The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Table of Contents

PREFACE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART I Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

• Section A. Equal Opportunity in the Federal Work Force
  1. Composition of the Federal Work Force - Hispanics and White Females Remain Below Availability in the Civilian Labor Force
  2. Grade and Pay: Women Show Some Progress
  3. Rate of Decline for People with Targeted Disabilities Remains High
• Section B. Federal Agencies' EEO Programs: Complaints Decrease But Processing Times by Agencies Continue to Exceed Regulatory Deadlines
  1. Pre-Complaint Counselings and Complaints Decline
  2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Usage Increases
  3. Agencies Fail to Meet Counseling Deadlines in One-Quarter of Cases
  4. Pre-Complaint Resolutions Result in Fewer Formal Complaint Filings
  5. Monetary Benefits in Pre-Complaint Phase Drops
  6. Top Basis and Issue Alleged in Complaints Filed Remains Unchanged
  7. Agencies Continue to Exceed Time Limits for Investigating Complaints and Issuing Final Agency Decisions
  8. Findings of Discrimination Increased Slightly While Monetary Benefits Decreased
  9. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
• Section C. EEOC: Declining Processing Time and Inventory for Hearings and Appeals
  1. Hearings
  2. Appeals
  3. Commission's Outreach and Training Activities Reach Thousands

PART II PROFILES FOR SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES

APPENDIX I GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX II FEDERAL SECTOR EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX III FEDERAL AGENCY EFFICIENCY AND RESPONSIVENESS TABLE

APPENDIX IV FEDERAL WORK FORCE & COMPLAINTS PROCESSING TABLES

(Actual tables are only available on EEOC's web-site at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/annual-report-federal-work-force-fiscal-year-2004)

PREFACE

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, with a mission of eradicating discrimination in the workplace. In the federal sector, EEOC enforces Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age and older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; and Sections 501 and 505 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), which prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees and applicants with disabilities and requires that reasonable accommodations be provided.

EEOC is charged with monitoring federal agency compliance with equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws and procedures, and reviewing and assessing the effect of agencies' compliance with requirements to maintain continuing affirmative employment programs to promote equal employment opportunity and to identify and eliminate barriers to equality of employment opportunity.

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (EEO MD-715), October 1, 2003, established standards for ensuring agencies develop and maintain model EEO programs. These standards will be used to measure and report on the status of the federal government's efforts to become a model employer. As detailed in MD-715, the six elements of a model EEO program are:

• Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership,
• Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission,
• Management and program accountability,
• Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination,
• Efficiency, and
• Responsiveness and legal compliance.

The FY 2004 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, addressed to the President and Congress, presents work force profiles of the federal government and examines the agencies' EEO complaint processing activities. Included for the first time in this report is data on the participation rates by race, national origin and gender for: (1) persons who serve as supervisors and managers in agencies with 500 or more employees (Part II, Profiles for Selected Federal Agencies) and (2) specific components of certain large federal agencies found in Table XII of Appendix IV located at www.eeoc.gov. Also included for the first time is information on the timeliness of agency submissions of MD-715 and Form 462 reports (Appendix III). The report should provide valuable information to agencies as they strive to become model employers. This report covers the period from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.

To prepare this report, the Commission relied on work force data obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data File (CDPF)⁽¹⁾, EEO complaint processing data submitted and certified as accurate by federal agencies, and hearings and appeals data obtained from EEOC's internal databases.

The Commission would like to extend its thanks to the Office of Personnel Management for providing the work force data from the CDPF and to those agencies which timely submitted accurate and verifiable EEO complaint processing data.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF EEO IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

• In FY 2004, there were 2.6 million women and men employed by the federal government across the country and around the world.
  • 57.1% were men and 42.9% were women, a ratio which has changed only slightly in the last ten years.
  • 7.5% were Hispanic, 18.2% were Black, 5.8% were Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, 1.7% were American Indians/Alaskan Natives and 66.9% were White.
  • Between FY 2003 to FY 2004, there was little change in the participation rates of Hispanics and White women within the federal work force. These groups remain below their availability in the national civilian labor force as reported in the 2000 census.
  • The number of employees with targeted disabilities has been steadily declining in the past ten years from 31,359 in FY1995 to 25,917 in FY 2004. In FY 2004, individuals with targeted disabilities were less than one percent (0.99%) of the total work force.
  • Women have made the most gains in securing senior level positions in the federal government, occupying 25.7% of those positions in FY 2004, up from 18.5% in FY 1995.
  • The average grade level for General Schedule federal employees (permanent and temporary) was 9.9. Hispanics (9.2), Blacks (8.9) and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (8.3) all had average grade levels lower than the government-wide average.
  • The average General Schedule grade for women was 9.1, nearly two grades below the average grade level for men of 10.7.
  • The average General Schedule grade level for people with targeted disabilities was 8.4, nearly two grades below the government-wide average (for permanent and temporary employees) of 9.9.
• In FY 2004, EEOC Form 462 reports were timely filed by 106 reporting agencies and EEOC Form 715-01 reports were timely filed by 71 of the reporting agencies.
• In FY 2004, 17,878 individuals filed 19,024 complaints against the federal government alleging employment discrimination.
• The number of complaints filed declined by 5.9% from the number filed the previous year, and there was a 1.1% decrease in the number of individuals who filed complaints over the same period. Six percent (6.0%) of the complaints filed were by individuals who had already filed at least one other complaint during the year.
• Pre-complaint EEO counseling and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs addressed many employee concerns before they resulted in a formal EEO complaint. Of the 42,412 instances of counseling in FY 2004, 50.7% did not result in the filing of a formal complaint due to either settlement by the parties or withdrawal of the complaint.
• Federal agencies, as a whole, continued to exceed the regulatory time frames for investigating EEO complaints. There was a total of 11,876 investigations completed government-wide in FY 2004 in an average of 280 days. Regulations require these investigations to be completed in 180 days or less, unless voluntarily extended no more than 90 days or where the complaint is amended or consolidated. Using these regulatory standards, only 5,076, or 42.7%, of the investigations were timely completed.
• Agencies issued 6,186 merit decisions without a decision by an EEOC Administrative Judge, and 2,695 (43.6%) of these decisions were timely issued.
• Since FY 2000, EEOC's hearings inventory has decreased by nearly 46.4% from 11,153 cases to 5,975 in FY 2004. The average processing time for a hearing was 355 days, a 15.7% reduction from FY 2003's average of 421 days.
• At the end of FY 2004, EEOC's appellate inventory stood at 3,634, a 69.5% reduction from the inventory high of 11,918 appeals in January 2000. The average processing time for appeals in FY 2004 was 207 days, a 27.4% reduction from FY 2003's average of 285 days.
• In FY 2004, agencies were required to pay monetary benefits totaling $29.7 million to EEO complainants in response to final agency decisions, settlement agreements, and final agency actions in which agencies agreed to fully implement EEOC Administrative Judge decisions. An additional $22.1 million was paid out in response to appellate decisions.
• In FY 2004, EEOC engaged in a vigorous proactive prevention program, reaching a record number of federal employees by providing over 200 training sessions and responding to nearly 12,000 requests for technical assistance.

Part I
Summary of EEO Statistics in the Federal Government

Section A. Equal Opportunity in the Federal Work Force

Section B. Federal Agencies' EEO Programs: Complaints Decrease But Processing Times by Agencies Continue to Exceed Regulatory Deadlines

Section C. EEOC: Declining Processing Time and Inventory for Hearings and Appeals

Section A. Equal Opportunity in the Federal Work Force

This year marked the 40^th anniversary of the passage and signing into law of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While there has been significant progress since the time of this landmark legislation, there are still many miles to travel on the road to equal employment opportunity. As President Johnson said when he signed the Act into law:

"This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country."

Now, more than ever before, with increasing expectations of government institutions, federal agencies must position themselves to attract, develop and retain a top-quality work force that can ensure our nation's continued growth, security and prosperity. In order to develop this competitive, highly qualified work force, federal agencies must fully utilize the talents of all, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or disability. In order to assist agencies in attaining these goals, on October 1, 2003, Management Directive - 715 (MD-715) became effective and set forth policy guidance and standards for establishing and maintaining effective affirmative programs of equal employment opportunity under Section 717 of Title VII and effective affirmative action programs under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The figures and charts which follow indicate that there has been some progress over the past decade. With proper implementation, MD-715 will help agencies uncover and effectively address impediments to fair and open competition in the workplace and allow all individuals equal access to federal employment opportunities.

1. Composition of Federal Work Force - Hispanics and White Females Remain Below Availability in the Civilian Labor Force

   In FY 2004, the Federal Government had a permanent work force of 2,606,903 individuals compared to 2,857,900 in FY 1995.⁽²⁾ Table 1 shows the participation rate of the identified groups below, as compared to the civilian labor force (CLF):

   Table 1 - Composition of Federal Work Force - Ten Year Trend: Some Progress, Little Overall Change FY 1995 - FY 2004⁽³⁾

   FY 2004	FY 1995 %	FY 2004 %	%
   	Work Force	Participation Rate		2000 CLF
   Men	1,488,520	58.47	57.10	53.20
   Women	1,118,383	41.53	42.90	46.80
   Hispanic Males	116,693	3.78	4.48	6.20
   Hispanic Females	77,705	2.33	2.98	4.50
   White Males	1,061,384	43.28	40.71	39.00
   White Females	682,816	26.38	26.19	33.70
   Black Males	203,701	8.05	7.81	4.80
   Black Females	270,243	10.29	10.37	5.80
   Asian American/Pacific Islander Males	86,582	2.67	3.32	2.10
   Asian American/Pacific IslanderFemales	64,238	1.83	2.46	1.90
   American Indian/Alaskan Native Males	20,160	0.68	0.77	0.50
   American Indian/Alaskan Native Females	23,381	0.70	0.90	0.50

   For the first time, this report breaks out the employment data for specific components of certain large federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans' Affairs, as well as certain defense agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United States Postal Service.

   A comparison of the data on the participation rates of persons in particular agency components can serve as a diagnostic tool to help identify possible areas where barriers to equal opportunity may exist within an agency. This information is located in Table XII of Appendix IV located at www.eeoc.gov.

2. Grade and Pay: Women Show Some Progress

   1. Senior Pay Levels

      EEO Program Tips

      To ensure a discrimination-free work environment, agencies should:

      • Identify possible barriers using a variety of sources
      • Investigate to pinpoint actual barriers and causes
      • Develop plans to address barrier causes
      • Assess success of plan
      • Adjust plan where necessary

      The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established the Senior Executive Service (SES) as a separate personnel system covering a majority of the top managerial, supervisory, and policy-making positions in the Executive Branch of government. Senior Pay Level (SPL) positions include the SES, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15 in the General Schedule. The SPL represents 1.47% of the total federal General Schedule work force. Table 2 below reflects the SPL representation.

      Table 2 - Senior Pay Level Representation FY 1995 / FY 2004

      FY 1995		FY 2004
      	Number	% of SPL	Number	% of SPL
      	Senior Pay Level Postions
      Men	11,119	81.54	14,196	74.25
      Women	2,517	18.46	4,921	25.75
      Hispanics	335	2.46	656	3.43
      Whites	12,176	89.29	16,457	86.08
      Blacks	834	6.12	1,243	6.50
      Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders	212	1.55	607	3.17
      American Indians/Alaskan Natives	79	0.58	154	0.80
      Individuals with Targeted Disabilities	59	0.43	84	0.44

      • Between FY 1995 and FY 2004, the representation rate for individuals with targeted disabilities in SPL positions remained essentially unchanged. There was a slight increase in the representation rate for Blacks and Hispanics and a modest increase in the representation rate for American Indians/Alaskan Natives. The representation rate for women increased from 18.46% to 25.74%, while the rate for Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders more than doubled, from 1.55% to 3.17%
      • In FY 2004 the "feeder grades" to SPL positions⁽⁴⁾ (GS grades 14 and 15), showed that men comprised 68.86%; women comprised 31.14%; Hispanics comprised 3.92%; Whites comprised 80.70%; Blacks comprised 8.95%; Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders comprised 5.48%; American Indians/Alaskan Natives comprised 0.94%, and individuals with targeted disabilities comprised 1.03%.
      • Part II of this report also contains information on the top three major occupations in selected government agencies. These mission-oriented occupations with 100 or more employees frequently serve as gateways into upper management positions. Thus, data on participation rates of persons holding positions in an agency's major occupation can serve as a diagnostic tool to help determine possible areas where barriers to equal opportunity may exist.
      • Among agencies with 500 or more employees, EEOC, Education and the National Science Foundation had the greatest percentage of women in SPL positions, see Table 3 below. SPL data for all agencies is located in Table VII of Appendix IV which can be found at www.eeoc.gov.

      Table 3 - Ranking of Agencies with the Highest Percentage of Women in Senior Pay Level Positions (Agencies With 500 Or More Employees)

      Agency or Department	Work Force #	SPL #	#	%
      	Total		Women in Senior Pay Level Positions
      Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	2,465	38	18	47.37
      Education, U.S. Department of	4,584	162	66	40.74
      National Science Foundation	1,333	343	125	36.44
      Environmental Protection Agency	18,576	326	115	35.28
      Federal Trade Commission	1,073	40	14	35.00

   2. Hispanics, Women, Blacks, American Indian/Alaskan Natives and People with Disabilities Remain Below the Government-Wide Average Pay Grade
      • The average grade level for the total General Schedule work force (permanent and temporary) was 9.91 in FY 2004. Of General Schedule employees, 33.60% were in grades 1-8, 40.65% were in grades 9-12, and 25.75% were in grades 13-15.

      • In FY 2004, the General Schedule participation rate for Hispanics was 7.44%; for Blacks was 18.06%; for Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders was 4.60%; and for American Indians/Alaskan Natives was 2.10%. These participation rates have remained essentially unchanged since FY 2000.⁽⁵⁾

        Figure 1 - Average Grade in the General Schedule*
        FY 2004

        Image

        

        *See note 5, infra.

      • Hispanics (9.20), Blacks (8.87) and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (8.30) had average grade levels lower than the 9.91 government-wide average grade level.
      • Women held 50.61% of all General Schedule federal jobs in FY 2004.
      • Approximately 51.39% of women employed in the federal General Schedule work force were in grades 7-11. The average General Schedule grade for women was 9.10, almost one full grade below the government-wide average of 9.91.
      • The average General Schedule grade level for men was 10.69, nearly 2 grades higher than that for women.
      • The average General Schedule grade level for people with targeted disabilities was 8.35, nearly 2 grades below the government-wide average.

3. Rate of Decline for People with Targeted Disabilities⁽⁶⁾ Remains High

   • From FY 1995 to FY 2004, the total federal work force decreased by slightly over 251,000 employees, a net change of -8.78%. However, the number of federal employees with targeted disabilities has declined from 31,359 in FY 1995 to 25,917 in FY 2004, a net change of -17.35%.
   • Of the 2,606,903 federal employees in FY 2004, 25,917 were persons with targeted disabilities, resulting in a participation rate for employees with targeted disabilities of 0.99%. Over the past 20 years, the federal government's efforts to improve the participation rate of employees with targeted disabilities have failed to result in any significant progress. In order to properly track trends in the employment of people with disabilities, it is necessary for each agency to regularly resurvey its work force to update disability identification information.

   • At 2.23% the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had the highest percentage of individuals with targeted disabilities among those agencies with 500 or more employees. See Table 4 below.

     Table 4 - Ranking of Agencies With the Highest Percent of People With Targeted Disabilities (Agencies With 500 Or More Employees)

     Agency or Department	Total Work Force	#	%
     		People With Targeted Disabilities
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	2,465	55	2.23
     Social Security Administration	63,599	1,435	2.20
     Defense Logistics Agency	21,685	449	2.07
     Defense Finance and Accounting Service	13,403	275	2.05
     Treasury, U.S. Department of	110,612	2,105	1.90

     Table IX in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

2. Source: Office of Personnel Management's The Fact Book-Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics, 1997 edition.

3. The Asian American/Pacific Islander data throughout this report continues to combine data for Asian Americans with "Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders" and does not include data for "Two or More Races" because separate data was unavailable at the time of publication.

4. Over 80% of career Senior Executive Service (SES) appointments, which comprises the bulk of the SPL, come from the ranks of GS-15s, who in turn are promoted over 90% of the time from the ranks of the GS-14s. An additional small number of GS-14s are promoted directly into the SES. See, General Accountability Office Report No.GAO-03-34, Senior Executive Service: Agency Efforts Needed to Improve Diversity as the Senior Corps Turns Over (January 2003).

5. Unlike Table 1 which reports the total workforce, this Figure represents only the work force in General Schedule positions. OPM classifies General Schedule positions as those positions whose primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature not related to the Federal Wage System positions which refer to those positions whose primary duty involves the performance of physical work which requires knowledge or experience of a trade, craft, or manual-labor work.

6. Defined in Appendix I.

Section B. Federal Agencies' EEO Programs: Complaints Decrease, But Processing Times by Agencies Continue to Exceed Regulatory Deadlines

Agencies process federal employees' EEO complaints under regulations promulgated by EEOC at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Employees who are unable to resolve their concerns through counseling can file a complaint with their agency.⁽⁷⁾ The agency will either dismiss⁽⁸⁾ or accept the complaint. If the complaint is accepted, the agency must conduct an investigation, and in most instances, issue the investigative report within 180 days from the date the complaint is filed.⁽⁹⁾

After the employee receives the investigative report, s/he may (1) request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge who issues a decision which the employee or the agency may appeal to EEOC's Office of Federal Operations, or (2) forgo a hearing and request a final agency decision. An employee who is dissatisfied with a final agency decision or the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint may appeal to EEOC. The complainant or agency may also request EEOC to reconsider its decision from the appeal. The complainant has the right to file a civil action in a federal court.

As the EEO complaint process has become increasingly more costly, adversarial, and lengthy, EEOC has encouraged agencies to promote and expand the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a means of avoiding more formal dispute resolution processes.

Used properly, ADR can provide fast and cost-effective results while at the same time improve workplace communication and morale.⁽¹⁰⁾

1. Pre-Complaint Counselings and Complaints Decline

   Instances of counseling decreased by 5.8% and formal complaints declined by 5.9% from FY 2003 to FY 2004. Of the 42,412 instances of pre-complaint counseling, only 17,878 individuals filed 19,024 formal complaints in FY 2004.⁽¹¹⁾ The number of formal complaints filed represents 44.9% of all pre-complaint counseling activities in FY 2004. As Figure 2 shows, over the past five fiscal years, the number of pre-complaint counseling activities has fluctuated between a high of 56,275 in FY 2002 and a low of 42,412 in FY 2004, while the number of complaints filed by individuals has steadily decreased. During the same five-year period, the number of formal complaints filed continued to represent less than 50% of all pre-complaint counseling activities. See Figure 2. Significantly, we note that while the United States Postal Service constituted 28.3% of the workforce, it accounted for over 40% of all EEO counselings, as well as all complaints filed, investigated and closed in FY 2004.

   Figure 2 - Counseling to Formal Complaints Filed FY 2000 - FY 2004

   Image

   

   * Instances of counselings by ADR Intake Officers were excluded due to concerns about the accuracy of the data.

   National Endowment for the Arts Had Highest Percentage of Individuals Who Completed Counseling Per Work Force

   Table 5 shows that in FY 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts reported the highest percentage of individuals who completed counseling per work force (21.2%), while the percentage for the government-wide average was 1.4%. Agencies that had fewer than 25 completed counselings were not included in the ranking. Table 1 in Appendix IV lists this information for all agencies is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 5 - Agencies With the Highest Percentage of Individuals Who Completed Counseling Per Work Force In FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	Percentage of Individuals Who Completed Counseling
   National Endowment for the Arts	165	21.2%
   Commodity Futures Trading Commission	505	19.8%
   Broadcasting Board of Governors	1,829	5.9%
   Defense - Office of Inspector General	1,289	4.0%
   Office of Personnel Management	3,698	2.9%

   Office of Personnel Management Had Highest Percentage of Individuals Who Filed Complaints Per Work Force

   As shown in Table 6 below, the Office of Personnel Management reported the highest percentage of individuals who filed complaints (complainants) per work force (1.8%), while the percentage for the government-wide average was 0.6% in FY 2004. Agencies that had fewer than 25 complaints filed were not included in the ranking. Table 1 in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 6 - Agencies With the Highest Percentage of Individuals Who Filed Complaints Per Work Force FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	Percentage of Complainants
   Office of Personnel Management	3,698	1.8%
   Government Printing Office	2,401	1.4%
   Broadcasting Board of Governors	1,829	1.3%
   Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	2,479	1.2%
   Department of Housing and Urban Development	10,135	1.2%

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Usage Increases

   In FY 2004, ADR was used in 43.3% of all instances of EEO counseling, which represents an increase of 1 percentage point from the ADR participation rate (42.4 percent) in FY 2003. See Figure 3. This increase may be due to an ADR offer rate that climbed from 73.0 percent in FY 2003 to 79.5% in FY 2004.

   Figure 3 - ADR Usage in the Pre-Complaint Process FY 2000 - FY 2004⁽¹²⁾

   Image

   

   Best Practices -
   Improving ADR Usage

   1. Obtain support from Senior Management Officials
      1. Issue ADR policy
      2. Provide Adequate Funding
      3. Employ full-time ADR Manager
      4. Use incentives for Managers
   2. Adopt Training and Marketing Strategies
   3. Select Qualified Neutrals
   4. Conduct Evaluation of the ADR Program

   The U.S. Postal Service Had Highest ADR Participation Rate in FY 2004

   The U.S. Postal Service reported the highest ADR participation rate in the pre-complaint process (72.3%), whereas the government-wide average was 43.3% in FY 2004. See Table 7. The ADR participation rate is obtained by dividing the number of cases processed in ADR by the total number of instances of counseling. Agencies that had fewer than 25 cases processed in ADR were not included in the ranking. See Table 7 in Appendix IV for information on all agencies which is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 7 -
   Highest ADR Participation Rate in the Pre-Complaint Process
   FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	Counselings	Participation in ADR	Participation Rate
   U.S. Postal Service	807,596	19,101	13,815	72.3%
   Defense Dependent Education Activity	17,691	112	52	46.4%
   Department of the Army	226,632	2,016	722	35.8%
   Department of the Air Force	141,147	1,652	519	31.4%
   Department of Homeland Security	160,749	2,447	768	31.4%

3. Agencies Fail To Meet Counseling Deadlines in One-Quarter of Cases

   On average, agencies failed to meet timeliness requirements for EEO counseling in 23.7% of all completed counselings. Agencies are required to complete counseling in 30 days except when there is a 60-day extension due to an ADR election or the complainant agrees in writing to an extension.

   Broadcasting Board of Governors Had Highest Number of Timely Completed Counselings

   Of the 31 agencies that timely completed 100% of the counselings for FY 2004, the Broadcasting Board of Governors reported the highest number of counselings. See Table 8. The government-wide average for timely completed counselings was 76.3% in FY 2004; although, without the Postal Service statistics, the timely average was 83.0%. Agencies that had fewer than 25 counselings were not included in the ranking. Table 3 in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 8 - Highest Percentage of Timely Counselings Completed FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	Counselings*	Counselings Timely Completed
   Broadcasting Board of Governors	1,829	149	100.0%
   Defense Dependent Education Activity	17,691	112	100.0%
   National Endowment for the Arts	165	65	100.0%
   Smithsonian Institutition	6,248	36	100.0%
   Defense National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency	0**	28	100.0%

   *Counselings exclude remands **Total Work Force unavailable for national security reasons.

4. Best Practices -
   Improving Counseling Times

   See the Commission's "Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency" report located on the web at www.eeoc.gov/federal/efficiency.html

   Pre-Complaint Resolutions Result in Fewer Formal Complaint Filings

   One of the purposes for pre-complaint resolution efforts is to resolve existing disputes early on to decrease the chances of future disputes between the parties. Although the EEO resolution rate (the sum of the total settlements and total withdrawals divided by the total completed counselings, see Table 4 in Appendix IV) decreased by 2.7% from FY 2000 to FY 2004, fewer individuals were counseled multiple times. See Figure 2. In fact, the number of individuals who sought counseling multiple times decreased from 10.6% in FY 2003 to 6.0% of all counselings in FY 2004. Consequently, resolutions at the pre-complaint stage have resulted in fewer formal complaints.

   National Endowment for the Arts and Defense Office of Inspector General Report Highest Pre-Complaint Resolution Rate (No complaint filed)

   In FY 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts and Defense Office of Inspector General reported the highest pre-complaint resolution rate (100.0%), whereas the government-wide average was 50.7%. See Table 9. Agencies that had fewer than 25 counselings were not included in the ranking. Table 4 in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 9 - Highest Pre-Complaint Resolution Rates FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	CompletedCounselings	Resolution Rate
   National Endowment for the Arts	165	65	100.0%
   Defense Office of Inspector General	1,289	51	100.0%
   Commodity Futures Trading Commission	505	100	99.0%
   Broadcasting Board of Governors	1,829	149	80.5%
   Defense Dependent Education Activity	17,691	112	76.8%

   The Defense Dependent Education Activity Had Highest ADR Resolution Rate in FY 2004

   The Defense Dependent Education Activity reported the highest ADR resolution rate in the pre-complaint process (100.0%), whereas the government-wide average was 48.7% in FY 2004. See Table 10. When the U.S. Postal Service resolution rate (45.6%) is excluded from the government-wide average, the ADR resolution rate increased to 57.4% in FY 2004. The ADR resolution rate is obtained by dividing the number of ADR settlements and withdrawals from the EEO process by the number of ADR closures. Agencies that had fewer than 25 ADR closures were not included in the ranking. Table 5 in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 10 - Highest ADR Resolution Rates FY 2004

   Agency	Workforce	ADR Closures	ADR Resolutions	ADR Resolution Rate
   Defense Dependent Education Activity	17,691	52	52	100.0%
   Defense Logistics Agency	21,435	77	65	84.4%
   Department of Veterans Affairs	235,345	448	355	79.2%
   Defense Commissary Agency	15,724	60	42	70.0%
   General Services Administration	12,810	25	17	68.0%

5. Monetary Benefits in Pre-Complaint Phase Drops

   The monetary benefits awarded during the pre-complaint phase, shown in Table 11, dropped significantly since FY 2000. The data showed a slight increase in the average amount of monetary benefits from FY 2003 to FY 2004.

   Table 11 - Monetary Benefits Awarded During the Pre-complaint Stage of the EEO Process

   Pre-Complaint Monetary Benefits by Fiscal Year
   FY	Total Instances of Counselings	Total Resolutions	Total Resolutions with Monetary Benefits	Percentage of Resolutions to Counselings	Settlement Monetary Benefits	Average Award Per Resolution with Monetary Benefits
   2000	52,611	28,087	845	53.4%	$6,969,433	$8,247
   2001	47,658	24,357	983	51.1%	$4,470,855	$4,548
   2002	56,275	34,330	568	61.0%	$2,527,538	$4,450
   2003	45,030	28,011	621	62.2%	$3,160,565	$5,089
   2004	42,412	21,520	603	50.7%	$3,137,912	$5,204

6. Top Basis and Issue Alleged in Complaints Filed Remains Unchanged

   Of the 19,024 complaints filed in FY 2004, the top basis alleged was reprisal (7,782) and the top issue was non-sexual harassment (5,175). As shown in Tables 12 and 13, this trend remained unchanged for the past five years. Notably, the complaints alleging age discrimination, for the second time in five years, exceeded race (Black) and sex (Female), the other most prevalent bases alleged. Conversely, the top three issues alleged in complaints filed remained consistent over the same five-year period.

   Table 12 - Top 4 Bases in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2000 - FY 2004

   Basis	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
   Reprisal	9,776	9,082	8,095	8,111	7,782
   Age	5,818	5,774	5,344	5,774	5,449
   Race - Black	6,330	6,152	5,647	5,279	5,021
   Sex - Female	5,907	5,755	5,242	5,150	4,613

   Table 13 - Top 3 Issues in Complaint Allegations Filed for FY 2000 - FY 2004

   Issue	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
   Harassment - Non-Sexual	5,430	6,082	5,431	5,689	5,175
   Promotion/Non-Selection	4,511	4,685	3,664	4,435	3,892
   Terms/Conditions	3,700	3,431	3,172	2,541	2,474

7. Agencies Continue to Exceed Time Limits for Investigating Complaints and Issuing Final Agency Decisions

   Investigations

   In FY 2004, agencies were timely in completing investigations only 42.7% of the time, (including where a written agreement extended the investigation was present or when complaints were consolidated or amended). The percentage of timely completed investigations increased to 51.6% government-wide when the U.S. Postal Service is not included. Agencies averaged 280 days to complete an investigation in FY 2004, a slight increase from the 267 day average in FY 2002 and FY 2003. See Figure 4 below.

   Figure 4 - Average Processing Days For Investigations FY 2000 - FY 2004

   Image

   

   Federal agencies fail to timely investigate allegations of discrimination for many reasons. EEOC's review of the investigatory practices of a sampling of agencies revealed, among other reasons, that poorly staffed EEO offices, unnecessary and time consuming procedures, delays in obtaining affidavits, and inadequate tracking and monitoring systems contributed to untimely investigations. For more information, see Federal Sector Investigations - Time and Cost, issued June 2004 and Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency at www.eeoc.gov/federal.

   Tennessee Valley Authority: 100% Timely Completed Investigations

   As shown in Table 14, the Tennessee Valley Authority was the only agency that timely completed investigations 100% of the time. Government-wide agencies only timely completed investigations 42.7% in FY 2004. Agencies that had fewer than 25 investigations filed were not included in the ranking. Table 9 in Appendix IV contains this information for all agencies and is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 14 - Highest Percentage of Timely Completed Investigations FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	Number Completed Investigations	Number Timely Completed	% Timely
   Tennessee Valley Authority	12,742	34	34	100.0
   General Services Administration	12,810	88	84	95.5
   Department of Treasury	128,317	405	366	90.4
   Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	2,479	35	31	88.6
   Department of Energy	13,819	59	51	86.4

   Final Agency Actions

   EEOC regulations require an agency to take a final action on each formal complaint filed. Table 15 below provides a breakdown with processing time for all final agency actions. Agencies may issue a decision dismissing a complaint on procedural grounds such as untimely EEO counselor contact or failure to state a claim. Government-wide, agencies took 150 days to issue a decision dismissing a complaint on procedural grounds. In general, acceptance letters/dismissal decisions should be issued well in advance of the 180-day time limit to complete an investigation. A suggested rule-of-thumb is to issue these actions within 60 days of the filing of the formal complaint.

   An agency may also issue a decision after an investigation, either finding discrimination or finding no discrimination. In FY 2004, agencies were timely in issuing final agency merit decisions 43.6% of the time. Commission regulations require agencies to issue final decisions within 60 days of complainant's request for such a decision or within 90 days after completion of an investigation if complainant has not requested either a final decision or an EEOC hearing.

   Finally, when an EEOC Administrative Judge has issued a decision, the agency may issue a final order either implementing the Administrative Judge's decision or not implementing the Administrative Judge's decision and simultaneously appealing to the EEOC. In FY 2004, agencies issued 4,829 final orders implementing and 114 orders not implementing the Administrative Judge's decision. Commission regulations require agencies to issue an order within 40 days of receiving the Administrative Judge's decision.

   Table 15 - EEO Complaint Closures by Type with Government-Wide Average Processing Times in Days (APD) FY 2000 - FY 2004

   	Complaint Closures		Merit Final Agency Actions With AJ Decisions		Merit Final Agency Decisions Without AJ Decisions		Procedural Dismissals		Settlements		Withdrawals
   FY	Total	APD	Total	APD	Total	APD	Total	APD	Total	APD	Total	APD
   2000	27,177	472	5,766	772	5,216	N/A	7,836	N/A	5,794	507	2,565	350
   2001	25,193	464	3,830	800	5,247	N/A	8,308	N/A	5,261	523	2,547	389
   2002	22,889	418	3,841	833	5,467	N/A	5,770	N/A	5,606	482	2,205	309
   2003	19,772	541	3,893	796	5,287	598	2,723	207	5,573	507	2,296	380
   2004	23,153	469	4,748	743	6,167	601	5,444	150	4,469	473	2,325	308

   Best Practices - Final Action Times

   See the Commission's "Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency" report located on the web at www.eeoc.gov/federal/efficiency.html

   Defense Commissary Agency Issued the Highest Percentage of Timely Merit Decisions Without an Administrative Judge Decision

   In FY 2004, the Defense Commissary Agency reported the highest percentage (100%) of timely issued merit decisions without an Administrative Judge decision (among those agencies which issued 25 or more). See Table 16. Government-wide, only 43.6% of agency merit decisions were timely issued. We note that nine agencies issued 100.0% of their merit decisions in a timely fashion, but 8 of them issued less than 25 total merit decisions. Agencies that had fewer than 25 merit decisions without a hearing were not included in the ranking. See Table 11 in Appendix IV for this information on all agencies which is located at www.eeoc.gov.

   Table 16 - Agencies With the Highest Percentage of Timely Issued Merit Decisions (Without an Administrative Judge Decision) FY 2004

   Agencies	Total Work Force	#	Timely	%
   		Merit Decisions without an AJ Decision
   Defense Commissary Agency	15,724	34	34	100.0%
   Department of the Navy	194,763	237	222	93.7%
   Department of the Treasury	128,317	277	188	67.9%
   Department of Veterans Affairs	235,345	667	357	53.5%
   U.S. Postal Service	807,596	2,915	1,488	51.0%

8. Findings of Discrimination Increased Slightly While Monetary Benefits Decreased

   Since FY 2000, findings of discrimination have increased in the federal government. Table 17 below shows that both the total number of merit decisions and the number of findings of discrimination have increased over the past three years.

   Table 17 - Amounts Awarded in Resolution of Formal EEO Complaints Before Appeals FY 2000 - FY 2004

   Total Complaint Closures			Findings of Discrimination		Settlements		Monetary Benefits
   FY	#	Total Merit Closures	#	% of Merits Closures	#	% of Total Closures	Total Complaint Closures with Benefits #	Total (in millions)	Per Capita
   2000	27,177	10,982	305	2.7%	5,794	21.3%	5,703	$ 30.5	$5,345
   2001	25,193	9,077	261	2.9%	5,261	20.8%	5,522	$32.9	$5,965
   2002	22,889	9,308	248	2.7%	5,606	24.5%	5,854	$33.5	$5,727
   2003	19,772	9,180	264	2.9%	5,573	28.2%	5,823	$40.3	$6,926
   2004	23,153	10,915	321	2.9%	4,469	19.3%	4,739	$29.7	$6,266

   Average monetary benefits awarded in resolution of formal EEO complaints decreased by 9.5% between FY 2003 and FY 2004. Table 17 above shows the total monetary benefits awarded during the formal complaint process for the past five fiscal years, while Figure 5 indicates what portion of these benefits were for compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

   Figure 5 - Monetary Benefits in the Formal Complaint Stage FY 2000 - FY 2004

   Image

   

9. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

   In order to achieve a model EEO program, agencies must meet the six essential elements discussed in detail in EEO Management Directive 715. The fifth element, "Efficiency," encompasses the timely filing of required reports with the EEOC. Appendix III contains the federal agencies' compliance with the requirements to timely submit their Form 462 and MD-715 reports.

   EEOC Form 462 reports provide information on discrimination complaint processing data and alternative dispute resolution efforts. Form 462 reports are due on October 31^st of each year.

   Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD-715) applies to all executive agencies and military departments (except uniformed members) as defined in Sections 102 and 105 of Title 5. U.S.C. (including those with employees and applicants for employment who are paid from non-appropriated funds), the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Smithsonian Institution, and those units of the judicial branch of the federal government having positions in the competitive service. These agencies and their Second Level Reporting Components (as listed in Appendix III) were required to file EEOC FORM 715-01.

   The MD-715 reports provide information on an agency's progress in achieving the model EEO program elements, elimination of barriers, and ability to conduct a wide array of examinations of the agency's Title VII and Section 501 work force profiles. EEOC Form 715-01 are timely filed if postmarked or received before January 31^st of each year.

7. Concerns involving both allegations of discrimination and agency actions appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board follow one of the processes set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302.

8. There are several reasons an agency may dismiss a complaint, including the complainant's failure to state a claim, timely contact a counselor, or provide necessary information to the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)

9. The 180-day period may be extended 90 days if both parties agree. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e). The regulations also extend the 180 day time limit for submitting the investigative report to the complainant for consolidated and amended complaints to the earlier of 180 days from the date of the most recent consolidated or amended complaint, or 360 days from the date of the earliest pending complaint. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f).

10. See Jeffery M Senger, Federal Dispute Resolution: Using ADR with the United States Government, 1-7 (Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons, 2003).

11. Counseling may be provided via EEO Counselor or ADR Intake Officer.

12. The EEOC did not collect ADR offer rates until FY 2002.

Section C. EEOC: Declining Processing Time and Inventory for Hearings and Appeals

By federal regulation, the EEOC is not directly involved in the handling of an EEO complaint from a federal employee until the case has been initially processed by the employing agency and a hearing has been requested before an EEOC Administrative Judge or an appeal from a final agency action has been filed.

If a complainant requests a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge may oversee discovery between the parties, and hold a hearing or issue a decision on the record. If a hearing is held, the Administrative Judge will hear the testimony of witnesses, review relevant evidence, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a decision issued to the parties. In appropriate cases, an Administrative Judge may, in lieu of holding a hearing, procedurally dismiss a case or issue a decision by summary judgment.

EEOC is also responsible for deciding appeals from final actions issued by federal agencies on complaints of employment discrimination. These final actions may involve an agency's decision to procedurally dismiss a complaint, a final decision on the merits of a complaint when complainant has not requested a hearing, or a decision on whether or not to fully implement the decision of an EEOC Administrative Judge. Once appellate decisions are issued, EEOC monitors agency compliance with all orders issued. EEOC's adjudicatory responsibilities also include resolving allegations of a breach of a settlement agreement involving a federal sector EEO complaint, as well as deciding petitions for review on decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board or which result from a negotiated grievance process where claims of discrimination are raised.

Equally as important as its adjudicatory role, EEOC is vigorously engaged in assisting federal agencies in the proactive prevention of discrimination. EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) provides outreach, technical assistance and oversight to federal agencies, including conducting program reviews throughout the federal government to evaluate agencies' efforts to develop and maintain model EEO programs. OFO monitors and evaluates agencies' activities to identify and correct barriers to equal opportunity, reasonable accommodation procedures for individuals with disabilities, and alternative dispute resolution programs. OFO also gathers and analyzes data provided by federal agencies on employment trends and EEO complaints processing; issues periodic reports which are publicly available; and works with individual agencies to identify both positive and negative trends in their EEO programs. In addition, through the EEOC's Revolving Fund, OFO also develops and delivers training to federal agencies and other interested parties on a wide variety of federal sector equal employment opportunity topics.

1. Hearings

   1. Hearings Inventory Reduced

      Hearings inventory fell from 8,467 in FY 2003 to 5,975 in FY 2004, a drop of more than 29.4%. Since FY 2001, the hearings inventory has decreased by nearly 48.8% from a high of 11,659 cases to 5,975 cases. Both efficiency in processing cases and the decrease in hearing requests contribute to this reduction in the hearings inventory.

      Figure 6 - Hearings Inventory FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   2. Hearing Requests Down

      Hearing requests decreased by 9.0% in FY 2004, from 9,918 hearing requests in FY 2003 to 9,027, and have decreased by 14.0% from FY 2000.

      Figure 7 - Requests for EEOC Hearings FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   3. Hearings Closures Outpace Receipts

      During FY 2004, the EEOC's Hearings Program resolved 11,740 cases, including 114 class actions, a 4.0% decrease from the 12,230 cases closed in FY 2003. Of the 11,626 individual cases closed in FY 2004: 1,655 (14.2%) were by decision following a hearing; 3,481 (29.9%) were by decisions on the record; 3,180 (27.3%) were closed by settlements; 1,550 (13.3%) were by procedural dismissal; and 1,760 (15.1%) were withdrawals. By comparison, of the 12,124 individual cases closed in FY 2003: 1,974 (16.3%) were by decision following a hearing; 2,804 (23.1%) were by decisions on the record; 3,951 (32.6%) were closed by settlements; 1,551 (12.8%) were by procedural dismissal; and 1,844 (15.2%) were withdrawals.

      Figure 8 - Hearings Program Closures FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   4. Average Processing Time Drops for Hearings

      The average processing time for hearings fell to 355 days in FY 2004, after holding steady between FY 2002 and FY 2003. The average age of the opened pending inventory also declined in FY 2004 from 296 days to 183 days.

      Figure 9 - Average Processing Days for Hearings FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   5. Agencies Challenge Findings of Discrimination

      EEOC Administrative Judges issued 329 decisions finding discrimination in FY 2004, 6.4% of all decisions on the merits of complaints. Agencies may either fully implement an Administrative Judge's final decision or appeal the Administrative Judge's decision to EEOC's Office of Federal Operations. In FY 2004, agencies appealed only 2.2% of all Administrative Judge decisions; however they appealed 28.7% of the cases where an Administrative Judge found discrimination.

      Table 18 - Agency Actions on Administrative Judge Decisions FY 2000 - FY 2004

      FY	Finding Discrimination(13)				Finding No Discrimination				Totals
      	Implemented		Appealed		Implemented		Appealed		Implemented		Appealed
      	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
      2000	143	73.0%	53	27.0%	3,935	99.6%	14	0.4%	4,078	98.4%	67	1.6%
      2001	194	71.3%	78	28.7%	3,636	98.8%	44	1.2%	3,830	96.9%	122	3.1%
      2002	197	65.0%	106	35.0%	3,644	100%	0	0%	3,841	97.3%	106	2.7%
      2003	159	63.3%	92	36.7%	3,639	99.9%	3	0.1%	3,798	97.6%	95	2.4%
      2004	124	71.3%	50	28.7%	4,515	98.7%	59	.31%	4,639	97.8%	109	2.2%

   6. Monetary Benefits Decrease at Hearings

      In FY 2004, Administrative Judge decisions and settlements at the hearings stage awarded $45.9 million in benefits to complainants, below the $52.4 million in FY 2003. Monetary benefits at the hearing stage have decreased the past two years. Note that benefits at the hearings stage are preliminary, pending a decision on implementation by the agency or appeal.

      Figure 10 - Monetary Benefits Awarded from Hearings (In Millions of Dollars)
      FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      
2. Appeals

   1. Appeals Inventory Steadily Declines

      OFO's appellate inventory declined in FY 2004 to 3,634, a 5.1% reduction from the 3,831 case inventory at the close of FY 2003. The appellate inventory has fallen 69.5% from the inventory high of 11,918 appeals in January 2000.

      Figure 11 - Appellate Inventory FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   2. Appeals Receipts On the Rise Again

      OFO received 7,831 appeals in FY 2004, a 11.3% increase from the 7,035 appeals filed in FY 2003. This reversed a three-year downward trend from FY 2000 through FY 2003.

      Figure 12 - Appeals Receipts FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   3. Appeals Closures Steady

      OFO closed a total of 8,028 cases in FY 2004, of which 6,224 were Title VII cases (77.5% of the total); 2,046 appeals involved the Rehabilitation Act (25.5% of the total); 2,093 appeals alleged violations of the ADEA (26.1% of the total); and 4 appeals involved the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (0.1% of the total).

      Figure 13 - Appeals Closures FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

      Table 19 below, provides a breakdown by appeal type of all FY 2004 receipts and closures.

      Table 19 - Types of Receipts and Appeals FY 2004

      Types of Appeals	Receipts		Closures
      	#	% of Total	#	% of Total
      Initial Appeals from Complainants	6,195	79.1%	6,283	78.3%
      Initial Appeals from Agencies	139	1.8%	183	2.3%
      Petitions to Review MSPB Decisions	146	1.9%	133	1.7%
      Appeals from a Grievance/Arbitration of FLRA Decisions	12	0.2%	10	0.1%
      Petitions for Enforcement	47	0.6%	49	0.6%
      Requests for Reconsiderations	1,292	16.5%	1,370	17.1%
      Total	7,831	100.0%	8028	100.0%

   4. Appeals Average Processing Time Decreased

      The average processing time for appeals in FY 2004 fell to 207 days from 285 days in FY 2003. OFO resolved 4,059 (51.8%) of the 7,831 appeals received in FY 2004, within 180 days. The average age of an open appeal in the inventory at the end of FY 2004 was 171 days - a 10.0% reduction from the 190-day average age at the end of FY 2003 and a 56.8% reduction from the 396-day average age of the open inventory at the end of FY 2000.

      Figure 14 - Average Processing Days on Appeal
      FY 2000 - FY 2004

      Image

      

   5. Appeals Findings of Discrimination Remain Steady

      In FY 2004, OFO closed 3,451 appeals addressing the merits of the underlying discrimination claims, and made a total of 226 findings of discrimination or 6.5% of the total. This was the same percentage as in FY 2003. Reprisal, disability, and race (Black) were the most prevalent bases of discrimination in the findings OFO issued in FY 2004.

   6. Monetary Benefits Awarded in Appellate Process Increases

      In FY 2004, the $22.1 million in monetary benefits awarded in compliance with appellate decisions (including settlement agreements resolving appeals), increased by 5% from the $20.9 million awarded in FY 2003 and increased 84% from the $12.0 million awarded in FY 2000.

      Figure 15 - Monetary Benefits Awarded from Appeals⁽¹⁴⁾
      FY 2000 - FY 2004 (In Millions of Dollars)

      Image

      

3. The Commission's Outreach and Training Activities Reach Thousands

   In FY 2004, EEOC staff members reached a record number of federal employees, informing them of their rights and responsibilities under the EEO process, affirmative employment programs and laws which the Commission enforces. EEOC's proactive prevention activities targeted multiple agencies who provided their managers and supervisors the opportunity to understand how to prevent employment discrimination within their workplace. These training sessions were provided by staff members from the Office of Federal Operations and various EEOC district offices throughout the country.

   Specifically, staff members conducted 207 training sessions reaching 7,922 federal employees. Federal employees trained included 276 new EEO counselors, 224 new EEO investigators and 616 EEO professionals in affirmative employment programs. Additionally, staff members participated in 50 outreach sessions reaching another 4,214 individuals.

   EEOC staff members also responded to 2,114 requests for technical assistance with reporting requirements, 1,566 requests for technical assistance with affirmative employment programs and more than 7,987 calls regarding the EEO complaint/appeals process, providing the federal sector EEO community and employees with timely information.

   The Commission's training and outreach information can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/outreach.

13. These numbers do not parallel Administrative Judge findings of discrimination because agencies may not take final action in the same fiscal year as the decision was issued or may settle a complaint where the Administrative Judge has found discrimination.

14. Note: Hearings Benefits should not be added to Appeals Benefits for a grand total as Hearings Benefits are only preliminary.

Part II
Profiles for Selected Federal Agencies

What follows are individual profiles of federal agencies with a total work force of 500 or more employees. These profiles of selected indicators were created from data submitted by agencies in annual EEOC Form 462 reports, and the Civilian Personnel Data File (CPDF), which is maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). On page II-FedGov-1 is a similar profile for the federal government as a whole for comparison purposes.

Each agency's profile narrative highlights the participation by race, national origin, gender, and disability of employees in the workforce as a whole, as well as in the agency's major occupations, supervisor and manager ranks, Senior Pay Level, and the "feeder grades" (GS-14 and GS-15) to the Senior Executive Service.

For the first time, the profiles include participation rates by race, national origin, gender for persons who serve as supervisors and managers. Employees classified as supervisors and managers who are at the GS-12 level or below are identified as First-Level Officials and Managers; those at the GS-13 or 14 level are identified as Mid-Level Officials and Managers; and those at the GS-15 or in the Senior Executive Service are identified as Senior-Level Officials and Managers.

Since those supervisors and managers comprising an agency's First-Level Officials and Managers may constitute a large portion of an agency's available pool of candidates for higher level managerial positions, a comparison of the data on the participation rates of persons as they progress through the managerial ranks can serve as a diagnostic tool to help agencies uncover and effectively address impediments to fair and open competition in the federal workplace and allow individuals equal opportunity for advancement. In general, the data for the profiled agencies indicate that a comparison of the participation rates of women, Hispanics, Blacks, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders and American Indians/Alaskan Natives will show a decline from the First-Level positions to the Mid-Level positions and another decline from the Mid-Level positions to the Senior-Level positions.

The profile narratives also contains a number of measures related to the agencies' EEO complaint activities, including the number of complaints filed, complainants, complaints closed, merit decisions, findings of discrimination, and settlements. Also included are timeliness measures for various stages of EEO complaint processing. EEOC relies on each agency to provide accurate and reliable data for its complaint processing program. Although the EEOC reviews and analyzes the data submitted, each agency remains ultimately responsible for the accuracy of its own data.

Finally, each profile narrative offer data concerning agencies' success in implementing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) activities at the pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the discrimination complaint process. EEOC is firmly committed to using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve workplace disputes. Used properly and in appropriate circumstances, ADR can provide faster and less expensive results while at the same time improving workplace communication and morale.

List of Agencies Included in the Agency Profile Section

The following agencies have profiles listed alphabetically in this part:

• Government-Wide
• Agency for International Development (AID)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
• U.S. Department of the Air Force (USAF)
• Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)
• U.S. Department of the Army (ARMY)
• Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES)
• Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
• U.S. Department of Commerce (COMMERCE)
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
• Corporation for National & Community Service (CNCS)
• Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA)
• Defense Commissary Agency (DCA)
• Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
• Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
• Defense Dependent Education Activity (DDEA)
• Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
• Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA)
• Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
• Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense (DOIG)
• Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
• Office of the Secretary of Defense (DEFSEC)
• Defense Security Service (DSS)
• Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
• U.S. Department of Education (ED)
• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
• General Services Administration (GSA)
• Government Printing Office (GPO)
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
• U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
• U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
• National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
• National Archives & Records Administration (NARA)
• National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
• National Gallery of Art (NGA)
• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• U.S. Department of the Navy (NAVY)
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
• Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
• Peace Corps (PC)
• Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
• Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
• Small Business Administration (SBA)
• Smithsonian Institution (SI)
• Social Security Administration (SSA)
• U.S. Department of State (STATE)
• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
• U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
• U.S. Department of Treasury (TREAS)
• United States Postal Service (USPS)
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY / DEFINITIONS

Administrative Support Workers - See "Occupational Categories."

ADR Election Rate - Of the total counselings or complaints that received an ADR offer, the election rate represents the percentage that participated in the ADR process.

ADR Offer Rate - The percentage of the total counselings or complaints that received an ADR offer.

ADR Participation Rate - The percentage of completed counselings or complaints workload where both parties agreed to participate in ADR.

ADR Resolution Rate - The percentage of ADR closures that were resolved by either settlement or withdrawal from the EEO process.

Agency - Executive agencies as defined in Section 102 of Title 5, U.S. Code (including those with employees and applicants for employment who are paid from nonappropriated funds), the United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, and those units of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal government having positions in the competitive service.

Annual Reports - Reports required to be submitted to EEOC on agencies affirmative employment program accomplishments pursuant to EEOC Management Directives 715.

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) - This is a computer data file created and maintained by the OPM. The file is based on personnel action information submitted directly to the OPM by Executive Branch federal agency appointing offices, and is updated monthly. Some Executive Branch agencies do not submit data to the CPDF including the following: the Tennessee Valley Authority, United States Postal Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency.

Civilian Labor Force (CLF) - Data derived from the decennial census reflecting persons, 16 years of age or older who were employed or seeking employment, excluding those in the Armed Services. CLF data used in this report is based on the 2000 Census.

Craft Workers (skilled) - See "Occupational Categories."

Data from 2000 Census Special EEO File - Data derived from the 2000 decennial census http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/.

Disability - A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Federal Wage System Positions - Positions OPM classifies as those whose primary duty involves the performance of physical work which requires a knowledge or experience of a trade, craft, or manual-labor work.

General Schedule Positions - Positions OPM classifies as those whose primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature.

Laborers (unskilled) - See "Occupational Categories."

Lump Sum Payment - A single payment made in a settlement which does not identify the portion of the amount paid for backpay, compensatory damages, attorney fees, etc.

Major Occupations - The most populous occupations in the Professional and the Administrative categories in an agency.

Merit Decision - A decision determining whether or not discrimination was proven.

MD-110 - EEO Management Directive 110 provides policies, procedures and guidance relating to the processing of employment discrimination complaints governed by the Commission's regulations in 29 CFR Part 1614.

MD-715 - A document describing program responsibilities and reporting requirements relating to agencies' EEO programs.

Occupational Categories - The occupational categories for the EEO-9 are as follows:

Officials and Managers - See "Occupational Categories."

Operatives (semiskilled) - See "Occupational Categories."

Participation Rate - The extent to which members of a specific demographic group participate in an agency's work force.

Permanent Work Force - Full-time, part-time and intermittent employees of a particular agency. For purposes of this Report, those persons employed as of September 30, 2004.

Professionals - See "Occupational Categories."

Race/Ethnicity-

Reportable Disability - Any self-identified disability reported by an employee to the employing agency.

Sales Workers - See "Occupational Categories."

Second Level Reporting Component - A subordinate component of a Federal agency which has 1,000 or more employees and which is required to file EEOC FORM 715-01 with the EEOC. While many Federal agencies have subordinate components, not every subordinate component is a Second Level Reporting Component for purposes of filing EEOC FORM 715-01. A list of Federal agencies and departments covered by MD-715 and Second Level Reporting Components is posted on EEOC's website at: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/715instruct/agencylist.html.

Senior Pay Level Positions - Positions which include the Senior Executive Service, Executive Schedule, Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15 in the General Scedule.

Service workers - See "Occupational Categories."

Targeted Disabilities - Those disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis. The targeted disabilities (and the codes that represent them on the Office of Personnel Management's Standard Form 256) are: deafness (16 and 17); blindness (23 and 25); missing extremities (28 and 32 through 38); partial paralysis (64 through 68); complete paralysis (71 through 78); convulsive disorders (82); mental retardation (90); mental illness (91); and distortion of limb and/or spine (92)."

Technicians - See "Occupational Categories."

Total Work Force - All employees of an agency subject to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 regulations, including temporary, seasonal and permanent employees.

APPENDIX II
FEDERAL EEO COMPLAINT PROCESSING PROCEDURES

1. Contact EEO Counselor

   Aggrieved persons who believe they have been discriminated against must contact an agency EEO counselor prior to filing a formal complaint. The person must initiate counselor contact within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(a)(1). This time limit shall be extended where the aggrieved person shows that: he or she was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them; he or she did not and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter occurred; despite due diligence he or she was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting the counselor within the time limits. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(a)(2).

2. EEO Counseling

   EEO counselors provide information to the aggrieved individual concerning how the federal sector EEO process works, including time frames and appeal procedures, and attempt to informally resolve the matter. At the initial counseling session, counselors must advise individuals in writing of their rights and responsibilities in the EEO process, including the right to request a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge or an immediate final decision from the agency following its investigation of the complaint. Individuals must be informed of their right to elect between pursuing the matter in the EEO process under part 1614 and a grievance procedure (where available) or the Merit Systems Protection Board appeal process (where applicable). The counselor must also inform the individuals of their right to proceed directly to court in a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, of their duty to mitigate damages, and that only claims raised in pre-complaint counseling or claims like or related to those raised in counseling may be alleged in a subsequent complaint filed with the agency. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(b)(1).

   Counseling must be completed within 30 days of the date the aggrieved person contacted the agency's EEO office to request counseling. If the matter is not resolved in that time period, the counselor must inform the individual in writing of the right to file a discrimination complaint. This notice ("Notice of Final Interview") must inform the individual that a complaint must be filed within 15 days of receipt of the notice, identify the agency official with whom the complaint must be filed, and of the individual's duty to inform the agency if he or she is represented. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(d). The 30-day counseling period may be extended for an additional 60 days: (1) where the individual agrees to such extension in writing; or (2) where the aggrieved person chooses to participate in an ADR procedure. If the claim is not resolved before the 90th day, the Notice of Final Interview described above must be issued to the individual. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(e), (f). When a complaint is filed, the EEO counselor must submit a written report to the agency's EEO office concerning the issues discussed and the actions taken during counseling. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(c).

3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

   Beginning January 1, 2000 all agencies were required to establish or make available an ADR program. Such program must be available for both the pre-complaint process and the formal complaint process. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.102(b)(2). At the initial counseling session, counselors must advise individuals that, where an agency agrees to offer ADR in a particular case, the individual may choose between participation in the ADR program and EEO counseling. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.105(b)(2). As noted above, if the matter is not resolved in the ADR process within 90 days of the date the individual contacted the agency's EEO office, a Notice of Final Interview must be issued to the individual giving him or her the right to proceed with a formal complaint.

4. Complaints

   A complaint must be filed with the agency that allegedly discriminated against the complainant within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Final Interview. The complaint must be a signed statement from the complainant or the complainant's attorney, containing the complainant's (or representative's) telephone number and address, and must be sufficiently precise to identify the complainant and the agency, and describe generally the action or practice which forms the basis of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.106.

   A complainant may amend a complaint at any time prior to the conclusion of the investigation to include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint. After requesting a hearing, a complainant may file a motion with the AJ to amend a complaint to include issues or claims like or related to those raised in the complaint. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.106(d).

   The agency must acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing and inform the complainant of the date on which the complaint was filed, of the address of the EEOC office where a request for a hearing should be sent, that the complainant has the right to appeal the agency's final action or dismissal of a complaint, and that the agency must investigate the complaint within 180 days of the filing date. The agency's acknowledgment must also advise the complainant that when a complaint has been amended, the agency must complete the investigation within the earlier of: (1) 180 days after the last amendment to the complaint; or (2) 360 days after the filing of the original complaint. A complainant may request a hearing from an EEOC AJ on the consolidated complaints any time after 180 days from the date of the first filed complaint. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.106(e).

5. Dismissals of Complaints

   Prior to a request for a hearing, in lieu of accepting a complaint for investigation an agency may dismiss an entire complaint for any of the following reasons: (1) failure to state a claim, or stating the same claim that is pending or has been decided by the agency or the EEOC; (2) failure to comply with the time limits; (3) filing a complaint on a matter that has not been brought to the attention of an EEO counselor and which is not like or related to the matters counseled; (4) filing a complaint which is the basis of a pending civil action, or which was the basis of a civil action already decided by a court; (5) where the complainant has already elected to pursue the matter through either the negotiated grievance procedure or in an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board; (6) where the matter is moot or merely alleges a proposal to take a personnel action; (7) where the complainant cannot be located; (8) where the complainant fails to respond to a request to provide relevant information; (9) where the complaint alleges dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed complaint; (10) where the complaint is part of a clear pattern of misuse of the EEO process for a purpose other than the prevention and elimination of employment discrimination. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.107.

   If an agency believes that some, but not all, of the claims in a complaint should be dismissed for the above reasons, it must notify the complainant in writing of the rationale for this determination, identify the allegations which will not be investigated, and place a copy of this notice in the investigative file. This determination shall be reviewable by an EEOC AJ if a hearing is requested on the remainder of the complaint, but is not appealable until final action is taken by the agency on the remainder of the complaint. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.107(b).

6. Investigations

   Investigations are conducted by the respondent agency. The agency must develop an impartial and appropriate factual record upon which to make findings on the claims raised by the complaint. An appropriate factual record is defined in the regulations as one that allows a reasonable fact finder to draw conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.108(b).

   The investigation must be completed within 180 days from the filing of the complaint. A copy of the investigative file must be provided to the complainant, along with a notification that, within 30 days of receipt of the file, the complainant has the right to request a hearing and a decision from an EEOC AJ or may request an immediate final decision from the agency. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.108(f).

   An agency may make an offer of resolution to a complainant who is represented by an attorney at any time after the filing of a complaint, but not later than the date an AJ is appointed to conduct a hearing. An agency may make an offer of resolution to a complaint, represented by an attorney or not, after the parties have received notice than an administrative judge has been appointed to conduct a hearing, but not later than 30 days prior to a hearing.

   Such offer of resolution must be in writing and include a notice explaining the possible consequences of failing to accept the offer. If the complainant fails to accept the offer within 30 days of receipt, and the relief awarded in the final decision on the complaint is not more favorable than the offer, then the complainant shall not receive payment from the agency of attorney's fees or costs incurred after the expiration of the 30-day acceptance period. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.109(c).

7. Hearings

   Requests for hearing must be sent by the complainant to the EEOC office indicated in the agency's acknowledgment letter, with a copy to the agency's EEO office. Within 15 days of receipt of the request for a hearing, the agency must provide a copy of the complaint file to EEOC. The EEOC will then appoint an AJ to conduct a hearing. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.108(g).

   Prior to the hearing, the parties may conduct discovery. The purpose of discovery is to enable a party to obtain relevant information for preparation of the party's case. Each party initially bears their own costs for discovery, unless the AJ requires the agency to bear the costs for the complainant to obtain depositions or any other discovery because the agency has failed to complete its investigation in a timely manner or has failed to adequately investigate the allegations. For a more detailed description of discovery procedures, see EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 6.

   Agencies provide for the attendance of all employees approved as witnesses by the AJ. Hearings are considered part of the investigative process, and are closed to the public. The AJ conducts the hearing and receives relevant information or documents as evidence. The hearing is recorded and the agency is responsible for paying for the transcripts of the hearing. Rules of evidence are not strictly applied to the proceedings. If the AJ determines that some or all facts are not in genuine dispute, he or she may limit the scope of the hearing or issue a decision without a hearing.

   An EEOC AJ may dismiss a complaint for any of the reasons set out above under Dismissals. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.109(b), or the AJ must conduct the hearing and issue a decision on the complaint within 180 days of receipt by the AJ of the complaint file from the agency. The AJ will send copies of the hearing record, the transcript and the decision to the parties. If an agency does not issue a final order within 40 days of receipt of the AJ's decision, then the decision becomes the final action by the agency in the matter. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.109(i).

8. Final Action by Agencies

   When an AJ has issued a decision (either a dismissal, a summary judgment decision or a decision following a hearing), the agency must take final action on the complaint by issuing a final order within 40 days of receipt of the hearing file and the AJ's decision. The final order must notify the complainant whether or not the agency will fully implement the decision of the AJ, and shall contain notice of the complainant's right to appeal to EEOC or to file a civil action. If the final order does not fully implement the decision of the AJ, the agency must simultaneously file an appeal with EEOC and attach a copy of the appeal to the final order. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.110(a).

   When an AJ has not issued a decision (i.e., when an agency dismisses an entire complaint under 1614.107, receives a request for an immediate final decision, or does not receive a reply to the notice providing the complainant the right to either request a hearing or an immediate final decision), the agency must take final action by issuing a final decision. The agency's final decision will consist of findings by the agency on the merits of each issue in the complaint. Where the agency has not processed certain allegations in the complaint for procedural reasons set out in 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.107, it must provide the rationale for its decision not to process the allegations. The agency's decision must be issued within 60 days of receiving notification that the complainant has requested an immediate final decision. The agency's decision must contain notice of the complainant's right to appeal to the EEOC, or to file a civil action in federal court. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.110(b).

9. Appeals to the EEOC

   Several types of appeals may be brought to the EEOC. A complainant may appeal an agency's final action or dismissal of a complaint within 30 days of receipt. 29 C.F.R. Sections 1614.401(a), 1614.402(a). A complainant may also appeal to the EEOC for a determination as to whether the agency has complied with the terms of a settlement agreement or decision. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.504(b). A grievant may appeal the final decision of the agency, arbitrator or the FLRA on a grievance when an issue of employment discrimination was raised in the grievance procedure. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.401(d). If the agency's final action and order do not fully implement the AJ's decision, the agency must appeal to the EEOC. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.110(a); 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.401(b).

   If the complaint is a class action, the class agent or the agency may appeal an AJ's decision accepting or dismissing all or part of the class complaint. A class agent may appeal a final decision on a class complaint. A class member may appeal a final decision on an individual claim for relief pursuant to a finding of class-wide discrimination. Finally, both the class agent or the agency may appeal from an AJ decision on the adequacy of a proposed settlement of a class action. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.401(c).

   Appeals must be filed with EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO). Any statement or brief on behalf of a complainant in support of an appeal must be submitted to OFO within 30 days of filing the notice of appeal. Any statement or brief on behalf of the agency in support of its appeal must be filed within 20 days of filing the notice of appeal. An agency must submit the complaint file to OFO within 30 days of initial notification that the complainant has filed an appeal or within 30 days of submission of an appeal by the agency. Any statement or brief in opposition to an appeal must be submitted to OFO and served on the opposing party within 30 days of receipt of the statement or brief supporting the appeal, or, if no statement or brief supporting the appeal has been filed, within 60 days of receipt of the appeal. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.403. EEOC has the authority to draw adverse inferences against a party failing to comply with its appeal procedures or requests for information. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.404(c). The decision on an appeal from an agency's final action is based on a de novo review, except that the review of the factual findings in a decision by an AJ is based on a substantial evidence standard of review. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.405(a).

   A party may request that EEOC reconsider its decision within 30 days of receipt of the Commission's decision. Such requests are not a second appeal, and will be granted only when the previous EEOC decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or when the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the agency. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.405(b). The EEOC's decision will be based on a preponderance of the evidence. The decision will also inform the complainant of his or her right to file a civil action.

10. Civil Actions

    Prior to filing a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a federal sector complainant must first exhaust the administrative process set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. "Exhaustion" for the purposes of filing a civil action may occur at different stages of the process. The regulations provide that civil actions may be filed in an appropriate federal court: (1) within 90 days of receipt of the final action where no administrative appeal has been filed; (2) after 180 days from the date of filing a complaint if an administrative appeal has not been filed and final action has not been taken; (3) within 90 days of receipt of EEOC's final decision on an appeal; or (4) after 180 days from the filing of an appeal with EEOC if there has been no final decision by the EEOC. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.407.

    Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a complainant may proceed directly to federal court after giving the EEOC notice of intent to sue. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.201. An ADEA complainant who initiates the administrative process in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 may also file a civil action within the time frames noted above. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.407.

    Under the Equal Pay Act, a complainant may file a civil action within 2 years (3 years for willful violations), regardless of whether he or she has pursued an administrative complaint. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.408. Filing a civil action terminates EEOC processing of an appeal. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.409.

11. Class Complaints

    Class complaints of discrimination are processed differently than individual complaints. See 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.204. The employee or applicant who wishes to file a class complaint must first seek counseling and be counseled, just like an individual complaint. However, once counseling is completed the class complaint is not investigated by the respondent agency. Rather, the complaint is forwarded to the nearest EEOC Field or District Office, where an EEOC AJ is appointed to make decision as to whether to accept or dismiss the class complaint. The AJ examines the class to determine whether it meets the class certification requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. The AJ may issue a decision dismissing the class because it fails to meet any of these class certification requirements, as well as for any of the reasons for dismissal discussed above for individual complaints (see section 5, above).

    A class complaint may begin as an individual complaint of discrimination. At a certain point, it may become evident that there are many more individuals than the complainant affected by the issues raised in the individual complaint. EEOC's regulations provide that a complainant may move for class certification at any reasonable point in the process when it becomes apparent that there are class implications to the claims raised in an individual complaint. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.204(b).

    The AJ transmits his or her decision to accept or dismiss a class complaint to the class agent and the agency. The agency must then take final action by issuing a final order within 40 days of receipt of the AJ's decision. The final order must notify the agent whether or not the agency will implement the decision of the AJ. If the agency's final order does not implement the AJ's decision, the agency must simultaneously appeal the AJ's decision to EEOC's OFO. A copy of the agency's appeal must be appended to the agency's final order. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.204(d)(7).

    A dismissal of a class complaint shall inform the class agent either that the complaint is being filed on that date as an individual complaint and processed accordingly, or that the complaint is also dismissed as an individual complaint for one of the reasons for dismissal (discussed in section E, above). In addition, a dismissal must inform the class agent of the right to appeal to EEOC's OFO or to file a civil action in federal court.

    When a class complaint is accepted, the agency must use reasonable means to notify the class members of the acceptance of the class complaint, a description of the issues accepted as part of the complaint, an explanation of the binding nature of the final decision or resolution on the class members, and the name, address and telephone number of the class representative. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.204(e). In lieu of an investigation by the respondent agency, an EEOC AJ develops the record through discovery and a hearing. The AJ then issues a recommended decision to the agency. Within 60 days of receipt of the AJ's recommended decision on the merits of the class complaint, the agency must issue a final decision which either accepts, rejects or modifies the AJ's recommended decision. If the agency fails to issue such a decision within that time frame, the AJ's recommended decision becomes the agency's final decision in the class complaint.

    When discrimination is found in the final decision and a class member believes that he or she is entitled to relief, the class member may file a written claim with the agency within 30 days of receipt of notification by the agency of its final decision. The EEOC AJ retains jurisdiction over the complaint in order to resolve disputed claims by class members. The claim for relief must contain a specific showing that the claimant is a class member entitled to relief. EEOC's regulations provide that, when a finding of discrimination against a class has been made, there is a presumption of discrimination as to each member of the class. The agency must show by clear and convincing evidence that any class member is not entitled to relief. The agency must issue a final decision on each individual claim for relief within 90 days of filing. Such decision may be appealed to EEOC's OFO, or a civil action may be filed in federal court. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.204(l)(3).

    A class complaint may be resolved at any time by agreement between the agency and the class agent. Notice of such resolution must be provided to all class members, and reviewed and approved by an EEOC AJ. If the AJ finds that the proposed resolution is not fair to the class as a whole, the AJ will issue a decision vacating the agreement, and may replace the class agent with some other eligible class member to further process the class complaint. Such decision may be appealed to EEOC. If the AJ finds that the resolution is fair to the class as a whole, the resolution is binding on all class members. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.204(g).

12. Grievances

    Persons covered by collective bargaining agreements which permit allegations of discrimination to be raised in the grievance procedure, and who wish to file a complaint or grievance on an allegation of employment discrimination, must elect to proceed either under the procedures of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 or the negotiated grievance procedures, but not both. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.301(a). An election to proceed under Part 1614 is made by the filing of a complaint, and an election to proceed under the negotiated grievance procedures is made by filing a grievance. Participation in the pre-complaint procedures of Part 1614 is not an election of the 1614 procedures. The election requirement does not apply to employees of agencies not covered by 5 U.S.C. Section 7121(d), notably employees of the United States Postal Service.

13. Mixed Case Complaints

    Some employment actions which may be the subject of a discrimination complaint under Part 1614 may also be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In such cases, the employee must elect to proceed with a complaint as a "mixed case complaint" under Part 1614, or a "mixed case appeal" before the MSPB. Whichever is filed first is considered an election to proceed in that forum. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.302.

    Mixed case complaints are processed similarly to other complaints of discrimination, with the following notable exceptions: (1) the agency has only 120 days from the date of the filing of the mixed case complaint to issue a final decision, and the complainant may appeal the matter to the MSPB or file a civil action any time thereafter; (2) the complainant must appeal the agency's decision to the MSPB, not the EEOC, within 30 days of receipt of the agency's decision; (3) at the completion of the investigation the complainant does not have the right to request a hearing before an EEOC AJ, and the agency must issue a decision within 45 days. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.302(d). Individuals who have filed either a mixed case complaint or a mixed case appeal, and who have received a final decision from the MSPB, may petition the EEOC to review the MSPB final decision.

    In contrast to non-mixed matters, individuals who wish to file a civil action in mixed-case matters must file within 30 days (not 90) of receipt of: (1) the agency's final decision; (2) the MSPB's final decision; or (3) the EEOC's decision on a petition to review. Alternatively, a civil action may be filed after 120 days from the date of filing the mixed case complaint with the agency or the mixed case appeal with the MSPB if there has been no final decision on the complaint or appeal, or 180 days after filing a petition to review with EEOC if there has been no decision by EEOC on the petition. 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.310..

APPENDIX III
FEDERAL AGENCY EFFICIENCY AND RESPONSIVENESS TABLE

Since October 31, 2004 fell on a Sunday, in 2004, the Form 462 was considered timely filed if certified by appropriate agency personnel on or before November 1, 2004, unless the agency requested and was granted an extension. The last day for timely certification by agencies granted an extension was November 15, 2004.

EEOC Form 715-01 was considered timely filed if postmarked or received on or before January 31, 2005, or on or before the due date established in a grant of an extension request. Requests for extensions were granted in only the rarest of circumstances.

Department or Agency Second Level Reporting Component    Timely Filed   Image  Timely Requested Extension Granted    Filed after 1/31/05 N/R Not Required to File Directly to EEOC	Timely Filed:
	FORM 715-01	FORM 462
African Development Foundation
Agency for International Development
Agriculture, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Agricultural Marketing Service		N/R
Agricultural Research Service		N/R
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service		N/R
Farm Service Agency		N/R
Food and Nutrition Service		N/R
Food Safety and Inspection Service		N/R
Forest Service		N/R
National Finance Center		N/R
Natural Resources Conservation Service		N/R
National Agricultural Statistics Service		N/R
Rural Development		N/R
Air Force, Department of the
American Battle Monuments Commission
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Army & Air Force Exchange Service
Army, Department of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Central Intelligence Agency
Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People who are Blind or Severely Disabled
Commerce, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Bureau of the Census		N/R
International Trade Administration		N/R
National Institute of Standards & Technology		N/R
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration		N/R
Patent and Trademark Office		N/R
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Corporation for National Service
Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency
Defense [Summary - Independent DOD agencies]
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Education Activity
Defense Finance & Accounting Service
Defense Human Resources Activity
Defense Information Systems Agency
Defense Inspector General
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Defense National Guard Bureau	Image
Defense National Security Agency
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
DOD Office of the Secretary
Defense Security Service
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Defense Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences
Education, Department of
Energy, Department of
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Executive Office of the President:
EOP- Council of Economic Advisors
EOP- Council on Environmental Quality
EOP- National Security Council
EOP- Office of Administration
EOP- Office of Management and Budget
EOP- U.S. Trade Representative
EOP- National Drug Control Policy
EOP- Office of Science & Technology
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Election Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Maritime Commission	Image
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety & Health Commission
Federal Reserve System Board of Governors
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Trade Commission
General Services Administration
Government Printing Office	N/A
Harry S. Truman Scholarship
Health & Human Services
Second Level Reporting Components:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention		N/R
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services		N/R
Food and Drug Administration		N/R
Health Resources and Services Administration		N/R
Indian Health Service		N/R
National Institutes of Health		N/R
Homeland Security, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services		N/R
Bureau of Customs & Border Protection		N/R
Department of Homeland Security Headquarters		N/R
Federal Emergency Management Agency		N/R
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center		N/R
Citizenship and Immigrations Services		N/R
Transportation Security Administration		N/R
United States Coast Guard		N/R
United States Secret Service		N/R
Housing & Urban Development, Department of
Institute for Museum and Library Services
Inter-America Foundation
Interior, Department of the
Second Level Reporting Components:
Bureau of Indian Affairs		N/R
Bureau of Land Management		N/R
Bureau of Reclamation		N/R
Fish and Wildlife Service		N/R
Geological Survey		N/R
Minerals Management Service		N/R
National Park Service		N/R
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement		N/R
International Boundary & Water Commission
International Trade Commission
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission
Justice, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives		N/R
Drug Enforcement Administration		N/R
Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys		N/R
Federal Bureau of Investigation		N/R
Federal Bureau of Prisons		N/R
U.S. Marshals Service		N/R
Labor, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Bureau of Labor Statistics		N/R
Employment Standards Administration		N/R
Employment and Training Administration		N/R
Mine Safety & Health Administration		N/R
Occupational Safety & Health Administration		N/R
Marine Mammal Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Second Level Reporting Components:
Ames Research Center		N/R
Dryden Flight Center		N/R
Glenn Research Center		N/R
Goddard Space Flight Center		N/R
Johnson Space Center		N/R
Kennedy Space Center		N/R
Langley Research Center		N/R
Marshall Flight Center		N/R
Stennis Space Center		N/R
National Archives & Records Administration
National Capital Planning Commission
National Credit Union Administration
National Committee on Library & Information Science
National Council on Disability
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Gallery of Art
National Labor Relations Board
National Mediation Board
National Reconnaissance Office		N/R
National Science Foundation
National Transportation Safety Board
Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation Commission
Navy, Department of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Occupational Safety & Health
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Personnel Management
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Office of Special Counsel, U.S.
Peace Corps of the United States
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Postal Rate Commission
Railroad Retirement Board
Securities & Exchange Commission
Selective Service System
Small Business Administration
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration
State, Department of
Tennessee Valley Authority
Trade and Development Agency
Transportation, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Federal Aviation Administration		N/R
Federal Highway Administration		N/R
Treasury, Department of the
Second Level Reporting Components:
Bureau of Engraving and Printing		N/R
Bureau of Public Debt		N/R
Financial Management Service		N/R
Internal Revenue Service		N/R
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency		N/R
Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service		N/R
Office of Thrift Supervision		N/R
U.S. Mint		N/R
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
U.S. Armed Forces Retirement Home
U.S. Postal Service
Second Level Reporting Components:
Headquarters
New York Metro Area Office
Northeast Area Office
Eastern Area Office
Western Area Office
Pacific Area Office
Southwest Area Office
Southeast Area Office
Great Lakes Area Office
Capital Metro Operations
United States Tax Court
Veterans Affairs, Department of
Second Level Reporting Components:
Veterans Health Administration
Veterans Benefits Administration
National Cemetery Administration

APPENDIX IV
FEDERAL WORKFORCE TABLES

GOVERNMENT-WIDE EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS IN THE FEDERAL WORK FORCE

• Table I Ten Year Trend Government-Wide Employment of Workers
• Table II Ten Year Trend Government-Wide Employment of People with Targeted Disabilities
• Table III General Schedule Work Force Government-Wide Employment of Workers
• Table IV Wage Grade System Work Force Government-Wide Employment of Workers
• Table V Distribution Across Grade Ranges General Schedule and Related (GSR)
• Table VI Government-Wide Employment of People with Disabilities - By Grade Level
• Table VII Senior Pay Participation By Agency
• Table VIII Ten Year Trend Senior Pay Level Government-Wide Employment of Workers
• Table IX Agency Participation of People with Targeted Disabilities By Disability
• Table X Work Force Trend - Agencies with 500 or More Employees: Table A | Table B
• Table XI Government-Wide Employment of Workers in GS and Related Grades
• Table XII Department or Agency with Second Level Reporting Components

GOVERNMENT-WIDE COMPLAINT PROCESSING, APPELLATE RECEIPTS AND CLOSURES, AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• Table 1 Total Work Force, Counselings, and Complaints
• Table 2 Complaints Filed Bases and Issues
• Table 3 All Timely Completed Counselings
• Table 4 Outcomes of All Pre-Complaint Closures
• Table 5 ADR Pre-Complaint Resolutions
• Table 6 Benefits Provided in All Pre-Complaint Settlements
• Table 7 Pre-Complaint ADR Offers, Rejections and Acceptances
• Table 8 Timeliness and Cost of All Completed Complaint Investigations
• Table 9 Timeliness and Cost of Complaint Investigations Completed by Agency Investigators
• Table 10 Timeliness and Cost of Complaint Investigations Completed by Contract Investigators
• Table 11 Timeliness of Merit Final Agency Decision (FAD) Issuance (No AJ Decision)
• Table 12 Average Processing Days (APD) All Complaint Closures
• Table 13 Average Processing Days (APD) Final Agency Decisions (FADs) and Fully Implemented (FI) AJ Decisions
• Table 14 Average Processing Days (APD) AJ Decisions Not Fully Implemented (NFI)
• Table 15 Complaint Workload
• Table 16 Complaint ADR Offers, Rejections and Acceptances
• Table 17 Types of Complaints Closures
• Table 18 Complaints Closed with Findings of Discrimination
• Table 19 Complaints Closed with Findings of No Discrimination
• Table 20 Complaints Closed with Dismissals
• Table 21 Complaint Closures with Benefits
• Table 22 Complaint Closures By Statute
• Table 23 Agency Staff Resources
• Table 24 Agency New Staff Training
• Table 25 Agency Experienced Staff Training
• Table 26 Contractor New Staff Training
• Table 27 Contractor Experienced Staff Training
• Table 28 FY 2004 Summary of Appellate Receipts and Closures

This page was last modified on April 19, 2005.