0120112882
10-24-2012
Stephanie Moore, Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.
Stephanie Moore,
Complainant,
v.
Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Farm Service Agency),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112882
Agency No. FSA-2010-00666
DECISION
On May 10, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final Agency decision (FAD) dated March 25, 2011, concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.1 The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
ISSUES PRESENTED
Whether Complainant was discriminated against and harassed based on her disability2 (rheumatoid arthritis) when:
1. On various days and continuing, her first line supervisor (S1) subjected her to harassing behavior, including for example:
a. Rejecting a 135 page packet of documentation on her disability that he requested by waving her away and, in a condescending tone, telling her that he did not want it (this occurred on or about February 3, 2010, Report of Investigation (ROI) at 83, 328, 334);
b. Waving emails over her head and yelling at her on June 1, 2010;
c. Asking other employees to listen in on a conference call to discuss leave issues related to her medical condition on or about June 21, 2010;
d. Making "malicious and demeaning" comments about a disease she contracted as a side-effect of treatment for her disability (this occurred around June 2010);
e. Isolating her from her co-workers; and
f. Unnecessarily rummaging through her documents and belongings on her desk;
2. Beginning on February 21, 2008, management required her to submit extensive documentation about her disability whenever she had to take related leave;
3. S1 required her to take leave without pay (LWOP) even though she had other types of leave available to her (this occurred on April 1, 2010, ROI at 88, 563, 833); and
4. S1 subjected her work to heightened scrutiny by asking Complainant's co-workers about her performance, belittling and criticizing her work, demanding work related documentation, and inserting negative comments on her performance appraisal.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint Complainant worked as a Farm Program Specialist at the Agency's Tennessee Farm Service Agency State Office in Nashville, Tennessee. On July 22, 2010, she filed an EEO complaint alleging, in relevant part, the above issues.3 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). In accordance with Complainant's request the Agency issued a FAD pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b).
The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. On incident 1a it found that Complainant's concern was that S1 unnecessarily made her provide medical documentation and Complainant did not suggest nor was there evidence this was based on disability.
The Agency credited Complainant's version of incident 1b, which was that S1 yelled at and intimidated and embarrassed her. It found that together with this incident and claims 1e and 4 that that S1 treated Complainant in a hostile, condescending, and disrespectful manner from the beginning of their work relationship, and isolated and bullied her, crediting statements by Complainant and her co-workers on this. Co-worker 1, a Contracting Officer, stated that within a month after Complainant arrived she noticed a problem between S1 and Complainant, and S1's whole demeanor changed when Complainant entered the room. Co-worker 1 stated that she hated to see Complainant coming because S1 would then be in a bad mood, and he was very belittling and condescending toward her. RO1, Exh. 12. Co-worker 3, a County Operations Reviewer, stated that S1 made it clear how he felt about Complainant in front of her co-workers. Co-worker 3 stated that in 2010 at a meeting to discuss her review of an operation that whenever Complainant made a comment S1 looked at her, rolled his eyes, shook his head and said "No Stephanie" and dismissed what she had to say, and whenever anyone else had something to say S1 listened. Co-worker 3 recalled that at other meetings S1 rolled his eyes at anything Complainant said, and believed this encouraged other employees to react negatively toward her or at least discourage them from interfacing with her. ROI, Exh. 14. Complainant's second line supervisor, S2, stated that whenever Complainant and S came together there was coolness in the air.
Complainant stated S1 isolated her from her co-workers by using intimidation tactics (i.e., excessive questioning, overall nastiness) to prevent them from interacting with her to the point they were afraid to do so. She stated S1 talks to her in a condescending tone and treats her with no respect, and raises his voice at her. In Complainant's performance review S1 wrote that he asked other Program Specialists if Complainant did work for them in their programs and all replied they only asked for assistance in Complainant's program areas. Complainant stated that she often helped Program Specialist's with their programs but they had to sneak around S1 to come to her for help and would never admit to S1 they sought out Complainant's assistance with their programs because they were well aware of how S1 felt about her. The Agency credited Complainant's statement. It found that it was abundantly clear that other Program Specialists were afraid to admit to S1 that they received assistance from Complainant because they were well aware of how S1 felt about her, and this was an example of how S1 effectively isolated Complainant from her co-workers.
S2 stated that there was a personality clash between S1 and Complainant. Co-worker 1 stated that Complainant is very outspoken and that might be why S1 resented her. She stated that in meetings if someone had a question or issue Complainant would speak up and offer an opinion or solution and this would irritate S1, and he would often say she was wrong. Co-worker 1 stated S1 constantly yelled at his staff, treated them and many people poorly, and his treatment of Complainant was worse than he normally treated others.
The Agency found that while S1 subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment she failed to show it was because of her disability.
Regarding incidents 1c and 1d, Complainant got a rash on her feet, legs and palms. She saw her physician who diagnosed her with scabies and prescribed ointment. Complainant discussed her skin irritation with S1, and later on or about June 21, 2010, S1 called her to discuss her medical situation of Rheumatoid Arthritis, chemotherapy and scabies, and leave situation. S1, according to Complainant, had two of her co-workers sit in on the call as witnesses, and told several of her co-workers that she had scabies acquired by living in filth. ROI, at 21.
When Complainant saw her rheumatologist on June 25, 2010, the rheumatologist opined that she did not have scabies and the rash may have been caused by the Remicade (chemotherapy). The rheumatologist recommended that Complainant see a dermatologist, who opined she had psoriasis. According to Complainant this was caused by the chemotherapy.
S1 stated he had no knowledge that he let other employees listen in on the June 21, 2010, call. S1 stated that Complainant discussed her scabies with others in the branch and because people came to him with concerns he discussed the scabies with the Administrative Officer and a nurse, the latter of whom advised scabies are not highly contagious and only spread through direct contact.
Complainant countered that she knew the two co-workers were on the call because both said hi and asked how she was doing. She stated that a few days before seeing her rheumatologist S1 told her in an open area that he researched scabies on the internet, it was highly contagious, and was caused by living in filth. Co-worker 2 stated one of the two co-workers who sat in on the above phone call told her she and the other co-worker did so because S1 wanted witnesses to the conversation, and S1 said in her presence that scabies is highly contagious and is caused by living in filth. Co-worker 4, an Agricultural program Specialist, stated that Complainant told her and other co-workers she had scabies, and several people researched scabies and found they were contagious and made their concerns known. ROI, Exh. 15.
The Agency found that Complainant did not prove that two co-workers sat in on the call. It also found that S1 discussed Complainant's alleged scabies with staff in Complainant's department, and told them he researched scabies and found they were highly contagious and were caused by living in filth. The Agency conceded that S1's discussion of Complainant's potential diagnosis of scabies constituted a "prohibited medical disclosure." In finding no discrimination the Agency determined, in part, that even if co-workers were permitted to listen in on the call, she failed to show how their presence had anything to do with her disability. The Agency also found that S1's telling staff about Complainant's scabies was somewhat mitigated since Complainant already told staff about her medical condition. The Agency found that S1 telling staff he researched scabies and found they were highly contagious and caused by living in filth was demeaning and made to embarrass Complainant, and while the comment was reprehensible, hostile and harassing, it was not made based on Complainant's disability of rheumatoid arthritis.
In finding no discrimination on incident 1f the Agency credited S1's explanation that he took Complainant's timesheet from her desk because she was out and it was needed for timely submission --- which he wrote was Friday. Complainant countered that there was no reason to search for the time sheet on a Thursday since it was not due until Monday. Co-worker 4, who was also supervised by S1 stated that the practice is that when you are going to be off the last Friday of the pay period the timesheets are due on Thursday.
While claim 2 is broadly worded Complainant suggested it actually concerned an email by S1 on January 27, 2010, which was followed up with a letter by S2 on February 23, 2010, asking Complainant for medical documentation to support her request for advanced sick leave. ROI, at 83. S1 asked Complainant to obtain an assessment of her current status and plans for future treatment, diagnosis/prognosis, an explanation of the impact of the medical condition on her job duties, and days she should be off work due to this condition, and S2 sent a follow up letter asking for similar information. Complainant stated that in response to S1 she submitted a 135 page packet of medical documentation. Id. While Complainant contended that S1 dismissively rejected the packet, in an email Complainant sent to the Human Resources Assistant on February 3, 2010, she wrote that S1 said he did not want the medical records but kept one paper where her doctor spelled out the course of treatment. ROI, at 328. In response to S2's request Complainant submitted a one paragraph letter from her doctor which was deemed sufficient. Complainant's request for advanced sick leave was approved. S1 stated that in requesting the documentation to support Complainant's advanced sick leave request he followed identified Agency policy, and the same documentation would have been required of any other employee under similar circumstances. In determining there was no discrimination on claim 2 the Agency found that the evidence did not show Complainant was required to submit extensive documentation regarding her disability when she took leave.
On claim 3 Complainant stated that on April 1, 2010, she was exhausted because she just underwent a chemotherapy treatment, and she called S1 saying she was too tired to come to work and needed to recover from treatments. S1 approved Complainant's absence request for six hours of annual leave, but did not, according to Complainant, allow her to take other leave available to her so she had to take three hours of LWOP. S1 explained that because Complainant's absence was due to a sickness not related to her condition it would have to be annual leave or LWOP, and Complainant only had a balance of six hours of annual leave.
The record reflects that in her requests for absence for medical reasons Complainant often types a comment in the remarks section of the request, e.g., "ankle swollen"; "Sick, went home"; "Home sick"; "Not feeling well"; "Became very ill with RA flare-up"; "Canker sores in mouth from Chemo." In the request for leave for April 1, 2010, which is in the Agency's time and attendance records for 2010, Complainant did not type a comment in the remarks section. ROI, Exh. 17, page 49, located at ROI at 295. Complainant submitted an identical copy of the form to the investigator. ROI, Exh. 29 page 5, located in ROI at 563. However she submitted another version of the same form to the EEO investigator which in the remarks section had the handwritten comment "tired from chemo infusion." The Agency noted the comment but found Complainant failed to show S1's action was based on her disability.
On appeal Complainant disputes some of the factual findings in the FAD. She also appears to raise sex and age discrimination, writing "A protected class is a woman over 40, with a disability."
In opposition to Complainant's appeal the Agency argues Complainant's appeal should be denied on the merits.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter because the Agency has determined Complainant is an individual with a disability, we need not further address whether Complainant is so. It is uncontested that she was qualified to do her job.
Complainant alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and harassment. To establish a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment a complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. �1604.11.
We find that incident 1a was not hostile because it did not occur as Complainant alleged. Complainant's version of events is undermined by her email on February 3, 2010, that S1 kept one paper of the medical records she presented. Moreover, on February 4, 2010, S1 approved Complainant's request for advanced sick leave. ROI, at 327. We add that S1 never asked Complainant for a packet of her medical records. We also find that incident 1f was not harassing in nature and that S1's explanation for taking the time sheet is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., Complainant was not in and the time sheet was due.
On incident 1b, claim 1e and 4 the Agency found that while Complainant satisfied prong 4 above she failed to show S1's actions were based on her disability. For purposes of analysis we will assume Complainant satisfied prong 4. One of the major specific incidents Complainant raised in support of her harassment claim was incident 1b. The record reflects that S1 was upset with Complainant because he asked her to send documentation to the Regional Attorney to get answers to questions but Complainant sent it first to a contact in the county office. Complainant wrote S1 the contact wanted all questions to go to her first, and S1 emailed back that he wanted documentation of this. Complainant then forwarded S1's email to the contact. S1 went to Complainant's desk to ask why she sent the email to the contact when he asked her not to do so, and when he asked her about the status of the case in question Complainant did not know and she did not explain what information she provided the Regional Counsel that the contact thought was incorrect. Witnesses to the exchange stated that S1 was asking Complainant questions and Complainant did not answer and avoided his questions. ROI, at 56, 58, 59, 127-128. The record reflects that S1 complained to Complainant in writing in the past about her failure to follow his work instructions. ROI, at 471-472.
Co-worker 4, who witnessed the exchange, believed S1 was frustrated because when he asked Complainant questions she interrupted him and avoided answering him. Co-worker 1 stated that Complainant is very outspoken and irritated S1, and S2 stated that there was a personality clash between S1 and Complainant. Co-worker 1 stated S1 constantly yelled at his staff and treated them and many people poorly.
We find that Complainant has not shown S1's behavior toward her was because of disability. The record shows that S1 was volatile toward many people. The preponderance of the evidence is that Complainant's personality and manner set him off, not her disability.
On issue 1c the Agency found that Complainant did not prove that two of her co-workers sat in on a telephone call where she discussed her medical conditions with S1. Based on Complainant's statement, which was corroborated by the statement of co-worker 2, we find that S1 had two of Complainant's co-workers listen in on a June 21, 2010, call where Complainant discussed her medical condition, including her belief that she had scabies.
We agree with the Agency's finding that S1 told staff in Complainant's office that in June 2010 she had scabies and his research showed it was highly contagious and caused by living in filth. The Agency conceded there was a prohibited medical disclosure, but found no discrimination. We disagree. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)4 requires employers to treat as confidential medical records all information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of an employee. 42 U.S.C. �� 12112(d)(3)(B), (4)(C); 29 C.F.R. � 1630.14(b)(1). Such information includes any medical information voluntarily disclosed by an employee. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), No. 915.002, General Principles section in Background discussion (July 27, 2000). Improper Agency disclosure of such medical information constitutes a per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Vale v. United States Postal Service., EEOC Request No. 05960585 (Sept. 5, 1997). This is true even if the complainant does not have a disability. Young v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112626 (Oct. 3, 2011).
We find that S1's disclosure of Complainant's medical condition, both by allowing two of her co-workers to listen in on the June 21, 2010, phone call and telling staff Complainant had scabies and his research showed it was highly contagious and caused by living in filth constitutes a per se violation of the Rehabilitation Act. We need not decide whether the disclosures also constituted harassment since they were per se violations under the Rehabilitation Act.
We find no discrimination on claim 3 because of our determination that events did not occur as Complainant alleged. While Complainant may have told S1 she was tired, we find she did not advise him that this was because of her chemotherapy treatment. In the remarks section of the leave request form Complainant frequently commented on the reason she was requesting leave. Based on the evidence we find Complainant left the remark section blank on the leave form she used to request leave for April 1, 2010, and only wrote the comment later on the copy of the form she gave the EEO investigator that she was tired from a chemo infusion. This undermines Complainant's version of events. Given this, and because the record shows that the Agency was liberal in granting Complainant's requests for sick leave, we find S1's statement credible that Complainant was only permitted to use annual leave and LWOP on April 1, 2010, because she was requesting leave for sickness not related to her condition. Without Complainant advising S1 she was tired because of her chemotherapy infusion, S1 would not know this.
On appeal Complainant appears to raise sex and age discrimination. She raises these bases for the first time. While Complainant is free to raise new bases on appeal, the Agency did not investigate these bases, and the record does not show discrimination based on age and sex.
Complainant requested compensatory damages for pain and suffering, embarrassment, and so forth. Compensatory damages may be awarded for past pecuniary losses, future pecuniary losses, and non-pecuniary losses that are directly or proximately caused by the agency's discriminatory conduct. Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at www.eeoc.gov.) Non-pecuniary losses are losses that are not subject to precise quantification including emotional pain and injury to character, professional standing, and reputation. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate for losses or suffering inflicted due to discrimination. Punitive damages are not available against the federal government. Damages for past pecuniary damages will not normally be sought without documentation such as receipts, records, bills, cancelled checks, or confirmation by other individuals of actual losses and expenses. Id.
We have found that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act regarding the disclosure of Complainant's medical information, most significantly by telling staff that Complainant had scabies, it was highly contagious, and was caused by living in filth. Complainant also told her co-workers she had scabies and they researched it and found they were contagious and made their concerns known, presumably to S1. The record suggests that within days of S1's disclosures that Complainant had scabies Complainant learned she did not have them, and she does not contend that people continued to believe she had scabies after this. While S1's disclosures were hurtful given Complainant's own disclosures to co-workers and the short duration above Complainant has not shown she sustained non-pecuniary damages from S1's disclosures. Accordingly, Complainant's request for damages is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, the Agency's FAD is MODIFIED. The Agency's finding of no discrimination is reversed, in part.
ORDER
The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial actions:
Within 120 calendar days after this decision becomes final:
1. require S1 to undergo training on how to identify confidential medical information and the law on confidentiality and disclosure;
2. consider taking disciplinary action against S1. The Agency shall report its decision. 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.
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 supporting documentation verifying that the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0610)
The Agency is ordered to post at its Tennessee Farm Service Agency State Office in Nashville, Tennessee 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.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0610)
This decision affirms the Agency's final decision/action in part, but it also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of your complaint. You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
October 24, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The FAD was sent to Complainant by certified mail. The Agency did not submit documentation of when it was delivered to Complainant's address.
2 Complainant also alleged discrimination based on marital status (widow). This is not a protected basis enforced by the Commission.
3 Complainant also alleged that she was discriminated against when she was denied training in 2008/2009, and S1 delayed promoting her until effective June 7, 2009. Prior to the investigation the Agency dismissed these claims on the grounds that Complainant did not timely initiate EEO counseling on them. It reasoned that Complainant did not initiate EEO counseling until [June 3, 2010], beyond the 45 calendar day time limit. On appeal Complainant does not contest this dismissal. Accordingly, it is not before us.
4 The Rehabilitation Act was amended so that the standards under Title I of the ADA would be applied to employment discrimination cases under the Rehabilitation Act.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120112882
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120112882