EEOC Appeal 2020000241

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Madelaine G., 1
Complainant,
v.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Petition No. 2019005970 / Appeal No. 2020000241
Request No. 0520170120
Agency No. DOS-F0-245-13
DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
On September 26, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission)
docketed a petition for enforcement to examine the enforcement of an Order set forth in Madelaine
G. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Request No. 0520170120 (November 21, 2018). 	The Commission
accepts this petition for enforcement pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503. On October 11, 2019, the
EEOC also docketed Appeal No. 2020000241, an appeal of the Agency’s final decision on the
issue of compensatory damages as ordered in Request No. 0520170120. 	We exercise our
discretion to consolidate Petition No. 2019005970 and Appeal No. 2020000241 for a single
decision. See EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606. See also e.g. Mark D. v. Dep’t of Justice,
EEOC Petition No. 2019001549 & Appeal No. 2019003361 (Oct. 24, 2019) (consolidation of
decisions on appeal and petition for enforcement). 	For the reasons set forth below. The
Commission GRANTS Complainant’s Petition for Enforcement and MODIFIES the Agency’s
final decision.
BACKGROUND
Complainant worked as an Administrative Officer, GS-0341-13 for the Department of Justice –
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) at the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Complainant had chronic rheumatoid arthritis for which she was under a doctor’s care.
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.

2019005970 & 2020000241	2
Prior to her overseas deployment, the Agency’s Office of Medical Services 2 (OMS) reviewed her
documentation and granted her the medical clearance necessary for extended service in Kabul.
Her tour of duty began in September 2011. 	While on home leave in June 2012, Complainant’s
physician prescribed Leflunomide for the first time. 	Leflunomide was a medication that U.S.
Government personnel station in Kabul were forbidden to take by a Department of Defense
Directive because of its adverse effects on one’s ability to fight off an infection. 	Complainant
returned to Afghanistan and while there, she was hospitalized in April 2013 with pericarditis. Due
to the seriousness of her condition, she was medically evacuated to her home in El Paso, Texas.
On August 22, 2013, when she recovered and sought to return to her duty station at the American
Embassy in Kabul, the OMS denied her the medical clearance necessary for overseas deployment.
The OMS determined that her condition constituted a direct threat to her own health and safety
because she had only recently stopped taking Leflunomide and had not demonstrated twelve
months of clinical stability. 	As a result of OMS’s decision, Complainant’s return-to-post
authorization was not reinstated, and she was prevented from redeploying to Afghanistan
Complainant filed a complaint in which she alleged that the denial of her medical clearance by
OMS constituted an act of discrimination based on her disability (arthritis) in violation of Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.
The Agency investigated the complaint, found that it had not met its burden of establishing that
Complainant's return to Kabul would have posed a direct threat, and found in Complainant’s favor
on the issue of liability. In its final decision on the matter, however, the Agency failed to address
the issues of reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees. In Madelaine
G. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141877 (Oct. 25, 2016), the Commission affirmed
the Agency’s finding of liability but remanded the matter for further processing with respect to
remedies. 	On 	reconsideration, the Agency argued in essence that because the DEA was
Complainant’s employer, it was solely responsible for the terms of her employment and
assignment overseas. In Madeline G. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Request No. 0520170120 (Nov. 21,
2018), we denied the Agency’s request for reconsideration but acknowledged that because the
Agency was not Complainant’s employer, it did not have the authority to reinstate Complainant to
her overseas posting. Our order for relief in that decision is reproduced herein, verbatim:
1. 	Within 60 calendar days from the date this decision is issued, the Agency's
Office 	of 	Medical 	Services 	shall 	conduct 	the 	required 	individualized
assessment of Complainant's medical condition and her ability to return to the
Administrative Officer position at the Embassy in Kabul without posing a
significant risk of substantial harm to herself or others. Within 30 calendar days
of that assessment, the Agency shall inform the appropriate officials at
Complainant's 	employer, 	the 	Department 	of 	Justice, 	Drug 	Enforcement
Agency, of Complainant's eligibility to return to the Administrative Officer
position at the Embassy in Kabul or an assignment in Kabul substantially
similar to the one she lost. If Complainant subsequently rejects the Department
of Justice's offer of the assignment, the Agency shall use the date of rejection
2 Now the Bureau of Medical Services.

2019005970 & 2020000241	3
for purposes of back pay calculations as noted below. If Complainant accepts
the assignment, the Agency shall use the date Complainant assumes the
assignment for purposes of back pay.
2. 	The issue of compensatory damages is REMANDED to the Agency. On
remand, 	the 	Agency 	shall 	conduct 	a 	supplemental 	investigation 	on
compensatory damages, including providing Complainant an opportunity to
submit evidence of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. For guidance on
what evidence is necessary to prove pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the
parties are directed to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and
Punitive Damages Available Under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July
14, 1992) (available at eeoc.gov.) The Agency shall complete the investigation
and issue a final decision appealable to the EEOC determining the appropriate
amount of damages within 90 calendar days after this decision is issued and
paying the determined amount, if any, within 30 calendar days from the date of
that determination.
3. 	The Agency shall determine if Complainant is entitled to an award of back pay
as a result of the denial of her return to her assignment in Kabul. The Agency
shall communicate with Complainant's employer, the Department of Justice,
Drug Enforcement Agency, and determine the appropriate amount of back pay,
with interest, and other benefits due Complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501, no later than 60 calendar days after the date this decision is issued.
The Complainant shall cooperate in the Agency's efforts to compute the amount
of back pay and benefits due and shall provide all relevant information
requested by the Agency. We note that the Agency should consider if there
would have been a difference in locality pay and benefits to Complainant
including but not limited to promotions or other incentives for an assignment in
Kabul, Afghanistan. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay
and/or benefits, the Agency shall issue a check to the Complainant for the
undisputed amount within 60 calendar days of the date the Agency determines
the amount it believes to be due. The Complainant may petition for enforcement
or clarification of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or
enforcement must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address
referenced in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission's
Decision.”
4. 	Within 60 days from the date this decision is issued, the Agency is ordered to
provide 8 hours of in-person or interactive training to the responsible officials
covering their responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act. The training shall
cover 	the 	Agency's 	obligations 	regarding 	the 	provision 	of 	reasonable
accommodation, 	as 	well 	as 	its 	obligation 	to 	conduct 	an 	individualized
assessment pursuant to the direct threat defense.

2019005970 & 2020000241	4
5. 	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 and
costs incurred in the processing of the complaint, including this appeal. 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 60 calendar days of the date this decision is issued. The Agency shall
then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501.
We also ordered the Agency to post the appropriate notice. 	The matter was assigned to a
Compliance Officer and docketed as Compliance No. 2019000951 on November 23, 2018. 	On
December 14, 2018, Complainant’s Counsel submitted her petition for attorneys’ fees to the
Agency, stating:
On November 21, 2018, OFO issued its decision on reconsideration. Thereafter it
issued Compliance Order No. 2019000951. 	Both OFO documents direct the
agency to comply with November 21, 2018 order. 	Accordingly, Complainant is
entitled to make-whole relief, which the Agency did not provide in its final
decision. The Commission’s decision directed the Agency to take certain specific
corrective action related to Complainant's complaint. 	Upon reconsideration, this
order has been affirmed and relief ordered. This letter is solely addressed to one
portion of the OFO decision, the payment of Complainant’s attorneys’ fees and
costs. 	This fee petition supersedes prior fee petitions. 	At this time, without any
further work with the Agency to obtain make whole relief from the Agency, the
total fees and costs requested are $56,366.01.
On April 29, 2019, after having not received any correspondence from the Agency, Complainant
filed a petition for enforcement of Compliance Order No. 2019000951:
On November 21, 2018, OFO issued its decision on reconsideration. 	*** The
Agency has not complied with OFO’s decision and sanctions should be granted
***. As of the date of the instant filing, the Agency has wholly failed to comply
with OFO’s decision and order in every way. The Agency has failed to supplement
the record with any evidence of detailed calculations of Complainant's back pay
award or conduct a supplemental investigation into compensatory damages. The
agency has failed to extend an offer of reemployment to Complainant and failed to
conduct the ordered training of Agency officials. 	*** The Agency has failed to
submit its compliance report to the Commission and to Complainant. It has failed
to pay attorneys’ fees despite more than one submission of a fee petition. In sum,
as a response to the November 21, 2018 ordered relief, the Agency had done
absolutely nothing. 	The Agency’s inaction and refusal to follow the EEOC’s
operative order has continued to damage Complainant as she has not been extended
an offer of reemployment and thus her back pay continues to mount as do her fees.

2019005970 & 2020000241	5
Petition for Enforcement dated April 29, 2019, p. 5. On May 29, 2019, the Commission issued
the Agency a notice of compliance report due in connection with Compliance Order No.
2019000951:
The Office of Federal Operations has no record indicating that you have completely
implemented the Commission’s decision in EEOC Request No. 0520170120… ***
The above decision is final and the corrective action specified by the Commission
is mandatory. That decision directed you to submit a report within a specified time
frame detailing the steps it has taken to implement the ordered actions. 	Please
ensure that a compliance report and supporting documents are uploaded into the
FedSEP portal within 20 days of the date of this letter. 	Complainant and
Complainant’s representative of record must be sent a copy of this report and
supporting documents.
On August 6, 2019, the Compliance Officer sent follow-up correspondence to the Agency:
On May 29, 2019, I sent a Compliance Report Due letter to your office for
Complainant's compliance case 2019000951. 	Within the letter, it states that the
Agency should ensure that a compliance report and supporting documents are
uploaded into FedSEP portal within 20 days, which was Tuesday, June 18, 2019.
To date, the Agency has not uploaded the compliance report or responded to the
letter. 	The decision was issued November 21, 2018 and several items were due
within 60 days and all other items were due within 120 days. 	OFO has no
documentation demonstrating that any of the items have been completed. Please
upload the compliance report and any supporting documentation into FedSEP
within Seven days (August 13, 2019).
On August 12, 2019, in accordance with Paragraph (2) of the order for relief set forth in EEOC
Request No. 0520170120, the Agency issued its final decision on the issue of compensatory
damages:
The Agency was ordered to conduct a supplemental investigation of Complainant's
possible entitlement to an award of compensatory damages and to issue a final
agency decision on that subject. This decision is being issued in compliance with
the order of the Office of Federal Operations. 	Complainant’s entitlement to
consideration for an award of compensatory damages relates only to the decision
by the Agency’s Office of Medical Services not to authorize her return to Kabul.
This was the only issue within the Agency’s control. Complainant was employed
by DEA, not the Agency. Complainant was not entitled to an award of pecuniary
compensatory damages. 	Complainant requested $150,000 in non-pecuniary
compensatory damages. Complainant had not presented any medical evidence to
establish that she suffers from any long-term mental or physical or mental problem
as a result of the denial of her clearance to return to Kabul.

2019005970 & 2020000241	6
Complainant has not established that any pre-existing condition was exacerbated
by the denial of her medical clearance to return to Kabul. It was not the denial of
her medical clearance that proximately caused her sleep and migraine issues.
Rather, it was her inability to adapt to the work schedule and work environment
associated with her DEA employment in El Paso and the effects of the time
difference between El Paso and Kabul. Based on the nature of the conduct involved
and the quality of the evidence presented in support of Complainant’s claim, the
Agency awarded Complainant $12,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages.
On September 16, 2019, Complainant updated and resubmitted her petition for enforcement in
which she raised the following noncompliance matters:
1. 	Within 60 days from the date the decision is issued, conduct an individualized
medical assessment and offer Complainant the same job or a substantially similar
job as the one that she had prior to being medically evacuated. Not done as of date
of this letter.
2. 	Conduct a supplemental investigation on the issue of compensatory damages.
Update: The Agency issued a FAD without a supplemental investigation and did
not allow complainant to submit further evidence of pecuniary and or non-
pecuniary damages as a consequence. 	The Agency issued a FAD on August 12,
2019, clearly not within 90 days of the decision and has not paid any compensatory
damages. The compensatory damages award was appealed to OFO. The fact that
there was no investigation nor opportunity to submit evidence is still subject to this
enforcement petition.
3. 	Determine whether Complainant is entitled to an award of back pay as a result of
the denial of her return to her assignment at the Embassy in Kabul. Update: This
has not been done as of the date of this letter.
4. 	Within 60 days for the date the decision is issued, provide 8 hours of training to the
responsible 	management 	officials 	covering 	their 	responsibilities 	under 	the
Rehabilitation Act. Update: This has not been done as of the date of this letter.
5. 	Award attorneys’ fees. Update: Despite emails to the contrary, this has not been
done as of the date of this letter and complainant now has additional fees on account
of the agency’s failure to follow OFO’s reconsideration decision.
On September 25, 2019, the Commission docketed Complainant’s petition for enforcement upon
determining that the Agency failed to comply with Compliance Order No. 2019000951:
On May 3, 2019, Complainant’s representative filed a petition for enforcement
stating that the Agency had not complied with OFO’s order. On May 29, 2019 and
August 6, 2019, the Assigned Compliance Officer requested compliance reports

2019005970 & 2020000241	7
from the Agency. The Agency did not respond and has not submitted a compliance
report. 	The Agency did however issue a final agency decision regarding
Compensatory Damages on August 12, 2019. 	Following the Agency’s decision,
the 	Complainant's 	representative 	filed 	a 	second 	petition 	for 	enforcement
emphasizing the Agency’s noncompliance and asserting that the Agency failed to
conduct a supplemental investigation into compensatory damages as ordered in the
decision. 	The Agency has not provided OFO with additional documentation or
demonstrated that the Agency intends to implement the Commission’s order.
Therefore, a petition for enforcement is recommended.
On October 1, 2019, the Commission notified the Agency that Petition for Enforcement No.
2019005970 had been docketed, and that as a result, the Commission’s monitoring of Compliance
No. 2019000951 had been suspended pending the issuance of its decision on the petition for
enforcement.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant contends on appeal that the Commission should impose sanctions upon the Agency
for what she characterizes as “blatantly unlawful conduct” in its failure to implement the order for
relief set forth in EEOC Request No. 0120170120 and Compliance Order No. 2019000951. 	In
particular, Complainant raises the following points:
x 	The Agency has failed to conduct a supplemental investigation into compensatory
damages.
x 	The Agency has failed to supplement the record with any evidence of detailed
calculations of Complainant’s back pay award.
x 	The Agency has failed to extend an offer of employment to [Complainant]
x 	The Agency has failed to conduct the ordered training of Agency officials.
x 	The Agency has failed to issue a new final decision regarding whether it has complied
with the agreement.
x 	The Agency has failed to provide a copy of its supplemental investigation and new final
decision (because there is none).
x 	The Agency has failed to submit its compliance report to the Commission and to
Complainant.
x 	The Agency has decided not to pay Complainant’s full attorneys’ fees despite more
than one submission of a fee petition apparently out of spite for her repeated entreaties
to the Commission and to the Agency to do something to process the OFO order.
Complainant’s Appeal Brief dated October 10, 2019, pp. 12-15.

2019005970 & 2020000241	8
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
When discrimination is found, an agency must provide a complainant with a remedy that
constitutes full, make-whole relief to restore the complainant as nearly as possible to the position
she would have occupied absent the discrimination. See, e.g., Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424
U.S. 747, 764 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19 (1975); Lazaro G. v.
Dep’t of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170802 (May 17, 2019), req. for recon. den. EEOC
Request No. 2019004115 (Sept. 17, 2019); Adesanya v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01933395 (July 21, 1994).
Compensatory Damages
In its final decision as noted above, the Agency awarded Complainant $12,000 in non-pecuniary
compensatory damages, which Complainant contends is inadequate. Pursuant to section 102(a) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, a Complainant who establishes unlawful intentional discrimination
under either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq, or Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 et seq. 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. 2012 (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); Wilda M. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120142660 (Dec. 2, 2016).
To receive an award of compensatory damages, Complainant must demonstrate that she had been
harmed as a result of the agency's discriminatory action; the extent, nature, and severity of the
harm; and the duration or expected duration of the harm. Rivera v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC
Appeal No. 01934157 (July 22, 1994), req. for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No.
05940927 (Dec. 11, 1995); Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (July 14, 1992), at 11-12, 14.
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. 915.302 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 Loving 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.

2019005970 & 2020000241	9
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 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.
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.
We note at the outset that, contrary to Complainant’s contention throughout these two proceedings,
the Agency did conduct an investigation of her claim for damages, as evidenced by the two
investigatory affidavits that Complainant had submitted in support of her claim. 	Beyond these
sworn declarations, however, Complainant has not presented any medical documentation of the
harm she claimed to have suffered or statements from friends, relatives, health care providers, or
others attesting to that harm. Complainant’s two affidavits therefore constitute the entirety of the
evidentiary record on her claim for compensatory damages.
Complainant averred that when her medical clearance for overseas duty was denied, she was
assigned to the El Paso Intelligence Center (DEA-EPIC) where she was forced to use a spare desk
in a shared office bullpen among former subordinates. She stated that was not given the resources
she needed to do her job and had to work with no privacy and constant distractions, and that she
found the situation to be “very degrading.” 	She averred that this work dynamic caused her to
experience “never-ending stress and anxiety.” She averred that she had developed insomnia from
staying up all night at home in order to communicate with personnel in Kabul, which was eleven
time zones away. She further averred that her work arrangement caused her undue financial strain
and physical distress, including migraine headaches. 	Supplemental Investigative Report –
Damages (SIR-D) 46-47. In addition, she averred that in January 2014, the DEA reassigned her
to its headquarters, forcing her to relocate to Virginia from Texas and leave her longtime home
and community. SIR-D 47-48.

2019005970 & 2020000241	10
She also averred that she experienced significant stress as a result of having to work as a program
analyst after thirty-years of law enforcement experience and not being able to use the skills she
had honed during those years. SIR-D 48. Finally, Complainant reported that she had retired three
years earlier than she had wanted to, and that she had obtained treatment for her symptoms, which
had stabilized. 	SIR-D 49-50. 	Complainant maintained that she was entitled to $150,000 in
damages for emotional distress. SIR-D 50-52. She neither requested nor documented damages
for out-of-pocket expenses. 	SIR-D 53-56.
We agree with the Agency that under the circumstances presented by this case, a $150,000 award
would be excessive. The discriminatory act in question was the decision by the Agency’s OMS to
deny her the medical clearance she needed to return to the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan under the
mistaken assumption that Complainant posed a safety risk to herself due to the medication she was
taking. 	But according to Complainant’s own statements, much of her emotional distress was
attributed 	to 	her 	work 	conditions 	at 	the 	DEA-EPIC 	and 	later 	at 	DEA’s 	headquarters.
Consequently, there is no causation chain between the Agency’s discriminatory act and
Complainant’s emotional distress. 	Nevertheless, were it not for the denial of her medical
clearance, Complainant would have returned to Afghanistan and would not have been reassigned
to the EPIC and Headquarters, and thus would not have been subjected to those conditions she
found to be adverse. 	The Agency acknowledged as much by awarding Complainant $12,000
award for nonpecuniary damages. 	The question for us to resolve is whether this amount was
appropriate.
In a number of cases, the Commission has awarded $15,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory
damages for comparable harm suffered in terms of severity and duration. For example, in Sid E.
v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120172812 (Feb. 27, 2019), req. for recon. granted on
Commission’s own motion, but $15,000 compensatory damages award affirmed, EEOC Request
No. 2019003495 (Oct. 30, 2019), the Commission awarded $15,000 where management blatantly
disregarded the employee’s multiple requests for accommodation over nine months, causing the
employee to suffer anxiety, headaches, loss of confidence, hypertension and exacerbation of
multiple sclerosis. 	In addition to his own testimony, the employee provided sworn statements
from his wife and sister-in-law. In Dalton C. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120170077 (Mar. 27, 2018), the Commission awarded the employee $15,000 even though
he provided limited medical evidence regarding the worsening of his preexisting conditions as a
result of the Agency’s failure to reasonably accommodate him. 	Witness statements from the
employee’s mother and from several coworkers established that the employee had become more
depressed and anxious after the incident, and that he began to struggle with self-esteem and
confidence. In Margorie L. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720170028 (Nov.
16, 2017), the employee’s treating psychiatrist showed that the employer’s discriminatory act
exacerbated her pre-existing post-traumatic-stress disorder. The employee presented evidence that
she experienced nightmares, insomnia, migraine headaches and other symptoms. 	On cross-
examination, however, the employee admitted that she had prior medical conditions that might
have impacted her symptoms, including high blood pressure, dizziness, and sleep apnea.

2019005970 & 2020000241	11
In each of these prior decisions, as well as in the cases cited within these decisions, the person
seeking damages had presented at least some evidence of harm beyond his or her own statements.
Complainant has not done so in this case. 	Nevertheless, we find that an award $13,000 in
nonpecuniary compensatory damages is appropriate. It takes into consideration the nature of the
OMS’s unlawful denial of Complainant’s medical clearance to return to her overseas post, the
severity and duration of the harm she suffered as a result of that act as well as the intervening effect
of the working conditions imposed upon her by her employer-of-record, the DEA. 	We will
therefore enter an order directing the Agency to award Complainant $13,000 in nonpecuniary
compensatory damages.
Backpay
The purpose of a back pay award is to restore to Complainant the income she would have otherwise
earned but for the discrimination. 	See Albemarle Paper Co., 422 U.S. 405. 	Back pay should
include all forms of compensation and must reflect fluctuations in working time, overtime rates,
penalty overtime, Sunday premium and night work, changing rate of pay, transfers, promotions,
and privileges of employment to which Complainant would have been entitled but for the
discrimination. Potter v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0720120029 (Sept. 10, 2013), req.
for recon. den. EEOC Request No. 0520140083 (May 9, 2014). 	See also Ulloa v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04A30025 (Aug. 3, 2004) citing Allen v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC
Petition No. 04940006 (May 31, 1996); Perez v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04A40041
(Mar. 3, 2005).
The Commission realizes that precise measurement cannot always be used to remedy the wrong
inflicted and that the computation of back pay awards inherently involves some speculation.
Hanns v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04960030 (Sept. 18, 1997). Nonetheless,
uncertainties involved in a back pay determination should be resolved against the Agency since it
has already been found to have committed the acts of discrimination. Id.; see also Kloock v. U.S.
Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 04A40012 (June 16, 2004).
Complainant stated in her affidavit on damages that while she was stationed at EPIC, she lost all
of her foreign pay benefits, including separate maintenance allowance, post differential, danger
pay and overtime pay since she was not physically present in Afghanistan. She also averred that
she was not entitled to EPIC locality pay because she was still technically assigned to the Embassy
in Kabul and was only receiving base pay at the foreign base pay scale. 	She maintained that
between May 2013 and May 2014, she lost approximately $5,268 per month in total pay
differential, another $2,500 in housing and food costs; and sixty days of accrued home leave worth
$37,200. Overall, Complainant averred that she lost roughly $142,468 per year which amounted
to $427,404 over three years, until her retirement. SIR-D 47, 49-50, 58-72.
Again, even though the Agency was not Complainant’s employer-of-record, and not responsible
for paying her salary, it was the Agency’s discriminatory act that caused her to lose the benefits
that came with her overseas assignment.

2019005970 & 2020000241	12
The Agency therefore is liable to Complainant for the pay and benefits that would have accrued to
her had the OMS given her the medical clearance she needed to return to the Embassy in Kabul.
The record is not sufficient for us to make the determination as to the appropriate amount of back
pay. We will therefore direct the Agency to calculate and pay Complainant the appropriate amount
in back pay in our order below.
Offer of Reemployment
Commission regulations provide that full relief includes an unconditional offer to an identified
victim of discrimination of placement in the position the person would have occupied absent the
discrimination or a substantially equivalent position. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(a)(3). A substantially
equivalent position is one with compensation, promotional opportunities, job responsibilities,
working conditions, and job status which are similar to the position discriminatorily lost.
Hernandez v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Request No. 05A60218 (Dec. 29, 2005). citing Myers v.
U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04950028 (May 2, 1996) & Kerschner v. Dep't of Labor,
EEOC Appeal No. 01933023 (March 15, 1994).
As noted above, the first element of our order for relief in Request No. 0520170120 directed the
Agency’s OMS to reexamine Complainant in order that she obtain the medical clearance necessary
to return to her Administrative Officer position at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. There
are no indications anywhere in the record that the Agency ever did this. She averred in her damages
affidavit that she had served for two years and would have been appointed to a second two-year
term had she not been barred from returning. She also averred that she had intended to have her
contract extended until 2017, that she could have served for a maximum term of five years that
could have been extended, and that she was forced to retire in June 2015. SIR-D 49. As late as
September 2019, when Complainant resubmitted her petition for enforcement, she made clear that
she still desired to return to Kabul, as demonstrated by the reference in her petition to the Agency’s
ongoing failure to give her the necessary medical examination. It is unclear whether Complainant
still wants to go back to Afghanistan at this late date, whether she is time-barred from doing so by
term limits, or how her retirement status would affect her decision.
We also note that Complainant may be entitled to front pay. In general, front pay may be awarded
in lieu of reinstatement when no position is available or when a subsequent working relationship
between the parties would be antagonistic. 	Pachecano v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
01A32170 (May 20, 2004). The fact that front pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement implies that
Complainant is able to work but cannot do so because of circumstances outside of her control. Id.
citing Goetze v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01991530 (Aug. 22, 2001). In Pachecano,
we found that the employee had not shown that the requirements for front pay in lieu of
reinstatement had been met because the employee’s medical condition had made him unavailable
to return to work. Id. citing Finlay v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01942985 (April 30,
1997) & York v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01930435 (February 25, 1994). 	Here,
Complainant’s rheumatoid arthritis did not preclude her from returning to work overseas.

2019005970 & 2020000241	13
Had the Agency timely administered her clearance exam, she would have gone back to Kabul. See
also Breanne H. v. Dep’t of Transp., EEOC Petition No. 0420180015 (Nov. 30, 2018) (The
Commission has identified three circumstances where front pay may be awarded in lieu of
reinstatement: (1) where no position is available; (2) where a subsequent working relationship
between the parties would be antagonistic; or (3) where the employer has a record of long-term
resistance to anti-discrimination efforts [citations omitted]); Carmina E. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC
Appeal No. 0720150011 (Jan. 9, 2018).
In our order for relief, we will direct the Agency to conduct the medical clearance examination in
order that DEA might reinstate Complainant to her post in Kabul, Afghanistan. If the position that
Complainant seeks to re-encumber is no longer available, or if returning to overseas duty is not
feasible for reasons other than Complainant’s unavailability, then we will direct the Agency to
award front pay for two years from the date the decision on this petition for enforcement is issued. 3
Attorneys’ Fees
By federal regulation, the Agency is required to award attorney's fees for the successful processing
of an EEO complaint in accordance with existing case law and regulatory standards. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.501(e)(1)(ii). To determine the proper amount of the fee, a lodestar amount is reached by
calculating the number of hours reasonably expended by the attorney on the complaint multiplied
by a reasonable hourly rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424 (1983). The circumstances under which the lodestar may be adjusted are extremely limited
and are set forth in EEO Management Directive 110. 	Equal Employment Opportunity
Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 at 11-13 (EEO MD-110) (Aug. 15, 2015).
Complainant’s Counsel submitted documentation sufficient to establish that she is owed
$56,366.01 in attorneys’ fees and costs as of December 2018. Counsel also stated in the petition
for enforcement that she resubmitted in September 2019 that the Agency’s noncompliance with
our orders in Request No. 0120170120 and Compliance Order 2019000951 had resulted in
Complainant 	incurring 	additional 	attorneys’ 	fees. 	The 	Agency 	has 	not 	submitted 	any
documentation establishing that it had made a fee award to Complainant or her counsel. We will
therefore enter an order directing the Agency to issue a check to Complainant for the fees already
incurred and for Counsel to submit the required documentation for any additional fees.
Interest
Section 717(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(d), as amended
by section 114(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166 (Nov. 21, 1991), provides that
“the same interest to compensate for delay in payment shall be available [to federal employees] as
in cases involving nonpublic parties.”
3 Should Complainant ultimately return to duty, the DEA will likely have to reinstate her and
recompute her retirement and other benefits.

2019005970 & 2020000241	14
By enacting the 1991 amendments, the Congress expressly waived the federal government's
sovereign immunity from interest for delay in the payment of all monetary awards to victims of
employment discrimination in the federal government to the same extent that any non-federal
entity would be subject to. Charles E. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 07 20180006 (July
19, 1918).
Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to any interest that accrued because of the Agency’s delay in
awarding backpay, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees that resulted in a loss of value of
those obligations. Douglas v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01Aa52944 (June 28, 2005)
citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(d) (An interest award is necessary to fully compensate appellant for
the loss of his money). 	See also e.g. 	Kelly A. v Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No.
0120171256 (March 19, 2019) (interest on compensatory damages); Kessen v. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120072334 (April 8, 2008) (interest on back pay); Estate of Vernoff v.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Petition No. 0420050020 (Jan 7, 2008) (interest on attorneys’ fees and
costs).
The Back Pay Act regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 550.806(d), provides that the rate or rates used to
compute the interest on a back pay award under 5 U.S.C.A. § 5596 shall be the annual percentage
rate or rates established by the Secretary of the Treasury as the Overpayment Rate under Internal
Revenue Service Regulation 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a), for the period or periods of time for which
interest is payable. Moreover, 5 C.F.R. § 550.806(e) provides that the interest rate shall be
compounded daily. Yovan v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120083601 (Oct.
20, 2010).
If payments were made within a reasonable time, however, the Commission will not award interest.
Homer B. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161342 (May 24, 2018) citing
Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 0520140042 (Mar. 28, 2014) (substantial
compliance found and therefore no interest awarded); April v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Appeal No.
01963775 (June 5, 1997)(two-year delay in payment of back pay found unreasonable and interest
awarded); Malladi v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01961100 (Dec. 18, 1996)
(seven-month delay in payment of predetermined amount of attorney's fees not unreasonable);
Brown v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01985765 (Dec. 1, 1999) (ten-month delay
unreasonable and interest awarded).
As noted above, the Commission issued its decision on EEOC Request No. 0520170120 on
November 21, 2018. 	According to the terms of the order, the Agency had 90 calendar days to
complete its supplemental investigation on Complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages,
or until February 18, 2019. Thereafter, it had 30 calendar days, or until March 19, 2019 to issue
its decision on compensatory damages. The Agency did not issue that decision until August 12,
2019 resulting in a delay of approximately five months. In light of our precedent, we do not find
this delay unreasonable and consequently, we decline to award interest on Complainant’s
compensatory damages award. As to backpay and attorneys’ fees, however, the order in Request
No. 0520170120 required the Agency to determine and award both within 60 calendar days, giving
the Agency until January 2019 to comply with those portions of the order.

2019005970 & 2020000241	15
But because January 19th fell on a Saturday, compliance should have been completed by Monday
January 21, 2019, the next business day. As of the date of this decision, both obligations remain
unsatisfied, and have been so for more than a year, a clearly unreasonable delay. We will therefore
direct the Agency to compute and award interest on Complainant’s backpay and attorneys’ fees
with the computation period beginning on January 21, 2019.
Other Elements of Relief
We will also order the Agency to provide training for the responsible officials and to post a notice
in accordance with our order in EEOC Request No. 0520170120.
Sanctions
On appeal, Complainant contends that the Commission should impose sanctions on the Agency
for its willful and ongoing delay in compliance with our orders. The Commission has the inherent
power to control and prevent abuse of its orders, processes and procedures. The Commission can
and will impose sanctions for Agency malfeasance. Hashimoto v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev.,
EEOC Petition No. 0420110011 (June 12, 2012) citing Turner v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC
Petition No. 04980037 (Aug. 5, 1999) & Byrd v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Petition No. 04980004
(Dec. 12, 1997). To that end, should the Agency fail to comply with the actions mandated by the
Order set forth below, the Commission may issue a “Show Cause” notice to the Agency to appear
in person before the Commission to explain the Agency's continued failure to comply is authorized.
29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(e). Continued failure to comply also may result in this case being certified
to the Office of Special Counsel for enforcement action. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(f).
CONCLUSION
Based upon a thorough review of the evidentiary record and Complainant’s contentions on appeal,
and for the foregoing reasons, the Commission GRANTS Complainant’s Petition for Enforcement
and MODIFIES the Agency’s final decision on the issue of compensatory damages. The Agency
is directed to comply with our order below.
ORDER
To the extent that it has not already done so, the Agency is ordered to take the following remedial
action:
1. 	Within 60 calendar days of the date this decision is issued, the Agency's Bureau of Medical
Services shall conduct the required individualized assessment of Complainant's medical
condition and her ability to return to the Administrative Officer position at the Embassy in
Kabul without posing a significant risk of substantial harm to herself or others. Within 30
days of that assessment, the Agency shall inform the appropriate officials at Complainant's
employer, the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, of Complainant's
eligibility to return to the Administrative Officer position at the Embassy in Kabul or an
assignment in Kabul substantially similar to the one she lost. If Complainant subsequently

2019005970 & 2020000241	16
rejects the Department of Justice's offer of the assignment, the Agency shall use the date
of rejection for purposes of back pay calculations as noted below. If Complainant accepts
the assignment, the Agency shall use the date Complainant assumes the assignment for
purposes of back pay. But if the overseas assignment is no longer feasible for any of the
reasons discussed in the text of the decision, the Agency shall award front pay in lieu of
reinstatement. The Agency shall calculate the amount of front pay for a period of two years
from the date this decision is issued, and shall include calculations of the amount of any
foreign salary elements that she had lost because she had not been physically present in
Afghanistan, including but not limited to separate maintenance allowance, post differential,
danger pay, overtime pay, and any other salary adjustments to which she would have been
entitled as an overseas employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration deployed to the
U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. 	Calculations should include extrapolations based
not only Complainant's salary, but also agency contributions to health benefits, life
insurance premiums, the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employee
Retirement System, depending on which system she was under, and the Thrift Savings
Plan. The Agency shall communicate with Complainant's employer, the Department of
Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, and determine the appropriate amount of front pay.
2. 	The Agency shall determine the amount of back pay to which Complainant is entitled as a
result of the denial of her return to her assignment in Kabul. 	The Agency shall
communicate with Complainant's employer, the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Agency, and determine the appropriate amount of back pay, including all of the
components of Complainant’s salary while deployed overseas that were referenced in
paragraph (1) of this order. The award shall also include interest, and other benefits due
Complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501, and shall be made no later than 60 calendar
days after the date this decision is issued. 	Complainant shall cooperate in the Agency's
efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits due and shall provide all relevant
information requested by the Agency. We note that the Agency should consider if there
would have been a difference in locality pay and benefits to Complainant including but not
limited to promotions or other incentives for an assignment in Kabul, Afghanistan. If there
is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay and/or benefits, the Agency shall issue
a check to the Complainant for the undisputed amount within 60 calendar days of the date
the Agency determines the amount it believes to be due. 	Complainant may petition for
enforcement or clarification of the amount in dispute. 	The petition for clarification or
enforcement must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the
statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission's Decision.”
3. 	Within 60 calendar days of the date this decision is issued the Agency shall pay
Complainant nonpecuniary compensatory damages in the amount of $13,000.
4. 	Within 90 calendar days from the date this decision is issued, the Agency is ordered to
provide 8 hours of in-person or interactive training to the officials in the Bureau of Medical
Services who were responsible for the decision to deny Complainant’s medical clearance
to return to Afghanistan. The required training shall cover those officials’ responsibilities
under the Rehabilitation Act including the Agency's obligations to provide reasonable

2019005970 & 2020000241	17
accommodation. 	If those officials are no longer employed, the Agency shall provide
documentation of their departure dates.
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). Further,
the report must include supporting documentation of the Agency's calculation of back pay and
other 	benefits 	due 	Complainant, 	including 	evidence 	that 	the 	corrective 	action 	has 	been
implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0617)
The Agency is ordered to post within its Bureau of Medical Services copies of the attached notice.
Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency's duly authorized representative, shall be
posted both in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the
date this decision was issued, and shall remain posted for 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 as directed in
the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within 10 calendar days
of the expiration of the posting period. The report must be in digital format and must be submitted
via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1016)
Since 	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 Agency shall immediately award Complainant $56,366.01, representing the
fees and costs incurred up until December 14, 2018, plus interest that accrued from that date to
the date that this decision is issued. As to fees and costs that have accrued since December 14,
2018, the attorney shall submit a verified statement of those fees and costs 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 (K0719)
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).

2019005970 & 2020000241	18
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.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the orders set forth in
this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the referral of this matter to the Office of
Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.
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.

2019005970 & 2020000241	19
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 (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 (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
September 2, 2020
Date