U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OFFICE

Of FEDERAL OPERATIONS

P.O. BOX 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

Laura C. Jones Appeal No. 0120064394

Complainant, Hearing No. 100-A5-0382X

Agency No. OA-04-01

V.

President George W. Bush

&

Larrilyn Bertocchio,

Special Assistant to the President

of the United States of America &

Acting Director, Office of Administration,

Executive Office of the President,

Agency

Complainants Reconsideration Appeal from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operation’s Decision dated January 30, 2007, affirming the Final Agency Decision

On January 30, 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Office of Federal Operations (OFO) issued a decision affirming presiding Administrative Judge Richard Schneider’s April 26, 2006, EEOC Decision and Order Entering Judgment granting the Agency’s motion for Summary Judgment. (Tab 1) The OFO decision gives complainant 30 days to file for “Reconsideration” of the OFO decision. The Complainant received the Appeal on February 4, 2007 and now responds.

On June 22, 2006 the Complainant appealed the Agency’s May 23, 2006, Final Agency Decision (FAD). The Agency advised Complainant it “fully intends to implement the AJ’s (4-26-06) decision” and order in which Complaint alleged employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) as amended, 42 U.S.C. & 2000e et seq.

On September 21, 2006, Complainant supplemented her appeal via first class mail to all parties per an extension granted by the Commission. Note - Complainant nor her Representative was not provided a copy of the AJ’s decision from the Agency Counsel in the Agency’s 5-23-06 FAD sent via certified mail - return receipt to the Complainant. (Tab 2)

On February 28, 2007, according to AJ Schneider, he served a copy of his decision to the Complainant’s representative via 1^st Class mail on or about April 26, 2006 and to the Agency representative but, not to the Complainant. (Tab 1) The Complainants representative (a “known” non-attorney by all parties) advised the AJ that he never received the 4-26-06 Decision from either the AJ or the Agency. This explains why the Complainant did not specifically address in her supplement in support of her Appeal to OFO (9-21-06), the AJ’s 4-26-06 Order granting the Agency Summary Judgment on issues (1) - (3) and did not explain “why a hearing ought to have been conducted concerning such specific claims.”

Furthermore and as a matter of fact, on April 6, 2006, AJ Schneider faxed a copy of his Order stating “Determination of Claims Before The Commission” and again he did not send his Order to Complainant in accordance with EEOC Regulations. (Tab 3) In that Decision the AJ states in footnote 2 on page 1 that in [his] same Order dated January 27, 2006 (Determination of Claims Before the Commission) “I noted that Complainant had Failed to appose or respond to the [the Agency’s] motion in any way”

Again the Complainant notes the AJ’s fax to her (non-lawyer) representative comes nearly three months later (April 6, 2006) and well after the date (1-27-06) that he indicates he sent it according to his 4-26-07 Order. Also just as important - the AJ’s (4-6-06) faxed order is without an official signature of authentication. (Tab 3)

Agency Motion To Dismiss:

On February 15, 2007, Complainant received a letter from the Agency (Tab 4) renewing a motion requesting the OFO dismiss Complainants entire Appeal with prejudice as untimely. Supporting it’s motion, the Agency submitted a copy of an envelope with documentation of Complainants support for her appeal with 1^st Class meter postmarked on September 21, 2006 “cancelled” and postmarked on December 5, 2007. The envelope was mailed on time but returned to Complainant’s representative’s post office box damaged and undelivered and, subsequently returned to the Agency who still did not receive it until January 26, 2007. The Complainant made a “good faith” effort to timely serve both the Agency and the OFO by supplementing her Appeal with basically the same supporting documentation (already a part of the EEOC file in accordance with appeal regulations) sent from the Agency to the OFO following the Complainants June 22, 2006 Appeal notification.

The Complainant made an effort to serve both the Agency and OFO although having not received the AJ Decision (4-26-06) as proper service and therefore, unable to attach the same to her initial Appeal in according to EEOC Federal Regulations.

Note - Complainants must also be served Orders by the AJ and Agency when represented by non attorneys.

Furthermore, this is not the first time the Agency has admitted problematic mail delivery issues in Complainant’s matters as indicative of responding to D.C. Unemployment Office (Tab 5) when receiving mail at the White House (EOP) due to extensive mail delivery procedures following 9/11.

The Agency motion concurs with the OFO that Complainant did timely file an Appeal on June 22, 2006, of the Agency’s May 23, 2006 FAD (Tab 4). Therefore, the Commission rightfully made a decision accepting Complainants Appeal as timely.

Analysis of OFO Decision & Reconsideration of Appeal

For the record on February 28, 2007, AJ Schneider faxed the Complainant’s representative (for the first time) a copy of his April 26, 2006 EEOC Decision and Order Entering Judgment granting the Agency’s motion for summary judgment). (Tab 1)

Therefore, and for the purpose of this “reconsideration” the Complainant relies on it’s recollection of the facts and files to coincide with the agency’s file sent to the OFO including any evidence in the file possibly not previously provided to the Complainant.

The instant OFO decision considers three discrimination claims addressed by the AJ. (Tab 6). These claims were originally raised by the Complainant and “found” by the Agency EEO Director to be valid under the EEO regulations and Title VII law establishing that Complainant did formally file a prima facie case of discrimination. The AJ also briefly addresses Complainants December 13, 2005 motion for the AJ to amend the Complainant’s claims with her “Proposed” and “Removal” notifications and other activity subsequent to this Appeal. (Tab 7)

In Tab 1 the AJ states that before him consists of the Report of Investigation (ROI), and the Agency’s unopposed Motion (October 7, 2005) for Summary Judgment. Complainant was awaiting the AJ ruling on the Complainant’s July 9, 2005 action faxed to him requesting that he amend her EEOC Claims before the Commission with her critical Proposed and Removal actions.

The AJ further states, the issue is whether the agency discriminated against the Complainant based on race (Caucasian), color (Caucasian), sex (female), and reprisal for prior activity on April 9, 2004, in the following actions:

a. Placement of a letter of reprimand into her personnel file on June 16, 2004:

b. Her reassignment beginning July 19, 2004, from the West Wing mailroom to the mailroom at 1800 G Street and a change in her work hours from 10:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.

c. Her three-day suspension for insolent behavior on July 15, 2004 toward her supervisors.

According to the instant OFO decision, the AJ’s 4-26-06 decision found that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for all three claims. The OFO decided in favor of the AJ further stating for some reason the Complainant did not address the AJ decision in her appeal showing otherwise. (Tab 6) Again, the Complainant and her representative did not receive his decision until 2-28-07 (Faxed).

Complainant’s Outstanding Work History:

The Complainant began working at the White House, Office of Administration(OA), the Executive Office of the President (EOP) mailroom on April 17, 1995 (Tab 8). Since the beginning of her employment with OA-EOP the Complainant had a stellar career record of achievements which includes; a 1997 letter of recognition and promotion for saving the White House thousands of dollars in mailing fees, the Executive office of the President 1999 Silver Medallion Award, a 2001 Distinguished Service Award, special access to the President and his personal staff in which only five employees from the OA-EOP were allowed such distinguished privilege and top security clearance, a 2002 Special Recognition Award, a 2003 promotion to “Lead” Mail Assistant to the West Wing and on March 22, 2004 an individual cash award. (Tab 9).

Complainant’s Evidence Showing Agency Motives as “Pretext”

The ROI, Depositions and Complainant’s Affidavits indicates that Complainant encountered overt discrimination reprisals after reporting to the OA-EOP EEO Director that an unsecured box on March 24, 2004 entered the White House Mail room en route to President Bush, wife Laura Bush and their immediate staff. Complainant noted the box had not been processed according to stringent security (radiation) procedures due to Ricin precautions. Complainant and co-workers were actively taking Ciproflaxin as a precautionary procedure to Ricin attacks on Capital Hill just two months earlier.

Complainant objected vehemently and was told by her supervisor Rusty Francisco (Asian) that he authorized Barbara Swan (Black) to allow the box to bypass security procedures. Complainant indicates the breech of security was initiated to accommodate White House staffer Mr. Shane Chambers (White) and Special Assistant to Mr. Andrew Card (White) Chief of Staff. Mr. Chambers inquired how he should handle a gift box that he wanted to deliver to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the entire Executive staff. Complainant in extreme fear and concern for the security of the President of the United States immediately approached Mr. Ken Haskins’(Black) Branch Chief and informed him of the matter. Later Complainant learned the package was sent forward without being properly handled according to security procedures.

Complainant states Barbara Swan even though subordinate, pointed a finger in her face and told her to leave the matter alone. Complainant believes Ms. Swan was able to get away with disrespecting her because Complainant was the only White female working in the mailroom. On March 25, 2004 Complainant emailed Mr. Haskins reiterating her concerns and was subsequently told by Mr. Haskins “When I see a red bull you see a red bull” (ROI)

On March 22, 2004 Complainant received a cash award for outstanding work performance. But just 15 days later, from the time Complainant reported the March 24, 2004 incident to the Equal Employment Opportunity director on April 6, 2004 and through July 19, 2004 and beyond, the Complainant experienced a documented career first litany of extreme harassment and hostile working conditions which included; heavy workloads in work assignments, change of work location, change in parking location, loss of computer privileges, loss of high level security clearance, change of work hours, being prevented from returning to the Old Executive Office Building to gather personal belongings, placed under surveillance by United States Secret Service (USSS) Officers who displayed her photograph in “roll call” and around to other USSS officers - treating Complainant like a common criminal. (ROI Complainant’s Affidavit & Deposition)

April 6, 2004, (Tab 11) Complainant contacted Ms Linda Sites (White) EEO Director about her EEO concerns related to racial disrespect due to a security violation in the workplace and being the only White female clerk complaining. Complainant explained that she felt Mr. Ken Hembree (White) Branch Chief would understand her issues but Ms Sites advised Complainant that Mr. Hembree was preparing to retire and may not be able to help her in a predominantly non-White (mailroom) environment if she files a formal EEO complaint. Complainant felt intimidated and was uncertain about proceeding further with her EEO concerns at that time, following Ms Sites remarks.

On April 9, 2004 Complainant broke her toe (non-job related) and requested medical accommodations from Mr. Haskins to park closer to the office until her toe healed. Mr. Haskins denied her request for reasonable accommodations which created an extreme medical hardship upon Complainant. (Tab 10)

On April 15, 2004 Complainant went back to EEO Director Ms. Sites and again discussed filing an EEO complaint with her concerns. Ms. Sites called a hands-on meeting with five employees to discuss Complainants concerns while encouraging the Complainant not to file a formal complaint. Present at the meeting were Ms. Sites, Mr. Haskins, Mr. Francisco, Ms. Benson (Indian) and Complainant. During the discussions Ms Sites actually stated to the participants that Complainant “was dangerous”. According to Complainant’s perception although unsure and needs to be explored further, Ms. Sites was referring to the Complainant’s prior Union “Shop Steward” activity and training while working for the Veterans Administration and prior to working for the OA-EOP. Nevertheless this statement supports “pretext” to all of the adverse actions the Complainant was subject to immediately following her contact with EEO.

Ms Sites advised all participants that Complainant believed her work environment was becoming very hostile and she was experiencing an onslaught of harassment and retaliation after reporting the 3-24-04 security violation incident to EEO because she was the only White person complaining about disrespect. Ms. Sites assigned Ms. Shalini Benson (EEO Counselor) to counsel Complainant who later advised Complainant the right to file a formal complaint.

On May 20, 2004 Complainant informed Ms. Benson that she definitely wanted to file a formal EEO complaint of reprisal activity because Mr. Haskins and others were increasing their harassment of her as never before after she complained to the EEO Director.

June 9, 2004 the Complainant requested a “Desk Audit” via email to Mr. Haskins due to heavy workload and seeking to prove she was being overworked and severely stressed for filing EEO activity and that none of her co-workers were being subject to the same treatment. (Tab 12)

Instant Reconsideration Appeal Issue # 1

(1) Placement of a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) into her personnel on June 16, 2004 ( See tab 21) :

Complainant’s Response:

On June 9, 2004 the Complainant initiated and expressed her willingness to volunteer and work on June 11, (Ronald Regan day of morning) her normal shift. But when Mr. Haskins would not confirm which shift the Complainant would work, the Complainant specifically advised Mr. Haskins she could not work no other shift due to other commitments. Complainant states that Mr. Haskins seemed to be taunting her and refusing to pre-assign her to a specific shift. Complainant then told Mr. Haskins to disregard her volunteer request and that she would not able to work on June 11 because he could not confirm her a time to report. (Tab 13) Complainant believes that Mr. Haskins “set-her-up” so to speak and created an opportunity to officially write-her-up for the first time in reprisal for her filing an official EEO complaint. The AJ correctly noted that according to Complainant , she never used the word “spic,” and that the reference to the “last one around “ in fact, meant that most of her co-workers had already left for the day. Obviously the timing of Mr. Haskins actions less than two months after Complainant met with Mr. Haskins for the first time in an EEO setting where she claimed harassment, depicts clear “pretext” for the agency motive and at minimum, presents major genuine material facts in dispute that can only be explored with an EEOC investigative hearing. EEO regulations allow for anyone who alleges EEO activity to be protected from reprisals.

Instant Appeal Issue #2

(2) Her reassignment beginning July 19, 2004, from the West Wing mailroom to the mailroom at 1800, G Street, and a change in her work hours from 10:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.

Complainant’s Response:

On July 15 , 2004, Mr. Ken Miller (Deputy Director for General Services Division) and Mr. Haskins advised complainant of a dramatic change in hours of operation, parking location and her workplace reassignment. When Complainant inquired why such a drastic and sudden change was being made in her employment setting, Mr. Haskins stated he did not have to tell her why. Obviously this response appears to be punitive in nature. These significant workplace changes included placing even greater hardships upon the Complainant by increasing her commuting time (1-1/2 to 2-1/2 Hrs) to and from work, requiring her to park five blocks further away from her original parking location, office denial of computer privileges and transferring her to a very hostile working location with individuals known from past experience to be disruptive to supervision.

Complainant disagrees totally with the AJ’s assessment that others were reassigned similarly on such short notice (one working day) and that others were treated similarly as Complainant with respect to such changes in work hours (one working day notice) and lost of top level security privileges (blue badge) all on the same day and without any explanation.

Complainant emphatically disagrees with the AJ assertion that she was not able to collect her belongings only because she was not available on a given work day. Complainant believes no other employees would have been prevented from collecting their personal belongings located in the West Wing similar to what happened to the Complainant and upon her return the following Monday July 19, 2004.

Furthermore, and even more crucial evidence to “pretext” depicting the agency motives for disciplining the Complainant is indicative - that no employee faced sudden severe changes in parking while having their ID photograph posted around by the USSS uniform division during morning “roll call”. According Complainant when she returned to work on Monday July 19, 2004 her vehicle was stopped by Uniform USSS and detained until phone calls were made to authorize her on the parking premisses. Complainant states that Mr. Haskins contacted Mr. Mark Frownfelter (White) - Deputy Director for the OA Security) who walked down to the area where the Complainant was being detained and directed the USSS to allow the Complainant to park. He then escorted the Complainant to her new work location at 1800 G street. On Tuesday and Wednesday July 20 & 21 respectively, Complainant’s vehicle was again stopped by the Uniform USSS and delayed until phone calls were made and Complainant was subsequently allowed parking access. (ROI) During this same period of time Complainant was approached by Officer Barry Thomas (July 2004) who stated Complainants picture was presented to USSS Officers during “roll call” to prevent her from entering any secure areas of the White House facilities.

The OA-EOP General Counsel advised the Complainant during the “discovery” period that they requested the USSS deliver the photos posted depicting Complainant but the Agency has since refused to cooperate. This issue was obvious progressive discipline and retaliation creating a very hostile environment proving again genuine material facts in dispute involving managers who knew specifically the Complainant had alleged EEO activity in a USSS venue and reported incident. The Complainant has reported a distinct and closely linked time-line of hostile events for the first time in her career that are directly associated with her EEO meeting with the alleged discriminating officials on April 15, 2004. The Agency’s obvious articulated non-discriminatory reasons are “pretext” to EEO motives for discrimination, reprisal and conducting a hostile environment in the West Wing mailroom that must be explored in an EEOC Hearing.

Instant Appeal Issue #3

(3) Her three day suspension for insolent behavior on July 15, 2004 toward her supervisors,

Again, the AJ sided with the Agency finding that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action; namely, in August 2004, Complainant was suspended following a July 27, 2004 “Notice of Proposed Suspension”.

Factually, the Complainant’s working environment leading up to July 17, 2004 suspension was totally hostile and management had followed through with every threat made to destroy a once promising career, from the time the EEO Director informed management that the Complainant was “dangerous”. A reasonable and prudent mind would have to ask how is it possible that so many adverse personnel actions could take place in a once stellar career (including an award on 3-22-04) in such a short window of time as soon as an employee reports wrongdoing in a “protected” EEO meeting. The road to career purgatory could never be more evident. The Agency states the Complainant acted in such a way to be severely disciplined (three day suspension) when Complainant became only emotionally upset, weeping and crying after having complained of workplace harassment continuously over the past three months. In this incident the Complainant is suddenly called into an office without any warning and literally told her career is being drastically changed without prior evaluations and/or midterm counseling as to the good of the service. Also see Complainant’s response above.

One might understand how an employee such as the Complainant, would literally cry and try to seek answers to questions that management should have provided in a non hostile environment but didn’t. Even in the Complainants letter of apology dated August 5, 2004 (Tab 14) she was literally only crying out for help. The Complainant actually apologize for her own pain and suffering when she did absolutely nothing wrong. Contrary to what was stated in the ROI, Complainant did not shove her badge into to Mr. Haskins face and again, the record of progressive retaliation immediately following her reporting to EEO was obvious pretext to discrimination in this incident and designed to harass the complainant out of her job. No insubordination or refusal to follow any orders ever occurred. She was charged to have done wrong by a manager who was named and involved in a recent and prior EEO meeting with the EEO Director.

The Complainant believes the Suspension materialized not from her behavior in the room on July 15, 2004, but from her actions on the following Saturday (July 17, 2004) when she called Mr. Andrew Card, Chief of Staff. Mr. Card specifically directed her and three other coworkers during a personal lunch outing shortly after 9/11 and that he had an open door policy and expected Complainant to come directly to him if there were ever any issues that were unresolvable. He stated that if he could, he would help them. When Complainant called Mr. Card, Ms. Harriet Miers (White) the deputy chief staff of to Mr. Card answered the phone. Ms. Miers immediately recognized the Complainants voice and inquired of Complainant if she could assist her with any issues. Complainant then proceeded to explain to Ms. Miers specifically her EEO concerns and that she had gone through her chain of command but retaliation was only becoming progressively worst and that no one was talking to her about her career demise and severe changes in her work environment.

Ms. Miers told the Complainant that she would advise Mr. Card and further see what she could do to find out about Complainants EEO situation. Both parties then ended the phone conversation.

In close to an hour later, complainant received a phone call at home from Ms. Susan Shannon director of OA-EOP Human Resources indicating that she had received permission from EEO Director Ms. Linda Sites to call the Complainant at home. Ms. Shannon further told the Complainant that she had “stepped on toes” and that Complainant had “put employees jobs on the line”. Ms. Shannon told the Complainant that not only was she being transferred on Monday, July 19, 2004, but they were taking away her navy blue badge (allows top security West Wing access) and giving Complainant a green badge (lesser access and no where near the White House). Ms Shannon also stated that Mr. Haskins could sue the Complainant for slandered for stating that a box came into the West Wing that was not radiated and properly secured.

The fact alone that Ms. Shannon contacted the Complainant upon a conversation Shannon previously had with EEO Director Ms. Sites and then, discussed with the Complainant her EEO complaint issues connecting the Complainants phone call to Mr. Card to possible wrongdoing by calling it “inappropriate” in the same context and further stating Complainant’s liability (although denied by Shannon) in a personal lawsuit, was preposterous and a direct connection to Complainant’s July 27, 2004 Proposed Suspension for the July 15, 2004 incident as reprisals for prior EEO protected activity. (Shannon Affidavit - ROI Exhibit-17 PG 2, Para 1)

Furthermore on August 12, 2004 USSS Uniformed Officer Dwayne Smith conversed with Complainant about negative rumors in the USSS command about Complainant’s status. Complainant advised Mr. Smith she was being harassed because she reported a breech of security incident to the EEO officer and from that time management has been out to destroy her. Mr. Smith advised the Complainant to report the breech of security incident to Deputy Simpson an investigator for the USSS. On August 16, 2004 Complainant called Deputy Simpson via land-line and discussed the breech of security incident and her concerns for reprisals.

On August 13, 2004 the Complainant received a notice of decision on the proposed suspension in which advised the Complainant that she was being suspended for the July 15 incident.

Again, and obviously the close proximity to Complainant’s reported incidents alleging EEO reprisals and the Agency disciplinary actions in this claim is loaded with genuine material facts in dispute proving, the agency’s motion for Summary Judgment is mere pretext to discrimination and that this claim requires a full scale EEOC investigation and hearing process.

AJ Refusal To Amend Claims Before the Commission,

The Complainant again renews her motion requesting that OFO reverse the AJ’s decision not to amend the Complainant’s claims before him indicating “at best” Complainant had a “mixed case” appeal. The Complainant has well established her effort to serve both the Agency and the AJ via fax transmission in accordance to EEOC Regulations. (Tab 7).

Background:

Complainant received her Proposed Removal (PR) on June 1, 2005 and prior to being assigned an AJ from the EEOC. The Complainant contacted the EEOC call center in Kansas City after Agency refused to accept her claim of reprisal for the Proposed Removal. The EEOC call center assistant advised Complainant to fax Removal papers through the EEOC call center in Kansas who routed it to the EEOC Washington field office. (Tab 7)

On or about June 30, 2005 AJ Schneider sent Complainant his acknowledgment order.

On July 8, 2005 Complainant received her Notice of Agency Decision officially removing her from Federal service.

On July 9, 2005 Complainant contacted AJ Schneider via the information on his Acknowledgment Order and advised the AJ that her Agency EEO director stated she would not process Complainant’s Removal papers as a reprisal claim because Complainant was no longer a member of the OA-EOP nor a Federal employee. AJ Schneider advised the Complainant to fax the Removal papers directly to him on 202-419-0701. (Tab 15 Fax Transmittal Confirming AJ’s Fax Number Received the Complainant’s Fax)

On or about August 8, 2005 the Complainant also faxed a copy of her Removal papers to the Merits Systems Protection Board being uncertain of her appeal rights and per advise of other legal assistance.

Complainant’s current representative later informed the MSPB AJ that Complainant’s case is based on the same “pretext” to race and reprisal discrimination claims currently before the EEOC Commission and is not intended to be an MSPB Appeal of duplicate claims. The MSPB agreed without any objection from the Agency and ordered the case dismissed without prejudice because the EEOC had first right to jurisdiction. (See MSPB Decision to dismiss)

The Complainant comes now through it representative asking the Commission to reconsider its initial decision dated 30 JAN 07 in this matter with the facts and evidence now presented. The Complainant motions the Commission to reverse its initial order that Affirmed the AJ’s decision granting Summary Judgment to the Agency and order the Commission to conduct a full hearing on the Complainant’s three original agency claims and further Order the AJ to accept the Claimants subsequent amended claims thereby, granting the Complainant the right to a full EEOC hearing in all claims before the Commission.

March 3, 2007

Date

Matthew F. Fogg

Matthew Fogg

Complainant’s EEO Representative

PO Box 30956

Washington, D.C. 20030-0956

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes , the Complainant will presume that this decision was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify that this decision was mailed via 1^st Class mail to the following recipients on the date below:

Director, Office of Federal Operations, EEOC

PO Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

Trudy Morrison, Chief, Employment Relations & Training

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

1 Columbus Circle, Rm. 5265

Washington, D.C. 20544

Rachel L. Leonard

Assistant General Counsel

Office of Administration

Executive Office of the President

1800 G. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20503

PHONE: (202) 395-1270

FAX: ( 202) 456-7921

DC Attorney Number : 464055

March 3, 2007

Date

Matthew F. Fogg

Matthew Fogg

Complainant’s EEO Representative

PO Box 30956

Washington, D.C. 20030-0956