EEOC Appeal 2025003362

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Marielle L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Scott Bessent,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025003362
Hearing No. 451-2023-00125X
Agency No. IRS-23-0249-F
DECISION
On July 2, 2025, 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 June 16, 2025, final order concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
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.

2025003362	2
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant, who has since left
the employ of the Agency, worked as a Human Resource Specialist (HRS), GS-7,
at the Agency’s Human Capital Office facility in Austin, Texas.
On March 13, 2023, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of disability (physical) and reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when:
1. 	On March 24, 2023, she was denied a reasonable accommodation
requested in July 2022;
2. 	She received no final response to her request for approval of leave
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) made in October
2022;
3. 	Effective 	November 	20, 	2022, 	she 	was 	downgraded 	from 	her
temporary promotion of Human Resources Specialist, GS-11, to a GS-
05/07, instead of being selected for the position of HR Specialist, GS-
12, advertised under Vacancy Announcement No. 22-113440113-
B_PRN-0201-11T12;
4. 	On March 20, 2023, Complainant was offered a job and then the job
was rescinded;
5. 	Complainant’s 	supervisor failed 	to 	approve Complainant’s 	career
ladder increase to the GS-12 level;
6. 	On various dates, Complainant was subjected to acts of harassment
including, but not limited to:
a. 	In September 2022, her request for a temporary hardship was
denied and she was directed to report to an office in Franklin,
Tennessee from an office in Austin, Texas;

2025003362	3
b. In October 2022, her manager did not properly address her work
injury, which exacerbated her injury; and
c. 	In October 2022, she was not provided proper training.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing
before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant timely requested a hearing. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ
assigned to the case granted the Agency’s April 23, 2024, motion for a decision
without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on May 14, 2025. 	The
Agency 	subsequently 	issued 	a 	final 	order 	adopting 	the 	AJ’s 	finding 	that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as
alleged.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant essentially reiterates arguments made below. She asserts,
among other things, that she requested a reasonable accommodation to continue to
work full-time remotely due to her disability and that not only was the request
denied, but she was also denied interim accommodations and, due to the request
and the disclosure of her disability, was not selected for a permanent position, was
disqualified from a GS-12 position, and had a GS-13 job offer rescinded.
The Agency submitted an untimely response to Complainant’s appeal. We decline
to consider this response given that the only justification for its untimeliness is that
Agency counsel “failed to update his Outlook calendar.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual
conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. 	See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405(a) (stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action
shall be based on a de novo review . . .”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, §
VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s determination to
issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de

2025003362	4
novo). 	This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. In
other words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ’s, and
Agency’s, factual conclusions and legal analysis – including on the ultimate fact of
whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any
federal employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9,
§ VI.A. 	(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”).
We determine whether the AJ appropriately issued the decision without a hearing.
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. 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.
An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the
record has been adequately developed. See Petty v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal
No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). We carefully reviewed the record and find that it is
adequately developed. To successfully oppose a decision without a hearing,
Complainant must identify material facts of record that are in dispute or present
further material evidence establishing facts in dispute. Here, Complainant has
failed to do so.

2025003362	5
ANALYSIS
Denial of Reasonable Accommodation
Turning first to Complainant’s claim that her July 2022 request for accommodation
was denied on March 24, 2023, an agency is required to make reasonable
accommodations to the known physical and mental limitations of an individual
with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an
undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(o), (p). In order to establish that she was
denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1) she is an
individual with a disability as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a
“qualified” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to
provide 	a 	reasonable 	accommodation. See EEOC 	Enforcement 	Guidance 	on
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with
Disabilities 	Act, 	EEOC 	Notice 	No. 	915.002 	(Oct. 	17, 	2002) 	(Reasonable
Accommodation Enforcement Guidance).
Where an individual’s disability and need for accommodation are not obvious, the
agency may ask the individual for reasonable documentation about her disability
and functional limitations. The employer is entitled to know that the individual has
a 	covered 	disability 	for 	which 	she 	needs 	a 	reasonable 	accommodation.
“Reasonable documentation” means 	that 	the employer may 	require only the
documentation that is needed to establish that a person has an ADA disability, and
that the disability necessitates a reasonable accommodation. See id., at Question 6.
In this case, there is no dispute that Complainant’s disability and need for
accommodation are not obvious, that the Agency was therefore entitled to request
reasonable documentation, and that it did so while engaging in the interactive
process beginning initially in July 2022.2 Moreover, Complainant failed to raise a
2 Although Complainant disputes S1’s assertion that Complainant verbally revoked
her July 2022 request for reasonable accommodation soon after making it and
indicted that she would wait until she actually relocated to the Franklin office to
pursue 	it, 	this 	dispute 	is 	not 	material 	given 	the 	undisputed 	evidence 	that
Complainant failed to provide sufficient medical documentation in support of her
request either during the time she was officially working in the Franklin position or
after she moved back to her original position.

2025003362	6
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Agency unlawfully failed to
provide a reasonable accommodation because the record establishes that prior to
the 	denial 	of 	her 	accommodation, 	Complainant 	failed 	to 	provide 	medical
documentation 	that 	established 	that 	she 	needed 	full-time 	telework 	as 	an
accommodation, as opposed to an alternative accommodation such as the ability to
take breaks in a quiet room away from the work area.
Specifically, the record establishes that on July 29, 2022, several months after
Complainant’s 	selection 	for 	a 	temporary 	position 	reporting 	to 	the 	Franklin,
Tennessee facility became effective, but before she actually reported to the
Franklin 	office,3 Complainant 	informed 	S1 	that 	she 	needed 	a 	reasonable
accommodation and provided a partially completed reasonable accommodation
request form that indicated her disability and her desire for full-time telework but
did not include medical documentation in support of this request. Instead, the only
information 	Complainant 	provided 	concerning 	her 	limitations 	was 	her 	own
assertion that she was “[u]nable to sit for extended periods of time in desk chair.
Need to have heat applied while working and somewhere to extend legs or lie
down during breaks/lunch times to relieve stress on spine.” It is undisputed that in
response to this request, S1 told Complainant that medical documentation would
be needed and that there would be options once she reported to the Franklin
location, such as the ability to rest in a quiet room. It is further undisputed that
medical documentation was not submitted until October 2022 (although this
documentation appears to have been submitted in support of a request for leave)
and that although at this point, Complainant’s doctor indicated that “working from
home” was a “medical necessity,” the documentation did not provide any details
about why Complainant’s disability required full-time telework as opposed to
alternative accommodations.
In response to the question in her affidavit as to whether she provided medical
documentation, Complainant asserted that she did so after she returned to her
original position in Austin, Texas. But she references no documentation that
establishes that full-time telework was the only effective accommodation for her
disability, as opposed to an alternative accommodation, nor does a de novo review
3 It is undisputed that even though Complainant’s temporary position at the
Franklin facility was effective March 27, 2022, she did not report to the Franklin
location until September 15, 2022, because she was permitted to delay her move
due to difficulties getting out of her lease at her original location.

2025003362	7
of the record reveal any such documentation. Although Complainant asserted that
S1 failed to help her with her request, the record establishes that Complainant had
the proper instructions for how to submit a request for reasonable accommodation
when she first requested accommodation and, as noted above, was told by S1 that
medical documentation in support of the request was needed. Even assuming that
S1 	could 	have 	been 	more 	proactive 	in 	helping 	Complainant 	complete 	the
reasonable accommodation process, this failure does not establish a violation of the
Rehabilitation Act.
The record further establishes that once Complainant returned to her original
position 	on 	November 	19, 	2022, 	the 	interactive 	process 	continued 	and 	that
Complainant submitted documentation indicating that severe neck pain made
driving 	difficult, 	that 	she 	would 	need 	frequent 	breaks, 	and 	that 	it 	was
recommended she drive no more than 30 minutes at a time for six months. Neither
a de novo review of the record, nor assertions made by Complainant herself,
indicate that any more detailed medical documentation was provided. In these
circumstances, we agree that Complainant failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether she was unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation
when she was not granted the ability to work from home full-time.
Other Allegations
In addition to her allegation that she was denied a reasonable accommodation,
Complainant raised allegations of discrete acts of discrimination and a claim that
she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The Commission has found that a
discrete action states a claim outside the framework of harassment analysis and can
also be reviewed as disparate treatment. See Moylett v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120091735 (Jul. 17, 2012); Sedlacek v. Dep't of Army, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120083361 (May 11, 2010). Because certain of Complainant's allegations
could 	alternatively 	be 	interpreted 	as discrete acts of 	disparate 	treatment
and harassment (specifically, portions of Claim 6), we will begin the analysis with
a focus on the discrete acts of discrimination before turning to an analysis of
Complainant's 	claim 	that 	certain 	of 	these 	actions 	created 	a 	hostile 	work
environment based on her disability and prior EEO activity.

2025003362	8
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie
case by demonstrating that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. 	Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. 	McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S.
at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is a pretext for
discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143
(2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Here, assuming Complainant established a prima facie case of retaliation and/or
disability-based discrimination, the Agency provided legitimate non-discriminatory
explanations for its actions. Specifically, 	as for Complainant’s claim that she
received no final response to her October 2022 request for FMLA leave, the
Agency indicated that it was provisionally approved on November 1, 2022, but that
Complainant refused to sign the provisional approval because she wanted it to
include leave that she had already used, despite the fact that the FMLA does not
allow for retroactive approval. 	The Agency further noted that when Complainant
later submitted a request for FMLA leave that included sufficient supportive
documentation, that request was granted.
The Agency also provided legitimate non-discriminatory explanations for the
November 20, 2022, downgrade from Complainant’s temporary promotion of
Human Resources Specialist, GS-11, to a GS-05/07 instead of 	being selected 	to
fill the HR Specialist, GS-12, position permanently. 	The record establishes that
although the temporary position including a potential to become permanent,
Complainant 	was 	told 	that 	this 	required 	a 	7-9 	month 	period 	of 	review 	to
demonstrate the needed skills and abilities. S1 further explained that the temporary
position came to an end before the original 1-year expiration date because the
Agency decided to reallocate the funds for the position because there was an

2025003362	9
insufficient 	workload 	for 	two 	Human 	Resources 	Specialists, 	meaning 	that
Complainant needed to return to her original position in Texas.4
The Agency further explained that Complainant’s March 2023 job offer for the
Frontline Management position was rescinded because after the selecting official
(SO) submitted the hiring certificate to Human Resources, the usual audit reveals
that Complainant was not eligible for the position due to lack of time-in-grade
(TIG) and specialized experience. SO explained that the only reason the job offer
was rescinded was because HR advised her that Complainant did not qualify for it
based on this audit. Similarly, S1 explained that Complainant’s career ladder
increase 	to 	the 	GS-12 	level 	was 	not 	approved 	in 	October 	2022 	because
Complainant did not yet have the 1-year TIG at the next lower level, having been
performing at the GS-11 level for approximately 7 months before the position was
terminated. S1 further explained that it was later brought to her attention that
Complainant had not been qualified for the GS-11 HRS position due to her lack of
specialized experience at the GS-11 level in the appropriate series. The Agency
further explained that although career ladder increases are at the discretion of the
manager, the employee must meet the one-year TIG and one year specialized
experience for the position, which Complainant did not meet at the time.
Although Complainant described the events outlined in Claim 6 as creating a
hostile work environment, the events she described therein appear to be discrete
actions and will therefore first be addressed as such.
In 	terms 	of 	Complainant’s 	request 	for 	a 	hardship 	transfer, 	the 	Agency
acknowledged Complainant’s assertion that after being selected for the temporary
position located in Franklin, Tennessee, Complainant, in her words, “requested
4 A de novo review of the record reveals that it was determined in June 2023 that
Complainant should not have been selected for the temporary promotion to the GS-
11 position because she did not meet the specialized experience at the GS-09 grade
level. At the time of the selection, she only had 10 months and 18 days at the GS-
0201-05 level. She did not possess one-year of specialized experience at the GS-
0201-09 level for the position. Although Complainant asserted that a combination
of her time in different positions was sufficient to render her qualified, the
determination that she was not qualified for the temporary promotion or the later
GS-12 promotion was based on her lack of specialized experience, not general time
in grade.

2025003362	10
anything 	available 	that 	would 	prevent 	her 	from 	reporting 	to 	the 	Franklin,
Tennessee” location. The record establishes that her initial request to remain at her
original location until she worked out difficulties with her lease was granted and
that she thereafter requested reasonable accommodation to allow her to work
remotely from her existing location full-time (as described above), as well as a
hardship transfer. As with the request for reasonable accommodation, the Agency
asserted the hardship 	transfer was 	denied 	due to 	lack of sufficient medical
documentation to establish that she was unable to report to the location of the job
for which she had applied and had accepted the offer.
Although Complainant asserted that she was denied proper training, S1 explained
that when Complainant asked about training for the temporary position, S1 told her
that training would be provided when opportunities presented themselves, that
Complainant took at least four relevant on-line courses between April and June
2022 and received on-the-job training from a senior analyst and former training
coordinator in a variety of subjects and was always invited to meetings where
communities of practice met to share program updates and issues. 	Complainant’s
supervisor in her original position (S2) likewise described a number of on-the-job
training opportunities provided to Complainant when she returned to work in her
original position after her temporary promotion was revoked.
Complainant asserted that on October 20, 2022, the left side of her body went
numb, that she contacted S1 because she was not sure what to do to address a
workplace 	injury, 	and 	that 	S1 	failed 	to 	provide 	her 	with 	her 	options. 	S1
acknowledged that she received an email from Complainant on October 20, 2022,
asking for 1 hour of leave and providing medical documentation to support a
request for 2 weeks of full-time teleworking and asserted that she granted the leave
and submitted the request for telework for approval to the appropriate channels. S1
explained that Complainant did not mention in this email that she had experienced
a workplace injury, an assertion supported by the copy of the email in the record.
The record also contains an email from S1 to Complainant dated October 21, 2022,
in which S1 provided a description of options available to those who believed they
were unable to meet the requirement of reporting to the office two times per pay
period, 	including 	the 	ability 	to 	request 	a 	hardship 	transfer, 	reasonable
accommodation, and various types of leave.
In providing these explanations for its actions, the Agency satisfied its burden of
articulating 	legitimate 	non-discriminatory 	reasons 	for 	the 	actions 	at 	issue.

2025003362	11
Complainant failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether her prior EEO activity
and/or disability, rather than these explanations, motivated the Agency’s actions.
In attempting to raise a genuine dispute, Complainant asserted that once she
requested a reasonable accommodation, S1 began to harass and treat her terribly
and, essentially, that every action the Agency took thereafter was motivated by
retaliatory and/or discriminatory animus. But other than her own assertions, she
offered no evidence of this claim.
For example, although 	Complainant 	asserted 	that 	S1’s 	decisions 	to 	end her
temporary position was due to her request for accommodation, she did not provide
any evidence other than her own assertion to dispute S1’s explanation that funds
were reallocated because there was not sufficient work to justify the temporary
position beyond November 2022. Nor did she dispute that after she requested
accommodation in July 2022, S1 continued to allow her to work remotely 	for an
additional two months while she worked out her housing issues, advised her to
submit 	medical 	documentation 	to 	support 	her 	accommodation 	request, 	and
informed her that once she did move to the new location, there were alternatives to
full-time telework such as using a quiet room to take breaks.
Likewise, 	although 	Complainant 	asserted 	that 	she 	had 	the 	appropriate
qualifications for the GS-11 temporary position, the record includes a letter from
the Associate Director of the Program Execution Office that “through no fault of
her own, [Complainant] was erroneously selected from internal merit promotion
announcement 	22-11344013B-RPN-0201-11T12 	effective March 	27, 	2022, 	to
November 20. 2022” which explains in detail the reasons that she lacked the
necessary specialized experience. Complainant’s disagreement with the findings of
this letter and assertion that the Agency, at the behest of S1, made this and other
decisions due to Complainant’s request for a reasonable accommodation, is not
sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact.
Complainant did not dispute that she received the training S1 and S2 described but
instead argued that this training was not sufficient without identifying why or, if
so, how any denial of training that did occur was motivated by her membership in
a protected group. Her allegation that S1 failed to adequately respond to her
request for assistance with a workplace injury is likewise not supported by the
evidence.

2025003362	12
As the AJ explained, mere allegations, speculations, and conclusory statements,
without more, are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Lee v.
Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0520110581 (Jan. 12, 2012),
citing to Baker v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01981962 (June 26,
2001), request for recon. denied, EEOC Request No. 05A10914 (Oct. 1, 2001).
Here, after a de novo review of the record, we agree with the AJ that Complainant
failed 	to 	provide 	evidence 	beyond 	her 	mere 	assertions, 	that 	the 	Agency’s
explanations 	for its decisions 	were motivated 	by 	her prior EEO 	activity or
disability.5
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we therefore AFFIRM the Agency’s final
order adopting the AJ’s finding of no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
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 Sector
(OFS) 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
5 Because Complainant has not raised a genuine dispute as to whether any of the
actions she described were motivated by her membership in a protected group, no
further inquiry is necessary as to whether those incidents rise to the level of
harassment.

2025003362	13
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at
Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, 	Complainant 	can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, 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, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS 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 their 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(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
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 their 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.

2025003362	14
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:
T. Gimbrere
________________________ 	Chaudhry’s signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
9/21/2026
Date