The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
US EEOC Performance and Accountability Report FY 2007


Integration of Elements in the Strategic Plan

EEOC implemented its Strategic Plan for FYs 2007 through 2012 at the beginning of FY 2007. The plan describes our overall strategic framework for 6 years. As noted in the previous section of this report, the agency has since modified the Strategic Plan by revising several areas of the performance structure (see the performance discussion, below, and the Addendum at the end of this section). This section of the report summarizes the results achieved in FY 2007 for the 10 performance measures described in our modified Strategic Plan.

The framework for the modified Strategic Plan in effect for FY 2007 represents an improvement in our overall strategic planning and measurement approach because it is designed to be more results oriented, customer centered, and performance driven. The plan melds our strategic objectives, performance measures, and important program initiatives; all of which are integral to the accomplishment of our mission. The graphic presented on page 5 illustrates the integration of these elements, enabling us to achieve and evaluate our results for FY 2007.

Strategic Objective: Justice, Opportunity and Inclusive Workplaces

The EEOC is the Nation’s primary enforcer of the civil rights employment laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, age, and disability. The agency was created in 1964 for the purposes of resolving charges of employment discrimination and securing relief for victims of discrimination. More than 40 years later, the public continues to rely on the Commission to carry out these fundamental responsibilities and bring justice and opportunity to the workplace. Our fight against discrimination goes beyond enforcing the law. The best way to combat workplace discrimination is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Educating employers and workers about their rights and responsibilities under the law is the first step toward promoting an inclusive workplace, where all workers are judged on their talents and abilities without regard to any protected characteristic.

EEOC’s major programs and activities are investigating and resolving charges of discrimination; litigating complaints of discrimination; conducting hearings, resolving appeals of discrimination complaints and promoting equal employment opportunity in the federal workplace; and educating the public about its rights and responsibilities. All of these programs and activities are done in the service of four shared goals:

Our performance structure will enable us to strive toward meeting the goals and measures we have adopted, which include our two long-term performance measures, seven annual performance measures, and one efficiency measure in our modified Strategic Plan for FYs 2007 through 2012.

As we noted earlier, in FY 2006 an internal review and the PART review conducted by OMB resulted in a new performance structure initially adopted in our Strategic Plan issued at the beginning of FY 2007. Since OMB assigned a PART rating of Results Not Demonstrated and the agency began to implement the PART improvement plan, the agency modified the performance structure of its Strategic Plan with the approval of the OMB (see the graphic representation on page 5 and the Addendum at the end of this section).

Performance Measure Highlights

Long-Term/Annual Measure 1

By FY 2012, the number of individuals benefiting from improvements to organizations’ policies, practices and procedures because of EEOC’s enforcement programs increases by TBD%.
FY 2007


Establish Baseline


Baseline Established


Target met

We believe it is important to measure our success by looking beyond the monetary and equitable relief we secure through our enforcement actions. This combined long-term/annual measure focuses on tracking the improvements that are made in the workplace as a direct result of our enforcement programs. We selected this measure because, when we secure changes in employment policies, practices and procedures through our enforcement programs, we have a positive impact not only on the immediate victims of discrimination, but also on all individuals in the affected workplace. Through organization-wide changes, individuals benefit from a more inclusive workplace and have greater opportunities to compete on a level playing field. With the agency’s renewed emphasis on combating systemic discrimination, we expect to make significant increases over time in the number of individuals who benefit from our enforcement activities.

Long Term/Annual Measure 1 was developed to focus on all enforcement services we provide to the public that result in workplace benefits. These results include benefits obtained from administrative resolutions (including mediation), litigation resolutions, and federal sector hearings and appeals resolutions. Beginning in FY 2005, we began collecting data on the number of individuals benefited by private sector administrative resolutions (including mediations) only.

Based on the experience with collecting this private sector data, we adopted similar data collection approaches and collected the data for our litigation and federal sector programs. We established our baseline for this measure as approximately 1,626,000 individuals who benefited from improvements to their organizations’ policies, practices and procedures as a result of all of our enforcement programs’ efforts during FY 2007. During FY 2008, we will identify the targets and our final goal for FY 2012 for the percentage increase in the number of individuals benefited each year.

Efficiency Measure

By FY 2012, the number of individuals benefiting from improvements to organizations’ policies, practices and procedures because of EEOC’s enforcement programs for each agency FTE increases by TBD%.
FY 2007


Establish Baseline


Baseline Established


Target met

Enhancing the number of people who benefited for each EEOC FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) position demonstrates our efficiency, because approximately 70% of the agency’s budget is dedicated to compensation and benefits. This entirely new area of measurement relies on data of the number of individuals benefited by our enforcement programs, which is collected for Long-Term/Annual Measure 1.

The number of individuals benefited in FY 2007 was approximately 1,626,000. As of the end of the fiscal year, our FTE was 2,158. Therefore, our baseline for this measure is 753.5 individuals benefited in FY 2007 per agency FTE. During FY 2008, we will also identify the yearly targets and final goal for FY 2012.

Long-Term Measure 2

By FY 2012, the public rates its confidence in EEOC’s enforcement of federal equal employment laws at TBD% or higher.
FY 2007


Establish Baseline*




Target met

If the public is aware of our enforcement activities and believes that we have handled discrimination complaints effectively, they will be more likely to rely on us to investigate, mediate, litigate, adjudicate a federal complaint, and otherwise resolve allegations of discrimination. Additionally, if the agency’s reputation is one of a fair and responsible enforcer of the civil rights employment laws, then employers, attorneys and other members of the public will be more likely to defer to our assessment of discrimination complaints and commit to voluntary compliance through mediation, settlement, or conciliation.

To identify a baseline value for the public’s confidence in the agency’s enforcement of the federal equal employment laws, the agency engaged a reputable private organization to conduct a survey in FY 2007 of a representative sample of individuals nationwide. The survey results demonstrated that 47.8% of individuals responding have confidence in EEOC’s ability to enforce federal equal employment laws. Using this baseline value, in FY 2008, the agency will establish annual target values and its final goal for FY 2012.

Annual Measure 2.1. At least TBD% of private sector charges are resolved in 180 days or fewer by FY 2012.
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007













Not Met

Target not met

Annual Measure 2.2. At least 54% of federal sector hearings are resolved in 180 days or fewer by FY 2012.
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007













Not Met

Target not met

Annual Measure 2.3. At least 70% of federal sector appeals are resolved in 180 days or fewer by FY 2012.
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007














Target met

Annual Measures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 focus on the resolution of private sector charges, federal sector hearings, and federal sector appeals. In recognition of the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, these measures ensure the timely resolution of complaints in each of our major complaint handling activities. The goal of resolving private sector charges within 180 days is important to containing the overall average charge processing time. It also balances the need to devote the necessary time and attention to charges that present meritorious or complex claims and to remedy discrimination where it is found. The goals of resolving federal sector hearings and federal sector appeals within 180 days reflect our commitment to continue the timely handling of federal sector complaints.

For FY 2007, we did not meet the target for Annual Measure 2.1 and Annual Measure 2.2. For Annual Measure 2.1, we achieved a rate of 55.6% of our private sector resolutions being processed within 180 days, which falls below the target of 72%. Similarly, for Annual Measure 2.2, 42.8% of our federal sector resolutions were processed within 180 days, while the target was 50%. For Annual Measure 2.1, we are discussing with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the current results obtained for this measure and the targets/final goal expectations. Our discussion recognizes the need to set targets that are ambitious, but achievable. We anticipate establishing yearly targets and a final goal during FY 2008. For Annual Measure 2.2, although we did not achieve our FY 2007 target, we have retained this target level for FY 2008 as a commitment to an ambitious effort to process our hearings workload.

For Annual Measure 2.3, with our 60.7% result for FY 2007, we have met our 60% target of resolving federal sector appeals within 180 days or fewer. For FY 2008, we are increasing our target to 62% to continue to address forcefully the timeliness of our appeals workload.

Annual Measure 2.4. At least 93% of investigative files meet established criteria for quality by FY 2012.
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007



Define quality criteria & develop information collection system.

Establish FY 2005 baseline & targets for FY 2006–2009.





Defined criteria & developed collection system.

Established Baseline (88.5%) & targets.




Target met

Annual Measure 2.4 ensures that investigative files meet quality standards. A large proportion of sampled investigative files reviewed must meet two critical quality criteria: 1) the appropriate charge categorization supports the actions taken on the charge, and 2) the file documentation supports the resolution of the charge. This measure and the yearly targets are intended to ensure that we do not complete our work quickly at the expense of performing our work well. The result for this measure, 93.5% of the files meeting the quality standard, exceeds the 90% target for FY 2007. For FY 2008, we are maintaining this target level, but in the future, will increase the annual targets in order to achieve our goal of 93% for FY 2012.

Annual Measure 2.5. At least 95% of respondents and charging parties report confidence in EEOC’s private sector mediation/ADR program by FY 2012.
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007














Target met

Annual Measure 2.5 focuses on the EEOC’s mediation/ADR program. We recognize that the public’s confidence in our mediation program has a significant impact on its perception of the EEOC as a whole. We obtain results for this measure by surveying participants in EEOC’s mediation program and tabulating responses about their confidence in using the program. This measure has been used by the agency since 2003, so we have significant trend data upon which to base our targets. The confidence level in this program is consistently high. It is critical to attain a high level of confidence in the program because it helps convince participants, particularly employer representatives, of the value of alternative dispute resolution. For FY 2007, 95.8% of those surveyed expressed confidence in our private sector ADR program; exceeding our 90% annual target. For FY 2008, we are increasing our target to 91% and will continue to increase it gradually to meet our final goal of 95% by FY 2012.

Annual Measure 2.6. At least 90% of EEOC lawsuits are successfully resolved during the period ending in FY 2012.
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007



90% or higher 6-year rolling average

90% or higher 6-year rolling average

90% or higher 6-year rolling average

90% or higher 3-year rolling average








Target met

Annual Measure 2.6 places a premium on maintaining the high level of successful resolutions in our litigation program. Successful resolutions include cases decided by favorable court order and those concluded through a consent decree or a settlement agreement in litigation. Achieving success on this measure will ensure that we continue to exercise our prosecutorial discretion responsibly, while allowing us to take on challenging issues and litigate complex cases, including cases of systemic discrimination. As our systemic litigation program gets underway, this measure remains significant because the achievement of success in systemic cases is challenging and resource-intensive. We revised our methodology for this measure from a 6-year rolling average of successful resolutions to a more limited 3-year rolling average, while maintaining the same high target, to make the measure more ambitious. Our litigation success rate for this fiscal year alone is 89.5% and the 3-year rolling average success rate is 91.5%. We are maintaining this 90% target for subsequent years.

Review of Litigation Results

For several years, the EEOC has set a goal with Annual Measure 2.6 of maintaining at least a 90% success rate in lawsuit resolutions. Because the majority of lawsuits are resolved through settlement, this performance measure does not describe EEOC’s results in cases adjudicated by a judge or jury. This fiscal year, we conducted a review of the cases adjudicated to final decision by a judge or jury over the past 5 years, from FY 2002 through FY 2006. We also reviewed the results for private plaintiffs represented by counsel in employment discrimination cases adjudicated by a judge or jury in the federal courts, using data made available by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Our review focused on the results for two separate types of outcomes, both at the district court level: 1) non-trial adjudications (i.e., cases resolved by court orders such as summary judgment and dismissals) and 2) trial wins.

Our review showed that:

The table below illustrates the results of our review in more detail.

Comparison of Success Rates in U.S. District Courts, Federal Employment Discrimination Cases to EEOC Enforcement Suits
  Federal employment discrimination cases w/ represented plaintiffs excluding U.S. as plaintiff (2001-2005) EEOC enforcement suits (FY 2002-2006)

Non-trial adjudications lost by plaintiff as a percentage of all case resolutions



Trial wins for plaintiff as a percentage of all trials



This review is intended to provide context for the data on EEOC litigation results. It is not intended to represent that the differences in results are statistically significant, and it attempts no judgment on the reasons for the different outcomes. In the Office of General Counsel’s Annual Report, we will include a fuller description of these results and the methodology we used in this review.

In the future, we plan to perform a similar comparative review of data at the appellate court level, focusing on the reversal rate for plaintiff wins and the reversal rate for defendant wins. Our internal data shows that, in EEOC cases where there was a decisive outcome on appeal in the period from FY 2002 to FY 2006:

Review of Content of EEOC Litigation Docket

This year, we also reviewed the content of our litigation docket to determine whether our case filings were representative of the categories of claims we are charged with enforcing. Under Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA, the EEOC must make efforts to resolve violations through informal conciliation before filing suit. We seek to enforce the law actively with respect to each of the protected categories under the statutes under our charge to maintain a balanced litigation program. The figure below illustrates the number of cases filed in FY 2006 containing allegations with respect to each of the protected categories for which we have litigation authority. (Note that the total number of allegations represented in this chart exceeds the total number of cases filed because many cases contain multiple allegations. Refer to for additional statistics on suit filings and resolutions.)

Chart: Review of Litigation Docket

Because of statutory prerequisites for our litigation, a further analysis is necessary to evaluate our case-selection decisions. Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, the EEOC must make efforts to resolve violations through informal conciliation before filing suit. For those statutes, only those cases in which conciliation efforts have failed comprise the pool of potential litigation vehicles for the Commission. We looked at the number of conciliation failures in some typical categories of our litigation to determine whether our suit filings were reflective of the pool of available cases. We focused on five representative types of cases subject to a conciliation requirement: race/black, sexual harassment, national origin/ Hispanic, age and disability. We calculated the percentage of each type of case filed compared to the total number of suits filed and also calculated the percentage of conciliation failures under each of these case-types compared to all conciliation failures (using FY 2006 data). The figure below illustrates these comparisons:

Chart: Conciliation Failures and Cases Filed

This review reveals that our selection of race/black and national origin/Hispanic cases for litigation slightly exceeded the cases available to consider for litigation after conciliation efforts failed. That is, the percent of suits filed on national origin/Hispanic (4.6%) and race/black charges (19.1%) slightly exceeded the percent of conciliation failures for national origin/Hispanic and race/black charges (4.5% and 18.3%, respectively). Our selection of sexual harassment cases for litigation (27.8%) exceeded the percentage of these charges available for litigation (21.8%), but we noted that most of our sexual harassment cases achieve a high impact by seeking relief for multiple victims of discrimination. Our selection of age (13.5%) and disability (11.3%) cases for litigation was somewhat lower than the availability of these cases for litigation (19.4% and 16.6%, respectively). Overall, these results demonstrate that we are maintaining a docket that is reasonably representative of the categories of claims we are charged with enforcing. We intend to update this examination on a regular basis.

Annual Measure 2.7. At least TBD% of individuals demonstrate an awareness of their equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities by FY 2012.
      FY 2007  









Target met

Annual Measure 2.7 focuses on ensuring that individuals understand their EEO rights and responsibilities under the statutes enforced by the EEOC. We believe that individuals who know their rights and their responsibilities are more likely to properly identify discriminatory behaviors at the workplace and know what to do about them. In addition, we believe it is equally important for individuals, who are responsible for workplaces policies, practices, and procedures, to have the information they need to assess critically whether their workplaces are contributing to a discriminatory environment and what their responsibilities are for correcting discriminatory conduct.

As indicated for our Long Term Measure 2, the agency engaged a reputable private organization to conduct a survey in FY 2007 of a representative sample of individuals nationwide. The survey results demonstrated that 45.6% of individuals responding demonstrated an awareness of their equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities. Using this baseline value, in FY 2008 the agency will establish annual target values and its final goal for FY 2012.

Collaborative FEPA Measure Contributing to EEOC Goals

Our PART review by OMB in FY 2006 concluded that the EEOC needed to measure the contribution its Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA) partners make toward achieving our Strategic Objective and our performance objectives. In June 2007, during our annual training conference with our FEPA partners, we began to share information and establish a dialogue to develop a method for assessing how the FEPAs’ activities affect our ability to successfully achieve our goals. Since the conference, we have established a workgroup comprised of EEOC and FEPA staff to address the issue. The group’s objective is to develop one or more measures using information collected from the FEPA community. The information will help us and the FEPAs improve our cooperative relationship and common interest in improving the enforcement of our respective employment discrimination laws. For FY 2007, the agency is not yet measuring this FEPA performance contribution. We will implement a measurement program during FY 2008 and begin to measure and report on the results achieved under our Strategic Plan in future years’ Performance and Accountability Reports.

Other Performance Initiatives

In the Management’s Discussion and Analysis Section of this report, we briefly described many other performance initiatives we initiated or continued in FY 2007. Each is described in more detail below.

Outreach: The Commission’s outreach programs reached 278,803 persons. Field and Headquarters offices participated in 5,658 educational, training, and outreach events. This is an increase in the number of events over the same period in FY 2006, when there were 5,634 events.

Also, our offices distributed information materials on EEO laws and represented the Commission at 784 other public events that reached an additional 64,777 people. These events included information booths at job fairs, conventions, cultural expositions, and conferences. Informational materials were distributed through participation in many community organization meetings to another 43,377. We also made 682 media presentations, including radio and TV interviews, talk shows, and press conferences that provided substantive EEO information to millions of stakeholders.

Our outreach, education and technical assistance efforts focus on increasing voluntary compliance with federal equal employment laws and on improving the individual awareness of a person’s rights and responsibilities. Annual Measure 2.7 affords us an opportunity to try to measure our contribution toward this endeavor.

Mediation Outreach: In FY 2007, EEOC offices conducted 335 outreach events directed toward the private-sector employer community to promote our mediation program. Events included workshops, mock mediations, and panel discussions with employer representatives as well as representatives from the plaintiff and defense bar.

Small Business Outreach: The Commission is working cooperatively and collaboratively with the small business community to proactively prevent employment discrimination and promote voluntary compliance. We recognize that many small businesses do not have separate human resources and legal staff to guide them through the regulatory process. Therefore, it is important to establish open lines of communication and provide the necessary training and tools to ensure that small employers comply with the law. EEOC district offices conducted 634 no-cost outreach events directed toward small businesses in FY 2007, including several events under the President’s New Freedom Initiative (NFI). An additional 4,367 small business representatives attended EEOC Training Institute events. The topics of mediation, EEOC overview, sexual harassment, charge processing, Title VII, and the ADA were the most popular for small business audiences.

Federal Sector Outreach: In FY 2006, the Office of Federal Operations provided feedback on a single-year basis to all agencies or reporting subcomponents that had filed MD-715 reports during FY 2004 or FY 2005 for a total of over 200 letters. In FY 2007, we provided feedback in the form of an in-depth, comprehensive 3-year trend analysis to 20% of these agencies (approximately 42). Trend-analysis feedback will be provided to 20% of agencies filing MD-715 reports on a rotating basis, so that each agency receives a trend analysis letter at an interval of no longer than 5 years. The remaining 80% of agencies (approximately 160) will receive feedback each year in the form of single-year analysis. In FY 2007, a key strategy in our efforts to be more responsive to our federal sector customers was the continued development of our relationship management pilot. This initiative was first piloted in FY 2004, and was modeled after the private sector’s approach to customer service. The pilot has evolved and expanded to bring Commission personnel together with EEO staff in 13 agencies, plus a working group of smaller agencies, in a partnership to help those agencies foster an inclusive work culture and successfully implement the essential elements of MD-715’s model EEO program.

Education, Technical Assistance and Training:

E-RACE (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment): In an effort to identify and implement new strategies that will strengthen its enforcement of Title VII and E-RACE logo advance the statutory right to a workplace free of race and color discrimination, EEOC unveiled the E-RACE Initiative during its February 2007 Commission meeting. Race discrimination is the most frequent type of charge filing with the EEOC, a historical trend dating to the agency’s opening in 1965. In FY 2006, more than 27,000 charges of race discrimination were filed with EEOC offices nationwide, accounting for 36% of the agency’s private sector caseload. The E-RACE Initiative is designed to improve EEOC’s efforts to ensure workplaces are free of race and color discrimination. Specifically, the EEOC will identify issues, criteria and barriers that contribute to race and color discrimination, explore strategies to improve the administrative processing and the litigation of race and color discrimination claims, and enhance public awareness of race and color

Race discrimination is the most frequent type of charge filing with the EEOC, a historical trend dating to the agency’s opening in 1965. The E-RACE initiative is designed to improve EEOC’s efforts to ensure that workplaces are free of race and color discrimination.

discrimination in employment. As part of the initial E-RACE activities, we trained all EEOC investigators on race and color discrimination, including the new compliance manual section issued by the Commission in FY 2006. The manual section is designed to help employers prevent race and color discrimination; employees or job applicants evaluate whether they have a valid complaint and, if so, how to address it; and enforcement staff investigate a form of discrimination that is seldom overt. We have also developed national outreach materials for the initiative and our field offices have undertaken local outreach efforts which focus on the E-RACE Initiative. More information about the E‑RACE Initiative is located on EEOC’s website at

Freedom to Compete Initiative: Launched in 2002, the EEOC’s Freedom to Compete Initiative is a national outreach, education and partnership campaign Freedom to Compete logo designed to recognize and reward specific practices that produce results and reflect a commitment to access and inclusion in the workplace. The EEOC’s Freedom to Compete Award, presented annually, honors excellence in the implementation of effective EEO practices that can be replicated by other employers or organizations.

We presented our Freedom to Compete Awards in September 2007 to a diverse group of companies, federal agencies, and associations:

Youth@Work: In FY 2007, the EEOC built on the success of its Youth@Work Initiative to educate young workers about their workplace rights and responsibilities. Over the past 3 years, EEOC offices nationwide have hosted or participated in more than 3,000 events to educate teenage employees and their employers about workplace discrimination and harassment. We have reached more than 190,000 high school students, parents, teachers, and employers—arming them with the information they need to create positive first work experiences for our young adults.

Youth at Work logoThe Youth@Work website ( is dedicated to educating young workers about their equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities. The website explains the different types of job discrimination that young workers may encounter and suggests strategies they can use to prevent and, if necessary, respond to such discrimination. The site includes an interactive tool called “Challenge Yourself!” that provides an opportunity for young workers to test their knowledge by analyzing sample job discrimination scenarios. The site, created with the assistance of EEOC student interns, also includes examples of recent cases involving workplace harassment of young workers. A Spanish-language version of the website debuted in June 2005 at

In FY 2007, we produced, in partnership with the National Education Association, a 25 minute video to educate students on their rights and responsibilities in the workplace using fictional employment settings. The video will be distributed to high schools nationwide, accompanied by a teacher guide, at the beginning of FY 2008. Additionally, we conducted 1,225 events to educate teenage employees and their employers about workplace discrimination and harassment, reaching 67,149 high school students, parents, teachers, and employers. These events, which include information about the laws enforced by EEOC and the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, are aimed at assisting young workers as they enter and navigate the professional world and encouraging employers to proactively address discrimination issues confronting young workers.

LEAD Initiative: LEAD (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities) is the EEOC’s initiative to address the declining number of employees with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce. The over-arching goal for this initiative is to significantly increase the population of individuals with disabilities employed by the federal government—currently less than 1%. This national outreach and education campaign is designed to

In FY 2007, the LEAD web pages were updated. Resources related to recruitment, hiring, and accommodations, as well as links to several federal programs designed to assist individuals with disabilities in finding employment have been added. The website, available at, also includes program tips agencies can adopt to increase the participation of individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce.

New Freedom Initiative: On February 1, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his New Freedom Initiative (NFI), a comprehensive strategy for the full integration of individuals with disabilities into all aspects of America’s social and economic life. EEOC has played a critical role in furthering one of the NFI’s primary goals—increased access to the workplace for individuals with disabilities.

Since 2002, EEOC has issued a number of technical assistance documents for employers and people with disabilities. Among these documents have been six that have addressed the ADA’s application to particular types of disabilities—diabetes, epilepsy, cancer, intellectual disabilities, blindness and vision impairments, and deafness and hearing impairments. The Commission has also released three documents that discuss how the ADA applies to specific industries. In prior years, we issued a guide for restaurants and other food service establishments and a document on reasonable accommodations for attorneys with disabilities. In February 2007, EEOC released “Health Care Workers and the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Like most of EEOC’s technical assistance publications, the document uses a question-and-answer format and numerous examples to describe how the ADA applies to unique and challenging situations that arise with respect to workers with disabilities in America’s fastest-growing industry.

Regulations, Enforcement Guidance, and Technical Assistance: EEOC regulations and enforcement guidance represent the Commission’s official positions on a range of issues that arise under the employment discrimination laws. They aid EEOC investigators and attorneys, who enforce the laws through charge investigation and litigation, are looked to by many courts when resolving novel legal issues, and inform employers and individuals protected by the laws EEOC enforces of their legal rights and responsibilities. EEOC also publishes technical assistance documents, which promote awareness of, and voluntary compliance with, the EEO laws. They provide the public with explanations of the laws that are easy to understand and that avoid excessively technical or legalistic language. Technical assistance documents do not establish new EEOC policy. They apply existing policy in specific contexts to promote better understanding of EEOC policy.

During FY 2007, the EEOC revised a regulation and provided guidance in an important area. In General Dynamics Land System, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only prohibits discrimination against relatively older workers in the protected age group, not discrimination based on age generally. Thus, for example, after Cline, an individual who is 40 years old may not sue under the ADEA on the ground that an employer favored a 55-year-old worker on the basis of age. In order to conform to the decision in Cline, on July 6, 2007, the EEOC amended its ADEA regulations, which previously did not allow employers to prefer relatively older workers to younger workers who were at least 40 years old.

In May 2007, the EEOC issued enforcement guidance on the “Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.” The potential for conflicts between work and caregiving responsibilities has increased as more women (still the primary caregivers of children) have entered the workforce and many men have assumed more caregiving responsibilities. Also, workers are increasingly becoming caregivers of aging parents and older family members. While the employment discrimination laws do not protect caregivers per se, stereotypical assumptions about individuals with caregiving responsibilities may lead to discrimination on the bases of sex or race. Additionally, violations of the ADA may occur when those who care for individuals with disabilities are denied jobs or opportunities for advancement because employers assume that their role as caregivers will prevent them from meeting job requirements. The enforcement guidance explains how to analyze charges of discrimination on the basis of sex and race, or on the basis of an “association with an individual with a disability” that are brought by applicants or employees with caregiving responsibilities.

Agency Infrastructure and the President’s Management Agenda

We are constantly seeking ways to achieve organizational excellence by improving our organizational capacity and infrastructure through sound management of our resources—human, financial and technological. Maximizing effective use of these resources is essential to achieve our enforcement and outreach goals and to carry out our mission.

Our agency’s mission to promote equal employment opportunity and enforce the federal employment discrimination laws is a constant reminder to us of the importance of organizational excellence. Only through organizational excellence can we rise to challenges and achieve the ambitious measures of success set out in our Strategic Objective.

Infrastructure Highlights

Late in FY 2007, the Commission voted to transfer its customer information operation from a contracted national contact center to a dedicated in-house customer service team staffed with government employees. The Commission will locate this function at 15 current EEOC locations. A report, due in November 2007, will lay out the costs and requirements for staff, technology and facilities. The in-house customer service team will be fully operational during FY 2008.

Along with improvements to our EEO-1 Reporting System that benefited employers, in FY 2007, we improved data analysis and integrity by integrating this employer data with the private sector charge data collected in our Integrated Mission System (IMS). As a result, the agency has been able to match employer data characteristics and statistics with our repository of employment discrimination charges to assist in our systemic targeting and investigation efforts. We also incorporated the federal appeals process and data into the IMS, thereby retiring the old stand-alone legacy system that previously supported these functions.

To advance our technological infrastructure, in FY 2007, we replaced all of our field offices’ personal desktop computers with securely configured laptops and docking stations, thereby improving our telework capabilities and pandemic preparedness. We also expanded usage of video streaming, using this technology to conduct depositions and external hearings, provide remote interpretive services, conduct remote training, and improve collaboration/communication across our multiple office locations.

Over the past several years, the EEOC has implemented several new and improved information systems that have consolidated agency data into centralized, standardized environments. Now that the EEOC has standardized mechanisms for collecting information, we need to focus on how to use and analyze this information, across platforms and systems.

In that regard, the implementation of Knowledge Management continues to be a priority for the agency. To move toward the vision for Knowledge Management, during FY 2007 the EEOC obtained external expert resources to conduct a knowledge management study and develop a business case for future implementation and funding. Through this study, the EEOC is reviewing the data architecture of our primary information systems, identifying current issues with data management and reporting, outlining future requirements for integrated reporting and data analysis, and developing a design and migration strategy for implementing knowledge management/data warehousing. The EEOC will complete this analysis and have a new design and migration strategy recommended by the contractor by the end of FY 2007.

Another critical need related to Knowledge Management is the expansion of electronic document management within the EEOC. Currently, the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) uses the Document Management System (DMS) to electronically store and manage their federal appellate case files. Interfaces between the OFO DMS application and the new IMS Federal Appellate module have been developed, so that documents created in the IMS are automatically stored within the appropriate electronic case file within the DMS. In addition, in FY 2007, the EEOC continued efforts to electronically store and manage our litigation case files and briefs, develop a hearings decision library for our administrative judges, and implement technologies to securely receive and transmit sensitive electronic case files with other federal agencies. In addition to the efficiency savings achieved in working with electronic documents, the DMS will provide electronic disaster recovery for the agency’s critical files.

President’s Management Agenda

We found the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) a useful guide, as we developed and implemented our management strategies. The PMA identifies five areas that require improvement throughout the federal government. The five-part agenda is an integrated set of management reforms designed to create a more results-oriented, customer-focused, and market-based government. Since FY 2003, the agency’s Inspector General has rated the agency in all areas. Our ultimate goal is to achieve a green rating in all PMA scorecard categories. Our efforts to get to green are discussed in the following sections.

Strategic Management of Human Capital: During FY 2007, we continued to improve the strategic management of human capital by completing key steps toward developing and implementing our human capital initiative, which includes:

Competitive Sourcing: As part of our competitive sourcing obligations, we consistently identify potential areas for planned competitions. In FY 2007, we began a competition of our file disclosure backroom services with an award expected in FY 2008. We also prepared to initiate a study for information technology desktop management to be conducted in FY 2008.

Improved Financial Management: For 4 years in a row, including FY 2007 we continued to show commitment to improved financial management, as evidenced by receiving unqualified opinions on our financial statements. In addition, during FY 2007, we prepared for the implementation of CGI’s Federal Momentum® under the shared services program with the Department of Interior, National Business Center (DOI-NBC). This was completed on October 9, 2007. We have also begun preparations for implementing during FY 2008 a new bankcard provider using the General Services Administration (GSA) SmartPay® 2 program and the e-travel service requirement prescribed by the GSA.

Expanded Electronic Government: We have continued the EEOC’s commitment toward improved service and government efficiency by the use of expanded electronic government (e-gov) by implementing several major e-government initiatives that have automated internal processes, reduced paperwork burden, integrated data, and provided electronic alternatives to obtain agency services. Benefits from implementing these programs include:

Budget and Performance Integration: Also, the agency continues to promote better ways to enhance the agency’s budget and performance integration and improve financial management through the collection, allocation and reporting of performance and budget information. During FY 2007, the agency reviewed a new time and attendance and labor distribution software package for implementation in the future. The package will improve data quality and contribute to better management decision-making.

Addendum: Interim Adjustments to the Strategic Plan

The agency has made interim modifications to the EEOC’s Strategic Plan for FYs 2007 through 2012; which became effective at the start of FY 2007 (October 1, 2006). During a substantive review of our Plan, as a result of our PART assessment and rating in FY 2006, we made modifications, with OMB’s approval, and several additional changes to improve the Strategic Plan’s presentation. These are described below:

We also added a placeholder for the development of a measure of the contribution of our FEPA partners toward achievement of our goals. This development effort is required by our PART Improvement Plan.

Finally, we revised the graphic presentation of this new structure to accurately reflect these revisions.

Program Evaluation

Program evaluation is an important component of an agency’s effort to assure that a program is operating as intended and achieving results. A program evaluation is a thorough examination of program design or operational effectiveness that uses a rigorous methodology, and statistical and analytical tools. It also uses expertise within and outside the program under review to enhance the analytical perspectives and add credence to the evaluation and recommendations.

Completion of a Program Evaluation on the Private Sector Charge Process

The agency initiated a program evaluation of its private sector charge process, as scheduled in its previous Strategic Plan. An independent contractor focused on answering two key questions or issues about the charge process: 1) whether different charge intake procedures among field offices provide consistent access to charge filing by potential charging parties and affect charge outcomes regardless of where charging parties live, work, or engage EEOC; and 2) whether the agency-wide emphasis on annual charge inventory control and expedited charge processing affects the nature of charge closures at the end of the fiscal year. The contractor issued its final report in November 2006, and the report contained three major findings and recommendations that the contractor believed would strengthen the efficacy of the Private Sector Charge intake and closure processes, and thereby promote more consistent treatment and justice for individuals seeking assistance from EEOC regardless of the field office responding to their inquiries and requests.

The report noted that it was “… impressed by the overall operation of the process, which handles and closes more than 70,000 charges of discrimination annually and results in significant remediation of discrimination in the workplace.” It indicated that the agency “… appears to keep the process functioning, handling most charges in a timely manner, achieving more ‘meritorious’ resolutions, securing greater monetary benefits for complainants, and keeping charge inventories under control as never before.”

With respect to its three findings, the contractor found first that “there are many intake procedures that are consistent among the field offices, but there appear to be major inconsistencies in the nature and amount of information provided by EEOC to potential charging parties concerning their opportunities, rights, and responsibilities, as well as the nature of information required of potential charging parties before they could file a formal charge of discrimination. These procedural inconsistencies may result in unequal opportunity for potential charging parties to access EEOC assistance.” It recommended that “policies and procedures should be established to ensure more consistency among field offices regarding the information provided by EEOC to potential charging parties regarding their rights, opportunities, and obligations related to the Private Sector Charge Process that may influence their decision to file a charge.”

Second, the contractor found that, “while different intake procedures and requirements among field offices may affect access to the EEOC, they do not appear to influence charge outcomes.” It recommended that the agency “… should review and correct apparent procedural inconsistencies among field offices that may impact the opportunity of potential charging parties to gain access to the Private Sector Charge Process, including hours of operation and the availability of staff to respond to inquiries and conduct intake (interviews and charge filing), the methods available to potential charging parties to participate in intake interviews or file charges, and the kinds of information required of potential charging parties to file charges.”

Third, based on the data reviewed, the contractor found that “field offices close a higher number of charges during months preceding inventory control performance reporting, especially at the end of the 2 fiscal years reviewed for this evaluation. These ‘spikes’ in charge closures may indicate inconsistent attention to, and treatment of, charges resolved during those performance reporting months relative to other months of the fiscal year.” The contractor recommended that “the Commission should conduct periodic assessments of charge closures during months preceding quarterly and end-of-the-fiscal-year inventory control performance reporting by field offices to ensure that charging parties whose charges were closed during those months received equal attention and treatment to parties whose charges were closed at other times of the year.”

The agency has established organizational work groups to examine the major findings and recommendations. Additionally, the issues regarding procedural inefficiencies and charge closures will be included in the scheduled reviews of field office operations.

Schedule of Future Program Evaluations

We have scheduled a number of program evaluations for completion during the next several years and will review opportunities to conduct additional evaluations. These evaluations will help guide adjustments or enhancements to these programs.

EEOC Program Evaluations
Program Evaluation Statement of Parameters of the Program Evaluation Expected Initiation and Completion

Priority Charge Handling Procedures

Evaluate how well the Priority Charge Handling Procedures are working and ways to improve their implementation.

Initiate FY 2007

Complete FY 2008

Outreach/Technical Assistance

Evaluate the effectiveness of fee and no-fee based outreach/technical assistance efforts; for example, agency Technical Assistance Program Seminars (TAPS), Youth@Work activities, speakers at meetings, forums, panels or other activities designated as outreach or technical assistance.

Initiate FY 2008

Complete FY 2009

Systemic Enforcement

Evaluate the effectiveness of the EEOC’s systemic enforcement initiative.

Initiate FY 2009

Complete FY 2010

EEOC External Communications

Evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the EEOC’s external communications efforts, including publicity, the agency’s activities with the media, the external website, and other public communications efforts.

Initiate FY 2010

Complete FY 2011

Effect of EEOC’s Federal Sector Evaluations and assistance

Evaluate the results achieved from EEOC’s evaluation and assistance activities with federal agencies that changed policies, practices or procedures.

Initiate FY 2011

Complete FY 2012

Verification and Validation of Data

Our private sector, federal sector and litigation programs require accurate enforcement data, as well as reliable financial and human resources information, to assess EEOC operations and performance results and make good management decisions. We will continue efforts to ensure the accuracy of our program information and any analysis of the information.

We continually review the information we collect in our databases for accuracy by using software editing programs and program reviews of a sample of records during field office technical assistance visits. In addition, Headquarters offices conduct analyses regularly to review the information collected in order to identify any anomalies that indicate erroneous entries requiring correction to collection procedures.

We have implemented approaches that enable the agency to collect information more rapidly and accurately by eliminating the need to enter information multiple times before it can be reviewed and analyzed. For example, we previously deployed a secure, web-based application that enabled businesses to electronically submit their annual Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to EEOC. This system continues to reduce the need for the manual entry of report data. It also includes automated edits to validate data, calculate totals, and compare statistics against the employer’s prior year submission. In another example, we implemented a secure, web-based system that enabled all federal agencies to electronically submit annual equal employment opportunity statistics (Form 462). This system continues to improve the quality and timeliness of the information we receive. Finally, we continue to improve the collection and validation of information for our Integrated Mission System (IMS), which consolidates our mission data on charge intake, investigation, mediation, litigation, and outreach functions into a single shared information system. The IMS includes many automated edit checks and rules to enhance data integrity. Since several of our new performance measures require us to use data to assess our achievements, it is significant that we can now obtain those data much more quickly and with greater data accuracy.

We also implemented information quality guidelines and adopted internal procedures, which strengthen our ability to verify and validate the quality of our data before it is released to the public. In addition, the agency’s Office of Inspector General continues to review aspects of the status of the agency’s data validity and verification procedures, information systems, and databases and offer recommendations for improvements in its reports. We use the information and recommendations to continually improve our systems and data.

This page was last modified on November 15, 2007.

 Home Return to Home Page