EEOC Appeal 2020000133

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Doloris W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert Wilkie,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs
(Veterans Health Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 2020000133
Appeal No. 0120181305
Hearing No. 520-2007-00447X
Agency Nos. 200H-0561-2006101967; 200H-0561-2006102389
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) exercises its discretion
to reconsider the decision issued in EEOC Appeal No. 0120181305 (August 13, 2019) due to an
administrative error in the appellate decision.2 	For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the June 29, 2018 decision of the EEOC Administrative Judge.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Motor Vehicle
Operator (MVO) at the Agency’s Engineering Service, East Orange Campus (EOC), VA New
Jersey Healthcare System facility in East Orange, New Jersey. 	Complainant filed two formal
complaints on May 19, 2006 (Complaint 1967) and July 7, 2006 (Complaint 2389), respectively.
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
2 Our prior decision made an administrative error by addressing the EEOC Administrative Judge’s
(AJ) July 20, 2012 summary judgment decision instead of the AJ’s June 29, 2018 decision which
followed a hearing on the merits.

2020000133	6
Complainant claims that she was subjected to ongoing harassment based on race (Caucasian),3
disability (hearing impairment), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when:
Complaint 1967:
A. Based on reprisal Complainant was discriminated against when on March 28, 2006 she was
issued a reprimand for an incident which occurred on December 29, 2005;
B. Based on reprisal Complainant was discriminated against when on June 29, 2006 she was
charged 4 hours of Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL).
C. Based on reprisal Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment when: (1) on
April 6, 2006, she had a confrontation with a co-worker (CW1) (African-American,
female); (2) on April 14, 2006, a co-worker who also served as acting supervisor (CW-AS)
(African-American, male, no disability, prior EEO activity) “taunted” her regarding a job
in the Director’s office; (3) on April 14, 2006 her second-line supervisor (S2) (Hispanic,
female, with disability) asked her if she was using the computer for “work-related
business;” (4) on April 18, 2006, S2 informed her that she had received reports of contact
from staff members in the Outpatient Clinic regarding her use of foul language and “talking
against staff and patients;” (5) on April 18, 2006, S2 questioned her repeatedly regarding
the manner in which she performed her work assignments; (6) on April 19, 2006, S2 yelled
and screamed at her; (7) on June 7, June 19 and 20, 2006, S2 overscheduled her patient
trips; (8) on July 10, 2006, CW1 thwarted her attempt to use the microwave; (9) on July
13, 2006, S2 questioned her about her work assignments; and (10) on July 13, 2006, S2
over-scheduled her patient trips.
D 	Based on reprisal and disability (hearing impairment) Complainant was subjected to a
hostile work environment when: (1) on May 9, 2006, CW-AS mocked her hearing
impairment when he stated “What did you say? I can’t hear you;” (2) on May 10, 2006,
CW-AS, while speaking to someone on the phone, stated “Latisha, she got a but (sic) for
me” and “you can send me anywhere I’ll go with a smile on my face;” and (3) on July 6,
2006, S2 removed the computer and telephone from the Break Room to the Main Office.
Complaint 2389
A. Based on race, disability and reprisal, Complainant was subject to a hostile work
environment when: (1) on December 29, 2005, S2 screamed at her during a meeting and
referred to her hearing loss; (2) on January 1, 2006, someone removed her cell phone from
her locker; (race discrimination only) (3) on January 24, 2006, she was verbally abused
during a staff meeting by her co-workers; (4). On January 26, 2006, she was verbally
abused by a co-worker; (5) on February 7, 2006, she was verbally abused by S2; (6) on
3 During the hearing, the parties stipulated to change Complainant’s originally stated basis of
national origin to the correct basis of race.

2020000133	7
February 13, 2006, she was verbally abused by S2; (race only) (7) on February 14, 2006,
she was verbally abused by S2; (race only) (8) on February 16, 2006, she was verbally
abused by S2; (9) on February 24, 2006, she was verbally abused by S2; (race only) (10)
on February 27, 2006, she was verbally abused by her co-workers; (race only) (11) on
March 1, 2006, she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (race only) (12) on March 6, 2006,
she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (13) on March 10, 2006, she was given a note by
her supervisor that was allegedly written by the management of a nursing home in which
she picks up patients; (race only) (14) on March 13, 2006, her request to remove copies of
documents from the building that were to be used to support her appeal of her reprimand
was denied; (race only) (15) on March 14, 2006, she received a letter from the Chief of
Facilities 	Management 	stating 	that 	her 	complaint 	regarding 	forced 	overtime 	was
unsubstantiated; (16) on April 11, 2006, she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (race
only) (17) on April 12, 2006, she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (18) on April 13,
2006, she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (19) on April 18, 2006, S2 verbally abused
her; (race only) (20) on May 9, 2006, she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (21) on May
10, 2006, she was verbally abused by a co-worker; (22) on May 22, 2006, a co-worker
repeatedly hung up on her when she tried to leave a message for her supervisor; (23) on
May 23, 2006, S2 yelled at her over the phone and then hung up on her; (race only) (24)
on various dates in July and August 2006, her third-line supervisor (S3) (Caucasian, male)
agreed with “every complaint/violation and issue” she raised with her supervisor; (25) on
July 27, 2006, S2 questioned her regarding her work assignment; (race only) (26) on
August 2, 2006, S2 “checked up” on her to ensure that she did not leave early; (race only)
(27) by letter dated August 2, 2006, she was given a Report of Contact (ROC) which
directed her to comply with and follow instructions given; (race only) (28) on August 3,
2006, a supervisor allowed a co-worker to decide who she would take home when she
(Complainant) is not afforded the same opportunity; (race only) (29) on August 3, 2006,
her supervisors “Checked up” on her during a cigarette break; (race only) (30) on August
7, 2006, while in the break room, CW1 slammed her locker; (31) by memorandum dated
August 8, 2006, she was informed that an allegation she made regarding the actions of a
co-worker on May 22, 2006 was not substantiated; (race only) (32) on August 20, 2006,
she overheard one co-worker say to another “I’m gonna stink her a**,” as they walked past
her; (race only) (33) on August 21, 2006, S2 “walked out and slammed the door” as she
(Complainant) attempted to speak to her and then re-opened the door and yelled at her;
(race only) (34) on August 22, 2006, S2 allowed employees to direct their “negative”
comments towards Complainant during a staff meeting; (race only) (35) on August 23,
2006, her supervisor yelled at her; (36) on August 30, 2006, a co-worker yelled and
screamed at her; (race only) (37) on September 12, 2006, S2 scheduled her patient trips so
that she did not receive her morning break and lunch until late; (38) on September 12, 2006,
S2 would not allow her to take mandatory classes; (39) on September 13, 2006, S2 did not
“utilize her employees properly” which resulted in her (Complainant) being “rushed all
day” to complete her trips; (race only) (40) on September 14, 2006, S2 locked Complainant
in the garage; (race only) (41) on September 14, 2006, S2 informed her that she must put
her request for leave in the “appropriate” format and demanded that she do so; (race only)
(42) on September 20, 2006, during a staff meeting S2 “belittled” her in front of her co-

2020000133	8
workers; (race only) (43) on September 28, 2006, CW-AS informed her that she must tell
him her location during the day; (race only) (44) on October 4, 2006, S2 used profanity
when speaking to her; (race only) (45) on October 5, 2006, S2 sat in her car and “stared at
her;” (race only) and (46) on October 6, 2006, S2 “screamed” at her. (race only)
B. Based on reprisal, Complainant was treated in a disparate manner related to time and
attendance when: (1) on April 12, 2006, she was assigned duties that could not be
performed in the allotted time; (2) on April 13, 2006, she was assigned duties which
required her to work overtime; (3) on April 14, 2006, she was assigned duties that could
not be performed in the allotted time; (4) on May 9, 2006, she was assigned duties while
her co-workers sat in the break area; (5) on August 16, 2006, she was forced to work
overtime; and (6) on October 20, 2006, S2 over-scheduled her work assignments.
C. Based on race (Caucasian), Complainant was discriminated against with regard to pay
administration when: (1) on May 24, 2006, she was charged 15 minutes more annual leave
than she had taken; (2) on August 11, 2006, she was informed that she would not be paid
overtime from 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., but rather from 4:30p.m. - 5:30 p.m.
D. Based on race (Caucasian) and disability (hearing loss), Complainant was discriminated
against with regard to time and leave when: (1) on September 14, 2006, her request for
Authorized Absence (AA) on September 20, 2006 from 3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. to meet with
her attorney regarding pending EEO complaints was denied.
E. 	Based on race (Caucasian) and disability (hearing loss), she was discriminated against with
regard to reassignment when: (1) on October 16, 2006, Complainant was informed that
effective November 13, 2006, she will be reassigned from the EOC to the Lyons campus
(LC) of the VA New Jersey Healthcare System.
F. 	Based on race (Caucasian), she was discriminated against with regard to duty hours when:
(1) on September 22, 2006, she was forced to work overtime; (2) on October 6, 2006, she
was forced to work overtime; and (3) on November 8, 2006, she was forced to work
overtime.
After the conclusion of each investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with copies of the
reports of investigation and notice of her right to request hearings before an AJ. 	Complainant
requested hearings and both complaints were ultimately consolidated under EEOC Hearing No.
520-2007-00447X. 	The AJ assigned to the matter subsequently issued a summary judgment
decision in favor of the Agency finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or
reprisal. 	In Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123281 (May 8,
2013), the Commission vacated the Agency's final decision and remanded the complaint for a
hearing.

2020000133	9
A hearing was then held on October 27 and 28, 2014.4 Complainant and the Agency submitted
post-hearing briefs in March 2015. 	On June 29, 2018, the AJ issued a decision finding that
Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. Complainant appealed this
decision. 	In Doloris W. v. Dep’t Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120181305 (Aug. 14,
2019), the Commission inadvertently addressed the previous AJ’s summary judgment decision
rather than the AJ’s decision after the hearing. Complainant, thereafter, sought reconsideration of
the Commission’s August 14, 2019 decision. This decision corrects our administrative error and
addresses the merits of the AJ’s June 29, 2018 decision following a hearing.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND5
As a Motor Vehicle Operator, Complainant was required to transport veterans to and from a
hospital or physician’s office for medical appointments. Complainant worked as a Motor Vehicle
Operator until late November 2006 at which time (unrelated to this complaint) she felt she was no
longer physically able to perform her job due to an injury she sustained in a car accident and
applied for disability benefits. A few weeks before her departure, she had been reassigned to Lyons
Campus.
Complainant was the only Caucasian female at the East Orange Campus. Complainant is hearing
impaired and uses a hearing aid. Complainant’s first-line supervisor (S1), S2, CW-AS and S3 were
aware of Complainant’s condition, during the relevant timeframe. 	Complainant was able to
perform the essential functions of her job. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint on February
24, 2005 where she identified S2,6 S3 and the Chief of Human Resources (HRC) as responsible
management officials. The most recent prior EEO activity involved a settlement of Complainant’s
2005 EEO on December 23, 2005.7
Alleged Discrete Actions
Reprimand Related to December 29, 2006 Incident
On January 5, 2006, S3 issued a proposed reprimand to Complainant for being disrespectful and
insubordinate to S2 on December 29, 2005, which was sustained on March 28, 2006. S2 asserted
that Complainant joined a staff meeting by slamming the doors of her locker, being disruptive, and
getting loud. S2 also stated that Complainant confronted her in front of the staff, stating in a loud
voice that S2 should write everything down instead of “blabbing” during the meeting.
4 Complainant was the only witness who testified at the hearing. CW-AS, S2 and CW1 were all
deceased prior to the hearing. S1 had retired in or about July 2006 prior to the hearing.
5 Unless stated otherwise, the facts set forth below are undisputed.
6 Complainant’s recollection that S2 was a responsible management official in the 2005 (prior)
EEO complaint had to be refreshed at the hearing by her counsel.
7 This complaint was initiated in the early part of 2005.

2020000133	10
S2 responded to Complainant by telling her to come in her office to discuss the matter with her
privately instead of in front of the staff. Complainant refused and instead told S2 to repeat what
she had said during the meeting so that she (Complainant) could write it down on paper
Complainant maintained that she returned to the East Orange Campus at 11:50 a.m. and was
instructed three times by S2 to attend a staff meeting that was waiting for her to start. Complainant
explained that she did not have much time between assignments and wanted to have lunch, but
ultimately attended the meeting because S2 assured her that it would be a very short meeting.
Complainant further explained that since there were no seats left for her when she joined the
meeting, she put her belongings away in her locker. Complainant went back to her locker after
shutting it the first time, because she forgot to grab something for note-taking. While Complainant
admits going to her locker two times during the meeting, she denied that she slammed her locker
door. 	Complainant also asserted that after the meeting she asked S2 to repeat some of her
statements and she responded by telling Complainant that next time she should bring a tape
recorder to the meeting. Complainant stated that she then told S2 that she should write down what
she had to say at the meeting so that it would be clear to everyone at the meeting.
S3 assigned an employee (II) from a completely different office to conduct an independent
investigation to determine whether S2’s description of Complainant’s behavior on December 29,
2005, was accurate. II interviewed Complainant to get her version of events. Complainant's co-
workers who were present at the meeting also provided statements for the investigation. 	The
record 	establishes 	that 	witness 	statements 	corroborated 	S2’s 	version 	of 	events 	(i.e. 	that
Complainant was disruptive and refused to come into S2’s office when asked to discuss the matter).
While II assumed that many of the witnesses were likely biased in favor of S2, he found at least
one neutral witness who corroborated S2’s account that Complainant refused to step in her office
to discuss the matter in private away from her coworkers. 	On March 28, 2006, following the
completion of the investigation, S3 sustained the proposed reprimand for the reasons previously
stated.
Complainant’s Call to the Police on April 6, 2006 and subsequent AWOL on June 29, 2006
Complainant testified that she was sitting at a break room table on April 6, 2006 when CW1 got
in her face and began to shout: “You got something to say, say it to my face, we're all grown, I
ain’t afraid, I'll take it outside.” 	Complainant explained that CW1 was upset because she was
angry at Complainant for mentioning CW1’s name in all the written complaints (i.e., ROCs) of
harassment that Complainant submitted to management. Complainant further asserted that she got
up to walk away from the situation, but CW1 continued to scream and point her finger in
Complainant's face. Complainant said that CW1 followed her as she walked outside. Complainant
asserted that she felt physically threatened and decided to call the VA Police Department (VAPD).

2020000133	11
Shortly thereafter, VAPD officers arrived, questioned both CW1 and Complainant and decided to
issue a summons, to both Complainant and CW1, requiring them to appear in court for disorderly
conduct.8
Both CW1 and Complainant appeared in court on June 29, 2006. The record shows that CW1 had
requested leave through the VA’s computer system prior to June 29, 2006 to attend her court
appearance; however, Complainant did not. 	Complainant assumed her leave was automatically
approved since S2 was at the scene when Complainant was issued the citation and aware that
Complainant needed to take leave for part of the day on June 29, 2006. Complainant was issued
AWOL for the four hours she was late to work on the day of her court appearance. Management
asserted that Complainant was aware of leave procedures and should have submitted an official
leave request through the computer system.
October 16, 2006 - Reassignment
On October 16, 2006, Complainant received a notice of reassignment to Lyons Campus (in the
same position) effective November 13, 2006. Complainant asserted that this was an involuntarily
reassignment because East Orange Campus management wanted to get rid of her.
Alleged Harassment
Complainant asserted that she was subjected to constant confrontations, taunts and derogatory
comments from her co‐workers. She also claimed that S2 often spoke to her in a “nasty tone” and
consistently encouraged or purposefully ignored the harassment that was taking place in front of
her. In addition, she stated that she was treated differently and less favorably than her coworkers
with respect to assignment of work and privileges of employment. Complainant asserted that she
notified S3 after each incident of discrimination, harassment or retaliation by leaving a written
detailed complaint (i.e., ROC) in his office or under the locked door to his office. Complainant
further claimed that she only spoke to S3 in person one time and that he never took her complaints
seriously or did anything about them.
January 1, 2006
Complainant stated that shortly after leaving work on January 1, 2006, she realized that she left
something behind and returned to the East Orange Campus where she noticed that her Agency-
issued cell phone was lying out on a table in front of S2 and a coworker (CW5) (African-American,
female, with physical disability) who were having a conversation.
8 CW-AS, CW1 and another co-worker (CW2) (African-American, male) testified that CW1 did
not scream or threaten Complainant but simply asked her why she was constantly writing down
information about her (CW1). CW2 testified that CW1 found one of Complainant’s ROC on the
ground with complaints about CW1 and CW2 driving somewhere together. All three witnesses
testified that after CW1 asked Complainant about the constant ROCs, Complainant stormed out of
the building and called the police.

2020000133	12
Complainant asserted that before she had left the building, she had locked her cell phone in the
cabinet where it charges overnight. Complainant believed S2 and/or CW5 must have taken her
phone out of the cabinet with the intention of making unauthorized calls on her phone to set
Complainant up for discipline or removal.9 Complainant noted that she asked S2 and CW5 if they
knew who took her phone out. According to Complainant, S2 did not respond and CW5 stated that
she did not know.
January 24, 2006 - Hearing Impairment Mocked
According to Complainant, on January 24, 2006, CW-AS and CW1 bantered back and forth
making comments such as “I'm sorry, I didn't hear you” during a staff meeting. Complainant felt
the comment was directed at her because of her hearing impairment. Complainant asserted that
whenever CW-AS and CW1 made these comments, other co‐workers would snicker. Complainant
also alleged that S2 did not address the mocking and became annoyed when Complainant asked
her to repeat information that she did not hear.
February 16, 2006
Complainant asserted that on February 16, 2006, S2 speculated that the outgoing supervisor’s
position would be filled by the notoriously demanding Lyons Campus supervisor (S4) and stated:
“You know what [S4’s] like . . . Some people don’t know how good they have it around here.”
February 24, 2006
Complainant claimed that on February 24, 2006, S2 stated that she would never approve a request
for a 10-hour shift. Complainant asserted that S2 made the remark because she knew Complainant
wanted a 10-hour shift. While Complainant claimed that S2 was flexible with everyone’s schedule
but hers, she conceded that S2 has never approved a 10-hour shift for anyone.
February 27, 2006
On February 27, 2006, Complainant called the East Orange Campus looking to speak to S2.
Complainant asserted that she could hear someone on the end of the phone relaying to S2 that
Complainant was calling for her, and then CW-AS making a “cat fight” sound in the background.
Complainant also claimed that later that day she was “verbally attacked” by CW1 about ROCs that
Complainant had written. Complainant noted that S2 invited Complainant and CW1 into her office
to continue the discussion; however, Complainant refused to engage in any further conversation.
9 All employees have access to the locked cabinet.

2020000133	13
March 1, 2006
Complainant testified that on March 1, 2006, CW1 stated in a “nasty” tone: “Careful what you say
around here, you’ll be written up.” 	Complainant asserted that S2 heard the statement and did
nothing about it.
March 13, 2006
On March 13, 2006, Complainant told S3 that she needed to copy documents from East Orange
Campus to prepare a response to the proposed reprimand that is discussed above. 	The documents
requested included: assignment sheets (which identified drivers and the patients they transported);
E‐Z pass reports; overtime sheets; trip tickets; and gas receipts. S3 provided Complainant access
to such documents over “a couple of hours” but did not permit copies to be made because he
believed that would potentially violate the privacy rights of veterans and employees. Complainant
asserted that such denial was improper and harassing.
On or about March 13, 2006
In or about mid-March 2006, Complainant locked her keys inside her van while she was at
Shrewsbury Manor (a nursing home) to pick up patients. Another driver was sent to Shrewsbury
Manor with an extra set of keys to Complainant’s van. Complainant testified that she was upset
over the situation but denied that she was screaming or using foul language in front of anyone.
Later that day, Complainant learned that S1 received an undated letter from “Shrewsbury Manor
Management” to complain about Complainant’s “unprofessional” behavior earlier that day. The
letter indicated that Complainant “constantly” expressed her “unhappiness with her job and fellow
employees.” 	The letter further stated that Complainant “bad-mouthed” fellow employees and
supervisors in front of “residents and their families…without regard to the language used.” On
March 14, 2006, S1 asked Complainant to respond to the letter by March 17, 2006. Complainant
stated that she did not have to respond and that S2 needed to be written up, because it was her
belief that S2 wrote the “letter” to make it look like there were complaints against her, to harass
her and to set her up for discipline. 	The record shows that Complainant did not receive any
discipline related to this incident.
April 11, 2006
Complainant testified that on April 11, 2006, CW1 told a coworker (CW6) (African-American,
male) if anyone touched her car, she was going to “take care of them.” Complainant asserted that
S2 heard the comment that she believed was intended for her (i.e., Complainant).

2020000133	14
April 14, 2006
Complainant claimed that on April 14, 2006, CW-AS remarked to her that she should apply for
the Director's secretary job which recently became vacant. 	Complainant believed that the
comment about applying for the secretary position was designed to get rid of her. Complainant
further asserted that CW-AS told her that she should not get overtime pay if she keeps complaining
about it. 	Also, on April 14, 2006, Complainant stated that S2 wanted to know if she was using
the computer for East Orange Campus-related work.
April 17, 2006
Complainant claimed that on April 17, 2006, while in the breakroom with CW1 and other
coworkers, CW1 announced: “Nobody takes money from my kid’s mouth ... That’s your problem,
you don’t have any.” Complainant asserted that the statement was intended to hurt Complainant
because she does not have any children. Complainant further stated that S2 heard the comment
and did nothing.
April 18, 2006
On April 18, 2006, S2 told Complainant to place a bag of clean linen next to the bus instead of by
the garage door. Complainant testified that the usual procedure was for the driver to deliver the
clean linen and place the linen by the garage door. S2 told Complainant that she wanted the linen
by the foot of the bus so that the next driver could retrieve the linen while walking up to the bus.
In response, Complainant recalled that she questioned S2 as to what difference did it make if the
bag of linen was a foot away from the bus as opposed to the garage door.
In addition, on or about April 18, 2006, Complainant stated that CW1 attempted to prevent her
from using the microwave by claiming that Complainant had no right to use it. 	Complainant
disputed that contention and asserted that all the drivers (including Complainant) shared in the cost
of purchasing it. Complainant noted that she was eventually able to use the microwave that day.
On that same day, Complainant claimed that one of her coworkers (CW7) (male) was standing by
the supervisor’s desk and stated: “Someone call security.” Complainant believed that CW7 was
mocking her because she previously called the VAPD.
April 19, 2006
Complainant also asserted that on or about April 19, 2006, S2 “went into a rant,” screaming: “I'm
the boss in the motor pool, I have been here for over 30 years and I'll run the motor pool any way
I want and no one is going to tell me how to do my job, I'll assign anyone, anytime, anywhere I
want and if anybody doesn't like it, I suggest they get another job because nobody tells me what
to do.” 	Complainant further claimed that while S2 was making these comments, CW-AS was
laughing and CW1 was screaming: “Tell her, momma.”

2020000133	15
Complainant believed that S2 was upset over the dispute that Complainant had with CW1 with
respect to the use of the breakroom microwave. 	According to Complainant, after S2 finished
screaming, she relocated the microwave to her private office. Complainant asserted that since she
was the only employee not allowed in S2’s office, she (Complainant) was the only employee
unable to use it anymore.
May 9, 2006 – Hearing Impairment Mocked
On May 9, 2006, S1 asked CW-AS to move his car because it was blocking Complainant’s vehicle.
CW-A responded: “What did you say? I can't hear you.” Complainant asserted that CW-AS was
mocking her hearing impairment by pretending that he did not hear S1. 	Complainant further
asserted that CW1 was in the room and was laughing at CW-AS's remarks. Complainant claimed
that S1 moved CW-AS's vehicle because CW-AS was not very helpful. Complainant stated that
she never discussed the matter with CW-AS. 	S1 did not reprimand CW-AS.
May 10, 2006
Complainant alleged that on May 10, 2006, she returned to the break room at the end of her tour
and overheard CW-AS on the phone stating: "Latisha, she's got a big butt, that's too big for me"
and “You can send me anywhere, I'll go with a smile on my face...” Complainant said that she
does not know the identity of “Latisha.” While Complainant did not understand what CW-AS was
talking about, she believed the statements he made was his way of mocking the fact that she was
constantly overloaded with assignments, while he rarely gets any. Complainant further testified
that S2 heard the statements and did nothing about it.
May 22, 2006
Complainant claimed that on May 22, 2006, she was running late and called the East Orange
Campus to have an employee inform S1 that she would be late to work. According to Complainant,
CW1 had answered Complainant's call and then abruptly hung up on her. Complainant maintained
CW1 had hung up on her two more times that morning. Complainant stated that she had to call a
Lyons Campus supervisor (S4) to let him know that she would be late because no one in her office
would pick up the phone. CW1 denied Complainant’s accusations. Complainant asserted that she
knew it was CW1 because she recognized her voice.
One of Complainant’s coworkers (CW3) (race unknown, female, seizure disorder) filed a ROC
stating that on May 22, 2006, at “approximately 6:50 a.m. [Complainant] called stating she will be
late. [CW3] took the message and left a written note with [S1] on his desk.” CW3 further asserted
that at 7:25 a.m., when S1 came into the office, she told him that Complainant had called saying
she would be late, and he found the message on his desk stating same.
Complainant’s assertions were investigated. The East Orange Campus assignment sheet for May
22, 2006, documents that CW3 (not CW1) was at the desk at the time Complainant called in.

2020000133	16
In addition, records show that CW1 began her shift at 7:30 a.m., after Complainant called the East
Orange Campus. On August 8, 2006, S3 notified Complainant that the findings of the investigation
did not substantiate her account.
May 24, 2006
Complainant had scheduled leave for May 24, 2006, from 3:15 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., but was charged
an additional 15 minutes of leave because she left at 3:00 p.m. on that day. Complainant argued
that she left at 3:00 p.m. because she worked all day until 2:45 without a break. Since she was due
a 15-minute break, she left at 3:00 p.m. instead of 3:15 p.m.
July 6, 2006
On July 6, 2006, S2 relocated the computer and telephone from the breakroom to the main office.
S2 explained that it was brought to her attention that the location of the computer in the breakroom
was blocking an exit and created a fire hazard. Complainant complained to S2 that the main office
was too noisy to be able to concentrate while on the computer and phone. S2 did not move the
equipment back. However, Complainant was permitted to use the computer in S3’s office, which
was quieter.10
July 10, 2006
Complainant asserted that on July 10, 2006, she had returned from a trip assignment and went to
the break room for lunch. She said that she was about to warm her food in the microwave when
CW1 approached her saying: “What do you think you're doing? I'm going to use the microwave
[first].”
July 13, 2006
Complainant testified that on July 13, 2006, she was scheduled for a trip to Lyons Campus at 9:00
a.m. 	Complainant stated that she informed the driver of shuttle van #945 (CW3) that she would
be using the van, but that Complainant was going to first fill the vehicle with gas. Complainant
asserted that S2 overheard her statement and ordered her not to get gas for shuttle van #945 and to
use another van (#503) for the Lyons Campus trip. Complainant stated she explained to S2 that
van #503 was at Lyons Campus at that moment. 	Complainant asserted that S2 was completely
confused over the situation because she then told another driver to get gas for van #503, which had
not yet return from Lyons Campus. Complainant indicated that S2 intended van #945 instead of
#503. Complainant further asserted that while van #503 was due back to East Orange Campus at
9:00 a.m. that morning, S2 had no understanding that drivers may be running late because of
pitstops to get gas or because of traffic. 	Complainant testified that eventually, she had to take
another van (#946) because van #503 was late returning to the East Orange Campus.
10 The claims before us do not include a denial of reasonable accommodation.

2020000133	17
Complainant testified that on August 2, 2006, at approximately 4:25 p.m. (i.e., five minutes before
her shift ended) she stepped outside by the parking lot to test the maximum distance of the remote
starter that was just installed on her personal vehicle. Complainant stated that S2 had CW6 check
on her twice to make sure she did not leave early. 	Complainant asserted that S2 was always
looking for ways to write her up.
August 3, 2006
Complainant testified on August 3, 2006, CW5, looked over the “patient sheets” (i.e., the
information about veterans’ medical appointments and transport needs that were scheduled that
day) and notified S2 of a transport assignment that she picked out for herself. Complainant stated
that officially, no one is supposed to select for themselves what transport duties to take on. Rather,
only supervisors were permitted to review the patient sheets and give out assignments.
Complainant asserted that S2 and CW-AS only enforce this policy with respect to Complainant.
Complainant claimed that also on August 3, 2006, S2 monitored her during her cigarette break.
Specifically, Complainant states that she walked outside at 4:24 p.m. and S2 followed Complainant
a minute later. Complainant asserts that S2 just stood next to her and said nothing. 	Complainant
felt harassed by this incident and asserted that she is the only employee who S2 monitored to that
extreme.
August 7, 2006
Complainant claimed that on August 7, 2006, CW1 slammed her locker and the breakroom door.
Complainant alleged that CW1 did this because she was very angry with Complainant and knew
that loud noises cause her physical pain.
August 11, 2006
One of Complainant’s coworkers told S2 that Complainant left work early on August 11, 2006,
which she asserted was not true. Complainant stated that she explained to S2 that while she was
completing her paperwork, a mouse ran across the floor and she ran outside, which is why her
coworker believed she went home.
August 16, 2006
On August 16, 2006, Complainant and a coworker (CW4) (female) both transported several
patients in two different vehicles to the same location. 	Complainant believed that they were
supposed to wait for each other to finish and head to the next location. After waiting longer than
expected for CW4’s group, Complainant called CW-AS to find out where CW4 was. 	CW-AS
advised Complainant that CW4 finished up early and took all the patients to the next location.
Because Complainant had waited a long time for CW4, she did not get back to East Orange
Campus until 6:00 p.m. 	However, S2 only paid Complainant until 5:30 p.m.

2020000133	18
August 20, 2006
Complainant asserted that on August 20, 2006, CW1 said: “I'm going to stink her ass” as she
walked past CW1 and CW3 who were having a conversation. 	Complainant stated that she felt
physically threatened by that statement.
August 21, 2006
According to Complainant, on August 21, 2006, she asked S2 when she could set up an
appointment with the person who had investigated her claim that CW1 would not take a message
for her on May 22, 2006.11 Complainant stated that S2 ignored her question, left the breakroom
and slammed the door behind her. S2 returned to the breakroom and stated to Complainant: “If
you want to talk to me, you come to my office.” Without talking to S2 in her office, Complainant
made an appointment with the investigator for 1:30 p.m. that day. 	Complainant claimed that
thereafter, S2 purposely changed around Complainant’s assignments that day so that she could not
meet with the investigator.
August 22, 2006
On August 22, 2006, S2 held a meeting where she informed the staff to keep their voices down in
the main office because of Complainant’s complaints about having difficulty concentrating and
talking on the phone. Complainant further stated that S2 also raised the issue of who would be the
next acting supervisor and CW1 screamed that only people who were qualified could serve as
acting supervisor and that a CDL was required. Complainant believed that CW1’s comment was
directed towards her because she does not have a CDL and it was CW1’s way of letting
Complainant know that she would never get to serve as acting supervisor.
August 30, 2006
Complainant testified that on August 30, 2006, as CW1 and CW-AS drove by Complainant in a
government vehicle with the windows down, CW1 stared at Complainant, then yelled at
Complainant for sitting outside. 	Complainant stated that CW1 then said: “She’s looking to see
what I am doing, that mother fucking bitch.” Complainant asserted that she did not respond to the
comment.
September 12, 2006
Complainant stated that during the week of September 12, 2006, she was required to take three
online courses but could not concentrate because the computer was still in the main office where
it was too loud. Complainant conceded that she was permitted to use the computer in S3’s quiet
office.
11 Complainant wanted to ask the investigator why he did not obtain a statement from S4 before
coming to his conclusions with respect to the May 22 incident.

2020000133	19
September 14, 2006
According to Complainant on September 14, 2006, she had pulled a chair out into the garage
because the motor pool was being painted and the fumes were strong. Complainant stated that as
soon as S2 saw Complainant speaking with a coworker (CW8) (male, with disability, prior EEO)
in the garage she told Complainant to put the chair back into the break room. Complainant stated
she told S2 that she was not finished with her break. Complainant asserted that she then went to
her locker to shred paperwork. Complainant also claimed that after CW8 left, S2 closed and locked
the garage door and turned off the lights, despite seeing Complainant inside. Complainant asserted
that while she sat in the garage alone in the dark, she could see CW1 and CW-AS through a window
laughing at her. 	Complainant further stated that she was forced to sit in the dark for about 15
minutes until S2 decided to let her out.
September 20, 2006
Complainant claimed that on September 20, 2006, S2 held a staff meeting to reiterate the
requirement that all employees submit leave requests through the computer, instead of hand-
writing them down on the supervisors’ calendar in the main office. S2 also told the staff that they
must use large vans when they go to any of the clinics. Complainant asserted S2’s statements were
stated to the entire staff but meant for her alone. In addition, Complainant asserted that later when
the staff did not consistently follow S2’s instructions, S2 took her anger and frustration out on
Complainant.
September 28, 2006
Complainant claimed that on September 28, 2006, CW-AS told her that she must tell him where
she was “every minute of the day.” Complainant stated that she was constantly contacted by CW-
AS and S2 to frequently check in. Complainant agreed that it was reasonable to require that she
let the supervisor know where she was periodically; however, she asserted that she was the only
employee who was required to check in every few minutes. She also stated that if she does not
check in at such a frequency, she would certainly get a call from her supervisor wanting to know
where she was, which she found harassing.
Scheduling
Complainant asserted that on numerous occasions, she was disparately treated regarding
scheduling. 	Specifically, Complainant asserted that S2 constantly assigned her patient trips in
greater numbers than her coworkers. For example, S2 allegedly assigned Complainant so many
back-to-back trips, that her breaks and lunch periods were usually truncated, or all together
disregarded. 	Complainant further alleged that on similar days, she would notice her coworkers
taking exceptionally long breaks because they had nothing to do. 	Complainant further asserted
that because of this practice, there have been many occasions where veterans were made to wait
long periods for Complainant while her coworkers hung out in the breakroom with nothing to do.

2020000133	20
In addition, Complainant stated that S2 also would intentionally give her assignments very late in
the day when it was not likely that she would be able to return to East Orange Campus before the
end of her shift (i.e., 4:30 p.m.). Accordingly, Complainant alleged that S2 has frequently forced
her to work longer than her regular shift (i.e., forced overtime). Complainant testified that such
overscheduling occurred on February 13, 14, March 13, April 12-14, May 9, June 7, 19, 20; July
13, September 12, 13, 22 October 4, 6, 20, and November 8, 2006.
Complainant’s Behavior
On February 27, 2006, CW1 filed a ROC stating that Complainant had threatened to write her up
for “being stupid” and that she had called CW1 an “uncivilized bitch.” CW1 also filed a ROC
stating that two days after the incident with the VAPD, Complainant pushed a door into CW1
causing injury and necessitating a visit to Employee Health.
On June 19, 2006, S2 filed a ROC complaining that Complainant was not in contact for 25 minutes
and had essentially ignored S2’s call. In that ROC, S2 also complained that Complainant raised
her voice to S2 when she was told she would have to take a patient home to Newark at 4:05 p.m.
Complainant was also written up in a ROC on June 26, 2006 for being late picking up a dialysis
patient (who missed his 6:30 a.m. dialysis treatment) and for speeding.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” 	Universal
Camera Corp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding
regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard
Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). 	An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo
standard of review whether, or not, a hearing was held.
An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a
witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the
testimony, or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it.
See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
AJ’s Findings and Conclusions
In her decision, the AJ concluded that Complainant was not credible, as much of her testimony
was vague, lacked specificity, and contradicted the documentary evidence in the record. The AJ
further concluded that the record provided numerous examples where Complainant essentially
colored the sequence of events by either leaving out certain facts or adding things that did not
happen to make it appear like she was somehow victimized.

2020000133	21
Lastly, the AJ found that numerous incidents of alleged harassment, at best, involved mostly
routine work-related matters or annoyances, and at worst are pure speculation based on
assumptions and warped perceptions. 	The AJ cited the following examples of undisputed
documentary evidence which form a part of her conclusion that Complainant’s testimony was
unreliable and, in many instances, wholly fabricated.
May 22, 2006 Incident
The AJ cited the May 22, 2006 incident pertaining to Complainant’s early-morning call to East
Orange Campus to notify S1 that she would be late to work. The AJ cited documentary evidence
in the record establishing that: (1) CW1’s shift started 40 minutes after Complainant called in to
East Orange Campus; and (2) CW3 was scheduled to work the desk that morning. 	In addition,
CW3 testified that she received the message from Complainant and relayed it to S1 as soon as he
arrived at work (i.e., approximately 7:25 a.m.). The AJ noted that Complainant finally admitted
at the hearing that someone, whom she was conveniently unable to recall, told S1 when he arrived
that she would be late. The AJ also noted that at not point did Complainant state that she inquired
as to whom she was speaking with that morning; she just assumed it was CW1 and proceeded to
create an elaborate lie about CW1 hanging up on her three times.
Shrewsbury Manor Incident
The AJ cited the incident on April 18, 2006 at the Shrewsbury Manor as another example where
Complainant made up stories based on her own perceptions. Complainant alleged that on April
18, 2006, S2 informed her that she had received a handwritten note from staff members at
Shrewsbury Manor regarding Complainant’s use of foul language and “talking against staff and
patients.” The letter, which is not dated, stated that the management at Shrewsbury Manor found
Complainant to be “unprofessional…to constantly express her unhappiness with her job, her fellow
employees, her supervisors and...VA clients she transports…with no regard to language being
used.” The AJ noted that Complainant made statements to the EEO Counselor in 2006 that she
was upset when she left the East Orange C that morning before going to Shrewsbury and that she
was upset when she arrived. 	The AJ concluded that given the fact that Complainant was upset
when she arrived that morning, it was plausible that Complainant did express displeasure and
discontent with her job in front of Agency clients and Shrewsbury staff. More importantly, the AJ
noted that Complainant testified on direct examination that the letter was written by S2 to harass
her. However, the AJ noted that Complainant proffered no evidence to support her contention that
S2 drafted the letter or that the letter was somehow fraudulent. Complainant simply stated that the
letter was written by hand and it was S2’s handwriting. It is undisputed that Complainant refused
to respond to the letter; she simply dismissed it as a “forgery” written by S2 and summarily ignored
it. Given these facts, the AJ concluded that Complainant had no basis to allege that S2 drafted a
fake letter to harass Complainant.

2020000133	22
Scheduling
The AJ concluded that Complainant’s allegations and testimony pertaining to disparate scheduling
was proven false simply by reviewing the motor pool schedule sheets and the Agency’s time and
leave records, which Complainant has not shown to be incorrect or unreliable. The AJ noted that
Complainant’s main argument at the hearing was that other drivers should be assigned certain
routes or that she found fault with how the schedule was made and administered. However, the
AJ found this argument flawed since it was not Complainant’s role to question managerial
decision-making. In addition, the AJ noted that the record showed that workers were scheduled
for different shifts at different times which stands to reason that some drivers may be on break,
when Complainant was not and vice versa. 	The AJ concluded that it did not logically lead to
Complainant’s alleged conclusion that the other drivers were not working and thus, she had to do
more work just because she saw them sitting in the break room. 	Moreover, the documentary
evidence did not support the assertion that Complainant was disparately assigned more shifts than
her coworkers on average. The AJ also noted that although Agency policy requires employees to
work overtime if business necessity demanded it, Complainant did not work an excessive amount
of overtime. The documentary evidence showed that over a span of eight months (i.e., between
April 2, 2006 and December 9, 2006), Complainant worked overtime on approximately 12 separate
occasions for a total of 13.3 hours.
The AJ concluded that the record’s contradictory documentary evidence, outlined above,
underscored the unreliability of Complainant’s testimony. 	Finding numerous incidents where
Complainant’s testimony contradicted credible documentary evidence, the AJ concluded that
Complainant’s entire testimony was unreliable. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that Complainant
failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Disparate Treatment - Discrete Actions
Complainant must satisfy a three-part evidentiary scheme to prevail on a claim of disparate
treatment discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). First,
Complainant must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an
adverse 	employment 	action 	under 	circumstances 	that 	would 	support 	an 	inference 	of
discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S.
567, 576 (1978). Second, the burden is on the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory,
reason for its actions. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Third,
should the Agency carry its burden, Complainant must then have an opportunity to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the Agency were not its true
reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804; St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); see Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d
292 (5 th Cir. 1981) (applying this analytical framework to cases brought under the Rehabilitation
Act).
We shall assume arguendo that Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination
and reprisal. As discussed above, the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions.

2020000133	23
For example, as to the letter of reprimand, S2 and S3 explained that Complainant was issued the
letter of reprimand for being insubordinate and disrespectful toward S2. We find that the record
does 	not 	support 	Complainant’s 	assertion 	that 	management’s 	articulated 	legitimate, 	non-
discriminatory/retaliatory explanation was a pretext or that either S2 or S3 was otherwise
motivated by retaliatory or discriminatory animus. 	The findings of the independent investigation
supported the reprimand. 	Regarding the AWOL charge, the undisputed record shows that
Complainant 	improperly 	assumed 	she 	would 	be 	granted 	Authorized 	(Excused)
Absence/Administrative Leave for her court appearance on June 29, 2006. 	The VA permits
"[a]bsence from duty without charge to leave or loss of pay when the activity is considered to be
of substantial benefit to the VA, will clearly enhance an employee's ability to perform the duties
of the position, or the basis for excusing the absence is fairly consistent with prevailing practices
of other Federal agencies in the commuting area." 	Complainant’s absence from work for a
personal court appearance has no relevance to this policy. However, even if Complainant’s court
appearance arguably fit into the VA’s definition of authorized absences, she would have had to
obtain such administrative leave through a formal request rather than simply failing to show up for
her scheduled shift. 	Given Complainant’s failure to submit a request for any type of leave
(administrative leave or otherwise), we find that the decision to charge Complainant AWOL was
justified. We further find insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that S2’s decision
to charge Complainant with AWOL was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
The record and facts gleaned at the hearing fail to disclose any evidence purporting to show that
any of the Agency's explanations for its actions were pretext for discriminatory or retaliatory
animus. Thus, after reviewing the record and considering arguments on appeal, the Commission
finds that the AJ made reasonable credibility determinations, which are not contradicted by
objective evidence, and the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the
Commission finds that Complainant has not established that she was subjected to discrimination
or reprisal as alleged.
Hostile Work Environment
To the extent that Complainant is alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment,
we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993)
that Complainant's claim of a 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 at issue were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the final order which adopts the AJ’s decision
in favor of the Agency.

2020000133	24
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). 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.

2020000133	25
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 1, 2020
Date