Liz M.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 20, 2018

0120171899 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 20, 2018)

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

Liz M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.

Appeal Nos. 0120170672; 0120170803; 0120171899; 0120180024

Hearing Nos. 540-2015-00216X; 540-2016-00244X

Agency Nos. 4E-852-0018-15; 4E-852-0012-16; 4E-852-0147-16; 4E-852-0100-17

DECISION

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) accepts
Complainant’s appeals from the Agency’s final agency decisions concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 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.,
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791
et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§ 621 et seq. In the interests of administrative economy and to avoid further fragmenting
Complainant’s claims, the Commission exercises its discretion to consolidate Complainant’s
appeals. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606. The Commission’s review is de novo. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FADs.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the
Agency’s Post Office in Bullhead City, Arizona. Complainant has been employed by the
Agency since 1988, and has worked as a City Carrier at the Bullhead City Post Office since

1 These cases have been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s
name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

2
1995. Complainant experiences complications from several conditions, including obsessive
compulsive disorder (OCD) and chronic anxiety. Complainant’s condition manifests in
repetitive checking; ruminating thoughts; hoarding; difficulty managing intrusive thoughts;
difficulties sleeping, thinking, and focusing; and depression. Complainant was diagnosed with
this condition in 1999. In October 2012, the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee
(DRAC) granted Complainant’s request, after a nearly five-month delay, to write down numbers
and counts. In addition, Complainant experienced a right shoulder injury which limited her to no
casing above shoulder level, no lifting more than 50 pounds, and no lifting more than five
pounds above her head. Complainant was granted the use of a six-inch platform/step as an
accommodation.

Agency No. 4E-852-0018-15 (Complaint-1)

In December 2013, Complainant’s supervisor attempted to discuss with Complainant proposed
changes to her route and mail-sorting. Complainant’s supervisor reported that Complainant
refused to participate in the conversation, became angry and disruptive, and left for the
remainder of the day. Complainant’s co-workers reported witnessing Complainant reacting
similarly in other interactions with management officials. Complainant’s route was evaluated as
an eight-hour route, but Complainant was averaging 11.5 hours per day to complete it. In
addition, Complainant resisted management’s attempts to inquire about her route and
performance. Complainant’s supervisors reported that Complainant would reply that she could
not be supervised or questioned in that manner because it exacerbated her anxiety. Agency
management requested that Complainant submit medical documentation in support of her
condition.

On February 18, 2014, Complainant’s supervisor submitted Complainant as a nomination to the
DRAC to initiate the interactive process to further address Complainant’s need for
accommodation. Complainant telephonically participated in the DRAC meeting on February 20,
2014, with her Union Representative. During the meeting, the Union Representative stated that
there were numerous “contractual issues” that needed to be addressed before any reasonable
accommodation determination could be made. The meeting ended with the parties agreeing to
follow up on the identified contractual issues.

On March 6, 2014, a DRAC meeting was scheduled. Complainant chose not to attend. On April
9, 2014, the Agency informed Complainant that a DRAC interactive meeting was scheduled for
April 17, 2014, and that she was invited to discuss her condition and any reasonable
accommodations that she believed would assist her in performing the duties of her position.
Complainant responded that she would not be participating in the DRAC meeting. Additional
DRAC meetings were scheduled in May and June 2014, and Complainant refused to attend those
meetings as well.

0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

3
Complainant was successful in her appeal to the Commission regarding a previous complaint in
March 2014. Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120140129 (Mar. 25,
2014).2 Among other things, the Commission ordered the Agency to consider disciplining the
supervisor who was found to have discriminatorily harassed Complainant. The Agency’s Law
Department Attorney assisted Agency Management in complying with the Commission’s order.
On May 23, 2014, the Agency Attorney sent a letter to the Human Resources Manager, the
Labor Relations Manager, and the Bullhead City Post Office Operations Manager. Therein, the
Agency Attorney advised against disciplining the supervisor based on several mitigating factors.
The Agency Attorney noted in the letter that based on their past experiences with Complainant
and reports from her co-workers, they were aware that “[Complainant] can be difficult to work
with and supervise.” Nonetheless, the Agency Attorney further noted things the supervisor could
have done and stated that additional training would inform him of his responsibilities with
respect to accommodations.

On June 27, 2014, the DRAC scheduled a meeting with Complainant; however, she did not
attend. Complainant’s representative, a Union official, participated in the meeting by telephone
on behalf of Complainant. During the meeting, Agency officials and Complainant’s
representatives discussed Complainant’s failure to submit updated medical documentation
regarding her condition so that the DRAC could better understand Complainant’s need for
further accommodation. Based on a lack of supporting medical documentation and
Complainant’s decision not to attend the meeting, the DRAC was unable to make a
determination about an accommodation for Complainant and scheduled a Fitness for Duty
Examination (FFDE) for Complainant.

Additionally, in June 2014, management arranged for a higher-level manager from outside the
Bullhead City Post Office to discuss with Complainant her issues and concerns about
management. Complainant refused to participate in the meeting. Management officials at
Bullhead City attempted to allow Complainant to perform her duties as independently as
possible, but she continued using excessive overtime to complete her route.

On July 18, 2014, Complainant’s supervisor issued Complainant a letter informing her that she
had been scheduled for a Fitness for Duty Examination (FFDE) on July 18, 2014. The letter
stated that Complainant’s observed behavior and repeated refusal to provide medical

2 The Commission determined that Complainant had been discriminated against when her
request for reasonable accommodation was unnecessarily delayed, when management gave her
instructions not allowing her to engage in certain behaviors they regarded as “time wasting,”
when her Supervisor’s actions in changing Complainant’s routines and singling her out for
harsher treatment showed an insensitivity to her medical condition and caused her significant and
foreseeable anxiety sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment based on her disability
(obsessive compulsive disorder), and when she was subjected to disparate treatment and
retaliatory harassment. EEOC Appeal No. 0120140129 (Mar. 25, 2014). The events in that
complaint occurred between April and December 2012.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

4
documentation in support of her medical condition were the reasons for the FFDE. The letter
further informed Complainant that she would be placed on administrative leave with pay until
management received the results of the FFDE and could analyze its findings.

Complainant attended the rescheduled FFDE on July 31, 2014. The Occupational Health Nurse
Administrator (OHNA) reviewed the results of the FFDE and generated a report on September 9,
2014. The report noted that Complainant’s restrictions included lack of efficiency in performing
job tasks, limited ability to adapt to changes in routes, and limited ability to tolerate interruptions
while performing tasks. The report recommended that management allow Complainant to
continue writing down numbers and counts and when she passed scan points, allow Complainant
to work as independently as possible “provided that her general work procedures are appropriate
in terms of sorting and delivering mail;” provide Complainant advance notice to changes in her
work routines or other aspects of her job, limited interruption during the performance of her
duties, and detailed discussions of her performance prior to or at the conclusion of her daily
duties.

On October 30, 2014, the DRAC met with Complainant and Complainant’s Representative to
discuss reasonable accommodation options and the results of the FFDE. The DRAC wished to
meet earlier with Complainant; however, Complainant’s Representative indicated that October
30, 2014 was the earliest he was available. During the meeting, Complainant refused to discuss
her limitations or options for accommodation. Complainant’s Representative claimed that
Complainant had not received a copy of the FFDE report, although he had requested and was
mailed a copy of the report on September 29, 2014. Additionally, Complainant and her
Representative would only discuss their concerns regarding operational issues including
instructions she had been given by supervisors that she believed were unfair. As a result, the
DRAC was unable to decide on an appropriate accommodation based on Complainant’s failure
to participate in the meeting. Officials informed Complainant that she could request a copy of
the FFDE report in writing. Complainant indicated that she would submit a faxed request that
day; however, she did not.

On November 4, 2014, OHNA sent Complainant a letter noting that Complainant had not yet
submitted a request for the results of the July 2014 FFDE. OHNA informed Complainant that to
release restricted medical information, the Health Unit was required to have a written request on
file for each release of information. OHNA further advised Complainant that in order for
Complainant to be able to provide feedback to the DRAC regarding the FFDE, her request for
the report needed to be submitted within seven days of the date of that letter. OHNA informed
Complainant that if the request was not received within seven days, the DRAC would be
informed that no additional information was to be expected for the DRAC process. Complainant
subsequently submitted a request for the release of the FFDE results, and OHNA sent
Complainant a copy of the FFDE report on December 1, 2014.

On December 24, 2014, the DRAC sent Complainant a letter detailing its efforts to determine
what accommodations Complainant needed to perform the essential duties of her position. The
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

5
letter noted that the DRAC had not heard from Complainant following her receipt of the FFDE
report. The letter requested that Complainant provide input about how she wished to proceed
and/or any information or documentation she wished for the DRAC to consider within 14 days.
The letter informed Complainant that if she did not respond, the committee would have to make
a decision on her case without her input.

On January 8, 2015, Complainant responded to the DRAC’s letter. Therein, Complainant stated
that she was unsure of what “input” the committee wanted as she had already submitted
information and requests for corrections to the “operational issues” and for the hostile work
environment and discrimination toward her to cease. Further, Complainant referred to the
Commission’s decision in Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120140129
(Mar. 25, 2014). On March 21, 2015, the DRAC informed Complainant that it would defer a
decision on her case until after her April 17, 2015 grievance hearing regarding the matters she
raised in her response. Complainant remained on paid administrative leave.

Complainant attended the arbitration hearing on April 17, 2015, and a final decision was issued
on June 1, 2015. On September 3, 2015, the DRAC sent Complainant a letter stating that the
operational issues she challenged had been adjudicated in the arbitration hearing and the DRAC
was ready to proceed. The letter instructed Complainant to provide any input regarding
accommodations she wished for the DRAC to consider by September 14, 2015. Complainant did
not respond.

On November 27, 2014 (Agency No. 4E-852-0018-15), Complainant filed a formal complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work
environment on the bases of sex (female), disability, age (57), and in reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when:

1. On October 30, 2014, she was scheduled to attend a District Reasonable
Accommodation Committee (DRAC) meeting;

2. On an unspecified date, she was singled out when she received a November 4,
2014 letter from the Agency’s occupational nurse giving her seven days to request
the results of the FFDE; and

3. On an unspecified date, she became aware of a letter dated May 23, 2014, from
the USPS Law Department attorney referring to her as an employee who can be
difficult to work with and supervise.3

3 The Agency dismissed two additional claims for alleging the same matter raised in a prior
complaint and failure to state a claim. Complainant raised no challenges to the dismissal of these
claims on appeal; therefore, the Commission will exercise its discretion to only address those
issues specifically raised on appeal.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

6
Agency No. 4E-852-0012-16 (Complaint-2)

On October 1, 2015, the Union Representative who had previously represented or accompanied
Complainant in DRAC meetings met with the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator
regarding several issues. During the meeting, the Union Representative inquired about the status
of Complainant’s DRAC case. The Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator informed the
Union Representative that Complainant needed to participate in future meetings because
management had inquired about the need to continue paying Complainant administrative leave.
The Union Representative requested a better location than the last meeting because he and
Complainant had participated through their cell phones. Following their conversation,
Complainant was notified by an October 15, 2015 letter that a DRAC meeting was scheduled on
November 12, 2015.

On November 7, 2015, Complainant wrote a letter to the Reasonable Accommodation
Coordinator stating that she would not be attending the DRAC meeting because she would be
undergoing a medical procedure on that date. Further, Complainant stated that no one would be
attending the meeting on her behalf and that she never gave consent to the DRAC to contact
anyone who may have previously accompanied her to DRAC meetings nor had she given
permission to the DRAC to speak with anyone without her presence. In addition, Complainant
stated that it would “take a few weeks to receive results from this procedure and a couple of
office visits with the doctor on this before knowing if any restrictions or limitations will be
needed.”

On November 24, 2015, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator responded to Complainant
informing Complainant that due to her lack of participation in the interactive process, the DRAC
was closing her case file. The Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator noted that Complainant
could request to re-open her file at any time by submitting a request in writing to the Health Unit
or her supervisor. In addition, Complainant was informed that she could appeal this decision.
Complainant requested clarification of the Coordinator’s letter. On March 15, 2016, the
Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator explained that because Complainant had failed to
interact, because she said it would take weeks before she would know the results from her
medical procedure, and because she may or may not have new restrictions when the procedure
was done, her DRAC case was and would remain closed until there was indication she could
return to work. The Coordinator reiterated that Complainant could request to re-open her case at
any time and that she could appeal this decision.

Additionally, on March 15, 2016, the Bullhead City Postmaster wrote Complainant a letter
informing her that she would no longer be paid administrative leave effective April 1, 2016. The
Postmaster explained Complainant’s administrative leave with pay was ending because he had
received notice that Complainant’s DRAC case had been closed and that his review of
Complainant’s medical file revealed that her medical restrictions as described in the July 2014
FFDE indicated that she could not perform the essential duties of her position. The Postmaster
informed Complainant that she could submit a written request for light duty or submit updated
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

7
medical documentation indicating that she could return to work and her specific limitations (if
any) that would affect her return to work.

On February 22, 2016 (and amended on March 28, 2016), Complainant filed a formal complaint
(Agency No. 4E-852-0012-16) alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected
her to a hostile work environment on the bases of disability, age (58), and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when:

1. On or around October 1, 2015, the details of Complainant’s District Reasonable
Accommodation (DRAC) case were discussed without her consent; and

2. On or around March 17, 2016, Complainant became aware that her
Administrative Leave was going to be terminated effective April 1, 2016.4

Agency No. 4E-852-0147-16 (Complaint-3)

On March 22, 2016 and April 1, 2016, Complainant wrote letters to Agency officials requesting
that her DRAC be reopened and that her paid administrative leave be reinstated. On April 8,
2016, the Postmaster wrote Complainant a letter informing her that he would not be returning her
to paid administrative leave. The Postmaster noted that the DRAC had received her request to
reopen her case. The Postmaster informed Complainant that she could elect to use her
accumulated sick and/or annual leave or leave without pay (LWOP). The Postmaster added that
if Complainant wished to speak with him directly instead of the DRAC about her limitations and
need for accommodation, to inform him of dates she would be available to meet.

On April 4, 2016, Complainant completed a leave slip requesting administrative leave as her
leave of choice. On April 13, 2016, the Postmaster again informed Complainant that he was
denying her request for administrative leave and that she could only use sick leave, annual leave,
or LWOP. Complainant was placed on LWOP status for that pay period. On May 11, 2016,
Complainant submitted a request for advanced sick leave. On June 10, 2016, the Postmaster
informed Complainant that her request had been referred to Labor Relations pending the final
decision of the DRAC. The Postmaster noted that Complainant could request annual leave or
LWOP while the matter was pending and if her request for advanced sick leave was approved,
she would receive a pay adjustment for the annual leave or LWOP she used. On June 11, 2016,
Complainant requested 40 hours of sick leave, and her supervisor denied the request citing an
insufficient sick leave balance. Complainant submitted additional requests for reinstatement of
administrative paid leave, but the requests were denied. Complainant subsequently requested
placement in the leave-sharing program which the Postmaster approved on September 26, 2016.

4 The Agency dismissed two additional claims for alleging the same matter raised in a prior
complaint and failure to state a claim. Complainant raised no challenges to the dismissal of these
claims on appeal; therefore, the Commission will exercise its discretion to only address those
issues specifically raised on appeal.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

8
In November 2016, Complainant requested that the Postmaster cancel the annual leave she
previously requested and informed him that she would no longer send in leave slips for LWOP.

Complainant and the Agency communicated to schedule a DRAC meeting, and the meeting was
subsequently held on June 2, 2016. Complainant attended the meeting with her attorney. During
the meeting, Complainant’s only suggestion in how she could be accommodated was a “change
in managerial style.” More specifically, Complainant was seeking to be allowed to work with
little supervision, advance notice of any changes in her routine, and that she be given as much
time to adapt to changes as necessary. In addition, during the meeting, the DRAC provided
Complainant a document prepared by Human Resources stating that there were no vacant,
available positions within 50 miles of the Bullhead City Post Office, but listed several vacant
positions within the state. At the end of the meeting, Complainant and Agency officials were
not able to come to an agreement regarding how Complainant could be accommodated to allow
her to perform the duties of her position.

In June 2016, Complainant claimed that she expressed interest in a reassignment into a clerk
position at the Laughlin Post Office in Nevada to its Postmaster. On June 23, 2016, the Laughlin
Post Office received permission to fill a vacant clerk position. Laughlin management determined
that there were no available Postal Support Employees within 50 miles who were interested in
the position. In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, Laughlin management
announced the vacant Part-Time Flexible Sales, Service, and Distribution Associate position on
July 1, 2016. The announcement closed on July 6, 2016. Complainant did not apply for
reassignment into the position during the announcement period. Complainant submitted a
request for reassignment into the Laughlin position on July 14, 2016, after the selecting official
had selected someone for the position.

On July 25, 2016, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator sent Complainant a letter
requesting clarification regarding her condition and the accommodations she was seeking.
Furthermore, the Coordinator noted that Complainant had indicated that she wished to
communicate through writing rather than scheduling another in-person meeting. In the letter, the
Coordinator acknowledged that Complainant had in the past indicated that she could not cope
with daily supervision and that her requested accommodation was a change in managerial style.
The Coordinator further stated that management had attempted a “hands-off” approach with
Complainant, but her performance issues increased rather than decreased and that management
needed to be able to communicate with carriers whenever issues arose. The Coordinator
included numerous questions that management sought to better understand Complainant’s
requested accommodation. On August 24, 2016, Complainant responded to the July 25, 2016
request for information. Therein, Complainant refused to respond to the questions about her
condition and need for accommodation. Instead, Complainant detailed the numerous complaints
she had with Agency management and officials and her belief that she had been subjected to an
ongoing hostile work environment.

0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

9
On August 25, 2016 (and twice amended), Complainant filed a formal complaint (Agency No.
4E-852-0147-16) alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female),
disability, age (58), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. On or around June 2, 2016, she was denied reasonable accommodation when she
was offered a vacant, funded position 50 miles away;

2. On or around June 22, 2016, her request for advanced sick leave was denied; and

3. On or around August 31, 2016, she became aware that she was not selected for a
career position in Laughlin, Nevada.5

Agency No. 4E-852-0100-17 (Complaint-4)

On December 2, 2016, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator wrote Complainant in
response to her refusal to provide the DRAC clarification regarding her condition and requests
for reasonable accommodation. The Coordinator informed Complainant that without her input,
the DRAC has been unable to determine the facets of the managerial style that would need to be
changed or whether such changes would be reasonable. As a result, the Coordinator advised
Complainant that she could request disability retirement, request permanent light duty, or request
reassignment. The letter further informed Complainant that she could appeal the DRAC’s
decision in writing within 10 days.

On December 20, 2016, Complainant wrote the Arizona District’s Human Resources Manager
(HRM) expressing her disagreement with the December 2, 2016 letter, and requesting an appeal
of the DRAC’s decision. More specifically, Complainant once again raised concerns about the
discrimination and hostile work environment she has faced. On January 30, 2017, HRM
responded. In the letter, HRM stated that it appeared Complainant had filed an EEO complaint
regarding the matters she raised in the letter and that the EEO process was the appropriate forum
to address the issues she raised.

On February 27, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint (Agency No. 4E-852-0147-16)
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female), disability, age
(58), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. On January 30, 2017, her appeal to the District Human Resources Manager of the
December 14, 2016 DRAC decision was denied.6

5 The Agency dismissed two additional claims for alleging the same matter raised in a prior
complaint and expressing dissatisfaction with the EEO process. Complainant raised no
challenges to the dismissal of these claims on appeal; therefore, the Commission will exercise its
discretion to only address those issues specifically raised on appeal.

0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

10
At the conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant with copies of the
reports of investigation (ROI-1, ROI-2, ROI-3, and ROI-4 respectively) and notice of her right to
request hearings before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In two of the complaints
(Complaint-1 and Complaint-2), Complainant requested a hearing, but subsequently withdrew
her hearing requests. The AJ assigned to those matters remanded the complaints to the Agency
for issuances of FADs (FAD-1 and FAD-2 respectively). In Complaint-3 and Complaint-4,
Complainant requested FADs. In accordance with Complainant’s requests, the Agency issued
FADs (FAD-3 and FAD-4 respectively) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). All four FADs
determined that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work
environment as alleged. Complainant filed the instant appeals.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

In her appeals, Complainant notes that these complaints are connected and have been fragmented
over the years. Complainant contends that her claims are part of a large pattern of discrimination
and reprisal against her. Complainant thoroughly explains the history of her EEO complaints
and claims against the Agency and her arguments regarding the Agency’s discriminatory acts.
Complainant claims that she did not receive a copy of the FFDE report prior to the DRAC
meeting; therefore, she could not discuss something she had not seen. Complainant contends
that the Agency still has not granted her accommodation request, which included a change in
managerial style and less micromanaging. Complainant denies that she was difficult to supervise
or work with or that she acted disruptively.

Complainant denies that she was uncooperative or failed to participate in the interactive process.
Complainant claims that she did not consent to the Union Representative participating in the
DRAC process. Complainant argues that the Agency should not have closed her DRAC case nor
ended her administrative leave. Complainant argues that Agency officials have not stopped the
harassment even after she was successful in her previous EEO complaints and appeals.

Complainant questions the Agency’s offer of reassignment into positions more than 50 miles
away and claims that it was premature for the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator to
mention reassignment as an accommodation. Complainant asserts that she spoke with the
Laughlin Postmaster in May and June 2016, and the Postmaster should have remembered that
she was interested in the clerk position prior to its announcement. Complainant contends that the
Agency has granted advanced sick leave to other employees who had health issues and who were
not certain to return to work.

Complainant contends that she has made attempts to return to work, but the Agency would not
allow her. Complainant claims that the Agency’s discrimination and hostile work environment
have caused her emotional distress and financial harm. Complainant argues that the Agency has

6 The Agency dismissed two additional claims for raising the same matter raised in a prior
complaint.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

11
continuously changed their reasoning for their actions against her and have not treated her fairly.
Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the FADs.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Denial of Reasonable Accommodation (All Complaints)

The Commission notes that an Agency is required to make reasonable accommodation to the
known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability
unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.9. To establish a denial of 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
individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to
provide a reasonable accommodation. The Commission will assume without deciding (for the
purposes of this decision) that Complainant is an individual with a disability.

Here, Complainant has alleged that management has failed to accommodate her condition dating
back to June 2014. The record reveals that initially, Complainant was provided a six-inch
platform to accommodate her shoulder condition and later she was allowed to write down
numbers and counts to accommodate her mental condition. ROI-1, at 279. By June 2014,
management observed that Complainant was still not timely completing her daily assignments.
Id. The Postmaster affirmed that Complainant was averaging approximately 11.5 hours to
complete her route when her route should have been completed in approximately eight hours. Id.
at 279, 298. In addition, Complainant’s supervisor stated that when management attempted to
discuss this with Complainant, she often would respond that she could not be supervised in that
way because it exacerbated her condition and she would leave for the day. Id. at 298.
Management requested that Complainant submit medical documentation in support of her
condition, but Complainant refused to submit any documentation. Based on Complainant’s
statements about her condition and her reaction following attempts to discuss her work
performance, Complainant was scheduled to attend a DRAC meeting to determine what
accommodations she would need to allow her to perform the essential functions of her position.

On June 27, 2014, the DRAC held a meeting to discuss accommodating Complainant.
Complainant did not attend, but was represented by her Union Representative. ROI-1, at 455.
The DRAC was unable to determine what accommodations Complainant might need based on
Complainant’s failure to submit medical documentation in support; therefore, an FFDE was
scheduled for July 31, 2014. Id. Complainant was placed on administrative leave pending the
FFDE and the DRAC’s analysis of its results. Id. at 213.

The Occupational Health Nurse Administrator received the results of Complainant’s FFDE and
compiled a report on September 9, 2014. The report noted that the doctor recommended, among
other things, that Complainant continue to be allowed to write things down; that she be allowed
to work as independently as possible; to provide her advance notice of changes to her work
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

12
routine; and to avoid interrupting her work tasks. ROI-2, at 211. The DRAC scheduled a
meeting on October 30, 2014 to discuss the report and possible accommodations, but
Complainant and her representative were not cooperative in assisting the DRAC in determining
how to accommodate Complainant. ROI-1, at 455. On December 24, 2014, the DRAC
requested that Complainant submit any input or information she wished to assist the DRAC in
determining what specific accommodation would allow her to perform the duties of her position.
Id. at 455-56. Complainant responded, but only stated she wanted management to address the
“operational issues” including, the harassment; daily scrutiny; and changing of instructions. Id.
at 459. Based on Complainant’s response, the DRAC decided to defer further action until after
Complainant’s grievance hearing regarding the matters raised in her response. Complainant
remained on administrative leave.

Following the grievance hearing and its decision, the DRAC reached out again to Complainant in
September 2015, for input into what specific accommodations she sought. ROI-2, at 54.
Complainant again did not respond. Agency officials informed Complainant that a DRAC
meeting was scheduled for November 12, 2015, but Complainant responded that she would be
unable to attend due to a medical procedure on that date, that no one would represent her, and
that it would “take a few weeks to receive results from this procedure and a couple of office
visits with the doctor on this before knowing if any restrictions or limitations will be needed.”
ROI-2, at 235. Based on Complainant’s lack of participation in the interactive process, the
DRAC closed Complainant’s case on November 24, 2015. Id. at 249. Complainant was
informed she could request to re-open the DRAC file at any time or appeal the DRAC’s decision.
Id. On March 15, 2016, the DRAC upheld its decision to close the file. Id. at 389.

On June 2, 2016, Complainant met with the DRAC; however, the only accommodation she and
her representative suggested was a “change in managerial style” including little supervision,
advance notice of changes, and time to adapt to changes. ROI-3, at 561. During the meeting,
Complainant was given a list of vacant positions within the state and in the Arizona District. Id.
at 586. Complainant did not request reassignment into one of the positions. Following the
meeting, the DRAC provided Complainant with additional questions for more specific
information regarding her requested accommodation, but Complainant refused to provide the
requested information. Id. at 561, 839-42. Complainant later requested reassignment into a clerk
position at Laughlin; however, she failed to submit her reassignment request during the period
the position was posted on the Agency’s eReassign system. Id. at 679. Additionally, the DRAC
was unable to override the contractual requirements to place an employee into a position through
the DRAC process. Id. at 568.

On December 2, 2016, after Complainant failed to provide the DRAC with clarification
regarding her condition and possible accommodations, the DRAC determined that without her
input, it was unable to determine what accommodations Complainant needed to perform the
duties of her position. ROI-3, at 811. Complainant was given the option to request disability
retirement, permanent light duty, or reassignment. Id. Complainant’s appeal to the DRAC was
later denied. ROI-4, at 173.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

13
Complainant’s request for accommodation in this matter essentially was to work with as little
supervision as possible, advanced notice of changes to her routine, and sufficient time to adjust
to these changes in routine. The record reveals that management attempted a “hands-off”
approach initially with Complainant; however, she was unable to complete her route within the
evaluated time and accumulated excessive overtime. When management wished to speak with
her about this, she claimed that she could not be supervised in that manner because it
exacerbated her condition. Thus, the Agency sought input from Complainant about what
specific accommodation she believed would allow her to complete the essential duties of her
position. Complainant refused multiple requests to provide the Agency more information,
supporting medical documentation, or any suggestions she had for accommodations.
Additionally, Complainant refused the Agency’s offers for her to request permanent light duty or
to submit an official request for reassignment.

Agency management engaged in a good faith reasonable accommodation interactive process
with Complainant beginning in June 2014 through the time of Complainant’s EEO complaints.
The Agency maintained an ongoing reasonable accommodation dialogue with Complainant.
Complainant refused to attend DRAC meetings or refused to participate when she did attend the
meetings. Complainant refused to provide the DRAC the information it needed to determine
how best to accommodate her requests for “managerial changes” or “operational changes.” The
EEO process for obtaining a reasonable accommodation requires agencies and complainants to
engage in an “interactive process” regarding reasonable accommodations to determine the best
options for both the employee and management. Employees who refuse to cooperate in that
process are not entitled to an accommodation. See Carleen L. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120151465 (May 12, 2017), citing EEOC Enforcement Guidance on
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002) (Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable
Accommodation); see also Zachary K. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No.
0120130795 (Nov. 19, 2015).

Furthermore, Complainant’s request for little supervision and advanced notice of and time to
adjust to routine changes was not a reasonable request. The Postmaster noted that all Agency
employees needed to be supervised and that the very nature of the carrier position involved
frequent changes to a daily routine. ROI-4, at 131. Complainant was essentially requesting a
stress-free environment. The Commission has, however, held that a complainant’s request
seeking a stress-free environment as an accommodation is not reasonable and places an undue
burden on the agency. See Estelle H. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120152839
(Nov. 7, 2017); Alden v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080620 (June 16,
2011) (finding that complainant’s request seeking a stress-free environment was unreasonable).
Likewise, if Complainant sought new supervision, the Commission has stated that an employer
does not have to provide an employee with a new supervisor as a reasonable accommodation.
See Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation, at Question 33 (rev. Oct. 17, 2002)
(employer not required to provide employee with new supervisor as reasonable accommodation).

0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

14
To the extent that Complainant’s request for reassignment could have been an alternative
reasonable accommodation, the record reveals that that there were no vacant, funded positions at
the Bullhead City facility at the time, and Complainant was given a list of vacant, funded
positions within the state of Arizona and within the Arizona District in June 2016. ROI-3, at
586. Complainant did not pursue reassignment into any of those positions. Complainant later
sought a reassignment to the Laughlin Post Office, but the DRAC was unable to override the
collective bargaining agreement to place her in the position. Id. at 568.7 Furthermore, the
position was not yet available when Complainant inquired about reassignment. When the
position became available, Complainant had not filed a reassignment request in the Agency’s
system when the District Complement Coordinator canvassed the Agency’s eReassign system;
therefore, the Coordinator followed Agency procedure and posted the position to the Agency’s
external posting system. Id. at 679. Complainant did not submit a request for the reassignment
into the position until after the position was posted externally. Id. at 913. Even if Complainant
had properly requested reassignment, Complainant has not demonstrated that reassignment into
the Laughlin clerk position would have been an effective reasonable accommodation.

In sum, the Commission finds that the Agency did not violate the Rehabilitation Act. The
Agency engaged in a good faith reasonable accommodation interactive process with
Complainant as soon as it was apparent that accommodation may have been needed for
Complainant’s condition. Complainant refused to participate during the interactive process at
times and inadequately participated at other instances. In addition, Complainant’s requested
accommodation of changes in managerial style and avoidance of changes in her routine were
unreasonable or too vague to effectuate. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Agency’s
actions did not violate the Rehabilitation Act.

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a claim of harassment a complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily
protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical
conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her
statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or
had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing
liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
[complainant’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

7 The Commission notes that undue hardship may be shown where an accommodation conflicts
with a valid collective bargaining agreement. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p); Gerald L. v. Dep’t of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130776 (Nov. 10, 2015); Reiter v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 01920467 (July 2, 1992); Wiley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No.
05880197 (July 31, 1990).
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

15
Therefore, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to
conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s
position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove
that the conduct was taken because of her protected classes. Only if Complainant establishes
both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.

The Commission finds that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the alleged incidents
were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Even
assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work
environment, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions
were based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. For example, with respect to the incidents
alleged in Complaint-1, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator stated that Agency
officials received the FFDE report, and Complainant was invited to attend a DRAC meeting on
October 30, 2014, to discuss reasonable accommodation options to allow her to perform the
essential job duties of her letter carrier position. ROI-1, at 317. The Coordinator confirmed that
the DRAC wished to conduct the meeting sooner; however, Complainant’s representative
indicated that October 30, 2014, was the earliest date he was available to meet. Id. at 318. The
Coordinator stressed that the DRAC held the meeting to attempt to engage in the interactive
process about the limitations identified in the FFDE report and any accommodations
Complainant may need to perform the duties of her position. Id.

As to the November 4, 2014 letter, OHNA stated that she sent Complainant the letter based on
Complainant’s representative’s claim that Complainant could not participate in the October 2014
DRAC meeting because she had not received a copy of the FFDE report. ROI-1, at 344. OHNA
explained that she is the custodian of employee medical records and she sent the letter after
Complainant failed to fax a written request following the DRAC meeting. Id. OHNA noted that
the DRAC was required to render a decision in 20 business days from the date of the initial
request for accommodation. Id. Therefore, OHNA affirmed that she requested that Complainant
submit a written request for the FFDE report within seven days to avoid any further delay in the
interactive process. Id.

Regarding the Agency Attorney’s comments, the Agency Attorney explained that she made the
comments in her correspondence to Agency officials based on information that was provided to
her at the time of her analysis of the Agency’s compliance with a Commission order. ROI-1, at
371. The Agency Attorney noted that there was no reporting relationship between Complainant
and her and that she was only providing legal advice to Agency officials. Id. at 368-70. The
Agency Attorney stated that it was reported to her that Complainant had demonstrated a pattern
of excessive overtime and became irate and would leave work whenever management attempted
to discuss the matter with her. Id. at 371. In addition, the Agency Attorney affirmed that she
was aware of an early-2013 management inquiry that included statements from co-workers
reporting that Complainant was hostile when talking to her supervisor; that she would yell, throw
things and slam doors; and that when she is upset she loses control. Id. Further, the Agency
Attorney was informed that the DRAC had tried to meet with Complainant, but she refused to
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

16
cooperate with the committee. Id. The Agency Attorney recalled that Agency management had
attempted to arrange for a higher-level manager to travel to Bullhead City to meet with
Complainant to discuss her situation and potential accommodations that might help her, but
Complainant refused to meet with her as well. Id. Thus, the Agency Attorney concluded, based
on that information, that Complainant had effectively prevented the Agency from talking to her
about her work performance, her medical condition, and any possible accommodations. Id. The
Agency Attorney affirmed that it was in that context that she indicated in her correspondence
that Complainant may have been difficult to work with and supervise. Id.

As to the incidents alleged in Complaint-2, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator denied
that she discussed Complainant’s DRAC case with anyone without her consent. ROI-2, at 308.
The Coordinator explained that she had a conversation with the Union Representative in her
capacity as Labor Relations Manager about a number of issues and he inquired about the status
of Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request. Id. at 308-09. The Coordinator stated that
she spoke with the Union Representative because he had been representing Complainant in her
DRAC case and she had indicated that she would not participate in or attend the DRAC meeting
without him. Id. at 309. The Coordinator affirmed that she only told the Union Representative
that Complainant needed to participate in future meetings because management was inquiring
into whether they needed to keep paying Complainant administrative leave. Id. The Coordinator
confirmed that she later received a letter from Complainant stating that she would not attend the
next scheduled DRAC meeting and that she did not want anyone else involved. Id.

The Postmaster explained that he initially placed Complainant on paid administrative leave in
July 2014, to allow her time to undergo the FFDE and to allow the DRAC process to be
completed. ROI-2, at 323. The Postmaster stated that following the FFDE, the DRAC had
repeatedly attempted to meet with Complainant to discuss her medical condition and what
accommodations would allow her to perform the essential duties of her position. Id. The
Postmaster affirmed that attempts to engage in the interactive process stretched on over a year
and the DRAC subsequently closed her case due to her lack of cooperation. Id. The Postmaster
stated that he removed Complainant’s administrative leave status because the DRAC case was
closed, and he provided her the option to request the leave of her choice. Id. at 323, 390. The
Postmaster noted that Complainant was additionally given the option to submit a request for light
duty or submit updated medical documentation indicating her specific limitations to allow the
Agency to engage in the interactive process to find an appropriate reasonable accommodation.
Id. at 390.

As to matters raised in Complaint-3, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator stated that
during the June 2016 DRAC meeting, the only suggested accommodation by Complainant and
her representative was a change in managerial style. ROI-3, at 561. The Coordinator continued
that the only specific details offered of how the managerial style should change was to allow
Complainant to work without supervision as much as possible, to be given notice of any change
to her routine, and to allow her as much time as necessary to adapt to the change in routine. Id.
The Coordinator confirmed that this was not a reasonable accommodation, and the DRAC
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

17
requested additional information that would assist the DRAC in determining whether
Complainant could be accommodated. Id. Complainant responded in writing indicating that she
would not provide the requested information. Id. The Coordinator affirmed that a list of vacant,
available positions was given to Complainant; however, there were no positions within 50 miles
of Complainant’s duty location. Id. at 561, 586.

With respect to the denial of advanced sick leave, the Postmaster stated that he denied
Complainant’s request for advanced sick leave because there was no expectation that
Complainant could or would return to work. ROI-3, at 522. The Postmaster explained that
Complainant had been out for a significant amount of time and the DRAC was unable to
reasonably accommodate her; therefore, it was determined that it was unlikely she would return
to work and be able to repay the advanced leave. Id. The Postmaster added that if an employee
is given advanced leave and does not re-earn it, it creates a debt to the Agency that has to be
collected. Id.

Regarding her request for reassignment, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator affirmed
that Complainant mentioned in a voicemail that she wished to be placed in a clerk craft position
at Laughlin. ROI-3, at 568. The Coordinator stated that the DRAC was unable to facilitate this
type of placement because the clerk craft would have the first contractual right to bid on any
vacant positions within their craft and Complainant would have to request reassignment into
Nevada and the clerk craft. Id. The District Complement Coordinator affirmed that
Complainant was not in the running for the position because she failed to request reassignment
during the reassignment period. Id. at 679. The District Complement Coordinator explained that
Complainant submitted a reassignment request on July 15, 2016, but eReassign was canvassed
prior to Complainant’s submission and the position was posted to eCareer on July 1, 2016. Id.
While Complainant claimed that she spoke with the Laughlin Postmaster on several occasions
about the possibility of an open position prior to its posting, the Laughlin Postmaster could not
recall speaking with Complainant. Id. at 644.

Finally, as to the matters raised in Complaint-4, HRM stated that Complainant failed to file a
timely appeal regarding the DRAC’s December 2, 2016 decision letter. ROI-4, at 139. The
DRAC letter informed Complainant that it was unable to determine what specific
accommodation she believed would assist her in performing the essential duties of her position
based on her failure to participate and provided the option to request disability retirement,
permanent light duty, or reassignment. Id. at 168. Complainant was given 10 days to appeal the
DRAC’s decision, but she failed to file an appeal within that timeframe. Instead, Complainant
sent HRM a letter that referenced matters raised in her EEO complaint. Id. at 139. As a result,
HRM responded that she could not comment on the merits or issues she raised and that the EEO
process was the appropriate forum to address the matters she raised. Id.

The Commission concludes that, considering the preponderance of the evidence and the totality
of the circumstances, Complainant has not established that she was subjected to a discriminatory
or retaliatory hostile work environment. Moreover, to the extent Complainant claims that she
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

18
was subjected to disparate treatment, the Commission finds that, as discussed above,
Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency’s explanation for its actions was pretext for
discrimination or reprisal. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected
to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged.8

Improper Disclosure of Medical Information

Finally, to the extent that Complainant alleged in Complaint-2 that the Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator may have improperly disclosed confidential medical information to
the Union Representative, the Rehabilitation Act specifically prohibits the disclosure of medical
information except in certain limited situations. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable
Accommodation, Question 42 (rev. Oct. 17, 2002). The Commission has articulated limited
exceptions to the Rehabilitation Act’s confidentiality requirements, and Agency officials may
share confidential medical information about an employee with other Agency officials on a
“need-to-know” basis, if doing so is necessary to ensure compliance with the Rehabilitation Act.
See Skarica v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120073399 (Mar. 5, 2010) (finding
that the Agency did not violate the confidentiality provisions of the Rehabilitation Act when the
complainant’s supervisor consulted with a personnel official and agency physician to ascertain
how to accommodate complainant’s medical condition, because these officials had a legitimate
“need to know” complainant’s medical information).

Here, there is no evidence that the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator disclosed any
confidential information about Complainant’s condition. As discussed above, the Coordinator
was discussing several issues with the Union Representative in her role as Labor Relations
Manager and he inquired about the status of Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request.
ROI-2, at 308-09. The Coordinator confirmed that she only informed the Union Representative
that Complainant needed to participate in future meetings and attempted to determine when the
Union Representative would next available to meet since Complainant had indicated that she
would not participate or attend without him. Id. at 309. The Union Representative corroborated
that he and the Coordinator only discussed the need for a future meeting and his request for a
better meeting location. Id. at 344. There is no evidence that Complainant’s confidential
medical information was disclosed to anyone or was otherwise accessed improperly.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that Agency officials did not unlawfully disclose any
confidential medical information.

CONCLUSION

8 We note that the Commission determined that Complainant had been subjected to a hostile
work environment for events that occurred between November 2013 and April 2014, which
evidenced an insensitivity and hostility toward Complainant because of her disabilities. See
Janet B. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151126 (Feb. 15, 2018). That same
decision also found that the Agency did not violate the Rehabilitation Act when it sent
Complainant for a fitness for duty exam in July 2014.
0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

19

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on
appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the
Agency’s final decisions because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that discrimination or reprisal occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405;
Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110),
at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a
legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail
within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of
service on the other party.
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).

0120170672; 0120170803;
0120171899; 0120180024

20
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within
ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action,
you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or
department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do
so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the
national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may
request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or
costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may
request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of
court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The
court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to
File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

April 20, 2018
Date