U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Hayden R.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services), Agency. Appeal No. 2021002640 Hearing No. 531-2020-00345X Agency No. APHIS-2020-00076 DECISION On April 1, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), per 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from a March 22, 2021 final Agency decision (FAD) on his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) et seq. The Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. BACKGROUND In October 2016, while a veterinary medical student, Complainant joined the Agency’s Saul T. Wilson, Jr. Internship Program. The Agency awarded Complainant a scholarship of up to $15,000 per school year for tuition, books, and laboratory fees, as well as employment within his field of study during summers and other times he was not in school if a work assignment was available.2 In exchange, Complainant agreed that upon graduating, he would accept employment with the Agency for at least one year for each year he participated in the internship program. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2 Complainant stated he also participated in same internship program the year before and received a scholarship of $10,000. 2021002640 2 If he did not work for the Agency, Complainant was required to reimburse the Agency for the scholarship funds he received. Similarly, if he failed to serve the entire mandatory period, Complainant was to pay back the prorated amount owed. On June 10, 2018, Complainant was converted from Student Trainee Veterinarian, GS-09 to Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-12, and was assigned to the Agency’s Veterinary Service, Strategy and Policy, Animal Product Import Export Product, Import Products Team.3 He switched within Animal Product Import Export, in August 2018, to the Export Products Team. On March 16, 2020, Complainant moved within the Veterinary Service, Strategy and Policy to the Aquaculture, Swine, Equine & Poultry Health Center, Poultry Health team. All these positions were located in Riverdale, Maryland (Headquarters). Except for his conversion on June 10, 2018, all of Complainant’s moves were lateral reassignments. On December 13, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination based on his sex (male). The Agency framed the complaint as follows: on October 2, 2019, Complainant learned he was hired as a Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-0701-11/12, while other similarly situated persons, outside of his protected class, were hired as Veterinary Medical Officers GS- 0701-11/12/13/14 for performing substantially similar duties and responsibilities. In essence, Complainant alleged, from June 10, 2019 onward, he did not receive equal pay for equal work. After an EEO investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), but later withdrew his request. In accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency issued its decision finding no discrimination. Complainant has explicitly expressed that his EEO complaint is an EPA claim based on strict liability, not intentional discrimination. He lamented that some of the EEO investigator’s questions implied he alleged intentional discrimination, which he denies doing because he does not want to be perceived as blaming anyone for intentional bias. Therefore, we find Complainant has only presented an EPA claim, where intentional discrimination need not be proven. Until November 2017, Saul T. Wilson, Jr. Internship Program participants who were non- competitively placed in the Headquarters Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Service as full-time Veterinary Medical Officers were hired into GS-11/12/13/14 positions, but those assigned to field units were hired into GS-11/12 positions. To make things equitable, starting in November 2017, all Saul T. Wilson, Jr. Internship Program graduates who were non-competitively appointed were given GS-11/12 positions, regardless of location. Anyone hired into a GS-11/12/13/14 position can move up in grades to the GS-14 level, non- competitively (i.e. career ladder promotions). 3 He was placed into a GS-11/12 position, but immediately given a GS-12 because he also had a Masters’ degree in Public Health. 2021002640 3 Those in GS-11/12 positions must compete to obtain a promotion beyond GS-12 by applying for a higher-graded position and competing against other applicants. At some point, GS-11/12/13/14 positions for all Veterinary Medical Officers in the Veterinary Service were eliminated and replaced with two types of positions: 1) regular or GS-11/12, and 2) senior or GS-13/14.4 Complainant contended that since he received less pay than a female at the GS-14 level, for equal work, under the EPA he was entitled to a promotion to GS-13 on June 10, 2019 (a year after working at the GS-12 level) and a promotion to GS-14 on June 10, 2020 (after working as a GS-13 for one year). In support, Complainant explained there are two types of jobs in the Export Products Team, one running a program for a large group of foreign countries when inspections are required for exports (“package responsibilities”), and the other negotiating regulatory export requirements with other countries (“country responsibilities”). When he first started, Complainant asserted he shared all Export Products Team package responsibilities with a GS-14 female colleague. In January 2019, he added country responsibilities for countries in the Caribbean and Central America. According to Complainant, since at least June 10, 2019, he was the primary for country responsibilities in those regions and later, standing in for a colleague, also became the primary in bilateral meetings with Sri Lanka. Complainant further contended that two Agency Human Resources officials advised him that, in setting the grade of a position description, “grade controlling” duties must be performed more than 25% of the time. All of his duties, argued Complainant, were the same as his GS-14 colleagues. Complainant’s first line supervisor in Import Staff (“S1A”),5 from June 2018 through August 2018,6 attested that Complainant performed work above his grade level only because he was a hard worker, very dependable, and delivered a good product in a timely manner. She added that the Export Products Team was very busy with a heavy workload, and Complainant would have to step in often and assist. In response to whether Complainant was doing equal work for unequal pay, Complainant’s Exports Product Team first line supervisor (“S1B”) 7 did not deny the claim, but explained female employees had significantly more training, knowledge and experience than Complainant. Complainant’s second line supervisor (“S2”),8 from approximately June 2018 through March 15, 2020, denied Complainant was doing equal work for less pay. According to S2, Complainant’s primary role was package responsibilities. 4 An exception was made for those grandfathered into the prior system. 5 S1A’s affidavit is in the Report of Investigation (ROI), Ex. 12. 6 S1A was also Complainant’s acting second line supervisor, for an undisclosed time period, when he was on the Export Products Team. 7 S1B’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 18. 8 S2’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 9. 2021002640 4 In order to learn negotiating export requirements with other countries, explained S2, Complainant was assigned country responsibilities for small countries (like Bermuda) as a training tool. He was not given large and complex country responsibilities, such as Canada, Japan, China, the European Union, or Brazil. Similarly, another of Complainant’s first line supervisors (“S1C”),9 who worked with him from approximately May 2019 to early October 2019, attested that Complainant was not performing equal work for less pay. While a GS-14 was assigned package responsibilities for important export facilities, including exporters to the European Union, Complainant worked on package responsibilities with less trade volume and impact. Likewise, the GS-14 Veterinary Medical Officers on the Export Products Team were assigned as primary negotiators on large portfolios that required skilled negotiations with economically important countries. Contrastingly, Complainant worked on a very small portfolio with a few countries of less significant impact. A female coworker (Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-14)10 on the Export Products Team (“CW1”) stated all team members in her position and grade are expected to perform full regional country responsibilities (“portfolio”). She recounted Complainant occasionally covered her full portfolio for limited time periods (i.e. when she was on leave, for no more than two weeks at a time, or on travel duty that did not exceed 60 days), with periodic support from her and assistance from their supervisor. CW1 explained that Complainant was assigned country responsibilities because he asked for more work. Another female coworker (Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-14),11 also on the Exports Products Team (“CW2”), initially attested that Complainant performed entry-level functions with a higher level of supervision than those who were in the job longer. Thereafter, CW2 asserted that management viewed Complainant as a “golden boy”, allowing him to perform work without the usual supervision for someone his level and giving him leeway to make decisions without obtaining input. Complainant disputed that his portfolio was very small, with less significant impact than GS-14s portfolios. Citing data from the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service GATS website, Complainant asserted that his portfolio, encompassing the Caribbean and Central America, in 2019 accounted for 1.5 billion in trade. Meanwhile, argued Complainant, while the portfolio of another Export Products Team member (“CW3”)12 (female, Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-14) comprised of the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, was $933 million for the same year. Additionally, Complainant stated that when CW1 was out on details for four months, beginning in October 2019, CW1’s portfolio responsibilities for South America and Mexico were added to his portfolio as the primary negotiator. According to Complainant, in working independently on his negotiation portfolio responsibilities, he exercised the same skill as GS-14s. 9 S1C’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 8. 10 CW1’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 14. 11 CW2’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 15. 12 CW3’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 19. 2021002640 5 Additionally, Complainant challenged the notion that his package responsibilities had less trade volume and impact than those of GS-14s. He argued, for example, that the package responsibilities of a female colleague (Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-14) (“CW4”),13 also on the Export Products Team, were mainly for the European Union which accounted for $73.7 million in exports for cat and dog food in 2019, while his package responsibilities included Canada, with $751 million in exports for cat and dog food. In an October 3, 2019 email to S1C, Complainant stated he was performing GS-14 level work, provided examples, and asked for a promotion retroactive to June 10, 2019. In his rebuttal affidavit, Complainant stated that shortly thereafter, he was scheduled to have some responsibilities taken from him. But, as late as November 26, 2019, he was still listed as the primary negotiator for a portfolio of all of South America, Central America, Mexico, and all of the Caribbean. In support, Complainant submitted Agency Export Products Team assignment charts dated November 6, 2019. According to one chart, management scheduled to make CW1 primary and Complainant secondary negotiator for the above portfolio, effective January 22, 2020. But Complainant stated this did not happen and he continued to be the primary because CW1 was on detail into March 2020. A fifth female team member (Veterinary Medical Officer, GS-14) (“CW5”)14 stated Complainant was paid as a GS-11/12 but took on GS-13/14 work. Further, she attested that in response to Complainant’s request to be promoted, Human Resources evaluated the situation and management “'lessened' [Complainant’s] work to that acceptable for a GS-11/12.” CW2 stated after she heard Complainant requested a promotion to GS-13/14, for doing what he believed was the same work as the rest of them (GS-14s), their workloads were redistributed in order to assign portfolio responsibilities exclusively to GS-13/14s. In response to the EEO investigator’s question about whether Complainant performed essentially the same function as female employees, but was paid less, the Human Resources lead answered the issue was not discrimination, but “poor performance management in part of the complainant’s supervisor… [H]is duties should be commensurate to his grade level.” ROI, Ex. 22, at 5, Bates No. 214. In its decision, the Agency found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the EPA because his claim concerns discriminatory hiring practices (i.e. being hired into a career ladder GS-11/12 position, while his female colleagues were hired into career ladder GS-11/12/13/14 positions). The Agency reasoned that a claim of discriminatory promotion is beyond the scope of the EPA. Further, the Agency determined that Complainant’s pay was based on a factor other than sex. 13 CW4’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 13. 14 CW5’s affidavit is at ROI, Ex. 16. 2021002640 6 He was non-competitively hired into a GS-11/12 position in accordance with the scholarship program, whereas the female colleagues were competitively hired into GS-11/12/13/14 positions.15 The instant appeal from Complainant followed. On appeal, Complainant maintains that he has presented a prima facie EPA case because the record shows he performed work equal to that performed by GS-14s for less pay. He argues that while on the Export Product Team management never scaled back his work to the GS-12 level, as claimed. Further, Complainant challenges the Agency’s defense, that scholarship program graduates are limited to a job classification system of GS-11/12, by asserting that the EPA is not dependent on job classification titles, but actual job requirements and performance. In response, the Agency contends that even if some aspects of Complainant’s job may have been comparable to work performed by Veterinary Medical Officers at the GS-13/14 levels, it is the overall job, not individual aspects, that must be the basis of comparison for determining whether the EPA has been violated. It argues that Complainant did not establish a prima facie EPA violation because the record shows the job he actually performed was not, overall, at the GS- 13/14 levels. Further, even if Complainant presented a prima facie EPA case, the Agency contends his appointment into a GS-11/12 job was based on a factor other than sex. It reasons that since November 2017, all Saul T. Wilson, Jr. scholars, both male and female have been appointed into GS-11/12 positions. According to the Agency, between 2017 and 2020, all scholars were hired into GS-11/12 positions, including 24 females and 5 males. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, per 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). To establish a prima facie case of a violation under the EPA, a complainant must show that he or she received less pay than an individual of the opposite sex for equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar working conditions within the same establishment. 15 In its FAD, the Agency also conducted a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. disparate treatment analysis. However, as acknowledged by the Agency, Complainant does not contend intentional discrimination. Therefore, we shall not assess whether Complainant was subjected to unlawful disparate treatment in violation of Title VII. 2021002640 7 Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974), Sheppard v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02919 (Sep. 12, 2000); 29 C.F.R. § 1620.14. The requirement of “equal work” does not mean that the jobs must be identical, but only that they must be “substantially equal.” Corning Glass Works, n. 24; Homer v, Mary Institute, 613 F.2d 706, 714 (8th Cir. 1980). The EPA permits a compensation differential based on a factor other than sex. To establish this defense, an Agency must prove that a gender-neutral factor, applied consistently, in fact explains the compensation disparity. The Agency must also show that the factor is related to job requirements or otherwise is beneficial to the Agency's business and used reasonably in light of the Agency's stated business purpose as well as its other practices. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 10 Compensation Discrimination, at 10-IV.F.2, OLC Control No. EEOC-CVG-2001-3 (Dec. 5, 2000). In the instant case, the Agency contends there were numerous female employees who also received same pay, as Complainant, for the same or similar work, some were paid even less than him. The Agency argues this shows Complainant did not make out a prima facie EPA violation. We disagree. A prima facie EPA violation is established by showing that a male and a female receive unequal compensation for substantially equal jobs within the same establishment. There is no requirement that a complainant show a pattern of sex-based compensation disparities in a job category. In other words, if a man is paid less than female employees performing the same work, the lack of other men with low salaries in the job category does not preclude finding an EPA violation as to the complainant. However, the employer's treatment of other men is relevant - if other men are paid the same as, or more than, females, this may indicate that a factor other than sex is the reason for the complainant's compensation. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 10 Compensation Discrimination, at 10-IV.E.1. In the instant case, we find there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether or not Complainant has established an EPA case. The Agency argues that Complainant did not perform work equal to GS-13/14s, and that a prima facie showing requires equal work, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility. In disputing the Agency’s assertion, Complainant has provided many examples. However, we find that the investigation was not sufficiently developed on the matter. For example, S2 stated Complainant was only assigned country responsibilities for small countries like Bermuda, not large and complex ones like Canada, Japan, China, the European Union, and Brazil. However, Complainant stated that in January 2019, he took on primary country responsibilities for the Caribbean and Central America, and, he began the primary negotiator for all of South America and Mexico in October 2019. He challenged the Agency’s assertion that his responsibilities on Export Product Team were diminished, submitting a November 6, 2019 assignment chart reflecting that his portfolio included these countries. 2021002640 8 Complainant also gave specific examples of his negotiations, and indicated they were equal in skill, effort, and responsibility to negotiations conducted by GS-14s. Management and other witnesses were not asked by the EEO investigator to address the above conflicting information. Similarly, S1C attested that a GS-14 was assigned package responsibilities for very important export facilities, while Complainant worked on package responsibilities with less trade volume and impact. Complainant countered that when he first started on the Export Product Team he shared all Export Products Team package responsibilities with a GS-14 female colleague and later trained a female GS-13 Veterinary Medical Officer to run his half of package responsibilities, who took over the function. Complainant also noted that CW4’s package responsibilities accounted for $73.7 million in cat and dog food exports, while his package of responsibilities represented $751 million in exports for the same year. Additionally, Complainant asserted that his work included rewriting the inspection programs for Canada, Mexico, and South Africa, which involved the same level of complexity as the inspection program for the European Union. The instant record, however, reflects that management and other witnesses were not asked by the EEO investigator to address Complainant’s specific characterizations of his package responsibilities. Moreover, several witnesses, including a management official (S1A), attested Complainant performed work above his grade level. Regarding one aspect equal work responsibility, on the Export Products Team Complainant and his GS-13/14 coworkers all reported to the same supervisor, and Complainant’s contention that he worked independently was corroborated by some witnesses. While some Agency managers and co-workers indicated that Complainant was given more guidance and supervision, it was unclear what they meant by this. We find it significant that, in response to the EEO investigator’s question about whether Complainant performed essentially the same function as female employees at the GS-14 grade, the Human Resources Lead pointed to “poor performance management in part of the complainant’s supervisor….” This answer suggests Human Resources believed that Complainant was performing work at a grade level higher than GS-12. This is only further buttressed by the fact that, shortly after Complainant raised the issue of his promotion, management decided to modify his duties. According to CW5, management wanted to keep Complainant’s assignments at the GS-12 level. While Complainant states the Agency did not follow through, the instant record suggests management also believed Complainant was performing work at a grade level higher than GS-12. Lastly, as noted above, the Agency contends that all scholarship graduates, including Complainant, were placed in GS-11/12 positions, regardless of gender. To prove its affirmative defense, the Agency must show that this, other than sex, factor is related to job requirements or otherwise beneficial to the Agency's business and used reasonably in light of its stated business purposes. If the Agency assigns GS-11/12 employees work that overall is substantially equal to higher level GS-13/14 work, the Agency should elaborate on how its defense meets this standard. 2021002640 9 CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, the Agency’s decision is VACATED, and the complaint is REMANDED to the Agency as ordered below. ORDER Within 90 days from of the date of this decision, the Agency shall gather additional information consistent with this decision and provide Complainant an opportunity to review the supplemental investigation and respond. Within 120 days from the date of this decision, the Agency shall issue a new final decision, appealable to EEOC, on the merits of Complainant’s EPA claim. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719) Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory. Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance was being monitored. Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency’s final report must contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative. 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. Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency. 2021002640 10 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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). 2021002640 11 COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610) This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. 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 filed your appeal with the Commission. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations September 8, 2022 Date
