<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<REGINFO_RIN_DATA xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" RUN_DATE="2026-06-11-04:00" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/xml/REGINFO_XML_Ver10262011.xsd">
    <RIN_INFO>
        <RIN>3046-AA66</RIN>
        <PUBLICATION>
            <PUBLICATION_ID>199810</PUBLICATION_ID>
            <PUBLICATION_TITLE>The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions</PUBLICATION_TITLE>
        </PUBLICATION>
        <AGENCY>
            <CODE>3046</CODE>
            <NAME>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</NAME>
            <ACRONYM>EEOC</ACRONYM>
        </AGENCY>
        <RULE_TITLE>Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Procedures</RULE_TITLE>
        <ABSTRACT><![CDATA[Commission staff has reviewed part 1614 to assess its effectiveness and conformity with National Performance Review principles. As a result, several changes are being proposed to streamline the process and eliminate unnecessary layers of review.]]></ABSTRACT>
        <PRIORITY_CATEGORY>Other Significant</PRIORITY_CATEGORY>
        <RIN_STATUS>Previously Published in The Unified Agenda</RIN_STATUS>
        <RULE_STAGE>Final Rule Stage</RULE_STAGE>
        <MAJOR>No</MAJOR>
        <UNFUNDED_MANDATE_LIST>
            <UNFUNDED_MANDATE>No</UNFUNDED_MANDATE>
        </UNFUNDED_MANDATE_LIST>
        <CFR_LIST>
            <CFR>29 CFR 1614</CFR>
        </CFR_LIST>
        <LEGAL_AUTHORITY_LIST>
            <LEGAL_AUTHORITY>42 USC 2000e-16</LEGAL_AUTHORITY>
            <LEGAL_AUTHORITY>29 USC 206(d)</LEGAL_AUTHORITY>
            <LEGAL_AUTHORITY>29 USC 633a</LEGAL_AUTHORITY>
            <LEGAL_AUTHORITY>29 USC 791</LEGAL_AUTHORITY>
            <LEGAL_AUTHORITY>29 USC 794a</LEGAL_AUTHORITY>
        </LEGAL_AUTHORITY_LIST>
        <RPLAN_ENTRY>Yes</RPLAN_ENTRY>
        <RPLAN_INFO>
            <STMT_OF_NEED><![CDATA[The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is proposing to revise the Federal sector complaints process to increase its overall efficiency and integrity. Two specific goals are to motivate agencies to take early corrective action and encourage individuals to fully utilize the administrative process. ^PAs part of an ongoing effort to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the EEOC's operations, former Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas established the Federal Sector Workgroup to review the Federal sector equal employment opportunity process. The Workgroup, composed of representatives from offices throughout the Commission, evaluated the Commission's administrative processes governing its enforcement responsibilities in the Federal sector and developed recommendations to improve its effectiveness. In addition the review sought to implement the goals of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR), including eliminating unnecessary layers of review, delegating decisionmaking authority to front-line employees, developing partnership between management and labor, seeking stakeholder input when making decisions, and measuring performance by results. ^PThe Federal Sector Workgroup issued a report entitled "The Federal Sector EEO Process...Recommendations for Change" in May 1997. The report contained numerous recommendations for changing the Federal sector complaint process, including changes to the part 1614 regulations, changes to EEOC's Management Directive 110 which contains additional guidance and instructions on the Federal complaint process, and changes to EEOC's internal procedures. The Commission proposes to amend part 1614 to implement the regulatory recommendations. The proposed changes address the continuing perception of unfairness and inefficiency in the Federal sector complaint process. In addition, the proposals accomplish the National Performance Review goals of removing unnecessary layers of review and delegating decisionmaking authority to front-line employees. ^PEEOC spent over a year and a half in the development of this NPRM. During that time period, EEOC consulted extensively with all stakeholders in the Federal sector process. On April 22, 1996, prior to the development of any recommendations, the EEOC's Federal Sector Workgroup held a meeting with Federal EEO and Civil Rights personnel organized by the President of the Council of Federal and Civil Rights Executives. On May 21, 1996, then-Chairman Casellas wrote to the EEO Directors of all departments and agencies requesting their written comment on a number of subjects related to the Federal sector complaint process. We received comments from 27 agencies, all of which were fully considered in developing the recommendations contained in the Workgroup's report. On September 26, 1997, the Workgroup held a briefing for EEO Directors on the Workgroup's recommendations. The Commission coordinated the draft NPRM with all Federal agencies pursuant to Executive Order No. 12067 (1978).]]></STMT_OF_NEED>
            <LEGAL_BASIS><![CDATA[The proposed revisions are not required by statute or court order. The changes are proposed to improve the existing procedural regulations that were issued under the Commission's authority to issue such regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities under 42 USC 2000e-16, 29 USC 206(d), 29 USC 633a, 29 USC 791, 29 USC 794a, and Executive Order No. 11478.]]></LEGAL_BASIS>
            <ALTERNATIVES><![CDATA[This proposal contains numerous changes to the Federal sector processing regulations. The agency has consulted widely with all stakeholders in developing these proposals and will consider all alternatives offered by them and the public commenters.]]></ALTERNATIVES>
            <COSTS_AND_BENEFITS><![CDATA[The anticipated costs and benefits for each of the major changes are: ^PAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the pre-complaint process. Many agencies have existing ADR programs and consequently this proposal will result in no or minimal increased costs. Agencies without such programs may have start-up costs or incur costs to purchase such services. We believe that ADR will result in better and earlier resolutions, thereby saving investigation and litigation costs, and potentially result in fewer filings. ^PDismissals. We propose to add two new bases for dismissals of complaints: dissatisfaction with the EEO process and abuse of the EEO process. The two new bases for dismissal will enable agencies to save administrative processing and litigation costs where complainants are dissatisfied with the processing of complaints or abuse the process. We believe this will result in a net cost savings to the agencies with no detriment to those with good faith claims. ^POffer of Resolution. We propose to eliminate the dismissal for failure to accept full relief and to replace it with an offer of resolution whereby the amount of recoverable attorney's fees will be limited when a complainant rejects an agency's offer of relief but subsequently obtains less relief through the administrative process. The dismissal for failure to accept full relief has become less useful as a result of the availability of compensatory damages. We believe this alternative will provide an incentive to complainants to accept reasonable settlement offers. ^PPartial Dismissals. We propose to eliminate interlocutory appeals when an agency dismisses only a part of a complaint. This has resulted in fragmentation of complaints and delays in processing. As proposed, a complainant can obtain review of the agency's partial dismissal from an EEOC administrative judge if a hearing is requested, or from EEOC if an appeal is filed. We believe that eliminating these appeals will save considerable resources, and that the elimination of fragmentation and delays will benefit both parties. ^PHearings. Requests for hearings will be made directly by complainants to EEOC rather than to the agency, which would then transmit it to EEOC. This will relieve the agencies of this burden and eliminate the delay incident to that two-step process. The administrative judges (AJs) will be given the authority to dismiss cases rather than having to remand the cases to the agency for dismissal. This should save time for all parties and save costs to the agency. The AJs will be able to issue decisions without hearings in appropriate cases where the record is sufficient and credibility determinations are not at issue. This will save costs and time. Finally, the AJs will issue final decisions. This will save the agencies the costs of writing their own decisions and avoid the appearance of conflict of interest that accompanies the issuance of a decision on the matter by the same agency that is accused of committing the discrimination. ^PClass Complaints. Because very few class complaints are filed or certified at the administrative level, some complainants wait to raise class allegations in court. This deprives the agencies of the ability to resolve these matters early in the process and denies victims a prompt remedy. The changes to these provisions are intended to remove unnecessary barriers to the filing of class complaints and to insure fairness of remedies. Any increase in costs due to increased filings should be offset by earlier resolution. ^PAppeals. We propose to amend some time frames to shorten the process thereby eliminating delays. We are changing the appellate standard of review from de novo to substantial evidence and revising the reconsideration standards to increase deference to administrative judges' decisions and to avoid a second level of appeal. This will eliminate duplication of EEOC's efforts and unnecessary layers of review and permit decisionmaking at an ea]]></COSTS_AND_BENEFITS>
            <RISKS><![CDATA[This regulation does not address risks to public health, safety, or the environment. The proposed regulatory changes, however, will lessen the risks of undue delay and of the perception of unfairness in the processing of EEO complaints. The Commission has a significant interest in addressing these risks because they undermine the integrity of the EEO process and, to the extent they deter individuals from filing EEO complaints or fully exhausting the EEO process, deprive agencies of the opportunity to take early corrective action. EEOC proposes to minimize delays by increasing the opportunities for early resolution of complaints, eliminating interlocutory appeals, dismissing complaints because of abuse or dissatisfaction with the EEO process, permitting administrative judges to issue dismissals in appropriate circumstances instead of remanding cases to the agency for dismissal, allowing offers of resolution, making hearing requests directly to EEOC, and shortening some of the appellate time frames. EEOC addresses the perception of unfairness by authorizing administrative judges to issue final decisions instead of recommendations that the agency can reject, having partial dismissals reviewed by administrative judges, eliminating unnecessary barriers to the filing of class complaints, and changing the standard of appellate review from de novo to substantial evidence.]]></RISKS>
        </RPLAN_INFO>
        <TIMETABLE_LIST>
            <TIMETABLE>
                <TTBL_ACTION>NPRM</TTBL_ACTION>
                <TTBL_DATE>02/20/1998</TTBL_DATE>
                <FR_CITATION>63 FR 8594</FR_CITATION>
            </TIMETABLE>
            <TIMETABLE>
                <TTBL_ACTION>NPRM Comment Period End</TTBL_ACTION>
                <TTBL_DATE>04/21/1998</TTBL_DATE>
                <FR_CITATION>63 FR 8594</FR_CITATION>
            </TIMETABLE>
            <TIMETABLE>
                <TTBL_ACTION>Final Action</TTBL_ACTION>
                <TTBL_DATE>12/00/1998</TTBL_DATE>
            </TIMETABLE>
        </TIMETABLE_LIST>
        <RFA_REQUIRED>No</RFA_REQUIRED>
        <GOVT_LEVEL_LIST>
            <GOVT_LEVEL>Federal</GOVT_LEVEL>
        </GOVT_LEVEL_LIST>
        <PRINT_PAPER>NA</PRINT_PAPER>
        <INTERNATIONAL_INTEREST>Not Collected</INTERNATIONAL_INTEREST>
        <AGENCY_CONTACT_LIST>
            <CONTACT>
                <FIRST_NAME>Thomas</FIRST_NAME>
                <LAST_NAME>Schlageter</LAST_NAME>
                <MIDDLE_NAME>J.</MIDDLE_NAME>
                <TITLE>Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel</TITLE>
                <AGENCY>
                    <CODE>3046</CODE>
                </AGENCY>
                <PHONE>202 663-4668</PHONE>
                <TDD_PHONE>202 663-7026</TDD_PHONE>
                <FAX>202 663-4679</FAX>
                <EMAIL>thomas.schlageter@eeoc.gov</EMAIL>
                <MAILING_ADDRESS>
                    <STREET_ADDRESS>131 M Street NE.,</STREET_ADDRESS>
                    <CITY>Washington</CITY>
                    <STATE>DC</STATE>
                    <ZIP>20507</ZIP>
                </MAILING_ADDRESS>
            </CONTACT>
        </AGENCY_CONTACT_LIST>
        <PROCUREMENT>Not Procurement Related</PROCUREMENT>
        <REINVENT_GOVT>Revising Text to Reduce Burden or Duplication, or Streamline Requirements</REINVENT_GOVT>
    </RIN_INFO>
</REGINFO_RIN_DATA>
