[Redacted], Mamie T, 1 Complainant,v.Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 14, 2023

Appeal No. 2022003112 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 14, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mamie T,1 Complainant, v. Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Appeal No. 2022003112 Hearing No. 430-2020-00055X Agency No. 19-42158-01303 DECISION On May 16, 2022, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s May 13, 2022, final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Physical Science Technician, GS-1311-02 at the Agency’s Norfolk Naval Shipyard (“NNSY”) in Portsmouth, Virginia. Complainant’s appointment was effective August 20, 2018. Supplemental Report of Investigation (SROI) at 53-4. Complainant’s immediate supervisor was the Supervisor, Radiological Control Technician, (Supervisor 1). Her second-level supervisor was Branch Head, Physical Science Technician(Supervisor 2). 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 2022003112 Her third-level supervisor was the Radiological Monitoring Division Head (Supervisor 3); and her fourth-level supervisor was the Supervisory Nuclear Engineer (Supervisor 4). Complainant was enrolled in the Radiological Controls Trainee Program, training to become a Radiological Control Technician. Complainant reviewed and filled out her pre-employment medical forms, DD Form 2807-1 and Optional Form 178, on August 17, 2018. ROI at 259-64. On September 4, 2019, Complainant informed Supervisor 1 that she had problems with her legs and hips and was unable to stand for prolonged periods of time; and that doing so would cause her pain for up to three days afterwards. ROI at 396. Supervisor 1 advised that Complainant bring in a doctor’s note. Id. On September 10, 2018, Complainant presented work restrictions, based on a doctor’s note from her Primary Care Physician (PCP [or Complainant’s doctor] that included no prolonged walking or standing. PCP classified Complainant as a Class II employee with temporary work restrictions for her chronic and recurrent lower back pain. ROI at 208-11. On September 21, 2018, while walking in the classroom at work, Complainant experienced seizure-like activity when she became dizzy, collapsed on the ground, and could not control her body but could still hear. Complainant was transported by ambulance from NNSY to the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. Complainant was diagnosed with “syncope” and told to return to the hospital if anything happened again. ROI at 213-25 and 254. On September 22, 2018, Complainant returned to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth after experiencing another incident of seizure-like activity, to include chest pain and total loss of gross motor control. ROI at 227-44. While being monitored at the hospital, Complainant experienced three more incidents which were described as “uncontrollable rhythmic movements” and “twitching.” Id. at 227. Complainant was diagnosed with pseudo-seizures. ROI at 230. On September 23-24, 2018, Complainant was seen at the Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters for another incident of seizure-like activity. ROI at 245-50. Complainant had two more incidents while at the hospital that were described as “head and limb jerking/tremulousness.” Id. at 250. Complainant was diagnosed with abnormal involuntary movements and epilepsy was mostly ruled out. ROI at 245-50. On September 26, 2018, upon Complainant’s return to work, she was directed to the branch health clinic as a follow-up to the medical emergency she experienced at work on September 21, 2018. ROI at 253. Complainant was seen by a corpsman, presented no work restrictions from her PCP for the seizure-like activity, and therefore, Complainant received a Class I determination for her seizure-like activity. ROI at 251-55. On October 2, 2018, Complainant participated in her pre-employment medical exam. ROI at 265- 72. On October 15, 2018, Complainant returned to the branch health clinic for a scheduled follow up to her Class II temporary work restrictions for her chronic and recurrent lower back pain. ROI at 273-76. 3 2022003112 Complainant presented work restrictions, based on a doctor’s note from her PCP that included walking for no longer than 15 minutes and standing for no longer than 30 minutes. ROI at 275- 76. These restrictions were expected to last at least 12 months. Id. at 275. Complainant was classified as a Class II employee with temporary work restrictions for her chronic and recurrent lower back pain and was recommended for a Fit for Duty exam. ROI at 276. On October 25, 2018, Complainant returned to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth after experiencing chest pain and numbness and pain in her left arm while at work. ROI at 277-90. Complainant was transported to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth from NNSY via ambulance. Id. On November 14, 2018, Complainant participated in a Fit for Duty exam with a Supervisory Physician, Occupational Medicine (Physician [or H.]). ROI at 291-95. Physician obtained Complainant’s consent to request her current diagnoses, treatment plan, and recommended restrictions, based on her medical history of low back pain, migraine headaches, anxiety/depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and non-epileptic seizures, from her PCP. Complainant consented to the letter, and Physician sent the letter to PCP the same day. Id. Complainant’s Class II determination was extended for the duration of the Fit for Duty exam. ROI at 295-96. On December 12, 2018, Complainant returned to the branch health clinic for a scheduled follow up to her Class II temporary work restrictions for her chronic and recurrent lower back pain. ROI at 305-07. Complainant presented no additional work restrictions from her PCP, and her current Class II determination was extended pending completion of her Fit for Duty exam. Id. On December 19, 2018, Complainant participated in the final evaluation of her Fit for Duty exam with Physician. Complainant’s PCP had provided all medical progress notes but did not specifically address the prognosis for and whether work restrictions were recommended for migraines, anxiety/depression, PTSD, and non-epileptic seizures. ROI at 308. There were recommended restrictions for the lower back pain. Id. Based on his review of Complainant and her medical history, Physician determined that Complainant was a direct threat and determined that Complainant was a Class III employee, not fit for any duty of pay roll title. ROI at 308-11. A review of the position description for the Physical Science Technician position indicates that Complainant would be performing the functions of a radiological material escort which involves, among other things, transferring radioactive material to control radiological accident situations, serving as the main radiological control representative during mock up and dry runs of refueling operations and fuel cell replacements and being part of an emergency response team in the event of a nuclear emergency. The work involves, “frequent, strenuous activities such as climbing vertical ladders, staging, or scaffolding in drydock and vessel areas; working in cramped quarters undergoing repair; and working in areas where footing may be insecure. Lighter activities such as lifting and carrying items up to 50 pounds; frequent bending, reaching, stooping, and crouching; and walking over rough areas also are performed.” ROI at 158. 4 2022003112 On December 19, 2018, Complainant presented her Class III determination to Supervisor 1 who explained the meaning of the Class III determination, that she could not work in her position under the Class III determination, what leave she wanted to use, the availability of the Reasonable Accommodation process to Complainant, and provided her with the contact information for the NNSY reasonable accommodation office. ROI at 398. Complainant did not contact the NNSY reasonable accommodation office. ROI at 180. On December 21, 2018, Complainant presented a new doctor’s note from her PCP to Physician updating her current medical status. ROI at 312-13. The letter recommended a continuation of Complainant’s work restrictions on walking and standing and simply stated that Complainant had not had any seizure-like activity for six weeks. Id. Physician determined the new information was not enough to change the Class III determination. ROI at 312. On January 09, 2019, Supervisor 3 recommended Complainant’s termination during her probationary period based on the Class III determination. On January 14, 2019, Complainant arrived at NNSY for work. Supervisor 2 confirmed that Complainant’s Class III determination was still valid; told Complainant that she was still unable to work; and asked her to leave. ROI at 10-11. On January 18, 2019, Supervisor 4 agreed with the proposal for termination and began the administrative process to terminate Complainant. On September 19, 2019, Supervisor 4 issued to Complainant a Notification of Termination During Probationary Period for the Class III determination, determined to be a direct threat, and for lack of candor. SROI at 60-3. Complainant made initial EEO contact on February 01, 2019. On May 2, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability (physical) and reprisal for protected EEO activity (instant complaint) under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Complainant’s claims are framed as follows: 1. Did the Agency discriminate against Complainant on the bases of disability (temporary seizure like activity; pseudo-seizures) when: a. Beginning on December 19, 2018 and continuing until present, the Agency restricted Complainant from performing her duties; and b. On January 14, 2019, Supervisor 2 told Complainant that she was continued to be medically classified as a Class III employee and would need to leave the ship. 2. Did the Agency discriminate against Complainant on the bases of disability (temporary seizure like activity; pseudo-seizures) and reprisal (current EEO activity) when on September 19, 2019, Complainant received a Notification of Termination during Probationary Period. 5 2022003112 The Agency conducted an investigation into the complaint. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The parties participated in extensive discovery. On July 16, 2020, Complainant filed a Motion to Compel. On October 16, 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment (MSJ) and respective responses on November 2, 2020. The AJ assigned to the case reviewed the briefs, the complete ROI, and the Supplemental Report of Investigation (SROI). The AJ denied Complainant’s Motion to Compel, and Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The AJ granted the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing in favor of the Agency on April 5, 2022. The AJ adopted the Agency’s statement of facts in its MSJ, finding that the Agency had provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the challenged actions. The AJ noted the Agency’s assertion in its MSJ that Complainant could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination or reprisal. The Agency additionally asserted that Complainant could not rebut the Agency’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ noted Complainant’s assertion in her MSJ that her removal from the workplace beginning December 19, 2018 and again on January 14, 2019 was predicated on an unsubstantiated discriminatory determination that Complainant posed a direct threat and was in retaliation for her EEO activity. According to the AJ, assuming Complainant was an individual with a disability as a result of her musculoskeletal disability and/or seizure-like activity, in order to show that she was “qualified,” Complainant must show that she could perform the essential functions of the position in question, with or without reasonable accommodation, and that she met the experience or education requirements of the position. The AJ explained that based on the facts presented, a determination must also be made as to whether the individual posed a danger to self or others. Citing to Commission guidance, the AJ found that the evidence of record supported a finding that the Agency decision-makers had a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that Complainant was not qualified for the position of Physical Science Technician because she posed a direct threat to herself due to her medical condition. The AJ noted the Agency’s assertion that Physician determined based on Complainant’s lack of medical diagnosis or of any ongoing treatment, coupled with the essential functions and physical demands of the position, that Complainant posed a significant risk of substantial harm and therefore was a direct threat to the health and safety of herself and others. Physician had knowledge of the job duties Complainant would be required to perform when he classified Complainant as a Class III employee. 6 2022003112 The AJ noted that there was no evidence that Complainant’s PCPs were provided a job description or given other information related to Complainant’s duties as a Physical Science Technician. The AJ also observed that Complainant herself did not seem completely aware of her job duties testifying that when interviewed, “the interviewer never talked about climbing or bending or squatting or kneeling or carrying. What I do remember is he said that the physical science technician job was easy, and I would not have to worry about going out to the waterfront for a while and I would be in a classroom for the first 4 years.” SROI at 93. According to the AJ, the extent of the diagnosis for Complainant’s seizure-like activity was that it was non-epileptic and probably a result of stress. The AJ noted Complainant’s testimony that she was not given any recommendations on how to control her seizure-like activities. The AJ also noted Complainant’s testimony that she did not seek further treatment or further diagnosis after being informed that her seizures were non-epileptic. The AJ stated that it was undisputed that Complainant had little or no advance warning of an impending seizure-like activity, which at times, caused Complainant to lose the ability to control her arms and legs. According to the AJ, Complainant reported similar episodes in the past, including falling and cutting her head at her previous job. ROI at 213-14. The AJ observed that Complainant continued to display symptoms of seizure-like activity after she returned to work on September 25, 2018. The AJ noted Physician’s testimony that the reasoning for his decision to classify Complainant as Class III status was multi-factorial: she was a new worker; expected to perform duties as a physical science technician; the position entailed regular, strenuous exertion; working on crane booms and climbing up and down scaffolding; it was a safety-sensitive environment; and Complainant’s condition was undiagnosed and could cause sudden incapacitation. See AJ’s Decision at 6. According to the AJ, Physician reviewed Complainant’s medical documents which referenced her medical and work history. The AJ observed that it appeared that Complainant’s work history was limited as she testified that this was her first full-time job. SROI at 90. The AJ also noted Physician’s testimony that “you have someone that reports fainting before they got to the shipyard to work. You had someone that went to three different ERs during a weekend from a fainting spell or an episode while at the shipyard. You then had an acute chest pain incident a month after. I mean, this is a very short period of time, and at the end of the day, you have someone that went unconscious.” The AJ asserted that Physician also testified that he explained to Complainant that she had an “ill- define medical condition that can cause sudden incapacitation, and that it’s inconsistent with a safety-sensitive job…” and that the Agency “needed something from her primary care doctor or one of her providers evaluating her, addressing a diagnosis in a way forward, a prognosis, and any - and any permanent restrictions that she’d have.” AJ’s Decision at 7. The AJ also noted Physician’s statements that “we don’t have a defined diagnosis. We have an ill- defined medical condition. It’s considered sudden incapacitation. And I think that in that case, where somebody’s applying for a job readily admitting - readily admitting to passing out at her last workplace, having migraine headaches where she can’t see. 7 2022003112 The medical history is rife with, you know, neurological issues. I just felt that this was a high --- this is certainly a risk - a risk - a significant risk.” AJ’s Decision at 7. The AJ noted record evidence showing that the Agency conducted an appropriate individualized assessment of Complainant's medical condition and the duties of the position in question before concluding Complainant should be medically disqualified for the job. In sum, asserted the AJ, the evidence of record supported the finding that Complainant posed a direct threat and was not qualified for the position in question, a necessary element of proof for her disability discrimination claim. According to the AJ, unlike the cases to which she cited, Complainant was undiagnosed and had seizure- like activity at work, there was no evidence that Complainant had forewarning of her seizure-like activity and Complainant had no treatment plan. The AJ stated that the evidence supported the Agency’s determination that Complainant posed a threat to herself. According to the AJ, there was also no evidence that Complainant sought (or could have been) transferred to another position where she would have worked more safely. The AJ also noted the Agency’s assertion that Complainant was not qualified because she could not perform two of the major skills and job-related requirements of the Physical Science Technician position which are the minimum ability to walk continuously for four hours and to stand continuously for four hours. The AJ noted the Agency’s assertion that Complainant submitted work restrictions on October 15, 2018, based on her PCP’s recommendation, of a walking break after 15 minutes and a standing break after 30 minutes. According to the AJ, the Agency determined that the proposed restrictions would prevent the performance of essential functions of Complainant’s position. However, the AJ declined to address the Agency’s assertion that Complainant could not perform the essential functions of the Physical Science Technician with or without reasonable accommodation due to her work restrictions. Like the Agency, the AJ determined that Complainant posed a direct threat due to her undiagnosed medical condition for which Complainant presented no treatment plan. Regarding reprisal, the AJ observed that in January 2019, Complainant’s chain of command discussed and decided to terminate her based on her Class III designation. According to the AJ, the decision to terminate Complainant was made two (2) weeks before Complainant participated in any EEO activity. Therefore, asserted the AJ, the Agency is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Regarding medical examination, the AJ observed that Complainant alleged in her motion for summary judgment that this case strongly suggests that [Physician]’s extremely broad request for information sent to Complainant’s doctor on November 14, 2018 was in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The AJ noted Complainant’s statements that the fitness for duty examination was meant to address Complainant’s walking and standing restrictions, but Physician requested information on all the diagnosis that he identified in her medical records. 8 2022003112 Complainant argued that even if the request for information regarding seizure-like symptoms were also deemed valid, there was no identified reason for requesting information regarding Complainant’s anxiety and/or PTSD. In that regard, the AJ cited to Commission regulation, stating that under the Rehabilitation Act, employers may make disability-related inquires or require medical examinations of employees only if they are job related and consistent with business necessity. The AJ observed that the November 14, 2018 letter from Physician to Complainant’s doctor stated that Complainant was to undergo an agency-directed fitness for duty examination owing to several medical conditions which had affected her ability to work. ROI at 180. The AJ also observed that the document sought information related to applicable diagnoses regarding self-reported conditions of low back pain, migraine headaches, anxiety/depression, PTSD and non-epileptic seizures. According to the AJ, this was not the case where the Agency requested Complainant’s complete medical file. The AJ asserted that the requests were not sweeping or overbroad. The AJ found that the Agency’s request for medical information was not excessive and therefore did not violate the Rehabilitation Act.2 The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed, and Complainant submitted a brief in support of her appeal arguing that the AJ’s decision finding no discrimination was improper, and contrary to fact and law. The Agency also submitted a brief in opposition to Complainant’s appeal, expressing agreement with the AJ’s decision. The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review...”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD- 110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). 2 The AJ noted that in April 2019, a mediation was held in which Complainant and Physician participated. An agreement was made that Complainant could provide new medical information for consideration. It was further agreed that Physician would draft a letter outlining the requested medical information from Complainant’s doctor. The AJ noted the Agency’s assertion that Physician emailed the letter to Complainant on April 24, 2019. The AJ also noted Complainant’s assertion that she never received the letter and therefore did not provide any additional medical information. The AJ stated that neither the Agency nor Complainant followed-up. 9 2022003112 In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and she must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Through her attorney, Complainant disagrees with the Agency’s determination that she posed a direct threat to herself. For example, Complainant argues that it is inherently illogical and discriminatory for Physician and the AJ to look at a limited set of symptoms that occurred for a very limited amount of time and conclude that there must be something seriously wrong. See Complainant’s Statement in Support of Appeal at 10-11. She also expressed disagreement with the AJ’s decision, asserting that it is inherently illogical to state that the lack of a diagnosis and lack of a treatment plan means that someone poses a direct threat. Id. However, Complainant did not cite to any evidence to establish a genuine dispute. Mere allegations, speculations, and conclusory statements, without more, are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Lee v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0520110581 (Jan. 12, 2012), citing Baker v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01981962 (Jun. 26, 2001), req. for recon. den’d, EEOC Request No. 05A10914 (Oct. 1, 2001). Given that Complainant had access to the ROI concerning her complaint and the opportunity to develop the record significantly during the EEO investigation and discovery before the AJ, we find that summary judgment was appropriate in this case. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 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. 10 2022003112 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). COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. 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. 11 2022003112 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 February 14, 2023 Date