Civil Rights Forum, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall 1995

Civil Rights Forum

Volume 9, Number 3, Fall 1995

Civil Rights Division Reaches Out to Agencies, Civil Rights Groups

The Civil Rights Division is reaching out to Federal agencies, to
community, beneficiary, and recipient groups, and to others
concerned with improving the enforcement of the civil rights laws
covered by Executive Order 12250. 

The Division's Federal Coordination and Compliance Section has completed a
first round of information exchange liaison meetings with each of
28 Federal funding agencies.  Assistant Attorney General Deval L.
Patrick also has written to over 60 civil rights and other
interested groups.  He requested their ideas for improving the
enforcement of Title VI and related statutes covered by Executive
Order 12250.  In addition, he sought their assistance in
identifying civil rights problems and issues in criminal justice
agencies for use by the Section as it develops a program of
compliance reviews of Department of Justice recipients. 

These outreach initiatives reflect Assistant Attorney General
Patrick's approach to reinvigorating the enforcement of these
statutes.  As he said at the May 5, 1995 all-agency meeting held
by the Civil Rights Division: " to work together and to
learn from your experiences.  We then hope to share your unique
experiences with other agencies." 

The first round of meetings with individual agencies provided a
forum for sharing information on enforcement plans, activities,
results, and needs.  They addressed questions such as:  What are
the important policy and regulatory issues relevant to each
agency's compliance program?  What are its training and technical
assistance needs?  What are its experiences with interagency
delegation agreements; are they useful, do they need revisions,
should there be more?  What planning, data collection, and
progress reporting formats are most useful, and least burdensome,
in order to meet the requirements of the Executive Order? 

The Section found these meetings highly productive and valuable
as a source of information and recommendations.  One intriguing
idea, which recommends the establishment of interagency working
groups to advise and make recommendations to the Section
regarding various Executive Order implementation and reporting
issues, is under active consideration by the Division. 

The Section, in many respects, is taking Executive Order 12250
"back to its roots."  The Executive Order requires consultation
with affected agencies.  The early use of this consultation
requirement resulted in the development by Justice and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of uniform procedures
for the investigation of employment discrimination complaints
filed against recipients of Federal financial assistance. 

Under these procedures, EEOC was given primary responsibility for
conducting these investigations, thus eliminating the possibility
of multiple investigations by each Federal agency providing
assistance.  Federal grant agencies could then concentrate their
civil rights resources on ensuring that federally assisted
services were free of discrimination. 

The Civil Rights Division is seeking to serve its "customers" in
one unique additional way.  As reported in the last issue of the
Civil Rights Forum, the Division has entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Department's Office of Justice Programs
(OJP).  Under this agreement, the Section will conduct compliance
reviews and investigate complaints of services discrimination
against OJP and Community Oriented Policing Services program

These activities not only add to the resources available to
ensure that Justice recipients do not discriminate, but they
allow the Section to get hands-on experience in the investigation
of services discrimination and experience first-hand the problems
encountered by other agencies in investigating this kind of
discrimination.  Ideally, this initiative can serve as a
laboratory to test investigative and compliance techniques, among
other things, that can be passed on to other agencies. 

The Civil Rights Division's outreach initiatives adopt the
concepts of the National Performance Review and take a page from
private industry and the works of quality authority Dr. W.
Edwards Deming.  They acknowledge that coordinating the efficient
and effective enforcement of grant-related civil rights statutes
is a customer-oriented task.  They also reflect that customers
and stakeholders (including Federal grant agencies, grant
recipients, program beneficiaries, and discrimination victims)
are a valuable source of knowledge, experience, and assistance.  
If you have ideas you believe would be useful, please write to:
Merrily Friedlander, Chief, Federal Coordination and Compliance Section, P.O.
Box 66560, Washington, D.C.  200356560. 

Justice Task Force Coordinates All-Agency Review of Affirmative Action Programs

A Department of Justice task force has been established to
coordinate the full-scale evaluation of all Federal programs that
use race, ethnicity, or gender in decisionmaking.  President
Clinton ordered this review following the Supreme Court's
decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (reported in the
Summer, 1995 issue). 

The President instructed agency heads, in a directive dated July
19, 1995, to evaluate their programs in consultation with, and
pursuant to, the overall direction of the Attorney General. 
The President's directive mirrored his remarks on affirmative
action delivered that day at the National Archives.  The
directive also reflected the findings of the Report to the
President of the Affirmative Action Review of Federal programs.
This study, which was ordered by the President in February, also
was released by the White House on July 19th.

The President's directive reaffirmed that the Clinton
Administration will "continue to support affirmative measures
that promote opportunities in employment, education, and
government contracting for Americans subject to discrimination or
its continuing effects."  The directive stated that "[i]n every
instance, we will seek reasonable ways to achieve the objectives
of inclusion and antidiscrimination without specific reliance on
group membership."

However, the President's directive also stated that "where our
legitimate objectives cannot be achieved through such means, the
Federal Government will continue to support lawful consideration
of race, ethnicity, and gender under programs that are flexible,
realistic, subject to reevaluation, and fair."

The President's directive established certain "policy principles"
applicable to all programs that use race, ethnicity, or gender as
a consideration to expand opportunity or provide benefits to
members of groups that have suffered discrimination. These policy
principles are that "any program must be eliminated or reformed
if it: (a) creates a quota; (b) creates a preference for
unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or
(d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been

The Department of Justice task force is under the direction of
Associate Attorney General John R. Schmidt.  It includes staff
from the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Civil
Rights Division, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel,
and the Office of Policy Development. 

The scope of the governmentwide review being coordinated by the
task force is broad.  Although Adarand involves the use of racial
and ethnic criteria in the award of a government contract, it
also applies to a variety of health, education, welfare,
agricultural, and other programs where racial and ethnic criteria
are used as a basis for decisionmaking.

Further, Adarand also applies to a variety of different uses of
racial and ethnic criteria in government decisionmaking.  For
example, it applies to "set-aside" programs and to programs that
establish flexible goals for minority participation where racial
or ethnic criteria are used to meet those goals.  It also applies
to programs that are open to nonminorities but in which race or
ethnicity is a factor that is considered in the decisionmaking

Beginning in mid-July, Justice officials met with the General
Counsels of approximately 25 key agencies to discuss how best to
organize and conduct the review.  They also answered questions
regarding the guidance on Adarand issued by Justice's Office of
Legal Counsel on June 28, 1995.  The agencies were asked to
identify all of their affirmative action programs, including
those that do not rely on race or ethnicity in decisionmaking and
are not subject to Adarand. 

Task force members worked closely with agencies to help guide the
inquiry into whether programs are "narrowly tailored" to serve
"compelling government interests" -- the two prongs of the
"strict scrutiny" standard enunciated in Adarand.  The first
stage of this review was completed in late August. 

Justice then asked the agencies to direct their efforts
particularly to the analysis required to determine whether
programs are narrowly tailored.  Task force liaisons for each
agency have been identified.  They are working with agency
personnel on this next project, which already is underway in many

The task force also has undertaken a major effort to collect and
index material relevant to the Adarand inquiry.  These materials
include key legislative histories, disparity studies that have
been commissioned by State and local governments to document the
need for their affirmative action programs, and a collection of
materials from government research components and private

Defense Suspends "Rule of Two" Procurements

The Department of Defense announced on October 23, 1995, that it
is suspending its "rule of two" set-aside contract program for
"small disadvantaged businesses" (SDB's).  This action is the
first such significant move taken by an agency as a result of the
ongoing governmentwide review of affirmative action programs
underway following the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v.

Under the rule of two program, Defense Department prime contracts
are reserved for SDB's, which are primarily minority-owned,
whenever two or more such firms are available and qualified to
bid.  However, an SDB's bid cannot win if it is more than 10%
above fair market price.  Use of the rule of two resulted in $1
billion in awards to SDB's last year.

Deputy Secretary of Defense John White said that suspension of
the rule of two does not reflect any change in the Department of
Defense's commitment to bring SDB's into the defense industrial
base, and he has directed Defense officials to "redouble your
efforts to achieve this objective."  Minority firms will retain
some advantages under other affirmative action programs that are
not affected by the suspension.

So Ordered...Court Cases of Note

Teachers's Intentional Sexual Abuse of Student Imputed to School District

A district court has held that a teacher's sexual molestation of
a student may be imputed to a school district under Title IX,
even though school district officials were unaware of the
teacher's actions. 

The court analyzed Title IX under the principles of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than under Title VII, which
would have led to a different result.  Finding that one of the
core objectives of Title IX is to provide relief to young girls
who are sexually abused by male teachers, the court held that
intentional sexual abuse is imputed to school districts under
strict liability principles. 

The court noted that it was limiting its holding to sexual abuse;
the rule of strict liability does not necessarily apply to other
types of Title IX cases.  Leija v. Canutillo Independent School
District 887 F. Supp. 947 (W.D. Tex. 1995). 

Teachers and Administrators as Individuals May Be Liable for
Student-to-Student Harassment 

A district court has held that teachers and school administrators
may be individually sued under Title IX because they failed to
assist a student after she complained of being repeatedly
insulted and assaulted by a male student.  The court ruled that
the language of Title IX did not preclude actions against
individuals, as long as those individuals exercised a sufficient
level of control over the program or activity that received
Federal funding. 

The court further found that the individuals could be considered
"recipients" of Federal financial assistance since they acted as
agents for entities that received the funds.  Although the court
imputed liability to the individuals, it nevertheless granted
them qualified immunity because the case involved student-to-
student harassment rather than sexual abuse by a teacher.
Mennone v. Gordon, 889 F. Supp. 53 (D. Conn. 1995). 

Railway Company is a Recipient of Federal Financial Assistance 

In a case brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a railroad company
(Conrail) that received Federal funds from a State under the
Federal Aid Highways Act of 1944 is a recipient of Federal
financial assistance. 

Under an amendment to that statute, the Department of
Transportation give funds to States to repair, replace, or alter
railroad crossings for safety purposes.  The State in turn
identifies crossings in need of repair, and contracts with the
railroads that own the crossings for the work.  The State pays
the railroads with the Federal assistance.  Conrail argued that
it was not a recipient and that the funds were not assistance
but, rather, were payment for services rendered. 

The court held that Conrail was a recipient, even though it
received funds indirectly through the State.   According to the
court, the payments constituted assistance because Conrail was
paid to make repairs and replacements that it eventually would
have had to make with its own funds.  Additionally, on the facts
of the case, the court determined that punitive damages were
available under Section 504 for intentional discrimination.  The
case is significant for Title VI because Section 504 is patterned
after Title VI.  Moreno v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, No.
941231/1247, 1995 WL 507307 (6th Cir. August 29, 1995). 

No Sovereign Immunity Under Title VI

The Ninth Circuit has overturned a dismissal of a Title VI
complaint filed against a California State University.  The court
held that a 1986 amendment to Title VI specifically waived State
claims of sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment to the
United States Constitution.  The holding applies to any
violations of Title VI occurring after October 21, 1986, the
effective date of the Title VI amendment.  Seater v. California
State University, No. 9365588, 1995 WL 72356 (9th Cir. February
22, 1995). 

Education's Strategic Plan Emphasizes Partnership Approach 

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has
developed a new partnership approach to problem-solving, which is
proving useful in all areas of its compliance program.  The
approach is demonstrating that the mutual goals of equity and
excellence can be achieved in public education. 

The partnership approach recognizes that Federal, State, and
local education agencies, as well as parents and other interested
parties, share a common goal of providing equal opportunity and
access to high quality education.  Under the approach, OCR
combines its expertise with the interest and knowledge of these
partners and stakeholders to come up with effective solutions.

For example, in Calhoun County, Georgia, the school
superintendent sought assistance to eliminate the longstanding
practice of racial segregation in the district's classrooms.  OCR
provided legal advice.  More importantly, OCR worked with the
federally funded Southeastern Desegregation Assistance Center to
provide advice and resources to parents, teachers, and
administrators.  These efforts helped identify workable solutions
to the district's problems with its ability grouping practices. 

In Edmonds County, Washington, OCR intended to do a traditional
compliance review following allegations of racial harassment at
one high school.  Instead, a partnership developed, a long-term
cooperative venture for solving racial and ethnic tensions in the
entire district. 

Edmonds County now has a plan in place that has strict rules for
punishing harassment but also a curriculum that will address
intergroup relations, intercultural communication, stereotyping,
and peer mediation.  Teachers will be trained in teaching
tolerance and student leaders will conduct equity workshops.  In
the end, OCR saved time and resources, helped students and
parents and, most importantly, developed a good working
relationship with the school district for future cooperative

In partnership with the State of Washington, OCR helped revise
the Washington Administrative Code concerning support for
children needing bilingual and special education.  These children
previously could not have both services. 

OCR has been working with the Georgia Department of Education
regarding the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted
programs statewide.  Georgia's placement criteria were based
solely on IQ scores.  As a result, the Georgia State Board of
Education voted to issue proposed changes to the criteria aimed
at more inclusive identification of gifted students. 

OCR reviewed a draft of a pamphlet on gender equity in athletics
at the request of the Connecticut Department of Education.  It
provided training on sex discrimination issues during two
satellite broadcasts sponsored by the Nebraska Department of
Education.  It has been participating on Ohio's task force on
prevention of sexual harassment. 

OCR is also committed to sharing strong, educationally sound
remedies with its partners.  This is essential if OCR is to help
bring about positive change, impact on students' lives, and
provide tangible assistance to the greatest number of potentially
affected students.  OCR wants remedial action that makes injured
parties whole again, that lessens the chance of future
violations, and that sets a clear precedent for other parties. 

Attorney General Promotes Alternative Dispute Resolution in Justice Cases  

In April 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno signed an order
establishing an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) initiative
within the Department of Justice.  Formal ADR techniques include
such methods as arbitration, mediation, mini-trials, and early
neutral evaluation.  As the largest user of the Federal courts,
the Justice Department is involved in about 170,000 civil justice
matters each year. 

The Attorney General's order requires each litigating division
and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to establish criteria
for identifying cases suitable for resolution through the use of
formal ADR techniques.  The order established the position of
Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution, which the
Attorney General filled on June 8, 1995, with the appointment of
Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Chief of the Appellate Section of the
Environment and Natural Resources Division. 

On July 12, 1995, Justice and the Administrative Conference of
the United States jointly sponsored a conference on "Implementing
the National Performance Review Recommendations on ADR."  The
Conference is an independent nonpartisan agency dedicated to
reforming the administrative processes by which the Federal
government carries out the public's business. 

The keynote address by the Attorney General emphasized that
through the use of ADR, civil cases can be resolved more swiftly
and at less cost to those involved.  Agriculture Secretary Dan
Glickman also addressed the conference, providing his perspective
as the House of Representatives sponsor of the Administrative
Dispute Resolution Act of 1990.  Attendees at the conference from
throughout the government also benefited from panel discussions
and participated in facilitated small group sessions on such
topics as "Transforming the Litigation Culture" and "Overcoming
Budgetary Constraints." 

ADR has been used successfully by a number of agencies, including
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Army Material Command, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.  Working with the U.S. Attorneys,
Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division has used ADR
to resolve many complex multiparty environmental and natural
resources cases nationwide more quickly and at less expense than
is possible through conventional litigation methods.  The
Division's first significant use of ADR occurred in 1992, when a
court-ordered mediator played a pivotal role in attempts to
settle a Navajo-Hopi land dispute. 

ADR as been adopted by many State and Federal court systems.
Many Federal court districts mandate consideration of a broad
range of ADR processes, or require mediation or arbitration.  A
number of courts have developed elaborate court-annexed and
court-sponsored ADR programs, which draw upon a large base of
volunteer mediators. 

A Federal interagency pilot project has been undertaken to share
"neutrals" among Federal agencies in the metropolitan Washington,
D.C., area.  This project is providing a low cost option to
agencies when they have no in-house mediators or when a party to
a dispute with an agency questions the neutrality of a mediator
employed by an agency. 

Coordination and Review Joins the Net, the Internet! 

Joining the Information Superhighway, the Coordination and Review
Section has established a directory on the Justice Department's
Internet Menu.  It is called "Grant Related Civil Rights
Statutes."  This directory contains basic statutory, regulatory,
and Executive Order 12250 material, as well as items of general
interest.  Issues of the Civil Rights Forum will be posted in the
near future.

"Grant Related Civil Rights Statutes" is a subdirectory of the
Civil Rights Division's directory on the Department of Justice
Internet menu.  Conceptually, it is similar to a directory on
Wordperfect, i.e., Department of Justice is the parent directory,
Civil Rights Division is a subdirectory, and "Grant Related Civil
Rights Statutes" is a subdirectory in the Civil Rights Division

There are two ways to access the Department of Justice Internet
menu.  You can click to it on the Web or tab down to it and hit
"enter" on the Gopher.  Here's how you access it using the Gopher
and using the Web. 

Access to the Department of Justice Internet Menu Using Gopher: 

1.  Using Gopher client software, at the command line type

2.  From the Library of Congress Gopher server (LC MARVEL),
choose Government Information.  From the next menu, choose
Federal Information Resources.  At the next menu, choose
Information by Branch of Federal Government.  From the next menu,
choose Executive Branch.  At the next menu, we are listed as
Justice Department.  This list is also organized alphabetically. 
3.  From any other Gopher server, choose Other Gopher Servers
option.  From the Gopher Master list maintained by the University
of Minnesota, choose North America.  From the next menu, choose
USA.  At the next menu, choose All.  Our Gopher Server is listed
as Department of Justice.  It is currently selection 367, but
this number changes frequently.  The list is organized

4.  Once the user reaches the Department of Justice server,
choose Civil Rights Division.  Then choose "Grant Related Civil
Rights Statutes."

To reach the Department of Justice World Wide Web Home Page: 

1.  Using Mosaic or Lynx, to connect directly to the Home Page,
use the URL

2.  From the White House Home Page (,
the Department of Justice Home page is accessible through the
Executive Branch links.  The White House Home Page and Links are
very popular and frequently busy. 

3.  At the Department of Justice Home Page, click on Litigation
Organizations.  On the next page, click on Civil Rights Division.
On the Civil Rights Division page, click on Civil Rights Gopher
Information.  This will bring up the Gopher menu, which lists
"Grant Related Civil Rights Statutes."

If you would like specific kinds of material posted or just want
to give your comments, write (sorry no E-mail address yet): Andy
Strojny, Acting Deputy Chief, Federal Coordination and Compliance Section,
P.O. Box 66560, Washington, D.C.  20035-6560. 
Around the Agencies . . . . .

Labor Holds Sixth Annual Civil Rights Conference

The theme of the Department of Labor's Sixth Annual Civil Rights
Conference, held in Washington, D.C. on July 19-21, 1995, was
"Beyond Laws and Regulations."  The approximately 221 attendees
represented 44 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands.  Also attending were recipients of Labor's
major financial assistance programs, including Employment
Service, Unemployment Insurance, Job Training Partnership Act,
and Job Corps.  The Interstate Conference of Employment Security
Agencies (ICES) worked in partnership with Labor's Directorate of
Civil Rights to host the conference.

Twenty-one information and training workshops covered subjects
such as addressing discrimination at the State level, program
access (language and disability), mediation and alternative
dispute resolution, innovative approaches to equal employment
opportunity complaints and litigation, and compliance monitoring.
Representatives from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Division provided an overview of legal requirements and
compliance program considerations with respect to Title VI, Title
IX, Section 504, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The State of Florida's Department of Labor received the ICESA's
William J. Harris Equal Opportunity Award (named for Labor's late
civil rights director).  This award recognized the State's
exemplary equal opportunity program achievements.  The State of
Minnesota also received an award for innovation in coordinating
diversity programs, with honorable mention certificates going to
the States of Missouri and West Virginia.

New Section Chief at Justice

Merrily A. Friedlander has been named Chief of the Civil Rights
Division's Federal Coordination and Compliance Section by Assistant Attorney
General Deval L. Patrick.  The Section coordinates the
governmentwide enforcement of Title VI, Title IX, and related
statutes under Executive Order 12250. 

Ms. Friedlander, who has been at the Justice Department since
1985, previously served as Deputy Section Chief (Legal) and as
Acting Section Chief of the Section.  Prior to coming to the
Justice Department, Ms. Friedlander was the Chief Civil Rights
Attorney in the Chicago regional office of the U.S. Department of
Education.  She later served as General Counsel of the U.S.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

Civil Rights Directors: Agencies with Federally Assisted Programs

Agency for International Development
Ms. Jessalyn L. Pendarvis
Office of Equal Opportunity Programs
Agency for International Development
1612 North Kent Street  Suite 1108
Rosslyn, Virginia 22209
(703) 875-7292

Department of Agriculture
Mr. David Montoya
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement
Department of Agriculture
326W Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building
14th & Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
(202) 720-5212

Department of Commerce
Mr. Courtland V. Cox, Acting Director
Office for Civil Rights
Department of Commerce
14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Room 6010
Washington, D.C. 20230
(202) 482-3940

Corporation for National & Community Service
Ms. Nancy B. Voss
Equal Opportunity Staff
Corporation for National & Community Service
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.
Room 7100
Washington, D.C. 20525
(202) 606-5000, Ext. 309

Department of Defense
Mr. Claiborne D. Haughton
Equal Opportunity Policy OUSD (P&R)
Department of Defense
Room 3A272, Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000
(703) 695-0105

Department of Education
Ms. Norma Cantu
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Department of Education
330 C Street, S.W.
Room 5000
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100
(202) 205-5413

Department of Energy
Ms. Corlis S. Moody
Economic Impact & Diversity
Department of Energy
Room 5B110
Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-8383

Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Dan J. Rondeau
Office of Civil Rights (1201)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Room W206
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-4575

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Ms. Adell Betts
Office of Equal Rights
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, S.W.
Room 407
Washington, D.C. 20472
(202) 646-4122

General Services Administration
Ms. Yvonne T. Jones
Associate Administrator
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
General Services Administration
18th & F Streets, N.W.
Room 5129
Washington, D.C. 20405
(202) 501-0767

Department of Health & Human Services
Mr. Dennis Hayashi
Office for Civil Rights
Department of Health & Human Services
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 5400 Cohen Building
Washington, D.C. 20201
(202) 619-0403

Department of Housing & Urban Development
Ms. Elizabeth Julian
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Initiatives
Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W.
Room 5100
Washington, D.C. 20410
(202) 708-4252

Institute of Museum Services
Ms. Diane B. Frankel
Institute of Museum Services
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 510
Washington, D.C. 20506
(202) 606-8536

Department of the Interior
Ms. E. Melodee Stith
Office for Equal Opportunity
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Mail Stop 1324
Washington,D.C. 20240
(202) 208-5693

Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice
Ms. Inez Alfonzo-Lasso
Office for Civil Rights
Office of Justice Programs
Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Room 546C
Washington, D.C. 20531
(202) 616-3539

Department of Labor
Ms. Annabelle T. Lockhart
Directorate of Civil Rights
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Room N4123
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 219-8927

National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Dr. Yvonne B. Freeman
Associate Administrator for Equal Opportunity Programs
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
300 E Street, S.W. Code E
Washington, D.C. 20546
(202) 358-2167

National Endowment for the Arts
Ms. Angelia Richardson
Division of Civil Rights
National Endowment for the Arts
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 812
Washington, D.C. 20506
(202) 682-5454

National Endowment for the Humanities
Mr. Juan Mestas
Deputy Chairman
National Endowment for the Humanities
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 503
Washington, D.C. 20506
(202) 606-8273

National Science Foundation
Ms. Jean Riggs
Acting Coordinator
Office of Equal Opportunity
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Room 1080
Arlington, Virginia 22230
(703) 306-1020

Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mr. Edward Tucker
Program Manager
Office of Civil Rights
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
11555 Rockville Pike
Room T2F14, Two White Flint North
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(301) 415-7382

Office of Personnel Management
Ms. Carol J. Okin
Associate Director for Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street, N.W.
Room 7494
Washington, D.C. 20415
(202) 606-1575

Small Business Administration
Ms. Carol L. Walker
Deputy Chief
Office of Civil Rights Compliance
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street, S.W.
Suite 6400
Washington, D.C. 20416
(202) 205-6751

Department of State
Mr. Thomas Jefferson, Jr.
Associate Director for Equal Opportunity & Civil Rights
Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Room 4216
Washington, D.C. 20520
(202) 647-9295

Tennessee Valley Authority
Mr. George H. Provost
Tennessee Valley Authority
20 East 11th Street
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
(615) 751-6269

Department of Transportation
Mr. Antonio J. Califa
Departmental Office of Civil Rights
Office of the Secretary
Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Room 10215
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202) 366-4648

Department of the Treasury
Mr. Robert Previs
Office of Personnel Policy
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Treasury Annex Room 1464
Washington, D.C. 20220
(202) 622-1890

United States Information Agency
Ms. Hattie P. Baldwin
Office of Civil Rights
United States Information Agency
301 4th Street, S.W.
Room 365
Washington, D.C. 20547
(202) 619-5151

Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Gerald K. Hinch
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity (06)
Department of Veterans Affairs
812 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20420
(202) 482-6701

COR Home  |  Grant-Related  |  Conducted  |  LEP  |  Publications  |  By Agency  |  Other Links   |  Contact   |  Index

This page was last updated on February 07, 2001

> >
Updated August 6, 2015

Was this page helpful?

Was this page helpful?
Yes No