The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is proposing a new rule that would drastically overhaul the process federal employees must follow when challenging workplace discrimination – and it’s giving workers and the public little time to comment on the draft changes.
The proposed changes will make it harder for workers to win relief and make it more costly for taxpayers. The EEOC wants to, among other things, revoke the right for employees to have their case heard by an impartial EEOC administrative judge, eliminate the opportunity for employees to try to settle discrimination issues early through the pre-complaint counseling process, and eliminate the ability for employees facing similar issues to have their cases grouped together as an administrative class-action complaint.
AFGE National Vice President Kendrick Roberson, who leads AFGE’s Women and Fair Practices Department, said requiring workers to have their discrimination complaints adjudicated by their hiring agency instead of before a neutral administrative judge is a clear conflict of interest.
“The same agency accused of discrimination would investigate the complaint and initially decide whether discrimination occurred,” Roberson wrote in an op-ed published Sept. 10 in Government Executive.
“Under the current process, when a federal worker claims they faced discrimination in the workplace, the worker’s employer is responsible for receiving the discrimination complaint, investigating it within 180 days and creating a report of the investigation. If the employer is then in charge of deciding whether discrimination occurred and whether the employer will owe the worker restitution, federal workers are subject to a situation where the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The employer has a strong interest in deciding that the worker was not subject to discrimination.”
Eliminating impartial hearings will discourage many employees from pursuing valid discrimination cases due to financial and logistical burdens, Roberson added.
“Court cases are complex and often involve significant court and attorney’s fees. By taking away the automatic right to a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge and making such proceedings discretionary on appeal, the proposed rule’s real effect would be to discourage employees from pursuing claims of illegal discrimination and make it harder for those who do move forward to challenge that discrimination successfully,” he wrote.
Also concerning is the rush to implement these proposed changes. The EEOC set a 30-day public comment period, about half the typical length for such a significant and impactful proposal, although the actual comment period is even shorter because the initial Aug. 28 notice was withdrawn and republished on Aug. 31 – while the Sept. 28 deadline to comment was not extended.
AFGE encourages employees and the public to submit comments to the EEOC urging the agency to withdraw these harmful changes and to extend the length of the comment period.
Two Ways to Comment on EEOC’s Proposed Rule
Share AFGE’s pre-written letter through Action Network
Submit your own comments anonymously through the Federal Register
AFGE has scored a pair of victories in legal challenges over the Trump administration’s policy requiring federal job applicants to pledge their loyalty to the administration and attempts by DHS to dismantle FEMA by illegally slashing half of the agency’s workforce.
Read More
Members of Congress are joining AFGE and other national teachers unions in calling on the Trump administration to stop its unlawful dismantling of the Education Department.
Read More
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is proposing a new rule that would drastically overhaul the process federal employees must follow when challenging workplace discrimination – and it’s giving workers and the public little time to comment on the draft changes.
Read More
