Twenty Years of the EEOC’s Management Directive 715

by the EEOC’s Special Operations Division, Office of Federal Operations

The article is based mainly on external sources and court decisions. References are provided throughout the article, along with EEOC case law, documentation, and articles available to the public at the EEOC’s website: https://www.eeoc.gov.

For more information about the Federal EEO complaint process, please visit Overview of Federal Sector EEO Complaint Process or email Federalsectoreeo@eeoc.gov.

Introduction

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidance to Federal agencies to “prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all.”[1] Twenty years ago, the EEOC issued Management Directive 715 (MD-715) to help agencies identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity (EEO). MD-715 introduced six essential elements to help agencies create a model EEO program and set forth general reporting requirements.[2]

This article examines the history of MD-715 and its impact on the Federal sector.

Early History

Affirmative employment programs in the Federal sector did not start with MD-715. In June 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802.[3] This executive order was the first presidential action to prohibit government contractors from engaging in employment discrimination based on religion, race, creed, color, or national origin.[4]

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9980, prohibiting discrimination in Federal employment on the bases of race, color, religion, or national origin.[5] This executive order also required each agency head to appoint a Fair Employment Officer to receive complaints of discrimination and take necessary corrective or disciplinary action. Furthermore, as part of the Civil Service Commission, the order established a Fair Employment Board to “advise department heads, disseminate information, coordinate programs and review decisions made by the department heads.”

The 1960s introduced further milestones. On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925. The Order established the President’s commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity, and Then, on July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Title VII prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

Title VII also established the EEOC with a mandate to end employment discrimination in the private sector based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. It was not until 1972 that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act extended Title VII’s protections to Federal employees.

In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act abolished the Civil Service Commission. It also granted the EEOC authority over employment discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and Section 717 of Title VII. In addition, it made the EEOC responsible for overseeing affirmative employment requirements under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as the hearing and appeal functions for certain cases involving employment discrimination.  

Previous Management Directives

A year after the reorganization, on August 8, 1979, the EEOC issued EEO Management Directive 701. This directive helped the EEOC collect information as required by Congress and provided “a systematic approach to affirmative action planning and program development.”[7] However, Federal agencies raised concerns about the paperwork burden and the proper use of civilian labor force data to set hiring goals.

In response, the EEOC issued Management Directive 702 (MD-702) on December 11, 1979. This directive provided new instructions for affirmative action programs for minorities and women. It also “refined the systemic approach to affirmative action planning and program development that included setting hiring goals for targeted occupations and timetables.”[8] This information was in addition to the affirmative action requirements under the Rehabilitation Act.

The previous instructions for affirmative action for individuals with disabilities emphasized removing barriers to more effective employment opportunities. Although the EEOC agreed, it also believed that more was needed—specifically, a “goals and timetables approach for individuals with disabilities.”[9] As a result, on December, the EEOC issued Management Directive 703, requiring agencies to analyze their workforces with special emphasis on targeted disabilities.[10]

On July 1, 1980, the EEOC issued Management Directive 705 (MD-705) to further improve the affirmative employment instructions. This directive superseded MD-702 and continued affirmative action planning for minorities and women. Furthermore, MD-705 required agencies to report their accomplishments, allowing the EEOC to compare each agency’s workforce compositions in 1979 and 1980.

On January 23, 1981, the EEOC issued Management Directive 707, which provided agencies with advanced instructions on developing, submitting, and implementing affirmative action plans for minorities and women for fiscal years 1982 through 1986. This multi-year approach provided flexible numerical hiring targets intended to remedy historical underrepresentation. The EEOC noted that these hiring targets were not quotas but goals.

On March 29, 1983, the EEOC issued Management Directive 712. This directive required agencies “to include in their affirmative action programs for individuals with disabilities the following targeted disabilities, quantitative goals, special recruitment programs, facility accessibility, upward mobility, career development, and selection plans in their hiring procedures.”[11]

On October 6, 1987, the EEOC issued Management Directive 713 (MD-713) and Management Directive 714 (MD-714). MD-713 promoted compliance and helped agencies prepare their multi-year affirmative action plans for individuals with disabilities for fiscal years 1988 through 1992. Meanwhile, MD-714 directed agencies to make efforts to improve the representation of women and minorities in their workforces. MD-714 also required agencies to develop five-year plans with annual accomplishments, analyzing the internal movements of EEO groups in their workforces. This information allowed the EEOC to focus better on identifying and removing specific barriers within specific agencies.

EEO Management Directive 715 (MD-715)

Nearly 16 years later, after several unsuccessful attempts to approve a new management directive, the EEOC issued EEO MD-715 on October 1, 2003. This tool helps agencies to establish and maintain a model EEO program that “ensures that all employees and applicants for employment enjoy equality of opportunity in the Federal workplace regardless of race, sex, national origin, color, religion, disability, or reprisal for engaging in prior protected activity.”[12]

MD-715 supersedes previous EEOC Management Directives and guides affirmative employment programs under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. It emphasizes not only the elimination of discrimination but also its prevention. As a result, MD-715 requires more extensive data collection to assist agencies in identifying any meaningful disparities resulting from barriers to equality of opportunity. For example, MD-715 requires agencies to collect data on both their permanent and temporary workforces by race, national origin, and sex. Previously, agencies were only required to evaluate data regarding temporary employees in connection with their Rehabilitation Act programs, but not Title VII programs.[13]

During its first years, MD-715 faced several challenges. To identify and help remove program deficiencies and barriers to equal opportunity within Federal agencies, the EEOC needed data. As a result, in 2013, the EEOC launched the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). This online system made it easier for agencies to submit their MD-715 reports. It also allowed the EEOC to collect data electronically for the analysis of governmentwide and agency-level statistics.

The Six Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

MD-715 establishes six essential elements of a model EEO program.

• Element 1 — Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership

This requires the agency head to issue and distribute an updated EEO policy statement every year. This statement declares the agency’s position against discrimination on any protected basis.

• Element 2 — Integration of EEO into the Agency’s Strategic Mission

Agencies must maintain a proper reporting structure, which ensures that the EEO director reports directly to the agency head and has regular access to top management official meetings. In addition, agencies must allocate sufficient resources and staff to their EEO and rehabilitation programs.

• Element 3 — Management and Program Accountability

Agencies must “hold managers, supervisors, EEO officials, and personnel officers accountable for the effective implementation and management of the agency’s program.”[14]

• Element 4 — Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

Agencies must conduct and complete a self-assessment annually “to monitor progress, identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups, and develop strategic plans to eliminate identified barriers.”[15]

• Element 5 — Efficiency

Agencies must have a fair dispute resolution process and effective evaluation systems. Furthermore, they must maintain an accurate data system to collect important demographic data of employees, applicants, and recruits.[16]

• Element 6 — Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

Federal agencies must fully comply with the law, report agency program efforts and accomplishments to the EEOC, respond to applicable directives and orders, and “ensure that management fully and timely complies with final EEOC orders.”[17]

Reporting Requirements

MD-715 established new reporting requirements for Federal agencies.

• Parts A–F

These parts provide information about the reporting agency or its sub-component. This includes the total number of employees, the agency officials responsible for overseeing the agency's EEO programs, identification of all units included in the report, and verification of all mandatory documents that have been included. Furthermore, agencies must provide a succinct narrative of their EEO program status and a certification that must be signed and submitted by the EEO director.[18]

• Part G – Self-Assessment Checklist

Part G is an agency self-assessment checklist with hundreds of “yes” or “no” questions and indicators designed to highlight deficiencies in an agency’s EEO program. This allows EEO directors to identify issues that their agencies must address to comply with MD-715.[19]

Initially, Part G did not contain many indicator questions. However, in response to agency input and evaluations, Part G incorporated questions about all the fundamental aspects of an EEO program, including EEO policies, procedures, complaint processing, affirmative action plan, barrier analysis, anti-harassment, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and management participation in ADR.

For FY 2018, the EEOC revised MD-715, adding additional indicators and requirements to Part G. The EEOC also included the legal authority of each requirement as a reference for the agencies.

• Part H – EEO Plan for Attaining the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

The agency must explain how it will correct each deficiency noted in Part G. “The agency should clearly state the measurable objective that will correct the problem. It is critically important for the agency to identify the reason(s) for the program deficiency before establishing an objective to correct the problem.”[20]

• Part I – EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

MD-715 helps Federal agencies to identify and eliminate workplace barriers effectively. A barrier is “an agency policy, principle, or practice that limits or tends to limit employment opportunities for members of a particular EEO group based on their sex, race, ethnic background, or disability.”^[21]

Barriers can be categorized as institutional/structural, attitudinal, and physical. Institutional or structural barriers typically concern the rules, restrictions, routines, or traditions within the agency that may limit EEO. These barriers often go unnoticed because they are ingrained in the agency or workplace culture. Attitudinal barriers refer to beliefs about a protected group that inhibit their equitable progress within the workforce. For example, stereotypes and assumptions about work ethic could limit the employment opportunities available to a particular EEO group. Lastly, physical barriers arise when agency facilities and programs are not equally accessible to all workers. This could include a building without ramps or computer software incompatible with screen readers.

Barriers can exist anywhere, both inside and outside of agencies. While certain barriers can be intentional, most are not. This makes them difficult to identify and address. MD-715 instructions describe an example of such a barrier:

“Recruit[ing] new attorneys from a limited number of law schools that specialize in a certain field. If these law schools enroll only a few or no Hispanic students, the agency's hiring pool will be limited to non-Hispanic applicants. Although neutral on its face, this practice is a barrier, as it will have the effect of limiting the employment opportunities of well-qualified Hispanic attorneys. It also will unnecessarily limit the pool of talented individuals from which agency officials may draw.”[22]

As a result, MD-715 relies on a barrier analysis approach that emphasizes an “analytical examination of symptoms of inequality in search of the root cause and remedies of the problem, whether intentional or unintentional.”[23] Barrier analysis allows agencies to develop a meaningful plan to eliminate identified concerns.

In 2017, the EEOC expanded the use of barrier analysis, updating the instructions for completing it and introducing specific codes for consistency across agencies. This allowed agencies to see, in real-time, what their data revealed. The EEOC also developed “Barrier Analysis: Questions to Guide the Process” to assist Federal agencies in identifying EEO barriers.[24] By answering questions about different stages of the employment lifecycle, this tool helps agencies to identify the reason for a particular statistical disparity found in their workforce.

The EEOC uses the information agencies provide in Part I to identify barriers at specific agencies and throughout the Federal Government. For example, after analyzing data from FY 2006 to FY 2010, the EEOC published a guide with promising practices for improving the EEO of .[25] In addition, the EEOC has sought partnerships to address barriers identified in Part I. For example, on January 18, 2017, the EEOC and OPM issued a joint memorandum urging Federal agencies to conduct a more focused barrier analysis on Hispanic or Latino employees, who were found to have a persistently low representation in the Federal workforce.[26]​

• Part J – Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities

Part J “requires agencies to describe how their [affirmative action] plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with disabilities.”[27]

In 2015, the EEOC revised Part J in response to changes in Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act. The EEOC updated FedSEP to automatically generate an affirmative action plan using the information from Part J. Furthermore, in 2017, the EEOC reviewed all agency affirmative action plans and provided specific feedback to each agency. This resulted in improved compliance among agencies’ reasonable accommodations programs.

Workforce Data Tables

MD-715 workforce data tables provide an overview of the characteristics of the governmentwide workforce. Since 2013, the EEOC has substantially revised MD-715 workforce data tables to ensure that agencies capture the correct data for barrier analysis. The EEOC’s revisions emphasize that an agency “should focus on what the compiled data reveals about its workforce, and it must recognize that statistics are only the starting point of the barrier analysis process.”[28]

In 2017, the EEOC substantially revised and consolidated the workforce data tables by topic to make it easier to identify triggers. Previously, agencies were required to submit 14 tables, but the EEOC condensed this number to eight to offer a more user-friendly experience. The revised workforce data tables also capture new data, such as employee salaries, grade levels for mission-critical occupations, and applicant flow data for managers and supervisors.

The EEOC uses MD-715 workforce tables to identify existing and emerging challenges in Federal sector EEO. For example, the EEOC examined data from FY 2003 to FY 2021 and found that the Federal workforce has become more diverse at the senior pay level. Notably, the participation rate of women at the senior pay level increased from 25.5 percent in FY 2003 to 39.3 percent in FY 2021. The participation rates at the senior pay level of Black workers (from 7.1 to 12.6 percent), Hispanic workers (from 3.4 to 5.1 percent), and Asian workers (from 2.5 to 7.4 percent) also increased during this period.

However, some of EEO groups were still underrepresented at the senior pay level compared to the permanent workforce. For example, in FY 2021, the participation rate of Hispanic workers at the senior pay level (5.1 percent) was about half their participation in the permanent workforce (10.1 percent). And Black workers accounted for 12.6 percent of the senior pay level in FY 2021, compared to 20.5 percent of the permanent workforce. This suggests that barriers still exist limiting the upward mobility of certain EEO groups in the Federal workforce.

Table 1. Permanent Workforce and Senior Pay in the Federal Sector, Fiscal Years 2003–21

Notes: NHOPI = Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. GS = General Schedule. SES = Senior Executive Service. Senior pay includes GS 14 to SES levels.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission using data collected from agencies’ Management Directive 715 reports.

Future of MD-715

The EEOC considers MD-715 a working, living document. MD-715 has proven its ability to adapt to changes in the law and regulations.  The EEOC will continue to evaluate possible updates to MD-715 in the future, including collecting additional categories of data or more refined data. Furthermore, as technology continues to improve, the EEOC aims to make it even easier for agencies to access their data.

Conclusion

Two decades of data from MD-715 shows that the Federal Government has increased the diversity of its workforce, particularly at the senior pay level. MD-715 has also made it easier to collect data and identify barriers affecting specific EEO groups in the Federal workforce.

As the nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government must strive to provide equal opportunity to all its employees and applicants. MD-715 clearly outlines the elements necessary to develop a model EEO program. The EEOC will continue to offer guidance, training, and outreach to Federal agencies and incorporate their feedback. As MD-715 evolves, the EEOC looks forward to what this directive will accomplish in the next twenty years.

[1] Among its duties, the EEOC assures Federal agency and department compliance with EEOC regulations, provides technical assistance to Federal agencies concerning EEO complaint adjudication, and monitors and evaluates Federal agencies’ affirmative employment programs. https://www.eeoc.gov/overview.

[2] EEO Management Directive 715: Essential Elements of Model Agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Programs, Section II. https://www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii.

[3] 6 FR 3109, Exec. Order No. 8802 (June 25, 1941).

[4] The Early Years. www.eeoc.gov/history/early-years.

[5] 13 FR 4311, Exec. Order No. 9980 (July 26, 1948).

[6] Dexter Brooks; Barbara Doughtery; Jamie Price, "The Federal Government as a Model Employer and Its Impact on Employment Civil Rights in America," Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (2015): 151-188. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/emplrght19&i=161.

[7] Dexter Brooks; Barbara Doughtery; Jamie Price, "The Federal Government as a Model Employer and Its Impact on Employment Civil Rights in America," Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (2015): 151-188. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/emplrght19&i=161.

[8] “A Look at the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations’ Federal Sector Programs: Past, Present, and Future,” The Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law 19, no. 1 (2008). https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/digest/digest-equal-employment-opportunity-law-17.

[9] Dexter Brooks; Barbara Doughtery; Jamie Price, "The Federal Government as a Model Employer and Its Impact on Employment Civil Rights in America," Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (2015): 151-188. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/emplrght19&i=161.

[10] The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Standard Form 256 lists the following as targeted disabilities: Developmental Disability, for example, autism spectrum disorder; Traumatic Brain Injury; Deaf or serious difficulty hearing benefiting from, for example, American Sign Language, CART, hearing aids, a cochlear implant, and/or other supports; Blind or serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses; Missing extremities (arm, leg, hand and/or foot); Significant mobility impairment, benefiting from the utilization of a wheelchair, scooter, walker, leg brace(s) and/or other supports; Partial or complete paralysis (any cause); Epilepsy or other seizure disorders; Intellectual disability; Significant Psychiatric Disorder, for example, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, or major depression; Dwarfism; Significant disfigurement, for example, disfigurements caused by burns, wounds, accidents, or congenital disorders.

[11] Dexter Brooks; Barbara Doughtery; Jamie Price, "The Federal Government as a Model Employer and Its Impact on Employment Civil Rights in America," Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 19, no. 2 (2015): 151-188. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/emplrght19&i=161.

[12] EEO Management Directive 715: Policy Intent. https://www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii.

[13] EEO Management Directive 715: Footnote 2. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii#2.

[14] EEO Management Directive 715: Essential Elements of Model Agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Programs Section II (C )https://www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii.

[15] EEO Management Directive 715: Essential Elements of Model Agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Programs Section II (D). https://www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii.

[16] EEO Management Directive 715: Essential Elements of Model Agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Programs Section II (E ). https://www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii.

[17] EEO Management Directive 715: Essential Elements of Model Agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act Programs (F). https://www.eeoc.gov/Federal-sector/management-directive/section-717-title-vii.

[18] Instructions to Federal Agencies for MD-715 Section III Reporting Requirements and Line-By-Line Instructions. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-md-715-section-iii-reporting.

[19] MD-715 - PART G Agency Self-Assessment Checklist. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/md-715-part-g-agency-self-assessment-checklist.

[20] Instructions to Federal Agencies for MD-715 Section III Reporting Requirements and Line-By-Line Instructions. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-md-715-section-iii-reporting.

[21] Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715. Section II. Barrier Identification and Elimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-eeo-md-715-1.

[22] Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715. Section II. Barrier Identification and Elimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-eeo-md-715-1.

[23] Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715. Section II. Barrier Identification and Elimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-eeo-md-715-1..

[24] Barrier Analysis: Questions to Guide the Process. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/barrier-analysis-questions-guide-process.

[25] A Practical Guide to Common Issues and Possible Barriers Which Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Employees May Face in the Federal Work Force. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/practical-guide-common-issues-and-possible-barriers-which-asian-and-native.

[26] Memorandum for Heads of Executives Departments and Agencies. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies.

[27]  MD-715 - Part J Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/md-715-part-j-special-program-plan-recruitment-hiring.

[28] Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO MD-715. Section IV. Interpretation and Completion of Workforce Data Tables. https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-eeo-md-715-0.