U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Blanca B.,1 Complainant, v. Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary, Department of State, Agency. Appeal No. 0120171031 Agency No. DOS-F-037-10 DECISION On January 18, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal, through her attorney, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from a final Agency decision (FAD) dated December 21, 2016, 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed as a contract Language & Culture Instructor/Curriculum Developer at the Agency's Foreign Service Institute (FSI), School of Language Studies, Arabic Section in Arlington, Virginia. She started working there in April 2008. On January 26, 2010, Complainant filed EEO Complaint 1 (DOS-F-037-10) alleging, in part, that the Agency discriminated against her based on her sex (female) when she was sexually harassed. On January 4, 2012, Complainant filed Complaint 2 (DOS-F-032-12) alleging discrimination when her teaching contract was not renewed after August 5, 2011, she was not selected for a full-time teaching position in September 2011, and due to her marriage to a Christian man, she was subjected to a hostile work environment by her colleagues, who called her a bitch and prostitute, the daughter of a dog, threw a shoe at her, and said that she "sold her religion." Complainant appealed a FAD on Complaints 1 and 2. In Blanca B. v. Dep't. of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151876 (July 7, 2016), the Commission ruled that Complainant's withdrawal of Complaint 2 was effective, and closed it. On Complaint 1, it found that Complainant was sexually harassed by her first line supervisor in the Arabic Section (S1). Specifically, in May 2008, S1 made a pass at Complainant designed to be construed as a joke, gave her unwarranted attention starting by June 2008, then moved on to sexual jokes and inviting her to a restaurant. By October 2008, things escalated with S1 asking Complainant intrusive questions about her sexual activity and making comments/asking questions designed to get her to talk about sex with him, then in December 2008, pinching her cheeks and kissing her forehead. In February 2009, things progressed further when S1 put his hand on Complainant's buttock. In March 2009, S1 tried to move her hand to his penis, and in May 2009, repeatedly pressured Complainant to go to hotel. As partial remedy, the Commission ordered the Agency to gather evidence on compensatory damages for the sexual harassment, calculate damages, pay Complainant any damages calculated, and issue a new FAD on damages appealable to the Commission. On her August 2016 compensatory damages remand statement, Complainant indicated as follows. Her social circle consisted entirely of Middle Eastern immigrants. Everybody she knows is connected in some way with FSI, either as an instructor or the family/close social circle thereof, and all local Arabic language instruction is in some way connected to FSI. S1 heads the FSI Arabic language program, and is highly respected and admired. The culture of her Middle Eastern community is very conservative and manifests by making all things sexual taboo and the subject of gossip. In her culture the man is blameless and not faulted for his sexual advances and women are supposed to control themselves and not encourage a man. This means the women is blamed for the man's advances. When people were interviewed for the 2009 sexual harassment inquiry, word quickly spread to her entire local Middle Eastern community because everyone who knows her knows S1. Blaming her, people labeled her as "dirty" and a "whore." It is socially dangerous for anyone in her culture to associate with someone carrying these labels, lest they be seen as approving and hence "dirty" as well. If she sees a former coworker in public, they turn their back on her, and she can't interact with the Iraqi community, her people. She has become a social pariah who nobody speaks and she literally has no friends. She married a Jordanian man (by September 2016, she knew him for more than four years and was married to him for three), and nobody came to her wedding. Complainant continued as follows. Her family believes what occurred with S1 is her fault (her mother says she must have encouraged him), and blames her for damaging their reputation for saying S1 harassed her. She helped her mother and siblings immigrate to Virginia, and they now shun and won't speak to her, come to her house, and discard any gifts she gives them. Her mother won't visit her only grandchild, her two-year old daughter. Her husband's family was not directly connected to FSI, and liked her very much and they got along well. But about three years ago she attended an event with them at the Jordanian embassy where an FSI Arabic instructor saw her with them, came right up to them asking what they were doing with her, and when they responded they were family, told them about the harassment matter and said they should not associate with her. Since that day, she and her husband can't spend time with his family, and now she is afraid to be seen in public. Complainant stated as follows. The shunning dramatically cut her ability to earn an income because locally everyone who works as an Arabic language instructor is connected in one way or another to FSI - either as an Agency employee or working for a staffing firm that contracts with FSI, even if they serve in a different location. When her staffing firm originally placed her with FSI, it paid her $63,000 annually, and now it pays her $19 hourly part-time or as a substitute for clients not directly related to FSI. Since the time of her August 2016 statement, she lost $170,000 in wages, and asks for this amount in lost wages as pecuniary compensatory damages. On her emotional state, Complainant stated as follows. The harassment made her and continues to make her feel dirty, she can't stop herself from ruminating almost all the time about what S1 said and did and when she ruminates she feels like a "whore." She is very depressed, irritable, constantly angry, cries nightly, is exhausted all the time, sleeps poorly, has nightmares almost every night about S1 trying to break into her home, regularly has flashbacks about the harassment, and gained 40 pounds. Things were good with her current husband when they first married, but as the years passed she got depressed and angry all the time, and this is destroying their marriage - her husband is the only person who still speaks to her. Her husband often says, "you're not here, you're not with us," her self-esteem is bad, and she lost interest in sex and has not had it in more than a year. She is so sad and angry that she does not have a close connection with her two-year old daughter, is unable to take joy in her development and accomplishments, and while her daughter wants to play with her she does not have the energy to do so. She is a bad mother and worries that she is harming her daughter. Even people who might be willing to associate with her despite her social stigma are turned off because she is not fun to be around. Complainant continued as follows. Because of her anger, depression, and exhaustion, she cannot establish rapport with her students like she used too, her boss tells her she is unmotivated and he is right, and her performance is much lower, which also contributes to her lower income. She can't concentrate and it feels like her thoughts have slowed. She has panic attacks once or twice a week which make her sweaty and her heart race. She has thought often about suicide. She went to the hospital several months ago for pain, they found a lump in her abdomen which the doctor said might be cancer, but she has not had it checked because she does not care if she lives or dies. Before the harassment she was happy, had friends, and liked to go out. She does not like being alone but has no choice. She requests $300,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages for pain and suffering, loss of health, and damage to her reputation. Complainant stated that she has gone to counseling and seen a psychiatrist several times, can't afford to go regularly, and takes medication for mood. She asked for $5,000 in past pecuniary damages for medical bills, but submitted no receipts. Complainant's husband submitted a statement corroborating Complainant's statement from the time he met her and related as follows. Before they married, Complainant really enjoyed spending time with him, his family and friends. The gossip about what happened at FSI had not yet spread to his social circle. But after they married and his family learned about the sexual harassment at a Jordanian community event, they blamed Complainant and worried about their image, which was a turning point for her. Once they became socially isolated, Complainant started ruminating about the harassment, it consumes her, and this has continued for years. He had to quit his job to care for their toddler because Complainant can't take care of her - she does not have the energy. She is depressed, anxious, irritable, angry, can't concentrate, and spends most of her time sitting on the couch, does not play with their daughter because she is too depressed, and no longer cooks or takes care of herself. He corroborated Complainant's account about her nightmares, adding she wakes up from them crying. Several times when they have run errands like go to the grocery store, he has seen people who know Complainant turn their back on her, and she reacts by crying for days afterward, and avoids going out. She can't have friends because no one will associate with her. When he first knew Complainant, she was strong, confident, happy, social, and enjoyed activities. Former Coworker 1 at FSI stated that when word got out about her sexual harassment complaint, people labeled her a slut, whore, and "bad woman," and she observed many of their colleagues shun her by refusing to acknowledge her greetings or speak to her, and even turn their back on her when she enters a room. Coworker 1 stated that she continued to acknowledge Complainant's greetings, and two coworkers angrily told her she should not do so. People gossip about Complainant to this day. She used to socialize with Complainant, and while she is in contact with her she has stopped socializing with her because she is difficult to be around in that she constantly talks about the sexual harassment and can't put it behind her. Previously, she was outgoing, lively, friendly, fun to be around and happy. Former Coworker 2 at FSI stated that after Complainant reported S1's sexual harassment, her reputation was destroyed - she witnessed coworkers call her a slut, and refuse to speak to her and turn their back on her call her a slut. When she tried to defend Complainant, coworkers said she is not respectable and she should not defend her. Complainant also submitted a September 2016 report by a psychologist prepared for litigation. The report was based on Complainant's compensatory damages affidavit and two one hour visits. She diagnosed Complainant with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which began in 2008, opined it was caused by sexual harassment at work, and that it was exacerbated by ridicule at work, social and familial ostracism, financial loss, and cultural characteristics that leverage shame and humiliation in response to sexual harassment. The psychologist reported that Complainant reported her suicidal ideation worsened in 2015, prompted by the lawsuit, the loss of her reputation and identity, and marital stress.2 In its FAD, citing Commission caselaw, the Agency denied Complainant's request for $5,000 for medical expenses because she did not submit any receipts. The Agency also denied payment for $170,000 in lost wages. It noted that in Complaint 2, Complainant alleged discrimination when it did not continue to use her services, that she withdrew Complaint 2, and discrimination has not been found on these matters. It added that alleged discrimination by staffing firms for refusing to give her work at FSI are not the subject of any federal sector EEO complaint. Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Agency found that it liable only for the finding that S1 sexually harassed Complainant, not the cultural reaction of her peers, family, her husband's family, and other members of the local Middle Eastern or Arabic speaking community. In support of this, the Agency cited Complainant v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130174 (Sep. 5, 2014) (the complainant was discriminated against when after learning of an impending reduction-in-force, he was not selected for one of three slots of a supervisory position for which he applied. He requested $300,000 in nonpecuniary damages, averring that after he contacted an EEO counselor regarding his non-selection his anxiety and depression grew worse because his coworkers, including the three who were hired for the supervisory position and found out about his EEO activity, began to treat him negatively by refusing to talk to or eat in the break room with him. In affirming the agency's award of $5,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the Commission found that the non-selection was not the direct or proximate cause of the emotional harm described by Complainant. Rather, Complainant indicated that a separate source of alleged discriminatory conduct - coworker retaliatory harassment - was the direct and proximate cause of the emotional harm). The Agency added that Complainant alleged in Complaint 2 that her Muslim colleagues accused her of apostasy with a virulent reaction to her perceived religious conversion - so the way she described her colleagues as treating her was not solely because of the sexual harassment. Citing Commission caselaw, the Agency also found that a complainant cannot recover compensatory damages for emotional distress caused by participating in the EEO process. The Agency observes that the examining psychologist wrote in 2015, that Complainant's lawsuit contributed to worsening her suicidal ideation - this was when it issued its FAD in March 2015 finding no sexual harassment discrimination that was reversed by the Commission in 2016. The Agency awarded Complainant $20,000 in nonpecuniary damages for the finding that she was sexually harassed by S1. The instant appeal followed. Complainant argues that that she is entitled to $175,000 in past pecuniary damages, as she requested. She argues that she is entitled to future pecuniary damages for loss of wage-earning capacity. On nonpecuniary damages, Complainant distinguishes Complainant v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130174. She argues that in that case proximate causation was broken by another discriminatory event unrelated to the underlying complaint. Complainant argues her case is different - her peers and family ridiculed and shunned her because she ran afoul of a cultural norm that holds women responsible for all infidelity and prohibits women from publicly discussing sexual matters. She argues that the existence of the norm is not a separate source of potentially discriminatory conduct - she was ridiculed and shunned because she was sexually harassed. She argues that her peer and family reaction to her decision to report the sexual harassment, rather than learning of the harassment itself, is a distinction without a difference. She argues her case is more like Lemons v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102516 (Nov. 16, 2011) (husband unable to deal with the sexual assault of his wife so he chooses to divorce her - this is compensable). Complainant argues that the Agency's contention that her alleged conversion to Christianity contributed to damages is speculative and unsupported by the record, and the Agency had an opportunity to gather evidence on this. Regarding the litigation, Complainant argues that the Agency failed to gather evidence on whether it forced her to relive the traumatic events in question, which she suggests would be compensable. Complainant argues that all her nonpecuniary damages are proximately caused by S1's sexual harassment, and requests $250,000 in nonpecuniary damages. In opposition to the appeal, the Agency argues that the FAD should be affirmed. It argues that courts have reduced awards for emotional distress damages when the complainant has not presented evidence of medical treatment. The Agency also submits Complainant's signed and dated (February 2011) declaration from a separate inquiry involving an ex-boyfriend of Complainant.3 Therein, Complainant wrote as follows. Her experience at FSI was nice in the beginning. She wore modern style clothing, and she felt that many Iraqi men and women from her section did not like the way she dressed. She believed some of those women questioned her reputation because of the way she dressed, and because she was from southern Iraq, they labeled her a "southern peasant." Colleagues taunted and laughed at her. The Agency argues that this declaration conflicts with Complainant's claim in the instant case that the sole reason for her poor relationships at FSI was rumors of allegations of sexual harassment by S1. In her sur-reply, Complainant argues that the declaration attached to the Agency's opposition brief should be stricken from the record - it is not new evidence that was previously unavailable. Complainant's brother was an interpreter in Iraq who was executed by a previous regime in Iraq. Complainant stated that she told S1 about this. According to S1, Complainant repeatedly mentioned the execution of her brother, and cried. A coworker of Complainant stated that Complainant would tell her about things in her life that made her sad, like her brother being killed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Compensatory damages may be awarded for past pecuniary losses (out of pocket), future pecuniary losses, and nonpecuniary losses that are directly or proximately caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct. Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at www.eeoc.gov.) Nonpecuniary losses are losses that are not subject to precise quantification including emotional pain and injury to character, professional standing, and reputation. Id. Damages for past pecuniary damages will not normally be sought without documentation such as receipts, records, bills, cancelled checks, or confirmation by other individuals of actual losses and expenses. Id. As an initial matter, we decline to strike Complainant's February 2011 declaration from the record. It was not submitted by the Agency for the first time on appeal - it was in the record of Complaint 2, which is part of the instant record. Pecuniary Damages In the questionnaire, the Agency sent Complainant to assist her to develop evidence on her compensatory damages claim, it advised that a claim for pecuniary damages must be supported by documentation, e.g., receipts, records, bills, confirmation by others, tax records, W-2's or 1099s and so forth. Other than asking for $5,000 in medical expenses and stating she takes Lamotrigine for depression, which costs $165.76 monthly, Complainant provided no information on her medical expenses, i.e., no break down, no names of her medical health care providers and what they charged, no indication of when she started Lamotrigine, and no receipts or other documentation of expenses. She also provides none on appeal. Receipts are readily available from pharmacies, upon request. Given all this, we affirm the Agency's denial of past pecuniary damages for medical expenses. Complainant's alleged wage losses are not recoverable via Complaint 1 to the extent she attributes them to FSI declining her services because S1 sexually harassed her and she reported him. This constitutes a separate act of alleged discrimination, not part of Complaint 1. In Complaint 2, filed in January 2012, Complainant alleged discrimination when the Agency did not continue her services and requested reinstatement. She withdrew Complaint 2. We add that in her compensatory damages affidavit, Complainant stated her earnings declined by a specified amount in 2011. The 2011 reduction is attributable to the Agency cutting off her services, a claim not before us. We add that Complainant submitted no documentation on the reduction in her wages, such as tax returns, W-2's, or 1099s. Complainant attributes some of her loss in wage earning capacity, both past and future, to her depression caused by being sexually harassed by S1. An award for the loss of earning capacity considers the effect that an injury from discrimination has on the complainant's ability to earn a salary comparable with what she earned before the injury. Proof of entitlement to loss of future earning capacity involves evidence suggesting that an individual's injuries have narrowed the range of economic opportunities available to her. Courts require evidence that the impairment of earning capacity be shown with reasonable certainty or reasonable probability and there must be evidence which will permit the fact finder to arrive at a pecuniary value for the loss. Brinkley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05980429 (Aug. 12, 1999). Complainant presented insufficient evidence on this. The evaluating psychologist did not indicate Complainant had a loss of wage earning capacity, nor did Complainant put forth testimony that would allow, with reasonable certainty or reasonable probability, a calculation of a loss in wage earning capacity, such as by an economist. Complainant has not proven entitlement to pecuniary damages for a loss of wage earning capacity. Non-pecuniary Damages As an initial matter, we find that the damages caused by the ridicule and shunning by her peers, family and community arising from S1's sexual harassment is compensable. We agree with Complainant that this case is more like Lemons v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102516, than like Complainant v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130174. We agree with the Agency that Complainant has not shown that any injury arising from litigating her EEO complaint in 2015, is compensable. She did not state this injury arose from the appellate litigation causing her to relive the harassment. We find it more likely than not that S1's sexual harassment was not the only factor that caused Complainant's depression and anxiety. These other factors include the execution of her brother, which she repeatedly verbalized made her sad. They also include the reaction to Complainant wearing modern clothing and being from Southern Iraq. Specifically, she wrote that in reaction to this, she believed some female FSI colleagues questioned her reputation because of the way she dressed, she was labeled as a southern peasant, and colleagues taunted and laughed at her. Finally, there was a situation at the Agency involving an altercation and resulting inquiry concerning another romantic relationship Complainant was in following the ending of her marriage (see footnote 3 of this decision). Still, we find that the sexual harassment by S1 was a significant reason for Complainant being ridiculed by her community both inside and outside work. More importantly, it was a significant reason for Complainant being shunned by this community, her family and her husband's family. She was blamed for S1's actions, hurting her reputation within her community. The sexual harassment, and to a far larger degree the long term shunning caused, at least in part, by it, has and continues to take an immense toll on Complainant - causing a near severing of relations with her family and husband's family, loss of her friends, avoidance of going outside her apartment, ruminating most of the time about the harassment, poor self-esteem, bad depression, poor concentration, irritability, constant anger, poor sleep and exhaustion, crying nighty, gaining 40 pounds, thoughts of suicide, not creating a close connection with her young daughter, lost interest in sex, and being difficult to be around. On the other hand, Complainant's contention of severe emotional disturbance starting in 2008, as outlined in the psychologist's evaluation report, is belied by some of her actions, which shows she was functional and doing fairly well. S1's harassment ended by around May 2009. By December 2009, Complainant was able to form a romantic relationship with an FSI male instructor that lasted for a year, continued to work at FSI for more than two years after S1's sexual harassment ceased and wanted to continue working there, then in 2012 or 2013 met a man who she dated for a year before marrying him in late in 2013 or early 2014. Taking all these factors into account, we find that Complainant has proven that she is entitled to $50,000 in nonpecuniary damages for pain and suffering and damage to her reputation. This is consistent with amounts awarded in similar cases. See Santos v. Environmental Protection Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091233 (July 12, 2012) (the complainant was awarded $50,000 in nonpecuniary damages for harassment that caused him anger, fright, resentment, frustration, loss of self-esteem, irritability, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, betrayal, family strain, anxiety, stress, decreased energy, decreased motivation, depression, and diarrhea), Harris K. v. Department of Homeland Security (Apr. 24, 2018) (the complainant was awarded $40,000 in nonpecuniary damages for harassment that caused him depression, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, fatigue, changes in appetite, and to often lock himself in his room at home and to lose his trust in his colleagues). In arriving at the $40,000 figure, we considered that while the sexual harassment by S1 was a factor in causing harm to Complainant, it is more likely than not that other factors also caused Complainant's sadness, damage to her reputation, her being taunted, and shunned long term, the latter of which is the cause of most of her emotional distress as time went on. The Agency shall comply with the Order below. ORDER Within 40 calendar days after the date of this decision, the Agency shall pay Complainant the sum of $50,000, less any compensatory damages the Agency has already paid Complainant. The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The report shall contain documentation that proper payment was made. ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1016) If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), 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 the date this decision was issued. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0618) Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency's final report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative. 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. 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). 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 August 16, 2018 __________________ Date 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website. 2 We note the psychologist was not Complainant's health care provider, had no history with her, and based her report on Complainant's compensatory damages affidavit and two one-hour visits with her. 3 Complainant had separated from her husband in November 2009, and at some point, divorced. She became romantically involved with another instructor at the Agency. In late December 2010, she had a verbal altercation with the boyfriend over the telephone and with a female coworker in the Agency cafeteria concerning her belief that they were seeing each other behind her back. The situation escalated to the filing of complaints of harassment and resulted in a management inquiry. According to the Agency, Complainant's behavior in this situation contributed to the decision not to renew her contract in 2011. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0120171031 12 0120171031