[Redacted], Brenton W., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 3, 2022

Appeal No. 2021000648 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 3, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Brenton W.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021000648 Hearing No. 510-2019-00392X Agency No. 1G-336-0049-19 DECISION On September 23, 2020, 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 September 9, 2020, final order concerning his 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Electronic Technician, P-10, at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center in Fort Myers, Florida. On April 1, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. on June 27, 2018, Agency management discussed Complainant’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave usage in front of his coworkers; 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. 2021000648 2 2. on February 11, 2019 and ongoing, the Agency required Complainant to provide documentation for FMLA absences; 3. on November 16, 23 and December 28, 2018, Complainant was denied an overtime opportunity; and 4. on March 5, 2019, Agency management shouted in the hallway about Complainant’s FMLA usage. The Agency accepted these claims and conducted an investigation into the matter. Complainant identified his medical conditions as bilateral hernia (service-connected), PTSD Depressive Disorder (service connected), tinnitus (service connected), plantar fasciitis, and somatic pain depressive disorder with anxiety (service connected). Complainant testified he does not have any work restrictions as a result of his medical conditions. He further testified he is able to perform his job duties. Complainant stated he does not have restrictions, but he has approved FMLA leave to use for “painful flareups.” He indicated that “every supervisor and manager” was aware of his conditions and he had most recently notified them on January 21, 2019, but he did not describe how they were notified or what the notification disclosed. He stated his “FMLA certification” was renewed and provided via FMLA department in Greensboro, North Carolina, and it was approved on January 21, 2019. Complainant identified his prior EEO activity as Case No. 4B-140-0062-06. He stated management officials were involved with this because the NEEOISO and EEO Service Office in Tampa, Florida were aware of this, and that is the Fort Myers PD&C District Office. Claim 1 Complainant testified that on June 27, 2018, his first-line supervisor (“Supervisor”) made negative comments about his conditions in front of two mechanics during a morning meeting. He stated Supervisor yelled at him about his attendance and FMLA usage, ordered Complainant to leave the meeting, and threatened to send Complainant home after Complainant questioned Supervisor about why he was bringing up Complainant’s attendance in morning meeting. Complainant later stated there were 15-20 people in the meeting. Supervisor stated Complainant’s account of this event was not correct. Supervisor testified he was handing out awards for perfect attendance during the meeting and Complainant claimed he was entitled to an award because he had perfect attendance. Supervisor informed Complainant that he did not have perfect attendance because, regardless of the reason, Complainant had numerous unscheduled absences. He states that Complainant kept arguing with him and he was disrupting the meeting, so Supervisor told Complainant to leave. He recalls that Complainant did not leave but he did quiet down and stop disrupting the meeting. He indicated Complainant apologized later that day for being disruptive. He denied that Complainant’s prior EEO activity or his medical condition were a factor in his handling of this situation. 2021000648 3 Claim 2 Complainant testified that on February 20, 2019, he attempted to use the Unscheduled Leave Request Phone Line. After entering his personal information, he was notified that he would need to obtain documentation for his absence because it was deemed necessary by management. He indicated that Supervisor told Complainant that he was not the one who determined documentation was required. Complainant states there was no reason to require this documentation and he has never heard of anyone else with FMLA leave complaining of this kind of treatment. Complainant testified that Supervisor and management told him he has poor attendance, he is a bad worker, and he had abused or overused his FMLA entitlement. However, Complainant says he is entitled to 480 FMLA hours a year and he has never overused it. He states most years he uses about 2-3 weeks of FMLA leave. Complainant states he was adversely affected by having documentation required because he was then required to go to a medical facility to obtain documentation instead of resting his condition, which caused his condition to become more painful, caused anxiety and stress, and led to a hospital visit for anxiety and panic attack on April 15, 2019. Complainant further stated he did not have any reason to believe his prior EEO activity was not a factor in his being required to provide documentation for FMLA absences. He identified one coworker who he believed had been treated differently than him in regard to FMLA absences (“Coworker 1”) and one coworker who he believed had been treated the same (“Coworker 2”). Supervisor testified he is not the one who placed Complainant on the Deems Desirable list and he is not the supervisor responsible for Complainant’s attendance. He indicated he had no involvement with requiring Complainant to submit documentation for FMLA absences. Another of Complainant’s supervisors (“Supervisor 2”) stated he did not know who had placed Complainant on the Deems Desirable list, but that he had never placed Complainant on the Deems Desirable list. He related that employees are placed on the Deems Desirable list when they have a pattern of calling off work on specific times, such as just before or after a holiday weekend. Supervisor 2 testified he informed Complainant that he only had to produce documentation if he was requested paid leave; he would not be required to produced documentation if using FMLA for leave without pay (LWOP). He denied that Complainant’s prior EEO activity or medical condition were factors in his handling of this matter. He further stated he had never placed Coworker 1 on the Deems Desirable list because she did not have a pattern of unscheduled absences. He also stated that he had not placed Coworker 2 on the Deems Desirable list either, although someone else may have. Complainant’s third line supervisor (“Maintenance Manager”) stated that on February 11, 2019, Complainant was working overtime and he observed Complainant sitting in a chair and looking at his phone. He asked Complainant if he was working overtime and Complainant said “yes”. He instructed Complainant to get off his phone and get to work. Complainant was upset and clocked out shortly thereafter, skipping the rest of his overtime. 2021000648 4 Maintenance Manager stated that in his experience, when Complainant becomes upset at work, he frequently calls off work the following days, so he placed Complainant on the Deems Desirable list for the period of February 11, 2019 through February 22, 2019. He stated that when Complainant called off work, he learned that he had been placed on the Deems Desirable list. He stated the employees do not have to provide medical documentation for unscheduled absences unless they have been placed on the Deems Desirable list, and that management can put employees on the Deems Desirable list when they have a pattern of calling off work for unscheduled leave. Maintenance Manager stated he did not discuss this matter with Complainant and explain why he would be required to submit documentation for FMLA absences. He stated he relied on ELM Section 513.361 for his handling of this matter.2 He denied that Complainant’s prior EEO activity or medical condition were factors in his handling of this matter. He indicated Coworker 1 had last been placed on the Deems Desirable list in 2014 and since then she regularly comes to work. He stated that Coworker 2 was most recently on the Deems Desirable list in May 2018 because he also has many unscheduled absences. Claim 3 Complainant testified he was skipped for overtime on November 16, 2018, November 23, 2018, and December 28, 2018. He stated that management believes that if Complainant does not have perfect or good attendance, he does not deserve overtime. He further stated management does not feel Complainant deserves overtime because he has medical problems. However, Supervisor testified that these dates were all Complainant’s non-scheduled days and no Electronics Technician worked non-scheduled overtime on those days. He stated that the employees Complainant said worked overtime that day were MPEs, not Electronics Technicians, and those two positions are on different overtime lists. Claim 4 Complainant testified that on March 5, 2019, he was walking down the maintenance hallway with a union representative when they encountered Supervisor. They notified Supervisor that Complainant’s grievance was ready for his decision. Complainant states Supervisor shouted at him and the union representative about Complainant’s excessive FMLA usage, explaining that Complainant abused his allowance, and Supervisor would not speak to them anymore. 2 The Agency Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) section 513.361 states “For periods of absence of 3 days or less, supervisors may accept the employee's statement explaining the absence. Medical documentation or other acceptable evidence of incapacity for work or need to care for a family member is required only when the employee is on restricted sick leave (see 513.39 or when the supervisor deems documentation desirable for the protection of the interests of the Postal Service.” 2021000648 5 Supervisor stated that he was on his way to the restroom when he passed Complainant and the union representative in that hall. As he passed, Complainant commented to Supervisor that Supervisor is not allowed to harass him or discuss his FMLA case. Supervisor testified he kept walking and responded that he does not discuss Complainant’s FMLA or even handle his attendance. He stated he did not yell at Complainant, but he may have spoken loudly because he was walking towards the restroom. He stated he later discussed Complainant’s grievance with the union representative, and she did not raise any issue about the short conversation in the hallway. He denied that Complainant’s EEO activity or medical condition were a factor in his handling of this matter. Hostile Work Environment Complainant stated that on February 20, 2019, he asked Supervisor why Supervisor was harassing him. Complainant indicated he had previously warned management about harassment and that he filed grievances and EEO complaints. However, Supervisor stated that the only time Complainant mentioned harassment or a hostile work environment to him is when Complainant stated in the hallway that Supervisor could not harass Complainant about his FMLA usage. Supervisor 2 stated Complainant did complain that he was being harassed about his FMLA usage, but Supervisor 2 told him it was not harassment, just a policy being followed, and he explained the policy to Complainant. Maintenance Manager said Complainant did not tell him that he was being harassed or subjected to a hostile work environment and no one reports this to him. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case notified the parties sua sponte of an intent to issue a decision without a hearing, and the Agency also submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. Complainant responded to the motion and notice. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency then issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. Complainant filed the instant appeal. He did not file a brief on appeal. The Agency contends on appeal that Complainant’s appeal should be denied because he has failed to demonstrate discriminatory harassment or discrimination. The Agency first contends that Claims 1 and 3 were not timely raised to an EEO Counselor as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1), and therefore they were properly considered only as background evidence in support of Complainant’s claims of harassment or discrimination and not as discrete acts. Next, 2021000648 6 the Agency contends Complainant cannot establish a prima facie case of harassment based on his prior EEO activity or disability because he has failed to demonstrate the alleged hostile conduct was directed at him because of his prior EEO activity or disability. The Agency also states that the conduct, even if proven, was not so pervasive or severe as to alter Complainant’s conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Lastly, the Agency contends that to the extent Complainant is claiming disparate treatment, he cannot establish a prima facie case, the Agency has articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and the Complainant has not established pretext for reprisal and disability discrimination. The Agency also noted Complainant did not establish any valid comparators, and he did not establish any nexus between his prior protected activity and the alleged adverse employment actions at issue here. The Agency requests the Commission affirm the AJ’s summary decision and the Agency’s Notice of Final Action. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. 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. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. 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 must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Here, Complainant has failed to point with any specificity to particular evidence in the investigative file or other evidence of record that indicates such a dispute. For the reasons discussed below, we find that, even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in his favor. 2021000648 7 Timeliness of Claims 1 and 3 as Discrete Acts We agree with the opinion of the AJ and the Agency that Claims 1 and 3 were untimely raised to be considered as discrete personnel actions. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved person must initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within forty five (45) days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action. It is undisputed that Complainant’s initial EEO Counselor contact occurred on February 22, 2019. Claim 1 occurred on June 27, 2018. Claim 3 occurred on November 16, 2018, November 23, 2018, and December 28, 2018. Thus, even the most recent action occurred more than 45 days prior to Complainant’s EEO counselor contact. While these claims are untimely as discrete actions, they will be considered as evidence in the context of Complainant’s hostile work environment claim. Disparate Treatment - Claims 2 and 4 as Discrete Acts A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For a complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, n. 13; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983). Claim 2 Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against based on his disability and prior EEO activity when from February 11, 2019 to February 22, 2019, Maintenance Manager placed him on the Deems Desirable list, thereby requiring Complainant to provide medical documentation for his absence. However, he has failed to establish a nexus between his disabling conditions and being placed on the Deems Desirable list. It was Complainant’s pattern of calling out of work after becoming upset that caused Maintenance Manager to place him on the Deems Desirable list, not Complainant’s FMLA leave or any other relation to Complainant’s medical conditions. 2021000648 8 Even assuming arguendo that Complainant has established his prima facie case for disability discrimination, the Agency has articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency has provided testimony that Maintenance Manager observed Complainant sitting and looking at his phone on February 11, 2019 during overtime. He told Complainant to get to work, but Complainant became upset and clocked out of overtime early. Based on Complainant’s pattern of calling out of work when he became upset, Maintenance Manager placed Complainant on the Deems Desirable list for the period of February 11, 2019 to February 22, 2019 as outlined in ELM section 513.361. This policy allows a request for documentation to protect the interests of the Agency. This would have applied to any paid sick leave taken by Complainant during that time period, including non-FMLA sick leave or sick leave to care for a family member (which would obviously be unrelated to Complainant’s own medical conditions). However, Complainant would not have been required to provide documentation if he was taking FMLA leave without pay. Complainant subsequently attempted to take unscheduled paid FMLA leave on February 20, 2019, and he was asked for documentation to support this. Thus, the Agency has articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and Complainant must prove these reasons were pretextual. We find that Complainant has not shown that the proffered reasons were pretext for discrimination. Pretext can be demonstrated by showing such weaknesses, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the Agency's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence. See Opare-Addo v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (Nov. 20, 2007) (finding that the agency's explanations were confusing, contradictory, and lacking credibility, which were then successfully rebutted by the complainant), request for recon. denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008). Here, Complainant did not provide any arguments on appeal. The comparators he provided either had good attendance and had not been recently placed on the Deems Desirable list, or they had attendance issues and had been placed on the Deems Desirable list in 2018. In terms of his claim for reprisal, again Complainant did not provide any arguments on appeal. Maintenance Manager stated he was aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity because he was named as a discriminator. However, he denied that Complainant’s prior EEO activity was a factor in how he handled this matter, and the record also reflects that the prior action was initiated in 2010, many years prior to the instant complaint. Therefore, Complainant has not shown the nexus necessary to prove a prima facie case for reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, and as stated, the Agency has provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Claim 4 Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against based on his disability and prior EEO activity when on March 5, 2019, Supervisor shouted in the hallway about Complainant’s FMLA usage. Again, Complainant has failed to establish a nexus between his disabling conditions and this treatment. Supervisor states he was merely responding to Complainant’s statement and that he was loud because he was walking down the hallway. 2021000648 9 Complainant did not provide any argument on appeal to support there was discriminatory animus involved in this interaction. Supervisor’s statement also provides a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his actions. Complainant has made no argument to establish pretext here. He has also failed to show the necessary nexus for reprisal. Supervisor stated he was not aware of Complainant’s prior EEO activity, and Complainant has not provided any proof to support his statement that “every supervisor” is aware of his conditions. Therefore, we find that Complainant has not established that the Agency's reasons were pretextual based on his protected classes or that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus or retaliatory animus. Harassment and/or Hostile Work Environment To establish a claim of hostile work environment, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [complainant's] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Therefore, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that he was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of his protected classes. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. Here, Complainant asserted that based on reprisal and his disability, management officials subjected him to a hostile work environment. However, the Commission finds that the totality of the conduct at issue was insufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, there is no persuasive evidence in the record that discriminatory animus played a role in any of the Agency's actions. Rather, the evidentiary record as described above reflects that the alleged incidents were more likely the result of routine supervision, managerial discipline, and general workplace disputes and tribulations. ultimately, managers have discretion regarding how to best manage their offices to meet their needs and goals and it is within their authority to make business decisions. Absent discriminatory animus, the Commission will not second guess an Agency's business decisions. Burdine, at 249. In sum, Complainant has not established that he was subjected to a discriminatory hostile work environment. 2021000648 10 CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final action. 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. 2021000648 11 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. 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 3, 2022 Date