Serial Number Idm 6.17 Build 10159
Brie Hoffler
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The EEOC's responsibilities extend not only to private employers, but also to agencies in the federal government. The federal anti-discrimination laws applicable to federal government employment are as follows:
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work performed under similar conditions;
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided (it applies the same standards as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability by private and state or local government employers);
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978 Amendment to Title VII of Civil Rights Act) , which prohibits treating a woman unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth; and
Title VII grants the EEOC authority to issue rules, regulations and instructions as necessary to enforce the above-listed EEO laws within the federal government, and requires the EEOC to annually review federal agency EEO plans and report on their progress. The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government's equal employment opportunity program as a function of these authorities and obligations. The EEOC assures federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, monitors and evaluates federal agencies' affirmative employment programs, develops and distributes federal sector educational materials, and conducts training for stakeholders. EEOC furthermore provides guidance and assistance to its Administrative Judges (AJs) - who conduct hearings on federal sector EEO complaints -- and adjudicates appeals from administrative decisions made by federal agencies on EEO complaints. The objective of this report is to promote equal employment opportunity by providing federal agencies and Congress with an overview of the state of federal sector EEO.
This report of federal sector EEO in fiscal year (FY) 2015, submitted to the President and Congress, presents a summary of selected EEO program activities of 278 federal agencies and subcomponents. Specifically, the EEOC intends for this report to serve as a resource for proactive prevention of employment discrimination by reporting data that contributes to this discussion. It provides valuable information to all agencies as they strive to become model employers. Increasing awareness of these challenges in the federal government may better equip the EEOC and federal agencies to successfully prevent EEO violations from occurring.
The federal government operates on an October 1 to September 30 fiscal year, and so this report on FY2015 activities covers the period from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The report contains selected information to measure agencies' progress toward achieving a model EEO program, including both an analysis of workforce demographics and statistics about EEO complaint processing. Federal agencies contributed to the content of this report. The EEOC thanks all agencies that provided comments and suggestions, and those that submitted timely and accurate EEO program analysis and complaint processing data. Finally, the EEOC extends a special thanks to the Office of Personnel Management for sharing workforce data from its Enterprise Human Resources Integration.
This report aims to serve as an informative overview of underlying trends across three broad areas of opportunities for proactive prevention of unlawful employment discrimination: EEO commitment indicators, workforce characteristics and complaint processing. Below are highlights from the fiscal year 2015 Annual Report within each of these components:
Overall, federal agencies have demonstrated commitment to equal employment opportunity. In preparing this report, the EEOC observed high levels of compliance with MD-715 requirements, subtle, but consistent increased workforce diversity, and a decline in discrimination complaints. However, more work is needed to promote diversity at the upper GS-levels, and while complaints are down, the monetary benefits paid out for complaint-stage settlements and findings of discrimination continue to rise.
The Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States. With close to 2.5 million1 employees, it is incumbent that the federal sector strives to serve as a model employer by promoting equal employment opportunity and an inclusive work culture. Despite the significant progress in all areas of equal employment opportunity, workforce data suggests that some inequities persist in the federal sector.
Complaint data also provides insight into the state of the federal government. During fiscal year 2015, 14,871 federal sector complaints of discrimination were filed. While complaints have steadily declined since 2010, down from 17,583, discrimination complaints have become increasingly costly, with federal agencies spending $5.6 million on pre-complaint settlements,
$43.4 million on EEO complaint investigations, and $61.9 million in monetary benefits for findings of discrimination and complaint-stage settlements. Furthermore, while the Federal Government has experienced increased diversity since the introduction of Management Directive 715 in 2003, diversity remains less than ideal at higher GS-levels.
This report summarizes the state of federal sector EEO while providing trend analyses of key EEO indicators. The information presented can help Congress, stakeholder agencies, and EEOC leadership monitor governmentwide EEO activity and provide benchmarks for measuring federal agencies. Those interested in proactive prevention may find this report a valuable resource for identifying existing and emerging challenges in federal sector EEO2 .
The goal of this report is to promote awareness of the accomplishments and challenges in federal sector EEO while providing benchmarks against which individual agencies can gauge their performances. As such, data is reported in the following manner:
Using this data, Part IV reports on demonstrated commitment to EEO, including governmentwide compliance with MD-715 guidance. Part V reports workforce characteristics, describing the governmentwide participation rates of EEO protected groups. Part VI reports on complaint activity, describing the prevalence of EEO activity at different stages of the complaint process, including pre-complaint activity, complaint activity, hearings, findings, and appeals. We conclude by highlighting key findings in this report and the implications thereof.
Readers should exercise caution when comparing current data to data from prior years. Effective January 1, 2006, OPM required federal agencies to collect ethnicity and race information for accessions on the revised Ethnicity and Race Identification (Standard Form 181). Accordingly, the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) contains data on persons who are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander or who are of Two or More Races. Thus, separate data on these groups is contained in this Report for recent years. Before 2006, however, data on Asians included Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders, and there was no data reported on persons of Two or More Races.
There is reason to believe that organizational commitment to equal employment opportunities (EEO) will prevent employment discrimination. Past annual reports have focused on EEO programs' legal compliance, such as whether any staff at an agency received training and agency timeliness in submitting Form 462 and the MD-715 reports. This year's measures continue to assess compliance with MD-715 and 29 CFR 1614, but focus on aspects that more directly affect federal employees.
To assess the Federal Government's commitment to EEO, this report examined four measures related to the prevention of discrimination found in Part G of EEOC Form 715-01, Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report. Agencies that were required to complete that form answered yes or no to the following questions3 :
As seen in Figure 4.1, most agencies and subcomponents demonstrate commitment on all these measures, but to varying degrees. Over 95% of agencies evaluate managers and supervisors on their commitment to EEO, and in over 90% of agencies, senior managers assist EEO staff with barrier analysis. The involvement of leadership in promoting EEO is crucial to creating a workplace culture that does not tolerate discrimination. We commend the majority of agencies who report succeeding in this measure.
Another preventative measure that the vast majority of agencies follow was making reasonable accommodations procedures readily available and accessible. This measure, followed by 93.8% of federal agencies, is crucial to attract and retain people with disabilities within the federal workforce.
While agencies overwhelmingly demonstrated EEO commitment on the measures mentioned above, they did not score as highly on one: having the EEO Director report directly to the head of the agency. At over one-third (35.4%) of the agencies and subcomponents that filed MD- 715 Reports for FY 2015, the EEO director (or head in the case of subcomponents) did not report directly to the head of the agency (or subcomponent). This barrier in terms of organizational structure is troubling. Regulations found in 29 C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(4) and further described in MD-110 mandate that the EEO Director report to the agency head.5 Not including the EEO Director among senior management implies that the agency does not consider EEO a priority. Furthermore, in program evaluations, EEOC has found that EEO Directors sometimes report to the heads of Human Resources, who are often responsible for the agency's defense to claims of discrimination. The resulting conflict of interest may cause employees to doubt the impartialness of the EEO process and to hesitate to seek EEO counseling. Non-compliant agencies should remedy this deficiency.
7fc3f7cf58