was no need to reissue the amended appraisal to
Complainant. 	S4 also indicated that performance appraisals are only included in a selection
package if required by the job announcement. 	Additionally, S4 explained that the Agency did
not have the ability to submit a performance appraisal. 	Instead, 	the only way to submit a
performance appraisal is for the employee to submit the document him/herself.
Non-Selection (Claim III)
The record indicates that the job vacancy at issue was advertised for up to three Support
Specialist positions located in Quality Control, Air Space and Procedures, and/or Training
Programs. 	The record further indicates, as explained by S4 who was served as the selecting
official, all application packages were reviewed and rated by the front-line manager and the
office manager. 	Specifically, S4 indicated that the front-line and office managers used a
package review worksheet for each application to evaluate the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
(“KSAs”) identified on the vacancy announcement related to the experience and skills necessary
for the positions.
Both the front-line manager and the office manager testified that they did not know Complainant
and were not aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity, although the office manager indicated
that he was aware of some “issues associated with Complainant.” 	The managers also testified
that they used a package review worksheet to rate each application. 	The office manager
specifically stated that Complainant submitted an incomplete package, he did not address the
KSAs or other factors in the job announcement and only submitted his resume while most of the
candidates addressed the KSAs and other factors.8 	The record indicates that Complainant
received a total score of 18 out of a maximum possible score of 130 points which ranked him
13th out of the 14 applicants on the certification list.
8 We acknowledge that Complainant asserted that the job vacancy announcement indicated that
KSAs were not required and Complainant explained that his resume reflected his experience in
relation to the vacant positions. 	However, our review of the job announcement reflects that
applicants were not required to provide “a KSA narrative response” for each KSA section, but
applicants were asked to “include information that provides specific examples of how you meet
the response level or answer you choose for each KSA.” 	The job announcement further states
“your KSA answers will be evaluated further to validate whether the level that you selected is
appropriate based on the work history and experience you provided.”

2020001011	8
After the applicants were rated, S4 indicated that he consulted with the Quality Control, Air
Space and Procedures, and/or Training Program managers on the needs of their sections and
which candidates on the certification list best met those needs. S4 indicated that two applicants
(“Selectee 1” and “Selectee 2”) were chosen to work in Air Space and Procedures and in
Training, but no one from the certification list was selected for Quality Control. 	The record
reflects that Selectee 1 (born 1955) had the 5th highest score at 69 points. S4 noted that Selectee
1 was chosen because she had the knowledge of the computer operating system as she had
previously severed as a controller and was the operator for the computer operator system used by
controllers. The record also indicates that Selectee 2 (born 1964) had the 2 nd highest score at 104
points. S4 noted that Selectee 2 was chosen because he was previously in the same position as a
Training Specialist at a higher facility. S4 indicated that he made no selection for the vacancy in
Quality Control because there were no applicants, including Complainant, who met the needs of
that position.
However, S4 acknowledged that after these selections had been made, another individual
(“Selectee 3”) who was a Quality Control Specialist at the Regional Office, requested a transfer
to the Quality Control Branch at the Boston center. 	S4 noted that Selectee 3 was “far more
qualified than any of the candidates who applied under the vacancy announcement” given that
Selectee 3 had experience as a Quality Control Specialist.
S1 testified that she was not aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity until she was notified on
October 26, 2015 that Complainant had filed an EEO complaint related to his non-selection.
However, S4 acknowledged that he was aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity in 2014.
We conclude that neither during the investigation nor on appeal has Complainant proven, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons for the disputed actions were a
pretext for unlawful discrimination based on Complainant’s age or reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity.
Harassment – Claim IV
To establish a claim of discriminatory environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1)
he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected to harassment in the form of
unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or
condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the
work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and
(5) there is a basis for imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.
1982).
Complainant must establish that he was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so
pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to
be hostile or abusive. 	Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a
protected basis – in this case, his age and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.

2020001011	9
Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements – hostility and motive – will the question
of Agency liability present itself.
The AJ correctly determined that Complainant did not demonstrate that the Agency subjected
him to discriminatory harassment as alleged in claim 4.
Considering these claims, even if true, Complainant has not shown evidence that considerations
of his age or retaliatory animus motivated management’s actions toward Complainant. 	As
previously discussed, the record indicates that S1 timely completed the amended appraisal and
S4 indicated that it was not necessary to provide Complainant a copy of the appraisal because it
is not used for any official business after it is issued. The record indicates that Complainant did
not inform S1 or S4 that he had not received his amended FY 2013 appraisal until the October
2013 meeting. 	Additionally, aside from Complainant’s assertions, there is no indication that
Complainant was harmed from the delay in receiving a copy of his amended appraisal. We note
that Complainant’s amended FY 2013 performance appraisal was not a factor in Complainant’s
non-selection for the Support Specialist, AT-2152-KI (temporary NTE-2 years) advertised under
Vacancy Announcement No. ANE-ATO-15-114-42012.
We also note that while the 2013 Management Inquiry indicated that allegations that S1 was
bullying and intimidating toward Complainant had merit, there was no indication that S1’s
actions were attributed to Complainant’s protected bases. 	Complainant’s testimony in the
Management Inquiry states:
My work relationship with [S1] is dependent upon whether we agree or disagree.
If [S1] is questioned or disagreed with it can be very volatile. As long as she is in
total control with total agreement, she is sweet as pie. 	She can be vicious in
demeanor, sarcastic and curt. What is not a big issue today could be a major issue
tomorrow. She becomes inconsistent and aggressive.
Complainant also indicated that S1 lacked flexibility, her rules were inconsistent, she had
selective hearing, and she was rude. 	Complainant further testified in his affidavit that S1
believed that the “flight data unit was unimportant” while he believed that this unit was
important.
After careful review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to demonstrate that any of the
Agency’s actions were motivated by his age or were in retaliation for prior protected activity.
The image which emerges from considering the totality of the record is that there were conflicts
and tensions with S1’s management style that left Complainant feeling aggrieved. However, the
statutes under the Commission's jurisdiction do not protect an employee against adverse
treatment due simply to a supervisor's personality quirks or autocratic attitude. See Bouche v.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01990799 (Mar. 13, 2002). See also Jackson v. City of
Killeen, 654 F.2d 1181, 1186 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Title VII is not a shield against harsh treatment at
the workplace; it protects only in instances of harshness disparately distributed. The essence of
the action is, of course discrimination.”).

2020001011	10
Discrimination statutes prohibit harassing behavior only when it is directed at an employee
because of his or her protected bases. Here, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish
that 	S1 	was 	motivated 	by discriminatory or 	retaliatory animus. 	Complainant’s 	claim 	of
harassment is precluded based on our findings that he failed to establish that any of the actions
taken by the Agency were motivated by his protected bases. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
CONCLUSION
The Agency's final order implementing the AJ's finding of no discrimination, without a hearing,
is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0620)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the complainant or
the agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO)
within 	thirty 	(30) 	calendar days 	of 	receipt 	of 	this 	decision. 	If 	the party requesting
reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or
brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty
(20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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).
Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in
support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx.
Alternatively, complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to
P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20507. 	In the absence of a legible postmark, complainant’s request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the
expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).

2020001011	11
Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service
on the other party, unless complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in
which case no proof of service is required.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for
reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the
request. 	Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 28, 2020
Date