U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) Office of Federal Operations Joannie V.1, COMPLAINANT, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION), AGENCY. Appeal No. 0720130010 Hearing No. 541-2009-0202X Agency No. HS-08-TSA-008422 October 31, 2013 DECISION Following its 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 of the relief ordered by the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). For the following reasons, the Commission MODIFIES the Agency's final order. ISSUE PRESENTED The issue presented is whether the AJ's award of $100,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages is appropriate. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint. Complainant worked as a Lead Transportation Security Officer (LTSO) at the Denver International Airport in Denver, Colorado. Complainant was assigned to the midnight shift at the South Security Checkpoint from 8:15 p.m. to 4:45 a.m. from Sunday through Thursday. On October 27, 2008, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to harassment and discrimination based on race (Asian), national origin (Japanese), age (49), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On August 3, 2008, Complainant became aware that two subordinate Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) were spreading false rumors that she was having a sexual relationship with a female TSO. 2. On August 5, 2008, after Complainant contacted a Dispute Resolution Specialist regarding the alleged sexual harassment, management failed to remove the harassers from her shift. 3. On August 6, 2008, after Complainant complained about the sexual harassment, she was inappropriately asked by the Transportation Security Manager (TSM) and the Duty Manager (DM) if she had a sexual relationship with the female TSO. 4. On September 13, 2008, the TSM and the DM convened a meeting where Complainant's alleged harassers were allowed to make counter-allegations of harassment against her. The TSM and the DM did not allow anyone to leave the meeting until they made some comment. 5. On September 24, 2008, Complainant was removed from her regular shift because of the counter-allegations of harassment against her. Complainant's alleged harassers were allowed to remain on their regular shift. The only action taken against them was a "Cease and Desist" letter, which one of them violated. In addition, new supervisors were told to write Complainant up immediately if she caused any problems. 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. The AJ held a hearing from June 29 to July 1, 2011, and issued a decision on October 11, 2012. AJ's Decision The AJ found the following facts: a female TSO spoke with Complainant and reported that an employee heard rumors at work that Complainant was a lesbian in a sexual relationship with her. The employee heard the gossip from two TSOs that Complainant, the female TSO, and the first-level supervisor (S1) were all gay. In addition to the rumors, one of the TSOs drew some pictures of a Nazi-like penguin and a bug character with a big butt. The penguin character was supposed to be Complainant. An employee also told Complainant that this gossip had been going on for six weeks and one TSO had been making comments for about three months that the female TSO and Complainant had a relationship. The TSOs made some of these comments in a briefing where supervisors were present. Rumors were widespread and other employees on other shifts were asking what was happening during the midnight shift. Complainant reported the comments to S1 who treated the matter as sexual harassment. S1 was instructed by the DM to give the TSOs "Cease and Desist" letters. S1 also sent an e-mail to a number of managers regarding the allegations of sexual harassment. On August 5, 2008, Complainant told S1 that she had contacted the Agency's EEO office. On August 6, 2008, the TSOs complained about Complainant's management style, alleging that Complainant had an inappropriate relationship and exhibited favoritism towards the female TSO. Management subsequently held a meeting discussing the allegations of favoritism due to the alleged relationship. During the meeting, Complainant was asked if she was having a sexual relationship with the female TSO, which she denied. Complainant was also asked if she was gay during the meeting. On August 18, 2008, Complainant and the female TSO met with the DM, explaining their concerns of management's inquiry into their sexual orientation. Rumors of the relationship continued and management did not follow-up to determine whether the harassment had stopped. On September 13, 2008, management held a meeting with the staff of the midnight shift. Complainant was thereafter transferred off the midnight shift and only male managers have worked the shift since then. Before Complainant started her new shift, management spoke to the shift leaders and said that she might act out and might be hostile. An investigation was also conducted regarding allegations made against Complainant. The comment "crumb snatcher," a negative statement about lesbians, was also made in reference to Complainant. The AJ found that Complainant established that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which affected her work assignments and reputation. The AJ found that the rumors were widespread and the hostile work environment undermined her role as supervisor. The AJ found that the Agency failed to take effective corrective actions to stop the harassment. The AJ found that despite the Cease and Desist letters, the harassment persisted. The AJ also found that Complainant established the Agency took action against her in reprisal for her prior protected activity. The AJ noted that the investigation into the matter was focused instead on Complainant and not the alleged harassers. The AJ found that management's reassignment of Complainant away from the midnight was retaliatory. The AJ concluded that Complainant established that she was discriminated against based on sex, national origin, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. *3 With respect to non-pecuniary compensatory damages, the AJ noted that Complainant was stressed about her treatment and removal from the midnight shift. The AJ noted that Complainant became more introverted and lost confidence. The AJ also noted that Complainant's blood pressure rose, she suffered from chest pains, and she was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and diabetes. The AJ noted that Complainant's doctor treated Complainant for anxiety and depression. The AJ further noted that Complainant's reputation had been tarnished and was no longer respected in the workplace as she once was. The AJ noted that Complainant was considered a troublemaker and continues to work in an environment where she does not feel comfortable. The AJ noted that the harm to Complainant lasted over four years. The AJ also noted that Complainant's life and social relationships have been disrupted. The AJ awarded Complainant $100,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages for the emotional harm that she suffered. The Agency subsequently issued a final order accepting the AJ's finding that Complainant had been discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment, but rejecting some of the AJ's relief ordered. Specifically, the Agency rejected the AJ's order awarding Complainant $100,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Agency's Brief on Appeal On appeal, the Agency contends that the AJ improperly found that Complainant was entitled to $100,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Agency contends that the harassment of Complainant was only based on rumors spread by subordinate employees, which was immediately and effectively addressed by management. The Agency contends that there was no evidence that the subordinate employees continued to spread rumors after they were issued the Cease and Desist letters. The Agency contends that the two subordinate employees never made abusive comments directly to Complainant. The Agency contends that one of the subordinate employees resigned from the Agency approximately a month after the rumors were made known to management. The Agency contends that the other subordinate employee was frequently absent from work and resigned approximately six to eight months after Complainant became aware of the rumors. The Agency contends that Complainant was diagnosed with coronary heart disease and diagnosed with depression well before she became aware of the alleged rumors in August 2008. The Agency also contends that the AJ erred in finding that Complainant had been harmed for a period of four years. The Agency contends that Complainant admitted that nothing was ever said to her directly by the TSOs. The Agency also contends that Complainant never saw the picture of her as a penguin and bug character and did not consider it to be sexual in nature or inappropriate. The Agency contends that other employees testified that Complainant was showing favoritism towards the female TSO. The Agency contends that the AJ erred in finding that the rumorspreading continued after the TSOs were issued the Cease and Desist letters. The Agency contends that only one question was asked at the August 6, 2008, meeting regarding Complainant's relationship with the female and that no action was taken as a result of the meeting. The Agency contends management received a letter signed by TSOs on the midnight shift complaining of mistreatment by Complainant and S1. The Agency contends that management made a group decision to remove Complainant and S1 from the midnight shift. The Agency therefore contends that Complainant is entitled to an award under $20,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages.1 Complainant's Brief on Appeal In response, Complainant, through her attorney, asserts that she and the female TSO were subjected to widespread rumors that they were dykes or lesbians. Complainant asserts that after she made a formal complaint of harassment, management made the matter worse. Complainant asserts that she was pulled off the midnight shift and interrogated on August 6, 2008. Complainant asserts that management accepted the retaliatory and baseless complaints about her and never attempted to obtain her side of the story. Complainant asserts that she and S1 were removed from the midnight shift, which resulted in the loss of higher pay. Complainant asserts that before she began her new assignment, managers told the screeners on the shift that she "might act out," "might be hostile," and that "she was in trouble." Complainant asserts that in November 2008 management initiated an administrative inquiry into her and S1. Complainant asserts that this inquiry was one-sided and management closed the investigation without speaking to her or S1. Complainant asserts that management did not notify her until May 2009 that she was no longer under investigation. Complainant asserts that she has not progressed in her career since her 2008 report of sexual harassment. Complainant asserts that she still works with the stigma of the rumors and the fact that she was subjected to an Agency investigation. 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. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. SeePullman-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 EEOC Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (MD- 110), Chap. 9, at § VI.B. (Nov. 9, 1999). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS AJ's award of $100,000 in Non-Pecuniary Compensatory Damages Because discrimination was found, the Agency must provide Complainant with a remedy that constitutes full, make-whole relief to restore her as nearly as possible to the position she would have occupied absent the discrimination. See, e.g., Franks v. Bowman Transport. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 764 (1976); Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19 (1975); Adesanya v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01933395 (July 21, 1994). Pursuant to Section 102(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a complainant who establishes unlawful intentional discrimination under Title VII may receive compensatory damages for past and future pecuniary losses (i.e., out-of-pocket expenses) and non-pecuniary losses (e.g., pain and suffering, mental anguish) as part of this "make whole" relief. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). In West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212 (1999), the Supreme Court held that Congress afforded the Commission the authority to award compensatory damages in the administrative process. For an employer with more than 500 employees, such as the Agency, the limit of liability for future pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is $300,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). 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 Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002, at I1.A.2 (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. SeeLoving v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01955789 (Aug. 29, 1997). 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. Further, compensatory damages should not "monstrously excessive" standing alone, should not be the product of passion or prejudice, and should be consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases. SeeWard-Jenkins v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961483 (Mar. 4, 1999) (citing Cyngar v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 827, 848 (7th Cir. 1989)). Evidence from a health care provider or other expert is not a mandatory prerequisite for recovery of compensatory damages for emotional harm. SeeLawrence 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 a complainant concerning her 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 nonpecuniary losses 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. A complainant's own testimony, along with the circumstances of a particular case, can suffice to sustain her 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. In the instant case, the AJ primarily relied on testimony from Complainant, two of Complainant's coworkers, and her doctor as objective evidence for awarding $100,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages for emotional distress. Complainant testified that "because of everything that's transpired . . . it's seriously and adversely affected my health, my lifestyle, my sleep, my attitude, unfortunately. I've been depressed. I've lost sleep." Hr'g Tr., at 135-136. Complainant testified, "I had anxiety and stress and I had gone to the emergency room. I complained of chest pains and palpitations, shortness of breath . . . ." Id. at 142. Complainant also testified, "But then once this all started, you know with the rumors and the allegations and being removed from the shift, then I started stress eating . . . . started eating poorly." Id. at 144. Complainant testified that she went to her primary care physician and asked to be prescribed anti-anxiety medication. Id. at 145. Complainant further testified that she became more introverted, lost confidence, and feels that she has stigma attached to her now. Id. at 166 Complainant's doctor testified that he recalled having conversations with Complainant about having stressors at work. Id. at 788-795. Complainant's doctor further testified that he prescribed medication for Complainant for anxiety and high blood pressure. Id. Complainant's coworker testified that "she ended up stressed out and just her blood pressure went up and she ended up have a lot of issues with her heart and stuff like that because of the stress that she has been on and the harassment." Id. at 469-470. Another coworker described how the discrimination affected Complainant's reputation: Q. As you sit here today how would you describe [Complainant's] reputation? A. Totally different. I don't think people respect [Complainant]. You know, once you get moved, you get in this kind of dog pile, if you will, where you're the trouble kid, you're a troublemaker, you know. . . . Id. at 340. On appeal the Agency contends, among other things, that Complainant was diagnosed with coronary heart disease and depression well before Complainant became aware of the alleged rumors in August 2008. We note that the Commission applies the principle that "a tortfeasor takes its victims as it finds them." SeeWallis v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (Nov. 13, 1995) (quoting Williamson v. Handy Button Machine Co., 817 F.2d 1290, 1295 (7th Cir. 1987)). However, the Commission also applies two exceptions to this general rule. First, when a complainant has a preexisting condition, the agency is liable only for the additional harm or aggravation caused by the discrimination. Second, if the complainant's preexisting condition inevitably would have worsened, the agency is entitled to a reduction in damages reflecting the extent to which the condition would have worsened even absent the discrimination; the burden of proof is on the Agency to establish the extent of this entitlement. Wallis, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (citingMaurer v. United States, 668 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1981)). While Complainant had depression and heart disease previously, the record reflects that the discrimination significantly worsened Complainant's symptoms. Notwithstanding the Agency's contentions, based on our review of the evidence in light of the Commission's cases regarding non-pecuniary damages awarded for emotional harm, we find that substantial evidence in the record supports the AJ's award of $100,000. We find that the amount is not "monstrously excessive" standing alone, is not the product of passion or prejudice, and is consistent with Commission precedent. In other cases, the Commission has awarded similar amounts for emotional harm such as anxiety, depression, stress, loss of self-esteem, sleep problems, humiliation, harm to professional reputation, and high blood pressure. SeeFivecoat v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 0720110035 (May 15, 2012) ($100,000 awarded as result of a discriminatory hostile work environment where complainant experienced depression, digestive problems, sleep disturbances, crying spells, and episodic high blood pressure); Jackson v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 0720110036 (Mar. 13, 2012) ($125,000 awarded in 19-month harassment case where complainant experienced anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep problems, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, damage to professional reputation, and withdrawal from relationships); Robinson v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070015 (May 22, 2008) ($85,000 awarded as a result of a discriminatory hostile work environment that resulted in emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, health problems, anxiety, stress, depression, loss of self-esteem, and excessive fatigue); Morrison v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 07A50003 (Apr. 18, 2006) ($90,000 awarded in one-year harassment case where complainant experienced depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and where complainant's psychological trauma continued well past the date she resigned from the agency). Accordingly, considering the nature, duration, and severity of Complainant's emotional harm and with reference to damage awards reached in comparable cases, we affirm the AJ's award of $100,000 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 MODIFY the Agency's final order, AFFIRM the AJ's finding of discrimination, and AFFIRM the AJ's order of relief. We REMAND the matter to the Agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and the ORDER below. ORDER The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions within sixty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final: 1. The Agency shall pay Complainant non-pecuniary compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000. 2. The Agency shall restore leave to Complainant of a total of 112 hours, or to pay her the value of that leave, totaling $2,452.74, if she has left the Agency. 3. The Agency shall pay Complainant the following additional pecuniary compensatory damages: $1,324 in night differential and $1,839.61 in medical costs. 4. The Agency shall pay Complainant $627.48 to reimburse her for the early withdrawal tax for her withdrawals from the Thrift Savings Program. In addition, the Agency shall determine the amount of matching funds denied Complainant due as if she had continued to contribute $75 per day from October 2008 to the date of this Order. If possible, that money should be deposited in Complainant's TSP account. If that is not possible, the money should be paid directly to Complainant. 5. The Agency shall pay Complainant's attorney reasonable attorney's fees as follows: $42,471.88 to Complainant's attorney identified as RR and $38,363.83 to Complainant's attorney identified as LU. 6. The Agency shall pay costs of $224.44 to Complainant's attorney identified as RR and $277.29 to Complainant's attorney identified as LU. 7. The Agency shall provide eight (8) hours of EEO training to the responsible management officials regarding their responsibilities under EEO laws, particularly Title VII. 8. The Agency shall consider taking appropriate disciplinary action against the responsible management officials. 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 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. If the responsible management officials have left the Agency's employ, the Agency shall furnish documentation of their departure dates. 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 documentation indicating that the corrective action has been implemented. POSTING ORDER (G0610) The Agency is ordered to post at the Denver International Airport in Denver, Colorado 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. § 16l4.501(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. See29 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. See29 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. See29 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. See29 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. See29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610) This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. 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 filed your appeal with the Commission. 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. 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 Footnotes 1 We note that on appeal the Agency only contests the AJ's award of non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, we will not address the AJ's finding of discrimination or the other remedial relief ordered by the AJ. 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. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------