UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity )

as Governor of the State of North Carolina,

)

and FRANK PERRY, in his official capacity

)

as Secretary, North Carolina Department of

)

Public Safety,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

)

OF JUSTICE, LORETTA E. LYNCH, in her

)

official capacity as United States Attorney

)

General, and VANITA GUPTA, in her official )

capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney )

General,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CASE NO. ___________________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Patrick L. McCrory, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of North

Carolina (“Governor McCrory”), and Frank Perry, in his official capacity as Secretary, North

Carolina Department of Public Safety (“Secretary Perry”), (collectively “plaintiffs”) seek

declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States of America (“United States”), the

United States Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, in her official capacity as United States

Attorney General, and Vanita Gupta, in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant

Attorney General, for their radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

which would prevent plaintiffs from protecting the bodily privacy rights of state employees

while accommodating the needs of transgendered state employees. The United States, through

its Department of Justice (“Department”), by letters dated May 4, 2016, threatened legal action

Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 10

against Governor McCrory, Secretary Perry, and others, because plaintiffs intend to follow North Carolina law requiring public agencies to generally limit use of multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities to persons of the same biological sex. The Department contends that North Carolina’s common sense privacy policy constitutes a pattern or practice of discriminating against transgender employees in the terms and conditions of their employment because it does not give employees an unfettered right to use the bathroom or changing facility of their choice based on gender identity. The Department’s position is a baseless and blatant overreach. This is an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the Courts. The overwhelming weight of legal authority recognizes that transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII. If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress. In any event, North Carolina law allows plaintiffs to accommodate transgender employees while protecting the bodily privacy rights of other state employees, and nothing in Title VII prohibits such conduct or constitutes discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment of transgender employees. Moreover, the Department has similarly overreached in its interpretation of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (“VAWA”). Even if VAWA specifically includes gender identity as a protected class, the North Carolina law is not discriminatory because it allows accommodations based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender individuals.
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Patrick L. McCrory is the Governor of North Carolina. Under North Carolina law, Governor McCrory is the chief executive authority for executive branch agencies
2 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 10

within state government. Complying with the demands made in defendants’ letter of May 4, 2016, would prevent Governor McCrory from discharging his obligations under the North Carolina Constitution.
2. Plaintiff Frank Perry is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (“DPS”). Secretary Perry is the chief executive authority for DPS, which is an executive branch agency reporting to Governor McCrory. Complying with the demands made in defendants’ letter of May 4, 2016, would prevent Secretary Perry from discharging his obligations under North Carolina law.
3. Defendant the United States, through its co-defendant the Department of Justice, has the authority to bring enforcement actions pursuant to Title VII and VAWA. The Department has threatened to bring such an enforcement action against the State of North Carolina and its officials.
4. Defendant United States Department of Justice is a federal executive agency and possesses responsibility for enforcement of Title VII and VAWA.
5. Defendant Loretta E. Lynch is the current Attorney General of the United States and head of the United States Department of Justice. She is sued in her official capacity only.
6. Defendant Venita Gupta is a Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice and head of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. She has been delegated the responsibility to bring an enforcement action under Title VII against the State of North Carolina. She has been sued in her official capacity only.
3 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. In this action, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties dispute whether plaintiffs’ implementation of North Carolina’s common sense bodily privacy law constitutes a violation of Title VII and VAWA. 8. The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the plaintiffs in their official capacities are residents of this District, specifically Raleigh, North Carolina, plaintiffs have employees in this District, and substantially all of the events creating the dispute between the parties occurred in this District.
FACTS 10. On March 23, 2016, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (“the Act”). The Act created common sense bodily privacy protections for, among others, state employees, by requiring public agencies to require multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex. Biological sex is the physical condition of being male or female, and the Act notes that such condition is “stated on a person’s birth certificate.” The Act also allows accommodations based on special circumstances. 11. On April 12, 2016, Governor McCrory issued “Executive Order 93 to Protect Privacy and Equality” (“EO 93”). EO 93 expanded discrimination protections to state employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among others. EO 93 also affirmed North Carolina law that cabinet agencies should require multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex. EO 93 also
4 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 10

reaffirmed North Carolina law that agencies may make a reasonable accommodation upon request due to special circumstances and directed all agencies to make a reasonable accommodation of a single occupancy restroom, locker room, or shower facility when readily available and when practicable.
12. Upon information and belief, no transgender employee of the State of North Carolina has advanced a claim that the state employment policy as outlined above is discriminatory under Title VII.
13. Upon information and belief, no person has advanced a claim that the law is discriminatory under VAWA.
14. Nonetheless, on May 4, 2016, the Department asserted in letters to Governor McCrory and Secretary Perry that state law as outlined above constitutes a “pattern or practice” of discriminating against transgender state employees by denying such employees access to the bathroom or other changing facility of their chosen gender identity.
15. In addition, the Department asserted that the North Carolina Department of Public Safety has violated the non-discrimination provision of VAWA.
16. The Department further threatened to “apply to [an] appropriate court for an order that will ensure compliance with” the Department’s misguided interpretations of Title VII and VAWA.
17. The Department’s threat is real but misplaced. North Carolina does not treat transgender employees differently from non-transgender employees. All state employees are required to use the bathroom and changing facilities assigned to persons of their same biological sex, regardless of gender identity, or transgender status.
5 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 10

18. Moreover, the overwhelming weight of authority has refused to expand Title VII protections to transgender status absent Congressional action. Courts consistently find that Title VII does not protect transgender or transsexuality per se. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Etsitty may not claim protection under Title VII based upon her transsexuality per se.”); Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653, 658 (S.D. Tex. April 3, 2008) (Atlas, J.) (acknowledging that “[c]ourts consistently find that transgendered persons are not a protected class under Title VII per se”); Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Congress intended the term ‘sex’ to mean ‘biological male or biological female,’ and not one’s sexuality or sexual orientation.”); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 2002 WL 31098541, at *6 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002) (“[T]he phrase ‘sex’ has not been interpreted to include sexual identity or gender identity disorders.”); Ulane v. E. Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081, 1084 (7th Cir. 1984) (“The words of Title VII do not outlaw discrimination against a person who has a sexual identity disorder….”); Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 667 F.2d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1982) (“Because Congress has not shown an intention to protect transsexuals, we hold that discrimination based on one’s transsexualism does not fall within the protective purview of [Title VII].”)
19. In any event, even if transgender employees were covered by Title VII, plaintiffs intend, and are authorized under North Carolina law, to accommodate such individuals in the terms and conditions of their employment. Title VII does not prohibit employers, including state employers, from balancing the special circumstances posed by transgender employees with the right to bodily privacy held by non-transgender employees in the workplace. Title VII allows gender specific regulations in the workplace. See Finnie v. Lee Cnty., Miss., 907 F. Supp. 2d 750, 772 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2012) (Title VII “was never intended to interfere in the
6 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 6 of 10

promulgation and enforcement of personal appearance regulations by private employers.”); Jackson v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 122 F.3d 1066, 1066 (5th Cir. 1997) (an employer does not violate Title VII by imposing different grooming and dress standards for male and female employees); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 878 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We do not imply that all gender-based distinctions are actionable under Title VII. For example, our decision does not imply that there is any violation of Title VII occasioned by reasonable regulations that require male and female employees to conform to different dress and grooming standards”); Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 444 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (holding that Harrah’s grooming standards requiring women to wear makeup and styled hair and men to dress conservatively was not discriminatory because the policy did not impose unequal burdens on either sex); Willingham v. Macon Tel. Pub. Co., 507 F.2d 1084, 1091-92 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that a grooming policy concerning hair length differences for males and females did not constitute sex discrimination and noting that such a policy relates “more closely to the employer’s choice of how to run his business than to equality of employment opportunity”).
20. Plaintiffs desire to implement state employment policies that protect the bodily privacy rights of state employees in bathroom and changing facilities. Plaintiffs also desire to accommodate the needs of state employees based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender employees. Defendants instead threaten to force plaintiffs to implement their reinterpretation of Title VII and VAWA while ignoring the bodily privacy of plaintiffs’ employees. Such action by defendants threaten to expose plaintiffs to actual liability under Title VII, VAWA, and other provisions protecting the bodily privacy rights of employees in the workplace.
7 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 7 of 10

21. There is an actual controversy between the parties concerning whether plaintiffs may follow North Carolina law regarding bathroom and changing facility use.
22. A declaratory judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal issues, and will afford relief from uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
23. Plaintiffs and the State of North Carolina will suffer significant and irreparable harm unless this Court intervenes.
COUNT ONE: DECLARATION THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE VII 24. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 23 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 25. North Carolina does not treat transgender employees differently from nontransgender employees. All state employees are required to use the bathroom and changing facilities assigned to persons of their same biological sex, regardless of gender identity, or transgendered status. 26. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request a declaration that they are not violating Title VII by following state law regarding bathroom and changing facility use by state employees.
COUNT TWO: DECLARATION THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH VAWA 27. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
8 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 8 of 10

28. Even if VAWA specifically includes gender identity as a protected class, North Carolina law is not discriminatory because it allows accommodations based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender individuals.
29. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request a declaration that they are not violating VAWA by following state law regarding bathroom and changing facility use.
DECLARATORY RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that: 1. Plaintiffs are not violating Title VII or VAWA by following state law regarding bathroom and changing facility use by state employees; 2. Plaintiffs are not violating Title VII or VAWA by following state law allowing accommodations under special circumstances for employees who need exceptions to state policy regarding bathroom and changing facility use by state employees; 3. Plaintiffs are not in violation of Title VII or VAWA; 4. That this dispute be resolved in favor of plaintiffs such that plaintiffs do not have to incur damages in the form of back pay, front pay, benefits, liability, and other associated costs; 5. That plaintiffs recover their fees and costs in this matter; and 6. Such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, BOWERS LAW OFFICE LLC By: /s/ Karl S. Bowers, Jr. Karl S. Bowers, Jr.* Federal Bar #7716 P.O. Box 50549 Columbia, SC 29250 Telephone: (803) 260-4124 E-mail: butch@butchbowers.com *appearing pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(e)
9 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 9 of 10

Dated: May 9, 2016 Raleigh, North Carolina

Counsel for Governor Patrick L. McCrory and Secretary Frank Perry
By: /s/ Robert C. Stephens Robert C. Stephens (State Bar #4150) General Counsel Office of the Governor of North Carolina 20301 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 Telephone: (919) 814-2027 Facsimile: (919) 733-2120 E-mail: bob.stephens@nc.gov *appearing as Local Rule 83.1 Counsel Counsel for Governor Patrick L. McCrory
MILLBERG GORDON STEWART PLLC
By: /s/ William W. Stewart, Jr. William W. Stewart, Jr. (State Bar #21059) Frank J. Gordon (State Bar #15871) B. Tyler Brooks (State Bar #37604) 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 104 Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: (919) 836-0090 Fax: (919) 836-8027 Email: bstewart@mgsattorneys.com
fgordon@mgsattorneys.com tbrooks@mgsattorneys.com Counsel for Governor Patrick L. McCrory

10 Case 5:16-cv-00238-BO Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 10 of 10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:16-CV-238-BO

PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official )

capacity as Governor ofthe State ofNorth )

Carolina, and FRANK PERRY, in his

)

official capacity as Secretary, North

)

Carolina Department of Public Safety,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

~

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, eta/., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on a motion to consolidate pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed in this matter by the plaintiffs in Berger v. United States Dept. ofJustice, No. 5:16-CV-240-FL. Plaintiffs in this action have responded indicating that they do not oppose consolidation to the extent that it does not impede or interfere with transfer of this action to the Middle District. 1 [DE 31 ]. The motion to consolidate represents that the federal defendants, who have not yet appeared in this action, oppose consolidation.
Rule 42 provides for the consolidation of actions pending before a court if the actions involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in this district, AIS J Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Canst. Co., 559 F.2d 928,933 (4th Cir. 1977), and it does not require consent ofthe parties to do so. See, e.g., Arnoldv. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 191 (4th Cir. 1982) (discussing sua sponte consolidation); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. ofCan., 210 F.3d 1 The Court has denied plaintiffs' motion to transfer. [DE 34].

771,774 (7th Cir. 2000) (consent of parties not required for consolidation). In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court considers the risks of prejudice and possible confusion against the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, as well as the burden on the parties and judicial resources including the length of time required to conclude multiple suits and the relative expense to all concerned. Arnold, 681 F.2d at 193.
These cases include common factual and legal issues and the risk of inconsistent judgment outweighs any potential prejudice to the parties. The Court further finds that consolidation would not impose any undue burden on the parties or witnesses in these matters. As sufficient time has passed to consider any reason to deny consolidation and no good reason exists, and in furtherance of the efficient and timely administration ofjustice, the Court in its discretion ALLOWS the motion to consolidate. [DE 11].

jJ_ SO ORDERED, this

day of June, 2016.

.. w./J...._h ~~
T RRENCE w. BOYLE

~T -'"'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:16-CV-238-BO

PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official )

capacity as Governor of the State of North )

Carolina, and FRANK PERRY, in his

)

official capacity as Secretary, North

)

Carolina Department of Public Safety,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on a motion to consolidate pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed in this matter by the plaintiffs in North Carolinians for Privacy v. United States Dept. ofJustice, No. 5:16-CV-245-FL. Plaintiffs in this action have responded indicating they do not oppose consolidation. [DE 40]. The federal defendants have responded in opposition to the motion. [DE 38]. Plaintiffs in Berger v. United States Dept. of Justice, No. 5:16-CV-240-FL, whose motion to consolidate this Court recently allowed [DE 36], have responded stating they do not oppose the motion to consolidate by North Carolinians for Privacy. [DE 42].
Rule 42 provides for the consolidation of actions pending before a court if the actions involve common questions oflaw or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in this district, AIS J Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977), and it does not require consent of the parties to do

so. See, e.g., Arnoldv. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681F.2d186, 191 (4th Cir. 1982) (discussing sua sponte consolidation); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. ofCan., 210 F.3d 771, 774 (7th Cir. 2000) (consent of parties not required for consolidation). In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court considers the risks of prejudice and possible confusion against the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, as well as the burdens on the parties andjudicial resources. Arnold, 681 F.2d at 193.
Having reviewed the complaints as well as the motion and responses thereto, and as found previously in regard to the motion by the Berger plaintiffs, the Court finds these cases to include common factual and legal issues, that consolidation would not impose any undue burden on the parties or witnesses in these matters, and that consolidation would further the efficient and timely administration ofjustice. Therefore, the Court in its discretion ALLOWS the motion to consolidate by North Carolinians for Privacy. [DE 22].

tJ2_ SO ORDERED, this

day of June, 2016.

""~ w. 13i,f ~ TERRENCE w. BOYLE

~

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 1 of 8
CLOSED
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:16−cv−00238−BO

McCrory et al v. United States of America et al Assigned to: District Judge Terrence W. Boyle related Cases: 5:16−cv−00240−FL
5:16−cv−00245−FL Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment Movant
Sen. Phil Berger

Date Filed: 05/09/2016 Date Terminated: 09/19/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Stuart K. Duncan Schaerr Duncan LLP 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 202−714−9492 Email: KDuncan@Schaerr−Duncan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene C. Schaerr Schaerr Duncan LLP 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 202−787−1060 Email: GSchaerr@Schaerr−Duncan.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Potter , Jr. Robert D. Potter, Jr., Attorney at Law 2820 Selwyn Avenue, #840 Charlotte, NC 28209 704−552−7742 Email: rdpotter@rdpotterlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Rep. Tim Moore

represented by Stuart K. Duncan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene C. Schaerr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert D. Potter , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant North Carolinians for Privacy

represented by Deborah J. Dewart Deborah J. Dewart, Attorney at Law 620 E. Sabiston Dr. Swansboro, NC 28584−9674 910−326−4554 Fax: 877−326−4585 Email: debcpalaw@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 2 of 8
David A. Cortman Alliance Defending Freedom 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D−1100 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 770−339−0774 Fax: 770−339−6744 Email: dcortman@ADFlegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A. Campbell Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N. 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: jcampbell@adflegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy D. Tedesco Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: jtedesco@adflegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Matthew Sharp Alliance Defending Freedom 1000 Hurricane Shoals Road NE, Suite D−1100 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 770−339−0774 Fax: 770−339−6744 Email: msharp@adflegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Caleb Dalton Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: cdalton@adflegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph E. La Rue Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: jlarue@adflegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen K. Waggoner Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N. 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: kwaggoner@adflegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 3 of 8

Movant Steven Glenn Johnson TERMINATED: 09/01/2016 Plaintiff Patrick L. McCrory in his official capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina
Plaintiff Frank Perry in his official capacity as Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety

represented by Steven Glenn Johnson 208 Nydegg Road New Bern, NC 28562 PRO SE
represented by Brennan Tyler Brooks Thomas More Law Center 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Suite J 3200 P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 336−707−8855 Fax: 734−930−7160 Email: tbrooks@thomasmore.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Gordon Millberg Gordon Stewart PLLC 1101 Haynes Street Suite 104 Raleigh, NC 27604−1455 (919)836−0090 Fax: (919)836−8027 Email: fgordon@mgsattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karl S. Bowers , Jr. Bowers Law Office LLC Post Office Box 50549 Columbia, SC 29250 803−753−1099 Email: butch@butchbowers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Stephens Office of the Governor 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27699 919−814−2027 Fax: 919−715−2366 Email: bob.stephens@nc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William W. Stewart , Jr. Millberg, Gordon and Stewart, PLLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 104 Raleigh, NC 27604−1499 919−836−0090 Fax: 919−836−8027 Email: bstewart@mgsattorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karl S. Bowers , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 4 of 8
William W. Stewart , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States of America
Defendant United States Department of Justice
Defendant Loretta E. Lynch in her official capacity as United States Attorney General
Defendant Vanita Gupta in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

represented by Michael James 310 New Bern Ave. Suite 800 Raleigh, NC 27601 919−856−4530 Email: Mike.James@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Spencer E. Amdur United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 212−616−7420 Fax: 202−616−8460 Email: spencer.amdur@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael James (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Spencer E. Amdur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael James (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Spencer E. Amdur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael James (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Spencer E. Amdur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 5 of 8

05/09/2016
05/09/2016
05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/17/2016 05/17/2016
05/20/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0417−3674980.), filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons, # 3 Proposed Summons, # 4 Proposed Summons, # 5 Proposed Summons) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: Proposed summonses at 1 Complaint. Pursuant to Section B(3) of the CM/ECF Policy Manual available on the court's website, when using fillable PDF forms, the court requires that these forms be "flattened." Counsel is directed to flatten and refile the proposed summonses using the event "Notice−(other)." (Felder, J) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
NOTICE to Counsel − All counsel should file a Notice of Appearance pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a). (Felder, J) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
2 Notice filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry regarding 1 Complaint, Proposed Summons. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Summons, # 2 Proposed Summons, # 3 Proposed Summons) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
3 Notice of Appearance filed by William W. Stewart, Jr on behalf of Patrick L. McCrory. (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
4 Notice of Appearance filed by Frank J. Gordon on behalf of Patrick L. McCrory. (Gordon, Frank) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
5 Notice of Appearance filed by Brennan Tyler Brooks on behalf of Patrick L. McCrory. (Brooks, Brennan) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
6 Financial Disclosure Statement by Patrick L. McCrory (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
7 Financial Disclosure Statement by Frank Perry (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
8 Summonses Issued as to Vanita Gupta, Loretta E. Lynch, United States Department of Justice, and United States of America. Counsel is directed to print summonses and effect service. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
9 MOTION to Transfer Case (Unopposed) filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
10 Memorandum in Support regarding 9 MOTION to Transfer Case (Unopposed) filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint in USA v. State of NC, # 2 Exhibit Complaint in Carcano v. McCrory, # 3 Exhibit 1st Amended Complaint in Carcano v. McCrory, # 4 Supplement Landers v. Dawson (unpublished opinion), # 5 Supplement Calloway Golf v. Corp. Trade (unpublished opinion)) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
Motion Submitted to US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: regarding 9 MOTION to Transfer Case (Unopposed). (Romine, L.) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
11 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Phil Berger, Tim Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
12 Memorandum in Support regarding 11 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Phil Berger, Tim Moore. (Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
13 Notice of Appearance filed by Stuart K. Duncan on behalf of Phil Berger, Tim Moore. (Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
14 Notice of Appearance filed by Robert D. Potter, Jr on behalf of Phil Berger, Tim Moore. (Potter, Robert) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
15 Notice of Appearance for non−district by Karl S. Bowers, Jr on behalf of Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Bowers, Karl) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiffs in later−filed, related case 5:16−CV−240−FL have filed in this matter a motion to consolidate the two cases in the interests of judicial economy, efficient handling, and consistent resolution of common issues. DE 11 . The Court will defer its ruling on the pending motion to transfer DE 9 in order to consider the motion to consolidate. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 5/23/2016. (Romine,

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 6 of 8

05/23/2016 05/23/2016
05/23/2016
05/23/2016
05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 05/25/2016 05/26/2016
06/06/2016

L.) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
16 Affidavit of Service for summons and complaint filed by Patrick L. McCrory served on USA on 5/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − usa−civil process clerk, # 2 Exhibit B − usa−usag) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
17 Affidavit of Service for summons and complaint filed by Patrick L. McCrory served on USDOJ on 5/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − DOJ−civil process, # 2 Exhibit B − USDOJ, # 3 Exhibit C − USDOJ − AG) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
18 Affidavit of Service for summons and complaint filed by Patrick L. McCrory served on Loretta Lynch − AG on 5/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Lynch − civil process, # 2 Exhibit B− Lynch − AG, # 3 Exhibit C− Lynch − USDOJ) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
19 Affidavit of Service for summons and complaint filed by Patrick L. McCrory served on Vanita Gupta − Asst AG on 5/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Gupta − civil process, # 2 Exhibit B − Gupta − AG, # 3 Exhibit C− Gupta − USDOJ) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
20 Notice of Appearance filed by Deborah J. Dewart on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Dewart, Deborah) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
21 Financial Disclosure Statement by North Carolinians for Privacy (Dewart, Deborah) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by North Carolinians for Privacy. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Dewart, Deborah) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
23 Memorandum in Support regarding 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by North Carolinians for Privacy. (Dewart, Deborah) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
24 Notice of Appearance for non−district by Jeremy D. Tedesco on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Tedesco, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
25 Notice of Appearance for non−district by James A. Campbell on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Campbell, James) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
26 Notice of Appearance for non−district by Kristen K. Waggoner on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Waggoner, Kristen) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
27 Notice of Appearance for non−district by Joseph E. La Rue on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (La Rue, Joseph) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
28 Notice of Appearance for non−district by Jonathan Caleb Dalton on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Dalton, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
29 Notice of Appearance for non−district by David A. Cortman on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Cortman, David) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
30 Notice of Appearance for non−district by John Matthew Sharp on behalf of North Carolinians for Privacy. (Sharp, John) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
31 RESPONSE to Motion regarding 11 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Stewart, William) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
32 ORDER − Consolidation of case No. 5:16−CV−240−FL with this matter will be allowed if permitted by the judge to whom the General Assembly's case is currently assigned. The Court makes no determination as to the motion to consolidate filed by North Carolinians for Privacy, case No. 5:16−CV−245−FL, at this time. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 5/26/2016. The parties are reminded to read the attached order in its entirety. (Downing, L.) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
33 MOTION to Intervene filed by Steven Glenn Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A − Correspondence and Oath of Office, # 3 Exhibit B − Document − Page 3 of 12, # 4 Exhibit C − Register of Deeds Document) (Marsh, K) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 7 of 8

06/07/2016 06/09/2016 06/13/2016 06/14/2016 06/14/2016 06/16/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016 06/20/2016 06/21/2016 06/27/2016 06/27/2016 06/29/2016 07/12/2016
07/13/2016
07/18/2016 07/22/2016
07/26/2016

34 ORDER denying 9 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/7/2016. (Marsh, K) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
35 Notice of Appearance filed by Gene C. Schaerr on behalf of Phil Berger, Tim Moore. (Schaerr, Gene) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
36 ORDER allowing Phil Berger's and Tim Moore's 11 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/13/2016. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
37 Notice of Appearance filed by Spencer E. Amdur on behalf of All Defendants. (Amdur, Spencer) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
38 Memorandum in Opposition regarding 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Vanita Gupta, Loretta E. Lynch, United States Department of Justice, United States of America. (Amdur, Spencer) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
39 Notice of Appearance filed by Michael James on behalf of All Defendants. (James, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
40 RESPONSE to Motion regarding 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Stewart, William) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
41 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by North Carolinians for Privacy. (Campbell, James) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
42 RESPONSE in Support regarding 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Phil Berger, Tim Moore. (Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
43 ORDER allowing North Carolinians for Privacy's 22 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/20/2016. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
44 Notice of Appearance filed by Robert C. Stephens on behalf of Patrick L. McCrory. (Stephens, Robert) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
45 Memorandum in Opposition regarding 33 MOTION to Intervene of Steven Glenn Johnson filed by Vanita Gupta, Loretta E. Lynch, United States Department of Justice, United States of America. (Amdur, Spencer) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
46 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Vanita Gupta, Loretta E. Lynch, United States Department of Justice, United States of America. Amendment to 45 Memorandum in Opposition Amending Certificate of Service (Amdur, Spencer) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 33 MOTION to Intervene filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Stewart, William) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
48 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Vanita Gupta, Loretta E. Lynch, United States Department of Justice, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3) (Amdur, Spencer) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
49 ORDER regarding 48 MOTION to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' response to the motion shall be filed not later than July 22, 2016. Any reply by defendants shall be filed not later than July 26, 2016. A hearing will be held on the motion, if necessary, at Raleigh, North Carolina. The date and time will be set by separate notice. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/13/2016. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
50 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 33 MOTION to Intervene filed by Steven Glenn Johnson. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 48 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Charlotte Observer Article, # 2 Exhibit B − Remarks of Attorney General Lynch, # 3 Exhibit C − Order in Case No. 1:16−cv−00425−TDS−JEP (M.D.N.C.)) (Stewart, William) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
52 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 48 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Vanita Gupta, Loretta E. Lynch, United States Department of Justice, United States of America. (Amdur, Spencer) (Entered: 07/26/2016)

Case: 5:16-cv-238 As of: 11/03/2017 12:23 PM EDT 8 of 8

07/27/2016 09/01/2016 09/08/2016 09/13/2016
09/16/2016 09/29/2016 10/24/2016 01/19/2017

Motions Submitted to US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: 33 MOTION to Intervene and 48 MOTION to Dismiss. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
53 ORDER denying movant Johnson's 33 Motion to Intervene. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/1/2016. Certified copy sent to pro se movant via US Mail to 208 Nydegg Road, New Bern, NC 28562. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
54 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 48 MOTION to Dismiss: Motion Hearing set for 9/29/2016 at 11:00 AM in Raleigh − 6th Floor Courtroom before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (Romine, L.) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
Reset Hearing as to 48 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion Hearing set for Thursday 9/22/2016 at 11:00 AM in Raleigh − 7th Floor − Courtroom 2 before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. Change in date and courtroom (Romine, L.) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
55 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Patrick L. McCrory, Frank Perry as to All Defendants (Without Prejudice). (Stewart, William) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
56 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by Steven Glenn Johnson. (Stouch, L.) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: 56 MOTION to Alter Judgment. (Stouch, L.) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
57 ORDER denying 56 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/18/2017. Certified copy sent to Steven−Glenn: Johnson via US Mail to 208 Nydegg Road, New Bern, NC 28562. (Stouch, L.) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

 
 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Washington, D.C. 20530
May 4, 2016
Via electronic and overnight mail
Governor Pat McCrory State ofNorth Carolina North Carolina Office of the Governor 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603-8001
Dear Governor McCrory:
This letter is to inform you that the Department of Justice has determined that, as a result of compliance v..ith and implementation ofNorth Carolina House Bill 2 ("H.B. 2"), both you and the State of North Carolina (the "State") are in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). Specifically, the State is engaging in
a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees and both you, in your official capacity, and the State are engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of Title VII rights by transgender employees of public agencies.
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of sex and from otherwise resisting the full enjoyment of Title VII rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. The Supreme Court made clear in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that discrimination on the basis of"sex" includes differential treatment based on any "sex-based considerationO." 490 U.S. 228, 242 (1989) (plurality). Federal courts and administrative agencies have applied Title VII to discrimination against transgender individuals based on sex, including gender identity. See, e.g., Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.Jd 1312, 1315-20 (11th Cir. 2011); Barnes v. City ofCincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 737 (6th Cir. 2005); Smith v. City ofSalem, 378 f.3d 566, 572-75 (6th Cir. 2004); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 , 303-08 (D.D.C. 2008); Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995, at *4~ 11 (EEOC Apr. 20, 2012).
Access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title Vll. Significantly, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ('"EEOC") recently addressed this very issue and held that 1" (e]qual access to restrooms is a significant, basic condition of employment,' and that denying transgender individuals access to a restroom consistent with gender identity discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII." Lusardi v. Dep't ofthe Army, No. 0120133395, 20 15 WL 1607756, at *9 (EEOC Apr. 1, 2015). And, in interpreting the analogous
1
C.. ·

sex discrimination provision ofTitle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in G. G. v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. , No. 152056,2016 WL 1567467 at *11 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 20 16), that the Department of Education's guidance that educational institutions "generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity" is entitled to "controlling weight" under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997).
H.B. 2, which took effect on March 23, 2016, is facially discriminatory against transgender employees on the basis ofsex because it treats transgender employees, whose gender identity does not match their "biological sex," as defined by H.B. 2,2 differently from similarly situated non-transgender employees. Under H.B. 2, non-transgender state employees may access restrooms and changing facilities that are consistent with their gender identity in public buildings, while transgender state employees may not.
H.B. 2 places similar restrictions on access to restrooms and changing faci lities for all public agencies3 in North Carolina, including, for example, all political subdivisions of the State. On April 12, 2016, you issued Executive Order 93, reaffirming the applicability ofthis provision of H.B. 2 to all cabinet agencies. By requiring compliance with H.B. 2, you and the State are therefore resisting the full enjoyment of Title VII rights and discrinlinating against transgender employees of public agencies by requiring those public agencies to comply with H.B. 2.
Based upon the above, we have concluded that, in violation of Title VII, the State is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against its employees and both you and the State are engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of Title VII rights by employees of public agencies. When the Attorney General ofthe United States has a reasonable basis to believe that a state or person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII, she may apply to the appropriate court for an order that will ensure compliance with Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a). This responsibility has been delegated to the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division.
Please advise the Department, therefore, no later than close of business on May 9, 2016 whether you will remedy these violations of Title VII, including by 9onfirming that the State will not comply with or implement H.B. 2, and that it has notified employees of the State and public agencies that, consistent with federal law, they are permitted to access bathrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity.
We further inform you that today the Department sent letters addressed to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University ofNorth Carolina similarly notifying
1 Courts consider often Title VII and Title IX precedent together when analyzing discrimination claims. See, e.g., Franklin v. Gwinnelt Cnty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 74 (1992); Jennings v. Univ. ofN.C. , 482 F.3d 686, 695 (4th Cir. 2007); Murray v. N.Y. Univ. Col/. ofDentistry, 57 F.3d 243, 249 (2d Cir. 1995). 2 H.B. 2 defines "biological sex" as the "physical condition ofbcing male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate." KC. Gen. Stat. 143· 760(a)( I). 3 "Public Agencies" arc defined by the Act as including: executive branch agencies; all agencies, boards, offices, and departments under the direction and control of a member of the Council of State; units, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. 159-7(b)(15); public authorities, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. 159-7(b)(I 0); local boards ofeducation, the judicial and legislative branches, and any other political subdivision oftbc States. N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-760(a)(4).
2

them of our conclusion that they have engaged in violations ofTitle Vll, as well as violations of Title IX and its implementing regulations, and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of2013 ("VAWA''). Courtesy copies of those letters are enclosed.
If you have questions about this letter, please contact Delora Kennebrew at (202) 5143831/ Delora.Kennebrew@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely, Vanita Gupta Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
3