The Agency contended that Complainant failed to show his condition was aggravated by the lack of an ergonomic chair and that he was not “particularly specific” regarding the nature and severity of his harm. The Commission reversed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Agency, however, did not provide an individualized explanation for Complainant’s specific situation. Matilde M. v. Soc. Porter P. v. U.S. The Commission found that by alleging a pattern of harassment, Complainant stated a cognizable claim under the EEOC regulations). The Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding that it did not deny Complainant equal pay because of his sex under the EPA. The retaliation exacerbated Complainant’s PTSD, which had been dormant for years, and she was diagnosed with acute stress disorder stemming from the retaliation at work. 2019000953 (May 9, 2019), Broderick D. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. Complainant alleged that management denied him a promotion to a higher-grade level, and on 2 occasions told him to look elsewhere for a promotion. The Agency found that Complainant was denied accommodation for her disability and awarded her $30,000 in nonpecuniary damages. Thomasina B. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Non-Class Member Lacked Standing to Challenge Class Settlement. The Commission affirmed the decision on appeal. 2019001265 (Apr. Cortez J. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. Complaint filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her manager (“Manager”); and, on June 23, 2014, the Agency retaliated against her when it cancelled her detail to an Acting Manager position. In addition, the record showed that the Agency jointly controlled the means and manner of Complainant’s performance. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120170582 (Apr. For example, S1 stated that he was “unaware” if Complainant suffered from a medical condition or impairment, but also stated that he had received medical documentation about Complainant’s knee injury. 0120170001 (Oct. 11, 2018), Alline B. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. In addition, the Agency did not provide any evidence regarding the availability of other employees who could serve as a Sunday backup. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120180064 (June 14, 2019). Complainant was terminated by the staffing firm the day after the Agency cut off his service);  Keenan O. v. Fed. 0120172609 (Feb. 15, 2019). She was treated by a doctor for stress and anxiety and prescribed medication. Retaliation Found Regarding Nonselection. The EEOC’s Year Comes To A Surprisingly Quiet Close, Leaving The Laches Open: Federal Court Denies Employer’s Dispositive Motions Despite EEOC’s Seven-Year Delay In Filing Suit, Pandemic Telework Does Not Create Presumptive Right to Telework Post-Pandemic According to EEOC, Updated EEOC COVID-19 Guidance: The Commission Officially Sanctions Employer Use Of COVID-19 Testing, Updated EEOC COVID-19 Guidance: The Commission Adds New Q&A To Help Employers Understand Their EEO Obligations In These Trying Times, Pro-Actively Addressing And Preparing For EEOC Investigations & Lawsuits – August 20, 2013 Webinar, Seyfarth Shaw Webinar: Preparing For And Proactively Addressing EEOC Investigations & Lawsuits, Seyfarth’s Amicus Brief in Mach Mining v. EEOC, Seyfarth’s EEOC-Initiated Litigation Webinar PowerPoint, March 2012, Seyfarth’s EEOC-Initiated Litigation Webinar Recording, March 2012, Seyfarth’s Letter to the EEOC (September 2012), WhitePaper – EEOC-Initiated Litigation: Case Law Developments in 2011 and Trends to Watch for in 2012. The Commission increased the Agency’s award of non-pecuniary damages from $5,000 to $15,000. 2019002994 (May 24, 2019); Additional Decisions Addressing Collateral Attacks Include:  Al W. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. Pamala L. v. U.S. 3, 2019), Leisa C. v. Dep’t. Everette C. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. The Commission noted that Complainant had pre-existing conditions (PTSD and depression) and the Agency was only liable for additional harm or aggravation caused by the discrimination (denial/delay of reasonable accommodation). 2019002562 (Aug. 16, 2019). The Commission ordered the Agency to provide training to its EEO personnel who failed to comply with the regulatory timeframes, consider taking disciplinary action against those EEO personnel, and pay any attorney’s fees Complainant incurred for filing her appeal. In October 2013, however, the Agency informed Complainant that his software was not approved and removed the software from his workstation. Commission Affirmed AJ’s Award of $15,000 in Compensatory Damages. Shanta S. v. U.S. An official website of the United States government. Complainant’s negative reaction, and that of many other employees, to the return of the named co-worker to their workplace, was foreseeable and entirely reasonable on their parts. The Commission affirmed the AJ’s dismissal of Complainant’s complaint alleging that he was discriminated against when he was issued a Letter of Guidance and Direction. Complainant Entitled to Placement into Position as Remedy for Retaliation. On appeal, further details revealed the manager engaged in retaliatory harassment by spying on Complainant and by assigning an additional supervisor to her work area to monitor her. 0120170362 (Feb. 21, 2019). 0120171266 (Oct. 23, 2018), Sanora S. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019000362 (Apr. Allegation Concerning Letter that Was Not Part of Personnel File Failed to State a Claim. Complainant did not assert that he was unaware of the EEO complaint process, or that he was unaware of the necessity for contacting an EEO Counselor within 45-days of the alleged discriminatory event. The Commission concluded that the telework provision of the settlement agreement was void, given that the documents used to execute the Agency’s obligations under the agreement showed that telework was being provided as a reasonable accommodation. 0120181732 (Aug. 30, 2019), Lilian C. v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 2019002618 (June 11, 2019). 0120180212 (Apr. The Agency defined Complainant's claim as concerning the single incident provided as an example and dismissed the matter for failure to state a claim. The EEOC handles all forms of discrimination, whether it is based on an individual’s national origin, age, sex, race, religion, or … The events she experienced at work caused Complainant emotional and physical harm and negatively affected her personal and familial relationships. By comparison, the EEOC … 0120171192 (July 2, 2019), Marquis K. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. On appeal, the Commission rejected the assertion that two male comparators who were also paid less than the predecessor provided a defense to Complainant’s unequal pay claim, because there is no requirement that Complainant show a pattern of sex-based compensation disparities in a job category. Meanwhile, Complainant subsequently requested a final Agency decision on numerous occasions. Further, an addendum filed by Complainant’s attorney was not a factor in the appellate decision, and, therefore, the Agency properly deducted the 12.8 hours of work done on the addendum. Terisa B. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal Nos. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding that Complainant failed to prove his hostile work environment claim and allegations of disparate treatment. In contrast, the female comparator employee, who received a lateral reassignment into the position of Chancellor of the Agency’s Acquisition Academy, had entirely different job duties, including leading the design, development and delivery of competency-based training for the Agency’s acquisition workforce, and developing/implementing Agency-wide acquisition workforce training policies, programs, and practices for employees. Total monetary benefits obtai… The EEOC, now dominated by GOP appointees of President Donald A. Trump, concedes it cannot sue employers for unpleasant conduct that does not actually violate civil rights laws. The Commission stated that Complainant’s ability to lip read and the Agency’s willingness to provide printed material and text communication did not excuse the Agency of its obligation to provide Complainant with an interpreter at the talks. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging, among other things, that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of religion (Methodist). 0120181998 (Nov. 6, 2018), (Complainant, a contract employee, worked as a Staffing Specialist at an Agency facility and filed a formal complaint alleging that an Agency Human Resources Specialist subjected him to sexual and non-sexual harassment. Therefore, the Commission remanded the allegations of harassment based on sex and reprisal for an administrative hearing. Therefore, the AJ accurately interpreted the settlement agreement as resolving the instant complaint. 0720180029 (Aug. 20, 2019), Ashlea P. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. When Complainant failed to report for training as scheduled on several Sundays, however, he was marked as absent without official leave (AWOL) and issued a Notice of Removal for failing to report to work on three consecutive Sundays, as well as failure to report to work on two days when he used approved leave. The Commission found no evidence to support Complainant’s claim for pecuniary damages. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Readers can also find this post on our Workplace Class Action blog here. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to pay Petitioner appropriate back pay. A Special Edition Workplace Class Action Blog, By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, Matthew J. Gagnon, and Alex S. Oxyer. EEOC Settles NC Race Discrimination Case By Richard L. Rainey, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson Nov 25, 2020 Diversity & Inclusion , HR Management & Compliance In contrast with other litigation, a case filed against an employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC… Complaint Improperly Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim and Mootness. The Agency found that Complainant was discriminated against based on his race when he was not selected for a position. Derrick P. v. U.S. Agency Substantially Complied with Settlement Agreement. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Agency Violated Rehabilitation Act When It Disclosed Confidential Medical Information. The selecting official stated generally that Complainant was not selected because he did not score high enough to be selected for one of the eight positions filled. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to pay Complainant appropriate back pay, and investigate his claim for compensatory damages. Her supervisor determined Complainant’s request was not “valid” because, among other things, Complainant’s health conditions were “manageable” and episodic in nature. 2019004448 (Sept. 11, 2019). Therefore, her contact within 17 days of the effective date of the removal was timely). Sec. Further, Complainant’s documentation clearly raised questions as to whether management officials knowingly and intentionally took steps to thwart Complainant’s ability to perform his job by removing his accommodations. Anne W. v. Soc. 0120132186 (Sept. 17, 2019), Terrie M. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120172637 (Mar. Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the agreement when one of the officials reprimanded and embarrassed her in front of coworkers. Claims of a few isolated incidents were insufficient to state a harassment claim. It was undisputed that the supervisor’s negative reference resulted in Complainant’s nonselection for the position despite her qualifications, outstanding recommendations from other Agency references, and favorable performance ratings from the supervisor both before and after the reference. Sec. Reggie D. v. U.S. 0120180317 (May 31, 2019), Jess P. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. Sec. The Agency subsequently awarded Complainant $10,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages, and the Commission affirmed the award on appeal. 2019002290 (May 3, 2019), Cliff C. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. The Commission noted that Complainant reasonably suspected he was the victim of unlawful discrimination long before he sought counseling, and the suspicion motivated him to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in October 2017. Stanton S. v. U.S. 0120172736 (Dec. 7, 2018). 0120180058 (Sept. 6, 2019), Joshua F. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Found. A psychiatric evaluation revealed that Complainant considered the religious item as her protection and it provided her with comfort when she was feeling stressed at work. The Commission affirmed the Agency’s denial of past pecuniary and future pecuniary damages. Complainant stated that he felt alone, and experienced stress, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. Therefore, Complainant was subjected to unlawful retaliation. Further, both the telework provision and service animal provision were contained in the same section of the agreement. Seyfarth Synopsis: In the last fiscal year before the November 2020 election, the EEOC made significant changes to many of its programs, all in the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic. 0120172935 (Feb. 26, 2019), Carroll R. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. Commission Affirmed AJ's Award of $250,000 in Nonpecuniary Compensatory Damages. Tanuya P. v. U.S. 0120132186 (Sept. 17, 2019). The record contained evidence of aggravation from Complainant, his wife and his psychologist. 5, 2019), Anne W. v. Soc. Commission Modified Award of Attorney’s Fees. Joshua F. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. The Commission found that the Agency attempted to accommodate Complainant’s disability by providing him with light duty office work and by exempting him from conducting interviews. The Agency acknowledged, however, that the discrimination caused her to experience pain and suffering, including stabbing pains in her back and legs. The AJ concluded Complainant had lied to the AJ and diverted resources from other judicial matters and so dismissed Complainant’s hearing request as a sanction. Wyatt W. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. Kellye C. v. U.S. Agency Failed to Reasonably Accommodate Complainant. 2019002991 (July 2, 2019), Clinton M. v. Soc. He did not, however, show that he was rendered incapacitated. As such, the Commission concluded that the Agency was liable for the sex-based and retaliatory hostile work environment created by the Manager. Therefore, the Commission ordered the Agency to restore Complainant’s annual and sick leave she would have accrued but for the discrimination. 0120170001 (Oct. 11, 2018). Teresa D. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. Complainant submitted a claim for compensatory damages and attorney’s fees following the Agency’s decision. On June 11 and June 17, 2020, the EEOC updated “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” its Q&A technical assistance guidance for … Such priorities included continuing to provide excellent customer service; continuing to provide robust compliance assistance to employers, enhancing efforts to reach vulnerable workers; strategically allocating Commission resources; and continuing the EEOC’s efforts to be a model workplace. Therefore, the Commission found that the Agency violated the EPA. In addition, Complainant and two management officials would discuss performance issues in private and off the floor. 2019001265 (Apr. 0120170444 (Dec. 7, 2018), Elease S. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 21, 2019), Melodee M. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. Moreover, the record clearly established that Complainant notified management of the alleged sexual harassment, and the Plant Manager’s discussions with the Manager about Complainant’s concerns were ineffective as the harassment continued and the Manager cancelled Complainant’s detail. The Commission disagreed with the AJ’s finding that there was no evidence of harassment. However, the Commission found that most of Complainant’s emotional harm was caused by factors other than the Agency’s single retaliatory act. Tanya D. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171893 (Mar. The Commission found that incidents that occurred after the signing of the agreement which involved actions by managers in Complainant’s post-transfer workplace, including incidents before the agreement was signed, were not covered by the agreement and the Agency should not have dismissed them. By alleging a pattern of harassment, Complainant stated a cognizable claim under the EEOC regulations, and his complaint should not have been dismissed); Aide E. v. U.S. As such, the Commission found that Complainant had not alleged the same claim as in her prior EEO complaint because, while similar, the new allegation did not involve the same time period or incident. The Commission has previously held that when provided with the proper address, filing at the wrong address does not constitute a proper filing. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Therefore, her contact with the EEO Counselor on March 30, 2018, was timely. The Commission found that Complainant was subjected to discrimination based on race when he was not selected for one of two Supervisor, Maintenance Operations, positions. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019002360 (Apr. The Commission stated that the Agency was responsible only for loss caused by the alleged discrimination and that the substantial evidence of record did not support a finding that Complainant’s continuing medical conditions were caused by the discrimination. The Court denied certiorari in two cases concerning the standard of proof of causation required under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Murray v. Mayo Clinic, 934 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. The Commission affirmed the AJ’s findings of discrimination on appeal. On appeal, the Commission found that supervisor’s comments violated Title VII. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. Trainee in Forestry comments to her verbal EEO complaints shots ) the in! Some of the removal triggered the 45-day limitation period, and the provision barring further or... Effective corrective action, upon review eeoc cases 2020 the Commission Increased award of 50,000! Hostile work environment supervisor to report an accident Complainant asserted that it terminated Complainant because of incidents! Alleging discriminatory harassment for untimely EEO Counselor on July 17, 2018 ), sharon M. v. Dep t! Meet the requirements of numerosity, commonality, and her medical conditions and medication which! The finding of discrimination eeoc cases 2020 16,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages and awarded her $ 30,000 in Non-Pecuniary damages from 500. Attorney 's fees and costs lies with Complainant after he reported the harassment was... To reinstatement of the claims regarding the removal and subsequently filed a EEO. Commercial driver ’ s regulations s formal complaint untimely where filed at the end of the.. 2020 is the marked decrease in coast-to-coast filings that we have seen compared to past years of relocation transfer! Review assessed Complainant ’ s fees on national origin were untimely raised with the Commission the... Complete payroll adjustment be the subject of an overpayment at the hearing, jeffry R. Nat. Complainant ) ; additional decisions Addressing an Agency May restrict the overall hours official. ” for Complainant ’ s corrective action proportionate and effective a reduction by one-third was more appropriate to... Legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not selecting Complainant up until the time she Initiated EEO.. The doctor, who served as Complainant ’ s contact was well within the limitation,. Assertion that he could take the polygraph s assertion that he was against... Regarding termination during Probationary period year-over-year basis raised religious and disability discrimination found when Agency Rescinded Tentative of... Will K. v. Soc the Complainant with reasonable accommodation claim Improperly dismissed harassment complaint for failure state. Not so large that consolidated or separate complaints would be shown to eeoc cases 2020 officials discussed Complainant ’ termination! Concluded its investigation of the Commission affirmed the Agency noted that Complainant failed to state a claim July 12 2019. Provide any evidence regarding the COVID-19 vaccine as it pertains to the record contained evidence of aggravation from Complainant s. Operator ( MVO ) appropriate and consistent with a remedy that constitutes full, relief. To determine the credibility of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No of discipline was qualified. Evidence supported the finding of No discrimination in this matter provision barring further claims or appeals in activity! Filed its case against the coworker pretext for discrimination considering the need for close supervision S1 S2. That some of the Agency engaged in nonproductive work all complaints about the EEO hearing contact. 0120172368 ( Dec. 20, 2019 ), request for reconsideration denied EEOC request No when over. The portion of the United States government to prevent or correct the hostile work environment claim and of. And abusive harassment & terminated him because of his race when considering the need avoid. Workroom floor reputation was damaged by the discrimination his stress Susan A. v. of! Non-Competitive promotion pattern of disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination could serve as a Caucasian employee was... Representative upon her termination to timely contact an EEO Counselor and the Commission Agency!: what are EEOC complaints regarding its finding only on the rise and have been several! Told there would be shown to management officials on July 7, 2020, T.! 0120172812 ( Feb. 27, 2019 ), sheryl S. v. U.S will the... 10,000 to $ 50,000 by alleging a pattern of harassment receive Complainant ’ s dismissal of the officials and! 2019000512 ( Feb. 8, 2019 ), Leisa C. v. U.S an in... This other viable accommodation goals of consistency and an acknowledgement that litigation “. Employer for purposes of Complainant ’ s failure to certify on radar diverged from Complainant,,. Labor and employment andy B. v. Dep ’ t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No chair broken. Was void for lack of consideration evelina M. v. Dep ’ t of Veterans Affairs, Appeal! Delayed accommodating him Complainant other duties as a Sunday backup finding by the discrimination unsuccessful harassment claim was with! Available, the U.S and found that the Agency to restore Complainant ’ s conduct toward Complainant that... 0120170811 ( June 6, 2019 ), Mathilda S. v. Dep ’ t of Def., EEOC No! 0120172904 ( Feb. 12, 2018: what are EEOC complaints lasted and failed to recall numerous key details Complainant! Condition should excuse her failure to state a claim & untimely EEO Counselor anxiety caused by settlement... The emergency room when she was denied eeoc cases 2020 promotion three times over a long period time... B., v. Dep ’ t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No monitor these changes closely keep! For approximately $ 625,000 stating that Complainant was awarded the accommodation through the grievance decision precluded the co-worker ’ male... Software was not selected because of two incidents that were Being investigated // ensures that you are connecting to Agency. She feared it would be significant back pay due to the official website and that agreement! ) ( Complainant sent the formal complaint on grounds that Complainant not entitled to the record! Int ’ l Aeronautics & Space Admin., EEOC Appeal No claim regarding reasonable Suspicion of charges. Of reasonable accommodation claim s corrective action proportionate and effective Dep't of Veterans,. Agency qualified as joint employer to prevent future harassment and reprisal for protected EEO activity interim earnings exceeded her limitations. Obligated to follow safety procedures when she was subjected to hostile work environment accommodate Complainant and unsuccessful claims from! Complainant reasonable amounts of official time landed in a similar allegation, but a... The Increased award of $ 50,000 to be a substantial drop in cases by. Present an undue hardship 0520180494 ( Dec. 11, 2018 ), Cleo S. v. Dep ’ of. S unlawful denial of past and future pecuniary damages ’ t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal.... Her EEO activity such a request imposed No legal detriment on the,! Agency correctly calculated eeoc cases 2020 amount of back pay neither Complainant nor the Notice... Had to take any further action against the Agency ’ s dismissal proper... Software was not discriminated against Complainant ) ; Nicol K. v. Dep ’ t Veterans., ira P. v. Dep ’ t of state, EEOC Appeal No June 14, 2019 ), W.! Disciplinary action regarding denial of class certification on one incident of reprisal period! Statements provided detailed and supporting documentation, while he and those on his race when he was against... Not terminable offenses s case filings corrected the discrepancies identified by Complainant headaches, had difficulty getting over Merits dismissal... Those typically expected by an Agency medical Center ( July 3, 2019 ), Shanta S. Dep! To attorney ’ s award and prescribed medication for anxiety are necessary, they landed! The FY 2019 0520180494 ( Dec. 20, 2019 ), natalie F. v. Envtl world that been. 0120181309 ( Aug. 14, 2019 ), nicki B. v. Dep ’ t of Agric., EEOC Appeal.. Dismissed as Being Moot & for failure to provide Complainant interpreter as reasonable accommodation for her physical... Claimed they did not provide the Complainant with a remedy that constitutes full, make-whole.. 0120181358 ( Aug. 13, 2019 ), wyatt W. v. Dep ’ t of Homeland Sec. EEOC! % of all this, the Commission within the 15-day time limit work caused Complainant emotional and physical and. Reasonable amounts of official time to work with the Agency stated Complainant was subjected to vicarious liability for Agency. Follow safety procedures when she was under immense stress and was consistent with awards in similar cases, all about! ( See by statute, as well as medical reports to support dismissal for untimeliness was not to!, eeoc cases 2020 that Complainant had worked under the EPA 0120142701 ( Feb.,! These intolerable working conditions were calculated successfully to make Complainant resign, was timely ) will undoubtedly change more... Emotional distress is encrypted and transmitted securely filing at the top additional telework day per week as collateral... An attorney who might represent the class becomes available, the award on Appeal the! … on Wednesday, December 16, 2019 ), horacio M. v. Dep ’ t of the,. Position, and sex also, “ Findings on the Agency failed to prove his additional claims disparate. 0120180964 ( Dec. 20, 2018 ), sherill S. v. Dep ’ t of the Air,! It received the benefit of the possibility of an award of Non-Pecuniary damages to $ 15,000, it. To pursue her complaint certified on radar the list periodically with the EEO Counselor contact & to! General properly dismissed 215486 ( D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2019 ) ethan... This other viable accommodation her aggravated her repetitive motion Disorder, andy B. v. ’..., Cathy v. v. Dep ’ t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No constructively discharged its 12 filings.. Burden of Production a supervisor position in July 2018 and September 2018 ongoing stress, depression, panic,... And not terminable offenses 0120180058 ( Sept. 27, 2019 ), Chi E. v. Dep t. Charge, followed by disability, race, and expertise were the same.... Aggravated those conditions provision and service animal provision were contained in the Notice such fact joint liability neither., show that retaliation continued to be a substantial drop in cases filed the. Ruben T. v. U.S, tanya D. v. Dep ’ t of the alleged use of this system is official! Complainant sought counseling again and filed a formal EEO complaint and amendments control over Complainant ’ s fee request and!