Tanya Ward Jordan, President

The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) created the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is to explain and apply federal laws barring workplace
discrimination. However, many workers say the federal agency flops at achieving its
mission. As President of The Coalition for Change, Inc. (C4C), an advocacy group with
individuals harmed due to federal workplace discrimination, I often hear about the
EEOC’s shortcomings. Present and former federal employees repeatedly raise the
following three concerns that prompt the question: “What’s equal about Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)?

1. The EEOC Unequally Applies Federal Sector EEO Complaint Guidelines.

The EEOC’s Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint guidelines
are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, 29 CFR 1614 sets the
guidelines federal employers and federal employees are to follow when one raises an
employment discrimination claim. However, the EEOC enforces the guidelines
lopsidedly.

For example, the EEOC’s guidelines require agencies to investigate and issue a report to
the complainant “within 180 days” of the complaint filing. Yet, agencies commonly
ignore the 180-day fact-finding requirement; and the EEOC commonly ignores when
agencies fail to comply. Notably, the Office of Special Counsel (2015) wrote: “. . . 50 %
of civil rights complaints filed against high-level USDA Agriculture officials were not
acted on the legally required timeframe.” The EEOC is fully aware that a double
standard exists. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2009 report,
an EEOC Commissioner once admitted “complaint would be dismissed if a
complainant missed any of the deadlines” (GAO-09-712, Equal Employment
Opportunity, August 2009, p.12).

2. The EEOC Routinely Fails to Refer Discrimination Cases For Disciplinary

Action.

In 1988, the EEOC created a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Office of
Special Counsel (OSC). The MOU states: “the EEOC shall refer to the OSC enforcement
action cases in which the EEOC finds that an agency or an officer or employee thereof
has discriminated against any employee or applicant for employment.” The C4C
spoke with EEOC’s Carlton Hadden, Director-Office of Federal Operations, about the
enforcement agency’s failure to use the MOU. In reply Director Hadden, said the “EEOC
does not have the authority to discipline.” However, Hadden said: the “EEOC has the
authority to refer cases to the OSC for potential employee disciplinary action. The C4C
made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiry to both the OSC and the EEOC to
assess how often, if at all, the EEOC referred cases to the OSC. The C4C uncovered the
“enforcement agency” had made “0” referrals to the OSC for the period of inquiry.

3. The EEOC Unfairly Subjects Its Workforce to Hearing Judges Under Its
Paid Control.

Federal employees in the Executive Branch may request a hearing with an EEOC
Administrative Judge to rule on discrimination claims against their employer. But,
what if your employer is the EEOC? The EEOC says independent administrative judges
preside over hearings for its employees. In fact, the EEOC’s website states: “EEOC
maintains interagency agreements for adjudicators at other agencies to handle the
hearing requests of EEOC employees.” The EEOC’s public statement; however, sorely
conflicts with the agency’s practice. According to the EEOC’s internal handbook, the
EEOC pays Contract Administrative Judges to hear claims lodged against it from
employees and applicants for employment (EEOC, Employee’s Guide to the
Commission’s Internal EEO Programs, p. 15).

Against all odds, former EEOC Administrative Judge Elizabeth Bullock successfully filed
and won a retaliation claim against the EEOC (Bullock v Berrien). Bullock, however,
expresses deep concern about the EEOC’s use of contract judges. She says, “If the
contract attorney wants a permanent relationship with the EEOC, he or she will do
what the enforcement agency wants it to do regardless of the case merits.”

Given the serious concerns EEO practitioners, federal employees, and others raise about
the enforcement agency, the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C), recently launched its
#EXPOSEEEOC campaign. The campaign focuses on promoting accountability with in
the EEOC and is discussed further at https://www.exposeeeoc.com/

Tanya Ward Jordan is President and Founder of The Coalition For Change, Inc.
(C4C), a civil rights organization challenging racism and reprisal in the federal
workplace. She received an award from Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for her input
into the "Notification and Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002” and
Congressional acclaim from Representative Elijah Cummings for her invaluable input
on a bill, known as Federal Employee Anti-discrimination Act of 2017. Ms. Ward
Jordan holds a Master of Science degree in Human Resources Management; and is the
author of 17 Steps: A Federal Employee’s Guide For Tackling Workplace
Discrimination.