Claudia A., Complainant, v. Bill Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency. Appeal No. 0120120140 Agency No. 2011033 DECISION Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's September 2, 2011, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS in part and REVERSES in part the Agency's FAD which found no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Assistant Unit Operator at the Agency's Colbert Fossil Plant in Tennessee. In June 2010, Complainant reported to the Shift Operations Supervisor (SOS), that she was being sexually harassed by a male coworker. An investigation regarding this matter was conducted. Complainant believed that the matter had been taken care of and that "everything was over and done with." She also believed that this matter was confidential. Several weeks later, however, notes referencing this situation began to appear in Complainant's assigned work area. Complainant found the first note in a restricted area where Complainant was the only one with key card access. The note indicated that "Complainant enjoyed being sexually harassed so much by [her alleged harasser]." The note was found folded lying on the floor. Complainant reported the incident to management but after several weeks of not hearing anything she reported the matter to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on November 1, 2010. During this same period of time management was conducting an investigation as to who had access to the room where the note was found. The security report revealed that Complainant had been the only person in the room on October 16, 2010. A request had also been made regarding whether a camera was recording in the room where the note was found but it was reported that it was not. Therefore, because the note was folded, management assumed that it must have been slid under the door. When it was determined that the culprit could not be identified, management contacted the OIG. On November 1, 2010, Complainant was contacted by a male OIG investigator in order to schedule a meeting. The meeting was scheduled for November 3, 2010. Afterward, Complainant emailed the OIG and requested a female investigator. Her request was denied but the male investigator brought a female investigator with him to the meeting. Complainant's mother, union representative, and a female coworker also attended the meeting. Also present was the Employee Relations Consultant (ERC). Complainant requested that the ERC leave the meeting because she had originally given her the note and Complainant felt that the ERC did not take the matter seriously. During the meeting, Complainant became very upset with the male investigator's tone and line of questioning. Complainant had to leave the room on two occasions to compose herself. In order to determine whether Complainant was the author of the note, the male investigator vigorously questioned her. He asked whether Complainant had any enemies, "based on her belligerent attitude." Complainant maintained that the investigator forcefully asked her questions and twisted things that she said to make it look like she wrote the note. The investigator characterized Complainant's behavior as "she did everything from yelling to screaming, to even crying." Complainant's mother asked the investigator if he would have taken this matter more seriously had it contained a death threat. Complainant explained that she thought the note was threatening because it stated that she liked to be sexually harassed. The meeting was so contentious that Complainant ended the meeting indicating that the next time that she saw the investigator it would be with her lawyer. Complainant told the union steward that she was afraid for her life during the meeting. Following the meeting, Complainant took sick leave from November 4 - 6, 2010, and November 9 - 10, 2010. During her absence, a memorandum was circulated to the entire plant which reinforced the Agency's position that harassment of any kind would not be tolerated. On November 14, 2010, Complainant reported back to work during the midnight rotation, with a doctor's note covering her period of absence. Upon her return, she was called into the Shift Operations Supervisor's office and escorted from the plant by Agency police and the plant nurse. She was taken from the plant in a police car and asked to submit to alcohol and drug (A&D) testing. After the tests, Complainant was returned to the facility and was met by a supervisor who gave her a memorandum which indicated that she was required to take the A&D test and that this was the first step of a Fitness for Duty (FFD) evaluation. Psychological testing was to be completed at a later date. On November 17, 2010, Complainant took a psychological test with the plant nurse. This was followed by a psychological interview with a doctor on November 29, 2010. In addition to asking about work issues, the doctor inquired about the death of her brother, which had occurred five years earlier. Management had instructed the doctor to look for signs of a mental illness. The doctor issued a memorandum to management dated December 14, 2010, which indicated that Complainant met the psychological standards for the ability to work safely. Complainant returned to work on December 15, 2010. Management indicated that the decision to send Complainant for a FFD evaluation was based upon the "extreme behavior" that she exhibited during the interview with the OIG investigator. Management noted that Complainant was in a safety sensitive position, which provided the basis for sending her for a FFD evaluation. As an Assistant Unit Operator, her job required that she have the ability to apply her knowledge to the correct procedure to be followed in all emergencies as well as in routine operations. She might have also been required to respond and participate as a member of the fire brigade, first responder, and hazardous response team. Management also indicated that Complainant was sent for a FFD evaluation after she took sick leave to avoid coming to work after having displayed unstable behaviors when communicating with management, especially the investigator. Management also mentioned an occasion where Complainant asked her supervisor about the status of her sexual harassment complaint and when he responded that he had no information, Complainant became visibly upset, and became loud and irate to the point that her supervisor had to ask her to step outside. Complainant argued that management failed to follow the FFD policy which required the supervisor to speak with the employee concerning the allegation. According to Complainant, her supervisor never spoke to her. Further, she maintained that she did not receive the order for a FFD evaluation until after she had been already completed the A&D test. Moreover, she maintained that the manager that referred her for the evaluation, the SSO, indicated that he made the referral based on her meeting with the investigator. He admitted that he had no first-hand knowledge of the meeting with the OIG. He also admitted that he was not aware that the investigator had accused Complainant of writing the note and that Complainant threatened only to meet with the investigator with her lawyer because of the investigator's behavior. On January 14, 2011, while working, Complainant found a second note in the Engineering office which stated that "Complainant loves [the harasser]." She immediately gave the note to her supervisor who thereafter turned it over to the Acting Operations Manager. The note was found in the Engineering office which was a high-traffic area. Then, on January 27, 2011, a janitor found a third note in a conference room closet written on a dry erase board. He and another employee took a picture of the note and forwarded it to Complainant's supervisor. The supervisor sent the picture to Human Resources and the OIG. This note read, "[Complainant] loves the [harasser]." Thereafter, a fourth note was found on the side of fan duct work in the basement of Unit 5. This note stated "[Complainant] is an ugly Amazon home-wrecking whore." This note was also forwarded to the OIG, but management was informed that the case had been closed because there was not enough "substantial evidence to pinpoint one person to writing" the note in October 2010. With the appearance of the additional notes the OIG agreed to reopen or start a new investigation. The investigator interviewed several employees and collected handwriting samples which were shipped to a lab for further analysis. As a result of the above, on February 10, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal (opposition to discriminatory practices) when: 1. an anonymous note about her having an alleged relationship with a coworker was left in her work area on or about October 16, 2010; 2. she was ordered to submit to an alcohol and drug test on or about November 3, 2010; 3. on or about November 14, 2010, she was placed on administrative leave and required to submit to a Fitness for Duty evaluation; 4. on or about January 14, 2011, she found a second note about her having an alleged relationship with a coworker; and 5. she learned on or about January 27, 2011, that a third anonymous note about her having an alleged relationship with a coworker had been found in a closet. Following an investigation by the Agency, Complainant requested a final agency decision (FAD). The Agency determined in the FAD that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to sexual harassment and harassment based on her sex and due to her opposition to discriminatory practices. Specifically, the FAD found that, at most, Complainant learned of four anonymous notes, which management sent off for a handwriting analysis. Complainant's behavior with management during the course of the investigation, along with her use of sick leave, led management to believe that Complainant should receive further psychological evaluation in order to determine whether she could work safely, it is undisputed that Complainant was in non-work pay status the entire time she went through the FFD evaluation. The Agency found that even if it could be assumed that Complainant was adversely affected by being sent for the FFD evaluation, she was clearly not aggrieved. An "aggrieved employee" was defined as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Since Complainant had not established that she, in any way, suffered a harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment, the Agency maintained that Complainant failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that she was subjected to unlawful sex or reprisal discrimination with respect to her being sent for an FFD evaluation. Further, the Agency found that the incidents of alleged harassment did not demonstrate ongoing or continuous harassment within the meaning of Title VII. The FAD determined that Complainant failed to meet the burden of establishing a hostile environment because the incidents alleged to be discriminatory when taken as a whole, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Complainant's employment and create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. The FAD found that the incidents complaint of were a group of isolated incidents. Notwithstanding, the Agency maintained that even if it assumed arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that Complainant's behavior with management during the course of the investigation, along with her use of sick leave, led management to believe that Complainant should receive further psychological evaluation in order to determine whether she could work safely. Management noted that it took immediate and appropriate corrective actions to address the harassment by Complainant's coworker in June 2010, as well as the anonymous notes. Management indicated that Complainant worked in a position that the Agency considered to be safety sensitive. After management observed behavior by Complainant that they believed to be aberrant, she was referred for a FFD evaluation. According to the Agency, Complainant, when asked why she believed she had been harassed due to reprisal, stated that the managers who sent her for the FFD evaluation were the same ones who had been involved in the investigation of the alleged sexual harassment by her co-worker in June 2010. Management, however, denied that Complainant's opposition to actions by her co-worker had anything to do with their decision to send her for an FFD evaluation. Instead, the decision was based upon aberrant behavior displayed by Complainant during the course of the investigation, coupled with Complainant's use of sick leave. When asked why Complainant believed she was harassed due to her sex, she indicated that she was just one of a handful of women at the plant, and she felt that she was being singled out because she had turned her co-worker in for sexual harassment. Complainant maintained that she did not know who was writing the notes but management indicated that they were making every effort to determine the author by sending the notes to a lab for handwriting analysis. The Agency maintained that Complainant failed to show that its articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. The FAD therefore determined that Complainant failed to demonstrate that she was subjected to sexual harassment and harassment based on her sex or reprisal. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, Complainant contends that the Agency's FAD should be reversed. Complainant argues that after she reported to management that she had been sexually harassed by a co-worker, management retaliated against her. She contends that despite assurances of confidentiality, her complaint of harassment became common knowledge at her workplace, which she believes led to the anonymous notes. Further, she maintains that the Agency disregarded its own policies, and placed her on administrative leave, required her to undergo both alcohol and drug and a psychological evaluation for no reasons other than that she complained of harassment, was upset about the harassment, pressed for an investigation into the harassment, and was upset with the lack of progress in the investigation. Complainant maintained that the response to her complaints was to launch an investigation into whether she used drugs or abused alcohol, or suffered from serious psychological problems. In response, the Agency, among other things, maintains that Complainant's brief fails to establish or even address the prima facie case for reprisal, and has failed to meet the necessary burden of proof. Complainant's brief consists solely of attacks on the decision to send her for a FFDE, and as such is an argument toward pretext. Without establishing a prime facie case such pretextual arguments are premature. The Agency maintains that there is no evidence which suggests that the FFD was ordered because of prior EEO activity. Further, the Agency maintains that Complainant admits to being emotionally comprised in the meeting and she herself indicated that she took leave in order to "get herself together" emotionally. Next, the Agency contends that the fact that the FFD Referral Checklist did not refer to Complainant's actual conduct is untrue as the referral was made based on her behavior with her supervisor and with the OIG investigator. Further, an uninterested third party, the union representative, confirmed that Complainant made a statement that she was "afraid for her life." This, the Agency argues, confirms the Referral Checklist, which states, "[Complainant] views this note as a death threat (when it was not)." The Agency argues that Complainant fails to distinguish the conduct of a FFD as opposed to the decision to order a FFD. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS It is well settled that harassment based on an individual's sex is actionable. See Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). In order to establish a claim of harassment based on sex, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to the statutorily protected classes; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her membership in the class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance 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). The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). In a case of co-worker harassment, an agency is responsible for acts of harassment in the workplace where the agency (or its agents) knew or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (June 18, 1999). While the record shows that Complainant was clearly subjected to sexual harassment from a co-worker, the evidence shows that the Agency took prompt and remedial action regarding the situation which resulted in the co-worker being suspended. Even Complainant stated that she believed that the matter had been taken care of and that "everything was over and done with." With respect to claims 1, 4, and 5, i.e., the notes which were left in the workplace by unknown individuals, we find no persuasive evidence that these isolated incidents, which took place over a periods of months, had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with Complainant's work performance and/or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment as defined by our guidance and precedent. Our determination here does not condone this behavior, but simply finds that an objective evaluation of it does not indicate that it rises to the level of unlawful harassment. Medical Examinations Claims (2) and (3) Although Complainant did not allege a violation of the Rehabilitation Act in this case, we find that a determination of whether such a violation occurred is required by the facts. In this regard, we note the Commission's decision in Grayson v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080044 (January 6, 2009). In Grayson, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) found a violation of the Rehabilitation Act when the agency ordered the complainant to undergo a fitness for duty examination. The complainant, in Grayson, however, had only alleged discrimination based on race (Black), sex (male), age (63) and retaliation pursuant to Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. On appeal, among other things, the agency noted that the complainant had never raised a claim of disability discrimination. The Commission, however, upheld the AJ's finding of discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act because (1) whether an employee is an individual with a disability is irrelevant to the issue of whether the agency properly required him to undergo a medical examination because the Rehabilitation Act's limitations regarding disability-related inquiries and medical examinations apply to all employees; and (2) the complainant's claim did not change and all the facts were sufficiently developed by both parties. Pursuant to our precedent, we find that it is appropriate in this case to also determine whether the Agency's actions violated the Rehabilitation Act even though Complainant did not allege such a violation. The Agency is not prejudiced by our decision because the facts in this matter are not in dispute and have been sufficiently developed. Furthermore, we note that the Agency's justification for ordering the examination was that Complainant's behavior with management during the course of the investigation into her sexual harassment claims, along with her use of sick leave, led management to believe that she should receive further psychological evaluation in order to determine whether she could work safely. Employers may require a medical examination or make disability related inquiries of an employee only if the examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity. See Enforcement Guidance: Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (July 27, 2000) (web version) (Guidance), at 5. This requirement is met when the employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that (1) an employee's ability to perform the essential job functions is impaired by a medical condition; or (2) that an employee poses a direct threat due to a medical condition. See Guidance at 14. This means that the employer must have a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that an employee will be unable to perform the essential functions of his/her job because of a medical condition. Objective evidence is reliable information, either directly observed or provided by a credible third party, that an employee may have or has a medical condition that will interfere with his ability to perform essential job functions or will result in a direct threat. Id., p. 7. Where the employer forms such a belief, its disability-related inquiries and medical examinations are job-related and consistent with business necessity, if they seek only the information necessary to determine whether the employee can perform the essential functions or work without posing a direct threat to self or others. Id. It is the burden of the employer to show that its disability-related inquiries and requests for medical examination are job-related and consistent with business necessity. See Cerge v. United States Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120060363 (October 9, 2007). The Commission is simply not persuaded by the Agency that its medical inquiries were in fact job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Agency's sole reason for sending Complainant for a FFD evaluation and placing her on administrative leave was the allegedly "extreme behavior" that she exhibited during the investigation of her complaints about the notes and the November 3rd interview with the OIG investigator. The Commission notes, however, that prior to her interview with the OIG investigator there is no evidence of any concerns about her job performance nor was there any indication that she posed a direct threat to herself or others. Although we certainly do not condone Complainant's alleged behavior both before and during the meeting, we do not find that the behavior justified the Agency's medical inquiry almost two weeks later. Even if the Agency was justified in its belief that Complainant acted inappropriately in expressing her displeasure with the manner in which the Agency conducted the investigation into her complaints of harassment, the Agency has presented no persuasive evidence that Complainant engaged in any action that would have led the Agency to form a reasonable belief that she posed a direct threat to herself or others or could not perform the essential functions of her position.1 In this regard, we note the amount of time that expired between the incidents that caused the Agency's concern and the order to undergo the examination process. Complainant was on leave until November 14, 2010. Thus, eleven (11) days after the interview, Complainant was escorted from the plant by Agency police and a nurse and asked to submit to A&D testing, which was the first step in a process that continued three (3) days later when she took a psychological evaluation on November 17, 2010, and which concluded on November 29, 2010, twenty-six (26) days after the interview with the OIG investigator. Accordingly, we REVERSE the Agency's FAD with respect to claims (2) and (3). With regard to claims (1), (4), and (5), we AFFIRM the Agency's FAD. ORDER Within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days after this decision becomes final, the Agency shall: 1. determine the amount of back pay, with interest, and other benefits due Complainant, if any, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501. Complainant shall cooperate in the Agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits due, and shall provide all relevant information requested by the Agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or benefits, the Agency shall issue a check to Complainant for the undisputed amount. Complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." 2. conduct a supplemental investigation on compensatory damages, including providing Complainant an opportunity to submit evidence of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. For guidance on what evidence is necessary to prove pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the parties are directed to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at eeoc.gov.) The Agency shall complete the investigation and issue a final decision appealable to the EEOC determining the appropriate amount of damages. 3. provide eight (8) hours of EEO training to the involved management officials regarding their responsibilities under EEO laws including the Rehabilitation Act. 4. consider taking appropriate disciplinary action against management officials responsible for the discrimination against Complainant. The Commission does not consider training to be disciplinary action. The Agency shall report its decision to the Compliance Officer. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify die action taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline. If any of the responsible management officials have left the agency's employ, the Agency shall furnish documentation of their departure date(s). The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation verifying that the corrective action has been implemented. POSTING ORDER (G0610) The Agency is ordered to post at its Colbert Fossil Plant in Tennessee, copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the Agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration of the posting period. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610) Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409. ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0610) If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this decision becoming final. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501. 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 (T0610) This decision affirms the Agency's final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 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 ___5/1/14_______________ Date 1 We note Complainant's indication that she was asked about the death of her brother in addition to work related matters. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0120120140 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 2 0120120140