Akiko L., Complainant v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0720120027 Hearing No. 480-2010-00111X Agency No. 1Y-520-0045-09 DECISION Following its May 2, 2012, final order, the Agency filed a timely appeal which the Commission accepts pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). On appeal, the Agency requests that the Commission affirm its rejection, in part, of the relief ordered by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) following her finding of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Specifically, the Agency challenges the AJ's award of non-pecuniary compensatory damages in the amount of $210,000. For the following reasons, the Commission REVERSES the Agency's final order. ISSUE PRESENTED The issue presented is whether the Agency properly rejected the AJ's decision to award Complainant $210,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a casual employee at the Agency's Los Angeles International Service Center (LAX ISC) in Los Angeles, California. Complainant began her employment with the Agency in 2006, which ended on September 13, 2010. Complainant immigrated to the United States from Africa's Ivory Coast in 1997, as an elite track and field athlete and university student. Complainant competed multiple times in the Olympics and in the World Track and Field Championships and holds several records in her home county of the Ivory Coast. Once Complainant obtained U.S. Citizenship in November 2008, it was Complainant's and her coach's intention that she would be competing on behalf of the United States. In May 2008, Complainant was introduced to her new first-level supervisor (S1) (Asian, female). At that time S1 began working on Tour 3, supervising Complainant and other employees. Shortly thereafter S1, among other things, started kicking and smacking Complainant and other African-American employees in the buttocks and laughing. On June 21, 2009, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment on the basis of race (African-American), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when: 1. beginning in October 2008 S1 repeatedly touched her buttocks and yelled at her in a threatening manner in front of others; 2. management sent her home on April 9, 2009, and reduced her wages from $12 to $10 per hour on January 2, 2010; 3. upon learning of her harassment report to management, S1 verbally threatened her on the workroom floor, "If you want a fight, go for it"; and 4. on April 24, 2009, S1 encouraged her subordinate employees to oppose Complainant's use of the EEO complaint process. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing, which the AJ held on March 23-24, 2011, March 28-29, 2011, and April 1, 2011. The AJ issued a decision in favor of Complainant on March 21, 2012, finding that Complainant established that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment.1 By way of relief, the AJ awarded Complainant, among other things, non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $210,000. In a lengthy decision, the AJ described in detail the actions taken by S1 and Agency management that the AJ concluded amounted to discriminatory harassment and reprisal sufficient to create a hostile work environment. Specifically, the AJ noted that Complainant reported to the then Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO) that on or about September 15, 2008, coworkers were beginning to harass her. The AJ noted that coworkers called Complainant "voodoo and ghetto," said that she "smelled," that her "butt stinks," and that she smelled "like pooh." The AJ noted that coworkers further said that Complainant's muscles looked liked potatoes, made fun of her for being an Olympic athlete, referred to her as "a man," and told her to go back to "Africa if she wanted friends." The AJ noted that Complainant requested to the MDO that she be moved to another facility due to the harassment, but no action was taken. The AJ noted that Complainant was not liked, and that one employee was observed pushing a 500 to 600 pound container of mail at Complainant. In her decision, the AJ further described how S1 would make inappropriate comments about Complainant's body. The AJ noted that S1 asked Complainant "Why do you stick your butt out?" and asked if she could see Complainant's butt. The AJ noted that S1 was infatuated with Complainant's buttocks and stated that Complainant walks "like a model." The AJ noted that S1 made comments to coworkers about Complainant's buttocks and walk. The AJ also described how S1 would intentionally touch Complainant's buttocks in an offensive manner. The AJ noted that Complainant was speaking with coworkers when S1 approached Complainant and kicked Complainant in the buttocks. The AJ noted that after kicking Complainant, S1 laughed and remarked, "Get back to work." The AJ noted that S1 kicked Complainant in the buttocks repeatedly on multiple occasions in front of coworkers. The AJ noted, on another occasion, S1 hugged Complainant very tightly for a long period of time, and that Complainant attempted to push S1 away. The AJ noted that in another incident S1 struck Complainant in the buttocks with her hand using great force and laughed. The AJ noted that S1 said, "Since yesterday I hit you, my hand is still painful . . . your butt is hard, your butt is too hard." The AJ noted that coworkers witnessed S1 kicking, hitting, and smacking Complainant and other female African-American employees in buttocks on multiple occasions. The AJ noted that it was known throughout the workplace that S1 would inappropriately touch her subordinate African-American female employees. The AJ described how S1 demonstrated possessiveness towards Complainant and made references to her as "pretty girl," "my girl," and "bad girl." The AJ noted that S1 said to another employee when referring to Complainant, "Stay away from my girl, stay away from my girl!" The AJ noted that S1 continuously complemented Complainant to her subordinate employees and referred to Complainant as "her girl" in conversations with other employees. The AJ described how S1 became upset with Complainant after Complainant placed S1 on notice that her touching was offensive and not welcome. The AJ noted that S1 began to move Complainant from work station to work station in an effort to reduce Complainant's productivity and isolate her from coworkers. The AJ noted that S1 also began to assign Complainant to more difficult labor intensive work without any coworkers to assist her. The AJ noted that while seven or eight people are typically assigned to work the scan-out belt at one time, Complainant was assigned to work it alone. The AJ described how S1 denied Complainant's April 7, 2009, request for three weeks of leave without pay. The AJ noted that S1 denied Complainant's April 7, 2009, request for three weeks off to get married in Africa. The AJ noted that Complainant then instead made the request for leave to the MDO. The AJ noted that Complainant was not notified that her leave request had been granted until only a few days before her flight to Africa. The AJ described how S1 became more aggressive towards Complainant over time and embarrassed Complainant by yelling at her in front of coworkers. The AJ noted that S1 yelled at Complainant in one instance for 25 minutes for placing three pieces of mail in the unworked mail area. The AJ described how the Agency failed to take immediate corrective action after it was put on notice of S1's actions towards Complainant. The AJ noted that management appeared to be angry with Complainant's union grievance regarding Complainant discrimination and harassment allegations. The AJ noted that S1 approached Complainant and said, "If you feel I harass you, I feel sorry about that . . . I am so nice to you. I don't think I harass you." The AJ noted that S1 further said to Complainant, "If you want a fight, go for it." The AJ described how S1 had discussions with her subordinate employees about Complainant's claims against her, which resulted in an April 24, 2009, employee petition attempting to rebut Complainant's EEO complaint. The AJ noted that S1 told her subordinates that Complainant had filed an EEO complaint against her and that she was going to Complainant. The AJ noted that S1 did not comply with the Agency's Labor Relations request to keep Complainant's EEO complaint confidential and notified all of her subordinates about the matter. The AJ noted that a petition dated April 24, 2009, signed by many employees under the supervision of S1 was sent to the Agency's Labor Relations Department. The AJ noted the petition was addressed to the EEO Board of Review and provided support for S1 and the allegations against her. The AJ noted that S1 solicited the signing of this petition in an effort to rebut Complainant's EEO complaint. The AJ noted that other management officials were aware of the petition, but did not discourage it. The AJ described how the MDO organized a "Stand-Up Talk" meeting that was attended by 20-25 employees, including S1 and Complainant that talked about Complainant's EEO complaint. The AJ noted that the MDO informed the gathered employees that Complainant had filed a sexual harassment complaint against S1. The AJ described how S1 continued to be Complainant's supervisor even after Complainant continued to complain about ongoing harassment by S1. The AJ noted that no attempt was made to physically separate Complainant and S1 even after management was made aware of the harassment. The AJ noted that even after management later separated S1 and Complainant, they continued to work in the same building and on the same shift. The AJ noted that even after the two were separated, S1 would come into Complainant's work area and make sure Complainant had seen her and then leave. The AJ noted that Complainant requested to be physically transferred away from S1, but was not transferred until many months later. The AJ noted that management made the decision to physically move Complainant rather than S1. The AJ described how the Agency's Labor Relations conducted an investigation into Complainant's claims, but failed to take corrective action. The AJ noted that the investigation revealed that S1 had inappropriately touched Complainant on multiple occasions and subjected Complainant to discrimination and harassment. The AJ noted that the Agency's Labor Relations did not instruct S1 to stay away from Complainant or not to retaliate against her. The AJ noted that no disciplinary or corrective action was taken against S1 and S1 was still Complainant's supervisor after the investigation. The AJ noted that S1 was only issued a seven-day suspension six months after the Agency's Labor Relations completed their investigation of Complainant's EEO harassment complaint. The AJ noted that the seven-day suspension improperly characterized S1's actions only as unacceptable horseplay. The AJ noted that S1 never served the suspension because the Agency settled S1's grievance of the suspension. The AJ found that Complainant established that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment from October 2008 through at least April 2009. The AJ also found that Complainant established that the Agency subjected her to reprisal when S1 encouraged her subordinates' opposition to Complainant and her use of the Agency's EEO complaint process. By way of relief, the AJ awarded Complainant, among other things, non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $210,000. Complainant's evidence of her injury and its causation consisted of hearing testimony from her husband, psychologist, and track and field coach. Complainant also testified herself at the hearing to the injury she suffered as a result of the harassment and discrimination. The AJ noted that as a result of the discrimination and harassment, Complainant became deeply troubled, anxious, depressed, lonely, vulnerable, suspicious, mentally unfocused, highly emotional and volatile, with reduced self esteem, weight loss, hair loss, difficulty in sleeping and bouts of tearfulness, crying, dizziness, and chest pains. The AJ noted that these injuries to Complainant lasted at least through September 28, 2010, and some of which Complainant is still experiencing. The AJ also noted that Complainant experienced difficulty achieving her historical international level of athletic performance for non-physical reasons, which was caused by stress, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, suicidal thoughts, and depression, which resulted from the harassment and discrimination. The AJ noted that Complainant also experienced other life stresses, including the death of her sister in December 2009 and a miscarriage in July 2010. FINAL ORDER AND AGENCY'S CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL The Agency issued its final order agreeing with the AJ's decision with regard to harassment and discrimination. The final order also agreed with part of the AJ's order for remedies. However, the Agency only appeals the amount of non-pecuniary compensatory damages awarded. Because the damage award is the only matter appealed to the Commission, this decision will only address the Agency's final order not to implement the AJ's decision with regard to non-pecuniary compensatory damages. On appeal, the Agency seeks a reduction of the award for non-pecuniary damages from $210,000 to $125,000. The Agency contends that the AJ's award is inconsistent with similar cases. The Agency contends that Complainant did not lose property or experience severe physical symptoms due to the discrimination and harassment. The Agency contends that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of permanent or long term harm to Complainant. The Agency contends that Complainant did not experience difficulty in working as she continued to work for the Agency through September 2010. The Agency further contends that there is insufficient evidence to support a casual connection between the discrimination and Complainant's performance as a runner. The Agency contends that Complainant's lost income with respect to her running career should instead be awarded as pecuniary damages. The Agency contends that Complainant's schedule, age, pulled hamstring, and wedding affected Complainant's running career, which was not the result of discrimination. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual Findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A Finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual Finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-16 (Nov. 9, 1999). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Non-Pecuniary Damages Non-pecuniary losses are losses that are not subject to precise quantification, i.e., emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character and reputation, injury to credit standing, and loss of health. See EEOC Notice No. 915.002 at 10 (July 14, 1992). There is no precise formula for determining the amount of damages for non-pecuniary losses except that the award should reflect the nature and severity of the harm and the duration or expected duration of the harm. See Taylor v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01A34292 (May 3, 2004). The Commission notes that non-pecuniary compensatory damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the discriminatory event rather than punish the Agency for the discriminatory action. Furthermore, compensatory damages should not be motivated by passion or prejudice or "monstrously excessive" standing alone but should be consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases. See Ward-Jenkins v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483 (Mar. 4, 1999). Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory prerequisite for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. See Lawrence v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01952288 (Apr. 18, 1996) (citing Carle v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993)). Objective evidence of compensatory damages can include statements from Complainant concerning his emotional pain or suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character or reputation, injury to credit standing, loss of health, and any other non-pecuniary Josses that are incurred as a result of the discriminatory conduct. Id. Statements from others including family members, friends, health care providers, other counselors (including clergy) could address the outward manifestations or physical consequences of emotional distress, including sleeplessness, anxiety, stress, depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, excessive fatigue, or a nervous breakdown. Id. Complainant's own testimony, along with the circumstances of a particular case, can suffice to sustain his burden in this regard. Id. The more inherently degrading or humiliating the defendant's action is, the more reasonable it is to infer that a person would suffer humiliation or distress from that action. Id. The absence of supporting evidence, however, may affect the amount of damages appropriate in specific cases. Id. Here, there is substantial evidence in the testimony of Complainant's husband, psychologist, coach, and Complainant herself, about the mental and physical harm that Complainant has endured. While there is no evidence that Complainant's miscarriage was the result of the discrimination, testimony reflects that Complainant became deeply troubled, anxious, depressed, lonely, vulnerable, suspicious, mentally unfocused, highly emotional and volatile, with reduced self esteem, weight loss, hair loss, difficulty in sleeping and bouts of tearfulness, crying, dizziness, suicidal thoughts, and chest pains. Testimony reflects that Complainant experienced this harm at least until September 2010 and beyond. Further, testimony reflects that Complainant became dispassionate in competing as a runner due to the mental anguish she suffered at her workplace. Notwithstanding the Agency's contentions, we determine that the AJ's award is consistent with amounts awarded in similar cases. See, e.g., McCormick v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720100040 (Nov. 23, 2011) (awarding 200,000 in non-pecuniary damages for a complainant who suffered damage to her professional reputation, severe migraines, lack of sleep, and strains on her relationships); Sebek v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00005 (Mar. 8, 2001) (awarding $200,000 in non-pecuniary damages for a complainant who experienced sexual harassment and assault from Agency management); Looney v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal Nos. 07A40124 and 01A53252 (May 19, 2005) (awarding $195,000 in non-pecuniary damages where Agency's actions caused depression, destruction of spirit and confidence, feelings as if no purpose in life, anxiety, nightmares related to discrimination, and difficulty coping); Lemons v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102516 (Nov. 16, 2011) (awarding $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages for a complainant who suffered emotional harm, including low energy, insomnia, loss of life enjoyment, and tearfulness, which resulted from sexual assault and harassment); Cahn v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720060029 (Sep. 5, 2008) (awarding $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages for a complainant who suffered significant emotional and psychological injuries, including insomnia, frequent migraines, stress, inability to complete projects, and heightened anxiety). We note that management's behavior and actions in this case were particularly egregious. Specially, Complainant notified management that she was being subjected to severe racial harassment and assault from coworkers, but no action was taken. It was also well known by management and other employees that S1 was assaulting and harassing Complainant and other African-American employees, yet no action was taken for some time. Further, management improperly made employees aware of Complainant's discrimination and harassment allegations against S1, even after the Agency's Labor Relations told management to keep the matter confidential. Management most defiantly subjected Complainant to continued ridicule and embarrassment by reporting Complainant's allegations to many employees. Management failed to discourage S1's continued harassment and reprisal towards Complainant, including the petition against Complainant's EEO complaint initiated by S1 and other employees. As a result, Complainant suffered continued harassment and discrimination from not only S1, but also from coworkers. Also, the Agency only issued S1 a 7-day suspension for horseplay even though it was aware of S1's assault and harassment towards Complainant and other African-American employees. We note that the more egregious the agency's actions are, the more likely it is that a complainant will suffer significant emotional harm. See Marta Fonda-Wall v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060035 (July 28, 2009) (awarding $200,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages for a complainant where the Agency's retaliatory conduct was severely egregious, and Complainant's harm was significant). We note that the AJ, who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, considered the severity of the harm caused by the Agency's actions and determined that $210,000 was a reasonable amount to compensate Complainant. Considering the severity of the harm caused by the Agency's actions together with comparable Commission cases, we find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the AJ's award of $210,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we REVERSE the Agency's rejection of the AJ's award of non-pecuniary compensatory damages. As such, we REMAND the matter in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER To the extent that it has not done so, the Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final: 1. The Agency shall pay to Complainant past pecuniary damages in the form of past psychological treatment expenses in the amount of $1,550, future pecuniary losses in the form of psychological treatment expenses in the amount of $7,200 and non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $210,000 proximately caused by the discrimination and retaliation suffered by Complainant. 2. The Agency shall remit attorneys' fees and costs to Complainant as a prevailing party in the amount of $177,640.40 in fees and $3,231.20 in costs. 3. The Agency shall provide training to the management official identified as S1 responsible for unlawfully harassing Complainant and retaliating against Complainant by interfering with the EEO process, and all managers and supervisors at its LAX-ISC in Los Angeles, California who were involved in Complainant's workplace concerns regarding the supervisor cited herein as S1. Said training shall include an explanation of their responsibilities, on behalf of the Agency, with respect to eliminating discrimination in the federal workplace under Title VII with special emphasis on sexual and racial harassment and retaliation. 4. The Agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the management official indentified as S1 who was found to have discriminated against Complainant. The Commission does not consider training to constitute disciplinary action. The Agency shall report its decision. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identity the 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. 5. The Agency shall consider permanently removing the responsible management official indentified as S1 herein from her position as Acting 204B Supervisor/Supervisor. 6. The Agency shall post a notice of the finding of discrimination, as detailed below. 7. The Agency shall consider convening all employees during working time at the Agency's LAX-ISC in Los Angeles, California, by shifts, departments, or otherwise, and have the management official identified as S1 in this decision, Manager of Labor Relations, or the Acting Plant Manager/ Manager of Distribution Operations, read the notice to employees and note that the notice is being read pursuant to this Decision. The Agency shall give ten (10) days' prior notice to Complainant of the date and time it intends to read the Notice and invite her to attend the public reading. POSTING ORDER (G0610) The Agency is ordered to post at its LAX-ISC, Los Angeles, California facility 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. ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0610) 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 this decision becoming final. 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 (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. 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: ______________________________ Bernadette B. Wilson Acting Executive Officer Executive Secretariat April 2, 2014 Date 1 The AJ issued a partial, non-final decision on liability and damages on December 21, 2011, finding in the Agency's favor with regard to claim 2. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0720120027 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20507 2 0720120027