0120101106
02-24-2012
Constance Morriss, Complainant, v. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary, Department of Defense (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency), Agency.
Constance Morriss,
Complainant,
v.
Leon E. Panetta,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120101106
Agency No. NGAW-09-P02
DECISION
On January 13, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s
December 14, 2009, final decision concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
The Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a).
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as an Imagery Intelligence Analyst, Pay Band 3, Central African Branch
(PEAL), Africa-Europe Division (PEA), Office of Eurasia-Africa (PE), at
the Agency’s facility in St. Louis, Missouri. Complainant joined the
Agency after retiring from the Navy, where she performed similar work.
Complainant began working for the Agency in August 2005. When she began
working at the Agency, Complainant was assigned a sponsor (Sponsor)
who was an Imagery Analyst, Russia Division, Navy and Logistics Branch
(PERL), Russia Division (PER), Office of Eurasia-Africa (PE), and who
subsequently became Complainant's informal mentor. In June 2007, Mentor
1, Imagery Analyst, Pay Band 4, Central African Branch, was assigned as
Complainant's formal mentor. In June 2008, Mentor 2, Imagery Analyst,
Pay Band 4, PEAL, was assigned as Complainant's formal mentor in June
2008. Person A, Branch Chief, Pay Band 5, Central African Branch,
was Complainant's first level supervisor from September 2005 through
October 2007. Person C, Branch Chief, Pay Band 5, Central African
Branch, was Complainant's first level supervisor from October 2007
through December 2008. Person B, Division Chief, Pay Band 5, PEA, was
Complainant's second level supervisor from May 2007 until December 2008.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated December 3, 2008. In her
complaint, Complainant alleged:
1. From February 2007 until December 2008, the Agency subjected her
to an unlawful hostile work environment on the bases of sex (female)
and age (53) when:
a. Person A issued Complainant a Letter of Caution in February 2007.
b. Complainant was denied a waiver for GITP training in March 2007.
c. In May 2007, Person B criticized Complainant unfairly during her
mid-point review with Person A.
d. Beginning in May 2007, Complainant was subjected to disparate work
standards by Person B, Person A, and Person C, such as being required
to submit all remarks to either Mentor 1 or Mentor 2 and having these
remarks subjected to unwarranted criticism.
e. Complainant was put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) during
June 2008.
f. Complainant was put on administrative leave on September 16, 2008.
g. Complainant was given a Notice of Proposed Removal on September
16, 2008.
h. Complainant was issued a Letter of Reprimand on August 5, 2008.
i. Complainant was removed from the Agency on December 9, 2008.
2. Complainant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex
(female) and age (53) when she was issued a Letter of Reprimand on August
5, 2008.
3. Complainant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex and
age (53) when she was removed from the Agency on December 9, 2008.
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 EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When
Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in
29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed
to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de
novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614,
at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record
without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous
decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He must
generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that
would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry
may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has
articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct.
See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17
(1983); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, 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, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Dep’t of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
At the outset, we note that on appeal Complainant does not challenge
the issues or bases defined in the Agency’s final decision. Moreover,
we find that the record in the present case was adequately developed.
Upon review, we find the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for the actions at issue. With regard to issue (1)(a), the
record reveals the Agency issued Complainant the Letter of Caution
and a simultaneous Performance Counseling Memorandum based on her
performance and behavior problems. Person A noted that in early
2007, Person D, the Division Chief who predated Person B’s arrival,
received a cable indicating that there had been an analytical failure
by Complainant on one of her projects at the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa.
Person A stated that the Embassy Chief of Station sent a message to the
Agency outlining his concern about the lack of support he was receiving.
Person A noted that at that time, Complainant was scheduled to travel to
the same customer's area. Person A assigned Person E, the senior IA for
the Branch, to prepare a response to the Embassy. Person E spoke with
Complainant and Person F, the senior IA for the Division, who was located
in Bethesda, Maryland. Person F determined that Complainant had not
done a thorough analysis of sources available for analysis of the project.
The record shows that on January 29, 2007, Person D, Person A, and
Complainant met to discuss concerns with Complainant's performance,
specifically the support provided to customers at the U.S. Embassy in
Kinshasa. At the meeting, Person D reviewed the material Complainant had
prepared for the upcoming briefing she was scheduled to give and found
the work lacking in detail. At the meeting, Complainant stated that she
was not getting sufficient support from the senior IAs within the Division
and she stated she relied on senior IAs within other divisions. Person D
advised Complainant that the IAs in the other divisions had different
perspectives and that she needed to rely on the senior IAs within the
Division. Person A stated that during the meeting, Complainant questioned
Person F's role in reviewing her work and stated that she often disagreed
with his decisions and edits. Person A noted that Person D clarified
that, as a new analyst, Complainant should accept Person F’s guidance.
Subsequently, Person A received electronic mail messages from Mentor 2 and
Person E, senior analysts within her Branch, advising that Complainant's
tradecraft continued to be deficient. Person A stated that based on
these electronic mail messages and in anticipation of mid-point reviews
for all employees, she decided to provide written documentation of
Complainant's performance.
The Letter of Caution discussed the January 29, 2007 meeting between
Complainant, Person A and Person D regarding the support provided to the
U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa. The letter noted that instead of accepting
Person D’s performance counseling, Complainant voiced numerous concerns
regarding the branch and division and PEA’s Senior Imagery Analyst
(SIA) to others outside PEA, specifically to PER. Person A noted this
resulted in an electronic mail message from an analyst in PER regarding
the character and behavior of the SIA. Person A stated that the Letter
of Caution was issued to document Complainant's behavior in responding
to Person D’s criticisms and earlier criticisms Person A had given to
Complainant, in which Complainant was very defensive.
Additionally, Person A stated that the Performance Counseling Memorandum
was issued to make a record regarding the incident with the Kinshasa
analysis, and to require Complainant attend GITP training, despite the
fact that she was previously assessed by GITP instructors and waived
from attending GITP training. Person A noted that based on her ongoing
performance shortfalls, the Agency decided Complainant needed to attend
GITP training.
In her affidavit, Complainant stated that Person E told her he had been
in contact with the Embassy Chief of Station, who advised him that the
failure had been in the Embassy and that Complainant had done her job
properly. Complainant also stated that Person E told her that Person
F was out to “get” her. Additionally, Complainant stated that
Person E told her that he had no serious concerns with her performance.
In his affidavit, Person E clarified that that he never spoke with the
Embassy Chief of the Station; however, he stated he had spoken with an
officer at the Station. Person E stated that the Station never backed
down from its position that the problem with the analysis was at the
Agency and not at the Station. Person E denied telling Complainant
that Person F was out to “get” her. However, Person E stated that
Person F did have a problem with Complainant's work. Additionally,
Person E stated he did not agree with Complainant's assertion that he
did not have any serious concerns with her performance. Person E noted
that Complainant did not pay attention to detail and missed important
parts of the analysis because of this inattention to detail.
With regard to issue (1)(b), the record reveals that when she joined
the Agency, Complainant had been granted a waiver to attend GITP
training based on her military experience. The Agency noted it waived
Complainant from attending GITP training with the stipulation that if
it later determined training was needed she would be scheduled for a
later session. Person A stated in March 2007, based on Complainant’s
performance deficiencies it was determined to require Complainant to
attend GITP training. The record reveals that Complainant was registered
to attend the next available session of training, scheduled for March
16, 2007. Complainant attended GITP between March and June 2007.
With regard to issue (1)(c), Complainant contended that Person B
unfairly criticized her during her mid-point review with Person A.
Complainant stated that at her mid-point review, Person B stated that
her performance was weak, her analytical skills were deficient, she
inappropriately complained about criticism, and her posture towards
Person F was unacceptable. Complainant stated that Person B told her
to keep her mouth shut and do what Person F told her to do.
The record reveals that Complainant received her mid-point review on May
30, 2007, in a meeting with Person A and Person B who had been appointed
as the new PEA Division Chief in May and who arrived on May 29, 2007.
Person A stated that Person B made it very clear that he thought that
Complainant had performance issues, that management had tried to improve
her performance by having her attend GITP training and that if there
was not noticeable improvement her employment might not be continued.
Person A noted that shortly thereafter, Complainant was assigned a mentor
to review and approve her work.
Person B noted that during the mid-point review, Complainant asserted that
any shortcomings in her performance were the result of poor mentoring
and guidance, and not the result of her own failures. Person B stated
that the concerns with Complainant's work did not involve only minor
stylistic differences but were failures of analysis that any objective
reviewer of her work would find deficient. Additionally, Person B noted
that Complainant had had a major analysis failure in December 2006 which
caused the Agency major problems. Person B noted that Complainant had
been made aware of this failure and had been verbally counseled about
other deficiencies in her analyses.
With regard to issue (1)(d), Complainant alleged that she was subjected
to disparate standards by Person B, Person A, and Person C, such as
being required to submit all remarks to either Mentor 1 beginning in
June 2007 and then to Mentor 2 starting in June 2008, and having these
remarks subjected to unwarranted criticism. Complainant noted that
Mentor 1 made numerous criticisms about her grammar and writing style.
Complainant stated that even when she made the corrections Mentor 1
wanted, she would sometimes still criticize the product. Complainant
stated that Mentor 1’s criticisms went to mundane concerns about her
work product and were sent via electronic mail even thought they worked
only four feet from each other.
Mentor 1 stated that in May 2007 she was asked to mentor Complainant
and Employee 2, a male employee. Mentor 1 noted that she used the same
standards in mentoring the two employees. Mentor 1 stated that after
a few months, she had concerns about the work produced by Complainant.
Specifically Mentor 1 found the attention to detail given by Complainant
to coordination with other branches, as well as the quality of her
communications, was not adequate. Mentor 1 stated that she spoke with
Complainant in an effort to approve her performance; however, there was
little or no change. Mentor 1 stated she brought her concerns to the
attention of Person A. Additionally, Mentor 1 stated although not to
the same degree, there were issues involving Employee 2’s performance
that she also brought to management's attention. Mentor 1 stated she
sent many corrections to Complainant via electronic mail because she
was often reviewing her work products after she had left for the day
and she wanted to give Complainant an opportunity to review her comments
when she came in earlier in the morning.
Mentor 2 took over as Complainant's mentor in June 2008. He stated that
Complainant's overall performance while he was her mentor was poor.
Specifically, he stated that she had difficulty in reading pictures,
taking other information and applying it to the analysis of the pictures,
and then writing a report which succinctly and accurately reported what
she had seen. Mentor 2 noted Complainant also had numerous formatting
problems that affected the end reports she produced.
Person B noted the only other Band 3 analyst assigned a direct mentor
was Employee 3 (female, over 40). He stated that both Complainant
and Employee 3 demonstrated performance deficiencies that other Band
3 analysts did not experience. Person A stated that to the extent
Complainant and Employee 3 were scrutinized more carefully than the
only other new Band 3 employee at the time (male), it was because he
demonstrated tradecraft competence early on, while Complainant and
Employee 3 had relatively similar problems in learning how to perform
their duties.
With regard to issue (1)(e), Person C stated that shortly after
Complainant began working for her in October 2007, she had concerns about
the quality of Complainant's work. Person C noted that Mentor 1 raised
concerns with Complainant's work products. Person C stated that her
review of Complainant's work showed that Complainant failed to follow
the standards protocol for exploiting imagery. Person C stated that
Complainant would misidentify equipment, would miss equipment, and would
mischaracterize activity, such as new construction. Mentor 1 and Person
C worked with Complainant to improve her performance; however, Person C
noted that Complainant would make the same mistakes over and over again.
Person C noted that IAs are supposed to review open source (public domain)
materials daily; however, Complainant spent unreasonable amounts of
time reviewing open source material to the detriment of her daily work.
Person C stated she verbally counseled Complainant over a period of time
regarding her deficiencies; however, her performance did not improve.
As a result of Complainant's performance deficiencies in four critical
elements, Person C placed Complainant on a PIP on June 2, 2008. Person C
stated that at the time she had five IAs working for her and two were
female. Person C noted there were no problems with the performance over
the other female employee. A review of the PIP reveals that it was in
effect for 90 days and informed Complainant that if her unsatisfactory
performance continued, she could be removed from the Agency.
With regard to issues (1)(f) and 1(g), Complainant was issued a Letter of
Proposed Removal on September 16, 2008. Person B stated that based on
an August 2008 intelligence failure, management came to the conclusion
that Complainant's performance was not going to improve enough for her
to meet her performance requirements. Person C noted that Complainant's
performance in the critical element of Source Tasking improved; however,
her performance in the other three critical elements did not improve.
Person C and Person B sought the advice of a Human Development Consultant
(HD Consultant) who contacted the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for
further advice. The HD Consultant advised that there was sufficient
evidence to support a Proposed Letter of Removal based on Complainant's
ongoing performance deficiencies.
The Proposed Letter of Removal was delivered to Complainant on September
16, 2008. With regard to Communications, the Letter noted her written
products required substantial edit and rework since they were unclear,
confusing, not comprehensive and grammatically incorrect. The Letter
also noted that Complainant did not work cooperatively with her mentor,
other branch analysts and her supervisor to improve written and verbal
communication skills. With regard to Effective Work Practices, the
Letter noted that Complainant demonstrated poor time management and
workload management skills by failing, on several occasions, to exploit
all imagery on the day it was received, to submit collection in a timely
fashion, and by missing deadlines on her weekly activity reports on
June 27, July 3, July 18, July 1, August 8, August 22, and August 29.
With regard to GEOINT Analysis and Problem Solving, the Letter stated
Complainant's analysis is frequently inaccurate and/or incomplete
and does not exhibit proper imagery analysis tradecraft techniques.
The Letter noted Complainant's reports generally only describe what she
sees and does not put the activity into context.
Person C noted that when Complainant was presented with the Proposed
Removal Letter she was advised of her option to resign, or to be placed
on administrative leave pending the disposition of any appeal on the
proposed removal. The Agency noted that since Complainant chose to appeal
the Proposed Letter of Removal, she was placed on administrative leave
while the appeal was being decided, in accordance with Agency policy.
With regard to issues (1)(h) and (2) (Letter of Reprimand on August 5,
2008), Person B stated that the reprimand was issued because Complainant
made another important intelligence failure while on the PIP. Person C
noted that in July 2008, Mentor 2 asked if Complainant had informed
Person C of increased activity at a location for which Complainant
was responsible. Person C told Mentor 2 that Complainant had not
informed her. Person C advised her supervisor, Person B, of these
developments. Person B characterized this failure as an “almost
intelligence failure” and told Person C to have Complainant prepare an
analysis of the situation. Person C stated she advised Complainant of
this requirement and requested the analysis within two hours. Person C
stated that Complainant produced the product an hour after the requested
two hour delivery time. Moreover, Person C stated that the written
account of the activity that was ultimately provided still failed to
characterize the significance of the activity.
With regard issues (1)(i) and (3) (removal), management, after reviewing
Complainant's appeal and conferring with OGC and HD, decided to terminate
Complainant based on the longstanding performance deficiencies observed.
Management noted that the termination was based on a long history of
performance failures which Complainant failed to sufficiently improve
to justify her ongoing employment. Person B noted that Complainant
had been continually counseled, was given several mentors, there was
letters setting forth her performance failures, and she was given the
PIP as a last chance opportunity to improve her deficiencies. Person B
noted that none of these actions led to Complainant's performance at an
acceptable level.
As we find that the Agency has presented legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions, the burden now shifts to Complainant to show
that that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
The record contains a statement from Employee 3, IA, Pay Band 3,
who was a female over the age of 40. Employee 3 stated that she felt
“pressured” to return to her former position as a Regional Analyst by
Person B. Employee 3 stated that she and Complainant were “targeted”
by Person B. In his affidavit, Person B noted that Employee 3 had
performance deficiencies. We note that other than stating that she and
Complainant were both females over the age of 40, Employee 3 produces
no evidence that Complainant was treated differently because of her sex
or age.
The record contains statements from other senior analysts to support
Complainant's contention that her work was unfairly scrutinized.
Specifically, the record contains an affidavit from Complainant's Sponsor
who was working in a different division. The Sponsor stated that
in general, she observed Complainant's work products as “perfectly
adequate, if not better, for a Band 3 IA.” The Sponsor noted that
although her present work is somewhat different, it is essentially still
an imagery analyst function. Additionally, the Sponsor stated that
she believed that Person B had a problematic attitude towards women.
Specifically, the Sponsor noted that she went to the EEO Office to
complain about a sign that Person B had outside his office at one time
that said “women of loose morals and vagrants are not welcome in this
space.” The Sponsor noted that the EEO Director came to the office
and had Person B remove the sign.
The record also contains a statement from Team Lead 1, one of the two team
leads for the PEAL Branch. Team Lead 1 noted that Complainant was not
assigned to his team; however, he stated that he and the other team lead
often reviewed work of members of the other team. Team Lead 1 stated
that he occasionally reviewed the work of the other team’s members.
He stated that although Complainant made mistakes, what he reviewed of
her work was acceptable. Team Lead 1 acknowledged that he did not review
all of her work and stated he has no reason to find that management’s
review of her work was tainted by sex or age discrimination.
The record also contains a statement by Staff Officer at the Executive
Office to the Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Pay Band 5. The Staff
Officer acknowledged he had no supervisory responsibility or authority
over Complainant. The Staff Officer stated that as a supervisor he
has had to review Geospatial Intelligence products prepared by Imagery
and Geospatial, Marine Analysts in a variety of components. The Staff
Officer stated that in the Spring of 2008, Complainant told him her work
was being evaluated and sent her electronic mail messages illustrating
some of the criticisms. The Staff Officer stated that he recommended that
Complainant seek additional training to address the criticisms. The Staff
Officer stated that Complainant later informed him that she had been
placed on a PIP and was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal. The Staff
Officer stated that Complainant provided him access to her electronic
mail account and gave him permission to access and download electronic
mail traffic, copies of her work pre and post editing. The Staff Officer
stated that in his opinion, the work was being “knit-picked” and
that her grammar and punctuation were better than some analysts who
prepared intelligence products and not as good as others. The Staff
Officer opined that the criticisms looked like they were the result of
personal preference rather than failure to utilize tradecraft standards.
Additionally, the record shows that during EEO Counseling, Person Z stated
that he believed there was some “wrong doing” done to Complainant and
Employee 3. He stated that he was also subject to “wrong doing” when
he was abruptly volunteered out of his Branch to be an Augmentee for the
Afghanistan Surge effort. Person Z stated that if he were to submit a
complaint on his own or support any claims by Complainant or Employee 3,
it would probably only result in further hindering his career. Person Z
stated that he does not have any admissible evidence or supporting
documentation.
Upon review, we find Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s
articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
We note that Team Lead 1, the Staff Officer, and Person Z were not in
Complainant's direct line of supervision and there is no indication that
they knew specifically what may have been required of Complainant's work,
such as how she should prioritize her work, how timely her work products
were, how responsive Complainant was to her supervisors’ or mentor’s
guidance, or the accuracy of her analyses. While we recognize that
the Sponsor had some review authority over Complainant's work when she
first began, we note that Complainant's performance prior to February
2007 is not an issue. While the Sponsor stated she continued to review
Complainant's work through December 2008, we note that this was an
informal review. We note the Sponsor did not work within Complainant's
Division and did not know the priorities, deadlines, guidance given by
supervisors or mentors, or the accuracy of Complainant's work products.
Although the Sponsor noted that at some point Person B had a sign up in
his office that said “women of loose morals and vagrants are not welcome
in this space,” it is not alleged that this sign was present during
the timeframe of the subject complaint. Moreover, we note Complainant
herself never mentioned this sign and never indicated that the comment
regarding women was in any way connected to the alleged incidents.
The Commission finds that Complainant failed to prove by a preponderance
of evidence that the Agency’s actions were a pretext for discrimination
based on sex or age.
CONCLUSION
The Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the
policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999).
All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as
the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency
head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full
name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal
of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the
national organization, and not the local office, facility or department
in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a
civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative
processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within
the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with
the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits
as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to File a Civil Action”).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 24, 2012
__________________
Date
2
01-2010-1106
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
11
0120101106