Darren M., Complainant, v. Arne Duncan, Secretary, Department of Education, Agency. Appeal No. 0720130002 Hearing No. 570-2010-0029X Agency No. ED-2009-26-00 DECISION Following its October 1, 2012, final order, the Agency filed a timely appeal with this Commission. On appeal, the Agency requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of an EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) finding of discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. The Agency also requests that the Commission affirm its rejection of the relief ordered by the AJ. Specifically, the AJ awarded Complainant $5,000 in compensatory damages. On October 25, 2012, Complainant also filed an appeal regarding the AJ's decision.1 In accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) the Commission accepts the appeals. BACKGROUND In January 2009, the Agency posted Vacancy Announcements for an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Specialist, GS-260-11-12, in the Agency's EEO Services Office. The position was posted under two separate announcements: one announcement was for all U.S. citizens (OM-2009-0024) and the other announcement was open only to current and former federal employees, and those eligible for non-competitive appointments (OM-2009-0028). The announcement for all U.S. citizens required scoring of applications by the Delegated Examining Unit, while the announcement for former federal employees and those eligible for non-competitive appointments did not. Complainant submitted applications under both vacancy announcements. A Human Resources (HR) Specialist prepared several certificates of eligible candidates for the position. For vacancy 0024, Complainant was one of the three highest scoring applicants and was listed on the GS-12 certificate. The three candidates listed were referred to the Complainant Management Supervisor (hereinafter "Supervisor V") in EEO Services, who in turn would make a recommendation to the selecting official (the Director of EEO Services). Supervisor V, however, chose only to interview Selectee L. Under vacancy 0028, Complainant was included on the Schedule A Appointment certificate. Between the two announcements, sixteen individuals were identified on certificates of eligible candidates and six of them were chosen for interviews. Complainant was not granted an interview. Following the interviews, Supervisor V recommended Selectee L for the position. Selectee L was then interviewed by Director and chosen for the position. Believing that his non-selection was discriminatory, Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor. Informal efforts to resolve Complainant's concerns were unsuccessful. On June 4, 2009, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging discrimination on the bases of sex (male), national origin (Nigerian), disability (deaf), and age (born September 1951). The Agency framed the claim as follows: (1) Whether Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation and discriminated against when he was not selected for the EEO Specialist, GS0260-11/12 position for which he applied under vacancy announcements OM-2009-0024 and OM-2009-0028 between February 27, 2009 and March 12, 2009? After the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the matter, of her own volition, added the following second claim in an Order issued on December 8, 2010: (2) Whether the Agency engaged in a pre-job offer disability-related inquiry which violated the Rehabilitation Act during the selection process? In adding the second claim, the AJ reasoned that portions of the Report of Investigation raised questions concerning the Agency's compliance with the Rehabilitation Act's requirements regarding disability-related inquiries during the selection process. A hearing was held on March 23, 2011 and on May 17, 2011. In her September 5, 2012 decision, the AJ found no discrimination with respect to claim (1). However, the AJ found that the Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act regarding claim (2). Regarding claim (1), the AJ noted that the Agency stipulated that Complainant is an individual with a disability, because he is deaf. For the purposes of analysis, the AJ assumed that Complainant was "qualified" to perform the essential functions of the EEO Specialist position, either with or without an accommodation. Because a prima facie case was established, the AJ turned to the Agency's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not selecting Complainant for the vacant position. The Supervisor explained that the Agency was seeking an individual with "hands-on" experience processing federal sector EEO complaints. The Supervisor indicated that because of a backlog of cases at the "informal EEO counseling stage", experience conducting EEO counseling was a priority. According to the Agency, Complainant's resume did not reflect any EEO counseling experience. The Agency found that Complainant's only experience related to federal sector complaint process was working for the Commission's Office of Federal Operations from 1998 to 2000. After that time, while Complainant identified EEO work, he did not work in the federal government or perform federal sector complaint processing duties. The Agency found that, in contrast, Selectee L, had spent the last three years working in the same EEO Specialist 260 job title and series for a federal agency. Further, Selectee L explicitly made reference to her "extensive" experience providing EEO counseling. In an effort to establish pretext, Complainant argued that Selectee L could not have held the position of EEO Specialist. The AJ was not persuaded, noting that Complainant's contention was "sheer speculation." Further, the AJ found that even if Complainant's assertion were true, and that somehow the Agency was ill-informed, the AJ reasoned that its action would not have established a discriminatory motive. Complainant also asserted that he was more qualified than Selectee L based on his advanced degrees and training in EEO counseling. The AJ, however, was not convinced that Complainant's qualifications rendered him demonstrably superior to Selectee L. The AJ found that the Agency reasonably gave more value to the selectee's recent EEO counseling experience, rather than Complainant's degrees and two weeks of classroom training received fifteen years earlier. Finally, Complainant argued that the Agency violated the "Rule of Three" personnel rule, when it interviewed only the selectee, rather than all three of the candidates on the GS-12 certificate. The AJ found that Complainant did not show that the Agency officials knowingly departed from procedural requirements in order to favor or disadvantage an individual due to their protected bases; and that the Rule of Three, which requires that a selection be made from one of the three highest scoring candidates, was not violated in this case. Complainant also alleged that he was denied a reasonable accommodation when the Agency failed to provide him with a telephonic device2 and a non-competitive appointment to the EEO Specialist position through the Schedule A hiring authority. The AJ found, however, no evidence that Complainant ever requested the telephonic device or that it was needed during the selection process. Complainant's candidacy did not proceed beyond the written application stage. Agencies are not legally required to fill positions through Schedule A. With respect to claim (2), the AJ concluded that the Agency's actions violated the Rehabilitation Act. The record reveals that all applicants, including Complainant, were asked the following question: "Do you have a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities AND has been certified by the State Department of Vocational Services rendering you eligible for the Federal Employment Program for Persons with Disabilities?" The AJ found that the question was not only asked of Schedule A applicants, but was asked of all sixteen applicants, some who filed under the competitive announcement. The AJ found insufficient evidence that candidates were advised that their answers were voluntary and confidential. The Agency contended that it should not be held liable because the question was part of the USAJOBs federal employment application website. However, the AJ reasoned that Agency officials knew, or should have known, that the question was being asked of applicants and that the Agency failed to take corrective action. The AJ stated that those Agency officials who reviewed applications had a duty to know what questions and information was being requested from candidates. In light of the violation, the AJ considered available remedies. Because the AJ found that the disability-related inquiry was not the cause of Complainant's non-selection, the AJ declined to place Complainant in the position or award backpay. Similarly, the AJ did not award damages for the emotional harm resulting from the non-selection of from the stress from his continuing job search, as the inquiry was not the reason he was not selected. Nonetheless, the AJ did find that the Agency was liable for emotional injuries stemming from Complainant's belief that he was not selected because of his response to the disability-related question. According to the AJ, Complainant testified that he believed the question was part of the application in order to screen out individuals with disabilities. Although Complainant did not expressly indicate that answering the question distressed him, the AJ found that his reasonable (though erroneous) belief that the inquiry led to his non-selection resulted in pain and suffering that was attributable to the unlawful question. In consideration of the severity and duration of his symptoms, the AJ awarded Complainant $5,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Agency subsequently issued a final order rejecting the AJ's finding that Complainant proved that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged, as well as the instant appeal. Complainant appealed the AJ's finding of no discrimination regarding his non-selection. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Standard of Review 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. An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (November 9, 1999). Claim (1) - Non-selection and Denial of Reasonable Accommodation In analyzing a disparate treatment claim under the Rehabilitation Act, where the agency denies that its decisions were motivated by complainant's disability and there is no direct evidence of discrimination, we apply the burden-shifting method of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent Program, 198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999); Swanks v. WMATA, 179 F.3d 929, 933-34 (D.C.Cir. 1999). Under this analysis, in order to establish a prima facie case, complainant must demonstrate that: (1) he is an "individual with a disability"; (2) he is "qualified" for the position held or desired; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances surrounding the adverse action give rise to an inference of discrimination. Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001). The burden of production then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. In order to satisfy his burden of proof, complainant must then demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's proffered reason is a pretext for disability discrimination. Id. Assuming, for the purposes of analysis only, that Complainant is a "qualified individual with a disability" the Commission finds that he has established a prima facie case. As noted above, the Agency proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not selecting Complainant for the EEO Specialist position: Complainant was not the best qualified. We find that the Agency's reason is supported by the instant record. The Director, selecting official, testified that he considered Selectee L to be the best candidate because she was already in a similar position that required the duties and responsibilities of the vacancy. Contrastingly, Complainant did not have "260 series EEO experience," which the Director explained was an individual who was already working in the federal government, trained in EEO counseling or investigations, and "actively working the job." According to the Director, this factor was especially important in the instant case because the Agency had lost an EEO Counselor. He explained to Supervisor, tasked with screening the candidates, that the "individual that comes on board has to have federal EEO counseling experience." Complainant contends that he scored higher than the other two candidates. While the record indicates that Complainant did receive more points before the mandatory application of preference points, Selectee L and the other candidate on the certificate were veterans. Consequently, they were awarded an additional ten points. We find that the record supports the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons presented by the Agency for not selecting Complainant. Selectee L earned the highest point value, following the mandatory additional of veteran points. Moreover, the record does not indicate that the Agency was required to base its selection on points alone. There was no obligation to simply select the recipient of the highest point total. Both the Supervisor and Director were clear, in light of the absence of an EEO Counselor, that they needed to select an individual with EEO Counseling experience who could perform the duties immediately. Selectee L had that experience, and was currently performing EEO counseling duties. Complainant did not have EEO counseling experience. Complainant points to his employment history with the EEOC, between 1998 and 2000. However, Complainant himself stated that his duties included "filing of documents" and contacting agencies to obtain outstanding documents. The instant record does not establish that Complainant's non-selection was due to his disability. To the extent that Complainant contends he was denied a reasonable accommodation, we concur with the Agency's determination that the Rehabilitation Act was not violated. Under the Commission's regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9. There is no evidence indicating that Complainant requested an accommodation for the application process. Further, as noted by the Agency, Complainant's applications were complete, rated, and considered by the Agency, reflecting that he did not need an accommodation to complete the application process. Complainant's belief, argued on appeal, that he should have been sent to a refresher course "to make [his] experience recent" as an reasonable accommodation is erroneous. The purpose of a reasonable accommodation is not to improve an individual's skills or experience in order to make them a better candidate, but rather to allow an qualified individual perform the essential functions of the position. Claim (2) - Disability-related Inquiry Under the Rehabilitation Act, an employer may ask disability-related questions and require medical examinations of an applicant only after the applicant has been given a conditional job offer and as long as this is done for all entering employees in that job category. Because the restrictions on employers with regard to disability-related inquiries and medical examinations apply to all employees, and not just to those with disabilities, it is not necessary to inquire whether the employee is a person with a disability. Once an employer has obtained basic medical information from an individual, it may ask for more medical information as long as the follow-up examinations or questions are medically related to the previously obtained medical information. See Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the ADA (July 27, 2000); and Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations Under the ADA (Oct. 10, 1995). As noted above, claim (2) was not included in Complainant's complaint, but instead added by the AJ assigned to the case. We agree with the AJ and find that a determination as to whether an unlawful disability-related inquiry was conducted is required by the facts before us. The Commission has previously supported such action. For example, in Grayson v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080044 (January 6, 2009), an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) found a violation of the Rehabilitation Act when the agency ordered the complainant to undergo a fitness for duty examination. The complainant, in Grayson, however, had only alleged discrimination based on race (black), sex (male), age (63) and retaliation pursuant to Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. On appeal, among other things, the agency noted that the complainant had never raised a claim of disability discrimination. The Commission, however, upheld the AJ's finding of discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act because (1) whether an employee is an individual with a disability is irrelevant to the issue of whether the agency properly required him to undergo a medical examination because the Rehabilitation Act's limitations regarding disability-related inquiries and medical examinations apply to all employees; and (2) the complainant's claim did not change and all the facts were sufficiently developed by both parties. We find the AJ in the instant case properly applied similar reasoning in the instant case. Further, the Agency is not prejudiced by our decision because the facts in this matter are not in dispute and have been sufficiently developed. Turning to the merits of claim (2), the Agency acknowledges on appeal that USAJOBS presented applicants with an unlawful disability-related inquiry during the application process. Specifically, the record reflects that Question 22 on the ED HIRES system asked applicants: Do you have a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities and has been certified by the State Department of Vocation Services rending you eligible for the Federal Employment Program for Persons with Disabilities? However, the Agency contends that the AJ erred in concluding that the Agency should have taken corrective action because USAJOBS is operated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and not the Agency. The Agency argues that "federal agencies do not have the discretion to ignore OPM and must abide by OPM's direction." Liability should not be imputed to the Agency, it contends, in light of the fact that the vacancy announcement also stated "all applicants will receive consideration regardless of . . . non-disqualifying physical handicap." The Commission is not persuaded. We find that it must be held responsible for the questions it puts forth to Agency applicants. Further, the harm from Question 22 is not undone by the additional statement cited by the Agency. The Commission has found that an employer's asking of improper pre-employment questions can cause an actual injury to complainant. See Nolan v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01975113 (Nov. 1, 2000), citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575, 582 (1996). Based upon the record before us, we find that the AJ properly determined that complainant is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000. Complainant and his wife asserted that after he learned of the non-selection, he believed it was due in part to the disability-related question. Complainant wept for the first time in decades, suffered from headaches, anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability, and restlessness. A friend attested that Complainant appeared gloomy, less energetic, less confident, and less outgoing. He withdrew from social interactions and was prescribed an anti-depressant. The Agency challenges the AJ reliance upon the affidavits submitted by Complainant's spouse and friend in ascertaining the damages suffered by him. It argues that it was denied the opportunity to assess their credibility and conduct cross-examination. The Commission, however, is not persuaded. In many appeals finding discrimination, the matter is remanded to the Agency for a supplemental investigation regarding compensatory damages. In such instances, as here, affidavits are submitted and witnesses are not subjected to cross-examination. We do not find that AJ's reliance on the affidavits was improper. The AJ's award of $5,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages was appropriate. She properly considered previous awards by the Commission involving similar evidence of injuries. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we hereby AFFIRM the Agency's decision with respect to claim (1), and REVERSE its determination regarding claim (2). Claim (2) is REMANDED to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER Regarding claim (2), within sixty (60) calendar days of this decision becoming final, the Agency is ordered to take the following remedial action: 1. The Agency shall review its pre-employment process and shall revise such pre-employment forms and procedures as necessary to ensure that the inquiries comply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as delineated in the EEOC's implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203, including the restrictions on pre-employment inquiries specified at 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(e). (a) The Agency shall instruct USAJOBs to include the following assurances on any written questionnaire which solicits disability-related information for purposes of affirmative employment for agency job vacancies: [1] the information requested is used solely in connect ion with its affirmative action obligations or efforts; [2] the information is requested on a voluntary basis; [3] the information will be kept confidential in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act; [4] refusal to provide the information will not subject the applicant to any adverse treatment; and [5] the information will be used only in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act. (b) The Agency shall post on its own job application system, EDHIRES, the aforementioned instructions in connection with any applications requesting that candidates self-identify disabilities. 2. The Agency shall provide training to Department of Education officials who are responsible for personnel decisions, specifically those conducting pre-employment inquiries and interviews, and other aspects of the hiring process, concerning their responsibilities with respect to eliminating discrimination in the federal workplace. This training shall include the Human Resources Office. The training must place a special emphasis on the Agency's obligations under the aforementioned law and implementing regulations with respect to such pre-employment inquiries. 3. The Agency shall pay Complainant $5,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Agency is directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement below entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision". POSTING ORDER (G0610) The Agency is ordered to post at its EEO Services office in Washington D.C. 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. 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 August 27, 2014 __________________ Date 1 Complainant's appeal was initially docketed as Appeal No. 0120130385. On April 17, 2013, the Commission notified the parties that Appeal No. 0120130385 would be administratively closed and the matters addressed in Appeal No. 0720130002. 2 The Cap Tel 800I which displays a caller's spoken words as text. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0720130002 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 2 0720130002