📧 FOIA request (ignored)

The following email to the DOL FOIA office was ignored twice; on Nov. 21st and on Dec.5th.

Dear FOIA Officer:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

I am writing to request records related to OFCCP Complaint Case No. I00202831 (Logan Martin Isaac v. Duke University). I previously received a FOIA response comprising over 1,000 pages; however, recent review of the case file and communications with OFCCP officials indicate that responsive records were improperly withheld.

RECORDS REQUESTED:

1. ALL INTERVIEW RECORDS from the investigation of Complaint No. I00202831, specifically including but not limited to:

   a. Any and all interview records, notes, transcripts, or documentation related to interviews conducted on or about March 24, 2017;

   b. Any and all interview records, notes, transcripts, or documentation related to Stanley Hauerwas;   

   c. Any and all interview records, notes, transcripts, or documentation related to Amy Laura Hall;

   d. Any and all interview records, notes, transcripts, or documentation related to Elaine Heath;

   e. Any and all interview records, notes, transcripts, or documentation related to Richard Hays;

   f. A complete list of all individuals interviewed during the investigation, including dates of interviews and whether Duke University counsel or representatives were present.

2. DOCUMENTATION REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY DETERMINATIONS:

   a. All communications between compliance officer(s) and the Regional Solicitor's Office (including but not limited to Regional Solicitor Stanley Keen and attorney Channah Broyde) regarding whether any interviewee(s) waived confidentiality by having contractor-provided legal representation present during interviews;

   b. All memoranda, notes, or records documenting compliance officer determinations regarding conflicts of interest when contractor representatives were present at interviews;

   c. All records documenting private discussions between compliance officer(s) and interviewees regarding the presence of contractor representatives and potential conflicts of interest, as required by FCCM § 6G03.f;

   d. All records showing which interviews were conducted with Duke University counsel or representatives present.

3. DOCUMENTATION OF WITNESS INTERVIEW DECISIONS:

   a. All memoranda, notes, or records explaining why Stanley Hauerwas, Amy Laura Hall, Elaine Heath, Richard Hays, or any other individuals identified by the complainant were not interviewed, as required by FCCM § 2M00.b;

   b. All communications between compliance officer(s) and their supervisors regarding decisions about which witnesses to interview or not interview.

4. INTERVIEW SCHEDULING AND COORDINATION RECORDS:

   a. All emails, calendar entries, or other records scheduling interviews with Duke University personnel;

   b. All communications with Duke University or its counsel regarding interview arrangements;

   c. All records documenting the presence of Duke University counsel or representatives at any interview.

5. CASE FILE DOCUMENTATION:   

   a. All versions of the investigative plan for this complaint investigation;

   b. All compliance officer notes, working files, or internal memoranda related to this investigation that were not included in the previous FOIA response;   

c. All supervisor review notes or comments on the investigation.

BASIS FOR REQUEST:

This request is necessitated by evidence that OFCCP failed to comply with its own Federal Contract Compliance Manual (FCCM) procedures during this investigation, specifically:

1. FCCM § 6G03.f requires that when contractor-provided counsel is present at a non-management employee interview, the compliance officer "is advised to contact his or her regional solicitor if additional guidance is needed on whether confidentiality was waived under these circumstances."

2. OFCCP's November 20, 2017 letter from Regional Director Samuel Maiden explicitly states in Item 16: "OFCCP's Response: The Professor of Theological Ethics [Stanley Hauerwas] was interviewed on March 24, 2017." This interview was not included in my FOIA response despite being directly responsive to my complaint.

3. Stanley Hauerwas is the individual who, according to my original complaint and Duke University's own internal investigation, made a threat of reprisal against me by threatening to remove himself from a course unless I removed approved course flyers advertising a veterans-focused course. His interview is therefore critical evidence regarding retaliation allegations.

4. In a telephone conversation on December 7, 2017, with Channah Broyde of the Regional Solicitor's Office, I specifically inquired whether the Regional Solicitor was contacted regarding the March 24, 2017 Hauerwas interview to determine if confidentiality was waived when university counsel was present. Ms. Broyde declined to confirm or deny whether such contact occurred, citing attorney-client privilege.

5. The same November 20, 2017 letter also stated regarding other witnesses: "One of the employees you named was interviewed on March 24, 2017. This interview was not supplied to you as they are a non-management employee."

6. FCCM § 2M00.b requires that if witnesses are not interviewed, "the CO should add a memorandum to the file explaining who was supposed to be interviewed, and why the interview did not occur."

The requested records are necessary to determine:

- Whether OFCCP complied with FCCM procedures regarding confidentiality determinations;

- Whether all relevant witnesses were interviewed or proper documentation exists explaining why they were not;

- Whether interviews were improperly withheld from the previous FOIA response.

FEE WAIVER REQUEST:

I request a waiver of all fees associated with this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and applicable DOL regulations. Disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities, specifically:

1. Whether OFCCP follows its own mandatory procedures when investigating discrimination complaints filed by protected veterans;

2. Whether OFCCP properly handles situations where contractor-provided counsel may create conflicts of interest in witness interviews;

3. Whether OFCCP improperly withholds records from FOIA requests to shield procedural violations from scrutiny.

I am a private citizen with no commercial interest in this matter. I am a United States military veteran who served six years defending the laws that OFCCP is charged with enforcing. The requested information will be used to evaluate whether to pursue Administrative Procedure Act claims against the Department of Labor for failure to follow prescribed procedures.

The public interest in disclosure substantially outweighs any private benefit, as this information bears on systemic issues affecting how the Department of Labor investigates veteran discrimination complaints. As a private citizen seeking government accountability, I am entitled to a fee waiver.

EXPEDITED PROCESSING REQUEST:

I request expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) because there is a compelling need for these records. Specifically:

1. There is an urgency to inform the public about actual or alleged federal government activity - namely, whether OFCCP systematically fails to follow its own procedures in veteran discrimination investigations and then withholds evidence of such failures from FOIA requests;

2. I am a person primarily engaged in disseminating information (as evidenced by my past advocacy regarding veteran treatment at Duke University), and the information is urgently needed to inform the public about these government activities.

FORMAT PREFERENCE:

I request that responsive records be provided in electronic format (PDF) via email to iamloganmi@gmail.com if possible. If electronic production is not feasible, please provide records in paper format.

If my request is denied in whole or in part, I request a written explanation for each denial, including the specific exemption(s) relied upon and an explanation of how each exemption applies to the withheld material. I also request that all reasonably segregable portions of responsive records be released.

I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe of 20 business days.