Home Page Slide Show 4

Dressing for Success: Choosing the Right Attire for the Job

Starting at a new job can be a stressful and awkward moment in life.  You have so many questions racing through your mind:

  • Will I catch on quickly?
  • Am I qualified to even do this job?
  • Will the people be nice to work with?
  • What do I need to bring on my first day?

Among the many details of on-boarding and training, the question of how to dress for your new position can get lost in the shuffle.

There are three basic types of dress when it comes to the workplace:

  • Casual
  • Business Casual
  • Professional

There are grey areas in between these basic types of dress, but for the most part these three are the most common you will run into.  The following definitions will help you avoid confusion and be sure your attire fits the expectations of your new company.


Dressing casual does not indicate you can dress sloppy or inappropriate. Clothing should always be clean, wrinkle-free and must not be overly revealing or offensive.  Depending on the dress code in your workplace, you may be allowed to wear T-shirts and sneakers; however, always be neat and think about your appearance.


  • Sundress
  • Long or short skirt
  • Khakis or nice jeans
  • Shorts (depending on occasion and climate)
  • Plain T-shirt (no slogans), polo shirt, turtleneck
  • Casual button-down blouse


  • Khakis or good jeans (clean, no wrinkles or holes)
  • Cargo or Bermuda shorts—depending on occasion and climate
  • Plain T-shirt (no slogans), polo shirt, turtleneck
  • Casual button-down shirt and/or sweater
  • Loafers, sneakers (with or without socks), sandals

Business Casual

A business casual dress code simply means that you don’t need to wear a dress suit for both men and women.  Clothing should always be clean, wrinkle-free and most certainly does not include jeans or t-shirts.


  • Skirt, khakis, or pants
  • Open-collar shirt, knit shirt or sweater (no spaghetti straps or décolleté)
  • Dressy top
  • Dressy pants outfit
  • Dress


  • Seasonal sport coat or blazer with slacks or khakis
  • Dress shirt, casual button-down shirt, open-collar or polo shirt
  • Optional tie
  • Loafers or loafer-style shoes, and socks


When you dress professional, you are dressing to impress. Professional attire consists of neutral colors and conservative footwear for both men and women.  Individuals should have clean grooming, wrinkle-free clothes and pay attention to the details: buttons, tie length, straight collars, etc.


  • Suit
  • Business-style dress
  • Dress with a jacket
  • Stockings (optional in summer)
  • Heels, low or high


  • Dark business suit
  • Matching vest (optional)
  • Dress shirt
  • Conservative tie
  • Dress shoes and dark dress socks

There are several opportunities leading up to your new career to learn appropriate attire.  During all interviews, take note on attire of other employees and better prepare yourself should you receive an offer of employment.  During your offer of employment, ask how you should dress on your first day.  On your first day, cover the topic of appropriate attire with your new supervisor. Understanding what is expected will help avoid uncomfortable conversations about what you have been wearing to work.

Remember, what you wear says a lot about you and the company you’ll be working for. So, consider your company, your teammates, clients, management, and your position when reaching into your closet, and you’ll be sure to come out a winner.  Remember that it is always best to dress, not for the position you’re in, but the position you WANT TO BE in.

Dear Atty: When it’s More then Just a Disruptive Employee.

Dear Atty:

We have an employee who has been working for us for about five months as an administrative assistant. Recently she has become disruptive in meetings and disturbing her coworkers at their desks for unexplained reasons. In addition, she has been very disrespectful to her supervisor and has been late getting her work completed. Last month I called her in to give her a formal warning about her behavior. We talked things over and she agreed that she would work on her behavior and time management. She also disclosed that she has some mental health issues and would work on getting her medication under control. She improved for a few days but her behavior is becoming more and more erratic. I would like to fire her as her behavior is really affecting the entire office. Not knowing her diagnosis, I am worried if there are any legal ramifications for firing someone with a mental disability.



Dear Puzzled:

This is a tricky situation because there is no clear-cut answer. Individuals with mental disabilities can be covered by both the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA); both laws make it illegal to discriminate against individuals with mental disabilities. While the two laws agree on that point, they disagree on how to handle workplace performance issues that may be caused by mental disabilities.

The Law: The ADA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to the EEOC, an employer can hold an employee to the same performance standards as other employees regardless of whether the employee’s performance is adversely affected by their mental disability. The WFEA, however, takes the opposite approach. Under the WFEA, if an employee’s poor performance is due, in part, to their mental disability, disciplining that employee for poor performance is seen as discipline “because of” the disability, i.e., it would be illegal to impose the discipline.

When two laws conflict your safest bet is to follow the one that is more favorable to the employee. In this case, that would mean not disciplining or firing the employee in question – – at least not yet.

As you probably know, under the ADA and WFEA an employer has an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with a disability. Cases that have interpreted the WFEA have found that providing the disabled employee with “clemency and forbearance” from the employer’s performance standards is a form of reasonable accommodation. An employer, however, does not need to suspend its performance expectations indefinitely.

At this point you are probably saying to yourself, “that’s all fine and good, but what should I actually
do?” To answer that, lets focus on a couple of points that you raised in your initial question.

First, you said that your employee was working on getting her medication under control. You then mentioned that her poor behavior started up again a “few days later.” A few days typically is not enough time to allow changes in medication to have their desired effect. You need to give your employee more time to try to get her condition under control through changes in her medication.

The next question you probably are asking yourself is, “well, how much time do I need to give her?” The answer to that question brings up a second point that you raised in your initial question. You stated that you do not know her diagnosis. Most employers don’t know that when they are in the process of trying to develop a reasonable accommodation for an employee they have the right to contact the employee’s doctor.  You should contact the employee’s doctor in writing and ask whether a change in medication ever will change your employee’s behavior and if so, how long it will take.

If the doctor answers that no change in behavior ever will occur, you may then be in the position to fire your employee. Again, “clemency and forbearance” from your reasonable performance standards does not need to be given indefinitely. It is very likely, however, that the doctor will respond by saying that the change in medication should control the behavior and will give you some sense of how long it will take or that change to occur. At that point, I think your best course of action is to try to accommodate your employee’s behavior for the time period specified by the doctor for the change in medication to take effect.

I know that this answer was more complicated than you would have liked. But, dealing with mental health issues is no simple matter.


Dear Atty: Pregnancy disclosure and the law

Dear Attorney:

My company recently hired a new employee, Mary, to work on an important project for a new client. The client’s project has a nine-month completion date. Unbeknown to me at the time of hire, Mary also was working on a project of her own with a nine-month completion date; she told me today that she is pregnant. My concern is that Mary will need time off during this crucial project for our new client and that the completion could be delayed. I also feel betrayed by the fact that Mary did not disclose her pregnancy until after she was hired. What should I do? Can I fire Mary for not telling me about her pregnancy during the hiring process?
Baby Blues


Dear Baby:

I am sorry that you have found yourself in the midst of this immaculate deception. The issue of whether a pregnant woman should disclose her pregnancy during the hiring process is a tricky one. On one hand, many women believe, perhaps rightfully so, that if they disclose their pregnancy the employer will find an excuse not to hire them. On the other hand, many employers feel deceived when a woman waits until after she has been hired to disclose her pregnancy; this often has a negative effect on the employment relationship going forward.

In order to address your concerns, let’s start with what the law says:

The Law: First, you need to know that an applicant for employment has no legal duty to disclose her pregnancy. Second, pregnant women are covered by a federal law called the Pregnancy discrimination Act (PDA). Under that law, discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Essentially, the PDA requires that pregnant employees be treated the same as non-pregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Stated even more simply, the PDA views pregnancy as a type of temporary disability. As such, an employer must treat the pregnant employee in the same manner that it would a non-pregnant employee who is suffering from a temporary disability, e.g., a back injury, etc.

With this in mind, consider how you would handle the situation if, instead of hiring Mary, you had hired a male employee, Joseph. Let’s say that eight months into the client’s project, Joseph injured his back and needed to be off work for a month. Even though Joseph’s absence would not be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (because Joseph had not been employed long enough to be covered), you undoubtedly would allow Joseph the time off to recuperate and would not terminate his employment. The PDA requires that you treat Mary in the same manner.

It also is worth noting that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has heightened its scrutiny of pregnancy related claims. In short, this is an area that is fraught with perilous perils.

The best approach to take with Mary has nothing to do with the law. You should meet with her and explain your concerns regarding how the pregnancy may impact your client’s project. You should invite her to suggest possible solutions as to how she can balance her pregnancy and your company’s needs.
I can appreciate that my response likely is unsatisfying. At a gut level, it feels wrong that your company cannot simply fire Mary and hire someone else who actually will be available to complete this important client project. If you were to do so, however, I fear that, in addition to Mary’s baby, a lawsuit will be born.


What to Consider Before Accepting a Job Offer

Signature CCO

Part 1

Whether you are still looking for your dream job or you’ve landed an offer, now is the right time determine your must-haves before signing on the dotted line. This two-part series will help you consider your options.

Your Co-Workers

Ask to meet the people that you will be working most closely with before you accept an offer. This will allow you to use their first impression to decide if your personalities will mesh. This is particularly important if you are planning to stay there long term. Your dream job can quickly become a nightmare if your co-workers have difficult personalities.

The Office Environment & Culture

Make sure to request a tour before you sign a contract. Pay close attention to conversations, the decor and what people are wearing. This will let you know if you are headed towards a formal or a more laid back work environment. One is not better than the other, it is a matter of preference. For many people, the office culture can influence their happiness level at work.

Also, take note of your potential desk area, their technology and their kitchen, breakroom, and bathroom conditions. You do not want to end up working in a dimly lit, unkempt place without the resources and technology that you need to do your job.

Stability & Forward Momentum

What direction is the company headed in? That is a perfect question to ask before you accept a job offer. Don’t just take their word for it; do your own research! There is little point in finding the perfect job if it is not going to be there for you.

Room to Grow

If moving up within a company is important to you, consider what career paths are available. Don’t be discouraged if there isn’t a clear path that is obvious to you right away. Consider how you could create your own. Think outside of the box.

Keep an eye out for more helpful tips and our conclusion in Part 2.

What are some things that you think people should consider before accepting a job offer?

Angelica Headshot UpdatedBy: Angelica Dudenhoefer is the Marketing Coordinator at Drake & Company, a staffing firm based in Madison, Wisconsin. Drake & Company specializes in temporary, temp-to-hire, and direct hire administrative, clerical and legal placements. Since 1978, Drake has reached beyond skills and qualifications to match candidate personalities with a company’s culture. You can connect with Angelica by email or on LinkedIn and you can find Drake & Company on FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+,Instagram and Pinterest.

Dear Atty., Do I Legally Have To Tell The Truth About Why I Fired Someone?

Attorney Pete Albrecht

Lie vs Truth CCO

Dear Attorney:

We have a woman in our office named Bev. Let me start by saying that Bev is one of the nicest people you ever will meet. Unfortunately, she also is dumber than a box of rocks. Despite repeated instructions, she continues to make the same mistakes over and over again. We now are in the position of having to let her go. I am the one who will have to break the news to Bev. I am wondering if I have to tell her the specific reasons why we are ending her employment. I really do not want to hurt her feelings. Is it okay if I just tell her something along the lines of “its just not working out?”


Sometimes the Truth Hurts

Dear Truth:

While it is understandable that you do not want to hurt Bev’s feelings, you are not doing her or your company any favors by avoiding the truth. Legally, you could be placing your company at risk if Bev should file some sort of a discrimination claim. To better understand this point, consider how the burdens of proof work in a discrimination case.

The Law: In discrimination cases, courts typically use what is referred to as the “shifting burdens” test. First, the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) must establish what is called a prima facie case.  This is pretty simple. The plaintiff need only show that she is a member of a protected class; was performing satisfactorily; and suffered some adverse employment action, such as being fired. Once the plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, the burden shifts over to the employer to show that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking the adverse action; e.g., performance issues. Once the employer establishes that, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff one more time. If the plaintiff can show that the reasons offered by the employer for the adverse action are a lie (the legal word is “pretext”), the court can draw the inference that the employer’s actions were discriminatory. The theory is that if the employer felt the need to lie about the reasons for its actions it is likely that the employer was lying in order to cover up a discriminatory motive.

Now, let’s take all of that and apply it to a possible situation that could arise with Bev. Even though you have legitimate, performance based reasons for terminating Bev’s employment, let’s say that you don’t share those reasons with Bev and, instead, simply tell her that she is being fired because “its not working out.” Then, suppose that Bev files a discrimination claim, such as age discrimination, against your company. During the lawsuit, you are pressed by Bev’s attorney to articulate the reasons why Bev was fired. This could occur many months after she actually was fired. At that point, for the first time, you disclose the actual, performance related issues for why Bev was let go. Her attorney then confronts you and says, “wait a minute, that’s not what you told Bev when you fired her. You gave her a completely different story.” The attorney presses you further and asks, “which is it – – were you lying then or are you lying now?”

Can you see how it could appear as though you are raising the performance related issues for the termination as an after-the-fact way to justify the termination decision? Can you see how doing so could be twisted into creating the impression that the performance related reasons for her termination are actually a lie? Now, go back to the shifting burdens approach that was discussed earlier. If the employer’s proffered reasons for the adverse action can be seen as a lie, i.e., pretext, the legal inference is created that the employer actually was acting with a discriminatory motive.

This is a long-winded way of telling you what you already knew: telling the truth is the right thing to do even if it sometimes may hurt. And, when it comes to employment matters, telling the truth is the best approach, from a legal standpoint.



The “Dear Atty.” column is aimed at answering employers’ legal questions that surround issues in human resources. Attorney Pete Albrecht of Albrecht Backer Labor & Employment Law, S.C. welcomes you to submit questions here for future editions of “Dear Atty.”

If you would like additional information about this topic, please contact Pete Albrecht. He is the president and a shareholder at Albrecht Backer Labor and Employment Law. Pete has represented employers for over 28 years and his law office is located in Madison, Wisconsin.

What Are Drake Stars And Why Are They Important?

Happy Person CCO

At Drake & Company, all of our candidates are important and we work very hard to get them placed in positions that they will love.  During our background/reference checks, a chosen few of our candidates shine brightest, and are selected to be featured as our Drake Stars.  These individuals have outstanding qualifications, reliability and ethics, all of which are confirmed through our communications directly with their previous supervisors.

Every month we select Drake Stars to feature on our website and in our newsletter, however, to protect their identity, we give them a pseudonym.   We highlight their skills, preferred job/industry, salary requirements and personality traits. This gives them a bit of extra exposure to increase their likelihood of being considered for a position. When a client expresses interest in one of our Drake Stars, we connect them immediately.

Our Drake Stars are the candidates that we go to for our client’s last minute or challenging needs because we know that we can count on them. Featuring Drake Stars is just one of the ways that we honor those who have worked hard to earn their recognition here at Drake & Company.

Angelica PM2 C for BLAngelica Dudenhoefer is the Marketing Coordinator at Drake & Company, a staffing firm based in Madison, Wisconsin. Drake & Company specializes in temporary, temp-to-hire, and direct hire administrative, clerical and legal placements. Since 1978, Drake has reached beyond skills and qualifications to match candidate personalities with a company’s culture. You can connect with Angelica by email or on LinkedIn and you can find Drake & Company on FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+,Instagram and Pinterest.

Dear Atty., Do I Legally Have To Hire This Criminal?

Attorney Pete Albrecht

Handcuffs CCO

Dear Attorney:

Our company recently extended a job offer to a woman to fill our vacant accounting/bookkeeper position. She is highly qualified and comes with great references. She is scheduled to start next week. After we extended the job offer to her, however, her future supervisor went on the internet and discovered that she has a criminal conviction for battery. Upon discovering this, the supervisor came to me (because I am the HR Manager) and said that he wants to withdraw the job offer. He said that he is not comfortable working with a “criminal.” Something in my gut tells me this is not right. What should I do?


Conflicted by Convictions

Dear Conflicted:

Listen to your gut. Wisconsin is one of a handful of states that has a law prohibiting discrimination based on an individual’s arrest or conviction record.

The Law: The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s arrest or conviction record, unless the employer can show that the circumstances of the crime substantially relate to the circumstances of the job in question. The law also makes distinctions between criminal convictions and arrest and distinguishes between the treatment of existing employees and applicants. For job applicants, if the crime that led to the arrest or conviction is substantially related to the job, the employer can refuse to hire the individual. For existing employees, if the crime that led to the conviction is substantially related to the job, the employer may terminate the individual’s employment. If an existing employee is arrested for a crime that is substantially related to the job, the employer’s recourse is to suspend (without pay) the employee pending resolution of the criminal charge. If, however, the nature of the crime leading to either an arrest or a conviction is not substantially related to the job, an employer can take no adverse action against either a job applicant or an existing employee.

At this point you are probably saying to yourself, “that all makes sense, sort of, but how do I know if a crime is “substantially related” to the job?” Therein lies the rub: the substantial relationship test can be dicey. Sure, there are some easy examples. For instance, the crime of theft certainly would be substantially related to the job of a bank teller or some other job that involves access to money. But, consider some examples of crimes that have not been found to be substantially related to the job:

  • Battery/Custodian
  • Sexual assault, possession of a firearm, false imprisonment/Forklift Driver in a warehouse
  • Sexual assault, bail-jumping/Assistant Store Manager
  • Disorderly conduct/Certified Nursing Assistant
  • Sexual assault of a child/Machine Operator

The key in these cases is whether the job in question somehow would make it more likely that the traits that caused the crime could be repeated. In the example that you presented, it is unlikely that a conviction for battery is substantially related to the job of bookkeeper; there is nothing about being a bookkeeper that would increase the likelihood that the woman you hired would engage in another act of battery.

The most important lesson to take from all of this is that Wisconsin employers cannot have a blanket policy of refusing to hire or terminating individuals simply because of a criminal arrest or conviction. Employers must first assess whether there is a substantial relationship between the nature of the crime and the nature of the job.

So, Conflicted, my advice is that you not rescind the job offer. The woman to whom you extended the offer obviously was qualified or you would not have made the offer. She should not be denied employment simply because her future supervisor has, based on unwarranted stereotypes, decided that no one with a criminal record should work for your company. This, after all, is the type of bias that the Wisconsin law was intended to address.



The “Dear Atty.” column is aimed at answering employers’ legal questions that surround issues in human resources. Attorney Pete Albrecht of Albrecht Backer Labor & Employment Law, S.C. welcomes you to submit questions here for future editions of “Dear Atty.”

If you would like additional information about this topic, please contact Pete Albrecht. He is the president and a shareholder at Albrecht Backer Labor and Employment Law. Pete has represented employers for over 28 years and his law office is located in Madison, Wisconsin.

Dear Atty., Can My Employee Take Maternity Leave Before The Baby Is Born?

Attorney Pete Albrecht


Pregnancy 2 CCO PM

Dear Attorney:

We have an employee who is in the final weeks of her pregnancy. She is healthy and has no medical complications as a result of the pregnancy. She recently approached me and asked if she could take a couple of weeks off prior to the expected due date to get her apartment and the baby’s nursery in order. According to her, she is feeling a strong “nesting” urge. This employee, however, has no PTO remaining. She asked whether this “nesting” time prior to her child’s birth could be covered by FMLA. I’ll be honest with you – – I know enough about the FMLA to be dangerous. I know that it would cover this employee if she had a medical complication from the pregnancy. I also know that she would be covered after the birth of her child for “bonding” leave. But I don’t see anything in the FMLA that would allow her time off prior to the birth of her child for “nesting.” Am I missing something?


Nesting is for the Birds

Dear Nesting:

Actually, it’s a real thing. Many doctors believe that in the final weeks of a woman’s pregnancy, an increase in adrenaline levels may cause some women to feel a very strong nesting urge. It is understandable that an expectant mother may want to act on this urge to get her home in order before life becomes too hectic after the birth of her child.

Are you missing something in your reading of the FMLA? I think so. The answer to your question lies in the somewhat obscure interpretive regulations to the Wisconsin version of the FMLA.

The Law: Under the federal FMLA, it is clear that a woman is entitled to take 12 weeks off for the birth of a child. Under the federal FMLA, this entitlement starts, “beginning on the date of birth.” The Wisconsin version of the FMLA provides for six weeks of leave for the birth of a child. Under the Wisconsin law, this leave must start “within” 16 weeks of the child’s birth. The regulations that interpret the Wisconsin law make clear that the word “within” means that the leave can be taken, “16 weeks before the estimated date of birth and no later than 16 weeks after the actual date of birth.”

So, as you can see, the Wisconsin and federal laws take different approaches to this issue. Under the Wisconsin FMLA, your employee would be entitled to take time off prior to the estimated date of birth so long as the leave begins within the final 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the time that the employee takes off prior to the birth of her child under the Wisconsin law cannot be counted against the 12 weeks that she is entitled to take under the federal law. This is because the federal law does not apply to leaves beginning prior to the birth of a child. Stated differently, because the federal law and Wisconsin laws do not cover the same things, you cannot run this employee’s time off for “nesting” leave concurrently with her time off under the federal law. This means that the employee could, under the facts you gave me, have as much as 14 weeks off in a row: two weeks of nesting leave prior to the birth of the child under Wisconsin law and 12 weeks after the birth under the federal law.

Also, keep in mind that we are only talking about “bonding” and “nesting” leave. The federal FMLA certainly would apply prior to the birth of a child in situations in which the pregnancy is causing the mother to experience medical problems, i.e., the mother’s own serious health condition.

Nesting is not just for the birds. This instinct in humans can be as powerful as it is for our feathered friends. Legally, the Wisconsin law provides mothers with protected leave to act on this urge.



The “Dear Atty.” column is aimed at answering employers’ legal questions that surround issues in human resources. Attorney Pete Albrecht of Albrecht Backer Labor & Employment Law, S.C. welcomes you to submit questions here for future editions of “Dear Atty.”

If you would like additional information about this topic, please contact Pete Albrecht. He is the president and a shareholder at Albrecht Backer Labor and Employment Law. Pete has represented employers for over 28 years and his law office is located in Madison, Wisconsin.

Top 5 Reasons to Hire Quickly


Snail CCO

There is a common mentality in the hiring industry: hire slowly so that you can take your time to find the right candidate! This may work in certain situations, but for the most part, hiring slowly can cause a myriad of problems. Here are the top 5 reasons to hire quickly.

Top candidates find jobs before your hiring process is over

If you are considering hiring a person, it is likely that other people are too. Asking a highly qualified candidate to go through a long interview process is akin to asking them to keep their options open. They will have more time to interview at other companies. If those companies have a faster interview process, your top candidate could be scooped up before you even have a chance to make an offer.

Save money, time and resources

Slow hiring leads to vacant positions which in turn decreases productivity and sales. Additionally, hiring managers are being pulled away from work for things like meetings related to the opening, candidate interviews, and researching potential applicants which only contributes to the problem. There is also the cost of the recruiter or hiring manager to consider. When it comes down to it, sometimes the lengthy hiring process could cost more than the salary being saved while the position is vacant.

Increase your chance of winning a war for a candidate

So you’ve found your perfect candidate, but someone else wants her too. You are stuck in a bidding war. A slow hiring process could mean that you lose the war and have to start over again. Candidates will often go with the first job offer that meets their needs.

Creates a burden on customers and current employees

A slow hiring process creates more work for your HR department/recruiter and more work for those employees who are taking on additional tasks until the position is filled. This can decrease productivity placing an extra burden on your customers.

Slow hiring causes a lag in recruitment enthusiasm

A slow hiring process can easily turn from a task that someone is excited to do, to a long drawn out process that gets put on the back burner. This lack of enthusiasm could result in candidates that have not been screened thoroughly or an even longer hiring process.

These are just a few of the many reasons why it is often better to speed up your hiring process. This doesn’t mean you should hire the first Joe Schmoe that turns in a resume. It means, be deliberate in your hiring process and eliminate the unnecessary, time-consuming steps.

Angelica PM2 C for BLAngelica Dudenhoefer is the Marketing Coordinator at Drake & Company, a staffing firm based in Madison, Wisconsin. Drake & Company specializes in temporary, temp-to-hire, and direct hire administrative, clerical and legal placements. Since 1978, Drake has reached beyond skills and qualifications to match candidate personalities with a company’s culture. You can connect with Angelica by email or on LinkedIn and you can find Drake & Company on FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+, Instagram and Pinterest.

1 2 3 12