Tod P., Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Appeal No. 0720120013 Hearing No. 480-2009-00336X Agency No. 08-66001-02230 DECISION Following its December 8, 2011 final order, the Agency filed an appeal which the Commission accepts pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). On appeal, the Agency requests that the Commission affirm its final order which partially implemented the corrective action ordered by the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an Electrical Engineer at the Agency's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing and according to the record the AJ held a hearing on June 29-30, 2010 and July 1-2, 2010.1 The AJ framed Complainant's claims in the following fashion: Was Complainant subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or hostile work environment on the bases of disability 2 and/or reprisal for prior protected activity concerning the following three incidents: 1) From April 2007-April 2008, Complainant was denied use of/access to/a key to and discouraged from working in the Public Works Center Model Shop; 2) In May 2008, Complainant received a written counseling as part of a mid-year review in which he was formally counseled to cease spending personal monies to improve his capabilities to work at the Agency. The position was confirmed by email received by him on July 18, 2008, which also informed him that he is an employee who normally charges the Division overhead account; and 3) From November 8, 2007-June 2008, Complainant was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability when the Agency failed to provide a space appropriate for him to rest during the day, as required by and requested for his disorder. The AJ found that Complainant was subjected to disability and reprisal based discrimination and harassment. The AJ ordered the Agency to take the following actions: 1) The Agency shall [reimburse] Complainant for any annual leave, sick leave, leave without pay that he used to seek medical treatment as a result of the unlawful discrimination and harassment. Complainant shall cooperate with the Agency to provide any information or documents it reasonably needs in order to determine these amounts. 2) The Agency shall restore any other equitable remedy to which Complainant would otherwise be entitled had he not been subjected to unlawful discrimination and harassment. 3) The Agency shall ensure the relevant management officials [three named individuals] who participated in the unlawful discrimination and retaliation referenced herein do not do so again by training and/or disciplinary action. Such training shall include, but is not limited to, EEO awareness training, especially focusing on the Rehabilitation Act with particular emphasis on disability and reprisal issues. To the extent that the Agency still has functional control over these employees, especially [two named Agency officials] who were the primary discriminators/harassers, the Agency shall require these employees to attend a minimum of 40 hours of EEO awareness training annually for the next three years. 4) Prominently post a notice of the finding of discrimination.3 5) The Agency shall compensate Complainant for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $145,000. 6) The Agency shall compensate Complainant for pecuniary damages in the amount of $1,476.80. 7) The Agency shall award Complainant reasonably attorney's fees in the amount of $156,157.50. 8) The Agency shall award Complainant costs in the amount of $12,731.55. In a final order dated December 8, 2011, the Agency asserted that it would implement the AJ's finding of discrimination and partially implement the AJ's corrective action. Specifically, the Agency said it would reimburse Complainant for leave used to seek medical treatment as a result of the unlawful discrimination, restore any other equitable remedy, award Complainant $1,476.80 for out of pocket medical costs, adhere to the positing requirement, and award $156,157.50 for attorney's fees and $12,731.55 in costs. However, in its final order, the Agency stated that it would not implement the following remedies: award non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $145,000.00 and provide the training ordered by the AJ. The Agency asserts that the Commission should reduce the non-pecuniary damages because it is excessive. The Agency further asserts that the training ordered by the AJ in the instant matter is "punitive not remedial." The Agency also stated that it would not implement the sanctions against the Agency set forth on page 8 of the AJ's decision. Specifically, the Agency stated that it would not award Complainant: a) 9.85 hours of attorney's fees at the prevailing market rate for depositions, telephone calls, delays in the hearing; b) $140 for cancellations costs associated with court reporter appearance for deposition of the Agency's counsel; c) $100.00 cancellation fee associated with cancelling airline flight to San Diego because of delay in hearing date; and d) Unspecified costs associated with telephonic conference calls concerning this issue. The instant appeal followed. In response to the Agency's appeal, Complainant's attorney asserts that the AJ's award of sanctions is now moot because the AJ found discrimination in the instant matter and the Agency implemented the AJ's award of attorney's fees and costs. Specifically, Complainant's attorney asserts: [t]he AJ ordered that the Agency would be required to pay attorney's fees and some additional costs as a result of the sanctions. However, he did not finalize any specific amount or require that they actually make payment until his final decision. At that point, those attorney fees and additional costs were simply incorporated into this award of attorney's fees and costs generally...The Agency accepted the attorney's fees and costs part of the AJ's decision and has already paid those fees and costs. Thus, the issue of the correctness of the AJ's sanction Order is moot. Complainant requested we implement the AJ's decision pertaining to non-pecuniary damages and training for certain Agency personnel. Complainant subsequently filed an appeal with the Commission, alleging that the Agency was not in compliance with some of the actions that it said it would implement in its final order. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As an initial matter, we find that the Agency's appeal is timely. Complainant asserts that the Agency's appeal is untimely filed. However, we disagree. The record reflects that the Agency received the AJ's decision on November 10, 2011. The record contains a declaration under penalty of perjury from an Agency EEO assistant. Therein, the EEO assistant asserts that the AJ's decision was received on November 10, 2011. The record also contains a copy of the AJ's decision with a date-stamp reflecting that it was received by the Agency on November 10, 2011. 29 C.F.R. 1614.110(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: "the agency shall take final action on the complaint by issuing a final order within 40 days of receipt of the hearing file and the administrative Judge's decision...If the final order does not fully implement the decision of the administrative judge, then the agency shall simultaneously filed an appeal..." The record reflects that the Agency issued it final order and filed its appeal on December 8, 2011, within the applicable timeframe. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. Order to Show Cause The record reflects the following chronology of events. By letter dated March 14, 2012, the Commission's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) acknowledged receipt of the Agency's appeal. The March 14, 2012 acknowledgement letter informed the Agency that it must submit the case file within 30 days of receipt of the acknowledgement letter and that failure to do so could result in sanctions being imposed. The acknowledgment letter also contained an "Agency Checklist" reminding the Agency to submit the complete case file (including, but not limited to, the hearing transcript, hearing exhibits, and all documents submitted by the parties to the AJ). On September 10, 2013, OFO issued an Order to Show Cause informing the Agency that OFO still had not received the complete case file. The Agency timely responded to the Show Cause Order and submitted the requested documents. Sanctions Ordered by the AJ In an Order dated June 9, 2010, the AJ granted in part Complainant's request for sanctions. Specifically, the AJ stated: [A named Agency attorney, (AA1)] argued that no sanctions should be imposed for her failure to notify the [AJ] of her role in the disciplinary action at issue, citing California Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200(E). She argued that Rule 5-200(E) precluded her from asserting personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness. [AA1] did not explain why she did not weigh this requirement against that contained in Rule 5-200(B) which precluded a member of the bar from misleading the [AJ]. Clearly, [AA1] and her co-counsel did not choose to balance these provisions and seek to notify that [AJ] of the potential conflicts between these two provisions as applied to the specific facts...As a result, the [AJ] was misled by counsel and time was wasted, needless costs were incurred by Complainant, and the hearing date had to be extended ...all because of [AA1's]...violation of the rules. We concur with Complainant that the Agency's request on appeal not to implement the AJ's award of sanctions is now moot. The AJ, in his decision, states "[b]ecause a ruling on fees and costs was delayed until the hearing was held and a final decision was rendered, and the final fee petition incorporated said fees and costs, the attorney's fees and costs associated with the Sanctions award are incorporated in the final award." AJ Decision at 100. In addition, the AJ, in his decision, pertaining to costs states "Complainant seeks reimbursement for postage, depositions, telephone costs,...costs associated with the award under the Sanctions Decision...in the final fee petition..." (emphasis added) AJ Decision at 102. The AJ awarded $12,731.55 in costs finding that Complainant's request for costs were "fully recoverable." AJ Decision at 102. The Agency in its final order provided that it would implement the AJ's award of attorney's fees and costs. Agency's Final Order at 2. Finally, Complainant asserts that the Agency has already paid these attorney's fees and costs. Based on the foregoing, we find that this matter is now moot and we decline to address it further herein. Complainant's Allegations of Non-Compliance Complainant alleges that the Agency is not in compliance with some of the remedies that the Agency stated it would implement in its final action.4 Specifically, Complainant asserts that the Agency should make the following payments: $1750 which Complainant paid from his own funds to his physician for appearing at the deposition and at the hearing, $585 which Complainant paid from his own funds in travel and postage costs related to this litigation, $6164.47 which Complainant paid as interest on a loan he took to cover his attorney's fees. Complainant asserts that the Agency should pay these items as part of the AJ's Order to restore any other equitable remedy to which Complainant would otherwise be entitled had he not been subjected to unlawful discrimination and harassment. The Agency asserts that Complainant is not entitled to payment of these items. Specifically, the Agency in an email to Complainant's attorney dated February 23, 2012, asserts "[b]ecause [Complainant] had the opportunity to request payment for those costs and pecuniary compensatory damages from the administrative judge and did not do [so], the [AJ] did not include those amounts in the award of those remedies and the Agency is not required to pay them." We agree with the Agency that Complainant is not entitled to these expenses under the AJ's equitable remedy provision. First, we note that the AJ specifically addressed Complainant's award of pecuniary compensatory damages in his decision. AJ Decision at 94, 103-104. If Complainant disagreed with the AJ's award regarding pecuniary compensatory damages, he should have filed an appeal. Complainant acknowledges in his brief to the Commission pertaining to the non-compliance claim that "testimony regarding pecuniary damages was presented at the hearing." Complainant's Brief at 7. While Complainant asserts with respect to the interest on the loan that the interest payments were not complete at the time of the hearing, the Agency in its April 13, 2012 email to Complainant's attorney properly stated that had Complainant presented this at the hearing, the AJ "could have crafted an order requiring the Agency to pay damages for the interest already paid and that which remained to be paid. Because neither party has appealed the award of pecuniary compensatory damages, that amount is final..." Non-pecuniary Damages 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. 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). Non-pecuniary compensatory damages are designed to remedy the harm caused by the discriminatory event rather than punish the Agency for the discriminatory action. 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 Service, 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 her emotional pain or suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character or reputation, injury to credit standing, loss of health, and any other non-pecuniary losses that are incurred as a result of the discriminatory conduct. Id. Statements from others, including family members, friends, and health care providers could address the outward manifestations of the impact of the discrimination on the complainant. Id. Additionally, the Commission applies the principle that "a tortfeasor takes its victims as it finds them." See Wallis v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (Nov. 13, 1995) (quoting Williamson v. Handy Button Machine Co., 817 F.2d 1290, 1295 (7th Cir. 1987)). However, the Commission also applies two exceptions to this general rule. First, when a complainant has a pre-existing condition, the Agency is liable only for the additional harm or aggravation caused by the discrimination. Second, if the complainant's preexisting condition inevitably would have worsened, the Agency is entitled to a reduction in damages reflecting the extent to which the condition would have worsened even absent the discrimination; the burden of proof is on the Agency to establish the extent of this entitlement. Wallis, EEOC Appeal No. 01950510 (citing Maurer v. United States, 668 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1981)). The AJ awarded Complainant $145,000 in non-pecuniary damages.5 The Agency asserts that this amount is monstrously excessive. However, we find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the AJ's award. In a detailed analysis, the AJ set forth her reason for the award. Specifically, the AJ stated: Complainant's evidence of injury and causation consisted of testimony from Complainant and Complainant's treating psychiatrist. Complainant credibly testified that before the Agency actively engaged in harassing behavior towards him, he dealt with the Bipolar Affective Disorder by seeking psychiatric treatment and working around his disability so that he could perform his job. However, after...the Agency delayed giving him the necessary reasonable accommodations, his mental state worsened. He testified that his depression escalated, he felt despair, he felt lost, no support, no friends, no one talking to him, isolated, and shunned in hallways....This caused him mental anguish causing his stress levels to rise...Complainant testified that he lost focus and could no longer feel productive because he was not allowed access to [the model shop] on the timetable that worked within his disability limitations...This caused him much mental anguish causing his stress levels to rise. [Complainant's psychiatrist] testified that these conditions affected Complainant's chemical balance causing him to become imbalanced... As a result, Complainant went out on stress leave in June 2008, returned for one day on July 2008, and then he retired effective September 30, 2008. He testified that he 'started to recover' from the emotional trauma caused by the Agency's actions after he retired, but still cannot perform certain activities that he performed before the harassment started at his workplace..." AJ Decision at 87-89 (citations omitted). We further concur with Complainant's attorney and the AJ that the Agency did not make a good faith effort to accommodate Complainant with respect to providing a co-located resting space. Specifically, the AJ found the Agency failed to provide or discuss with Complainant a temporary accommodation while the plans and construction of the co-located office were worked out. AJ Decision at 71. We note that the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation is an ongoing one. Certain individuals require only one reasonable accommodation, while others may need more than one. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship, No. 915.002 at Question 32 (as revised Oct. 17, 2002). We find that the amount awarded is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is consistent with Commission precedent. See Franklin v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 07A00025 (Jan. 19, 2001) ($150,000 in non-pecuniary damages where Agency failed to provide the complainant with a reasonable accommodation and testimony from the complainant and his wife reflected that he was withdrawn, depressed, embarrassed, and lost self esteem). Training Ordered by AJ The Agency asserts that the AJ failed to provide sufficient justification with respect to her order on training and that this amount was punitive and not remedial. The AJ's order equated to 120 hours of EEO training (40 hours annually for three years) for the responsible management officials. While the AJ's analysis was very thorough overall, the AJ's decision does not provide a rationale for the substantial amount of training that she ordered. We find that 120 hours is excessive in this matter and not consistent with what the Commission has ordered in similar cases. See Barnett v. U. S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720060019 (May 14, 2008) (Agency ordered to provide at least 24 hours of training after finding of denial of a reasonable accommodation and subjecting Complainant to unlawful retaliation). Based on the foregoing, we find it appropriate to reduce the amount of training to 24 hours. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, we MODIFY the Agency's final order and REMAND this matter to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER To the extent, that it has not already done so, the Agency shall take the following actions within sixty (60) days from the date this decision becomes final: 1) The Agency shall ensure that the relevant management officials [three named Agency officials] who participated in the unlawful discrimination and retaliation referenced herein do not do so again by training and/or disciplinary action. Such training shall include, but is not limited to, EEO awareness training, especially focusing on the Rehabilitation Act with particular emphasis on disability and reprisal issues. The Agency must conduct 24 hours of training for the management officials that were found to have discriminated against Complainant. 2) Within thirty calendar days from the date this decision becomes final, the Agency shall compensate Complainant for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $145,000.00. 3) The Agency shall pay Complainant reasonable attorney's fees with respect to its opposition of the Agency's appeal in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Attorney's Fees."6 4) The Agency must submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation, including evidence that the Agency has implemented the corrective action. 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. 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 March 12, 2014 __________________ Date 1 The AJ, in his September 30, 2011 decision (AJ Decision at 1), and the Agency's December 8, 2011 final order provided that the hearing occurred in 2011; however, a review of the record including the hearing transcript reflects that the hearing occurred in 2010. 2 This case arose before January 1, 2009, the effective date of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, which made a number of significant changes to the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. Because this matter occurred in 2007-2008, the Commission will use the analytical framework as it existed before the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, to determine whether Complainant is an individual with a disability. 3 We note that the posting requirement has not been appealed by the Agency and Complainant does not assert that the Agency failed to implement this remedy; thus, we decline to further address the posting requirement herein. 4 While the Agency asserts that Complainant's non-compliance claim to the Commission is premature because the Agency has appealed some of the remedies, we disagree. Complainant's non-compliance claim involves only remedies which the Agency said it would implement in its final order and which the Agency is not appealing. The record reflects that Complainant initially filed his non-compliance claim with the Agency EEO Director in April 26, 2012. Subsequently, he appealed this matter to OFO on June 18, 2012. Based on the foregoing, we find that this matter is properly before us. 29 C.F.R. 1614.504(b). 5 The record reflects that the AJ initially found that Complainant was entitled to $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages but reduced this amount to $145,000 due to preexisting injuries, stress associated with his spouse's medical condition and seven months of suffering associated from May 2007 through November 8, 2007, due to remedial limitations of a November 8, 2007 settlement agreement. AJ Decision at 93. 6 We note, however, that Complainant is not entitled to Attorney's Fees for its non-compliance claim, because Complainant was not successful on this matter. Complainant is also not entitled to attorney's fees for its opposition to the Agency's appeal pertaining to the issue of the AJ's Order on training; since, we modified the AJ's decision pertaining to training. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0720120013 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 2 0720120013