Complainant, v. Thomas Perez, Secretary, Department of Labor, Agency. Request No. 0520120381 Appeal No. 0120112413 Agency No. 10-03-099 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. Department of Labor, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112413 (April 12, 2012). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). The previous decision concluded that the Agency had properly found that the Agency did not discriminate against Complainant based on her race, sex, or age when it did not select her for two positions. After reconsidering the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that Complainant's request meets the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and it is the decision of the Commission to grant the request in part. ISSUE PRESENTED The issue presented is whether the previous decision should be reversed because: (1) the facts of the case were erroneously interpreted based on incomplete selection records; and (2) evidence, not considered, established pretext. BACKGROUND During the period in question, Complainant worked as a contract Administrative Assistant in the Agency's National Mine Health and Safety Academy (NMHSA) in Beaver, West Virginia. Since January 2010 and at the time of the complaint, she worked as a federal contractor in the capacity of a Warehouse Specialist in the NMSHA/Distribution Warehouse, also in Beaver, West Virginia. Complainant filed a discrimination complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and age (48) when she was not selected for the position of Secretary advertised under Vacancy Announcements, No. DE-10-MSHA-010 (VA-010) and No. DE-l0-MSHA-011 (VA-011), despite her being placed in "Category A." Placement in Category A meant that Complainant's certification scores fell between 90 and 100. In affirming the Agency's finding of no discrimination, the Commission's prior decision found that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on her sex because both selectees were females. It also found that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on her race and her age because the two selectees were outside of Complainant's protected groups.1 It concluded, however, that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. In so concluding, the decision found that although Complainant, Selectee-1, and Selectee-2 were among the best qualified, Selectee-1 had more experience and knowledge of the Department's functions and that Selectee-2 was selected based on her status as a "preference eligible" veteran. ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION Complainant asserts that the previous decision involves erroneous interpretations of material facts because they are based on an incomplete investigative record; and that the Commission failed to consider evidence that established Complainant's case. Complainant also contends that the Commission's determination that Selectee-1 was equally or more qualified is clearly erroneous. In this regard, Complainant maintains that the Commission failed to consider evidence that Selectee-1 was not legitimately on the GS-6 or GS-7 Certificates of Eligibles and failed to consider statements made by employees and by Selectee-1 that she had not made the certification lists. Complainant re-argues that the reason for not selecting her was pretextual and contradicted by the evidence. Complainant re-asserts that there were material deficiencies in the investigation. She re-argues that Selectee-1 had openly admitted to colleagues that she had not made the Certificate of Eligibles; that it was management who had placed her name on the list; and that Selectee-1 was not asked to submit an affidavit. Complainant contends that the Human Resources Specialist (HRS) was not asked during the investigation how Selectee-1 had made the GS-6 and GS-7 certification lists. She asserts that Selectee-1 fraudulently stated on her application that she had Electronic Travel Solutions (E-2) experience and that the Agency failed to verify that Selectee-1 had such experience. Complainant asserts that the selecting official knew that Selectee-1 did not have E-2 experience and was aware of her fraudulent misrepresentation. Complainant also asserts that the Commission failed to consider key evidence, including the Agency's own personnel documents, its Applicant's Job Tracking History forms (JTF) for both candidates, and witness testimony. This ignored evidence, Complainant asserts, is evidence which proves that her qualifications were superior to the qualifications of the selectees. In response to Complainant's request for reconsideration, the Agency asserts that Complainant's request fails to meet the criteria for a grant of a request to reconsider and that Complainant is re-arguing positions that she had argued previously, which were considered by the Commission. The Agency argues that the evidence supports the findings that the Agency properly placed Selectee-1 on the Certificate of Eligibles; that Complainant's qualifications were not plainly superior; and that the Agency's reasons for its selection were not pretextual. ANALYSIS As an initial matter, the Commission recognizes that a request for reconsideration is not merely a form of a second appeal. Regensberg v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (Sept. 7, 1990). In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. §1614.405(c), as previously identified, is met. In this matter, the Commission finds that Complainant's request meets the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). The Commission lets stand the finding that Complainant failed to prove a prima facie case on the basis of sex. Both selectees were females and Complainant has not provided any evidence to show that the selection process was biased against females. We will not disturb the finding that the Agency's reason for choosing Selectee-2 was based on her veterans' preference eligibility. In this regard, the Vacancy Announcements reveal that preference eligible veterans who met the minimum qualification requirements and who had a service-connected disability of at least 10 percent had to be listed in Category A, the highest quality category. Ex. 2 at 2; Ex. 3 at 4. A selecting official could make selections from Category A provided that no preference eligible veteran in Category A was passed over to select a non-preference eligible in Category A. Selectee-2's application reveals that she had served in the U.S. Air Force and that she had a 10 percent service disability. Accordingly, the decision regarding Selectee-2's veterans' preference eligibility stands. However, regarding the selection of Selectee-1, the prior decision erroneously found that she was properly selected and more qualified for the position. It also erroneously found that Complainant failed to show pretext. Finding That Selectee-1 Was Properly Selected Was Error In concluding that the Agency had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for choosing Selectee-1, the prior decision relied chiefly on the Certificate of Eligibles. A Certificate of Eligibles identifies the candidates qualified for a position vacancy and is provided to selecting officials from which to make a selection. The Manager of the Mining Technology Department, NMHSA (Manager-1) identified himself as the selecting official for both positions. According to him, he made the decision to hire the selectees. He also explained that he and the Manager of the Instructional Services Department, NMHS (Manager-2) were both involved in the selection process. There are two Certificates of Eligibles in the record. They are Certificates of Eligibles for grade level GS-6 for both VA-010 and for VA-011. The Certificates lack the required signature for selecting official. Likewise, date lines are also blank. The HRS provided a Certificate of Eligibles with the name of Selectee-1 included but she did not provide any documents that are signed and dated by a selecting official.2 The signature and date lines for the Personnel Official auditing the Certificate are also blank. Consequently, there is no executed, signed supporting documentation from the Human Resources Office (HR) or from the selecting official documenting the selections and no explanation given for their absence. The evidence conflicts concerning the number of the Certificates of Eligibles. Manager-1 stated that he received three certification lists for three grades. His statement contradicts the statement of Manager-2 who stated that he received only one certification list from HR, at least as it pertained to Selectee-1. Meanwhile, the record contains only two Certificates of Eligibles, one for VA-010 and the other for VA-011. Both certificates are for the GS-6 grade level. In addition, the Certificates of Eligibles provided by the HRS show an issuance date of January 30, 2010, but certificates provided were generated by the HRS on May 6 and May 7, 2010, after the HRS had a meeting with managers, and after selected applicants had been interviewed. The EEO Counselor's Report indicates that Manager-1 completed an interview with the EEO Counselor by May 6, 2010.3 There is no document from HR to support when the Certificates of Eligibles were returned by Manager-1 to HR. These deficiencies and inconsistencies raise concerns regarding the integrity and sufficiency of the record on which the Agency relied in its decision. The integrity of the Certificates of Eligibles is also called into question by the statement of the Supervisory Librarian that the Training Instructor mentioned to her that Selectee-1 had not made the "original cert;" that Selectee-1 was permitted to resubmit her application so that she would be "on the cert;" and that Manager of the Instructional Services Department, NMHSA assisted Selectee-1 in "re-doing" her application in order to "make the cert." The HRS stated that if Selectee-1's name had been added to the certification lists, HR would have a record of the changed or amended certificate. Though no changed or amended certificates are contained in the record, neither the HR nor the HRS has produced any signed and dated Certificates of Eligibility. This reliance on the unauthenticated and questionable Certificates of Eligibles to find that Selectee-1 was properly selected was error in light of the inconsistencies and contradictory or absent explanations. There exists other conflicting evidence concerning the selection process. Both managers stated that they had together interviewed some, but not all, of the candidates referred on the Certificates of Eligibles. Complainant was interviewed by both managers. Manager-1 identified seven candidates that he interviewed. On the other hand, Manager-2 identified 12 candidates that he interviewed. In addition, Manager-1 submitted interview notes for only six candidates. There are no interview notes from Manager-2 in the record. Also, as indicated earlier, Manager-2 who participated in the interview of Selectee-1 was alleged to have assisted Selectee-1 with her resume.4 His affidavit reflects that he and Manager-1 made the decision not to select Complainant. Also casting doubt on the selection process are the Job Tracking History Forms (JTFs) which were generated by the HRS. An individual JTF provides information to an applicant regarding whether the applicant had qualified for the position and at what grade level, whether the applicant was referred to the selecting official, and whether the applicant was selected. The information in the JTFs in the record were all entered by the HRS. Previously, we did not specifically address either the JTFs of Complainant or Selectee-1, having relied on the Certificates of Eligibles which are not signed or dated by a selecting official. The sole JTF for Selectee-1 in the ROI pertains only to her application for GS-5 for VA-010 and informed her that she had been deemed among the best qualified and that her name was being referred to the selecting official.5 Although Selectee-1 was hired at the GS-6 level, the record lacks the JTF for the GS-6. The record contains two JTFs for Complainant for VA-010. One JTF concerns the GS-7 position and informed Complainant that she was among the best qualified for the position and that her name was being referred to the selecting official. The second JTF, for the GS-5 position, informed her that although she was among the best qualified, she was not selected. There is no explanation in the record for the absence of JTFs which should have been generated nor was either the HRS or HR asked to submit any clarifying explanation regarding the forms or to account for the discrepancy. Finding That Complainant Failed to Show Pretext Was Error Irregularities in the selection documents, selection process and absence of documents from the record, as set out before, evidence that the Agency's articulated reason for the selection was pretextual. The Commission notes that inconsistencies in selection give rise to suspicion and are significant enough to warrant a finding that, more likely than not, the selection was based on improper considerations. See Valdivia v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05880856 (Apr. 10, 1989). A complainant can also demonstrate pretext by establishing that her qualifications are plainly superior to the qualifications of a selectee. See Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981); Guyton v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01931099 (Dec. 7, 1993), recon. den. Guyton v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05940320 (Apr. 4, 1996). The prior decision found, based on the statements of the selecting officials, that Selectee-1 was better qualified than Complainant. The Vacancy Announcements for both positions required E-2 experience. Not only did Complainant have E-2 experience but, also, electronic mail shows that Complainant had to assist Selectee-1 with E-2. One of the JTFs for Complainant reflects that she was being considered at the GS-7 level. The only JTF for Selectee-1 shows only the GS-5 level. While years of experience do not make an applicant plainly superior, Complainant's years of work experience when measured against Selectee-1, exhibit qualifications observably superior to those of the selectee. Selectee-1's application reflects work experience beginning in February 2005 to December 2007 as a Registration Clerk. Her next position was that of a General Word Processing Clerk II for the Agency from December 2007. At the time of her application, she had only about four years of work experience according to her resume. Although the Commission is hesitant to substitute its judgment for the personnel decisions of an agency, Complainant's resume reflects a depth, length, and breadth of experience that surpasses that of the selectee and, as such, is evidence of pretext. Complainant had received certification in secretarial skills and business and office procedures as far back as in 1981. Complainant has worked for the Agency as a contract Administrative Assistant from August 2001 through January 2010, when she began as a contract Warehouse Specialist. Complainant explained that she was the only contract Administrative Assistant at the NMHSA and that it was a higher level position than that of the position of a secretary. Complainant had continued administrative, clerical, and computer training. She was an E-2 administrator, one of three, and had conducted training in E-2. Complainant had performed trouble shooting in E-2 for both Manager-1 and Manager-2. Complainant had to assist Selectee-1 with E-2 following her selection. Complainant's resume also reflects her yearly earnings which indicated that her income at the time of her application was in the salary range of the secretary position. The age and income of Selectee-1 were redacted from the record.6 Though Complainant may have not had Student Information System (SIS) database skills, it was not mentioned in the vacancy announcements. In addition, Complainant described the SIS system as a data entry program used to input the test scores and attendance of students so that students would receive credit for classes taken and a record kept. She stated that SIS was similar to the EFS database system which she had used for six years. Complainant has demonstrated through her application and her JTF GS-7 referral that her qualifications were plainly superior to those of Selectee-1. Accordingly, she has established pretext. The Commission also takes note of the workforce profile. In the NMHSA, there were 67 Federal employees. Of these, 61 were White (39 males and 23 females), 3 were Black males, 1 was an interracial female, and 1 was a Black female. It appears that Manager-2's Instructional Services Department was 100 percent White. The Supervisory Librarian stated that there were no African Americans or individuals of other than Caucasian descent working in the Department. A second Black female who made the best qualified list was not selected and there is evidence that Complainant and the Black female were the only two contractors at the MSHA who were categorized as secretaries and who exclusively performed secretarial duties. The Commission notes other evidence of pretext. In an April 10, 2010 electronic mail reply to Complainant's inquiry regarding her application, the HRS informed Complainant that she was not referred for VA-011 due to the eligibility of 10-point veterans' preference. The reply also informed Complainant that although her name was forwarded to the selecting official for consideration for VA-010, there was an eligible 10-point eligible veteran. This explanation is contrary to the evidence which establishes that it was only Selectee-2 who was a veterans' preference selection and she was hired for VA-011. The contradiction in the HRS's explanation concerning Complainant's nonselection, the unexplained absence and inconsistent explanations surrounding selection records, the makeup of the workplace, and Complainant's plainly superior qualifications are cumulatively probative of pretext. The law is well-established that the internal inconsistencies, implausibility, or contradictions in an employer's explanation of the challenged employment decision may be evidence of pretext for discrimination or retaliation. To have concluded that Complainant failed to provide evidence of pretext was clearly erroneous. Complainant established that the Agency's articulated reason for not selecting her were pretextual and based on her race. Having found discrimination based on race, the Commission need not address Complainant's claim of age discrimination, as it would not change the relief ordered.7 CONCLUSION The Commission GRANTS the request in part. The decision of the Commission in Appeal No. 0120112413 and the Agency's final decision are MODIFIED consistent with the decision herein. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on a Request to Reconsider. ORDER The Agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial actions within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days: 1. The Agency shall offer Complainant the position of Secretary, GS-7, retroactive to the date of her nonselection or a substantially equivalent position in the National Mine Safety and Health Academy in Beaver, West Virginia. Complainant shall be given a minimum of fifteen days (15) from receipt of the offer of placement within which to accept or decline the offer. Failure to accept the offer within the time period set by the Agency will be considered a rejection of the offer, unless Complainant can show that circumstances beyond her control prevented a response within the time limit. 2. The Agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest, and other benefits (including Thrift Savings Plan benefits) due Complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501, no later than one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days after the date this decision becomes final. 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. 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 one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days of the date the Agency determines the amount it believes to be due. The Agency shall provide Complainant with a detailed statement establishing exactly and clearly how it calculated back pay and other employment benefits and any interest due Complainant. 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." 3. Take immediate steps to provide a minimum of four hours of EEO training to all responsible management and supervisory officials involved in this case, including the two selecting officials, all Human Resources personnel directly involved in evaluating the applicants for placement on the Certificate of Eligibles and for preparing, issuing, and overseeing the Certificate of Eligibles in the instant complaint. Training shall cover an employee's right to be free from race discrimination and must emphasize the Agency's obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Agency shall address management's responsibilities with respect to eliminating race discrimination in the workplace and supervisory and managerial responsibilities under equal employment opportunity law. 4. The Agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the Agency employees responsible for the discrimination against Complainant. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reasons for its decision not to impose discipline and report such to the Compliance Officer, referenced below. If any of those employees are no longer on the Agency's employ, the Agency shall furnish their date(s) of separation. The Commission does not consider training to be disciplinary action. 5. The Agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation pertaining to Complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages. The Agency shall afford Complainant sixty (60) days to submit additional evidence in support of a claim for compensatory damages. Complainant shall submit objective evidence (pursuant to the guidance given in Carle v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993) in support of her claim. Under section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, compensatory damages may be awarded for pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. 6. The Agency shall post, physically and electronically, at its Mine Safety and Health Academy 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 immediately upon receipt of this Decision, and shall remain posted for one hundred and twenty (120) 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 Agency shall submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the Agency's action that the corrective action has been implemented. POSTING ORDER (G0914) The Agency is ordered to post at its Mine Safety and Health Academy 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 becomes final, 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 at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within 10 calendar days of the expiration of the posting period. ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0610) If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees to the Agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this decision becoming final. The Agency shall then process the claim for attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610) Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409. COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610) This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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. 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. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610) If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action"). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Bernadette B. Wilson Acting Executive Officer Executive Secretariat June 25, 2015 __________________ Date 1 The birthdates of the selectees were redacted from records in the Report of Investigation (ROI) and their exact birthdates were not provided, although there is evidence that Selectee-1 was 32 and Selectee-2 was in her twenties. See Hammersmith v. Social Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 01A05922 (Mar. 6, 2002) (while there is no bright-line test for what constitutes "substantially younger," the term has generally been applied to age differences in excess of five years). 2 The Manager of the Mining Technology Department, NMHSA identified himself as the selecting official in response to an affidavit question about the two advertised vacancies. 3 The HRS stated that in May 2010, she met with the Acting Chief of Staff and Management and Program Analysis Officer (MPAO) concerning Complainant's complaint. The HRS's supervisor at the time of the selection was the Chief of Staffing and Classification, Administration, and Management. 4 The Commission notes that hearsay evidence is not per se devoid of evidentiary value. Barnett v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720060019 (May 14, 2008). Although the discrimination statutes protect against retaliation, it is not unheard of for witnesses to be fearful of coming forward or minimizing previous statements. That the Training Instructor was fearful of reprisal is evidenced by her having specifically requested during the investigation that her statement be kept confidential and that her identity be protected. She explained that several years previously, she was threatened by an Agency Administrator who accused her of having convinced three employees to file discrimination complaints in which they prevailed. The Training Instructor was supervised by Manager-2. 5 The ROI does not contain any JTF forms for Selectee-2. 6 The reason for the redaction in application records is unclear, given that age was raised as a basis. Complainant's earnings were not redacted. 7 Ness v. U.S. Postal Serv. EEOC Appeal No. 01981368 (Nov. 21, 2000)(having found discrimination based on disability, retaliation claim not addressed as the remedies available would not be augmented even with a finding of retaliation); Williams v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01944389 (Apr. 11, 1996)(other bases of discrimination not addressed where disability discrimination found), recon. den. Williams v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05960540 (Apr. 10, 1997). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0520120381 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20507 2 0520120381